🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 22:16:13 GMT, E. Faubion <in@the.sig> wrote:
>danthman@umich.edu (Daniel I. Manes) wrote:
>
>>Well, the stopping distances of my car (not including reaction time) are...
>
>>70-0: 180 ft
>>80-0: 218 ft
>
>At least you're trying which is more than some are willing to do but I
>will dispute the figures a bit.  The 180 feet figure computes to a
>coefficient of fricion of .91 which is not impossible but rarely
>encountered on public highways.  The 80 mph figure gives a  c.o.f. of
>.98 which is even less likely under normal conditions.  In either
>event for the above comparison to be valid the same c.o.f. should be
>used be used.
>
>On the average dry roadway the c.o.f. will run around a .70 to a .80.
>Using an average of .75 your slide to stop distances come out a bit
>higher, namely 218 and 285 feet respectively, a difference of 67 feet.
>
>>Distance = rate * time
>>Distance = (70 mph)(1.6 secs)(5280 ft/mile)(1 hour/3600 seconds) = 164 ft
>>Distance = (80 mph)(1.6 secs)(5280 ft/mile)(1 hour/3600 seconds) = 188 ft
>
>Correct.  The difference here is 24 feet so added to the 67 above we
>have 93 feet.   Using a computer program that used more precise
>figures throughout the whole calculation it this same problem came out
>at 90 feet.
>
>>According to the 1998 California DMV Driver Handbook, the average
>>passenger vehicle takes 225 feet to stop from 55 MPH (not including
>>reaction time).  So, I'm "offsetting the extra distance" by virtue of the
>>fact that I can outbrake most cars on the road by hundreds of feet.
>
>That computes to a c.o.f. of .45 which is more like what we'd expect
>to find on a wet road.    It sounds like this includes something more
>than just slide to stop distance.  Including the reaction time on a
>dry road the total distance should be around 263 feet.  I'd be
>interested in learning what fvariables they used to arrive at 225 fee
>
>>I think you know what the real truth is about speeding.  Speed is but ONE
>>minor factor in a whole slew of factors that contribute to accidents. 
>
>It's a factor that pops up more than any other.  Calling it minor or
>major, it's there.   

And I bet just about every accident you see has a white driver with brown
hair.  So let's arbitrarily make those characteristics illegal.

>
>>Speeding just happens to be something that is far easier to enforce
>
>Speeding typically lasts for minutes or even hours on end whereas
>violations like stop signs and signal lights and lane changes take
>only a few seconds and they're over.  If the officer isn't right there
>looking at it, it will go undetected unless there is a crash.  That's
>not an excuse, it's just an explanation of why more of the latter
>tickets are written involving crashes than not, especially the lane
>violations which can occur anywhere.
>
>>uphold in court than other factors (tailgating, failing to signal,
>>dangerous lane changes, talking on the phone, left-lane blocking, falling
>>asleep, driving too SLOW for conditions, trying to wipe mustard off your
>>pants, etc.).  And there's no question these tickets raise revenue.
>
>Then don't contribute.  We have a choice.  I got my fair share of
>tickets as a youngster and decided that was enough.

Tell us!  Tell us!  Tell us your vision!  Telavision!

>
>>Need an example?  Car and Driver did this expose recently on a very small
>>Ohio town near Cincinatti (Lindale, I believe)
>
>Which is no more representative of the rest of the country than is
>Minco, Oklahoma which has a very good reputation.   
>
>>So, it's no surprise that cops seriously magnify the importance of speed
>>limits: it's easy money!
>
>It's no surpise those who like to speed use this groundless argument.
>Juries in civil cases consistently make awards against speeders as
>well as other violators' who've caused property damage and injury and
>death.  Could it be they are in on this conspiracy too?
>
>As for myself, I get paid the same whether I write 50 tickets per
>shift or none.   Novel concept is it not?

Pretty novel, yes.  Do any of your traffic enforcement officers try none
consistently?  Wouldn't they get a talking-to if they did?  Truth may
indeed be stranger than fiction.

>
>
>efaubion@oklahoma.net
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!