We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Oil hikes boost hybrid cars As I predicted a few weeks ago, SUV-phobes need not get into a hissy fit. The market is changing people’s driving habits:
Toyota Motor Corp. has seen a rise in demand for hybrid vehicles in the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as consumers seek more mileage out of $3-gallon gasoline, a top official said on Thursday.
“At the end of last month, we had a 20-hour supply of the Prius (hybrid sedan),” Jim Press, head of Toyota’s U.S. operations, said at the Reuters Autos Summit, held in Detroit. “We no longer count in days.”
Price increases change human behaviour. Who would have thought it?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
In a fair free market you are correct, market forces change peoples behaviour.
Too many SUV’s=Higher fuel usage.
Higher fuel usage=Higher fuel cost.
Higher fuel cost=Fewer SUV’s.
If only life was this simple.
Once everybody has invested in a hybrid car, what do you think Gordon Brown’s reaction will be?
Will it be, “Well done citizens. Enjoy your savings and extra disposable income.”
…or will it be,”I’m losing tax revenue, here’s a huge tax hike on electricity to restore the status quo.
Hybrid cars are expensive, and they are bought only thanks to a hefty tax rebate they enjoy.
Without this rebate they would not make economic sense despite higher gas prices. Even so it’s not clear they do, and most of the demand (which, in absolute numbers isn’t great at all) comes from people who are after the “good feeling” of saving the planet, and are rich enough not to be bothered by the economic aspect.
Price increases change human behaviour.
Green propaganda too.
I’d be very interested to know exactly what the criteria is for a ‘green’ hybrid or pure gas/electric car in the UK. I know someone who is one of the few people in the UK to own a petro-electric hybrid Prius and thus receives approx. £800 a year in tax benefits, low vehicle tax charge, no parking charge in Westminster and doesn’t pay the congestion charge. He was considering moving over to the new petro-electric hybrid Lexus RX 400h, only to discover that it doesn’t qualify under Red Ken’s concept of ‘green’ – presumably because its an SUV?
I love explaining to my left of center friends how idiocies such as the U.S. CAFE standards have helped create demand for things like SUVs.
It’s about time I also explained to my libertarian friends why so many people don’t just disapprove of SUVs but actively hate them.
Lots of people have perfectly good reasons — given the current U.S. regulations — for buying these things. Unfortunately, there are some SUV owners who attract a good bit of hatred.
My father, when he was still alive, drove the biggest car he could get his hands on. Pop died back in the 1970s. Pop also drove his huge cars quite conservatively. He didn’t weave in and out of traffic like a race car driver at Le Mans or Daytona or Indianapolis. Would that all of today’s SUV drivers emulated my father.
I drive a Chevrolet Camaro. It’s one of the fastest things on the American road. Ask Dale Amon about the things. My model also handles pretty well and stops remarkably well. There might be specially modified SUVs that can keep up with me — but there aren’t many.
I can even understand a SUV or pickup truck driver trying to merge into my lane when there’s a long line of cars. But I’ve lost track of the number of times truck owners have cut me off (or, now, tried to) when I’m the last vehicle in line. Then there are the idiots who tailgate (a few metres from my back bumper) when traffic is backed up as far as the eye can see. Then there are the truck owners who use merge lanes and turn lanes as “personal passing lanes” expecting the rest of us to yield to their bullying behavior. Some other people do this as well, but it seems that “light” truck owners are more likely to engage in this kind of behavior than others.
I’ll finish with a story from last Saturday. It was a pleasant day. I was returning from a run with my T top open to the weather. There was some accident a good distance ahead on a four lane road (two lanes each direction). Virtually everybody saw that one lane was blocked and began merging into the one open lane. Quite civil, friendly behavior. The line, however, was pretty long. Two fat bitches in a SUV, however, took exception. They began roaring down the empty, but blocked, lane. Dale knows I have a temper. I quickly sized up the situation, took off after said bitches, passed them on the right (this is in the U.S.) and forced them to stop their line cutting. I then got out of my car and briefly lectured them. The fat bitches kept their windows rolled up and said something disapproving of my vigilantee behavior. Other people, however (including, to be honest, some other truck drivers), cheered, applauded, gave thumbs up motions, etc.
Yes, some people hate SUV owners because they defy leftist dogma. Others of us, however, are really getting sick of the behavior of some SUV owners. Please try to remember that. And also consider what these turkeys do to the libertarian cause.
I’m an SUV owner. And unapologetic. I’ll pay market price for gasoline. It’s been historically cheap. And at an average 20 MPG I’m doing OK. I have a staff of 12 (oilfield related industry) and I occasionally need the space. I also entertain customers from around the world. I need the space. I’m only reimbursed for company business. All other expenses are mine.
In 1982 when I was in high school I bought my own gas (and paid my own insurance). That job thing. A Chevy Monza hatchback that could run 11 second quarter miles. 7-8 mpg. That period is the benchmark for high gas prices.
Hybrids? Good luck in 5 years when you’re trying to sell and you need to replace the battery. Or one of those fancy regenerative electric motors. Maintenance and upkeep is going to be very expensive for those vehicles. I hope the owners know what they are getting in to.
Europe (in this case) has the right idea. Very efficient low displacement turbocharged diesels. Excellent idea, and a hell of a lot simpler than hybrids
.
Chuck:
I totally understand your point of view with respect to people who drive in a selfish manner. It annoys the hell out of me, too, even to the point of having occassionally engaged in “vigilante” behaviour similar to what you described.
But you haven’t succeeded in explaining why someone would hate SUVs. The offesive acts you described were committed by people, not machines, and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a causal relationship between that kind of driving and the fact of driving an SUV.
But I do have an hypothesis. I’ve noticed for years that if you paint a small car a garish colour it might just look cute, whereas a large car in the same colour would seem hideous. I suspect there’s a similar phenomenon at work with offensive driving. If a Smart Car nips in and takes a spot boldly while merging it might only be a slight annoyance. It might even be cute. But if a big SUV does the same thing it’s more likely to offend someone (even with an equal amount of clearance).
Having said that, I also have to acknowledge that there’s more than just size at work, because I know many people who feel about motorcycles much the way you do about SUVs. They, too, would “explain” that it’s because some motorcyclists weave through traffic. But that explanation fails for the same reason.
Both these explanations fail because they depend on mis-categorization, as does the hatred they attempt to explain. What needs to be explained is why someone would apply their feelings about some SUV drivers to the category of SUVs and, more importantly, why other people make that same sort of mis-categorization with motorcycles, as well as why it’s less common for other kinds of vehicles to be mis-categorized that way. If we can get to the root of that we may begin to understand the hatred.
(Not that it matters, but for what it’s worth I drive a Subaru Impreza and a motorcycle. Over the past thirty years I have owned mostly sub-compacts, but I owned a full-size van for a few years and a half-ton pickup for about two years. I drove a Jeep Cherokee a few miles once iin the early 80s, but other than that I don’t recall ever driving an SUV.)
Jacob, your scornful attitude to these cars may be justified, and if so, then their buyers are wasting money. In time, if more cars get sold, then presumably costs can fall due to economies of scale, as with other technologies. New technologies often start off as playthings of the rich.
I could not give a monkey’s whether hybrids are value for money or not. Leave it to people to figure out.
The battery pack is not actually all that expensive when costed on a dollars per mile basis. Those “fancy” regenerative motors are simple polyphase induction motors with one moving part. They are standard industrial equipment (nobody uses DC motors these days) and don’t cost much. The “fancy” part is not in the motor but in the controller electronics, which again are cheap and easily available off the shelf parts.
The maintenance burden on hybrid cars is not much higher than on conventional machines, and most of it comes from the internal combustion system. The electrical system maintenance requirement is very low, and in the case of a pure electric car is minimal – you don’t have the lubrication, cooling and vibration problems you have with a conventional car, there is generally no gearbox (therefore it is mechanically simpler) and use is made of regenerative braking (so the mechanical brakes are simpler, cheaper and lighter).
The only thing holding back the pure electric car is battery technology. Even with today’s technology, and assuming you intend the car for not more than say 40-50 miles between charges, they are cheaper to run, far more efficient and more reliable. The oilwell-to-roadwheel thermal efficiency of an electric car is roughly double that of a modern petrol or diesel car. And you can get one that out-accelerates any petrol sports car.
EG
“costs can fall due to economies of scale…”
That general mantra does not apply. When you have to add an electric motor, a batery pack, a transmission and a computer, the car becomes more expensive than it was before. Maintenance too.
Maybe, at some point in time, at some level of gas prices the fuel economy will surpass the higher initial cost. Not now.
Leave it to people to figure out.
Amen. And get rid of the tax rebates, or better, of the tax itself.
Currently the tax rebates go to affluent lefty snobs. Is that “socially just” ?
“the general mantra does not apply”.. writes Jacob. You seem awfully sure of that. You could apply the same arguments to cars, computers, or any complex item. I guess you don’t like such “green” tech. Fine. Perhaps the best thing to do is wait to see how the economics stacks up in a year’s time. I wager the economies will kick in.
Agree about the tax issue. Lower taxes all round is a good idea: I would have thought my views on that would have been pretty widely understood by now!
Euan, glad to see you back and thanks for the comments. Where have you been?
Well done hybrids also have the advantage of being relatively high output (20KW) portable generators. The AC generator electronics can also be used to recharge the batteries making them dual fuel vehicles.
The growth of all this technology was retarded by 10 years by enviros who wanted “zero emmision” battery powered vehicles. No transition steps for them. Jump right to light speed.
Not being engineers (they couldn’t run the numbers) they knew nothing of the problem of batteries. Low energy density.
BTW people do not by autos strictily on cost considerations. So the fact that they make no economic sense (neither does a Rolls) ought not be an argument against them. Cars are not just transport. They are fashion statements too. They are political statements as well. People by vehicles for all kinds of reasons, not strictly utility considerations.
But you need a smaller IC engine, which makes it cheaper. And you DON’T need a transmission, which also makes it cheaper.
Here’s how it works:
The power train is a battery-fed electric motor driving the axle directly. Polyphase induction motors of automotive type will run happily from 0 to 5000 rpm, producing maximum torque at low speed. This means there is no need for a multi-ratio mechanical transmission. In fact, if you use two motors, you don’t even need a mechanical differential. All that is accomplished by a box of electronics the size of a couple of ringbinders, most of which volume is heatsink.
In a series hybrid car, the battery can be charged or augmented by an alternator driven by, typically, a small diesel engine. Because the engine is driving an alternator at fixed speed, it can be optimised for a specific purpose and thus be made MUCH smaller, lighter and more efficient than a typical automotive engine which has to cope with a vast range of loads & is basically over-powered and over-engineered for 99% of them.
In the less efficient parallel hybrid, the drive train is as per a conventional car BUT with the addition of a booster electric motor as a secondary input for the transmission. This is the most complex, most expensive, least efficient and least reliable method of hybridisation.
Hybrids add weight, due mainly to the battery. However, an efficient hybrid will reduce weight in compensation by having no gearbox, possibly no differential, a much smaller and lighter engine, lighter braking gear, etc. Consequently, it is actually a simpler machine from a maintenance point of view than a conventional car. A series hybrid is simple and elegant in concept and also in execution. It has a low maintenance load, potentially lower than a conventional car.
As for the computers – the average contemporary car already has multiple control computers. The extra electronics in a hybrid are basically for drive motor control and regeneration, and are fairly simple industrial power electronics.
As for economics – if people made transport decisions purely on economic grounds, about three quarters of them over here would trade their cars in for a bus pass. I can’t even buy petrol for the price of a bus pass, never mind insurance, tax, maintenance, etc. It’s not just about economics.
Hither and yon on business, not always able to get net access. Nice to be welcomed…
EG
Another problem of most batteries (except lithium) is that they do not work well (or at all) at low temperatures – below 0 C they are almost useless.
So a battery car that works in San Francisco will be almost useless in a Chicago winter.
Rechargeable lithium batteries have two problems in autos. One is expense.
The other problem is accidents. If the contents of a lithium battery get exposed to the air they are very reactive (which is why they do well at low temperatures).
The hybrid gets around the problem by initially only needing the battery for starting the IC engine. The heat of charging then helps the battery perform more usefully. In addition the waste heat from the IC engine could be used to warm the batteries.
In most industrial systems, once the initial design concept is done, improvements are incremental. i.e. the rules of change are rather organic in nature.
This is something that escapes the “if we can go to the moon….” folks.
Mad Oilman knows that one of the first mass buyers of solar cells were oil companies. Which is why they at one time were buying solar cell manufacturing companies.
What use did they make of the cells? Oil field monitoring. Running electric power wires through an oil field is extremely dangerous and expensive – the wires must be sealed in water tight (minimum) enclosures. The enclosures must be periodically tested for safety – a big expense. Often in initial development there is no electricity available in any case.
