not even MFFY, just an a-hole...

The other day I was driving along Rt. 42. Some old guy is driving in the
right lane 20 MPH below the speed limit of 55 MPH. Traffic normally flows
15-20 over the limit. Not too big of a deal though, as he was in the right
lane doing his desired speed. I moved one lane to the left to pass. As I am
about to pass he moves into my lane without even so much as singaling, and
maintains his 35 MPH. I hit the brakes hard, and then moved to the left,
downshifting and passing him quickly.

Some people are just plain ass holes. No rhyme or reason, they are
inconsiderate ass holes who need to get off the roads before they cause an
accident.

Cory

Some people are just plain ass holes. No rhyme or reason, th=ADey are
inconsiderate ass holes who need to get off the roads before=AD they
cause an
accident.

-------------------------

No one causes an accident. If they caused a collision, then they're at
fault and the collision is no accident. Why can't you car loons think
logically?

Your inability to grasp the illogic of your statements is your failure,
not the rest of society's.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm just plain ass hole. No rhyme or reason, I am an
> inconsiderate ass hole who needs to get off the
> roads before* I cause an accident.

You're right Judy, you do need to get off the road.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> No one causes an accident. If they caused a collision, then they're at
> fault and the collision is no accident. Why can't you car loons think
> logically?

You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
an accident, but someone can still be at fault.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:27:27 -0500, Robert F Merrill
> wrote:
>
>>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>>
>>> No one causes an accident. If they caused a collision, then they're at
>>> fault and the collision is no accident. Why can't you car loons think
>>> logically?
>>
>>You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
>>intend to collide with them.
>
>There's a fine line between intent and negligence.

That's a pretty bright line.

>If you SHOULD HAVE
>been able to avoid a collision, but you were too incompetent to do so,
>that's not much different than having actual intent.

And that has little to do with either. Mere incompetence isn't
necessarily negligence; it only becomes so if it results in you
failing to accomplish a legal duty.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, don't play one on the net.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> There's a fine line between intent and negligence. If you SHOULD HAVE
> been able to avoid a collision, but you were too incompetent to do so,
> that's not much different than having actual intent.
>

Yes it is. If you were too incompetent to do so, that means you either
attempted to prevent it and failed, or you took no action, not knowing how
to act. Neither is intent.

Cory Dunkle wrote:

> I hit the brakes hard, and then moved to the left,
> downshifting and passing him quickly.

Word of advice: get an automatic. You are thinking about shifting a bit too
much, if you had to mention it in your post. Stickshifts are for those who
can handle them subconsciously.

In article >,
Usual Suspect > wrote:

> Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > I hit the brakes hard, and then moved to the left,
> > downshifting and passing him quickly.
>
> Word of advice: get an automatic. You are thinking about shifting a bit too
> much, if you had to mention it in your post. Stickshifts are for those who
> can handle them subconsciously.

Remembering what one has done is no indication that one is doing it
poorly.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Usual Suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > I hit the brakes hard, and then moved to the left,
> > downshifting and passing him quickly.
>
> Word of advice: get an automatic. You are thinking about shifting a bit
too
> much, if you had to mention it in your post. Stickshifts are for those who
> can handle them subconsciously.

FYI: I do have an automatic. My choice to force it to downshift with the
shifter was so it would give a quicker more firm shift. This is how all the
cars with FMX transmissions I've driven behave. Even with a properly
adjusted kickdown the shift from 3rd to 2nd is not as quick or firm as it is
when forcing it down. The reason being that the FMX design will shift with
full line pressure when manually shifting into 1st or 2nd, whereas when left
to it's own to shift it will vary the pressure for a shift depending on
conditions (engine vacuum, RPM, kickdown position)

Also, when I drive manual transmission cars I do not need to put any thought
into shifting. That includes heel-toe, double clutching, and shifting
without the clutch (both up and down).

Cory