Skip to main content

The new, young, flat hat drivers

It has often been observed that you can tell something of the owner of a car from the make. BMW drivers are flash self-centered twits, Mercedes drivers dull self-centered twits, Volvo drivers knit-your-own-yoghurt vegetarian whale huggers, and Hummer drivers people think a certain part of their anatomy is too small. (Note to self - who else can I offend?)

But there is also a more general way of detecting one form of bad driver. If you see someone driving a car (probably a beige car) wearing a flat cap, they will inevitably be a nightmare to follow. They have two driving styles. Either they drive 10 miles an hour under the speed limit, whatever it is (luckily they've never heard of 20 miles an hour zones), or they drive at 40 miles an hour, whatever the speed limit is. When they get to a complex road feature like traffic lights or a roundabout there will be a lengthy pause, probably while they consult their Highway Code to find out what this strange thing is.

Such drivers are inevitably elderly, but I have discovered the youthful equivalent. If you follow a car with an exhaust pipe which has an exit hole the size of a small bucket, the chances are you are going to witness some appalling driving. These youffs are of the opinion that by fitting one of these strange items to the rear end of their FiestaClio 107 they have made it sound like a Ferrari. No, it sounds like it has a hole in its exhaust, which is achievable much more simply with a hammer and chisel. Almost inevitably, you will be treated to an exhibition of lane weaving, frantic unnecessary acceleration and a thudding bass line from the stereo that shakes nearby buildings and renders small children incontinent.

I am beginning to suspect that only motorists who have a hand written letter from me, saying they can drive on the road, should be allowed in a car. The only worry is I seem to be turning into Jeremy Clarkson. Help!

Comments

  1. To quote the late George Carlin:

    "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

    Signed,
    The knit-your-own-yoghurt vegetarian whale hugger ;)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense