🚀 go-pugleaf

eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:

>>It's a ratio of gravity, hence the g.  

>A ratio involves two entities --

The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test) versus gravity
which is 32.2 fps squared.   Sorry, I forgot wasn't dealing with
someone who is familiar with this stuff.

>>The acceleration of
>>gravity is measured in (metric) units of meters/(second**2).

>Or feet per second.... and it is expressed as a ratio as mentioned
>above.

>Completely wrong. 

Okay, I'll write it out again, the whole thing this time so you don't
misunderstand:

The acceleration of gravity is measured in (imperial) units of
feet/(second**2). 

Is that better?   All I did was substitute the meters/second with
feet/second.  The squared remains untouched as indicated by the little
periods following my statement. 

>Why - you think the data doesn't exist?  I'm sure it's part of some big federal
>study, but I haven't come across it yet.

Until I find it elsewhere I will remain skeptical of anything put
forth by the NMA.  One need only browse their site to see the kind of
clientele they court.   

>Wisconsin: secondary enforcement
>4-15 yrs. in front seat, 4-15 yrs. in rear seat with shoulder belt
>$10 fine

Ours used to be that puny.  Now it's a primary violation although the
fine is still very low.  Compliance has increased as a result and the
death rate immediatly started dropping.  No mystery there.

>You cite seat belt laws as the *cause* of lowered traffic fatalities in OK, but
>where's the hard statistical evidence of this?

It's common sense unless you think seatbelt usage kills.

>>What this whole thing is about is you want to drive as fast as you want without
>>risk of getting a ticket. 

>No, I want to drive at a fast, safe, and reasonable speed (which is entirely
>possible) without being unreasonably penalized for doing so.

Same thing.



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