 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Who is competent to drive 100mph?
How did you arrive at your conclusion? Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of traction at 100mph(+)? How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking from 100mph(+)? How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you received? Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your vehicle? Just wondering. ----- - gpsman > How did you arrive at your conclusion?\ By doing so for a long stretch of empty highway. > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? Yes. > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? Must have been 50 miles. > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > traction at 100mph(+)? Why would I want to? I experienced whether or not the car was still balanced after the change in aerodynamic forces, but the idea is not to *need* to explore the limits of adhesion. > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? Explain how it would differ significantly from doing so at 60mph... > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? None. > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? Nope. It was a completely tension-free experience. > Just wondering. > ----- > > - gpsman  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) > Nope. It was a completely tension-free experience. Driving on the autobahn at 100+mph was the most pleasant, stress free, and safest driving I've ever done. And that was with some traffic too. BTW, Why bother with gpstard anyway? > How did you arrive at your conclusion? Using common sense. > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? I never asked and they never said anything. One did comment he'd never been driven that fast before. > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? Just a few tens probably actually in excess of 100. Many miles indeed at 90-100. > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > traction at 100mph(+)? It's not a speed I would try breaking traction at ( not that any of my cars could have done that ). > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? I'm not familiar with that term. > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? Only what I've read up for myself. I've enquired about such courses but they seem to be far and few between. I actually asked the local police about advanced driving tuition and they haven't a clue. So, basically I had to learn for myself. The UK does have some organisations like the IAM though. My father was a member. I'd say I learnt quite a bit from him btw. http://www.iam.org.uk/ > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? A sense of pleasure if it was a nice drive. Graham > > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Graham I don't know about the IAM...... They don't like crossed-arms turning; depending on your steering ratio, that might be the best in an emergency. One IAM inspector said to me, "If you look far enough ahead, that won't be necessary." I wish I had been quick enough to respond, "That's the same as with four-wheel brakes!" > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? > > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? Countless. 100 mph is nothing. 130 is something. > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? As much as at any other speed. > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? As much as at any other speed. > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? No. > How did you arrive at your conclusion? I arrived at my conclusion because of the numerous double-U's on my side of the timeslip. > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? No passengers ever agreed with my assessment. Pretty much why I hate everybody. > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? Not really sure. I could guess by extrapolating some data of the number of days of driving the 'big car' to work, the number of weekends blasting through 100mph and beyond. > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > traction at 100mph(+)? 100mph was usually reached just shortly after the shift into 3rd gear - still putting a lot of torque into the rear tires. The limits of traction were dependent on whether it was street tire run or not. > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? Every time I wanted to hit the first turn-off. > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? None, unfortunately. > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? No, but I would usually have a good case of the shakes. > Just wondering. Wonder no more: Dodge Dart 440 Big Block 727 TorqueFlite 10.24@130 (best quarter mile on slicks) bob z. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), gpsman said in rec.autos.driving: TO answer the subject line: not me. > How did you arrive at your conclusion? None of my cars is designed for 100MPH. > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? I don't care what they think. > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? None. See above. > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > traction at 100mph(+)? None. See the design statement. > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? Again, none. > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? None. > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? Given that I have to share the road with a bunch of forros like yourself, I feel a huge sense of relief upon exiting the vehicle. > Just wondering. Still wondering??? Signature"If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Buc's," And the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jag's," Then what does that make the Tennessee Titans?" --George Carlin > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - gpsman So what's so special about 100? You can ask the same questions about 70 and most people would not have done any of the tests you mention. I have ridden with people I don't feel safe at 60 and there is no changing their habits, I have tried in the case of my wife. Harry K Hi! > So what's so special about 100? Nothing. Reaching 160 km/h is completely unremarkable here. And driving 170 doesn't differ much (if at all) from driving 150. Yours, Erik. Signature"The pattern still remains on the wall where darkness fell And it's fitting that it should, for in darkness I must dwell Like the color of my skin or the day that I grow old My life is made of patterns that can scarcely be controlled" -- Paul Simon >> So what's so special about 100? >Nothing. Reaching 160 km/h is completely unremarkable here. >And driving 170 doesn't differ much (if at all) from driving 150. I think you're wrong. 100 is the limit corresponding to the IQ expected of the vehicle operator. :-) Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > How did you arrive at your conclusion? Competence is accomplishing the task without adverse results. I am competent at and beyond 100 mph.. > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? Even my wife, who spent all my European hours above 100 in the right seat with me. All of my driving students in BMW and Audi club schools. > How many miles have you operated at 100mph(+)? I don't keep track. A couple hundred, maybe. > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > traction at 100mph(+)? I don't keep track. Ever heard of The Kink at Road America? It's just about the fastest *real turn* on an American race track (according to Randy Pobst, and others). Speeds through it are 100 or more for most cars allowed on track - like mine. I have no idea how many times I've driven it. A lot. > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > from 100mph(+)? I don't keep track. However, threshold braking *from that speed* is virtually unnecessary except in competition situations. I know I can use it for Turns One, Five, and Twelve at RA, but I rarely do. It's very hard on the brakes. "In order to finish first, one must first finish." (- too many to list). > How much advanced or high-performance driving training have you > received? I don't remember. A lot since 1988. Want to know how much I've *given*? I don't know. A lot since 1992. > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > vehicle? The sigh is satisfaction. The sense is not relief, but a flood of confidence in my abilities. Now, on with your tirade ... -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that) > > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > C.R. Krieger > (Been there; done that) You would have loved the old Sears Point! Invest a few bucks and try the advanced school there. Even the new SP is OK, even if just for T3 through 5. (The glory that was Rome...) Motorhead Lawyer wrote: <brevity snip> Nah. Just trying to get some people to think. Seems I missed with you. I used to hope with your education and experience you might be a voice of logical reason but I've most often been disappointed. > > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > > Competence is accomplishing the task without adverse results. ISTM a person accepting that broad and ill-defined definition would likely fall somewhere below the border of -actual- competence, and is in desperate need of a dictionary. Any kid can drive 100mph "without adverse results", that doesn't make them competent. Your definition would make any driver who crashed, or even spun-out, incompetent. > I am > competent at and beyond 100 mph.. There are few who aren't by your definition. > > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? > > Even my wife, who spent all my European hours above 100 in the right > seat with me. Comment reserved. > All of my driving students in BMW and Audi club schools. Yes, ignorant students are competent to judge the competence of their instructor. Which august body certified you as an instructor? That might be some evidence of competence. The mere fact you cited students, rather than your certifying authority, suggests your standards of competence are quite low. > > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > > traction at 100mph(+)? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cars allowed on track - like mine. I have no idea how many times I've > driven it. A lot. So are you more competent than drivers who lack the skills to take the corner at ~100, or is any driver who couldn't make it at more than 90 in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as yourself? > > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > > from 100mph(+)? > > I don't keep track. However, threshold braking *from that speed* is > virtually unnecessary except in competition situations. Perhaps you could describe why it would be "virtually unnecessary except in competition". ISTM it could be necessary from any velocity one chooses to drive on a public roadway, sans competitive opponents. > > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > > vehicle? > > The sigh is satisfaction. The sense is not relief, but a flood of > confidence in my abilities. I'm sure that's a fact. ----- - gpsman gpsman continued to troll: > Motorhead Lawyer wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I used to hope with your education and experience you might be a voice > of logical reason but I've most often been disappointed. No; you hoped to trap me and others who effortlessly drive fast in your fruitless crusade to reduce driving to the lowest, dullest, denominator. I guess that would be the way *you* drive. > > > How did you arrive at your conclusion? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > likely fall somewhere below the border of -actual- competence, and is > in desperate need of a dictionary. You mean this? "com?pe?tence Pronunciation (kmp-tns) n. 1. a. The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability. b. A specific range of skill, knowledge, or ability." There it is, straight from the dictionary. Deal with it. > Any kid can drive 100mph "without > adverse results", that doesn't make them competent. Hey, *you're* the one that cooked up this stupid definitional thread, not me. That you don't like the results is immaterial. > Your definition would make any driver who crashed, or even spun-out, > incompetent. Yeah; it *could* mean that. But it doesn't. Another definitional problem for you, eh? > > I am competent at and beyond 100 mph.. > > There are few who aren't by your definition. Damn, you're quick on the uptake! > > > Whom, among your passengers, agree with your assessment? > > > > Even my wife, who spent all my European hours above 100 in the right > > seat with me. > > Comment reserved. OK; time's up. Spill it. > > All of my driving students in BMW and Audi club schools. > > Yes, ignorant students are competent to judge the competence of their > instructor. Yes, they are. They learn to drive at similar speeds. You apparently also have a problem with that. > Which august body certified you as an instructor? That > might be some evidence of competence. The mere fact you cited > students, rather than your certifying authority, suggests your > standards of competence are quite low. BMW CCA. Audi Club N.A. I've also been employed as an instructor for AMG/Mercedes. I've done autocross competition instruction with SCCA as well. You're now attempting to obscure competence to perform with competence to instruct. They are not the same. Looks like another problem for your poorly-planned assault on fast drivers. > > > How much experience (in miles) do you have exploring the limits of > > > traction at 100mph(+)? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as > yourself? Competence isn't relative ... or is it? Your problem, not mine. Anyone able to reliably and safely take the Kink at 100 mph is as good as I am at the same speed. At other speeds, it's an open question. > > > How much practice have you invested in practicing threshhold braking > > > from 100mph(+)? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps you could describe why it would be "virtually unnecessary > except in competition". I already did. You're apparently too ignorant to understand. > ISTM it could be necessary from any velocity one chooses to drive on a > public roadway, sans competitive opponents. Sure. Anything's possible. If you get chucked out of a spaceship, it's *possible* that you'll end up in the stomach of a sperm whale that appeared out of nowhere, thus saving your life. But it's not probable. Ask Doug Adams. However, what 'seems to you' doesn't necessarily 'seem to others'. Most who safely drive over 100 mph know it requires additional concentration, more anticipation, and good equipment. If you aren't willing to devote that to the task (as I'm sure *you* aren't), then you shouldn't do it. But don't begrudge *me* the opportunity just because it scares *you* somehow. > > > Do you emit a sigh, and feel a sense of relief before exiting your > > > vehicle? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm sure that's a fact. I'm sure that's the only one you can be sure of ... -- C.R. Krieger (Been there - that fast) in response to gpstroll > probable. Ask Doug Adams. However, what 'seems to you' doesn't > necessarily 'seem to others'. Most who safely drive over 100 mph know > it requires additional concentration, more anticipation, and good > equipment. If you aren't willing to devote that to the task (as I'm > sure *you* aren't), then you shouldn't do it. But don't begrudge *me* > the opportunity just because it scares *you* somehow. And there lies the nature of the control freak. It's the same as bicycling in traffic. Many a control freak is scared of bicycling on various roads so they want it banned. The control freak will save us all from ourselves by making us all live within the boundries of his fear. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis Moto>> in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as >> yourself? > > Competence isn't relative ... or is it? Your problem, not mine. > Anyone able to reliably and safely take the Kink at 100 mph is as good > as I am at the same speed. At other speeds, it's an open question. Was once a passenger doing 110 MPH on a gravel/dirt road. We were approaching a 90 degree left and the driver, without touching the brakes, proceeded to do a Scandinavian flick. Magnificent ! ! ! Happened over 30 years ago and it is one of those perfectly executed pieces of driving you remember forever. (was in a rally car on closed roads) >Moto>> in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as >>> yourself? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >(was in a rally car on closed roads) Who was the driver? Buffum? Millen? Someone else we might know? DPH >> Moto>> in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as >>>> yourself? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > DPH Guys name was Brownlee but both Millens Steve and Rod were in there, in RX3s. >>> Moto>> in your vehicle "without adverse results" equally competent as >>>>> yourself? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Guys name was Brownlee but both Millens Steve and Rod were in there, in >RX3s. Don't know the fellow, but I'm sure he was very talented. I got to ride with an 80's legend, Nial Leslie, a Canadian, several years ago when I was the radio support for the lead car for Susquahannock Trail Pro Rally. The guy was awesome in a simple Subaru Outback. The ruts and mud he put that thing thru, at speed, would have caused me to lose control, I'm sure. It was neat to witness this, esp. from inside the car. Dave Head > Motorhead Lawyer wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > - gpsman Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your part in judging what makes for a safe driver on public roads in the first place. Here's a little clue for you: if you get yourself into a situation where you need to explore the limits of adhesion either from threshold braking or steering, you've *already* made the big mistake. 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 wrote: <brevity snip> > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your > part in judging what makes for a safe driver on public roads in the > first place. Then you misunderstand. > Here's a little clue for you: if you get yourself into a situation where > you need to explore the limits of adhesion either from threshold braking > or steering, you've *already* made the big mistake. Agreed. The point is, if one chooses to operate at "high" velocity and has no experience approaching the limits of traction at that velocity, they have no business, and are not competent, to operate at that velocity. Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction suddenly, or brake hard, they have no experience from which to draw. A driver recently opined: "Those with the skill to drive > 100 mph aren't INCOMPETENT." And that's probably true, but who is -that- (!), and how did they acquire that skill? My assertion is, those drivers are -very- few, and if they have developed the skills to competently drive 100mph, they most likely have the judgment not to anywhere around anyone else. Driving 100mph in a mostly straight line for 1000 miles isn't going to imbue the competence to operate at 100mph, even in a mostly straight line. Slight elevation changes do significant things to weighting, and when your mostly straight line becomes not so straight at that moment, things can change with great rapidity. Any idiot can drive 100mph without a clue as to what they might do in an "emergency" situation. A driver who has explored the limits of traction at 100mph has a clue, and the more time spent exploring those limits is what leads to more competence. I got mine mostly between the ages of 12 and 18, on 2 lane country back roads with -no- traffic. When you see what -can- happen, and how f.cking fast it happens, and how long it takes to regain control, and how easily you might not have regained control, and what could have happened -then-, I think you are mostly likely to exhibit better judgment than to operate near 100mph in -any- traffic. FWIW. And save your clues, I've got plenty. ----- - gpsman > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your > > part in judging what makes for a safe driver on public roads in the > > first place. > > Then you misunderstand. I understand perfectly. > > Here's a little clue for you: if you get yourself into a situation where > > you need to explore the limits of adhesion either from threshold braking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they have no business, and are not competent, to operate at that > velocity. Would you say the same about 90mph? 80? How about 60? At what speed is this direct experience necessary? > Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. > But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction > suddenly, or brake hard, they have no experience from which to draw. A car doesn't suddenly behave in a distinctly different manner because you cross some magical number. > A driver recently opined: "Those with the skill to drive > 100 mph > aren't INCOMPETENT." And that's probably true, but who is -that- (!), > and how did they acquire that skill? My assertion is, those drivers > are -very- few, and if they have developed the skills to competently > drive 100mph, they most likely have the judgment not to anywhere around > anyone else. I sort of agree. To drive at a higher speed on public road requires more space than to drive at a lower speed; regardless of the absolute level of those speeds. > Driving 100mph in a mostly straight line for 1000 miles isn't going to > imbue the competence to operate at 100mph, even in a mostly straight > line. Slight elevation changes do significant things to weighting, and > when your mostly straight line becomes not so straight at that moment, > things can change with great rapidity. Those elevation changes and curves don't pop into being out of nowhere, you know. You're allowed to look ahead down the road and *anticipate* changes in road conditions that might require one to moderate one's velocity; again: *regardless* of what your absolute velocity might be. > Any idiot can drive 100mph without a clue as to what they might do in > an "emergency" situation. A driver who has explored the limits of > traction at 100mph has a clue, and the more time spent exploring those > limits is what leads to more competence. You keep saying "the limits of traction at 100mph" as if they were substantially different than the limits of traction at any other speed. > I got mine mostly between the ages of 12 and 18, on 2 lane country back > roads with -no- traffic. When you see what -can- happen, and how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > FWIW. And save your clues, I've got plenty. You should get around to showing some. You keep insisting that what is most necessary is the skills to deal with emergency situations and you imply that at some magic speed they become distinctly different than those at speeds below the magic limit. They don't become different. There is a continuum of behaviour that changes gradually -- and with today's cars, not that much -- as speeds rise. One can learn by experiencing the difference in handling and braking between 60 and 80 that a particular car is trending in a particular way and *extrapolate* how that trend will continue. But more importantly, emergency maneuvers are a tiny fraction of what is necessary to drive safely compared to careful observation of conditions around your vehicle and adjusting your speed and position relative to other vehicles to ensure that you never need emergency maneuvers in the first place. I've seen you post over and over about how if you collide it is much safer to do so at lower speed. Well *duh*! The fact of the matter is it is far *far* safer to never collide *at all*. And the way to achieve that is the same at *any* speed: leave adequate space to maneuver, watch conditions around you for potential hazards and take action *before* it becomes necessary to make emergency maneuvers. Will that save you in all situations? No. Can there sometimes be things that happen so out of the blue that you must make emergency maneuvers? Of course. But do those times account for a significant fraction of the accidents that occur every year? Not a chance. And they can still happily kill you at even 55mph. The guy who suddenly decides to jerk across the centre line and into your lane will kill you dead at 55 or 100mph. And you don't have more time to react at 55; not in any meaningful sense of the word. The different speeds merely change at what point in space he must pull out to make it happen. In each case, he must do so when the time to impact of both vehicles is less than about 1.5 seconds, as that is the time necessary for you to react to the sudden threat. If you don't have the time, then collision is almost certain, and as well, unless you limit the maximum speed of travel to well under 55, almost certainly fatal. If you have enough time, then you can still maneuver your vehicle in order to avoid collision. A modern vehicle even at 100mph is still going to let you generate the necessary lateral g forces to get onto the shoulder. And if there isn't adequate runoff room, then that is a condition that should have had you traveling at less than that speed in the first place (and we're back to what is really important: driving appropriately for conditions). In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. 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) Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 11 Jan 2007 02:09 GMT <SNIP> >But more importantly, emergency maneuvers are a tiny fraction of what is >necessary to drive safely compared to careful observation of conditions [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. *VERY* well put. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> <in response to gpstroll> > A car doesn't suddenly behave in a distinctly different manner because > you cross some magical number. And there is the rub. Every control freak has a magical number above which a car becomes a dangerous missile. For Judy it's 55mph. For Carl it's 70mph, for gpstroll it's probably close to carl's speed. It's the magic number arrived at through their fears, through their experiences. It's what should be good enough for everyone. > > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > At what speed is this direct experience necessary? To be "competent", all at which the driver chooses to operate. To be "adequate", the speed limit. > > Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. > > But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction > > suddenly, or brake hard, they have no experience from which to draw. > A car doesn't suddenly behave in a distinctly different manner because > you cross some magical number. And I didn't mean to imply it does, if I did, and I don't think so. > > A driver recently opined: "Those with the skill to drive > 100 mph > > aren't INCOMPETENT." And that's probably true, but who is -that- (!), [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > changes in road conditions that might require one to moderate one's > velocity; again: *regardless* of what your absolute velocity might be. It seems that way to the uninitiated, but in practice, that's not the way it works. As velocity increases those dips and rises you never noticed at 60, become significant at 100. The elevation changes become no more visible, but they can have much greater effect. It doesn't take much rise to unweight a vehicle and lower traction. > > Any idiot can drive 100mph without a clue as to what they might do in > > an "emergency" situation. A driver who has explored the limits of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You keep saying "the limits of traction at 100mph" as if they were > substantially different than the limits of traction at any other speed. As opposed to what, 99mph? Let's not get silly, were talking about a substantial difference of "normal' velocity as practiced by the average driver... who thinks he has as much control at 60, as he does at 50. Extrapolating, he concludes for every 10mph of additional velocity there is no difference. Often, he's dead wrong. > > I got mine mostly between the ages of 12 and 18, on 2 lane country back > > roads with -no- traffic. When you see what -can- happen, and how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > imply that at some magic speed they become distinctly different than > those at speeds below the magic limit. No, that is your interpretation. I can only presume that's the case since nowhere have I forwarded the premise there is "some magic speed they (emergency maneuvers) become distinctly different". > They don't become different. Yes, I'm afraid they do. Not at some "magic number", but gradually, and unnoticed, as velocity increases and according to the formula of kinetic energy: 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared). It's the "squared" that gets ya. > There is a continuum of behaviour that changes gradually -- and with > today's cars, not that much -- as speeds rise. One can learn by > experiencing the difference in handling and braking between 60 and 80 > that a particular car is trending in a particular way and *extrapolate* > how that trend will continue. Yes. The common error of thinking you know what will happen at higher velocity, based on experience at lower velocity. It don't work like that. The energy is squared by velocity, a fact unknown to most drivers because you can't feel it, and it seems to make no sense. Twice as fast feels twice as fast, but the energy you're dealing with keeps increasing by squares. > But more importantly, emergency maneuvers are a tiny fraction of what is > necessary to drive safely compared to careful observation of conditions > around your vehicle and adjusting your speed and position relative to > other vehicles to ensure that you never need emergency maneuvers in the > first place. Sure. But when an emergency maneuver becomes desperately necessary all that sh.t goes out the window and that "tiny fraction" is now 100%. > I've seen you post over and over about how if you collide it is much > safer to do so at lower speed. Well *duh*! The fact of the matter is it > is far *far* safer to never collide *at all*. And the way to achieve > that is the same at *any* speed: leave adequate space to maneuver, watch > conditions around you for potential hazards and take action *before* it > becomes necessary to make emergency maneuvers. Yes, of course, that's what I taught. > Will that save you in all situations? No. Can there sometimes be things > that happen so out of the blue that you must make emergency maneuvers? > Of course. But do those times account for a significant fraction of the > accidents that occur every year? Not a chance. We agree most crashes are preventable, they just aren't prevented. I would say that's because the average "adequate" driver is not a "competent" driver. > The guy who suddenly decides to jerk across the centre line and into > your lane will kill you dead at 55 or 100mph. And you don't have more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of both vehicles is less than about 1.5 seconds, as that is the time > necessary for you to react to the sudden threat. You're changing where and/or when the event occurs. All else being equal, you will have more time to react at 88/fps than at 146/fps. > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. I guess, if you don't consider speed too fast for conditions/competence bad driving. I do. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 11 Jan 2007 03:37 GMT >> A car doesn't suddenly behave in a distinctly different manner because >> you cross some magical number. > >And I didn't mean to imply it does, if I did, and I don't think so. Well, that's the way it comes across. You're making a statement that you didn't mean to imply something, while at the same time a reasonable number of people are attempting to convey to you that you're incoherent. You attempt to read things into statements not written by the author(s) is also another cause for alarm. These *should* serve as clues that you need some rudimentary lessons in grammar and vocabulary, at least with regard to the english language. Little surprise you don't get that clue, either. That's what you get for thinking, gpsboi. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> > > > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > To be "competent", all at which the driver chooses to operate. To be > "adequate", the speed limit. So to be competent an velocity n, it is not enough to be competent at velocity n-1? > > > Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. > > > But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And I didn't mean to imply it does, if I did, and I don't think so. Look at all the answers you've received and I think the implication was there. > > > A driver recently opined: "Those with the skill to drive > 100 mph > > > aren't INCOMPETENT." And that's probably true, but who is -that- (!), [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > no more visible, but they can have much greater effect. It doesn't > take much rise to unweight a vehicle and lower traction. Sorry, but no. You do notice them if you are a good driver, and then you adjust for the one's that would make a particular speed unsafe. > > > Any idiot can drive 100mph without a clue as to what they might do in > > > an "emergency" situation. A driver who has explored the limits of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Extrapolating, he concludes for every 10mph of additional velocity > there is no difference. Often, he's dead wrong. Sorry, but no. When you're talking about understanding how much space you want to have you might be right. But the traction of a vehicle traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. > > > I got mine mostly between the ages of 12 and 18, on 2 lane country back > > > roads with -no- traffic. When you see what -can- happen, and how [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > kinetic energy: 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared). It's the "squared" > that gets ya. See: that's where you misunderstanding of physics gets *you*. In terms of maneuvering there *is* no squared term. In terms of maneuvering, one needs to be concerned with momentum, *not* energy, and the formula for momentum is mv. > > There is a continuum of behaviour that changes gradually -- and with > > today's cars, not that much -- as speeds rise. One can learn by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Twice as fast feels twice as fast, but the energy you're dealing with > keeps increasing by squares. But you're not dealing with energy, you're dealing with momentum. > > But more importantly, emergency maneuvers are a tiny fraction of what is > > necessary to drive safely compared to careful observation of conditions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure. But when an emergency maneuver becomes desperately necessary all > that sh.t goes out the window and that "tiny fraction" is now 100%. Yup. But so what? You're still arguing that it is the emergency maneuvers that should set how fast you can go, and not driving to avoid them in the first place. > > I've seen you post over and over about how if you collide it is much > > safer to do so at lower speed. Well *duh*! The fact of the matter is it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You're changing where and/or when the event occurs. All else being > equal, you will have more time to react at 88/fps than at 146/fps. Sorry, but again you display your ignorance. Perhaps this will help: Your thesis appears to be that it is better to be going slower when someone comes across the centre line, because that way, you'll have more time to avoid them, correct? Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? Oops. > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > I guess, if you don't consider speed too fast for conditions/competence > bad driving. I do. But I do consider that bad driving. I just don't believe that a major component of competence is necessarily having attempted threshold braking from that particular speed. The most important part of competence is in scanning the road for potential threats and modulating one's position and speed so early that you never even come close to the limits of adhesion. To give you one example of my idea of driving competently, try this: Pick a busy, but freeflowing freeway where you must spend 15 minutes to half an hour getting to where you want to go. Now: do so without ever once needing to touch the brakes, and without ever once requiring anyone else to do so either. Similarly, nothing more than gentle use of the steering wheel is allowed by you or any other driver your presence influences. If you can do that, *then* you are truly competent. Panic stops and emergency steering are child's play; you can learn them in an afternoon. BTW, I have touched other vehicles while driving precisely three times while I been a driver; none of the events taking place at more than 5mph. While traveling at normal traffic speeds I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've ever needed to do more than a completely ordinary stopping or steering maneuver. What I've needed almost every day is to have a good scan of the traffic ahead (and behind, and to the sides) in order to make panic maneuvers unnecessary. At no time is looking at that little dial called the speedometer actually useful except in so far as it can prevent me from receiving a ticket. The road conditions including traffic tell me what speed is appropriate. 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 wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on your [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So to be competent an velocity n, it is not enough to be competent at > velocity n-1? Extrapolating to the ridiculous has a place, but not in this argument. > > > > Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. > > > > But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Look at all the answers you've received and I think the implication was > there. The answers I received?! As if consensus equals fact? Most of the "answers" are avoidance of the question and snide remarks. When I agree with the majority, I immediately begin reevaluating my position, especially when it comes to driving. > > > > Slight elevation changes do significant things to weighting, and > > > > when your mostly straight line becomes not so straight at that moment, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sorry, but no. You do notice them if you are a good driver, and then you > adjust for the one's that would make a particular speed unsafe. Sorry, but your conclusion is obviously based on lack of experience. They are no more noticeable by sight than at lower velocity. The surprise comes from the increased effect at higher velocity. > the traction of a vehicle > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/fc1.htm > > as velocity increases and according to the formula of > > kinetic energy: 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared). It's the "squared" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > needs to be concerned with momentum, *not* energy, and the formula for > momentum is mv. I stand corrected, the kinetic energy is applicable when the maneuvering fails to produce a satisfactory result and is dissipated via friction, heat, and deformation of mass. <doffs hat> Thank you for bringing my error to my attention. > > > There is a continuum of behaviour that changes gradually -- and with > > > today's cars, not that much -- as speeds rise. One can learn by [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > maneuvers that should set how fast you can go, and not driving to avoid > them in the first place. Where... have I argued that one should not drive to avoid emergency maneuvering?! My argument is that if you are not "competent" to perform emergency maneuvers at a certain velocity, your skills are merely "adequate", and you are not "competent" to operate at that velocity. Period. Don't make more of it than it is. Don't assume I mean to imply what I haven't said, thank you. > > > The guy who suddenly decides to jerk across the centre line and into > > > your lane will kill you dead at 55 or 100mph. And you don't have more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > someone comes across the centre line, because that way, you'll have more > time to avoid them, correct? Incorrect. *--All else being equal--*, you will have more time to react at lower velocity. An example where the opposing driver always changes his maneuver to eliminate any chance of adequate reaction time is not a real argument. Although I am surprised it hasn't been jumped on by the plethora of idiots here. > Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? > > Oops. Oops is right. "Stopped" is the absence of velocity. Stopped has no quality of velocity, except its absence and would prevent any avoidance maneuver. And, I might add, is an argument irrelevant to the discussion. > > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one's position and speed so early that you never even come close to the > limits of adhesion. Well... what about your above example...?! Avoiding the unexpected is good judgment, and good judgment is essential to competence, but despite the best judgment of the best driver the circumstances of the unexpected often exceed their abilities to avoid a collision, because they don't have the training and experience to be truly "competent". > To give you one example of my idea of driving competently, try this: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > steering wheel is allowed by you or any other driver your presence > influences. On that we can almost agree. I consider almost any use of the brakes on the highway a failure on my part, -I- did -something- wrong. Whether another driver comes up behind me and needs to brake is beyond my control, but I -never- maneuver before traffic in a manner that would -cause- them to brake. Try it in a semi sometime. > If you can do that, *then* you are truly competent. Panic stops and > emergency steering are child's play; you can learn them in an afternoon. If you'd actually ever spent an afternoon trying to learn them, you wouldn't say that. There's a lot more to it than hitting the brakes and/or moving the steering wheel. And to remain proficient it isn't enough to learn them, you must practice them, regularly. And a swap of surfaces, asphalt to concrete, wet to dry, will reveal in rapid fashion you haven't really -learned- them at all. It seems you might believe Tiger Woods -learned- to swing a golf club or Marco Andretti -learned- to drive and have since found no need for practice. I can't think of a single example of physical performance where one's proficiency does not decline without practice. > BTW, I have touched other vehicles while driving precisely three times > while I been a driver; none of the events taking place at more than > 5mph. While traveling at normal traffic speeds I can count on the > fingers of one hand the number of times I've ever needed to do more than > a completely ordinary stopping or steering maneuver. Me either, except in a semi. The maneuvers