And besides all this, why are we talking about Alabama???? It's a moot point! The original poster was not from Alabama, he was from California. As such, he must follow California laws. The laws of Alabama don't even have anything to do with this discussion... you just brought them up in a poor attempt to support your argument.
"You obviously are NOT familiar with all the traffic laws or you wouldn't be arguing with me. You DO need a lecture on these laws."
No I am quite clear on them. What Public Safety Training do you have?
"I stated it crystal clear. You just choose not to see the laws that you do not want to see."
You are making a phantom argument on laws that have nothing to do with a requirement to stay in the left lane.
"What's not to understand about this?"
The fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
Where does it say again that you are required to move back to the right? Oh it doesn't. Why is that? Because you aren't. Most people CHOOSE to return to the right lane, but it is not a law. Common courtesy? Yes. Law? No.
"This clearly states that you should pass on the left, and then get back to the right side of the roadway when you are safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
No it says that when you pass on the left do NOT go back onto the right side until clear. It never implies or says that you have to get back on the right side.
"Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."
This law is saying that if you are in the left and are being overtaken you must then go into the right lane.
"And this clearly states that the overtaken vehicle has to give way to the passing vehicle."
Which has something to do with what? We are talking about a law that requires you to stay in the Right lane. Where did this phantom argument of yours enter in?
"Now put these two simple statements together. This is easy... (1)You pass on the left and get back to the right when it's safe, and (2) you give way to someone that's trying to pass you."
No you do NOT have to get back to the right. That is NOT the law. That is common courtesy but it is not law.
"Is there something not clear about this?"
Yes there is something that is not clear. There is no law that states you must stay in the right lane. Sorry doesn't exist. In fact, the Alabama law(I am talking about signs on the interstate) want any car that is going slower than the speedlimit or slower than traffic to stay right. Would you like a picture of the sign? Hell, why don't you PM Skoorb or ohtwell? They live in AL too and can tell you what the signs say.
No I am quite clear on them. What Public Safety Training do you have?
"I stated it crystal clear. You just choose not to see the laws that you do not want to see."
You are making a phantom argument on laws that have nothing to do with a requirement to stay in the left lane.
"What's not to understand about this?"
The fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.
"The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
Where does it say again that you are required to move back to the right? Oh it doesn't. Why is that? Because you aren't. Most people CHOOSE to return to the right lane, but it is not a law. Common courtesy? Yes. Law? No.
"This clearly states that you should pass on the left, and then get back to the right side of the roadway when you are safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
No it says that when you pass on the left do NOT go back onto the right side until clear. It never implies or says that you have to get back on the right side.
"Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."
This law is saying that if you are in the left and are being overtaken you must then go into the right lane.
"And this clearly states that the overtaken vehicle has to give way to the passing vehicle."
Which has something to do with what? We are talking about a law that requires you to stay in the Right lane. Where did this phantom argument of yours enter in?
"Now put these two simple statements together. This is easy... (1)You pass on the left and get back to the right when it's safe, and (2) you give way to someone that's trying to pass you."
No you do NOT have to get back to the right. That is NOT the law. That is common courtesy but it is not law.
"Is there something not clear about this?"
Yes there is something that is not clear. There is no law that states you must stay in the right lane. Sorry doesn't exist. In fact, the Alabama law(I am talking about signs on the interstate) want any car that is going slower than the speedlimit or slower than traffic to stay right. Would you like a picture of the sign? Hell, why don't you PM Skoorb or ohtwell? They live in AL too and can tell you what the signs say.
Yet you posted a link to the Seattle times. I posted several links to CA law and a list of CA traffic violations. Not a single violation on the books for NOT staying in the right lane in normal traffic.
*yawns*
That is not a personal attack. I am telling you that you are being pigheaded. That is a fallacious way to argue.
I will personally attack you right here though. Ready? You are a moron.
Why do you insist on talking about ALABAMA law?
This whole topic started when a california driver said that people shouldn't be driving in the left lane.
Only California laws apply here!
We are arguing over a moot point!
This whole topic started when a california driver said that people shouldn't be driving in the left lane.
Only California laws apply here!
We are arguing over a moot point!
The tone of all your posts is aggressive and condescending. You are getting angry because you have no logical argument. So anger sets in and you make personal attacks.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
BTW, what supposedly old time member are you?
Did you miss this post?
#1 Ylen13 is in CA.
#2 I never said you were. Nice attempt at sidestepping the argument. Secondly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know where you are because you have your profile disabled. Thanks for assuming someone can magically trace your location.
#3 They are not in Washington EITHER.
#4 The law you posted from CA does NOT address anything called a "passing" lane. It is simply talking about the rules for yielding when passing. If you will READ the link from AL that I listed you will see the AL law is VERY similar. My whole point was to show you that your "idea" of a law is simply that.
#5 Post a link from CA law that says a the left lane is ONLY for passing.
#6 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm there is a list of CA traffic violations. Not a single one says the left lane is to be used only for passing. The only mention that the left lane should not be used is when it is "unsafe."
#7 Unless you are talking about Car Pool lanes you don't have much of a point at ALL when CA is concerned.
#8 Answer arguments instead of diverting them.
#9 Get it?
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.
I cannot debate with you when your tone is so condescending and accusatory. It doesn't seem professional at all. I try to stick to the point but you keep making personal insults, jabs, and cheapshots.
That is not a mature way to debate.
That is not a mature way to debate.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
- Oct 17, 2001
- 4,041
- 1
- 0
However, the point remains that regardless of whether the other person is being unyielding and failing to respond to logic (e.g. being pigheaded), calling attention to it in a debate is an ad hominem attack, as you're attacking the other persons intransigence rather than demonstrating the logical fallability of their position.
The winner of a debate is not determined by who has the final word.
This is true that Dave posted the Washington law. I am speaking about when Marshall posted a link to the Seattle Times about the same law. This link.
I still don't know why dave posted in the Washington law unless he was trying to say it varied by state...
The problem with you logic is that I am not interesting in winning an actual debate here. That would be impossible because Marshall has yet to debate any of my points. The second problem is that I overlooked his ad-hom attack: "It's 2003, you'd think they'd be able to design a functional website by now. Jeez, you'd think we were in Alabam....errr nevermind."
As if that was not a slam on my state and me...
Thirdly, I see no reason that one should follow organized rules of debate in an argument that no one is. He keeps saying that I brought up Alabama's laws to disprove his theory on CA. I did not. My initial argument was that it VARIES by state. Several people have said the same yet Marshall refuses to believe that it is true. He has argued with numerous people about the laws of their state, even when he has to twist words, or omit things to fit his viewpoint. I don't think it is a logical way to argue. Ad-Hom attacks occur most frequently when some is frustrated or upset because someone refuses to actually read what they typed.
Wrong. I never directed that comment towards you, it was directed at the designers of the webpage.
You are hearing what you want to hear. That's why I'm done talking to you... for good.
Precisely, a lot of the morons where I live are self-righteous little Tw@s that think that it is their job to enforce the speed limit. What they don't understand is that it is law enforcement that has that responsibility. There are several legitimate reasons for a driver to exceed the speed limit such as someone needing urgent medical care or a doctor needing to answer a call, it is for our legal system to decide these things, not some vigilante morons who don't understand that if you're not passing someone you should move over to the right lane.
I have lived in the east coast and now I live in the midwest, I have to say there is a BIG difference in people understanding these things between the two regions. Out on the east coast sometimes you'd see a slow left lane driver occasionally, but they invariably move over when they see that you want to pass them. Out here in the midwest, the stupid morons just don't get it, they think that hogging the road is their birthright.
So true about NJ - that's exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned "East Coast" in myprevious post. I mean NJ aren't as good as European drivers about this basic traffic rule, but at least they seem to know about it and try to obey it. A bunch of morons on the road don't even know that there is a distinction between the lanes on a highway, and they think that they are the safe drivers. Stupid morons could only get a license in the US where everybody thinks it's their birthright to hog the road with their stupid piece of junk car/pickup truck.
Three simple rules I folow to tackle such iditos on Highways:
a. Never break the (speed limit + 10 mph) rule. That way, you can drive a lil faster and the cops dont bother you.
b. Drive the way you think is safe for YOU. F*ck the traffic.
c. Make generous use of the horn and blinkers.
Now on to more serious things:
Is it necessary to drive above the posted limits? If you think (you NOT being any particular individual here) you can drive really well, try taking a NON-4 wheel drive car up a steep incline with 10% grade minimum; over a distance of half a mile on a non-surfaced road; when it is raining heavily. AND, bring the car DOWN the hill.
a. Never break the (speed limit + 10 mph) rule. That way, you can drive a lil faster and the cops dont bother you.
b. Drive the way you think is safe for YOU. F*ck the traffic.
c. Make generous use of the horn and blinkers.
Now on to more serious things:
Is it necessary to drive above the posted limits? If you think (you NOT being any particular individual here) you can drive really well, try taking a NON-4 wheel drive car up a steep incline with 10% grade minimum; over a distance of half a mile on a non-surfaced road; when it is raining heavily. AND, bring the car DOWN the hill.
I know exactly what you mean. I can get on a highway here and it won't be more than a minute or two before I'm stuck behind a pack of vehicles that are blocking both lanes. It really pisses me off.
WTF do you think the emergency lane is for?!?! Emergency PASSING. Swing all the way out to the right and pass those b!tches!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter