Misreperesention of relative stopping distances of cars and trucks in Ny Driver's Manual
 

Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
afraid of trucks?

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
of todays cars from 55mph.

But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to do
things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.

In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
of todays cars from 55mph.

But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to do
things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>
>>Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
>>how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
>>Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
>>Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
>>afraid of trucks?
>>
>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>
>
> It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
> 193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
> stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
> 70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
> of todays cars from 55mph.
>
> But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to do
> things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.
>

True. I agree with Brent's statement, but other "sources" cited by
various people in this NG before also show incredibly pessimistic
stopping distances. Every now and then one of them will **** me off
enough that I'll work it through some basic physics equations again to
prove their inaccuracy. I can only assume that those with a
low-speed-limit agenda are driving these inaccurate yet widely
distributed figures.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>
>>Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
>>how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
>>Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
>>Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
>>afraid of trucks?
>>
>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>
>
> It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
> 193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
> stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
> 70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
> of todays cars from 55mph.
>
> But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to do
> things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.
>

True. I agree with Brent's statement, but other "sources" cited by
various people in this NG before also show incredibly pessimistic
stopping distances. Every now and then one of them will **** me off
enough that I'll work it through some basic physics equations again to
prove their inaccuracy. I can only assume that those with a
low-speed-limit agenda are driving these inaccurate yet widely
distributed figures.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
>>> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
>>> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
>>> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
>>> afraid of trucks?
>>>
>>> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
>> 193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
>> stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars
>> from 70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the
>> average of todays cars from 55mph.
>>
>> But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to
>> do things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.
>
>
> True. I agree with Brent's statement, but other "sources" cited by
> various people in this NG before also show incredibly pessimistic
> stopping distances. Every now and then one of them will **** me off
> enough that I'll work it through some basic physics equations again to
> prove their inaccuracy. I can only assume that those with a
> low-speed-limit agenda are driving these inaccurate yet widely
> distributed figures.
>
> nate
>

I just took a look at the graph from the original post and yes it does
look like it was thrown together by a third grader, but also notice that
the distances include "reaction distance recommended by the National
Safety Council" which probably assumes a .7 second or greater RT (i.e.
brain dead) - another common inaccuracy with such graphs.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
>>> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
>>> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
>>> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
>>> afraid of trucks?
>>>
>>> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
>> 193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
>> stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars
>> from 70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the
>> average of todays cars from 55mph.
>>
>> But then again the data comes from IIHS, and they have been known to
>> do things for the economic benefit of their supporters in the past.
>
>
> True. I agree with Brent's statement, but other "sources" cited by
> various people in this NG before also show incredibly pessimistic
> stopping distances. Every now and then one of them will **** me off
> enough that I'll work it through some basic physics equations again to
> prove their inaccuracy. I can only assume that those with a
> low-speed-limit agenda are driving these inaccurate yet widely
> distributed figures.
>
> nate
>

I just took a look at the graph from the original post and yes it does
look like it was thrown together by a third grader, but also notice that
the distances include "reaction distance recommended by the National
Safety Council" which probably assumes a .7 second or greater RT (i.e.
brain dead) - another common inaccuracy with such graphs.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Jack Brown wrote:
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110
ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

Not trying to defend NY DMV. Let me suggest that their graph does show
the 193 feet distance of the auto. Look at the front bumper of all the
vehicles and you will notice that this appears to be the point on the
graph where the distance is shown. The only problem is there is a gap
between the bar and the auto whereas no gap appears between the bar and
the truck.

kc0iv

Jack Brown wrote:
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110
ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

Not trying to defend NY DMV. Let me suggest that their graph does show
the 193 feet distance of the auto. Look at the front bumper of all the
vehicles and you will notice that this appears to be the point on the
graph where the distance is shown. The only problem is there is a gap
between the bar and the auto whereas no gap appears between the bar and
the truck.

kc0iv

"Jack Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110
ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>

I'd say either stupid mistake or mis-interpretation of the graph. Look
at the next data point (Tractor trailer with cool brakes). On the side
bar the required distance is representd as 296 ft, but on the graph is
shown as 256 ft. However, if you look at all the graphs, note that the
end of the bar is presented as a vehicle and the nose of each vehicle
appears to be at the correct point. EX: for the car, the bar appears to
end at 110 ft, but the nose of the car on the end of the bar appears to
be at about 190 ft.