Amaco once owned a company (they may still) called Amocams that developed oil field monitoring equipment. I did some work for them once. Learned a lot about gas and oil ignition energy and intrinsic safety.
It should be Amoco Oil Company
Indeed, and a diesel car that works fine in Mexico would have problems in north Russia. Strangely enough though, both places manage to use diesels. I think you overstate the problem, or perhaps gloss over some solutions.
The electric or hybrid car can easily be plugged in at home, office or mall (and in some areas offices and malls already have the facility). The mains power can recharge the battery, cool the interior (in San Francisco) or warm the interior (in Chicago). It can also keep the battery compartment at an optimum temperature. In cold climates, such as Norway, the provision of plug points for engine heating is common already, so it’s not as if these problems cannot be solved (or aren’t already solved).
The crash problem doesn’t affect only hybrids or electrics. A conventional car crashing might have 15 gallons of highly flammable liquid in its tank spraying out onto hot exhaust manifolds. Just as this can be mitigated by sensible tank location and the use of self-sealing liners, so battery packs can be sealed fairly easily. Sealed gel-type lead-acid batteries are one solution, and there are others.
It should be noted that cars employing these ideas already exist on the market, and have done for some time. There is no longer anything especially novel about them and the technology is proven. All that is really needed is a significant improvement in battery technology, or the creation of a suitable mass infrastructure for the use of fuel cells. Once that happens, I think the conventional petrol car is on the way out.
EG
“I know many people who feel about motorcycles much the way you do about SUVs.”
I used to feel that way when I was learning to drive – motorcycles were fast, noisy (I learnt in summer with the windows down) & intimidating. Pedal cycles were slow, quiet, soothing somehow.
Then I passed my test – and learnt that cyclists were unlicensed, untested, unensured menaces while the motorcyclists were the exact opposite! They’d passed a test, were ensured, and paid road tax, just like me!
Amazing how experience changes one’s perception….
I now drive an SUV (needed to change my vehicle from a saloon-type & chose the model precisely because of the green ‘backlash’) but I drive it to it’s capability & am just as courteous to road users as I am in any other vehicle.
So as long as I’m willing to pay the higher cost of the fuel, who is to say I shouldn’t have my free choice of vehicle?
re: Jacob
I bought my hybrid Prius 7 months ago. I bought it because I want the latest high tech toy, and I need to replace my 11 year old car. While the tax discount would be nice, it’s not my primary reason for the purchase. The price of the fuel is also not the primary reason as well, since I made my mind to buy this car a year ago, but the waiting list lasted 6 months.
Euan,
You are correct about charging stations keeping the batteries warm.
The problem of course is what if there are no charging stations? The strictly battery vehicle loses a lot of its range. To maintain range in cold wether (Chicago) you have to carry 60% (minimum) more batteries if no recharging station is available.
Have you actually looked at the charts for lead acid battery energy output vs temperature? By the time they get to -20 C the capacity is about 60% or less of what it is at 20 C. Capacity also falls off above 20 C but not so drastically. What does happen above 20 C is faster wear out.
This is why if we are going to a mostly battery powered system the hybrid is a very good transitional choice. Then charging stations can be added without the inconvenience of stranded motorists. i.e. organic expansioin of the system as more vehicles with at least partial battery propulsion systems are on the road.
Plug in hybrids make a lot of sense. The infrastructure can grow as required. You are not limited initially to a point to point system. Such a system is less attractive thus making it harder to grow.
BTW in a lot of accidents you can get significant gasoline spills without ignition. Lithium spontaneouly combusts. Breach the containment and combustion is guarenteed.
BTW a significant improvement in battery capacity is not in the cards. You are limited by chemistry. In a battery fuel and oxidizer have to be maintained in one container. Unless you use something like the air-zinc batter. However currently they are not rechargeable. Which then requires shipping the old battery in the opposite direction of the new ones. Almost doubling the transportation requirements for fuel.
Inorganic chemistry has been well understood for over 100 years. If there was an answer it would be at least experimental by this time. A lab somewhere would have done an experiment. Nothing.
The real hope for batteries is fuel cells. The methanol/ethanol cell. The energy density is much higher than hydrogen. The fuel is liquid which fits in well with current infrastructure. It will first be market tested as in lap tops and cell phones where initial high cost will not be an impediment.
