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

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

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

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 didn¹t 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 don¹t 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.*

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.

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.

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

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

-----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

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

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.

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

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.

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 didn¹t 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 don¹t 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

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