From: Conor on
In article <4kj48oFcevojU6(a)individual.net>, davek says...
> Alex Heney wrote:
> > If it was *possible* for him to pass you on the inside, then you
> > should have been in the inside lane. Regardless of what speed you were
> > doing.
>
> Regardless of how close he had to be to the vehicle in front to perform
> the manoeuvre?
>
Yup. You'd need a good half mile at the very least.


--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke
From: JNugent on
davek wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> Please explain how you think that simple and absolutely true statement
>> is somehow "bollocks".
>
>
> The statement was certainly simple but in no way was it true.
>
> If you're doing 70mph on the motorway, the only conceivable reason for
> which you could be obliged to get out of another vehicle's way is that
> it has flashing blue lights on its roof.

Wrong.

Plenty of others will tell you why.
From: JNugent on
Tony Raven wrote:
> davek wrote on 17/08/2006 13:00 +0100:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain how you think that simple and absolutely true statement
>>> is somehow "bollocks".
>>
>>
>> The statement was certainly simple but in no way was it true.
>>
>> If you're doing 70mph on the motorway, the only conceivable reason for
>> which you could be obliged to get out of another vehicle's way is that
>> it has flashing blue lights on its roof.
>>
>
> Untrue. With your speedometer indicating 70mph you could be going
> anywhere between 63mph and 70mph. So it is quite feasible for someone
> else to pass you legally going 7mph faster when you are indicating 70mph.

And even if the following driver wants to exceed the 70 limit, it's not the
business of the driver in front to prevent it.
From: JNugent on
Conor wrote:
> In article <4kj43rFcevojU5(a)individual.net>, davek says...
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>>Please explain how you think that simple and absolutely true statement
>>>is somehow "bollocks".
>>
>>The statement was certainly simple but in no way was it true.
>>
>>If you're doing 70mph on the motorway, the only conceivable reason for
>>which you could be obliged to get out of another vehicle's way is that
>>it has flashing blue lights on its roof.
>>
>
> ROFLMAO...
>
> Driving without due consideration for other road users...what every
> MLOC tosser is guilty of.

For once, we agree 100%.
From: Paul {Hamilton Rooney} on
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:42:35 GMT, "Sharon O." <sharon.owpan(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:29 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> "Steve" <no(a)way.com> wrote in message
>> news:%ppEg.50277$Ca.27448(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Police dont use 2 way radios and so are covered by the
>>> regulations. 2-way radios are so defined by the name,
>>> they send and recieve data/voice between 2 radios, ie the
>>> ones you buy for your kids while out camping.
>>
>> Que..?
>
>It's actually 'Qu'.
>
Not in French or Latin!

--

Paul Rooney

"Rooney is one of these vandals and has done his utmost to help trash dl and the
other groups which he regularly crossposts to. He's created a false FAQ
and charter" (Chris Lawrence in uk.rec.walking)

"Also long time d.l. reader but never feel robust enough to post much,
especially since Rooney wrecked the group." (Rachel Sullivan in uk.rec.walking)

"Low life scum doesn't even begin to describe you. You are the most loathsome
individual ever to cross the threshold of d.l." (JK in demon.local)