scott wrote:
>> all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right lane, race 4 miles down the 
>> road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze in front of that caravan...
>>
>> PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour.
> 
> Ermm, if the entire road is only moving at 2 m/hr then how come the BMWs 
> and Audis can "race" on the dual carriage way sections?  If the dual 
> carriageway sections are clear, then why not drive at 70mph?

This is what happens. As soon as the new lane appears, all the sports 
cars dive into it and rush past the left lane. The left lane speeds up 
to about 40 due to the cars leaving it. And then we all slow back down 
to more or less stationary as the lanes merge again, and the arrogant 
sports car drivers are DETERMINED to get in front of as many people as 
possible. Because, you know, it means a really big difference, doesn't it?

>> How much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or 
>> after the caravan??
> 
> Quite a huge amount sometimes, because caravans tend to be driven a lot 
> slower than normal vehicles.  If you get stuck behind one for a long 
> stretch where they max out at 50mph and drop to 30mph going up hills, 
> you can lose a huge amount of time compared to doing a constant 60mph.

We are talking about a road where people put the brakes on and actually 
turn off their engines because the taffic is so slow. How much 
difference can it possibly make?!

The last time I drove this particular road, it took 2 hours to move 18 
feet forward. Are you seriously telling me getting in front of a caravan 
makes any difference? (I should also probably explain that 40% of the 
vehicles on this road are caravans. So get in front of one and you're 
still behind 200 others.)

>> (Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy 
>> their car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix 
>> two cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)
> 
> Yeh, I heard that doesn't wash, claiming "the guy in front did a full 
> emergency stop for no reason but to cause an accident" works quite well 
> as a defence.  And even if they did get the blame, it's still a major 
> hassle for you.  I tend to just slow down gradually, I mean there is an 
> increased risk of an accident so you better slow down to compensate :-)

How about just slowing down a little and claiming you saw a rabit? Or a 
plastic bag blew across the road and you *thought* it was a dangerous 
obstruction? >:-)

>> My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a 
>> Bigfood and accidentally destroy that car with it.
> 
> Just leave a friendly anonymous note on the windscreen, you never know.

Heh. Doubt it. Not knowing dad's neighbors. (One of the reasons he 
bought a CD of Widor's Toccata was so he didn't have to listen to them 
screaming at each other at the top of their voices through the wall...)

Post a reply to this message