It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
>

<snip>

> >
> > > Any condition under which all vehicles must operate may not be found to
> > > be the cause of any crash unless all vehicles operating under the same
> > > conditions -do- crash. If I can make it from A to B without crashing
> > > you should be able to as well. If you can't... you can't fault the
> > > conditions.
> >
> > exactly. That's what I was trying to say. "conditions" does include
> > "speed." You can't fault the speed if an overwhelming majority of
> > people seem to be able to handle it OK.
>
> Speed is a "condition" solely controlled by the operator. He has full
> and complete control over how fast he drives and where he drives that
> fast and how close he drives to the vehicle to his front and when he
> decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
> for his following distance.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.

>
> How is a cop supposed to know?

It's their JOB to sift through the BS and assign responsibility
if/where appropriate. They also, at least in some cases, receive
special training in accident reconstruction so that they can determine
who did what where, when there's conflicting accounts. That's how this
whole thread got started, a lazy/indifferent cop made a bad call which
will only provide more fodder for the "speed kills" crowd when they
start clamoring for lower speed limits and more enforcement. (and
exactly how is a lower speed limit going to help in stop and go
traffic?)

> Do you think people make statements
> like, "I was driving too fast and following too close"? "The cause of
> the crash was my failure to maintain control". **** no. They say, "I
> didn't see him". Or "It was his fault, he was driving too slow, slower
> than the flow". Or "He slammed on his brakes so it's the fault of the
> RLC I ran into him"... and other such claptrap. It's almost -always-
> the other guys fault because almost nobody is willing to take
> responsibility for their errors.

True.

>
> People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
> elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
> get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
> the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.

True. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand? It
wasn't the OP trying to weasel out of responsibility for an incident -
he wasn't even involved, he was just a witness.

>
> Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
> What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
> fast for conditions... per 22350.

BZZT. That's a cop out answer and means that you're too lazy to drill
down and find the root cause of the problem.

I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
"speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.

If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
people do all that paperwork.

nate

On 30 Mar 2006 10:42:29 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>Floyd Rogers wrote:
>> "gpsman" > wrote
>> > But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
>> > as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
>> > not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
>>
>> This is not completely apparent.
>
>Maybe not. Opinions are sure to vary.
>
>Reported relevant (to me) "facts":
>
>Vehicle #1 stopped in stop and go traffic.
>
>Vehicle # 2 strikes vehicle #1 from rear.
>
>Cause: Undeterminable without driver of #1. [His car could have
>stalled reducing the effectiveness of his power brakes *for all we
>know*. The brake light switch may be worn as well and so required
>excessive pedal movement to actuate the brake lights *for all we
>know*.]

For clarity all the cars before Vehicle #1 were stopped including
Vehicle #3 who was hit by Vehicle #1 who was pushed forward. Vehicle
#1 was required to stop because probably 5-10 cars up was the gore
point from the Oceanside Blvd onramp. Both drivers claimed to "watch
him not stop" in their rearview mirrors.

The driver of #2 (Blue Honda) did not have his brake lights come on
until he'd collided. If his car was disabled due to a lack of repairs
it'd be his fault anyway.

Oh, and my Honda has no problem braking even if it's stalled. (Yeah,
I tried it once because of a discussion with a friend that ended up
with a similarly odd what-if.) Neither did my '83 Ford (which needed
no help in stalling.) As long as the brakes had pressure they were
good.

>Cop on scene: vehicle #1 and driver unavailable.

Vehicle #2, who did the striking, was unavailable. I think you've
mixed up numbers now. That's why they were Blue Honda and Burgandy
(or similar color) Ranger in my OP.

>Cop concludes vehicle #1 was *obviously* going faster than #2 and
>collided with same. [Witness reports driver #1 was not tailgating.]
>That's all the cop "knows".

Numbers are mixed there, cop concluded 2 hit 1 which hit 3. Or Blue
Honda hit Maroon Ranger which hit Greyish Nissan.

Just for clarity.

My OP was just to point out that this is lumped with all other stats
and made out to be another person going 65+ by way too many people,
thus making 65 the only safe speed. My OP was more about the use of
"speeding" as the BS coverall for any accident.

Dave
---
http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
Amature Ass(phalt) and more!

