Incredibly Stupid & Criminal Pedestrian (Long)

In article >,
"David W. Poole, Jr." > wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:21:57 GMT, Alan Baker >
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
> >Gearing down would *not* have helped. Think about it: your brakes have
> >the ability to completely lock the wheels, so how would shifting into a
> >lower gear have done anything except distract you from the business of
> >getting stopped as quickly as possible with the system in your car
> >specifically designed for that purpose (the brakes)?
>
> Surely you're not serious? Locking the wheels will provide for better
> control of the vehicle than free-wheeling wheels? Uh, why do they put
> ABS on cars now?

Read what I said and not what you think I said.

The brakes are *capable* of locking the wheels, ergo they can provide
all the necessary stopping force and engine braking isn't necessary.

None of that means that I think locking the wheels is a good idea. It
can be in certain circumstances, but that's another discussion. <g>

--
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."

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:10:48 GMT, Alan Baker >
was understood to have stated the following:

>> >Gearing down would *not* have helped. Think about it: your brakes have
>> >the ability to completely lock the wheels, so how would shifting into a
>> >lower gear have done anything except distract you from the business of
>> >getting stopped as quickly as possible with the system in your car
>> >specifically designed for that purpose (the brakes)?
>>
>> Surely you're not serious? Locking the wheels will provide for better
>> control of the vehicle than free-wheeling wheels? Uh, why do they put
>> ABS on cars now?
>
>Read what I said and not what you think I said.

Clarification noted.

>The brakes are *capable* of locking the wheels, ergo they can provide
>all the necessary stopping force and engine braking isn't necessary.

In the case of the OP, his wheels locked for 100 feet. That was 100
feet he wasn't doing the job of stopping his vehicle as fast as
possible. It's also 100 feet that, if he would have had to turn his
steering wheel, he may have lost even more control.

>None of that means that I think locking the wheels is a good idea. It
>can be in certain circumstances, but that's another discussion. <g>

I understand now.

I'm just thankful that I've had the opportunity to drive a manual
transmission and learn how to use the engine for deacceleration; there
have been times such engine braking has gotten me through situations
where foot brakes probably would have cost me, particularly when water
or other substances contribute to the asphalt's coefficient of
friction.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Bush - Machinehead - Sixteen Stone
K:\Audio\Bush\Sixteen Stone\07-Machinehead.mp3
This is track 25 of 457 in the current playlist.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:47:38 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
>>When my mom was still driving, I told her that if an animal ever darted
>>out in
>>front of the car she should try to brake but go straight ahead, not try to
>>avoid the animal. Better to hit it than spin or roll or smash into
>>another
>>car. She seemed surprised, but on reflection thought that that was the
>>proper
>>thing to do.
>>
>>I would guess that would go for humans too.
>
> I would agree with this.
>
> Anyone stupid enough to walk out in front of oncoming traffic deserves
> a Darwin Award - and there isn't a cop on the planet who will ticket
> you for it (as long as the pedestrian is not in a crosswalk, of
> course).

With a speed limit of 80 kh, any crosswalk would be clearly marked with
white paint and flashing yellow diamond beacons. This Darwin Award
Honorable Mention won't do it again--his hip is hurting like muhfuggah as we
speak.

In article >,
"David W. Poole, Jr." > wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:10:48 GMT, Alan Baker >
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
> >> >Gearing down would *not* have helped. Think about it: your brakes have
> >> >the ability to completely lock the wheels, so how would shifting into a
> >> >lower gear have done anything except distract you from the business of
> >> >getting stopped as quickly as possible with the system in your car
> >> >specifically designed for that purpose (the brakes)?
> >>
> >> Surely you're not serious? Locking the wheels will provide for better
> >> control of the vehicle than free-wheeling wheels? Uh, why do they put
> >> ABS on cars now?
> >
> >Read what I said and not what you think I said.
>
> Clarification noted.
>
> >The brakes are *capable* of locking the wheels, ergo they can provide
> >all the necessary stopping force and engine braking isn't necessary.
>
> In the case of the OP, his wheels locked for 100 feet. That was 100
> feet he wasn't doing the job of stopping his vehicle as fast as
> possible. It's also 100 feet that, if he would have had to turn his
> steering wheel, he may have lost even more control.

People overestimate the difference between optimal braking and locked
tires. Chances are very good that if he'd been trying to modulate
braking force to keep the wheels at the threshold of adhesion he'd have
been less effective at it than is necessary to exceed the deceleration
of fully locked braking.

Although if he really did lock the brakes, it explains why he kept going
straight ahead.

>
> >None of that means that I think locking the wheels is a good idea. It
> >can be in certain circumstances, but that's another discussion. <g>
>
> I understand now.
>
> I'm just thankful that I've had the opportunity to drive a manual
> transmission and learn how to use the engine for deacceleration; there
> have been times such engine braking has gotten me through situations
> where foot brakes probably would have cost me, particularly when water
> or other substances contribute to the asphalt's coefficient of
> friction.

There's no magic to engine braking and if you have a typical two-wheel
drive vehicle, it's only operating on half the available contact patches.

Use engine braking for speed control on long hills? sure. It keeps the
brakes from overheating.

But use engine braking for panic situations? No. No way.

--
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."

