🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

> DPH <rally2xs@pop.site1.csi.com> wrote:
>

> >100 mph is 146 ft per second.  At your 1.6 seconds reaction time you want to use for braking, that would be 234 ft.  You can see a license plate that far away?
>
> It's moving.  How about if I look at the tag as the vehicle passes by
> rather than waiting until it is on down the road?  Is that okay with
> you?

Well, if you're that quick to realize that there's a problem and turn around and look in less that that 1.6 second reaction time then fine.  Maybe I can brake in less that 1.6 seconds, too.

> >1) Most interstates I know about prohibit pedestrians
>
> So?  They also prohibit speeding.

So it makes the chances of encountering a pedestrian extremely rare, and one that is in the roadway even rarer.

> >We're (I'm) talking what's (relatively) safe, not necessarily what's legal.
>
> Good.  Now that that's settled the rest is a moot point.

Yes.  I'm discussing relative risk and you seem to be gravitating to what is legal.

> >> All this is fine and dandy except it computes to a c.o.f. of almost 1g
> >> which is equal to gravity.
>
> >I was concentrating on the more significant variable, one that involves the square of speed.
>
> Perception and reaction time is a critical variable.

It was 40% of the figure for increased distance of the vehicle's performance.  OK, that's significant.  Could be critical if you're sliding toward a cliff.  <G>


> >> I see.  You speed because a speeder might run you down?  Bwahahahaha!
> >> You should be a comedian!
>
> >Ah, you abandon the debate and fall back on ridicule.  You lost that one, Earl.
>
> I invite you to use that excuse in a court sometime.  Most judges
> appreciate good humor.

Once again - I'm discussing relative safety, and you're trying to discuss what is legal.  As a mater of relative safety, I reduce my risk of being run down from behind by going a bit faster.  It
works.  The math says so.  What the judge says about it is irrealvent to my getting hit from behind.  In fact, the judge can say whatever he wants to as long as I'm _alive_ in court to hear it,
rather than being flattened by some 90 mph 18 wheeler that went to sleep and which I didn't see coming because I didn't have as much time because I was being "safe" and "doing the limit".

> >> Thirty-five years driving experience huh?   How come it doesn't show?
>
> >Avoided the issue again, I see.
>
> Nope.  I zeroed straight in on it. I'm not trying to piss you off but
> you've got to realize the excuses you're coming up with are more in
> line with what we'd expect to hear from someone with a year or less
> experience on the road.

I am totally unconcerned with anyone interpreting my reasoning as "excuses".  I'm just saying what works for me, and why.  My results prove that it works.  That's all I need.

> >Still waiting to hear what sort of obstruction too big to drive around on the really wide aprons >of Interstates can magically appear within the stopping distance of me and my vehicle without it
> >ever having been seen on a clear day.
>
> That's easy.  The ones you don't see.

Examples, Earl, examples.  You're not answering the question because you can't think of any either.  Meteor from the sky, 200 feet wide and dead center on the median is the best I can do.  But it
could come down within my stopping distance if I'm doing the limit, or the limit - 20, or on top of me if I'm stopped.  Nothing I can really do to alter my chances with something like that.  Still no
logical reason to slow to SL and increase my chance of getting hit from behind.

> >Not talking about rules - talking about what's safe.  I've always said it would be a
> >good ticket at SL+8, just unfair.
>
> Fair isn't the issue.  Legality is.  I'm glad you see it this way so
> unless you've got something truly new to offer there's nothing further
> to discuss.

Gosh, that's about what I was getting ready to bring up.  This discussion has run its course, and you can't refute my approach to safety with logic, and wish to retreat to what is legal.  There's no
point in talking about that because I know its illegal - knew that when we started.

> This is the 3rd relatively long reply I've typed on this subject in
> the last hour or so. I haven't the time to continue this but what I do
> plan on doing is creating a web page summarizing some of the questions
> and answers that have been brought up here.  Look for it on my web
> page in a week or so.   There'll be a link to it from the main page.

Well, its been fun.  And no, you didn't piss me off.  Have a nice day.

                                    DPH