🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 17:57:41 GMT, in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:

>>The coefficient of friction is a ratio and has no units.
>
>It's a ratio of gravity, hence the g.  

A ratio involves two entities -- you can't have a "ratio of gravity" -- that's
like having one hand clapping.  A ratio of "gravity" and what??  Also, gravity
is a force, and the acceleration resulting from this force is measured in
meters/(s**2), so to end up with a unitless coefficient of friction, it is
necessary for the other entity you're measuring to have the same units.

>>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.  Forces are not measured in feet/sec, and acceleration cannot
be expressed in feet per second -- that's a measure of velocity.  Come on, this
is basic high-school physics!

>>I thought you did this for a living?  Care to explain?
>
>I do and I just did.  Pick up any accident investigation book for
>verification if you'd like.

If accident investigion books use this kind of flawed physics/math, then there
are a lot of innocent people behind bars.  How about you pick up the books
yourself - you probably are just mis-remembering the details.  

>Oh, I see.  The drunk did it.  Not the speed.  Never mind that the drunk was speeding.   His excuse is he was drunk.  What's yours?

Yes, exactly, the drunk did it.  He (allegedly) drove in an unsafe manner as a
result of his impairment.  The *cause* of the accident was the impairment, not
the speed, just like the *cause* of forest fires is people, not matches.

>Of course not.   Keep your head in the sand, maybe the whole thing
>will go away.

Ha, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  You screw up basic physics,
and refuse to pay any attention to what traffic experts and statistics say,
then you accuse others of misrepresenting reality.  

>
>>So why is this of any interest when considering stopping distances?
>>Minimum stopping distances are achieved when tires are *not* locked up. 
>>I can see how
>>your calculations are usefel when reconstructing accidents that involve
>>sliding, but not when calculating stopping distances of automobiles that are
>>not sliding.
>
>Why not?  If they can be calculated for one vehicle they can be
>calculated for another.  There's also more than one way to skin a cat.
>Speed determination in accident investigation has many faces.  Speed
>from deceleration distance or skids is only one of many methods that
>are in use.

Who's talking about "speed determination?"  You're off on a tangent now.  We
were talking about how fast cars can decelerate here, and whether this was a
variable significantly affected by the type of car and quality of tires.

>Ah-ha!  The good ol' NMA,  a for-profit organization

As if *you* are not for-profit.  You make a living from your pursuit of your
"anti-speed" goals.  This makes you every bit as much of a suspect as the NMA
(which mostly seems to be reporting a lot of independent and government studies
on its web page), when it comes to providing accurate information.

>>I searched for Wisconsin - specific accident stats, but was unable to find any.
>I'm not surprised. 

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.

>Surely you aren't so naive as to believe they are down *because* of
>the speed limit.  They went up here when the speed limit went up and
>started coming down only when the seat belt law got some teeth in it.

I think it's entirely possible that they're down *because* of the speed limit.
I don't know about OK, but the data I have on seatbelt laws in WI is this:

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

Primary Enforcement - No other reason is needed to stop you. 
Secondary Enforcement - You must violate another traffic law before you can be
cited for a violation of a law with "secondary enforcement" status. 
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

This doesn't sound like "teeth" to me. 

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

>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.

>We have an abundance of 70 and 75 mph zones in my state and you can bet most of the drivers who ignore
>those limits are the same ones who bitched about the NMSL.  Where does
>it all end? 

It ends when speed limits are increased to the point where all the sane and
reasonable people out there now who are exceeding the speed limit (and this is
a vast majority accoring to all the compliance statistics I've seen) are no
longer doing so illegally.  The laws need to be changed to accomodate the way
people wish to, and DO, drive.

Eric