A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old April 25th 05, 08:01 AM
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rod Speed > wrote
> >> Alan Baker > wrote
> >>> Bob Ward > wrote
> >>>> Alan Baker > wrote

>
> >>>>> But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking
> >>>>> pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on.

>
> >>>> some? SOME? How far? Millimeters? Inches? Feet?
> >>>> Yards? You sure like to start tossing out weasel words
> >>>> when the egg hits your face, don't you?

>
> >>> Well, the least it will move is going to be in the case where
> >>> both cars are moving at the same speed after collision.

>
> >> Pity that when the stationary car has the brakes on when hit,
> >> that same speed may well be considerably lower than it would
> >> be if the stationary car did not have the brakes on, stupid.

>
> >> Reams of completely irrelevant desperate wanking with
> >> numbers plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

>
> > The speed of the two vehicles after collision is determined
> > by the momentum and the degree of elasticity in the collision.

>
> Duh.
>
> > The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be
> > is in the case of a completely inelastic collision (where both
> > vehicles move together after the collide) and in the case of
> > equal mass, it will be exactly half the speed of the rear vehicle..

>
> Duh.
>
> Pity what was actually being discussed was the effect of the
> stationary car HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT THE TIME OF
> THE COLLISION ON THE DISTANCE IT MOVES FORWARD
> AND WHETHER THAT CAN AVOID RUNNING INTO THE
> CAR IN FRONT OF THE STATIONARY CAR.


And it *does* move forward. Momentum doesn't just disappear. Having the
brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.

If a car on it's own can't stop from 5 mph in zero feet, then if that
same car is struck by another just like it at 10 mph, it will take the
at least the same distance to stop as it would take from 5 mph all on
its lonesome -- more in fact; in the real scenario, it wouldn't
necessarily have the colliding car braking as well.

>
> Presumably you actually are that thick, its hard to believe
> that you can actually be pretending to be that thick.


And since I already did the math, you can see that even at 20 mph,
there's a significant chance of

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Ads
  #152  
Old April 25th 05, 08:04 AM
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rod Speed > wrote

>
> >> Alan Baker > wrote

>
> >> >> >> > The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow
> >> >> >> > speed
> >> >> >> > is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks
> >> >> >> > on.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
> >> >> >> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
> >> >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
> >> >>
> >> >> Its VERY basic physics that if the brakes are on, it takes a lot
> >> >> more force to move the car into the car in front of it, dragging
> >> >> the tyres across the road than it does with the brakes off.
> >>
> >> >> Try pushing the car in both situations and then find
> >> >> a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face.
> >>
> >> > I never said it was as easy to move a car
> >> > with the brakes on as with the brakes off.
> >>
> >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
> >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
> >>
> >> Obviously not.
> >>
> >> > But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking
> >> > pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on.
> >>
> >> And what matters is whether it moves
> >> enough to hit the car in front of it, stupid.

>
> > I'd tell you to do the math, but I don't think you can.

>
> You cant even manage to work out what is actually being discussed.
>
> WHETHER THE STATIONARY CAR HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT
> THE TIME OF THE COLLISION WILL REDUCE THE RISK OF IT
> GETTING RAMMED INTO THE STATIONARY CAR IN FRONT OF THAT.
>
> Of course it will, and you dont need any maths to work that out you fool.


I never said it wouldn't.

What I objected to was you saying it was:

"> Even foot on brake if you are too close to the car
> in front won't save you, your car is going to move.


Wrong."

It isn't wrong. If you are "too close" to the car in front of you, then
having the brakes on won't save you.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
  #153  
Old April 25th 05, 11:41 AM
The Etobian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:42:18 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
wrote:

>> My driving instructor told me to stop far enough behind the
>> vehicle in front be able to get around it without backing up,

>
>That is a completely silly approach and if everyone did
>that, it would **** up traffic flow quite spectacularly.


If you don't do that in Rhode Island, then you will have to wait
another light cycle because the driver in front of you just put on his
left turn signal right after the light turned green and right after he
started turning his wheels to the left, while everyone behind you is
now passing on the right.

Since there is no marking on the road except for the center line, and
since the road is wide enough, I always stay back and slightly to the
right of the driver ahead of me so I can get past him if he's turning
left.
  #154  
Old April 25th 05, 02:34 PM
max
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote:

> The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be is in the case
> of a completely inelastic collision (where both vehicles move together
> after the collide) and in the case of equal mass, it will be exactly
> half the speed of the rear vehicle..


:-)

Tonight's homework:

Solve the motion equations for a Cooper Mini stopped 30 feet behind a
stopped H2 and rear ended by a Freightliner semi truck hauling a
vehicle transport trailer fully loaded with Ford Expeditions and
traveling at 18 mph at time of impact.

Bonus: does the H2 driver drop his/her cell phone?

show all math.

..max

--
<blink>

  #155  
Old April 25th 05, 04:32 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>>
>> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
>> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.

>
>I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.


Smart move. Trying to educate Rod Speed is like mud-wrestling with a
pig, except that there ARE people who enjoy the latter.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #157  
Old April 25th 05, 05:10 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Don Klipstein > wrote:
>
> Too many drivers in Philadelphia start their turn signals when they
>start turning the wheel - if they signal turns at all!


An ignorant observer of Philadelphia traffic would probably come to
the conclusion that turn signal use is illegal and the law strictly
enforced.

> And too many Philadelphia drivers who bother to signal their turns do
>not signal lane changes. And too many who consider to signal lane changes
>do not do so when the lane change is entering or exiting the parking lane.


> (And in the last 5 years plenty of drivers parking in Philadelphia or
>nearby parts of some "inner suburbs" such as Upper Darby double-park even
>when empty legal parking spaces can be found within 1 block - in some
>cases even double-parking against a parking space!)


That's nonsense. There aren't any legal parking spots in
Philadelphia. They're either handicapped spots, loading zones, valet
parking areas, blocked by construction or dumpsters, or marked with
well-weathered cardboard signs that say "NO PARKING TEMPORARY
POLICE REGULATION".

I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove away from
it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell was I supposed to
park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the nearby spots fit into
the above categories?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #158  
Old April 25th 05, 05:58 PM
Garth Almgren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Around 4/25/2005 9:10 AM, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove away from
> it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell was I supposed to
> park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the nearby spots fit into
> the above categories?


How about the loading zones you mentioned, or is unloading in a loading
zone also prohibited? Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case...



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
  #160  
Old April 25th 05, 07:42 PM
The Real Bev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:58:29 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things
> >> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average.

> >
> >I believe that. I do not believe it's correct.
> >

> Correct, or proper. You appear to be contradicting yourself here.


Sorry, I'll be more specific/accurate: I believe it's true; I do not believe
it's right.

--
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think they could put him in a mental hospital.
On the other hand, if he were already in, I don't think
they'd let him out." -- Greek Geek
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you have GEICO Insurance JR Ford Mustang 6 February 24th 05 06:23 AM
Auto Insurance Question (foreign driver) Mike General 0 August 16th 04 06:52 PM
MY BAD GEICO INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ! Nospam 4x4 14 February 2nd 04 03:56 AM
MY BAD GEICO INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ! Nospam General 1 January 27th 04 10:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.