you see from there boggle the mind. Defensive anticipatory driving is essential and can produce excellent results but a lack of crashing is no more an indicator of competence than being involved in a crash is of incompetence, the element of luck can't be discounted. Not saying -you- are "incompetent", but there are levels of competence, and if one is going to be truly and fully competent they must be competent to perform emergency maneuvers at their chosen velocity. > What I've needed almost every day is to have a good scan of the traffic > ahead (and behind, and to the sides) in order to make panic maneuvers > unnecessary. It makes them less likely, it's little protection from the morons. > At no time is looking at that little dial called the > speedometer actually useful except in so far as it can prevent me from > receiving a ticket. My sense of velocity is such that I note the speedometer reading, actually GPS reading, just to ensure I'm "within tolerance", and it's rare that I'm not. > The road conditions including traffic tell me what > speed is appropriate. You can count on traffic to tell you what speed is appropriate. I'd feel pretty stupid if I did that and they turned out to be wrong. In the driving instruction business that's called "letting someone else make your decisions for you". Their vehicles all differ from yours, as do their skills and situational awareness. I find it best to rely on my own judgment. YMMV. ----- - gpsman > > the traction of a vehicle > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. > > http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/fc1.htm Spurious website. It gives a HTTP 403 error. > My argument is that if you are not "competent" to perform emergency > maneuvers at a certain velocity, your skills are merely "adequate", and > you are not "competent" to operate at that velocity. Spurious conclusion. com·pe·tent /ˈkɒmpɪtənt/ –adjective 2. adequate but not exceptional. > - gpsman Spurious asshat. > > > the traction of a vehicle > > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > –adjective > 2. adequate but not exceptional. 1) properly or sufficiently qualified or capable or efficient 2) adequate for the purpose http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=competent You got confused, with your reading comprehension difficulties you likely missed the relationship between competence and the specified task. > Spurious asshat. Sorry to burst your bubble, it had to be done. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 12 Jan 2007 12:04 GMT >> > > the traction of a vehicle >> > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >likely missed the relationship between competence and the specified >task. LMAO? You think OTHERS have reading comprehension issues? Ah, the hypocrisy of this group's trolls is amazing. >> Spurious asshat. > >Sorry to burst your bubble, it had to be done. > ----- > >- gpsman Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > > > Sorry, gpsman, but your questions show a distinct incompetence on [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Extrapolating to the ridiculous has a place, but not in this argument. It's not extrapolating to the ridiculous, it's a serious question: how much slower than speed n will you accept as experience appropriate for driving at speed n and how do you justify your limit? > > > > > Ignorant high speed drivers may feel competent to operate at 100mph. > > > > > But, if something "unexpected" causes the need to change direction [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > agree with the majority, I immediately begin reevaluating my position, > especially when it comes to driving. Most all of them read precisely the same bias in your questions. It is illuminating. > > > > > Slight elevation changes do significant things to weighting, and > > > > > when your mostly straight line becomes not so straight at that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > They are no more noticeable by sight than at lower velocity. The > surprise comes from the increased effect at higher velocity. I never said they were more noticeable. They are sufficiently noticeable to a competent driver. > > the traction of a vehicle > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. > > http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/fc1.htm Sorry. What does the friction circle have to do with speed? > > > as velocity increases and according to the formula of > > > kinetic energy: 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared). It's the "squared" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > via friction, heat, and deformation of mass. <doffs hat> Thank you for > bringing my error to my attention. You need to be corrected so often. See your mention of the friction circle above. > > > > There is a continuum of behaviour that changes gradually -- and with > > > > today's cars, not that much -- as speeds rise. One can learn by [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > make more of it than it is. Don't assume I mean to imply what I haven't > said, thank you. And my argument is that you don't have to practice emergency maneuvers at velocity n to be competent to perform them at that velocity. > > > > The guy who suddenly decides to jerk across the centre line and into > > > > your lane will kill you dead at 55 or 100mph. And you don't have more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Incorrect. *--All else being equal--*, you will have more time to > react at lower velocity. I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Almost all of time, the hazards you are going to encounter are going to give sufficient warning that you can adjust your speed and position to avoid them without having to make anything even approaching an emergency maneuver. But very occasionally, you will encounter a hazard that is unforeseeable until the moment that they are upon you and you will be required to make some emergency maneuver to avoid it, but the very thing that makes such maneuvers necessary is the *time* you have to react. Time is the determining factor. At such moments, you either have sufficient time to react, or you don't. If you do, then if you are competent, you will avoid the accident, if you don't have the necessary reaction time, you won't. > An example where the opposing driver always changes his maneuver to > eliminate any chance of adequate reaction time is not a real argument. > Although I am surprised it hasn't been jumped on by the plethora of > idiots here. It's not about that, you simpleton. It's about the fact that the time you have to react when the problem manifests is the functional requirement. Saying that you would have avoided situation x at n mph because it happened so far away isn't answering anything. > > Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > maneuver. And, I might add, is an argument irrelevant to the > discussion. Sorry, but velocity is a continuum. What if you were doing 30 mph when someone came across the centre line, could you maneuver quickly enough then? Yes? Ok, what about 20, 10, 5? Do you get it yet? > > > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to avoid a collision, because they don't have the training and > experience to be truly "competent". Agreed. But that simply pales in comparison to their inability to avoid situations that *are* avoidable. > > To give you one example of my idea of driving competently, try this: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > surfaces, asphalt to concrete, wet to dry, will reveal in rapid fashion > you haven't really -learned- them at all. I have spent time trying to learn them. I'm quite good at it. > It seems you might believe Tiger Woods -learned- to swing a golf club > or Marco Andretti -learned- to drive and have since found no need for > practice. I can't think of a single example of physical performance > where one's proficiency does not decline without practice. No, I never said that. But they are seeking extraordinary levels of perfection, not competence. > > BTW, I have touched other vehicles while driving precisely three times > > while I been a driver; none of the events taking place at more than [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It makes them less likely, it's little protection from the morons. If you believe that, you aren't competent, IMHO. > > At no time is looking at that little dial called the > > speedometer actually useful except in so far as it can prevent me from [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > do their skills and situational awareness. I find it best to rely on > my own judgment. YMMV. I didn't say I counted on traffic to tell me what speed is appropriate. I said I take road conditions into account to decide on what speed is appropriate and traffic (and that speed at which it is traveling) is one of the factors of road conditions that is being evaluated. 