N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:
> >
> > Speed is a "condition" solely controlled by the operator. He has full
> > and complete control over how fast he drives and where he drives that
> > fast and how close he drives to the vehicle to his front and when he
> > decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
> > for his following distance.
>
> But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
> that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.

The two are inseparably related.

> >
> > How is a cop supposed to know?
>
> It's their JOB to sift through the BS and assign responsibility
> if/where appropriate. They also, at least in some cases, receive
> special training in accident reconstruction so that they can determine
> who did what where, when there's conflicting accounts. That's how this
> whole thread got started, a lazy/indifferent cop made a bad call which
> will only provide more fodder for the "speed kills" crowd when they
> start clamoring for lower speed limits and more enforcement. (and
> exactly how is a lower speed limit going to help in stop and go
> traffic?)

See? You've become lost in your analysis due to your bias that speed
limits are set too low. You fear or dread the effect "speed related"
incidents may have on setting speed limits in the future.

The cop did the best he could with what evidence was available.
Reconstruction isn't necessary for every crash, especially one like
this. He listens to witnesses and sees the rear-end damage of one car.

He doesn't need skid mark distances (there weren't any from the vehicle
that caused the crash if I understand the OP to mean the guy never hit
his brakes). The other driver has skipped, a pretty good indicator to
LEO's that a party is guilty and knows it.

This is a cut and dried rear-end collision. I notice SD Dave didn't
jump to the rear-ender's defense screaming it was the fault of the car
he hit... for stopping. If a RLC was involved the crash takes on an
entirely different perspective.

Now... it's ok to rear-end the vehicle to your front because you
expected him to continue thru the yellow light and he didn't. I'm sure
there was an inanimate object -somewhere- within sight distance... yet
SD Dave didn't cite that as the cause.

> >
> > People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
> > elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
> > get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
> > the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.
>
> True. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand? It
> wasn't the OP trying to weasel out of responsibility for an incident -
> he wasn't even involved, he was just a witness.

SD Dave formed -his- conclusions without investigation and without any
crash investigation training or skills. He formed additional
conclusions based on facts he assumed and had no privy to (an illegal
with an illegal car) and exhibited a belief that he could see where a
driver's hands were located in the vehicle directly to his front but
couldn't discern exactly what he was doing with them but... they
weren't on the wheel. That's bull**** thinking.

>
> >
> > Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
> > What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
> > fast for conditions... per 22350.
>
> BZZT. That's a cop out answer and means that you're too lazy to drill
> down and find the root cause of the problem.

No drilling is needed. The guy hit the car to his front. What else
matters? The root cause of this crash is obvious, one driver was going
35-40 mph faster than the traffic to his front and collided with same
as a result.

>
> I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
> he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
> "speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
> it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
> people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.

Well, what else made him crash? If he had been traveling at a lesser
velocity might he have avoided crashing? The faster the velocity the
smaller the margin of error.

>
> If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
> CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
> know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
> people do all that paperwork.

What about people who fall asleep or have heart attacks while driving?
Excessive speed, either for the driver's skill levels and/or
"conditions" is so prevalent because so many people are driving too
fast for their skill levels and/or conditions... and crashing into
people who have chosen a lesser, more sensible velocity. If you were
among the latter it would make perfect sense to document the former's
poor driving habits and to do something about it.
-----

- gpsman

On 30 Mar 2006 13:45:59 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>Lop off both legs, one eye, deafen yourself and see if your skills
>remain average. According to the nitwits here you should turn in your
>license if you're aware your skills are below average. They never
>consider the vets who left some abilities on battlefields. **** those
>selfish MMFY sons of bitches.

I agree with what you're saying there overall. How about we give them
discounted transit passes, housing, and medical care at places on
those transit routes? Oh, wait, we already do. If they don't want to
use mass transit, that's really not my problem. I've moved before,
it's not that difficult.

Outside of work I rarely drive. I drive to my friend's houses that
are nowhere near transit, since I'm not cutting people out of my life
while I'm a safe, healthy and able driver who owns a car and pays
insurance because they're off a transit route.

Most of the time, I go to places that I can walk to or take mass
transit with one transfer or less. Why is that possible? Because I
made a choice that it's easier not to need to drive everywhere. In a
little while when I take a bus about 5 or 10 minutes to downtown for
less than gas & parking, I'll be glad I made my decision to live here.

