If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, any intelligent individual would advocate driver training.
But since you're far from being an intelligent inividual, you prefer reactive measures as opposed to proactive. You're such a dim-lib. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:
> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message > ... > >>Did you know that you're least likely to be involved in a collision if >>you're traveling roughly 10 MPH faster than the average speed of traffic? >> > > > Really, please cite a reference- I'd be curious to know why this is true? Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know if I've got a link. Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options open to them. There is a list of links (which I've got at home) that explains all this stuff, but maybe Brent P will be good enough to post it for me before then. > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will > involve twice as much energy. Now you're really sounding like Carl... Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first place, by driving as safely as I know how. If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang through speed alone. > It's no surprise whenever I read about a multi-vehicle traffic crash in > the paper, and somebody is hurt or dead, either alcohol or speeding were a > factor on the part of one of the vehicles. Keywords: A factor. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed limit. No doubt speed (not speeding) is a factor; Speed is a factor in *all* collisions. If nothing were moving, there would be no collisions. -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:
> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message > ... > >>Did you know that you're least likely to be involved in a collision if >>you're traveling roughly 10 MPH faster than the average speed of traffic? >> > > > Really, please cite a reference- I'd be curious to know why this is true? Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know if I've got a link. Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options open to them. There is a list of links (which I've got at home) that explains all this stuff, but maybe Brent P will be good enough to post it for me before then. > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will > involve twice as much energy. Now you're really sounding like Carl... Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first place, by driving as safely as I know how. If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang through speed alone. > It's no surprise whenever I read about a multi-vehicle traffic crash in > the paper, and somebody is hurt or dead, either alcohol or speeding were a > factor on the part of one of the vehicles. Keywords: A factor. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed limit. No doubt speed (not speeding) is a factor; Speed is a factor in *all* collisions. If nothing were moving, there would be no collisions. -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
You're right; people *don't* often use their best judgement. Stupid
stuff, like "speeding at night" (more appropriate would be "overdriving their headlights") or driving too fast in the fog would be best qualified as "reckless driving" or "driving too fast for conditions." Usually Darwin catches up with these people sooner or later. As for increasing the damage that will be sustained with increasing speed, best thing to do is to avoid getting in an accident. This will only occur of the driver is properly focused on the task at hand; that being driving. Most are not, unfortunately. As for people knowing better, it must not be forgotten that there are places in the world which the normal rate of traffic flow is faster than the speed limits set in the US. Just because the average US driver is improperly trained, or too busy eating/yakking/rocking to pay attention to the road doesn't mean *all* drivers (domestic or otherwise) suffer from the same inadequacies. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
You're right; people *don't* often use their best judgement. Stupid
stuff, like "speeding at night" (more appropriate would be "overdriving their headlights") or driving too fast in the fog would be best qualified as "reckless driving" or "driving too fast for conditions." Usually Darwin catches up with these people sooner or later. As for increasing the damage that will be sustained with increasing speed, best thing to do is to avoid getting in an accident. This will only occur of the driver is properly focused on the task at hand; that being driving. Most are not, unfortunately. As for people knowing better, it must not be forgotten that there are places in the world which the normal rate of traffic flow is faster than the speed limits set in the US. Just because the average US driver is improperly trained, or too busy eating/yakking/rocking to pay attention to the road doesn't mean *all* drivers (domestic or otherwise) suffer from the same inadequacies. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message ... > On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote: > Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the > NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance > Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know > if I've got a link. I don't believe this is the position of the NHTSA: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...gredriver.html The position of the NHTSA is the speed limits should be set as high as is "safe". > > Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower > traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options > open to them. But if you are speeding you will also have less time to react, and when you crash, you will have more energy going into your car/vehicle, or somebody else's car/vehicle. Some vehicles, like trucks or SUV's, will lose grip at higher speeds and manouvering. > > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will > > involve twice as much energy. > > Now you're really sounding like Carl... So what, maybe Carl is right? Who is this Carl? > > Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first > place, by driving as safely as I know how. Ah, wishful thinking. Overconfidence tends to go hand-in-hand with aggressive driving and not a defensive attitude. They used to show those kids in Driver's Ed those gruesome movies for a reason. You might have mad skillz behind the wheel of a car... but show them off in the appropriate venue- a racetrack or rally . Not on an open public road. Rally drivers survive some frightening collisions. But not everybody on the road has 5 point restraints and thick helmets. You might get unlucky one of these days and plow into something. > If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your > thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential > energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang > through speed alone. Semi-trucks are of course (potentially) dangerous. That's why you have to watch out around them and give them some space. > > You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to > exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at > the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that > is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed > limit. How is going 45 mph is a 35mph zone NOT "too fast for conditions"? Or 55 in a 45mph zone? I just don't get it... how are you saving that much time? What is worse are people who SPEED THROUGH RED LIGHTS. When you are speeding, of course you have less time to react, so you are more likely to zip through a red light. It's no wonder intersections are one of the most dangerous places on the road in the US. Too many people think driving fast is their birthright. They don't like hour long commutes to work, maybe they should stop living in the farthest suburbs and exurbia? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message ... > On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote: > Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the > NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance > Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know > if I've got a link. I don't believe this is the position of the NHTSA: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...gredriver.html The position of the NHTSA is the speed limits should be set as high as is "safe". > > Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower > traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options > open to them. But if you are speeding you will also have less time to react, and when you crash, you will have more energy going into your car/vehicle, or somebody else's car/vehicle. Some vehicles, like trucks or SUV's, will lose grip at higher speeds and manouvering. > > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will > > involve twice as much energy. > > Now you're really sounding like Carl... So what, maybe Carl is right? Who is this Carl? > > Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first > place, by driving as safely as I know how. Ah, wishful thinking. Overconfidence tends to go hand-in-hand with aggressive driving and not a defensive attitude. They used to show those kids in Driver's Ed those gruesome movies for a reason. You might have mad skillz behind the wheel of a car... but show them off in the appropriate venue- a racetrack or rally . Not on an open public road. Rally drivers survive some frightening collisions. But not everybody on the road has 5 point restraints and thick helmets. You might get unlucky one of these days and plow into something. > If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your > thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential > energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang > through speed alone. Semi-trucks are of course (potentially) dangerous. That's why you have to watch out around them and give them some space. > > You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to > exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at > the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that > is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed > limit. How is going 45 mph is a 35mph zone NOT "too fast for conditions"? Or 55 in a 45mph zone? I just don't get it... how are you saving that much time? What is worse are people who SPEED THROUGH RED LIGHTS. When you are speeding, of course you have less time to react, so you are more likely to zip through a red light. It's no wonder intersections are one of the most dangerous places on the road in the US. Too many people think driving fast is their birthright. They don't like hour long commutes to work, maybe they should stop living in the farthest suburbs and exurbia? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > >True, most busses are poorly funded, but there IS a solution to that. > > Like taking money from drivers to pay for them? How about just raising the > fare. No mass transit system is unsubsidized. Even the roads cars drive on survive by some government subsidy. Having said that, alot of bus systems do pay most of their own costs. But those kinds of systems, IMO, are usually the worst. That's the kind of bus service we have here in Orlando, but it's better than nothing I suppose. > 4 miles an hour is a pretty brisk walk, most people walk slower. > Personally, I don't like to walk 15 minutes in rain, sleet, snow, ice, > or 90+ degree heat. Heat in the summer is pretty bad, but I bring a canteen and a pith helmet (you can soak them in water, being cork, and it evaporates on your head). Personally, I would rather drive a car in that kind of heat. They need more "park and rides". > Unfortunately, waiting for the bus will bring that blood pressure right > back up. Have a meditative mind, learn to take things in stride. Zen Buddhists called a mind that constantly craves stimulation, that is unsettled, a "monkey mind". In this pushbuton society of instant gratification, people need to step away from the gadgetry and constant soundbites on TV and work and phonecalls and just spend a few minutes not doing much of anything. Oh, and you can also listen to music while you wait ,that's why they have tape and MP3 players. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > >True, most busses are poorly funded, but there IS a solution to that. > > Like taking money from drivers to pay for them? How about just raising the > fare. No mass transit system is unsubsidized. Even the roads cars drive on survive by some government subsidy. Having said that, alot of bus systems do pay most of their own costs. But those kinds of systems, IMO, are usually the worst. That's the kind of bus service we have here in Orlando, but it's better than nothing I suppose. > 4 miles an hour is a pretty brisk walk, most people walk slower. > Personally, I don't like to walk 15 minutes in rain, sleet, snow, ice, > or 90+ degree heat. Heat in the summer is pretty bad, but I bring a canteen and a pith helmet (you can soak them in water, being cork, and it evaporates on your head). Personally, I would rather drive a car in that kind of heat. They need more "park and rides". > Unfortunately, waiting for the bus will bring that blood pressure right > back up. Have a meditative mind, learn to take things in stride. Zen Buddhists called a mind that constantly craves stimulation, that is unsettled, a "monkey mind". In this pushbuton society of instant gratification, people need to step away from the gadgetry and constant soundbites on TV and work and phonecalls and just spend a few minutes not doing much of anything. Oh, and you can also listen to music while you wait ,that's why they have tape and MP3 players. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > Perhaps the locals are smart enough to know that trying to enforce the > limit on the throroughfare would result in more traffic diverted to > the neighborhoods. But the neighborhood is a dead end. You can't drive through it. > > >Automatic speed traps with cameras, like they have in Europe, would be far > >more effective, IMO. > > Only if the object is collecting revenue and not changing behavior. Threat of punishment always changes behavior to some extent. Cameras are good because they are automatic and less visible. Big Brother kind of stuff, put to some good. > 20/40 is no problem at all, except for reading local street signs; > cars and other road objects are big. Nystagmus, though, means any cop will > consider you to be a drunk driver based on the "look at the pen" > test. It's not as simple as 20/40 vision. My optometrist explained it best- I can legally drive, but wheather I should drive is more an ethical/philosophical question he can't answer (he also recommended I see a vision training specialist for evaluation): I also have strabismus (I can see out of one eye alternatively, the other eye kind of partially "shuts off" by the brain and looks sideways... in fact it takes a little effort to see with both eyes, but I am working on that). I have a v-syndrome which means the muscles that cause the eyes to converge is weak/atrophied and the eyes want to drift apart, especially when looking upward or level moreso than downward. I also have manifest latent nystagmus, which means the nystagmus gets worse when seeing with one eye. The eye doc gave me some new glasses that help somewhat (base-in prisms), to help see with both eyes together, and he recommended I see a vision trainer or try using 3D glasses with computer/videogames, gradually increasing the height of the monitor. When I drive I tilt the seat back a little and hold my head up some. The nystagmus causes things to the side (about 30 degrees or so) to lack definition- I can see them and know they are there, but I really cannot focus my eye on them for more than a brief second before they move away. I might see a word and know it is a word, but I couldn't actually read it. So my head and neck do alot more work to follow things. My brain has adapted to this over about 28 years or so, and the brain has ways of compensating for movement, so I don't see things as moving, even though my eyes will start moving back and forth quickly if I had the "pen test". I might get a fish eye rearview mirror, because when I turn my head around when backing up or changing lanes, I really don't see all that great (I have my mirrors set to try and minimize blind spots). The drunk driving thing does bug me, though. I hope I never get in a situation where I have to get pulled over. I actually don't drink, so I'm not too worried about failing a breathalyzer, but just the general idea of being harassed puts me a bit off ease. If an optician can give me crap about it (congenital nystagmus is very rare), of all people, what would a cop do? > You've been driving for years yet your mom is giving you driving > lessons? If you're going to use personal testimonial to back up your > argument, try and keep it consistent. Or, if this IS actually the > case, keep it less pathetic. No, I have had a learner's permit for years- I got it in a state with fairly lax requirements (Oklahoma). I've lacked the confidence to drive. My vision used to be about 20/70, too, and my strabismus was much worse. I went to alot of optometrists, many self-described "low vision specialists" who basicly said I had the "best vision I could get", despite the fact I was slowly becomming legally blind, and finally I found one about two years ago that was actually willing to do something to help. And he works in a Pearlvision, of all places. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|