home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:08:45 GMT
- Subject: Re: Okay, it's not the inverse sprinkler problem...
- Message-ID: <12950108@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM>
- Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
- Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!news.acns.nwu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpl-opus!hpspdla!ric
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- References: <11746@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
- Lines: 20
-
-
- Uwe writes:
-
- >Actually, I found that the best thing to do was to step (lightly) on
- >the gas. I was standing at an intersection, and I heard a wild
- >screeching of tires behind me, plus headlights waving madly in my
- >rearview mirror. The person behind me couldn't brake in time and had
- >lost control of his/her car. So I pulled forward about nine feet, and
- >the other car eventually stopped six feet forward of where my rear
- >bumper had been, and facing backward. Then I re-swallowed my heart &
- >other organs. I recommend this alternative over either of the others
- >(if it works :-) ).
-
- Ah but this means that there was no traffic in the intersection to
- subsequently hit you on the driver's side; not a nice thing. If the
- intersection was completely clear, then I'd go clear through the
- intersection. If only the nearest lane was clear, you could make a
- right turn.
-
- R. Peregrino
-