If I was disabled to the point where driving is a danger to others,
I'd sure as hell make this same decision, if not arranging for the
disabled/senior shuttles that run all over the city.

I'm sorry people get old or disabled. That does not mean that I feel
they shouldn't plan their life once they reach that point so that
they're able to live without a car.

If it wasn't for my job I'd have gone car-free easily just to save a
****load of money. I spend on my (cheap & affordable) car the monthly
difference between my home and a penthouse suite in a luxury condo. Am
I a cheapass? Hell yeah.

I try to avoid strawmen, but you tried to use disabled veterans on a
bull**** tangent.

>decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
>for his following distance.

I'll take "Following Too Closely" for $1000, Alex.

>How is a cop supposed to know? Do you think people make statements
>like, "I was driving too fast and following too close"? "The cause of
>the crash was my failure to maintain control". **** no. They say, "I
>didn't see him". Or "It was his fault, he was driving too slow, slower
>than the flow". Or "He slammed on his brakes so it's the fault of the
>RLC I ran into him"... and other such claptrap. It's almost -always-
>the other guys fault because almost nobody is willing to take
>responsibility for their errors.

This guy ran off because (a) he wanted to OJ the situation by running,
which makes you look less guilty to some (b) no tiene el seguro (c) he
had a head injury and didn't understand the situation (d) el es un
inmigrante ilegal y no desea volver a México.

>People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
>elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
>get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
>the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.

You mean like illegally entering a country, driving like an asshole,
ramming people, and driving away? Or do you mean like artificially
lowering speed limits to avoid raising property taxes using BS
statistics?

>Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
>What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
>fast for conditions... per 22350.

I'd say it's not avoiding a collison with another vehicle, following
too closely, or showing willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
others. I'd hope those are buried somewhere in those pesky laws. If
not does it make you understand what I don't like clumping every
accident as speed related when there's better explinations?

Dave

On 30 Mar 2006 20:37:53 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
>> gpsman wrote:
>> >
>> > Speed is a "condition" solely controlled by the operator. He has full
>> > and complete control over how fast he drives and where he drives that
>> > fast and how close he drives to the vehicle to his front and when he
>> > decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
>> > for his following distance.
>>
>> But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
>> that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.
>
>The two are inseparably related.

Not at all. The semi driver (I'm not picking on them, it's just the
first case that came to mind) that hit a minivan that was stopped in
lanes a year or so ago on I-5 at The Merge was driving too fast, at
the estimated 75 mph, to stop.

He was not following to closely, he just never stopped. The Blue
Honda in this case really wasn't following to close, he also just
never stopped.

>
>> >
>> > How is a cop supposed to know?
>>
>> It's their JOB to sift through the BS and assign responsibility
>> if/where appropriate. They also, at least in some cases, receive
>> special training in accident reconstruction so that they can determine
>> who did what where, when there's conflicting accounts. That's how this
>> whole thread got started, a lazy/indifferent cop made a bad call which
>> will only provide more fodder for the "speed kills" crowd when they
>> start clamoring for lower speed limits and more enforcement. (and
>> exactly how is a lower speed limit going to help in stop and go
>> traffic?)
>
>See? You've become lost in your analysis due to your bias that speed
>limits are set too low. You fear or dread the effect "speed related"
>incidents may have on setting speed limits in the future.
>
>The cop did the best he could with what evidence was available.
>Reconstruction isn't necessary for every crash, especially one like
>this. He listens to witnesses and sees the rear-end damage of one car.
>
>He doesn't need skid mark distances (there weren't any from the vehicle
>that caused the crash if I understand the OP to mean the guy never hit
>his brakes). The other driver has skipped, a pretty good indicator to
>LEO's that a party is guilty and knows it.
>
>This is a cut and dried rear-end collision. I notice SD Dave didn't
>jump to the rear-ender's defense screaming it was the fault of the car
>he hit... for stopping. If a RLC was involved the crash takes on an
>entirely different perspective.
>
>Now... it's ok to rear-end the vehicle to your front because you
>expected him to continue thru the yellow light and he didn't. I'm sure
>there was an inanimate object -somewhere- within sight distance... yet
>SD Dave didn't cite that as the cause.