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 wrote: <brevity snip> > > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote: > > > So to be competent an velocity n, it is not enough to be competent at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > much slower than speed n will you accept as experience appropriate for > driving at speed n and how do you justify your limit? 10mph increments, beginning at and with 10mph "panic stops". If one is inexperienced, one has no experience. If you're going to chose to operate at x velocity, one should be experienced avoiding crashing at that velocity. > > > Sorry, but no. You do notice <minor elevation changes> if you are a good driver, and then you > > > adjust for the one's that would make a particular speed unsafe. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I never said they were more noticeable. They are sufficiently noticeable > to a competent driver. Why would a "competent" driver notice minor changes in elevation that are inconsequential at lower velocity?! > > > the traction of a vehicle > > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at 75. > > > > http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/fc1.htm > > Sorry. What does the friction circle have to do with speed? When momentum is greater it requires more friction to change direction and/or stop. > > My argument is that if you are not "competent" to perform emergency > > maneuvers at a certain velocity, your skills are merely "adequate", and > > you are not "competent" to operate at that velocity. > > And my argument is that you don't have to practice emergency maneuvers > at velocity n to be competent to perform them at that velocity. I believe my original criteria was "exploring the limits of traction" (presumably required for emergency maneuvers) at one's chosen velocity. Your argument is that no experience approaching the limits of traction at velocity n may qualify as competence to operate at that velocity. Only one who has no experience at approaching the limits of traction at n velocity would forward such a premise. > > *--All else being equal--*, you will have more time to > > react at lower velocity. > > I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. I think it is simply irrefutable. > > An example where the opposing driver always changes his maneuver to > > eliminate any chance of adequate reaction time is not a real argument. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > requirement. Saying that you would have avoided situation x at n mph > because it happened so far away isn't answering anything. And neither is that crap. Lower velocity leads to more time to react and maneuver. What laws of physics may we assume not apply? > > > Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sorry, but velocity is a continuum. Sorry, so is the absence of velocity. See Newton's First Law. > > > > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Agreed. But that simply pales in comparison to their inability to avoid > situations that *are* avoidable. Yes, but that is not the argument, and so is not relevant. > > If you'd actually ever spent an afternoon trying to learn them, you > > wouldn't say that. There's a lot more to it than hitting the brakes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I have spent time trying to learn them. I'm quite good at it. According to whom? How do you know you're not 10% less "quite good" than the kid with a fresh license and zero experience? I know you're not citing your experience trying to learn them... why would you bother if you believe "trying to learn them" was without benefit? > > It seems you might believe Tiger Woods -learned- to swing a golf club > > or Marco Andretti -learned- to drive and have since found no need for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, I never said that. But they are seeking extraordinary levels of > perfection, not competence. I didn't say you said that. You can read, can't you? The point is, the most competent who wish to maintain competence need to practice. > > > What I've needed almost every day is to have a good scan of the traffic > > > ahead (and behind, and to the sides) in order to make panic maneuvers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you believe that, you aren't competent, IMHO. Well, pass me, and as you do I'll drive into your passenger door. > > > The road conditions including traffic tell me what > > > speed is appropriate. > > > > You can't count on traffic to tell you what speed is appropriate. > > I didn't say I counted on traffic to tell me what speed is appropriate. Why else would you even consider the speed of other traffic to determine what velocity might be appropriate? ----- - gpsman > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > > > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > operate at x velocity, one should be experienced avoiding crashing at > that velocity. One should be experienced avoiding crash situations. That would take care of 95% if the problem right there. > > > > Sorry, but no. You do notice <minor elevation changes> if you are a > > > > good driver, and then you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why would a "competent" driver notice minor changes in elevation that > are inconsequential at lower velocity?! Hmmm... Perhaps by observing that as speed increases, smaller and smaller road deviations have larger and larger effects and, gee I don't know... ..thinking? > > > > the traction of a vehicle > > > > traveling at 100 mph is just not that much less than one traveling at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When momentum is greater it requires more friction to change direction > and/or stop. IOW, you posted a reference that meant nothing. The traction of a vehicle isn't affected by change in velocity, except in a very minor way if the car generates lift. > > > My argument is that if you are not "competent" to perform emergency > > > maneuvers at a certain velocity, your skills are merely "adequate", and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I believe my original criteria was "exploring the limits of traction" > (presumably required for emergency maneuvers) at one's chosen velocity. And your original criteria is bunk. > Your argument is that no experience approaching the limits of traction > at velocity n may qualify as competence to operate at that velocity. No, it's not. > Only one who has no experience at approaching the limits of traction at > n velocity would forward such a premise. LOL > > > *--All else being equal--*, you will have more time to > > > react at lower velocity. > > > > I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. > > I think it is simply irrefutable. Nope. It's simply wrong and you're going to have to live with it. > > > An example where the opposing driver always changes his maneuver to > > > eliminate any chance of adequate reaction time is not a real argument. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And neither is that crap. Lower velocity leads to more time to react > and maneuver. What laws of physics may we assume not apply? Do you understand "functional criterion"? No, you don't. The functional criterion in a sudden emergency situation is *time*. If you have enough, you can avoid the situation, if you don't have enough, you can't. > > > > Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry, so is the absence of velocity. See Newton's First Law. LOL Go and learn at least first year physics. Then we can talk. And have the balls to leave in the part you snipped in your pathetic attempt to look clever: My sentence above was followed by this: > > What if you were doing 30 mph when > > someone came across the centre line, could you maneuver quickly enough > > then? Yes? Ok, what about 20, 10, 5? Do you get it yet? Care to explain why you snipped it out? > > > > > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yes, but that is not the argument, and so is not relevant. Because if it were part of the argument, you'd look really really stupid... > > > If you'd actually ever spent an afternoon trying to learn them, you > > > wouldn't say that. There's a lot more to it than hitting the brakes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not citing your experience trying to learn them... why would you bother > if you believe "trying to learn them" was without benefit? Who would you believe? > > > It seems you might believe Tiger Woods -learned- to swing a golf club > > > or Marco Andretti -learned- to drive and have since found no need for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The point is, the most competent who wish to maintain competence need > to practice. I practice my skills all the time. > > > > What I've needed almost every day is to have a good scan of the traffic > > > > ahead (and behind, and to the sides) in order to make panic maneuvers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, pass me, and as you do I'll drive into your passenger door. You'll try. > > > > The road conditions including traffic tell me what > > > > speed is appropriate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why else would you even consider the speed of other traffic to > determine what velocity might be appropriate? Because whatever the posted limit is, traveling at a speed greatly different that the speed of traffic is going to increase the risk of accident. Anyone competent to drive would know that I would have thought. 