What is "MFFY"?

Since the group has no FAQ I find myself having to ask the dumb newbie
question :<

In article >, Robert F Merrill wrote:
> Since the group has no FAQ I find myself having to ask the dumb newbie
> question :<

Me First **** You

It refers to a driver who puts himself first above everyone and
everything else. Usually for little or no personal gain while causing
problems and slowing down traffic in general.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Robert F Merrill wrote:

> Since the group has no FAQ I find myself having to ask the dumb newbie
> question :<

MFFY = Me First, **** You.

Doug Warner > wrote in
:

> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Robert F Merrill wrote:
>>> Since the group has no FAQ I find myself having to ask the dumb newbie
>>> question :<
>>
>>Me First **** You
>>
>>It refers to a driver who puts himself first above everyone and
>>everything else. Usually for little or no personal gain while causing
>>problems and slowing down traffic in general.
>>
>
> Such as the ones who drive to the end of the through lane, then force
> their way into the front the backed-up right-turn-only lane
>
> Or the ones who bypass the mile of cars backed up for a highway exit,
> then STOP in the through lane, while trying to "merge" into the head
> of the exit line.
>
> I'd love to spend a day in one of these spots with a long spear, to
> perforate the tires of these MFFY's


Why their TIRES? Strike to the source of the problem!
(the melon behind the wheel)

Nail their tires,and they'd stop right there to change it,further blocking
things.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Warner wrote:

>
> Such as the ones who drive to the end of the through lane, then force
> their way into the front the backed-up right-turn-only lane
>

Or the ones who cut out of the backed-up through lane and drive down the
shoulder to make a right?

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:38:12 -0500, Robert F Merrill
> > wrote:
>
> >> Such as the ones who drive to the end of the through lane, then force
> >> their way into the front the backed-up right-turn-only lane
> >
> >Or the ones who cut out of the backed-up through lane and drive down the
> >shoulder to make a right?
>
> Or the ones who make a right-turn-on-red directly into the path of
> oncoming 50MPH traffic and then accelerate at 0.5 M/H/S, forcing
> oncoming traffic to brake and/or swerve to avoid rear-ending them...
>
Or the ones who make a right turn on red just as two-lane tandem left turn
lanes with a green arrow start turning to the intersection.

Somehow, I don't think a No Right Turn On Red sign would make any
difference--just as long as the driver makes a right on red cutting off the
rightmost left turning lane.

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
:



>>
> Or the ones who make a right turn on red just as two-lane tandem left
> turn lanes with a green arrow start turning to the intersection.

In Orlando,they do it while the left-turn traffic is IN the intersection.
You have to brake to keep from hitting them.
>
> Somehow, I don't think a No Right Turn On Red sign would make any
> difference--just as long as the driver makes a right on red cutting
> off the rightmost left turning lane.

In Orlando,some intersections have the new LED version of the no-right-turn
-on-red sign,and they still get ignored.
It's getting so they need a barrier that rises out of the pavement to block
the turn until permitted.Fat chance that any LEO would enforce the law.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>Somehow, I don't think a No Right Turn On Red sign would make any
>difference--just as long as the driver makes a right on red cutting off the
>rightmost left turning lane.

Red arrow signals or "no turn on red" signs seem to be rarely noticed
or obeyed.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:06:55 GMT, Timothy J. Lee > wrote:
>In article >,
>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>Somehow, I don't think a No Right Turn On Red sign would make any
>>difference--just as long as the driver makes a right on red cutting off the
>>rightmost left turning lane.

>Red arrow signals or "no turn on red" signs seem to be rarely noticed
>or obeyed.

I think that depends on the locale. Here in colorado, red lights
are general ignored for the first 5 seconds -- if somebody sees
the car ahead run the red light, then it must be ok for the next car
to run it as well. However, red arrow and no turn on red signs
are generally obeyed.

In boston, lane markings are only a recomendation. If 5 cars can
fit in four lanes, they will.

TCS wrote:

> In boston, lane markings are only a recomendation. If 5 cars can
> fit in four lanes, they will.

I thought Boston already made the lanes so narrow that four
cars can't fit in four lanes. I know they did this in
Raleigh NC when they wanted to add extra lanes. Just paint
new lines and hope it all works out for the best.

Ed