Also for fairness, the officers on scene did their jobs respectfully
and, afaik, correctly. They just came to a 'standard' conclusion,
which has been my problem all along. I don't know if they intended to
extend a massive conspiracy, or if it was an honest judgement, but
either way it was another bad statistic to me.

> > People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
>> > elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
>> > get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
>> > the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.
>>
>> True. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand? It
>> wasn't the OP trying to weasel out of responsibility for an incident -
>> he wasn't even involved, he was just a witness.
>
>SD Dave formed -his- conclusions without investigation and without any
>crash investigation training or skills.

Not entirely true. I dispatched and worked as an EMT with a volunteer
company in Upstate NY. I became quite familiar with MVA Procedure
during this time. I also took a few Criminal Forensics classes in
college, and we did some exploration into the field of car crash
forensics. Very intersting stuff, just not a field I wanted to spend
my life in.

> He formed additional
>conclusions based on facts he assumed and had no privy to (an illegal
>with an illegal car) and exhibited a belief that he could see where a
>driver's hands were located in the vehicle directly to his front but
>couldn't discern exactly what he was doing with them but... they
>weren't on the wheel. That's bull**** thinking.

Okay, Oceanside, CA today had to close their schools due to the
illegal immigrant protests. You don't think they have a high illegal
immigrant population? This crash occured at Oceanside Blvd, right in
the heart of town. The driver spoke only Spanish with me, then drove
like a bat out of hell to get away from us once he realized nobody was
injured. (It's a felony to flee an injury accident, misdemenor AFAIK
to run from a property damage accident.)

Also I could clearly see the drivers elbows, and I could see the back
of his head easily also. Those factors, combined with how he was
driving led me to a conclusion that with no other evidence seems quite
probable.

>> > Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
>> > What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
>> > fast for conditions... per 22350.
>>
>> BZZT. That's a cop out answer and means that you're too lazy to drill
>> down and find the root cause of the problem.
>
>No drilling is needed. The guy hit the car to his front. What else
>matters? The root cause of this crash is obvious, one driver was going
>35-40 mph faster than the traffic to his front and collided with same
>as a result.

Wow, yet I stopped in time.

The problem is that this is catagorized in a way you Magic 65 Lovers
use to limit maximum speeds, when he never came within 20mph of the
maximum speed. I managed to stop behind him, Magenta Ranger said
that they saw him "drive into me."

Making this another Magic 65 statistic shows how despirate the 65 mph
advocates are to make their point seem believable. As a Magic 65
supporter this may be difficult to get, but Magic 65 had nothing to do
with this incident. A dumbass didn't stop.

>> I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
>> he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
>> "speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
>> it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
>> people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.
>
>Well, what else made him crash? If he had been traveling at a lesser
>velocity might he have avoided crashing? The faster the velocity the
>smaller the margin of error.

At a lesser speed he would have hit them at a lesser speed, from what
I saw. But I'm the only witness posting, so what do I know?

Should we make the I-5 speed limit 20 mph to prevent these types of
accidents? Seriously, explain the long-term goal of these statements.

>> If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
>> CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
>> know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
>> people do all that paperwork.
>
>What about people who fall asleep or have heart attacks while driving?
>Excessive speed, either for the driver's skill levels and/or
>"conditions" is so prevalent because so many people are driving too
>fast for their skill levels and/or conditions... and crashing into
>people who have chosen a lesser, more sensible velocity. If you were
>among the latter it would make perfect sense to document the former's
>poor driving habits and to do something about it.

Speed stops mattering once a driver has no control over a car, other
than sevarity. This accident occured below the posted speed limit and
yet will become a statistic to justify Magic 65. Can you understand
that?

Dave

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
> > >
> > > Speed is a "condition" solely controlled by the operator. He has full
> > > and complete control over how fast he drives and where he drives that
> > > fast and how close he drives to the vehicle to his front and when he
> > > decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
> > > for his following distance.
> >
> > But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
> > that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.
>
> The two are inseparably related.

Nope. It is possible to drive at an appropriate speed for conditions,
yet maintain an insufficient following distance for that speed. Even
at the speed limit!

