Rear Ended on Freeway

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk >
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>MURDERERS > wrote:
>
>>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
>>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
>>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
>>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
>>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
>>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
>>>didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
>>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?
>>
>>If you'd been doing 50 you'd have been able to stop in time. You can't
>>drive too slow.
>
>Then why do you recommend 50mph?

The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
THINK

On 27 Aug 2006 11:34:06 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>Granted that slamming on brakes is a poor practice but if you rear end
>someone, _why_ they slammed them on is of no interest to anyone except
>maybe you (excepting swoop and stops of course).

That's Swoop and Squat...
http://www.allstate.com/About/PageRe...page=fraud.htm
:-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:08:02 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>MURDERERS > wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
>>>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
>>>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
>>>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
>>>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
>>>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
>>>>didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
>>>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?
>>>
>>>If you'd been doing 50 you'd have been able to stop in time. You can't
>>>drive too slow.
>>
>>Then why do you recommend 50mph?
>
>The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
>THINK

But you said that you can't go too slow, and now you say you can.
Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
are reacting to each other.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

> She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
> foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
> faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
>
> Least that's my experience.....

I would love to hear more about that.

> Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> possible.

Really?! Have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness

"A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
distance from 80-0 km/h)"
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
>
>>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
>>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
>>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
>>
>>Least that's my experience.....
>
>
> I would love to hear more about that.
>
>
>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
>>possible.
>
>
> Really?! Have you read this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
>
> "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
> with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
> distance from 80-0 km/h)"
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.) Which anyone who has
any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
*can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
as a healthy dose of luck.

nate

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

> I was maintaining a
> safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> for me to stop my car.

Driver reaction times, not following distances, are measured in seconds.
In driving school, you should've learned to set speeds and following
distances properly. If your reaction time is measured in whole seconds,
you shouldn't be driving.

> The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> didn't give her enough room.

It was your fault because you hit a skidding vehicle.

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

>>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
>>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
>>>possible.

>> Really?! Have you read this?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
>>
>> "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
>> with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
>> distance from 80-0 km/h)"

> did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
> agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
> stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
> for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
> which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.)

Well, you know the sniping troll.... I forgot the 'unless on snow or
gravel sometimes' disclaimer (which isn't needed since we are discussing
a dry expressway) he's got to make a snipe. Sad, sad, sore loser he is.

> Which anyone who has
> any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
> that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
> destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
> slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
> pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
> *can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
> takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
> as a healthy dose of luck.

I've noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
the rears really easy sending the car into a spin... Really annoying in
that every one i've ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
doesn't respond correctly.

I think the programers decided to write it like it was an episode of
CHiPs.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 11:34:06 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >Granted that slamming on brakes is a poor practice but if you rear end
> >someone, _why_ they slammed them on is of no interest to anyone except
> >maybe you (excepting swoop and stops of course).
>
> That's Swoop and Squat...
> http://www.allstate.com/About/PageRe...page=fraud.htm
> :-)
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
Yep, I had a 'senior moment' and couldn't recall the squat.

Harry K

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:08:02 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >>MURDERERS > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
> >>>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
> >>>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
> >>>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
> >>>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> >>>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> >>>>didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
> >>>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?
> >>>
> >>>If you'd been doing 50 you'd have been able to stop in time. You can't
> >>>drive too slow.
> >>
> >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?
> >
> >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
> >THINK
>
> But you said that you can't go too slow, and now you say you can.
> Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
> are reacting to each other.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Don't confuse the poor thing. It is now arguing with itself.

Harry K

Alexander Rogge wrote:
> > I was maintaining a
> > safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> > for me to stop my car.
>
> Driver reaction times, not following distances, are measured in seconds.
> In driving school, you should've learned to set speeds and following
> distances properly. If your reaction time is measured in whole seconds,
> you shouldn't be driving.
>
> > The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> > didn't give her enough room.
>
> It was your fault because you hit a skidding vehicle.


??? Mesuring in seconds is the recommended way as it is far easier and
more accurate than the old 'car lengths' method which hardly anyone can
come within 20 feet of guessing.

Harry K