Sloth reversing onto roadway

I have seen a new form of Sloth today. The driver of an SUV was exiting
the roadway as I approached from approximately 250 m behind. The SUV
had driven completely down the deceleration lane and was starting around
the curve after the exit. I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
reenter the autobahn. No, no, no! Wrong! The SUV driver almost caused
a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
the roadway.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:03:35 +0000, Alexander Rogge
> wrote:

>I have seen a new form of Sloth today. The driver of an SUV was exiting
>the roadway as I approached from approximately 250 m behind. The SUV
>had driven completely down the deceleration lane and was starting around
>the curve after the exit. I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
>suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
>reenter the autobahn. No, no, no! Wrong! The SUV driver almost caused
>a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
>aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
>the roadway.

Was this a, "no re-entry," exit? Otherwise, I can't understand why the
suv driver didn't just make his way to the on-ramp and be on his way -
unless, of course, he was an idiot.

--
"This item demonstrates how stupid the average American is. Every
ninety minutes someone in this country is hit by a train. A train,
okay? Trains are on tracks; they can't come and get you. They
can't surprise you when you step off a curb. You have to go to them.
Got that?"
--George Carlin

On Sep 22, 9:52*pm, necromancer - ECHM <coupe_de_bo...@zinedine-
zidane.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:03:35 +0000, Alexander Rogge
>
> > wrote:
> >I have seen a new form of Sloth today. *The driver of an SUV was exiting
> >the roadway as I approached from approximately 250 m behind. *The SUV
> >had driven completely down the deceleration lane and was starting around
> >the curve after the exit. *I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
> >suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
> >reenter the autobahn. *No, no, no! *Wrong! *The SUV driver almost caused
> >a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
> >aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
> >the roadway.
>
> Was this a, "no re-entry," exit? Otherwise, I can't understand why the
> suv driver didn't just make his way to the on-ramp and be on his way -
> unless, of course, he was an idiot.
>
> --
> "This item demonstrates how stupid the average American is. Every
> *ninety minutes someone in this country is hit by a train. A train,
> *okay? Trains are on tracks; they can't come and get you. They
> *can't surprise you when you step off a curb. You have to go to them.
> *Got that?"
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Carlin

Idiot is probably a correct diagnosis.

Back in the 60s I was just getting up to 65 coming out of a town in
New Mexico on a 4 lane devided. Hit (just barely nudged) a guy
backing up in the lane around a corner. Checked damage (only minor
dent in my grill) he said "let's get out of here". I agreed, pulled
around him. Looked in mirror and he _WAS BACKING UP IN THE LANE
AGAIN_.

Harry K

On Sep 22, 3:03*pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> I have seen a new form of Sloth today. *The driver of an SUV was exiting
> the roadway as I approached from approximately 250 m behind. *The SUV
> had driven completely down the deceleration lane and was starting around
> the curve after the exit. *I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
> suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
> reenter the autobahn. *No, no, no! *Wrong! *The SUV driver almost caused
> a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
> aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
> the roadway.

How does that qualify as a new form of "sloth"... did they back down
the ramp too slow to suit you...?
-----

- gpsman

On Sep 22, 12:03*pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> I have seen a new form of Sloth today. *The driver of an SUV was exiting
> the roadway as I approached from approximately 250 m behind. *The SUV
> had driven completely down the deceleration lane and was starting around
> the curve after the exit. *I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
> suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
> reenter the autobahn. *No, no, no! *Wrong! *The SUV driver almost caused
> a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
> aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
> the roadway.

Weren't you half-expecting that? It seems you need a back-up plan!

necromancer - ECHM wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:03:35 +0000, Alexander Rogge
> > wrote:
>
>> I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
>> suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
>> reenter the autobahn.
>
> Was this a, "no re-entry," exit?

It was not like that, and I would suggest that this driver was a fool.
It should have continued driving until it found a way to reenter legally
the limited-access roadway, and this would apply to any road with
traffic moving at any speed. It would certainly apply when the traffic
is approaching at a speed of 120+ and will not stop for such foolishness
as a reversing driver.

Larry Scholnick wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:03 pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
>> I was surprised when I saw the driver stop
>> suddenly and reverse to drive up the exit lane, presumably attempting to
>> reenter the autobahn. The SUV driver almost caused
>> a collision with another driver who was also exiting, and fortunately
>> aborted its foolishness before it would interfere with the traffic on
>> the roadway.
>
> Weren't you half-expecting that? It seems you need a back-up plan!

It would be totally unreasonable to be expecting such foolishness.
There were three options that I had considered. The alternatives would
have been attempting to stop and being rammed from behind, swerving to
the left and interrupting faster traffic, or possibly ramming the rear
of the vehicle if the SUV driver had accelerated and turned sharply into
my lane. You can guess which pedal was being depressed during this
incident.

The possibility of an impact from me was quite unlikely, but the driver
behind me would have done more damage. Drivers usually will not stop
for illegal driving, which is why merge-impaired and other foolish
driving is maintained at a minimum. The consequence of failing to yield
to the traffic on the roadway is probably death, and the general traffic
tends to make clear this concept to those drivers who appear to be
unfamiliar with the rules of driving on a limited-access roadway.

On Sep 25, 5:30*am, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> The consequence of failing to yield
> to the traffic on the roadway is probably death, and the general traffic
> tends to make clear this concept to those drivers who appear to be
> unfamiliar with the rules of driving on a limited-access roadway.

I don't know how you could be more wrong and not be corrected in this
group. Motoring is "perfectly safe", and you know it.
-----

- gpsman

On 09/25/2010 05:30 AM, Alexander Rogge wrote:
The consequence of failing to yield to the
> traffic on the roadway is probably death, and the general traffic tends
> to make clear this concept to those drivers who appear to be unfamiliar
> with the rules of driving on a limited-access roadway.

If only that were true. We are way too forgiving of complete
****tardery. Sure, you might lose a few friends who are otherwise nice
people due to their inability to drive but most people are just ****ing
rude and/or clueless (often both) and completely **** up what has the
potential to be a polite society.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel