Prev: Travel Safe zone in Lee's Summit, MO
Next: GM did sumping right
From: Brent on 23 Mar 2010 10:20
On 2010-03-23, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>>> Heh! Only in r.a.d would a driver describe 80 kph as "slow." :)
>>
>>That's because for a limited access highway, it is slow. 50mph.
>
> On Lake Shore Drive that's speeding.

It's still slow. (in the limited access portions)

It's also speeding in the Dan Ryan local lanes. It's still slow.



From: Alexander Rogge on 25 Mar 2010 17:23
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge(a)yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> What is so odd about this MFFY is that it was already in front of the
>> other car. The merge-impaired slowpokes usually flick on their turn
>> signals and merge at any speed, forcing the driver on the roadway to
>> brake or swerve. This Sloth deliberately braked and tried to merge
>> between me and the driver in front of me. That's not MFFY; that's Me
>> Second, F-Y!
>
> I've seen it many times. They fixate on the (far too small) gap
> between my car and the car in front of me, and for some reason they
> are bound and determined to merge into THAT space.

Perhaps if more drivers crashed into these Sloths in your area, they
would not be trying this foolishness so often. The rules of yielding
right-of-way are absolute enough that I should be able to drive down the
right lane while talking on my mobile and not need to worry about
merging traffic. A reason why mobiles have become so dangerous in some
areas is partly because the responsibility of avoiding "accidents" with
Sloths has been passed to the drivers with the right-of-way. Once I'm
in a straight lane, I should be able to use my mobile safely. Instead,
I sometimes need to worry about merge-impaired drivers and other foolish
behaviours interrupting my driving path and forcing me to swerve or brake.

>> If I have a choice
>> between swerving into the passing lane and possibly being killed or
>> killing the Sloth, I will kill the Sloth driver. I suspect that many
>> other drivers who value their lives would make the same decision.
>
> I suspect few have given it as much thought as you have, nor are they
> as willing to trade paint.

They may not have considered their reactions, but I believe that few
drivers would swerve left and risk a high-speed collision when they
could instead swerve into the offending driver and cause a low-speed
collision. Probably only in the Americas will drivers JLEDI by
routinely slamming on their brakes, hoping that they won't need to pay
for the damages when someone behind them crashes into their rear end.

A few days ago, I watched three drivers attack an LLB, swarming around
the LLB and forcing it to yield the passing lane. It happened again
last night, when a driver in the second of two left-turn lanes attempted
to make an illegal U-turn across the traffic in the innermost turn-lane.
The driver being cut off accelerated into the side of the other car,
forcing the MFFY Sloth to stop and leaving the befuddled Sloth turned
awkwardly in the middle of the intersection.

We need more drivers like these, drivers who won't JLEDI. Intolerance
of foolishness is what discourages foolish behaviours.
From: Matthew Russotto on 25 Mar 2010 21:46
In article <agseq5prg4h2u01qb4d9j6v47nhqmkf26m(a)4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge(a)yahoo.com>
>said:
>
>>I believe that this was my first incident involving a merge-impaired gap
>>crasher. I was going slowly in the right lane, following another car at
>>a speed of 80.
>
>Heh! Only in r.a.d would a driver describe 80 kph as "slow." :)

80kph is 50mph which is certainly slow on most limited access
highways.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 25 Mar 2010 23:41
"Alexander Rogge" <a_rogge(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8122jgF6itU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge(a)yahoo.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> What is so odd about this MFFY is that it was already in front of the
>>> other car. The merge-impaired slowpokes usually flick on their turn
>>> signals and merge at any speed, forcing the driver on the roadway to
>>> brake or swerve. This Sloth deliberately braked and tried to merge
>>> between me and the driver in front of me. That's not MFFY; that's Me
>>> Second, F-Y!
>>
>> I've seen it many times. They fixate on the (far too small) gap
>> between my car and the car in front of me, and for some reason they
>> are bound and determined to merge into THAT space.
>
> Perhaps if more drivers crashed into these Sloths in your area, they would
> not be trying this foolishness so often. The rules of yielding
> right-of-way are absolute enough that I should be able to drive down the
> right lane while talking on my mobile and not need to worry about merging
> traffic. A reason why mobiles have become so dangerous in some areas is
> partly because the responsibility of avoiding "accidents" with Sloths has
> been passed to the drivers with the right-of-way. Once I'm in a straight
> lane, I should be able to use my mobile safely. Instead, I sometimes need
> to worry about merge-impaired drivers and other foolish behaviours
> interrupting my driving path and forcing me to swerve or brake.
>
Any drivers who willfully crashed into a so-called Sloth would very likely
be arrested and charged with reckless driving at the minimum. Bumping for
position is only legal in auto racing such as NASCAR, but never on the
roads, highways, or interstates (at least in the USA).

Also, just because you have the right of way doesn't mean you own the road
and have no responsibilities. Yes, the laws say you have the right of way
but if you are going to collide with someone and you can avoid it--even if
they are slower than you--you absolutely MUST brake or steer to take evasive
action if steering out of a collision can be done safely. If the driver
behind you then hits you when you brake, that is their fault for following
too closely or braking too late.

Too many flawed justifications about not braking involve fear of being
rear-ended which has no merit. Except in the case of an unsafe lane
change--if hit from behind while braking or stopped it will always be the
fault of the vehicle that collided. Also, if one is really that afraid of
braking for fear of being rear-ended by another vehicle, maybe one should
consider extra following distance from the vehicle in front of them if they
do have to brake?

[snip...]

From: Brent on 26 Mar 2010 11:22
On 2010-03-26, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ever notice how Droids will catch up to a slower car in the lane ahead
> of them and slow down, matching the slower car's speed, and sit there
> for 15 - 30 seconds before finally changing lanes and passing? This is
> because Droids have no idea what is happening anywhere around them
> except directly in front of their cars. When they coe upon an
> obstruction, they have to take a few moments to look around, check
> their mirrors, and make sure it's safe to change lanes; hence the
> pause.

These are the same people who complain about bicyclists delaying them
because they are 'forced' to slow to the bicyclist's speed. No, they
simply failed to observe and plan ahead.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Travel Safe zone in Lee's Summit, MO
Next: GM did sumping right