🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 08:32:07 -0400, DPH <rally2xs@pop.site1.csi.com> wrote:
>E. Faubion wrote:
>
>> DPH <rally2xs@pop.site1.csi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sure - and if you _did_ nail everybody at 78 in a 70, you'd be busy writing along the side
>> >of the road when the guy you're _really_ looking for whizzes past at +30,
>>
>> There's always the chance something bigger will come along.... then
>> again there's they won't.   Either way that has no bearing on the
>> citation being written.
>
>Right.  The citation being written is still a good citation.  However, as an overall strategy,
>this will make the road "safer" (in terms of not getting a ticket) for the guy in the car at
>+30.  I assume that is not the situation you want to promote! <G>
>
>> >down the road that A) you gotta do 130+ mph to catch him
>>
>> Nope.  I have a radio.  This is not a one horse town.
>
>Yeah, that usually works.
>
>> >We actually had some politicians whine about the loss in revenue if Indiana's Interstates
>> >were put up to 65 mph when that was under consideration.  I'm not so sure that it is false
>> >at all...
>>
>> What percentage of Indiana state revenue is generated through traffic
>> fines?  I'll bet you'll find it to be quite tiny.
>
>Whatever it is, those particular politicos didn't seem to want to lose it.
>
>> >I think I am safer at limit plius 8, because that way most people are not catching me from
>> >behind.
>>
>> Then you've done your research and know how much extra distance it'll
>> take you to stop from 78 mph versus 70 mph as per the example you've
>> been using.  Since you consider this a safer speed I'm curious how you
>> offset that extra distance.
>
>I'm talking about interstate driving here.  Stopping?  For what?  OK, maybe idiots standing in
>the right lanes of interstates at night waving their shirts.  But otherwise, I don't recall a
>situation where I've had a sudden reason to stop on an interstate for years.  The reasons to
>stop on interstates are backed up traffic, and due to the design of interstates, visibility is
>generally _waaaaaaaaaayyyyy_ better than is necessary for even ordinary cars to stop.  Once we
>get past ordinary cars, we can talk about my Mitsubishi Eclipse with the 4 wheel disk brakes
>and the $700 a set, 25,000 mile grippy Goodrich Comp ZR's.


I've had a number of panic stops or maneuvers, myself.  One that got me pissed
at truckers:  Cruisin' up 15 to Vegas, an easy 78 on a Thursday night (being
passed at 100+ by the usual gang of idiots.).  All of a sudden, come upon
a trailer that had self destructed.  OK, no problem the Vette can stop way
faster than necessary.  As I'm picking my way through the mess, I glance in the 
mirror to see some big rig coming in full blast, apparently not even trying to 
stop (as if he couldn't see my 5 brakelights from miles away).  My only
hope was dear lady of accelleration.  She didn't fail me, but I gritted my 
teeth each time I ran over something.

>> >I know I can avoid driving into things in front of me,
>>
>> Lots of people who thought the same thing found out otherwise.
>
>35 years, Earl.  Its been true for 35 years of my driving experience.
>
>> >but I don't trust
>> >everybody catching me from behind to not drive into me.
>>

I actually got out of a ticket once when I made an abrupt lane change, and
explained to the cop I knew there was a VW van behind me that couldn't
possibly stop as fast as me.

>> I hate to say this but if you're that paranoid about driving I suggest
>> you find an alternate method of transportation.

It may be informative that the above cops reaction was a surprise to me.
Very rarely have I ever met a cop in the LA area who actually listened.
Other areas seem to be different.  My attitudes and driving are pretty much
consistent.

>
>1) There is no alternative and... 2) You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you!!!
>Seriously, you have to assume that the other guy is going to make a mistake.  I think that's
>part of defensive driving.  That mistake may be criminal in nature, such as drinking and
>driving, or it may be simply failing at the safe driving task.  I don't want either of them
>running into me from behind.  If I'm +8, I have a longer time to notice them coming at +15 or
>+20 than I would if I were +0.
>
>> >You have a very high threshold for safe.  The first time you pull the trigger, you have a
>> >1 in 6 chance of dying.
>>
>> I also wrote that I can run a stop sign or signal light safely.  If
>> it's okay for you to speed safely then why is it not okay for someone
>> else to do those things?
>
>_I_ don't run _any_ stop signs deliberately, EVER.  Two reasons - 1) There may be something
>about the intersection that I don't know, like a hidden approach to it,and 2) If one starts
>doing that, it gets to be a _habit_.  That would be a very, very dangerous habit that I
>personally don't want.

Funny, the only stop sign I've run is the one I described in the other post.  It
doesn't have to be a habit.

>
>> >The second time you have 1 - (5/6) squared chance.  The next time
>> >is 1 - (5/6) cubed.  etc.  That's if the cylinder is spun each time.  Those are way too
>> >poor odds for me to consider something safe.
>>
>> Since you seem to be into the math may I suggest you do the numbers as
>> suggested above on the stopping distances.  Be sure you also take into
>> account the distance traveled during the time it takes you to perceive
>> and react.  A good starting point for that is 1.6 seconds based on
>> some serious research into the topic.  If you don't know how to go
>> about doing this *and* if you're real nice I'll tell you where you can
>> pick up a free program that will do this for you.
>
>I know how to do it, I just don't believe I have to.  Why?  Because I'm not concerned with
>stopping distances on Interstates, as noted above.
>
>> >>  Stop signs and signal lights can be run safely.
>>
>> >Not by me.
>>
>> No one is coming on the cross street and you can't run the stop sign
>> or signal light safely?... but you *can* speed safely?  That's a
>> contradiction.
>
>No its not.  See explanation above.

Earl is seeing things in black and white.  A programmerish error, not one
a policeman ought to be making.  But it must reflect his training - make
snap judgements in life and death situations, so assume black and white.

>
>> >There's a point where it is soooooo dang easy that it's sooooo dang boring that one loses
>> >focus on what one is doing, thereby making it _less_ safe.
>>
>> That's about the worst excuse I've ever heard.   A reasonable driver
>> will get off the road and take a break when fatigue or boredom sets
>> in.  Why don't you?
>
>Earl, I went to sleep on a simple 2-way radio service call back when the 55 was first
>introduced, after a good night's sleep and only about 15 miles out from my starting point while
>attempting to do exactly 55 mph.  It was just too boring.  I decided that it just wasn't
>adviseable for me to attempt it, so I got a lot of tickets during the 55 mph NMSL nonsense.
>

Earl juggles his radio and computer and rifle and donut and coffee while 
cruisin' over the speed limit so he can catch criminals.  Policemen never have 
problems staying awake while ignoring basic physiological truths about sleep 
deprivation.  Four ten hour days followed by a graveyard shift?  Sure, 
why not!


>> >They don't know me.  I've had those that _ride_ with me tell me that they believe I'm the
>> >safest driver they know.
>>
>> Don't listen to them.  They obviously have no idea what they are
>> talking about.
>
>35 years.  No major accidents.  I think they have great perception, myself! <GGG>
>

Jeez, I remember my mom saying that.  She wouldn't admit she had blazed the
red light.  Fortunately, I drive like my dad - leadfoot, but aware.


>DPH
>

-- 
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!