 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:37:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Indeed - I don't want to know where your switches are located. ;-)
>
> I think you just found the switch to the overshare light.
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:17:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 9:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Indeed - I don't want to know where your switches are located.;-)
>
> 'Nuff said.
Indeed, the less said, the better. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/07/10 06:36, John VanSickle wrote:
> I am not aware of any law in my jurisdiction prohibiting passing on the
> right, so that's what I would do. If the lanehog thinks this is rude,
> then maybe he/she/it ought to learn some manners and make the maneuver
> unnecessary.
>
> And why should passing on the right be any more dangerous than passing
> on the left? Drivers are supposed to check for other vehicles when
> performing any lane change.
Not sure if it's illegal, per se. However, some states' handbooks says
that you should overtake on the left. I believe the rationale was that
in a collision scenario (e.g. if the car ahead of you brakes suddenly),
you're supposed to swerve to the right.
--
"Maybe the universe IS fuzzy." --- Hubble Telescope Scientist
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> in a collision scenario (e.g. if the car ahead of you brakes suddenly),
If the car in front of you suddenly braking is a collision scenario, you're
already a bad driver. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Indeed - I don't want to know where your switches are located. ;-)
>>
>> I think you just found the switch to the overshare light.
>
> Whatever turns you on...
>
Or off, as the case may be. Could be a momentary switch, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As an aside, on the few occasions I've driven in the US, I was amazed how
> short
> the acceleration/deceleration lanes were for exits... this was in the
> MA/NH area
> so I don't know if it's the same everywhere. Our slips roads in the UK are
> often
> 3x as long!
Ditto here in Germany, very short compared to UK. Also the off-ramps
suddenly go into a very tight corner which you can only take at 30 mph or
so.
This one here is near where I live, and is fairly typical:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=48.138643,11.397221&spn=0.00552,0.01074&t=k&z=17
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> should only move out to the left to overtake someone,
>
> Are you sure? About the 'only', I mean.
In the UK at least, yes. See rule 264 here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862
Also rule 268 allows you to "undertake" if the conditions are busy and your
lane is simply going faster than the other lanes (ie you are not expected to
brake to avoid undertaking someone if the other lane slows down).
But crucially there is no "MUST NOT" related to any of this, so it seems
there is no specific law that applies in this situation. I assume it would
just be down to a police officier whether he judged what you were doing as
dangerous or not. You would probably need a pretty good explanation as to
why to undertook given that the highway code tells you not to. I don't know
whether they would accept "someone was hogging the overtaking lane" as a
valid reason.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > As an aside, on the few occasions I've driven in the US, I was amazed how short
> > the acceleration/deceleration lanes were for exits...
>
> It depends if the roads were built after the surrounding area was built up.
> Most ramps are plenty long enough, unless it would mean tearing up
Fair enough, but most of the exits I was thinking of were in untouched
countryside, and, as Scott says of some of his German exits, terminated by sharp
corners!
> historic[*] buildings or something to give the room.
> [*] Historic for the USA, of course.
:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > As an aside, on the few occasions I've driven in the US, I was amazed how
> > short
> > the acceleration/deceleration lanes were for exits... this was in the
> > MA/NH area
> > so I don't know if it's the same everywhere. Our slips roads in the UK are
> > often
> > 3x as long!
>
> Ditto here in Germany, very short compared to UK. Also the off-ramps
> suddenly go into a very tight corner which you can only take at 30 mph or
> so.
>
> This one here is near where I live, and is fairly typical:
>
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=48.138643,11.397221&spn=0.00552,0.01074&t=k&z=17
Eek. Compare that with this, a fairly typical junction on the M40:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&ie=UTF8&ll=51.739759,-1.095693&spn=0.009527,0.01929&z=16
and because many (most?) of our junctions are elevated above the motorway,
coasting up the slip roads naturally brakes the car without having to use the
brakes at all.
(and look, you can see the Oxford services as a bonus)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe the solution to lane hoggers is hog loggers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
