 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2006For all of the "speeding is safer" advocates out there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4  Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 I already debunked this when Carl posted it. Here it is again: 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. Beyond that, so you're telling me the 80mph that is 'safe' on lonely interstates in TX is dangerous on lonely interstates in IL, despite both interstates being designed and built to the same standards? We both know it's absurd, and the only difference is the revenue hunger of the respective state governments. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > benefit of it's structure and crash protection. Then we are supposed to > pretend the difference in damage is all because of 'speed'. That's quite the "debunking" there, Sparky. Generally, I think when one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, not a diaper-load of poorly formed opinion. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > After all, imagine if the slower car had lesser brakes... it could have > been going the same speed as the faster one at impact. Uh... did you notice both cars were ABS equipped? Do you feel brake improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance from 37.28 and 40.38mph? > Beyond that, so you're telling me the 80mph that is 'safe' on > lonely interstates in TX is dangerous on lonely interstates in IL, > despite both interstates being designed and built to the same standards? Duh, what a maroon. The designs and builds are different, due in no small part to the differences in weather and soil. The run-off areas of IL tend to include trees and lots of small bridges, in TX there's often nothing between the shoulder and the fence, and beyond. > We both know it's absurd, and the only difference is the revenue hunger > of the respective state governments. Your "thinking" is absurd. Probably due to your tendency to believe conspiracy theories to rationalize your feelings of helplessness. If it's not the cops it's the Feds, or the state, or other drivers, or pedestrians, or road construction crews, or other bicycle riders... Poor baby. Everybody picks on you, huh...? Now there's this damn professor trying to assert that the faster you're going, the longer it takes to stop. But you wouldn't sit still for that, you "debunked" his premise. BUHWAHAhahahaha... ----- - gpsman > Do you feel brake > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance > from 37.28 and 40.38mph? Absolutely. Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models are easily 1.5:1 even with ABS. Graham > > Do you feel brake > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models are > easily 1.5:1 even with ABS. Between identical vehicles equipped with ABS...?! A 1.5:1 differential is beyond belief. Surely you have an "absolute" cite of these findings... My a.s is pretty much full of smoke. Have you any data of repute to substitute? ----- - gpsman > > > Do you feel brake > > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My a.s is pretty much full of smoke. Have you any data of repute to > substitute? Do you never watch car shows on TV ? Yes, it is near unbelievable isn't it ? Graham > > > > Do you feel brake > > > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yes, it is near unbelievable isn't it ? That's what I thought. <farts smoke> ----- - gpsman > > > > > Do you feel brake > > > > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That's what I thought. <farts smoke> See the link. Graham Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models are > > > > > easily 1.5:1 even with ABS. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > See the link. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/coast_to_coast_english.pdf That's what I thought. <farts smoke/minor solid> ----- - gpsman > Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models > > > > > > are easily 1.5:1 even with ABS. > > > > > > > > > > Between identical vehicles equipped with ABS...?! Who said anything about identical ? > > > > > A 1.5:1 differential is beyond belief. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's what I thought. <farts smoke/minor solid> BRAKING DISTANCE FROM 90 km/hr and 120 km/hr Honda Integra GS-R 42 74.4 Audi A4 43.5 80.7 BMW Z3 (2.8) 36.9 64.5 Ferrari 550 Maranello 33.6 59.7 Lexus ES300 42 73.8 Lexus LS400 45.3 78 Mazda MX-5 45.6 76.8 Mazda Protege 47.4 86.1 Mercedes C36 36 63 Mercedes SLK230 Kompressor 36 62.7 Nissan Maxima 42 72.9 Nissan 200SX 38.7 68.4 Saab 9000 Aero 36.6 66.3 Subaru Liberty RX 40.8 70.8 Toyota Camry V6 43.5 82.2 Toyota Corolla 55.8 95.7 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 37.8 66.9 http://www.sdt.com.au/STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm Graham > > Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who said anything about identical ? Professor Ian Johnston, and me, you f.cking moron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 Do try to keep up... at least with the OP. ----- - gpsman > > > Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Professor Ian Johnston, and me, you f.cking moron. Irrelevant to my point which is that some cars stop much better than others. Graham Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> > > Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> >> > > > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Irrelevant to my point which is that some cars stop much better than others. Something sure has all the trolls stirred up this week. Carl Troller, GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl's wife scream just prior to the impact. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a > fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? I was thinking that the holidays might be a factor at first (would explain carl troller and gpstroll being out of work), but you would think that jaybird would be pulling double shifts on the interstates raking in the revenue this week..... SignatureD epartment of H ysterical S creaming Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > Something sure has all the trolls stirred up this week. Carl Troller, > GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a > fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? In an ideal world, the trolls would be liars like yourself and the majority would preach common sense, not ego. Your extreme pro-speedimg views are only the majority in this online refuge. While many people try to get away with speeding, they rarely go to r.a.d. lengths to portray it as safe. Take a geek with insecurity issues (or maybe physical handicaps), give him a fast car, and watch his ego lose control. That's all this has ever been about. There is nothing impressive about being able to floor a gas pedal. The engine does all the work but you "BIRG" like a sports fanatic who never touches the ball. Seek out a psychiatrist instead of speediot "driving therapy" and we'll all be safer. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ >>Something sure has all the trolls stirred up this week. Carl Troller, >>GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a >>fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? > > In an ideal world, the trolls would be liars like yourself That's an awful harsh word with no proof to back it up. > and the > majority would preach common sense, not ego. Indeed it would. > Your extreme pro-speedimg > views are only the majority in this online refuge. ...and on the freeways around our country. > While many people > try to get away with speeding, they rarely go to r.a.d. lengths to > portray it as safe. They just assume it is. > Take a geek with insecurity issues (or maybe physical handicaps), give > him a fast car, and watch his ego lose control. That's all this has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Gee, guess what, not only is Carl a shitty driver, he's a shitty psychiatrist too. Big shocker. I already told you you were right, why haven't you gone away yet? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Dec 2006 14:44 GMT Someone wrote: >> Something sure has all the trolls stirred up this week. Carl Troller, >> GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a >> fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? > >In an ideal world, the trolls would be liars like yourself and the >majority would preach common sense, not ego. Your extreme pro-speedimg In an ideal world, the entire driving population would know how to operate their vehicles safely. But we don't live in an ideal world. That you are incapable of understanding basic logic isn't our fault. So tell us, Mr. Road Safety expert, how well your wife is doing these days? Why should us "trolls", who haven't killed anyone with their driving, take the advice of someone like you, when you demonstrate your knowledge of physics is so sorely lacking? >views are only the majority in this online refuge. While many people >try to get away with speeding, they rarely go to r.a.d. lengths to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Say hi to your wife for us, Carl. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > In an ideal world, the trolls would be liars like yourself and the > majority would preach common sense, not ego. Maybe it you tried to read and comprehend what we are saying, you would realize that we do advocate applying common sense in our driving habits (such as driving with the flow of traffic and not with some sign on the side of the road and not engaging in dangerous behavior (like LLB) that disrupts that flow). Signature"Now, if all you can send is a dollar or two There ain't a hell of alot I can promise to you But if you want to see Heavens Door Make out a check for $500 or more!" --Suicidal Tendencies aggressive_driving@yahoo.com said in rec.autos.driving: >> Something sure has all the trolls stirred up this week. Carl Troller, >> GPSTroll, and Trollbird are all festering about like termites on a >> fresh 2x4. I wonder what's gotten them all riled up? > >In an ideal world, the trolls would be liars like yourself What did I lie about? Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl's wife scream just prior to the impact. > > Eeyore wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > > Differences in braking distance between best and worst performing models > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who said anything about identical ? Watch the video and listen to his parameters (surely you heard him the first time?) Any scientific analysis of one factor (like speed) must rule out the others. You think you're clever but you're just changing the subject from same car, same driver to different cars altogether. Totally dishonest. They had to have two cars to compare in the video for obvious reasons. The viewer is assumed to understand that it really means the SAME car at different speeds. OK? > BRAKING DISTANCE FROM 90 km/hr and 120 km/hr > Honda Integra GS-R 42 74.4 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.sdt.com.au/STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm Why must you change the subject to different vehicles? All that shows is that EACH of those cars takes LONGER TO STOP at a higher speed. Post the braking distances at 60 kph and 65 kph and you'll reproduce the Ian Johnston video. Do you not understand the concept at all? "All other factors being equal" means you compare the SAME car to ITSELF with YOU driving it under any speed scenario. Of course nobody can actually drive two cars at once. It's a hypothetical (yet very real) comparison; there's no other way to do it. How many times can you tell someone that it hurts more to be kicked than nudged? In the case of fast-moving cars, that kick can be deadly. Since this probably needs further clarification: If YOU choose a higher speed in the SAME car on the SAME road in the SAME weather (all other factors are EQUAL), your ability to brake and steer will be less at a higher chosen speed if the unexpected occurs. In essence, this means you are driving two virtual cars in the same space, with your chosen speed being the only difference. I don't know how much clearer this can be told. Like clockwork, you'll try to weasel out of that by denying the very existence of the UNEXPECTED. This is why it's such a waste of time for reasonable drivers to debate here. I applaud gpsman and the long-gone Earl Faubion (actual crash investigator). A few others tried briefly but gave up. Aunt Judy is a bit radical to be taken seriously, but at least persistent. This has always been a matter of self-centered, unreasonable people clustering together and faking reality. Anyone who questions the "safe speeding" Bible will get shouted down as a "troll" or "sloth," but the real culprits are those who change the subject to avoid dealing with physics (as Eeyore did above). This really needs to be my last post and I'll be ashamed if I return to this liars' clubhouse. Merry Christmas to the few who deserve it. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ > Watch the video and listen to his parameters (surely you heard him the > first time?) Any scientific analysis of one factor (like speed) must > rule out the others. Like the video with the two cars makes sure that everything about the collision isn't equal to make the faster car worse off. aggressive_driving@yahoo.com said in rec.autos.driving: >Watch the video and listen to his parameters (surely you heard him the >first time?) Any scientific analysis of one factor (like speed) must >rule out the others. The specific cause of the crash in the "professor's" video is a carefully calculated manipulation of the initial conditions so as to make a crash inevitable. Only a fool (or a troll) thinks that this has any relevance to the real world. The same is true of that little smash up derby animated .GIF file on your web site. A simple change to the initial conditions and the Sloth driver on the bottom will be the one who crashes and the Fast & Safe driver on top will emerge unscathed. Is weak stuff like this the most compelling evidence you can come up with to support your ridiculous agenda? SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his daughter catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ > This really needs to be my last post and > I'll be ashamed if I return to this liars' clubhouse. And we'll be annoyed. > Merry Christmas > to the few who deserve it. Merry Christmas to all, even you and Aunt Judy. You could probably use a respite from your miserable pathetic trollish existence. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > > Do you feel brake > > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My a.s is pretty much full of smoke. Have you any data of repute to > substitute? Braking distance from 70 mph (to standstill in dry conditions) Lexus Peugeot 106 Porche Escort Discovery 139 ft (42.4m) 162 ft (49.4m) 170 ft (51.8m) 198 ft (60.4m) 224 ft (68.3m) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/coast_to_coast_english.pdf Graham >> > > Do you feel brake >> > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Graham Subaru WRX => 115 feet. Damn, I love this car. http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_2004_subaru_wrx/ Dave Head >>> > > Do you feel brake >>> > > improvements would make a significant difference in stopping distance [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Dave Head Oh, hell - 70 mph? Never mind. Who uses 70? All the car tests I read are 60 mph. DPH > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, > not a diaper-load of poorly formed opinion. I'd like to know how old these punks are, and whether they were latchkey kids, etc.. I can tell they have psychological problems they try to cure with fast driving. It's the one area where they can feel like a somebody (sad if it weren't so risky). Take that power away from them and they'll lose part of their identity. I always see loser-looking guys climbing out of slicked-up cars and looking around to see if people notice. You just know they're trying to buy an image; like the Harley sh.t-heel crowd. The whole car/ego connection is a huge phenomenon. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Hey Carl, I already told you you were right, you can bugger off now. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Dec 2006 15:41 GMT Someone wrote: >> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ And the interesting thing is that you morons are too stupid to even realize what the others debunking. That your attribution abilities in this regard are so limited just serves as proof that the rest of your assertions are without merit. How's the wife, CT? --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > I'd like to know how old these punks are, and whether they were > latchkey kids, etc.. Spoken like a true punk with a silver spoon in his mouth. > I can tell they have psychological problems they > try to cure with fast driving. And you say that why? Because we voice our disagreement with you with the same arrogance and condescending that you use? Pot-->Kettle---> Black, carl! > It's the one area where they can feel > like a somebody (sad if it weren't so risky). Take that power away from > them and they'll lose part of their identity. Jealous because we have some semblance of an identity? > I always see loser-looking guys climbing out of slicked-up cars > and looking around to see if people notice. You just know they're > trying to buy an image; I've posted pics of what I drive, fuckwit. A 10 year old Ford Taurus - so much for your "slicked up," "trying to buy an image," theory. Since you are probablly too stupid to figure out where my website is, here's the pic of the car. http://www.worldofnecromancer.org/pics/page8.html And before you ask about the accident, I was going ~45MPH to 50MPH (under the posted 55MPH limit) at the time. Had I been going slower the accident may not have happened (won't really know since we don't know why the deer ran toward my car) and had I been going faster the accident may not have happened. I just had the misfortune to have picked the wrong speed (and other timing aspects) that put me and the deer in the same spot at the same time. In otherwords, there is more to driving than speed, although I do realize that your hardwired little brain will not beable to grasp that. Signature"And if I offended you, oh I'm sorry... But maybe you need to be offended But here's my apology and one more thing...f.ck YOU!! Cos you...can't...bring...me...down!" --Suicidal Tendencies > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Carl Troller said in > rec.autos.driving: > >> I always see loser-looking guys climbing out of slicked-up cars >> and looking around to see if people notice. Sounds like *you* sure noticed! Jealous, carl? >> You just know they're >> trying to buy an image; > > I've posted pics of what I drive, fuckwit. A 10 year old Ford Taurus - > so much for your "slicked up," "trying to buy an image," theory. I'm curious if carl would consider either of my current rides "slicked up": This one: http://i16.tinypic.com/2wc2rmw.jpg Or maybe this one: http://i12.tinypic.com/49ksubq.jpg A 24-year-old V6 Mustang, or a 13-year-old four-banger Wrangler. Both of which have <120 HP, and both of which have seen the high side of 70 only a handful of times... Both loads of fun, and clearly both are slicker than frozen snot! :) I've said this many times, a couple directly to Carl: I can most often be found driving in the right lane if I-5 going 3 to 7 MPH *slower* than his own personal "feel good" speed of 70! Using CT logic, since I fall into the category of "slower than carl", I *must* be a good driver, right? Based only on CT's persistent nonsensical ranting despite overwhelming evidence contrary to his opinions, I would have to guess that killing one's wife utterly destroys one's ability to think rationally... Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> That's quite the "debunking" there, Sparky. Generally, I think when >> one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, >> not a diaper-load of poorly formed opinion. It's not 'poorly formed opinion' but common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about automotive design and has at least a second year engineering student's knowledge of solid mechanics. I am not here to teach you basics. > I'd like to know how old these punks are, and whether they were > latchkey kids, etc.. I can tell they have psychological problems they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like the Harley sh.t-heel crowd. The whole car/ego connection is a huge > phenomenon. Can't deal with the fact your little video is a bunch of bunk, where everything wasn't held equal so you try that crap. > >> That's quite the "debunking" there, Sparky. Generally, I think when > >> one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything about automotive design and has at least a second year > engineering student's knowledge of solid mechanics. Common knowledge... that velocity is not related to stopping distance?! WTF did you say you "engineer" again...? > I am not here to > teach you basics. That's good... since you seem to be totally ignorant of them. ----- - gpsman. > > >> That's quite the "debunking" there, Sparky. Generally, I think when > > >> one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's good... since you seem to be totally ignorant of them. What an ironic thing to say - I don't notice any mathematical equations in your commentary either, so I'd say you'd better put up or shut up, blowhard. E.P. "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> > I am not here to >> > teach you basics. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in your commentary either, so I'd say you'd better put up or shut up, >blowhard. I see you've got GPSTroll pegged. :) Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl Troller's wife scream just prior to the impact. Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I see you've got GPSTroll pegged. :) That's why he doesn't argue with me any more. It's easy to snipe, but a lot harder when you have countersniper fire incoming. ;) E.P. Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip> > > > >> That's quite the "debunking" there, Sparky. Generally, I think when > > > >> one sets out to debunk physics they do so with mathematical equations, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > in your commentary either, so I'd say you'd better put up or shut up, > blowhard. I guess your reading comprehension failed to register than I did not attempt to "debunk" the fact that it takes longer to stop at higher velocity, all things remaining equal. Brent must be an imbecile of your variety to postulate he has "debunked" this basic principle of physics. KE = (1/2) x m x v2 where KE = kinetic energy, m = mass and v = velocity. Perhaps you would favor us with -your- debunking equation...? B uh wa ha ha... ----- - gpsman > Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > attempt to "debunk" the fact that it takes longer to stop at higher > velocity, all things remaining equal. Where did Brent dispute that? Smells like we got ourselves a strawman here, boys... Brent's dispute is with the nature of the test, in which he points out the very glaring flaws. Got any equations to dispute that with, Sparky? E.P. > > Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Got any equations to dispute that with, Sparky? You poor bastard. The entire premise of the video is that it takes more space to stop from higher velocity, all else remaining equal. Period. There are no "flaws". Brent's dispute is the different impact points, a dramatization which is intended to emphasize the premise. Evidently that dramatization has totally confused both yours and Brent's "intellects"... or what there is of them. Your level of comprehension is such that I cannot assist you further. Perhaps you might avail yourself of a Google search of "stopping distance". You won't understand what you read, but give it your best shot. ----- - gpsman > > > Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > You poor bastard. The entire premise of the video is that it takes > more space to stop from higher velocity, all else remaining equal. Uhh, nobody's arguing that, moron. > Brent's dispute is the different impact points, a dramatization which > is intended to emphasize the premise. Which is what Brent talks about, for those folks such as you who lack reading comprehension. I tend to agree that if the premise requires dramatization to make an emphasis, then there are some questions to be asked about the motivations and conclusions of those positing the premise to begin with. E.P. >> Brent's dispute is the different impact points, a dramatization which >> is intended to emphasize the premise. > Which is what Brent talks about, for those folks such as you who lack > reading comprehension. > I tend to agree that if the premise requires dramatization to make an > emphasis, then there are some questions to be asked about the > motivations and conclusions of those positing the premise to begin > with. Had the two locations been reversed, with the faster car impacting its bumper with the under-ride side 'bumper' of the truck and the slow car hitting the frame of the cargo box with it's windshield and A-pillar, the dramatic effect would be one where speed wouldn't matter. Better yet, had the locations been the same, but the truck been one of US specification, with no under-ride guard on the side, the slow car would have seen it's windshield destroyed and the roof peeled back (a couple inches at least) at even 5kph. The 'speed kills' crowd always has to conduct their demonstrations and examples in ways where it is controled to their benefit, such as Carl's 'all factors must be equal'. Out in the real world there are far too many variables to make a simplistic 'speed kills' statement. The idea is not to be involved in a crash, to actively work not to crash. The 'speed kills' types act as if crashes are unavoidable, as if the faster car