If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:46:17 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , 123456789 wrote: Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. Not in my state (AZ/US): (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal alone shall not enter the roadway. yes in your state: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm 28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. "if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation". See? He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the argument. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:31:03 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote: On 02/12/2019 12:21 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. Not in my state (AZ/US): (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal alone shall not enter the roadway. yes in your state: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm 28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. What part of "traffic control signals" don't you understand? what part of not hitting someone is not clear? if there are traffic lights, drivers need to obey those too. but go ahead, don't yield to pedestrians and see how well that works out for you. The driver was obeying his green light and proceeding through the intersection, The girl was DISOBEYING her red light and stepped onto the street when the car was only a few feet away. How was he supposed to stop in about 5 feet? Do you think he has magic brakes with Instant stop? Or are you too stubborn to understand ? Silly question. Of course he is. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:42:04 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Dan Purgert wrote: anyone that is in a position where they must 'slam on the brakes' to avoid hitting someone or something is not paying attention and also driving too fast for conditions. Methinks you haven't driven that much. I've driven well in excess 1,000,000 miles, and I can tell you that the sudden appearance of objects in your drive path can happen whether or not you are paying attention. of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. The quoted 2.2 seconds includes the the time to recognise that there is anything to react to and then the time to get the foot onto the brake pedal. Your figure of 0.3 seconds applies to the situation where the test subject has a finger on a button and is waiting only for the light to change colour. those with slower reaction times tend to crash. A car-length is approximately 15 feet (177 inches). Standard roadway in the busoness districts around here is 25 MPH (36 feet per second). Assuming an average driver, that means any "sudden" change in conditions within 6 car lengths will result in either slamming on the brakes, or an accident. i was taught to follow at least 3 seconds behind. of course, that never happens in the real world, which is one reason why there are so many crashes. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 None of this describes the situation where there is a signal and two of them specifically describe the situation where there is no signal. yes they do. ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist: http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c ost-you-police-planning-stings/ SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park, specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police. .... The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations. https://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20100601/News/604151973/GS/ When Kelly Stauff saw the man in the crosswalk, it was too late to stop. She didnąt hit the man, who turned out to be a Gainesville police officer in street clothes, but Stauff was nailed with a $154 ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian. .... A study in January showed that only about 20 percent of drivers in the city yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Approximately three crashes a week involve a pedestrian, officers have said. Drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and must yield to a pedestrian even if there are no pavement markings on the crosswalk. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...lem-police-beg in-undercover-pedestrian-safety-campaign/1302233002/ Plainclothes officers will be taking to crosswalks, both marked and unmarked,*across the city to make sure drivers are yielding to pedestrians. .... Officials say failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk and for passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk are class B violations which carry a fine of up to $265. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ngs-drivers-wh o-dont-yield-crosswalks-does-it-really-work/5221/ There were at least 56 very unhappy people in Fort Lee, New Jersey, last Friday, after a police sting operation resulted in a flurry of traffic tickets for drivers who failed to yield for pedestrians in crosswalks. The blitz, which is part of a more comprehensive effort to educate both pedestrians and drivers about their responsibility to follow the law, drew angry comments from motorists who were stopped and issued $230 tickets, according to NorthJersey.com https://www.mcall.com/g00/news/local...em-crosswalk-s tings-20160621-story.html As officers watched on motorcycles hidden by a leafy tree, volunteers crossed New Street at Fairview Street again and again as vehicles whistled past them in daylight. One car stopped inches short of clipping a foot. Another screeched to a stop as the motorist, talking on a phone, seemed to suddenly notice the pedestrian. The motorcycle cops turned on their lights, hit their sirens and raced off to stop the drivers who didn't yield. