Scott en Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving:

Here's another one. This woman is STOPPED when the SUV T-bones her
car:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6071017590482456455

Gosh, so even 0 MPH is "speeding" in Carl's World. :)

Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

Neither carl no anyone else has ever said that.  But being a slow
driver does increase your chances of avoiding a crash when the
unexpected happens.  That's obvious to everyone but you..

Scott en Aztlán wrote on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:57 pm:

You'll not find a single instance where I've stated that ONLY
speeders get in crashes. That's a strawman that I never created.
The real issue is general crash AVOIDANCE and SEVERITY when
avoidance is not an option. It's all about risk and energy
levels. Speeders have a HARDER TIME time stopping and steering
in emergencies because they're at the mercy of greater momentum.

Blindfold yourself and you'll prefer to walk around a house
rather than run. Why? Because unexpected walls and coffee tables
will obviously be more dangerous if you're running. Drivers are
literally blind to unexpected hazards, else they wouldn't be
unexpected! The second you start to trip on a coffee table is
like the second a driver sees an unavoidable truck in front of
them. The only thing left to do is minimize the impact. THAT is
why speed and momentum matter so much.

Quote: "It was almost like a bullet coming out of nowhere. And
it's very fortunate that no one was killed and the injuries were
limited." [Yep, that's the unexpected for you! That thing that
speediots say will never happen to them when they're doing 85
MPH.]

Had that bus (or any vehicle in those circumstances) been going
FASTER, the DAMAGE would have been MUCH WORSE. Instead of just
being wedged, it could have flipped over the center divide,
etc.. Faster vehicles are harder to brake and maneuver because
they carry more kinetic energy.

It's critical that you compare each vehicle to ITSELF at a lower
speed, not to some wildcard variable. That's why people who
drive moderately put themselves and others at less general risk
than speediots. It's not an opinion, it's a physics equation
waiting for a trigger event.

You've somehow twisted that simple concept into "only speeders
crash," which has never been the claim. Speeders are just MORE
LIKELY to crash when all other factors are equal.

I will repeat once more that a higher speed makes your car
harder to brake or steer when something UNEXPECTED (like that
semi-truck) interrupts its path. The problem is your narrow
interpretation of anything you consider a repression of
speeders' so-called rights on public roads. Speed limits were
invented because some people will always think more selfishly
than critically.

There is nothing "manufactured" about the UNexpected. It can be
a runaway truck, a running deer, debris blown by wind, a drunk
driver, a police chase or any number of things. And when it does
happen, a faster vehicle is HARDER TO CONTROL because MORE
ENERGY must be controlled. To say otherwise is to defy physics.

The irony of that Aussie video is that it shows a truck crossing
a highway, just like your real life news video! What more
evidence could you need to show that speed is a liability in no-
win situations? If a mere 5 kph (3.1 mph) speed difference can
mean the difference between smashing something or tapping it, an
extra 10 or 20 mph would absolutely seal the driver's fate.

RISK means the LIKELIHOOD of something happening based on
physics and historic factors. It's not an absolute; it's a
likelihood. That's the only way they can fairly set insurance
rates. Speeders kill themselves more often when it's all tallied
up. If you were able to understand that I wouldn't be here
explaining it for the 500th time.

C.T.

http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/

Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

That's exactly the point, Scott.  None is needed.  No one here except
Judy's sock puppets is unaware of this.  You're only dignifying his BS
by acknowledging it.  In fact, he probably pounds off in his basement
every night as he reads your messages *about him*.  So the only thing
left to do is purge the group once again by constantly noting that,
among all of us, Carl is the only one with a DEAD WIFE.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)

Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

That's some real impressive "proof" you conjured up there, Sparky.

What a fuckin' maroon...
-----

- gpsman