in the video couldn't have steered 3 feet over to avoid the truck entirely. (but we are supposed to believe crashing directly into the tail end of the cargo box without attempting to miss it is reasonable) The idea is when to know what speed is best given a certain set of conditions. Slow can and does increase involvement in crashes, fast can avoid them. Other conditions may be the other way around. > > > Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > more space to stop from higher velocity, all else remaining equal. > Period. There are no "flaws". There are *huge* flaws. The biggest is that scenario bears the slightest resemblance to reality. In the first frames where we see the cars and the truck, the truck is already at the point where it is moving into the road, and yet neither driver is braking. Hell, neither driver is *slowing*. > Brent's dispute is the different impact points, a dramatization which > is intended to emphasize the premise. Evidently that dramatization > has totally confused both yours and Brent's "intellects"... or what > there is of them. What has confused *you* (apparently all your driving life) is that the best -- perhaps only -- strategy available to avoid collisions is maximum effort braking to a full stop before the hazard. That is almost *never* what happens in the real world to a competent driver. > Your level of comprehension is such that I cannot assist you further. > Perhaps you might avail yourself of a Google search of "stopping > distance". You won't understand what you read, but give it your best > shot. You might want to "avail yourself" of a little time to research the concept of scanning the way ahead for *potential* hazards and reacting *before* they become situations that require a full panic stop. Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > You poor bastard. The entire premise of the video is that it takes > > more space to stop from higher velocity, all else remaining equal. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > concept of scanning the way ahead for *potential* hazards and reacting > *before* they become situations that require a full panic stop. PMSman is always showing his a.s in one way or another on r.a.d. Attempts to look clever always look stupid to actual clever people. :) E.P. Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > The entire premise of the video is that it takes > > more space to stop from higher velocity, all else remaining equal. > > Period. There are no "flaws". > > There are *huge* flaws. The biggest is that scenario bears the slightest > resemblance to reality. I suppose you're right. Two identical cars have never been operated exactly side-by-side at 60 and 65kmh respectively, had a truck pull out in front of them and stop, had each driver apply the brakes and activate the ABS at the same instant, then begin to move in slow-motion, had a guy walk around them in real-motion all the while describing the action occurring, and then collide with the truck... and all captured by perfectly placed cameras. You win, Einstein. ----- - gpsman > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > The entire premise of the video is that it takes [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - gpsman In the video at about 8 seconds in, the first thing you see of the "scenario" is the truck moving toward the road with about a truck length to go (8 seconds in) when the cars are somewhat less than half a car length from being even. When we next see the truck (when the faster car has pulled level and the panic stop is supposed to begin), it has magically jumped forward more than a full truck length to be one full lane into the intersection. So in approximately 1.8 seconds (0.0025 km / 5 km/h) the truck moves approximately 1.5 truck lengths or perhaps 15m. Which works out to a speed for the truck of precisely 30 km/h. So, in this supposedly realistic scenario, two drivers both ignore a big truck doing 30 klicks toward the road on which they are traveling without doing *anything* until the only possibility left is a maximum effort panic stop. And you think that the only thing that anyone did wrong in the scenario was that *one* guy was doing 5 klicks over the limit... LOL Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >So, in this supposedly realistic scenario, two drivers both ignore a big >truck doing 30 klicks toward the road on which they are traveling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >LOL The Matrix-style stop-motion effects (where the "professor" walks around the cars that are apparently frozen in time and space) are a dead giveaway that this scenario is 100% fantasy. It's a caricature of a safety message. If I were to make the same video but show the faster car nimbly darting around the rear of the semi and completely avoiding a collision, Carl Troller would be all over the video, ripping it to shreds. However, he is carefully silent regarding its obvious flaws because it fits in with his troll agenda. Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl Troller's wife scream just prior to the impact. > So, in this supposedly realistic scenario, two drivers both ignore a big > truck doing 30 klicks toward the road on which they are traveling > without doing *anything* until the only possibility left is a maximum > effort panic stop. Don't forget... the driver of the faster car forgets he has a steering wheel and doesn't try to move his car three feet over to avoid the crash. > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > The entire premise of the video is that it takes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in real-motion all the while describing the action occurring, and then > collide with the truck... and all captured by perfectly placed cameras. All of your sarcasm doesn't change the simple fact that speed alone is no indicator of an accident waiting to happen. "Speed kills" robots such as yourself always need to invent a convenient scenario to prove your point. Meaanwhile, all the rest of us merely get on with our lives driving all over the place not crashing into anything at any speed proving our point. For a guy who imagines himself bright, you sure are dim. E.P. > > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > The entire premise of the video is that it takes [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > For a guy who imagines himself bright, you sure are dim. Well... dim as -I- may be, I am unlikely to forward the premise that no vehicle has ever crashed in a lamebrained effort to "prove" a point. This must be a sculpture: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/rkeane/Vertical%20Car%20Crash%20-%20KGTV.jpg ----- - gpsman > > > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > The entire premise of the video is that it takes [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Well... dim as -I- may be, I am unlikely to forward the premise that no > vehicle has ever crashed in a lamebrained effort to "prove" a point. And when cornered, you just make stuff up. Pathetic. E.P. >>>Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Well... dim as -I- may be, I am unlikely to forward the premise that no > vehicle has ever crashed in a lamebrained effort to "prove" a point. Why do you say that? That makes just as much sense as most of your posts. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Why do you say that? That makes just as much sense as most of your posts. He's trying to pretend that Brent, Scott and I don't think any cars are crashed on purpose. Pure strawman. And a very nice way to avoid the fact the whole video was fanciful and staged specifically to "prove" a previously-conceived conclusion that "speed kills". It's a half-assed troll, but nothing more. E.P. Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip> > > all the rest of us merely get on with our > >>lives driving all over the place not crashing into anything at any > >>speed proving our point. > > I am unlikely to forward the premise that no > > vehicle has ever crashed in a lamebrained effort to "prove" a point. > > Why do you say that? That makes just as much sense as most of your posts. ----- - gpsman "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >For a guy who imagines himself bright, you sure are dim. Dark as a Dad at Midnight, you might say. :) SignatureWell, it appears that the gory .sigs about Carl's dead wife did their job. I've tucked them away for now, but if he (or one of his sockpuppets) comes back, so will the nasty .sigs. :) Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > > >For a guy who imagines himself bright, you sure are dim. > > Dark as a Dad at Midnight, you might say. :) ROTFL! Good one. E.P. aggressive_driving@yahoo.com said in rec.autos.driving: >I'd like to know how old these punks are, and whether they were >latchkey kids, etc.. I can tell they have psychological problems they >try to cure with fast driving. Tell me, Carl, what psychological problems does trolling cure? Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl's wife scream just prior to the impact. > After all, imagine if the slower car had lesser brakes... Have you ever driven a 2CV ? Graham > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 > > I already debunked this when Carl posted it. Here it is again: You'd try to debunk anything that someone blamed on speed, even a death in your own family. Part of you must know you're lying and that's spooky. Aunt Judy is right about psychopaths here. That video is just a simple comparison of identical cars and identical conditions with speed being the only difference. No right-minded crash investigator would question the fact that faster vehicles carry more energy and take longer to stop in sudden situations. He walks you through the whole thing; reaction time, braking, and the physics of deceleration. It's a FACT. Deal with it and move on. You will look back on these archived posts someday and realize how stubborn you were. That is, unless mental illness is the problem. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > benefit of it's structure and crash protection. Then we are supposed to > pretend the difference in damage is all because of 'speed'. Bull. The placement of the hits was solely a matter of lane position. It just made for more interesting TV to have the window break. The slower car obviously hits the truck with much less force and they give you the final speeds. You were probably too busy dreaming up some lie to hear the audio. > 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. Anyone in the speediot cabal around here has no business using the word bias. There is absolutely nothing in that video that doesn't match physics and common sense. You people just tear everything down with fabrications and poor context. All other factors being equal (which is exactly what they said), FASTER CARS TAKE LONGER TO BRAKE. > 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. ALL OTHER FACTORS MUST BE EQUAL! > Beyond that, so you're telling me the 80mph that is 'safe' on > lonely interstates in TX is dangerous on lonely interstates in IL, > despite both interstates being designed and built to the same standards? 80 MPH is more dangerous than 70 MPH on either road. Stop messing with context. > We both know it's absurd, and the only difference is the revenue hunger > of the respective state governments. You mean "both" as in you and Scott en Acidland? In rare moments, some of you admit that speed increases risk, and say you do it because you don't care (it's all about time and ego). But then, you switch back into complete denial mode. This is not a stable or rational group of people. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Dec 2006 14:54 GMT Someone wrote: >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in your own family. Part of you must know you're lying and that's >spooky. Aunt Judy is right about psychopaths here. LMAO. That's funny. >That video is just a simple comparison of identical cars and identical >conditions with speed being the only difference. No right-minded crash >investigator would question the fact that faster vehicles carry more >energy and take longer to stop in sudden situations. He walks you News flash for ya, moron: Drive in a manner which isn't conducive to collisions, and you don't have to worry about the energy exchanged during collisions. Perhaps if someone would have been utilizing this practice, you wouldn't be practicing necrophilia. >through the whole thing; reaction time, braking, and the physics of >deceleration. It's a FACT. Deal with it and move on. You will look back Here's a fact: avoid the collision to begin with. I've been doing it for 25 years. Had I followed your derailed train of thought, I would have been dead years ago, and I certainly *wouldn't* want to be in the same company as your wife. >on these archived posts someday and realize how stubborn you were. That >is, unless mental illness is the problem. Mental illness isn't my problem, Carl. I know how to drive. Obviously you and your wife can't say the same. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >bias. There is absolutely nothing in that video that doesn't match >physics and common sense. You people just tear everything down with Common sense? Avoid the accident in the first place. Perhaps if you knew what common sense was, your wife wouldn't be worm food. >fabrications and poor context. All other factors being equal (which is >exactly what they said), FASTER CARS TAKE LONGER TO BRAKE. No sh.t? Well, there's your encouragement to be more aware of your situation; you'll have *PLENTY* of time to brake and not kill someone. You moron, no one in this group debates that more energy is exchanged when vehicles traveling at higher velocities collide. Where you're losing grasp of reality is in your believe that we advocate "speeding is safer." What everyone's trying to tell you is that with prudence, you can avoid accidents altogether, and it's the lack of prudence that led to your wife's demise. >> 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. > >ALL OTHER FACTORS MUST BE EQUAL! No sh.t, sherlock? >> Beyond that, so you're telling me the 80mph that is 'safe' on >> lonely interstates in TX is dangerous on lonely interstates in IL, >> despite both interstates being designed and built to the same standards? > >80 MPH is more dangerous than 70 MPH on either road. Stop messing with >context. Learn how to drive, and it's a non issue. >> We both know it's absurd, and the only difference is the revenue hunger >> of the respective state governments. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Still having reading comprehension issues, I see. No wonder you're a proponent for adherence to the speed limit; you're mental facilities are so lacking you're missing the bigger picture. Hopefully your wife died before your dumb a.s procreated. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > Bull. The placement of the hits was solely a matter of lane position. > It just made for more interesting TV to have the window break. The > slower car obviously hits the truck with much less force and they give > you the final speeds Which makes the entire experiment bullshit. The two cars did not hit the truck identically. The faster car was destined to hit the truck in such a manner that the damage would be more severe (at the rear bumper where the forces on the car were concentrated at a small point as opposed to the load being distributed over a large area like the slower car was.). Therefore, since all other things in this comparison besides speed were not equal, the conclusions to be drawn from the experimant are bullshit. Why don't you just get over it and admit that some are better drivers than you? SignatureU tterly S tupid C ouncil of S hitheads Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Dec 2006 16:32 GMT Someone wrote: >Why don't you just get over it and admit that some are better drivers >than you? Because then he might have to accept responsibility for his wife's death? LMAO. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 >> >> I already debunked this when Carl posted it. Here it is again: > You'd try to debunk anything that someone blamed on speed, It's not my fault you have no physics and engineering knowledge to speak of carl. > even a death > in your own family. Part of you must know you're lying and that's > spooky. Aunt Judy is right about psychopaths here. I haven't killed anyone with my driving. You on the other hand, apparently killed your wife with yours. > That video is just a simple comparison of identical cars and identical > conditions with speed being the only difference. I already explained how it's anything but identical. > No right-minded crash > investigator would question the fact that faster vehicles carry more > energy and take longer to stop in sudden situations. Not my fault you don't understand stress. > He walks you > through the whole thing; reaction time, braking, and the physics of > deceleration. Not my fault you don't understand the difference between an impact being put through a small bit of windshield vs. the entire front bumper. And unlike you carl, I have no problem seeing semi trucks up ahead. > It's a FACT. Deal with it and move on. You will look back > on these archived posts someday and realize how stubborn you were. That > is, unless mental illness is the problem. You're a moron who is easily fooled. The only fact here is that the video was a set up. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> benefit of it's structure and crash protection. Then we are supposed to >> pretend the difference in damage is all because of 'speed'. > Bull. The placement of the hits was solely a matter of lane position. Matter of lane position... you're on crack. that was a _CHOSEN_ parameter, done to generate a certain result. > It just made for more interesting TV to have the window break. So you admit it's purposely skewed. > The > slower car obviously hits the truck with much less force and they give > you the final speeds. You were probably too busy dreaming up some lie > to hear the audio. If that 'slow' car had hit a typical US truck, it would have gone underneath it and had it's roof caved in, even at the slower impact speed. Of course that wouldn't have been properly skewed for you. >> 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. > Anyone in the speediot cabal around here has no business using the word > bias. You speed carl. You drive 70mph. You're whole crusade is to get everyone to drive slower than you. You're a control freak. > There is absolutely nothing in that video that doesn't match > physics and common sense. Carl, you're lacking in both, which is why you're so easily fooled by that presentation. > You people just tear everything down with > fabrications and poor context. All other factors being equal (which is > exactly what they said), FASTER CARS TAKE LONGER TO BRAKE. False. Braking distance is more than initial speed. Of course you don't understand that because you're ignorant.... or maybe just stupid. Some cars will stop faster from 70mph than others will stop from 60mph. >> 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. > ALL OTHER FACTORS MUST BE EQUAL! Yes, your tired old statement. In the real world carl, everything isn't held 'equal'. >> Beyond that, so you're telling me the 80mph that is 'safe' on >> lonely interstates in TX is dangerous on lonely interstates in IL, >> despite both interstates being designed and built to the same standards? > 80 MPH is more dangerous than 70 MPH on either