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 wrote: <brevity snip> . > One should be experienced avoiding crash situations. That would take > care of 95% if the problem right there. Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the argument. I don't know why you insist on repeating it. > > Why would a "competent" driver notice minor changes in elevation that > > are inconsequential at lower velocity?! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ..thinking? That's "how", not "why". > > > Sorry. What does the friction circle have to do with speed? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > vehicle isn't affected by change in velocity, except in a very minor way > if the car generates lift. What about centrifugal tire growth? What about increased internal tire pressures? Not factoring those, consider why you may jerk the steering wheel x degrees to achieve a change of direction at 20mph and the same movement at 100mph will most likely lead to a loss of front tire traction. Or think of high-speed maneuvering as driving on a slick surface, that's what it most closely resembles. > > I believe my original criteria was "exploring the limits of traction" > > (presumably required for emergency maneuvers) at one's chosen velocity. > > And your original criteria is bunk. Nice argument. > > Your argument is that no experience approaching the limits of traction > > at velocity n may qualify as competence to operate at that velocity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL Nice argument. > > > > *--All else being equal--*, you will have more time to > > > > react at lower velocity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope. It's simply wrong and you're going to have to live with it. Well then, why not refute? Let's think of me and a professional baseball player try to hit you with fastballs; mine at 88fps, his at 146fps. Which velocity will provide you more time to react?! Feel free to think of your own examples. > > > > An example where the opposing driver always changes his maneuver to > > > > eliminate any chance of adequate reaction time is not a real argument. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you have enough, you can avoid the situation, if you don't have enough, > you can't. The "functional criterion" of time is velocity. > > > > > Well if that were true, wouldn't being stopped entirely be safest? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > someone came across the centre line, could you maneuver quickly enough > > > then? Yes? Ok, what about 20, 10, 5? Do you get it yet? Nope. Your example lacks "the" "functional criterion" of time, distance and closing velocity. > Care to explain why you snipped it out? Because it is functionally the product of a lack of sense. > > > > > > > In short, speed is not the problem, bad driving is. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Because if it were part of the argument, you'd look really really > stupid... And how do you look after repeatedly insisting on injecting it? It's irrelevant, that's why it is not included. I suppose that might lead to my looking stupid, but I omitted it, didn't even consider it, because it is i r r e l e v a n t. > > > > If you'd actually ever spent an afternoon trying to learn them, you > > > > wouldn't say that. There's a lot more to it than hitting the brakes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Who would you believe? Not you. You may not achieve credibility by arguing experience and practice are irrelevant, then 180 and say you're "quite good" due to your experience and practice. > > The point is, the most competent who wish to maintain competence need > > to practice. > > I practice my skills all the time. Touch?. > > > > > What I've needed almost every day is to have a good scan of the traffic > > > > > ahead (and behind, and to the sides) in order to make panic maneuvers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You'll try. So you believe your skills are honed to such a degree that you -can't- crash?! Nobody may crash into you?! > > > > > The road conditions including traffic tell me what > > > > > speed is appropriate. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > different that the speed of traffic is going to increase the risk of > accident. Yeah, that bullshit conclusion extrapolated entirely from a 1964 graph. Smart. "If conflicts created by large differences in travel speeds were a major factor in the likelihood of crashes, then one might expect to find a large number of crashes involving two or more vehicles traveling in the same direction. Cerrilli (1997) found less than one-third of all crashes and 5 percent of all fatal crashes in 1996 involved two or more vehicle traveling in the same direction. Many of these likely occurred as a consequence of a vehicle slowing or stopping for cause (i.e., to make an intended maneuver or avoid striking a stopped vehicle or other hazard) and being struck from behind by a vehicle following too closely or going too fast for the driver to stop in time to avoid the collision." http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm Feel free to read it, rather than just look at the pitchurs. Even if your conclusion -were- accurate, one must trade the risk of crash for the severity of crash. Lesser odds of a crash do not mean a crash cannot occur. > Anyone competent to drive would know that I would have thought. Try getting your facts straight, then thinking. ----- - gpsman > Alan Baker wrote: <brevity snip> > . [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the argument. I don't know why you > insist on repeating it. Because the real topic is "how can one drive safely at 100mph". > > > Why would a "competent" driver notice minor changes in elevation that > > > are inconsequential at lower velocity?! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's "how", not "why". Nope. It's both why and how. The answer to why is "because you start noticing smaller deviations as your speed increases" the how is "because you have senses and a brain". > > > > Sorry. What does the friction circle have to do with speed? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What about centrifugal tire growth? What about increased internal tire > pressures? What about them? Increase internal tire pressures only occur in significant amounts if you're driving a tire that is heating up significantly. That only happens if you either drive tires that aren't appropriately rated for the speed, or if you let your tires becomes significantly under-inflated. Friction between two surfaces is equal to the vertical load between them times a constant: the coefficient of friction. At least in the ideal. Rubber is not quite an ideal friction material (in the physics sense of ideal meaning strictly following the formula) and so if the unit pressure rises the effective coefficient of friction will be slightly less, but we're talking in single digits of percentage. > Not factoring those, consider why you may jerk the steering wheel x > degrees to achieve a change of direction at 20mph and the same movement > at 100mph will most likely lead to a loss of front tire traction. Is that really how you drive? Just jerk the wheel x degrees? No, of course not. So let's not bother with strawmen. > Or think of high-speed maneuvering as driving on a slick surface, > that's what it most closely resembles. No, it doesn't resemble that at all. > > > I believe my original criteria was "exploring the limits of traction" > > > (presumably required for emergency maneuvers) at one's chosen |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message