>
> > >
> > > How is a cop supposed to know?
> >
> > It's their JOB to sift through the BS and assign responsibility
> > if/where appropriate. They also, at least in some cases, receive
> > special training in accident reconstruction so that they can determine
> > who did what where, when there's conflicting accounts. That's how this
> > whole thread got started, a lazy/indifferent cop made a bad call which
> > will only provide more fodder for the "speed kills" crowd when they
> > start clamoring for lower speed limits and more enforcement. (and
> > exactly how is a lower speed limit going to help in stop and go
> > traffic?)
>
> See? You've become lost in your analysis due to your bias that speed
> limits are set too low. You fear or dread the effect "speed related"
> incidents may have on setting speed limits in the future.

For good reason! Every year this is the one stat that gets pushed to
the forefront when some do-gooder organization makes their annual press
release against raising speed limits, complete with color charts and
everything.

>
> The cop did the best he could with what evidence was available.
> Reconstruction isn't necessary for every crash, especially one like
> this. He listens to witnesses and sees the rear-end damage of one car.
>

He obviously didn't listen to the one witness...

> He doesn't need skid mark distances (there weren't any from the vehicle
> that caused the crash if I understand the OP to mean the guy never hit
> his brakes). The other driver has skipped, a pretty good indicator to
> LEO's that a party is guilty and knows it.

So you admit that the crash was not caused by excessive speed, but by
not braking when he should have.

>
> This is a cut and dried rear-end collision. I notice SD Dave didn't
> jump to the rear-ender's defense screaming it was the fault of the car
> he hit... for stopping. If a RLC was involved the crash takes on an
> entirely different perspective.

Not really, if you don't even make an effort to stop, it's kind of hard
to hold something else responsible. Nobody is arguing that the driver
wasn't responsible for the crash, only that it wasn't due to speed.
Anyone that isn't a flaming dumbass can see that.

>
> Now... it's ok to rear-end the vehicle to your front because you
> expected him to continue thru the yellow light and he didn't. I'm sure
> there was an inanimate object -somewhere- within sight distance... yet
> SD Dave didn't cite that as the cause.
>

WTF are you babbling on about?

> > >
> > > People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
> > > elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
> > > get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
> > > the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.
> >
> > True. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand? It
> > wasn't the OP trying to weasel out of responsibility for an incident -
> > he wasn't even involved, he was just a witness.
>
> SD Dave formed -his- conclusions without investigation and without any
> crash investigation training or skills. He formed additional
> conclusions based on facts he assumed and had no privy to (an illegal
> with an illegal car) and exhibited a belief that he could see where a
> driver's hands were located in the vehicle directly to his front but
> couldn't discern exactly what he was doing with them but... they
> weren't on the wheel. That's bull**** thinking.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
> > > What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
> > > fast for conditions... per 22350.
> >
> > BZZT. That's a cop out answer and means that you're too lazy to drill
> > down and find the root cause of the problem.
>
> No drilling is needed. The guy hit the car to his front. What else
> matters? The root cause of this crash is obvious, one driver was going
> 35-40 mph faster than the traffic to his front and collided with same
> as a result.

But he wasn't going any faster at all, up until the point where the
lead car stopped.

>
> >
> > I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
> > he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
> > "speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
> > it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
> > people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.
>
> Well, what else made him crash?

THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

> If he had been traveling at a lesser
> velocity might he have avoided crashing?

Probably not, given the OP's report.

> The faster the velocity the
> smaller the margin of error.
>

Blah, blah, typical Claybrook babble.

> >
> > If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
> > CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
> > know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
> > people do all that paperwork.
>
> What about people who fall asleep or have heart attacks while driving?
> Excessive speed, either for the driver's skill levels and/or
> "conditions" is so prevalent because so many people are driving too
> fast for their skill levels and/or conditions... and crashing into
> people who have chosen a lesser, more sensible velocity. If you were
> among the latter it would make perfect sense to document the former's
> poor driving habits and to do something about it.

Ya know, at times you sound like a reasonable person, but more and more
lately I'm starting to think that you're just a troll trying to get
people all worked up. You say **** that is so ****ing stupid nobody
could possibly believe it and remain alive for long. Not only in this
thread, but in the other one where you said you didn't pay any
attention to what was happening in your mirrors...? Not worth my time
to argue any more with you, because in either case, troll or moron, I'm
never going to change your mind...

nate

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > N8N wrote: <brevity snip>

> > > But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
> > > that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.
> >
> > The two are inseparably related.
>
> Nope. It is possible to drive at an appropriate speed for conditions,
> yet maintain an insufficient following distance for that speed. Even
> at the speed limit!

Yes, that's what *I* said! Following distance and velocity are
inseparably related. "Too fast", speed-ing, or not.

> >
> > See? You've become lost in your analysis due to your bias that speed
> > limits are set too low. You fear or dread the effect "speed related"
> > incidents may have on setting speed limits in the future.
>
> For good reason! Every year this is the one stat that gets pushed to
> the forefront when some do-gooder organization makes their annual press
> release against raising speed limits, complete with color charts and
> everything.

To what effect? Have the SL's in your area been reduced during your
lifetime?

> >
> > The cop did the best he could with what evidence was available.
> > Reconstruction isn't necessary for every crash, especially one like
> > this. He listens to witnesses and sees the rear-end damage of one car.
> >
>
> He obviously didn't listen to the one witness...

The hit-skip? The cop is bound to interview someone who will surely
lie in order to draw a conclusion? Yeah, couldn't conclude anything
without his version...

>
> > He doesn't need skid mark distances (there weren't any from the vehicle
> > that caused the crash if I understand the OP to mean the guy never hit
> > his brakes). The other driver has skipped, a pretty good indicator to
> > LEO's that a party is guilty and knows it.
>
> So you admit that the crash was not caused by excessive speed, but by
> not braking when he should have.

Speed too fast for conditions. I'd say 35-40 mph is faster than I'd
like to be struck so it's excessive in that regard.

> >
> > This is a cut and dried rear-end collision. I notice SD Dave didn't
> > jump to the rear-ender's defense screaming it was the fault of the car
> > he hit... for stopping. If a RLC was involved the crash takes on an
> > entirely different perspective.
>
> Not really, if you don't even make an effort to stop, it's kind of hard
> to hold something else responsible. Nobody is arguing that the driver
> wasn't responsible for the crash, only that it wasn't due to speed.
> Anyone that isn't a flaming dumbass can see that.

What intellectual trait would you say is responsible for those who
can't see there is no CA Vehicle Code for "not stopping"? None
prohibiting a collision?

> > > I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
> > > he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
> > > "speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
> > > it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
> > > people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.
> >
> > Well, what else made him crash?
>
> THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!

If you do, you required to notify the contestant evaluating your
hypothetical situational example.

>
> > If he had been traveling at a lesser
> > velocity might he have avoided crashing?
>
> Probably not, given the OP's report.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. The OP claims supernatural powers of vision and
psychic abilities. Anything more than 3 or 4 facts of his aren't
credible.

>
> > The faster the velocity the
> > smaller the margin of error.
> >
>
> Blah, blah, typical Claybrook babble.

So, I'm wrong? If JC says it 3pm and I agree, we're both babbling?

> > > If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
> > > CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
> > > know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
> > > people do all that paperwork.
> >
> > What about people who fall asleep or have heart attacks while driving?
> > Excessive speed, either for the driver's skill levels and/or
> > "conditions" is so prevalent because so many people are driving too
> > fast for their skill levels and/or conditions... and crashing into
> > people who have chosen a lesser, more sensible velocity. If you were
> > among the latter it would make perfect sense to document the former's
> > poor driving habits and to do something about it.
>
> Ya know, at times you sound like a reasonable person, but more and more
> lately I'm starting to think that you're just a troll trying to get
> people all worked up. You say **** that is so ****ing stupid nobody
> could possibly believe it and remain alive for long. Not only in this
> thread, but in the other one where you said you didn't pay any
> attention to what was happening in your mirrors...? Not worth my time
> to argue any more with you, because in either case, troll or moron, I'm
> never going to change your mind...

Well we obviously disagree that a state of not being stopped equates to
a state of having velocity.

