Road rage

[Andrew D]

Understanding Jarlaxle's postings requires only recognizing one simple thing. Horrific, but simple:

To Jarlaxle, no one matters except Jarlaxle.

[dales]

It doesn't matter who owns the truck. Vehicles that cannot travel on public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic should not be allowed on public roadways at all.

Hogwash.

Look at the CA Vehicle Code concerning slow moving vehicles.

[Jarlaxle]

Your ridiculous statement rules out...

4-cylinder/automatic Jeep Wranglers.

I drive one of those. When doing so, I do not impede the flow of traffic.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that, yet again, Jarlaxle is completely full of shit.

No one is surprised.

Your Wrangler is a 4-cylinder? Damn, 4-cylinder/slushpump is very rare. (With good reason...they're dog-slow.) I drove one, it would not hold 55MPH up a mild hill. (Liz's 50HP Geo Metro will run 60+ up the same hill.) <55MPH up a hill on that hiughway most certainly DOES impede the flow of traffic (typically 70MPH).

[Jarlaxle]

Understanding Jarlaxle's postings requires only recognizing one simple thing. Horrific, but simple:

To Jarlaxle, no one matters except Jarlaxle.

You truly are mind-blowingly stupid.

[Andrew D]

And still with an IQ at least twice yours. Go figure.

[Andrew D]

It doesn't matter who owns the truck. Vehicles that cannot travel on public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic should not be allowed on public roadways at all.

Hogwash.

Look at the CA Vehicle Code concerning slow moving vehicles.

Look at any reliable source on English usage for the difference between "should not be" and "are not".

[dales]

Your pt. being?

[Andrew D]

That although "Look[ing] at the CA Vehicle Code concerning slow moving vehicles" may tell me something about whether and in what circumstances slow-moving vehicles are permitted on California's roadways, it will tell me (or anyone else) nothing about whether (and, if so, in what circumstances) they ought to be.

[Rick]

Kinda like "too fast for conditions"...

[dales]

Slow down Andrew and enjoy the diesel fumes.

That is if I understand your point about being stuck behind a lumbering timber hauler on the 4.

Either that or leave earlier for you appointments.

btw: I despise the 4. It should have been widened and retrofitted 35 years ago. Some of the overpassess were constructed in 1955 for cryste sakes!

[Jarlaxle]

So, Andrew, how do you propose trucks be made to "keep up with traffic"? Quintuple their engine size? JATO rockets?

Again: your statement is simply ridiculous and no amount of gratuitous personal attacks, while not at all unexpected from the sewer you call a mind, will change that in the slightest.

[Andrew D]

The point is one which the desiccated turd which passes for your "mind" -- your intellectually puny and morally filthy "mind" -- will never be sufficiently capacious to grasp is this: If certain vehicles cannot travel the public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic, then we ought not to allow them to travel on the public roadways.

It has nothing to do with enabling such vehicles to travel the public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic. It is, rather, simply a matter of removing such vehicles from the public roadways.

We do not allow horse-drawn carriages to travel on our freeways. We did not expend any significant time or energy attempting to figure out how horse-drawn carriages might be improved so much that they could travel on the public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic. We simply banned them.

And so it is with other vehicles which cannot travel the public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic. If someone can figure out a way to make them fast enough not to impede the flow of traffic, dandy. But until then, we simply ban them. And just as with horse-drawn carriages (mulecarts, etc.), we leave it to those who had been impeding the flow of traffic with such vehicles to ascertain how to convey whatever it is that they are conveying without impeding the flow of traffic.

It is not our problem. It is theirs.

[dales]

One can legally travel at 15 mph below the posted limit without being ticketed in CA.

A truck of anytype should be able to go at least 50 mph (exceptions would be for wide load vechles with a pilot car).

I try to keep up with the flow of traffic when driving.

I don't find myself getting bent out of shape by slower vehicles.

Go with the flow and your temper will not blow.

[Jarlaxle]

Good idea there, Ange: let's do it. Large trucks and buses are no longer permitted on the road. Of course, there is now no way to get things delivered anywhere. There is no way to get children to school. There is no way to put out your burning house.

And, of course, horse-drawn carriages MOST CERTAINLY ARE legal on many public roads! Everything except controlled-access highways (and sometimes allowed on parts of those), usually.

Are you trolling for kicks or simply dumb as a rock?

Again: your statement is simply ridiculous and no amount of gratuitous personal attacks, while not at all unexpected from the sewer you call a mind, will change that in the slightest.

Bosco: Highway minimums are usually 45MPH, at least in New England, though I've seen 40, 50, and 55. Never driven a truck or bus that wouldn't go 55, though a couple topped out about there.

[dales]

Drizzit:

I can only speak from what the CA Vehicle code states.

New England is a foregin enclave full of nut cakes and liberals.

[Andrew D]

As usual, Jarlaxle, you have it exactly backwards:

Again: your statement is simply ridiculous and no amount of gratuitous personal attacks, while not at all unexpected from the sewer you call a mind, will change that in the slightest.

In fact, requiring vehicles traveling on public roadways not to impede the flow of traffic on public roadways is entirely sensible. You constantly resort to personal attacks, because even you realize that your position is indefensible. By now, no one is surprised.

[The Hen]

Some people consider a vehicle travelling at teh legislated speed limit to be holding up traffic when they want to drive faster.

Life is short. Don't get strung up about delays. Enjoy the scenery.

[Andrew D]

Here in California, the law requires drivers to stay to the right unless they are traveling faster than the vehicles to their right (unless, of course, vehicles in front of them are making that impossible), even if they believe that they are traveling at the posted speed limit. An entirely civilized legal provision.

[The Hen]

Which is what we have here ... expect turn it around for drivers on the left.

This only applies when the speed limit is greater than 80 kilometres an hour. If you are travelling on a road which is 80 klicks or below, you don't have to drive on the left (or for you ... the right).

[Jarlaxle]

In fact, requiring vehicles traveling on public roadways not to impede the flow of traffic on public roadways is entirely sensible. You constantly resort to personal attacks, because even you realize that your position is indefensible. By now, no one is surprised.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately being a lying dipshit or are truly unable to comprehend simple English. Actually, I suspect both.