Re: One of the key methods of preventing road rage...

dizzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:58:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>>dizzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:00:11 GMT, E.R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>DON'T BE A LLB, according to a recent column in the Vancouver
>>>>Province newspaper. It stated, as pretty much the top "cure" to
>>>>road rage, in so many words:
>>> 
>>> And don't intentionally block people from merging.  Some POS did this
>>> again to me the other night, in a nice long merge situation  where I
>>> was clearly in front of her all the way down the road, and in position
>>> to merge.  Damn I was pissed.
>>
>>If you were far enough in front,"in position to merge",why didn't you 
>>merge? 
> 
> Because some POS was intentionally blocking me by tailgating the car
> in front of her.
> 
>>Did you wait until the merge lane ran out?
> 
> No.  I did absolutely nothing late, rude, selfish, crazy, or in any
> other way wrong.  Just driving down the road, positioned to merge,
> with some asshole trying to prevent me from merging.
> 
>>Was there's no room to merge BEHIND the other car?
> 
> Not relevant.  She was a POS.
> 
> 

Being "*in front* and *in position* to merge" means to me that you could 
have moved over and completed the merge.If she sped up to close the gap as 
you stated in the OP,you waited too long.

If there was no gap,then you were not "in position to merge".

-- 
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net