$1000 says you can't find a post where I said I ignore my mirrors.
Against $500 if you post a misinterpretation of same. Deal?
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> > > N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> > > > But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was driving too fast, just
> > > > that he failed to maintain an appropriate following distance.
> > >
> > > The two are inseparably related.
> >
> > Nope. It is possible to drive at an appropriate speed for conditions,
> > yet maintain an insufficient following distance for that speed. Even
> > at the speed limit!
>
> Yes, that's what *I* said! Following distance and velocity are
> inseparably related. "Too fast", speed-ing, or not.

No, "too close." "Too fast" would imply that the driver was exceeding
a safe speed, and if the majority of traffic was going at a similar
speed and not wrecking, that would be demonstrably not the case.

>
> > >
> > > See? You've become lost in your analysis due to your bias that speed
> > > limits are set too low. You fear or dread the effect "speed related"
> > > incidents may have on setting speed limits in the future.
> >
> > For good reason! Every year this is the one stat that gets pushed to
> > the forefront when some do-gooder organization makes their annual press
> > release against raising speed limits, complete with color charts and
> > everything.
>
> To what effect? Have the SL's in your area been reduced during your
> lifetime?
>

For *anyone* born before 1974, that answer would be a definite "yes."
Any Interstate highway with a 55 MPH speed limit is long overdue for
review... or are you going to argue that there haven't been any
improvements in tire, suspension, brake etc. design since the early
70s? And yet every year the IIHS and others argue that we should not
raise these limits otherwise the highways will run red with blood,
despite statistics that range from showing no measurable impact to an
actual safety improvement on highways where the speed limits have
already been raised.

> > >
> > > The cop did the best he could with what evidence was available.
> > > Reconstruction isn't necessary for every crash, especially one like
> > > this. He listens to witnesses and sees the rear-end damage of one car.
> > >
> >
> > He obviously didn't listen to the one witness...
>
> The hit-skip? The cop is bound to interview someone who will surely
> lie in order to draw a conclusion? Yeah, couldn't conclude anything
> without his version...
>

No, the OP. Are you being deliberately obtuse again?

> >
> > > He doesn't need skid mark distances (there weren't any from the vehicle
> > > that caused the crash if I understand the OP to mean the guy never hit
> > > his brakes). The other driver has skipped, a pretty good indicator to
> > > LEO's that a party is guilty and knows it.
> >
> > So you admit that the crash was not caused by excessive speed, but by
> > not braking when he should have.
>
> Speed too fast for conditions. I'd say 35-40 mph is faster than I'd
> like to be struck so it's excessive in that regard.
>

Holy flaming **** you're a dumbass. If traffic was flowing at 35-40
MPH prior to the lead car stopping, the fact that one person rear-ended
another is not caused by the fact that he was also traveling at 35-40
MPH, it's caused by the fact that he wasn't paying any goddamn
attention and didn't bother to brake. If he'd been traveling 20 MPH,
he would have plowed into the car in front of him at 20 MPH. If he'd
been traveling 10 MPH, he would have plowed into the car in front of
him at 10 MPH.

> > >
> > > This is a cut and dried rear-end collision. I notice SD Dave didn't
> > > jump to the rear-ender's defense screaming it was the fault of the car
> > > he hit... for stopping. If a RLC was involved the crash takes on an
> > > entirely different perspective.
> >
> > Not really, if you don't even make an effort to stop, it's kind of hard
> > to hold something else responsible. Nobody is arguing that the driver
> > wasn't responsible for the crash, only that it wasn't due to speed.
> > Anyone that isn't a flaming dumbass can see that.
>
> What intellectual trait would you say is responsible for those who
> can't see there is no CA Vehicle Code for "not stopping"? None
> prohibiting a collision?

There are sections which are more applicable than the one you are
proposing. Failure to maintain control and/or failure to maintain
following distance would be two good ones.

>
> > > > I'll say it again - if a driver is driving WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC but
> > > > he's the only person who crashes, you can't classify the crash as
> > > > "speed related." You just can't. It's utterly stupid on the face of
> > > > it. Something else made him crash, otherwise a whole mess of other
> > > > people would have crashed too, and obviously they didn't.
> > >
> > > Well, what else made him crash?
> >
> > THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.
>
> YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!
>

So he just decided not to brake even though traffic was stopped in
front of him? 'cause he didn't know what would happen and wanted to
find out?

> If you do, you required to notify the contestant evaluating your
> hypothetical situational example.
>

Huh? WTF are you talking about?

