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

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:17:24 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You ought to read how they determine reaction times in the AASHTO "Green
>Book." They say the average reaction time for a driver is around *2*
>seconds, which is total bull**** IMO.

I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day when the
light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't put on their
brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't going to stop for
it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.

But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked because
it would have been my fault.

> As for 0.7 second figure, I don't
>think that it's unreasonable. Even the Bosch Automotive handbook states
>that the average reaction time is around 0.8 to 1.2 seconds, IIRC.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day when the
> light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't put on their
> brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't going to stop for
> it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>
> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked because
> it would have been my fault.

You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?
Are you serious? That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes. It
definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day when the
> light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't put on their
> brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't going to stop for
> it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>
> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked because
> it would have been my fault.

You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?
Are you serious? That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes. It
definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:48:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day when the
>> light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't put on their
>> brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't going to stop for
>> it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>>
>> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked because
>> it would have been my fault.
>
>You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?

No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't be
an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law if
they continued on through the intersection.

>Are you serious?

Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4 cars
behind him would have gone through even though they would have been
running the light.

>That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.

We both could have and should have made it through before the light
turned red.

>It
>definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.

Well, if you'd read my post you would have seen that I already
acknowledged that.

But I didn't hit them, so I still had time to hit the brakes and stop,
so **** off.

If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't have
hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had already stopped
me.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:48:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day when the
>> light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't put on their
>> brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't going to stop for
>> it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>>
>> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked because
>> it would have been my fault.
>
>You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?

No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't be
an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law if
they continued on through the intersection.

>Are you serious?

Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4 cars
behind him would have gone through even though they would have been
running the light.

>That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.

We both could have and should have made it through before the light
turned red.

>It
>definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.

Well, if you'd read my post you would have seen that I already
acknowledged that.

But I didn't hit them, so I still had time to hit the brakes and stop,
so **** off.

If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't have
hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had already stopped
me.

Olaf Gustafson > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:48:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day
>>> when the light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't
>>> put on their brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't
>>> going to stop for it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>>>
>>> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked
>>> because it would have been my fault.
>>
>>You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was
>>going to stop?
>
> No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't
> be an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law
> if they continued on through the intersection.
>

You would be better off to plan for the worst. If the worst happens
you're ready and not waiting hoping someone else will do what you
want them to do.

>>Are you serious?
>
> Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
> behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4
> cars behind him would have gone through even though they would
> have been running the light.

That doesn't make it the safe thing to do.

>
>>That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.
>
> We both could have and should have made it through before the
> light turned red.
>
>>It
>>definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.
>
> Well, if you'd read my post you would have seen that I already
> acknowledged that.
>
> But I didn't hit them, so I still had time to hit the brakes and
> stop, so **** off.
>
> If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't
> have hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had
> already stopped me.
>

Plan better. Expect the worst to happen and make sure you have time
and room to react to it.

Top

--
"Where did all these !^@$%^!@ Indians come from?" - General Custer

Olaf Gustafson > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:48:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about that. I was behind someone the other day
>>> when the light turned yellow in front of them. When they didn't
>>> put on their brakes for about 2 seconds, I assumed they weren't
>>> going to stop for it - and they shouldn't have stopped for it.
>>>
>>> But they did stop. I nearly hit them, which would have sucked
>>> because it would have been my fault.
>>
>>You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was
>>going to stop?
>
> No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't
> be an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law
> if they continued on through the intersection.
>

You would be better off to plan for the worst. If the worst happens
you're ready and not waiting hoping someone else will do what you
want them to do.

>>Are you serious?
>
> Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
> behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4
> cars behind him would have gone through even though they would
> have been running the light.

That doesn't make it the safe thing to do.

>
>>That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.
>
> We both could have and should have made it through before the
> light turned red.
>
>>It
>>definitely would have been your fault if you had hit them.
>
> Well, if you'd read my post you would have seen that I already
> acknowledged that.
>
> But I didn't hit them, so I still had time to hit the brakes and
> stop, so **** off.
>
> If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't
> have hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had
> already stopped me.
>

Plan better. Expect the worst to happen and make sure you have time
and room to react to it.

Top

--
"Where did all these !^@$%^!@ Indians come from?" - General Custer

Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> >You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?
>
> No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't be
> an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law if
> they continued on through the intersection.