In the mean time the IC hybrid alows us to develop the rest of the technology that will be required.
Organic growth is best.
=============
Lead acid batteries and temperature
* OPERATING TEMPERATURE: Batteries work best within a limited temperature range. Most wet-cell lead-acid batteries perform best around 85 to 95 F. At temperatures above 125 F, lead-acid batteries will be damaged and, consequently, their life shortened. Performance of lead-acid batteries suffers at temperatures below 72 F; the colder it is the greater the degradation in performance. As the temperature falls below freezing (32 F), lead-acid batteries will act sluggish – the battery has not lost its energy; its chemistry restrains it from delivering the energy. Batteries can also freeze. A fully charged lead-acid battery can survive 40 to 50 degrees below freezing, but a battery with a low state of charge (SOC) can freeze at temperatures as high as 30 F. When the water in a battery freezes it expands and can cause unrepairable damage to the cells.
================
So cold weather presents another problem. A lead acid battery fully charged can sit at -20 C no problem. You drive it to the store (ay 1/3 the range) and let it sit for a few hours without recharging and you are not going home in that vehicle.
In fact the battery may turn into a lead weight. (har)
MadSci
Lead-acid batteries reach peak efficiency at 90 degrees F (32 C) As ambient temperature drops, ampere output and recharging efficiency decline, dropping to 40 percent of rated output at 0 degree F (-18 degree C). Cold Cranking Ampere (CCA) rating is the best yardstick by which to measure a battery’s capacity. It indicated the discharge rate (measured in amperes) a fully charged battery will maintain at 0 degrees F (-17.8 degree C) without terminal voltage dropping below 1.2 volts per cell. The last major concern regarding battery applications is the environment in which it is used, specifically the temperatures at which the battery is required to operate. Batteries and people like approximately the same temperature range. If the temperature gets too warm, the chemical reactions within the battery are accelerated and its life may be shortened. If the battery gets too cold, the chemical reactions are slowed down which reduces the battery output. In other words, like all chemical processes, lead acid battery performance is temperature dependent. The available capacity and maximum current both fall at low temperature, and increase, although to a lesser degree, at raised temperatures. The risk of freezing is also real for a fully discharged battery at temperatures not so far below zero. The chemistry slows down as temperature falls; this applies equally well to charging as discharge.
Just as the problem for the petrol car is what if there are no petrol stations.
People didn’t build petrol stations and then wait for Dr Benz to invent the car so someone could use them. Equally, people aren’t going to build charging stations and then wait for someone else to invent the electric car. When the demand arises – i.e. when electric cars become sufficiently popular that people seek to use them outside towns – it will be met by the supply of charging stations. This is, after all, how the market works.
Yes. And relative efficiencies, energy storage densities, well-to-wheel cycles, driving habits, induction motor control systems, etc.
Thank you, you’re making my point for me 🙂
You perhaps underestimate the current utility of a pure electric car. Most road journeys are very short – in the UK, some 80% are less than 5 miles. I’ve posted a link to the stats showing this before, but can’t recall right now where it is. Straight away, a not-very-efficient electric car is usable for 80% of all road trips. A contemporary electric car with microprocessor controlled induction drive and regenerative braking is good for a range of 50-60 miles in average conditions and driven sensibly. Such a car will charge its batteries from a 13A 240V supply overnight – right now, you could have an electric car and use it perfectly well for a 20 mile each way daily commute even without a top-up charge, assuming you don’t park it in the snow at work.
For extra range, you can buy a hybrid like the Prius. Alternatively, you could get a battery car with a power trailer – a small diesel alternator.
AC Propulsion built the tZero prototype electric sports car. It can do 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, can charge its batteries in one hour from a 24kW supply, had a range extending alternator trailer, could run 100 miles at a steady 60mph and can get 20,000 miles from a $3,000 battery pack. Don’t underestimate what electric cars can do already.
We haven’t invented it yet so we never will?
For over 50 years we have understood how nuclear fusion works. We still don’t have a working fusion power reactor, therefore we never will? Sorry, I don’t buy that logic.
EG
Euan,
“In the less efficient parallel hybrid, the drive train is as per a conventional car BUT with the addition of a booster electric motor as a secondary input for the transmission. This is the most complex, most expensive, least efficient and least reliable method of hybridisation.”