More importantly, did you call the police? If
you simply left, what happened might be considered
hit and run.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> "David W. Poole, Jr." > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:10:48 GMT, Alan Baker >
> > was understood to have stated the following:
> >
> > >> >Gearing down would *not* have helped. Think about it: your brakes have
> > >> >the ability to completely lock the wheels, so how would shifting into a
> > >> >lower gear have done anything except distract you from the business of
> > >> >getting stopped as quickly as possible with the system in your car
> > >> >specifically designed for that purpose (the brakes)?
> > >>
> > >> Surely you're not serious? Locking the wheels will provide for better
> > >> control of the vehicle than free-wheeling wheels? Uh, why do they put
> > >> ABS on cars now?
> > >
> > >Read what I said and not what you think I said.
> >
> > Clarification noted.
> >
> > >The brakes are *capable* of locking the wheels, ergo they can provide
> > >all the necessary stopping force and engine braking isn't necessary.
> >
> > In the case of the OP, his wheels locked for 100 feet. That was 100
> > feet he wasn't doing the job of stopping his vehicle as fast as
> > possible. It's also 100 feet that, if he would have had to turn his
> > steering wheel, he may have lost even more control.
>
> People overestimate the difference between optimal braking and locked
> tires. Chances are very good that if he'd been trying to modulate
> braking force to keep the wheels at the threshold of adhesion he'd have
> been less effective at it than is necessary to exceed the deceleration
> of fully locked braking.
>
> Although if he really did lock the brakes, it explains why he kept going
> straight ahead.
>
> >
> > >None of that means that I think locking the wheels is a good idea. It
> > >can be in certain circumstances, but that's another discussion. <g>
> >
> > I understand now.
> >
> > I'm just thankful that I've had the opportunity to drive a manual
> > transmission and learn how to use the engine for deacceleration; there
> > have been times such engine braking has gotten me through situations
> > where foot brakes probably would have cost me, particularly when water
> > or other substances contribute to the asphalt's coefficient of
> > friction.
>
> There's no magic to engine braking and if you have a typical two-wheel
> drive vehicle, it's only operating on half the available contact patches.
>
> Use engine braking for speed control on long hills? sure. It keeps the
> brakes from overheating.
>
> But use engine braking for panic situations? No. No way.
>
>

Agree: It will contribute nothing to braking efficiency. Shifting to
a lower gear in emergency (as in the scenario) takes time away from
controlling the car.

Harry K

223rem wrote:
> More importantly, did you call the police? If
> you simply left, what happened might be considered
> hit and run.

I did call the police when I got home, and also included the license
plate of the black car and told them that the driver had gone after the
pedestrian after he had caused him to drive his car into a ditch. I
also told them that no doubt there were many witnesses to this would-be
tragedy, from other people on the side of the road up further, to all
the other cars coming up on both sides of the lane who had to stop, and
espc. the black car who would have creamed me if not for going into a
ditch.

hit and run, I don't think this situation could be construed as a
hit and run, because a: I did stop (and then some!), and later pulled
over, and b: the "pedestrian" who ran away to the other side of the
road was obviously not "hit" but bumped, and barely at that. c: the so
called "victim" fled the scene. Period. I was also in no condition to
run afer him, and as is common on many of these rural highways, there
are long stretches of forested areas on either side, and that's where
this coward took off into after causing all the havoc.

I did consider waiting longer for the man in the black car to return
(though I did wait in my car for a little while trying to regain my
composure- and pulse!) However, since the other driver went after him
into the forest, I figured using his license plate was the best I could
do in terms of witness information, espc. since he was a victim in this
situation as well.

I also don't hold much hope for anything happening at my end in terms
of justice, because I couldn't get the jerk's id, and all I could do
was recount what happened on the phone. In my experience, the police
never call you back when you report dangerous, or even suicidal
activity on the roads- unless you were part of a serious accident. I'm
just assuming and hoping that the guy in the black car, if he caught
the fleeing pedestrian, would have forced him to give over his id so
that he at least had something solid to go to the police with and
charge him.

Looking back on this, I'm so glad I was driving the older Toyota stick
shift, not because of the manual trans. but because the other car I
sometimes drive (a relative's) is a similar looking wagon, newer
Subaru, but it is automatic and has ABS brakes which I still cannot get
used to, particularly the loss of steering and control I've experienced
in it. I'm almost positive that if I had been driving that car, that I
would have hit the pedestrian, and probably swerved into oncoming
traffic or into the ditch on the other side of the road to try to
regain control.

Ironically, the older car I was driving has a rim leak in the back
driver's side tire, and as is common in very hot weather, some of the
other tires were a bit down also. Hours before all this happened, my
first stop was to a local gas station and I paid 50 cents so I could
put air in 3 of the 4 tires that needed it. I think now that that was
the best 50 cents I ever spent.

What started out as a nice day to go berry picking, ended up horribly,
but at least no one was killed- though, just by the skin of our teeth.
Again, ironically, I had just been coming back from picking berries,
and though they were in containers and bags, the massive amount of
braking I had to do resulted in mashed strawberries all over the car.
It looked like a massacre inside. Creepy, and I'm still cleaning it up
today with soap and water.

What an unpleasant reminder that pedestrians can be just as deadly to
drivers as anything even the largest semi-truck on a 4 lane highway can
dish out. At least you can see that one coming and try to anticipate.

bosk wrote:

> Looking back on this, I'm so glad I was driving the older Toyota stick
> shift, not because of the manual trans. but because the other car I
> sometimes drive (a relative's) is a similar looking wagon, newer
> Subaru, but it is automatic and has ABS brakes which I still cannot get
> used to, particularly the loss of steering and control I've experienced
> in it.

With ABS, you're better able to maintain steering control as opposed to
skidding in a stright line like you did in the Toyota.

Everyone seems to be assuming that the pedestrian was unintentionally
stupid. To me it sounds like some kind of sick prank. That is, convenient
2nd pedestrian on the side (so can't swerve right). Also can't swerve left
as you are more likely to hit the pedestrian or ONCOMING TRAFFIC. Oh, and
after pedestrian is "hit", he runs off. Only reason he would do that is if
he had planned to do so long before he was hit. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> Only reason he would do that is if
> he had planned to do so long before he was hit.

Still, to risk getting hit by a car going 30 mph or so...