A light changing to amber means that it is about to turn red. You waited two full
seconds. The driver ahead, according to your story, also had time to make that
decision and come to a full stop. That is what she was supposed to do, and since
you were behind him, that is exactly what you should have anticipated. It might be
a different matter if you were at the head of the line, but your big error was not
in anticipating that you could make it through the light, but that your decision
was based on what the vehicle ahead of you would do. As it turned out, she stopped.

>
>
> >Are you serious?
>
> Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
> behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4 cars
> behind him would have gone through even though they would have been
> running the light.

So now you are trying to tell us that even though the car ahead of you had 2 full
seconds before deciding to obey the light change, that you and two more vehicles
could have made it through. Maybe you should spend some time at intersections to
check out the time frame of light changes.

> >That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.
>
> We both could have and should have made it through before the light
> turned red.

Baloney. Two seconds before she even started to brake, and he still came to a
stop. No wonder there are so many accidents at intersections.


> If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't have
> hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had already stopped
> me.

But your reaction time has already been proved to be faulty. Part of reaction time
is the recognition of a light change and the time it takes to consider the traffic
situation, make your decision and to act. You apparently misjudged the situation.
For some reason you decided that you should wait and see what she was gong to do.
According to you, that was two seconds, and two seconds is a hell of a long time to
hold back when you are traveling down the road at speed.

I would suggest that this should be a valuable learning experience for you, and
that the next time you see a light change you should quickly consider your need to
slow down and stop and not base your decision on the driver ahead opting to run the
light. Instead, you should be assuming that the driver ahead is going to stop.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> >You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to stop?
>
> No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't be
> an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law if
> they continued on through the intersection.

A light changing to amber means that it is about to turn red. You waited two full
seconds. The driver ahead, according to your story, also had time to make that
decision and come to a full stop. That is what she was supposed to do, and since
you were behind him, that is exactly what you should have anticipated. It might be
a different matter if you were at the head of the line, but your big error was not
in anticipating that you could make it through the light, but that your decision
was based on what the vehicle ahead of you would do. As it turned out, she stopped.

>
>
> >Are you serious?
>
> Are you? I could have made the light without running it. The car
> behind me might have been able to. Typically this means the 4 cars
> behind him would have gone through even though they would have been
> running the light.

So now you are trying to tell us that even though the car ahead of you had 2 full
seconds before deciding to obey the light change, that you and two more vehicles
could have made it through. Maybe you should spend some time at intersections to
check out the time frame of light changes.

> >That was more than enough time for you to hit the brakes.
>
> We both could have and should have made it through before the light
> turned red.

Baloney. Two seconds before she even started to brake, and he still came to a
stop. No wonder there are so many accidents at intersections.


> If my reaction time had been as bad as hers though, I wouldn't have
> hit the brakes until after the force of the impact had already stopped
> me.

But your reaction time has already been proved to be faulty. Part of reaction time
is the recognition of a light change and the time it takes to consider the traffic
situation, make your decision and to act. You apparently misjudged the situation.
For some reason you decided that you should wait and see what she was gong to do.
According to you, that was two seconds, and two seconds is a hell of a long time to
hold back when you are traveling down the road at speed.

I would suggest that this should be a valuable learning experience for you, and
that the next time you see a light change you should quickly consider your need to
slow down and stop and not base your decision on the driver ahead opting to run the
light. Instead, you should be assuming that the driver ahead is going to stop.

Please take heed!

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> >You waited 2 full seconds to see if the person ahead of you was going to
>> >stop?
>>
>> No, I kept going at my existing rate of speed hoping they wouldn't be
>> an idiot since they would not have been in violation of the law if
>> they continued on through the intersection.
>
> A light changing to amber means that it is about to turn red. You waited
> two full
> seconds. The driver ahead, according to your story, also had time to make
> that
> decision and come to a full stop. That is what she was supposed to do, and
> since
> you were behind him, that is exactly what you should have anticipated. It
> might be
> a different matter if you were at the head of the line, but your big error
> was not
> in anticipating that you could make it through the light, but that your
> decision
> was based on what the vehicle ahead of you would do. As it turned out, she
> stopped.
<<snip>>