Well, this is the hybrid that has been built and is available on the market. It is indeed “most complex, most expensive”.
The idea to have a purely electric car (which is simpler, lighter and cheaper) with an auxilliary diesel generator for charging the batteries – makes a lot of sense to me, but there probably are good reason why this has not happened, reasons that I’m maybe unaware of, beyond the obvious: battery technology and price.
The main reason is probably that people want their cars to be able to do both short distance and long distance trips. It does not matter that 80% are short trips. You don’t want to buy two cars – one for the everyday commute to office, the other for the weekend.
Guessing what future technology will be adopted is a nice sport.
Assesing the capabilities and advantages of current products (like the hybrid car) is another, different issue.
I suspect the future automotive technology will be electric drive. Whether this comes from fuel cells or batteries is another question and depends a great deal on developments in these two technologies.
However, it isn’t going to be oil-based fuel forever, for the simple reason that reserves are finite. It can be had from plants, of course, but at the expense of food crop area, and the process is somewhat wasteful.
We could generate hydrogen and use that in modified combustion engines, but the problem there is the energy needed to produce the hydrogen and the lack of a large scale distribution infrastructure. It’s a lot easier, cheaper and more efficient to distribute the electricity across the existing grid and pump it into battery cars. Talk of hydrogen and alcohol fuel cells is all very well, and it works fine on the current more or less experimental scale, but how are you going to make the vast quantities of these fuels, on the scale petrol and diesel are made now? This is especially an issue for hydrogen. Alcohol is not good as a general purpose fuel because not only is it toxic but it is miscible in water, unlike petrol or diesel – this presents problems for safe storage and handling.
EG
“However, it isn’t going to be oil-based fuel forever…”
There is no other energy source besides oil. It may come from shale-oil, or from tar sands, or from liquefied coal. There simply isn’t anything else. Biofuel – produced from plants, will never come close to supplying even a small part of the demand – there is not enough land to grow all these crops.
Maybe, in the distant future, some new technology will be discovered. We can’t speculate yet on the unknown.
Electric cars will maybe gain wide acceptance when we have abundant and cheap electricity from nuclear power plants, and oil goes to 200 or 300 $/barrel, like some people predict for the year 2010. (Both won’t happen soon).
Nuclear. Coal. Geothermal. Solar. Wind. Hydro. CHP (trash burning). Biomass (numerous biological options).
Oil is a CONVENIENT source of energy. That does not mean it is the ONLY source. Apart from anything else, the amount of oil in the world is finite and one day we’ll run out of economically viable deposits. Yes, I know the price will go up and so other deposits will become viable, but at some point we’re going to use it all up. Then what? We have no energy because oil is the only source?
EG
Chuck Divine wrote:
‘I’ll finish with a story from last Saturday. It was a pleasant day. I was returning from a run with my T top open to the weather. There was some accident a good distance ahead on a four lane road (two lanes each direction). Virtually everybody saw that one lane was blocked and began merging into the one open lane. Quite civil, friendly behavior. The line, however, was pretty long. Two fat bitches in a SUV, however, took exception. They began roaring down the empty, but blocked, lane. Dale knows I have a temper. I quickly sized up the situation, took off after said bitches, passed them on the right (this is in the U.S.) and forced them to stop their line cutting. I then got out of my car and briefly lectured them. The fat bitches kept their windows rolled up and said something disapproving of my vigilantee behavior. Other people, however (including, to be honest, some other truck drivers), cheered, applauded, gave thumbs up motions, etc.’
You’ll be pleased to know that the driving of which you complain is illegal here in Michigan, and it is enforced – if you don’t merge into the open lane by a point certain, your chance of getting a ticket is actually quite good. One of the rare examples of a really good traffic law. Mind you, it’s really only enforceable at fixed locations, like construction, and is probably impossible to enfroce at an accident scene.
But, as with many laws, the public reaction to this boorish behaviour came first, and is just as effective. At known obstructions, eg construction sites, it’s normal to see three or four right-thinking motorists block the soon-to-be-closed lane by assuming a close angle-astern configuration, and the motorists behind them leaving their space in the open lane open for them to drop back into when the actual restriction arrives. It drives the boorish morons who want to pass in the open lane absolutely wild, and thus serves the dual purpose of smoothing traffic flow and ruining life for the inconsiderate cretins who behave in this way.
llater,
llamas