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...cited-during-c rosswalk-sting-in-south-salt-lake.html During the sting, an undercover officer entered the crosswalk to see if drivers would stop. As the officer walked back and forth in the crosswalk, other officers in patrol cars and motorcycles stood by. They didn't have to wait too long to find someone else not yielding to the pedestrian, which is a violation of state law. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...cs/crosswalk_e nforcementinitiatives.html The crosswalk awareness initiatives involve an off-duty, undercover police officer posing as a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk.* If oncoming drivers donąt stop for the pedestrian‹as required by law‹the vehicle will be pulled over by a police spotter further down the street. Motorists can face fines ranging from $50 to $500 for failure to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Last year the Police Department issued more than 1,000 citations for failure to stop for pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks.* |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. Not in my state (AZ/US): (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal alone shall not enter the roadway. yes in your state: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm 28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. "if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation". See? see 'pedestrian shall not enter the roadway'. except that sometimes they do. He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the argument. stick to the topic. as usual, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. The quoted 2.2 seconds includes the the time to recognise that there is anything to react to and then the time to get the foot onto the brake pedal. Your figure of 0.3 seconds applies to the situation where the test subject has a finger on a button and is waiting only for the light to change colour. substitute foot instead of finger. the quoted 2.2 seconds are for people who crashed. had they been paying attention, they likely could have avoided it. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:40:27 -0600, notX
wrote: On 2/12/19 8:43 AM, Wolf K wrote: [snip] Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger. I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south than much of Washington State. Canada extends more than four degrees south of the southernmost point of Washington state. That southernmost point of Canada is at 41 degrees, 41 minutes north; it is in Ontario. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:39:36 -0500, Wolf K
wrote: [snip] True, the interior is on the "wrong" side of the mountains, so it has continental climate variant. FWIW, I was in WA only once, Seattle in a January ca 1964 or '65. They had pulled the school buses off the roads and closed most of the schools because it was few degrees below freezing. When I left Edmonton the day before, it was around -15F there. Seattle was tropical from my POV. :-) Did you freak out people by wearing your sweater and jacket unbuttoned/unzipped? I made a trip down to Vancouver several years ago just before Christmas. It was -10C "with the windchill" (as said so breathily by the radio weather announcers down there). We had just had a cold snap of about -30 to -35C in my neck of the woods -- Kamloops -- and I was quite conscious of the fact that people from further north would snicker at what I thought was cold. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. The quoted 2.2 seconds includes the the time to recognise that there is anything to react to and then the time to get the foot onto the brake pedal. Your figure of 0.3 seconds applies to the situation where the test subject has a finger on a button and is waiting only for the light to change colour. substitute foot instead of finger. the quoted 2.2 seconds are for people who crashed. had they been paying attention, they likely could have avoided it. No, the 2.2 seconds is NHTSA (and other) studies of motorists in test situations where they get thrown curveballs (e.g. a deer running into the road, etc.) by the administrator of the test. The test scenario may or may not result in an "accident" with a 2.2 second average reaction. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxjeu YACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooHxMQf/Vp01yE7IfKaC7ldbD3iHMlYpFQJ0wkRT4ZerbBBEK2azvpF7ic COMKZ7 qUPFp2Voj2pEsipGQPEecBfEts4qMKlznaVSka/SyGmPU1I6n//8wHa7t8ehY+w3 9r3R5gi9P5Efop0WRAHVyCUX6qRoOggWg1A52yC7TKHy54gkyS GvXsWkFOPC4+i2 Wsir57+jG4xdqJWWdRC0IqRxgHQIuFtVQ3i31MWZuOT8KochtF 05RwkP9yCUVm23 0tr1hDhmt6YTlD/VCr4IQBhLZqa9UbrsBLptHVtFim0QuE3sC7xL6ovDpZRE9yeY A4Zwza7KudLh6xDOPhPjA9mPki8/KA== =rQDl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:49:35 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:04:48 -0800, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [snip] And this, because of the efforts of many motorists. Many pedestrians are horribly oblivious. Drivers, too. I do not claim otherwise. However, I see too many pedestrians who are horribly clueless and who would get run over if not for drivers making efforts to avoid the mess that the pedestrian has set up. Dressing in head-to-toe black at night is my favourite. Looking intently at his cellphone while crossing a busy street. and the list goes on. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: The fact is that for the fastest reaction time you need to _not_ pay conscious attention. It has to be subconscious. Conscious attention and reaction is too slow. The purpose of training is to make as much of the process subconscious as possible. This is true for all physical skills, and even for many mental ones. exactly, which is why *real* driver training (not the crap that passes for driver ed, which is a complete joke) makes it so it's second nature. there is no time to think about what to do in an emergency scenario. 