Speediotis Terminalis (more video evidence you'll ignore)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Borked Pseudo Mailed - 11 Dec 2006 01:26 GMT

Here is more video evidence for the dangers of speeding and the
many denials thereof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRx5sBCE3HI
Joke video claiming 50 MPH is "safer" than 30 MPH since the guy
happened to walk _behind_ the 50 MPH car. Obviously he could
have just as easily walked behind the 30 MPH car. The word
"moot" was invented for that reason, but the very same argument
has been used in r.a.d.!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxij8gTpm7o
Speediot fog crash experiment. People are constantly told to
slow down but refuse to understand why. That's why keep dying
and killing intelligent drivers who can't escape their risk-
ignorance. Speeders must crave death on some level (see D.H.
quotes below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbDwoj2cx1I
Chain reaction crash with similar results to the above, but the
speediots here don't even have a fog excuse. The significance of
this video will be ignored again. The brains of pathological
liars can't process any threat to their egos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4
This video shows how even a 5 KPH (3.1 MPH) difference can mean
life or death when you cannot avoid the unexpected. This was
posted earlier and was met with standard excuses or just
ignored. It will be ignored again this time for the same reasons
above. One can only try.

http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/work_zone_speeder.avi
This shows a speediot tailgating in a mountain work zone.
Horizontal distance compression detracts from the feel of speed
and the danger of the merging truck. This pushy f.cker came upon
the scene in the high 80s, and was annoyed that anyone would
impede his mission. A classic case of the speeding/tailgating
relationship for you who pretend it doesn't exist.

What's really disturbing is that even when you get a speediot to
admit what they are, they still say you've provided "no
evidence" for the risks of speeding. Show them a thousand
studies, a thousand news articles and a thousand videos and they
won't budge from their safety-second, speed-first agenda.

Below are two quotes that illustrate the speediot attitude to a
letter. Note the baffling claim that the unexpected is a
"vanishingly small" occurrence. Yessir, there's no such thing as
animal collisions, patchy dense fog, black ice, road debris,
blind corners, blind hills, blown tires, mechanical breakdowns,
children playing, falling rocks, hard-to-see motorcycles, police
chases, other speediots zooming out of nowhere, etc..

"The incidents in which there are no other options are so
vanishingly small that they aren't worth altering one's behavior
to try to avoid. If your number's up, you're number's up." (D.
Head, 12-07-06)

"Screw it - I'd rather get there in less time for my entire
life, even it I might have bad luck and my life is shorter.
Driving is dangerous. Period." (D. Head, 12-07-06)

Finally, here's a biographical link for Mr. Thick Head and
everyone else who lied on the safety exam or stole their
driver's license:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY67cYJDc9s

F.W.

Reply to this Message

Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 11 Dec 2006 01:40 GMT

Someone wrote:

>Here is more video evidence for the dangers of speeding and the
>many denials thereof.

Aw look, the retard posted again.

Hey genius, do me a favor, if you're not too mentally challenged for
the task.

Grab a thesaurus. Look up the entry for "legal." Do you see "safe" as
a synonym? Nope? Ok, let's try looking at the entry for "safe." Do you
see "legal" as a synonym?

Gee, I wonder why that could be.....

Oh Mr. f.ck Wit, could you peleazue 'splain to me how 'dat could be?

Reply to this Message

necromancer - 11 Dec 2006 01:52 GMT

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Borked Pseudo
Mailed said in rec.autos.driving:

> Here is more video evidence for the dangers of speeding and the
> many denials thereof.

I see that the f.ck Wit is at it again. Go jump off a bridge, carl!

BTW, I thought you said you were leaving the group for good, hypocrite??

Signature

Carl Troller melts down in another victory for sensible driving over
the rabid "slow = safe," nanny-nazis:

"I didn't realize this was some teenage head-butting contest. You just
made me sick enough to leave for good."
--"Brad," (a.k.a. Carl Troller)

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ylf955
Message ID: 1165563989.317954.88270@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Reply to this Message

Garth Almgren - 11 Dec 2006 03:14 GMT

> Here is more video evidence for the dangers of speeding and the
> many denials thereof.

This oughta be good. Where's my popcorn?

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRx5sBCE3HI
> Joke video claiming 50 MPH is "safer" than 30 MPH since the guy
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "moot" was invented for that reason, but the very same argument
> has been used in r.a.d.!

That whooshing sound you hear? That was the point of that video going
right over your head.