road. Stop messing with > context. Jaybird is into legality, only pointing out to him that legality and safety aren't the same thing. Of course you know that already, since you drive 70mph on 55mph posted interstates. >> We both know it's absurd, and the only difference is the revenue hunger >> of the respective state governments. > You mean "both" as in you and Scott en Acidland? In rare moments, some > of you admit that speed increases risk, and say you do it because you > don't care (it's all about time and ego). But then, you switch back > into complete denial mode. This is not a stable or rational group of > people. Nice bit of protection carl. Try to learn some science. aggressive_driving@yahoo.com said in rec.autos.driving: >That video is just a simple comparison of identical cars and identical >conditions with speed being the only difference. No right-minded crash >investigator would question the fact that faster vehicles carry more >energy and take longer to stop in sudden situations. He walks you >through the whole thing; reaction time, braking, and the physics of >deceleration. It's a FACT. Deal with it and move on. I accept what you say above as fact. I must now ask "so what?" Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl's wife scream just prior to the impact. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 A completely contrive and unrealistic scenario is important, how? Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 > > A completely contrive and unrealistic scenario is important, how? Hehe.... It's like poking an ant mound.... I'll bet there'll be a list straight down from my post from just about every regular in r.a.d. by tomorrow night. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird said in rec.autos.driving: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-G0eBxhv4 > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll bet there'll be a list straight down from my post from just about every > regular in r.a.d. by tomorrow night. So you are confessing to trolling? Signature"You can't legislate away people's right to be a.sholes!" --Wesley Snipes as Simon Phoenix in "Demolition Man." > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So you are confessing to trolling? As my primary intention.... no, I wouldn't say that I posted it for primarily that purpose. I just knew the reaction to expect. Remember that my point of view is in the minority in this particular newsgroup. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird said in rec.autos.driving: > As my primary intention.... no, I wouldn't say that I posted it for > primarily that purpose. You were expecting us to share recipes for christmas cookies then? > I just knew the reaction to expect. Well, of course. The sensible majority of us know that there is more to driving than speed. Its you nanny-nazis with your one track slow = safe minds who can't see the forest for the trees. BTW, if slow = safe, then doesn't stop = safest? If we are going to be serious about "if it saves just one life, its worth it," why not ban all forms of transportation and eliminate all deaths that arise from it? > Remember that my point of view is in the minority in this > particular newsgroup. We are well aware of that. Signature"Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash so i must be doing something right." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/ Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr Msg ID: ivadh2t9kd05ilrgdercft8iuvcls6r5op@4ax.com > Its you nanny-nazis with your one track slow = safe > minds who can't see the forest for the trees. Next they'll be trying to limit jet airliners to 60 kph too ! Funny that the safest form of transport cruises at 0.8 - 0.9 Mach. On a trip to India once with a following wind our groundspeed was 630 mph. Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > > Its you nanny-nazis with your one track slow = safe > > minds who can't see the forest for the trees. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Funny that the safest form of transport cruises at 0.8 - 0.9 Mach. On a trip to > India once with a following wind our groundspeed was 630 mph. That's because the FAA (and the British equivalent) don't give polits licenses (especially for airliners) to just any Carl, Laura and Jaybird. Signature"Look down on me, you will see a fool. Look up at me, you will see your lord. Look straight at me, you will see yourself." - Charles Manson Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), necromancer madea ablunder that needs to be corrected in rec.autos.driving: > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's because the FAA (and the British equivalent) don't give polits That should be "pilot's license," not "polits license." > licenses (especially for airliners) to just any Carl, Laura and Jaybird. Signature"My tars have been bald for two years. Every month i glue some sandpaper to them and everythings cool." --Laura Buch murdered her boyfriend / laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 10/25/05 Message ID: s2ttl1tgnpq5pr6p48lr111p3lnvr4blch@4ax.com http://tinyurl.com/7p7xq necromancer <necromancer@kretp.tmy> said in rec.autos.driving: >That should be "pilot's license," not "polits license." And here I thouht you'd gone Soviet on us... Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl's wife scream just prior to the impact. > "necromancer" <necromancer@kretp.tmy> wrote in message > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > primarily that purpose. I just knew the reaction to expect. Remember that > my point of view is in the minority in this particular newsgroup. Your view is that driving at > 38 mph means you're likely to be killed in an accident with a truck ? You nearly make Judy look sane ! Graham > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), jaybird said in > > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > --- > jaybird I believe that if you do an honest review of posts you would find that almost no-one claims that speeding is "safer". Only that speeding per se is not "dangerous". Harry K Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 16 Dec 2006 15:43 GMT Someone wrote: >I believe that if you do an honest review of posts you would find that >almost no-one claims that speeding is "safer". Only that speeding per >se is not "dangerous". And yet there are so many "speed kills" morons out there who are too stupid to understand the significance of the difference. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message