2 second reaction time is *much* too long. it's too late. In the incident reported by Rene, the driver had barely enough time to "slam on his brakes." And he was paying attention, not only to a pedestrian possibly walking into his path, but also to oncoming drivers possibly turning into it as they crossed the intersection, etc. That pedestrian was lucky that a seasoned driver was behind the wheel, and that the car was still travelling slowly enough to prevent a collision. A rookie driver would probably have hit her. Or swerved to avoid the collision, and hit an oncoming car instead. a rookie driver would panic and hit the pedestrian or something else. a seasoned driver would not 'slam on the brakes'. anyone who slams on the brakes is doing something wrong. As I said, your comments indicate you are not an experienced driver. you'd be wrong. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 02/12/2019 9:49 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-02-12 22:00, nospam wrote: In article , Wolf K wrote: The fact is that for the fastest reaction time you need to _not_ pay conscious attention. It has to be subconscious. Conscious attention and reaction is too slow. The purpose of training is to make as much of the process subconscious as possible. This is true for all physical skills, and even for many mental ones. exactly, which is why *real* driver training (not the crap that passes for driver ed, which is a complete joke) makes it so it's second nature. there is no time to think about what to do in an emergency scenario. 2 second reaction time is *much* too long. it's too late. The above is just another example of your limited experience. You have no idea what driver ed entails in other jurisdictions. You repeatedly infer that your limited experience is typical. In the incident reported by Rene, the driver had barely enough time to "slam on his brakes." And he was paying attention, not only to a pedestrian possibly walking into his path, but also to oncoming drivers possibly turning into it as they crossed the intersection, etc. That pedestrian was lucky that a seasoned driver was behind the wheel, and that the car was still travelling slowly enough to prevent a collision. A rookie driver would probably have hit her. Or swerved to avoid the collision, and hit an oncoming car instead. a rookie driver would panic and hit the pedestrian or something else. That's what I said. So what's your point? a seasoned driver would not 'slam on the brakes'. anyone who slams on the brakes is doing something wrong. On the contrary, a seasoned driver would slam on the brakes and then become aware of why he did it. As I said, your comments indicate you are not an experienced driver. you'd be wrong. What you've said contradicts your claim. As I said, I have well over 1,000,000 miles of driving experience. Do you? No hope Wolf, He's thick as a brick and twice as dense. Rene |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: The fact is that for the fastest reaction time you need to _not_ pay conscious attention. It has to be subconscious. Conscious attention and reaction is too slow. The purpose of training is to make as much of the process subconscious as possible. This is true for all physical skills, and even for many mental ones. exactly, which is why *real* driver training (not the crap that passes for driver ed, which is a complete joke) makes it so it's second nature. there is no time to think about what to do in an emergency scenario. 2 second reaction time is *much* too long. it's too late. The above is just another example of your limited experience. You have no idea what driver ed entails in other jurisdictions. i highly, highly doubt you taught anything beyond the basics, which is whatever is sufficient to obtain a license. when i say real driver training, i mean something along the lines of: https://bondurant.com https://www.skipbarber.com compare driver education with flight lessons. it's a joke. You repeatedly infer that your limited experience is typical. likewise for you. In the incident reported by Rene, the driver had barely enough time to "slam on his brakes." And he was paying attention, not only to a pedestrian possibly walking into his path, but also to oncoming drivers possibly turning into it as they crossed the intersection, etc. That pedestrian was lucky that a seasoned driver was behind the wheel, and that the car was still travelling slowly enough to prevent a collision. A rookie driver would probably have hit her. Or swerved to avoid the collision, and hit an oncoming car instead. a rookie driver would panic and hit the pedestrian or something else. That's what I said. So what's your point? a seasoned driver would not 'slam on the brakes'. anyone who slams on the brakes is doing something wrong. On the contrary, a seasoned driver would slam on the brakes and then become aware of why he did it. nope. a seasoned driver would not have been in the situation where slamming on the brakes is needed. slamming on the brakes is proof that the driver was driving too fast for conditions and/or not paying attention. otherwise, they would not have needed to slam on the brakes. As I said, your comments indicate you are not an experienced driver. you'd be wrong. What you've said contradicts your claim. it doesn't. As I said, I have well over 1,000,000 miles of driving experience. Do you? number of miles means absolutely nothing. what matters is how well you can handle emergency maneuvers, such as losing traction, brake failure, etc. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:27:22 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 None of this describes the situation where there is a signal and two of them specifically describe the situation where there is no signal. yes they do. ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist: http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c ost-you-police-planning-stings/ SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park, specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police. ... The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations. But we should be discussing cross walks with signals. Your quote doesn't cover that situation https://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20100601/News/604151973/GS/ When Kelly Stauff saw the man in the crosswalk, it was too late to stop. She didnÂąt hit the man, who turned out to be a Gainesville police officer in street clothes, but Stauff was nailed with a $154 ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian. ... A study in January showed that only about 20 percent of drivers in the city yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Approximately three crashes a week involve a pedestrian, officers have said. Drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and must yield to a pedestrian even if there are no pavement markings on the crosswalk. Ditto. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...lem-police-beg in-undercover-pedestrian-safety-campaign/1302233002/ Plainclothes officers will be taking to crosswalks, both marked and unmarked,Â*across the city to make sure drivers are yielding to pedestrians. ... Officials say failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk and for passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk are class B violations which carry a fine of up to $265. Ditto. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ngs-drivers-wh o-dont-yield-crosswalks-does-it-really-work/5221/ There were at least 56 very unhappy people in Fort Lee, New Jersey, last Friday, after a police sting operation resulted in a flurry of traffic tickets for drivers who failed to yield for pedestrians in crosswalks. The blitz, which is part of a more comprehensive effort to educate both pedestrians and drivers about their responsibility to follow the law, drew angry comments from motorists who were stopped and issued $230 tickets, according to NorthJersey.com Dito. https://www.mcall.com/g00/news/local...em-crosswalk-s tings-20160621-story.html As officers watched on motorcycles hidden by a leafy tree, volunteers crossed New Street at Fairview Street again and again as vehicles whistled past them in daylight. One car stopped inches short of clipping a foot. Another screeched to a stop as the motorist, talking on a phone, seemed to suddenly notice the pedestrian. The motorcycle cops turned on their lights, hit their sirens and raced off to stop the drivers who didn't yield. Ditto https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...cited-during-c rosswalk-sting-in-south-salt-lake.html During the sting, an undercover officer entered the crosswalk to see if drivers would stop. As the officer walked back and forth in the crosswalk, other officers in patrol cars and motorcycles stood by. They didn't have to wait too long to find someone else not yielding to the pedestrian, which is a violation of state law. Ditto https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...cs/crosswalk_e nforcementinitiatives.html The crosswalk awareness initiatives involve an off-duty, undercover police officer posing as a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk.Â* If oncoming drivers donÂąt stop for the pedestrian‹as required by law‹the vehicle will be pulled over by a police spotter further down the street. Motorists can face fines ranging from $50 to $500 for failure to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Last year the Police Department issued more than 1,000 citations for failure to stop for pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks.Â* Ditto. I don't think you are dumb enough to not the difference between signalled and unsignalled. You are just being dishonest. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:45:34 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 nospam wrote: In article , Dan Purgert wrote: anyone that is in a position where they must 'slam on the brakes' to avoid hitting someone or something is not paying attention and also driving too fast for conditions. Methinks you haven't driven that much. I've driven well in excess 1,000,000 miles, and I can tell you that the sudden appearance of objects in your drive path can happen whether or not you are paying attention. of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. Which is why I said "average braking reaction time", or in other words, the time it takes to actually get the vehicle's brakes engaged. That is: 1. see problem, recognize as such 2. pull foot off throttle 3. move to brake pedal, and (if applicable) clutch 4. engage brakes. Absolute best case according to the NHTSA is 1.5 seconds to react to a surprise road hazard and start applying the brakes -- or approx 55 feet / 3.5 car lengths ... And then several turns of the wheels before the brakes really start to take hold. It all adds up. those with slower reaction times tend to crash. A car-length is approximately 15 feet (177 inches). Standard roadway in the busoness districts around here is 25 MPH (36 feet per second). Assuming an average driver, that means any "sudden" change in conditions within 6 car lengths will result in either slamming on the brakes, or an accident. i was taught to follow at least 3 seconds behind. The scenario is a "surprise" pedestrian darting out into the road while they have a red "don't walk" signal. Not the car you're tailgating. "3 seconds behind" is precisely becayse of the average ~2 seconds to start braking the car ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxja K0ACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooGPawf/fiY7T7hrSEjzhJIBTjoZcv7GOvhpPcFxA6oPPTi2I5jtXQ0LH6 wlhG3z 8dZjCwNKRPsjVu6NP0WQqiUm+3oZvmiNOng+XKnBpeFqfv1rj YD9t6RpuTboZ7qu IxvOK3bGVfiZpcCyvPRlh7GBa9VVugBjVT9pmpGqKBUDCHaxd rGCunHFvE3stK5e 2PLumPXy5/JLMkooLhq/v3hyeqhv4SYK3HylAK7vXOsj7VWsvWP8Mg4cqmFSGjpV Lc3irOlBHBRL65S1NkLVsqmz4GyQzYe47AW/yvMJ7HMzUbb98ITEhWtS6awhVkVz ZPXePUzRM3x4tfBT+R5jzjqUem65Ww== =XFFB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|