Go with the flow = wrong!

>>There are big differences between the way you drive and I drive. When
>>you get into a collision, you are hoping that the other drivers will
>>get charged with it (at fault).
>
> There's no "hoping" involved. I haven't been involved in a collision
> in almost 20 years.

"But you're going to be involved in a collision if you keep speeding."
This incompetent driver is another one that has been trained to crash
"legally well" instead of to drive well.

> "Drive and Let Drive," that's my philosophy. The problem is, almost
> nobody else subscribes to it. They think it's perfectly OK to
> needlessly block the progress of others. THEY are the ones who don't
> give a damn about anyone else.

I was in the right lane approaching a poorly-maintained pick-up truck in
the left lane of a 100 km/h zone. I noticed that the LLB was slouched
down in the seat, right wrist resting on the left side of the wheel.
The LLB was doing less than 50 km/h and refusing to move over... no
lights on at dusk, either, and the junk in the back was not secured.
The traffic jam was soon over 30 cars long in both lanes. As the LLB
approached the next intersection, it suddenly decided that it needed to
be in the right turn lane. The LLB drifted to the right and almost hit
two cars. When those two drivers refused to be Enablers, the LLB
stopped in the left lane until the right lane was empty.

DYM wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:11:28 -0800, Scott en Aztl=E1n
> > wrote:
>
> >On 29 Jan 2005 19:06:15 -0800, wrote:
> >
> >>yes you can drive fast and still be safe, but the odds are against
you
> >>and it depends on how you defined safe? I have driven coast to
coast
> >>several times and have seen my fair share of junk in the middle of
the
> >>interstate, like deer, bicycles, furniture, blow out semi tires. I
> >>probably would not be alive today if I was driving "fast" when I
saw
> >>them too late! For anyone who logs in hundreds of thousand of
miles,
> >>driving at a controllable speed is the way to survive.
> >
> >I was driving at 120MPH the other day, and I had no problem
remaining
> >in control. I might have tried going even faster, but the engine
> >wasn't fully broken in yet.
>
> And when you hit me in the rear (cause I always keep to the safe &
> legal Speed limit), if you survive, who will be charged with the
> collison.
>
> DYM
____________________
DYM,

Do yourself a huge favor and spare your energy and sanity by not
arguing with the likes of this "Scott Azatlan". He possesses more
arrogance and self pride than any human should be allowed to, and
everybody elses opinion is wrong and irrelevant. You might as well be
debating Sean Hannity or Bill O'Really.

-CC

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:53:02 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>
>>>I was driving at 120MPH the other day, and I had no problem remaining
>>>in control. I might have tried going even faster, but the engine
>>>wasn't fully broken in yet.
>>
>>And when you hit me in the rear (cause I always keep to the safe &
>>legal Speed limit), if you survive, who will be charged with the
>>collison.
>
> It will never happen. I never out-drive my line of sight. When I was
> doing 120 MPH, I was in the middle of the Sonoran desert, it was
> bright and sunny, the road was dry as a bone, and there were no other
> vehicles in sight from horizon to horizon.
>
> Next time I drive through the area, I think I'll try for 140.
>
> --
> Sloth Kills!
> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Make sure your tires are rated for that speed first. Even if the car will
do it, the centrifugal force at that speed may pull the tires apart, if not
designed for it.

Scott is alright!

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote:

>>Next time I drive through the area, I think I'll try for 140.

> Make sure your tires are rated for that speed first.

Yes, because Corvettes are equipped with S rated tires from the factory.
<rolls eyes>