How is that video any worse than a "joke" animation that claims a car
will not hit an idiot who pulls out without looking just because it's
going slower?
http://carltaylor.is.dreaming.org/speedcrash.gif

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxij8gTpm7o

Hmm. I notice the narrator says that they're testing to see what happens
when people "drive too fast for conditions" (which, in fog with >10M
visibility, would be astonishingly close to ZERO). No argument here.

In fact, he's parroting what we've been trying to tell you for years,
carl, over and over and over again: that one should always drive at a
speed appropriate for conditions.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbDwoj2cx1I

Idiots focusing on the road 20 feet in front of them, instead of looking
to the horizon. This video has been discussed to death here in RAD.
Moving on.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4
> This video shows how even a 5 KPH (3.1 MPH) difference can mean
> life or death when you cannot avoid the unexpected.

How the hell do you not see a bright white semi pulling straight across
your path???

More to the point, how often are you going to have semis pulling out
perpendicular to a roadway where vehicle speeds are 60+? Only place I
can think of would be in a rural highway, and if there exist sight lines
for 60, you're sure as hell to see a semi pulling out in time to avoid it.

> This was
> posted earlier and was met with standard excuses or just ignored.

For at least two good reasons. A) It's "speed kills" drivel, and B)
people often ignore pathetic logic-challenged trolls who have sunken to
using anonymizers to avoid being killfiled.

> It will be ignored again this time for the same reasons above.

As well it should be.

> One can only try.

And one (you) can only fail. Time and again.

Give it up, carl; you've never won a single point, and you've been
trying the same tactics for years. "Stay the course" didn't work in
Iraq, and it sure as hell won't work for you.

> http://carltaylor.is.dreaming.org/work_zone_speeder.avi
>
> This shows a speediot tailgating in a mountain work zone.

How refreshingly honest for a change, carl.

I'd like to add, this video also shows an idiot driving through his
viewfinder, LLBing, and cutting off a big-a.s truck. If I were the car
in front, I'd want to get the hell away from the dangerous a.shole with
a camera ASAP, too.

> What's really disturbing is that even when you get a speediot to
> admit what they are,

<chortle> Good luck with that.

> they still say you've provided "no evidence" for the risks of speeding.

And they'd be right. None of what you've posted shows any any risk that
is solely the domain of speed. All of the so-called evidence you've ever
presented is actually evidence of stupidity or ineptitude, not "the
risks of speeding."

> "The incidents in which there are no other options are so
> vanishingly small that they aren't worth altering one's behavior
> to try to avoid. If your number's up, you're number's up." (D.
> Head, 12-07-06)

I'll have to save that one; surprisingly wise words from Dave. :)

> "Screw it - I'd rather get there in less time for my entire
> life, even it I might have bad luck and my life is shorter.
> Driving is dangerous. Period." (D. Head, 12-07-06)

His opinion, and he's welcome to it. America, land of the free, and all
that.

> Finally, here's a biographical link for Mr. Thick Head and
> everyone else who lied on the safety exam or stole their
> driver's license:

carl, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. After all, it's probably not
your fault you killed your wife... Er, yeah. Never mind.

Signature

~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Ventis secundis, tene cursum.)

Reply to this Message

Brent P - 11 Dec 2006 03:35 GMT

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4
>> This video shows how even a 5 KPH (3.1 MPH) difference can mean
>> life or death when you cannot avoid the unexpected.

> How the hell do you not see a bright white semi pulling straight across
> your path???
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> can think of would be in a rural highway, and if there exist sight lines
> for 60, you're sure as hell to see a semi pulling out in time to avoid it.

This is the most skewed thing I've seen in ages. Notice how they have the
faster car impact the tail edge frame of the truck into the soft parts of
the car up high. Strong part of the truck, weak part of the car and fully
bi-passing all of the car's crash protection and structure (except the
A-pillar). The slow car hits the truck in the center into anti-underride
device, nice and square the full width of the bumper. (had it been in
the US, this car would have gone under the truck's cargo area and had
the windshield and roof caved in by the frame of the truck. Even at 5kph
the driver could have been seriously hurt.) The 'slow' car has full
benefit of it's structure and crash protection. Then we are supposed to
pretend the difference in damage is all because of 'speed'.

This professor clearly has a strong bias, that is if he is a professor at
all. The uneducated sheeple might swallow the dramatic difference in
damage, but here in r.a.d, we know a little more and notice such things.

Should really do somehing similiar, but give one car upgraded brakes.
After all, imagine if the slower car had lesser brakes... it could have
been going the same speed as the faster one at impact.

Reply to this Message