Undertaking MLOCers - pet hate
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 2 Aug 2010 08:05 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1750j4o87gy5i.1wmetq0kwlmqp$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:07:43 +0100, GT wrote: > >> I frequently see 1 car in L1 doing maybe 60 and then a stream of cars in >> L2 >> doing 65-70. The L2 'convoy' trails back for 10+ car lengths, but they >> all >> just sit there in L2. There is no reason for them all to be in L2 - they >> are >> not overtaking anything. > > I used to work with a guy who admitted to just sitting in L2 "because its > easier". He doesn't have to check his mirrors, or change lanes - great! We should all just do that. In fact, if we are all going to use the same lane, then why bother with an overtaking lane... and we're back to the start again!!
From: Ian Jackson on 2 Aug 2010 08:29 In message <4c56a6f6$0$15739$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, GT <a(a)b.c> writes >"Phil Bradby" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >news:i31sso$5pn$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On quiet motorways, I've long since given up sweeping out to L3 and then >> all the way back to L1 to overtake an idiot bumbling along needlessly in >> L2 - now I just undertake the selfish buggers. > >I frequently see 1 car in L1 doing maybe 60 and then a stream of cars in L2 >doing 65-70. The L2 'convoy' trails back for 10+ car lengths, but they all >just sit there in L2. There is no reason for them all to be in L2 - they are >not overtaking anything. They should be in L1 and pull out to L2 to pass the >slower L1 car when they get close enough. Once they are finished overtaking >the slower car in L1, they should pull back into L1, but they don't - they >just stay in L2 in a long line with nothing in the inside lane. > >Problem is that the L2 convoy eventually catches up with another line of L2 >hoggers, only that line of hoggers are doing 3mph slower, so some of the >chasing pack just slow down and tag onto the end of the new L2 queue making >it much longer, but a few of our 65-70 drivers move out to L3 to 'crawl' >past the new, longer L2 line. The L3 faster 70+ cars (who had been happily >drivng past occasionally) now start to pile up behind the L2 drivers from >the catching queue who have recently moved into L3. We then have a in L3 >along side the L2 line, but nobody in L1. Eventually, the rolling roadblock >will arrive behind a slow car on L2 who is passing a slower lorry on L1 - >the L2 cars then all have to slow down or force their way into L3. > >The L2 cars can't pull out into L3 because of the queue that they have >caused in that lane, so they have effectively slowed themselves down by >leaving themselves nowhere to go. If they had pulled into L1 when they >weren't overtaking anything then the faster cars in L3 would have just gone >past and there would be no traffic preventing the 65-70 cars from overtaking >the slow car and truck. > That is pretty accurate description of one of the annoying scenarios you often find on today's motorways. The question is, when L2 middle lane hogs are themselves impeded by other middle lane hogs, do they ever get annoyed, and say to themselves, "Why don't these idiots move over to L1?" I presume that they don't. If they did, then it might dawn on them that they themselves were often 'the idiots'. -- Ian
From: Derek Geldard on 2 Aug 2010 09:01 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:49:12 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:47:40 +0100 >Derek Geldard <dgg(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:30:52 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world >>wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:03:01 +0100 >>>Derek Geldard <dgg(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>Your only choice is to wait . End of. >>> >>>If you're an anal retentive. >>> >> >>So that's why you suck my fingernails. > >Perhaps that some sort of ironic insult where you come from but I'm afraid >I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll just nod and smile ok? > Situation as per usual. Derek
From: boltar2003 on 2 Aug 2010 09:44 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:01:49 +0100 Derek Geldard <dgg(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>So that's why you suck my fingernails. >> >>Perhaps that some sort of ironic insult where you come from but I'm afraid >>I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll just nod and smile ok? >> > >Situation as per usual. Why, do you normally get people patting you on the head and smiling? Can't say I'm surprised. B2003
From: Nick Finnigan on 2 Aug 2010 12:52
GT wrote: > > Well how would you define it? I'm referring to the normal dictionary > definition - something that you aren't allowed to do as defined and enforced > by law - like speeding, driving on the pavement, going through red lights, There are laws that can be pointed to for those. > undertaking etc. Which law do you think covers that? |