> >
> > > If he had been traveling at a lesser
> > > velocity might he have avoided crashing?
> >
> > Probably not, given the OP's report.
>
> YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. The OP claims supernatural powers of vision and
> psychic abilities. Anything more than 3 or 4 facts of his aren't
> credible.
>

The OP claims that the car that struck the other cars didn't brake at
all. At any non-zero speed there's going to be a collision in that
instance. Or are you arguing that any accident that involves a moving
car should be speed related? That sure seems like what you are saying.

> >
> > > The faster the velocity the
> > > smaller the margin of error.
> > >
> >
> > Blah, blah, typical Claybrook babble.
>
> So, I'm wrong? If JC says it 3pm and I agree, we're both babbling?

No, you're babbling because you're flapping your metaphorical gums and
not making any sense.

>
> > > > If you don't agree with that, than by your "logic" then EVERY SINGLE
> > > > CRASH is speed related, so why do we even bother keeping statistics, we
> > > > know what the results are going to be so we might as well stop making
> > > > people do all that paperwork.
> > >
> > > What about people who fall asleep or have heart attacks while driving?
> > > Excessive speed, either for the driver's skill levels and/or
> > > "conditions" is so prevalent because so many people are driving too
> > > fast for their skill levels and/or conditions... and crashing into
> > > people who have chosen a lesser, more sensible velocity. If you were
> > > among the latter it would make perfect sense to document the former's
> > > poor driving habits and to do something about it.
> >
> > Ya know, at times you sound like a reasonable person, but more and more
> > lately I'm starting to think that you're just a troll trying to get
> > people all worked up. You say **** that is so ****ing stupid nobody
> > could possibly believe it and remain alive for long. Not only in this
> > thread, but in the other one where you said you didn't pay any
> > attention to what was happening in your mirrors...? Not worth my time
> > to argue any more with you, because in either case, troll or moron, I'm
> > never going to change your mind...
>
> Well we obviously disagree that a state of not being stopped equates to
> a state of having velocity.

No, I disagree - and so does nearly everyone else, it would seem - that
an accident clearly caused by inattention should be classified as
"speed related" if a driver is traveling at the same speed as the flow
of traffic. That makes as much sense as saying "your faucet drips
because you have long hair." There's absolutely no correlation.

Look at it this way - "speed related" implies that if the driver that
wrecked had been traveling at a slower speed, the incident would have
been avoided. From the OP's description of the incident, it sounds
like what really would have happened is that he would have wrecked at a
slower speed. The official cause of an incident ought to give the at
fault driver some kind of clue as to how to modify his behavior in the
future to avoid a repeat, and your solution, "just slow down," isn't
helpful at all.

Yes, I'm bored enough to reply to you at least this once more, but my
money says that you still Don't Get It.

>
> $1000 says you can't find a post where I said I ignore my mirrors.
> Against $500 if you post a misinterpretation of same. Deal?

In this thread, you basically question the usefulness of mirrors when
driving slower than the flow:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...765c5284ce0f10

There were similar sentiments expressed in the "joys of slow driving"
thread, but upon rereading it it appears that it was that other idiot
John Weeks that made the statement that I was remembering. However,
you were posting to that thread and seemed to agree with his posts...

nate

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:

> > $1000 says you can't find a post where I said I ignore my mirrors.
> > Against $500 if you post a misinterpretation of same. Deal?
>
> In this thread, you basically question the usefulness of mirrors when
> driving slower than the flow:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...765c5284ce0f10

Where's my money? I want it. I hope you have it.

Payable to Cash
7841 Alderson Av.
Billings, MT 59106
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
>
> > > $1000 says you can't find a post where I said I ignore my mirrors.
> > > Against $500 if you post a misinterpretation of same. Deal?
> >
> > In this thread, you basically question the usefulness of mirrors when
> > driving slower than the flow:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...765c5284ce0f10
>
> Where's my money? I want it. I hope you have it.
>
> Payable to Cash
> 7841 Alderson Av.
> Billings, MT 59106
> -----
>
> - gpsman

So you are going to take back the statements you've made in the other
threads, then?

Geez, do us all a favor and STFU and lurk for a while, you might learn
something and lord knows when it comes to driving you need all the
education you can get.

nate