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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 2nd 05, 08:22 AM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article <_oIBd.7865$wu4.773@attbi_s52>,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

>
>It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
>193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
>stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
>70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
>of todays cars from 55mph.


If you look at the nose of the vehicle graphics, they match up with the
distances given (i.e. the nose of the car graphic is at 193 feet).

193 feet is absurdly long for any modern car stopping from 55mph.
However, they may be including reaction time / distance -- i.e. the
distance traveled from when the driver can see that s/he needs to stop
to the time s/he hits the brakes. I.e. if the driver has a 1.1 second
reaction time, then 90 feet traveled during the 1.2 seconds + 103 feet
of braking distance adds up to 193 feet.

Also consider that the "average" car driver includes those distracted (by
cell phones or other things) or not paying much attention to driving at
all. And that the "average" car in service may include those running
on 8 year old waterlogged brake fluid, underinflated mismatched tires, etc..

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Ads
  #22  
Old January 2nd 05, 08:36 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote:


>>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.


> Given how a large percentage of the driving public is either distracted
> (by cell phones or other things) or just not paying that much attention
> to driving, it would not be surprising that many of them have a reaction
> time of 2 or more seconds. Especially when they have to see that the brake
> lamps on the car ahead mean "stopping quickly" rather than the more common
> "slowing down gradually".


Stopping is rarely the only option to avoid an obstacle.

>>Even the Bosch Automotive handbook states
>>that the average reaction time is around 0.8 to 1.2 seconds, IIRC.


> Isn't Bosch based in a country where driver's licensing standards are
> stricter than in the US?


Well, I'm pretty sure that stricter licensing standards would not
decrease one's reaction time by 50%.
  #23  
Old January 2nd 05, 08:36 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote:


>>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.


> Given how a large percentage of the driving public is either distracted
> (by cell phones or other things) or just not paying that much attention
> to driving, it would not be surprising that many of them have a reaction
> time of 2 or more seconds. Especially when they have to see that the brake
> lamps on the car ahead mean "stopping quickly" rather than the more common
> "slowing down gradually".


Stopping is rarely the only option to avoid an obstacle.

>>Even the Bosch Automotive handbook states
>>that the average reaction time is around 0.8 to 1.2 seconds, IIRC.


> Isn't Bosch based in a country where driver's licensing standards are
> stricter than in the US?


Well, I'm pretty sure that stricter licensing standards would not
decrease one's reaction time by 50%.
  #24  
Old January 2nd 05, 01:51 PM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Timothy J. Lee" > wrote in message
...

> And that the "average" car in service may include those running
> on 8 year old waterlogged brake fluid, underinflated mismatched tires,

etc..

You mean like "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend's," car, with the
$30.00 pep boys special tires filled up with enough "tire in a can," to
blow up the Hindenburg...



  #25  
Old January 2nd 05, 01:51 PM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Timothy J. Lee" > wrote in message
...

> And that the "average" car in service may include those running
> on 8 year old waterlogged brake fluid, underinflated mismatched tires,

etc..

You mean like "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend's," car, with the
$30.00 pep boys special tires filled up with enough "tire in a can," to
blow up the Hindenburg...



  #26  
Old January 2nd 05, 01:54 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In article <_oIBd.7865$wu4.773@attbi_s52>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

>>
>>It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
>>193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
>>stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
>>70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
>>of todays cars from 55mph.

>
>
> If you look at the nose of the vehicle graphics, they match up with the
> distances given (i.e. the nose of the car graphic is at 193 feet).
>
> 193 feet is absurdly long for any modern car stopping from 55mph.
> However, they may be including reaction time / distance -- i.e. the
> distance traveled from when the driver can see that s/he needs to stop
> to the time s/he hits the brakes. I.e. if the driver has a 1.1 second
> reaction time, then 90 feet traveled during the 1.2 seconds + 103 feet
> of braking distance adds up to 193 feet.
>
> Also consider that the "average" car driver includes those distracted (by
> cell phones or other things) or not paying much attention to driving at
> all. And that the "average" car in service may include those running
> on 8 year old waterlogged brake fluid, underinflated mismatched tires, etc..
>


You mean most people don't rip half their suspension apart every time
they hear a funny noise? (boggle) Ask me how I've spent my last couple
weekends. Go ahead, ask me (sigh.)

worst part is, I finally have one issue completely resolved, and now
have a new and exciting noise. I think it may be the sway bar bushings,
as I noticed that they were looking fairly deteriorated when I did my
last oil change, and again when tracking the original bad noise... (they
get soaked with oil whenever the engine leaks, which it was doing before
the last timing belt job) so maybe I will just change those before going
nuts. Like I said, sigh... (I'd consider buying a new car, if it
weren't for the fact that I don't think it would be any more reliable or
durable, and certainly wouldn't be as enjoyable to drive.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #27  
Old January 2nd 05, 01:54 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In article <_oIBd.7865$wu4.773@attbi_s52>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Jack Brown wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif

>>
>>It probably should be 103ft, which would be correct on the graph.
>>193ft from 55mph is horrid stoping power. A hyundai takes that long to
>>stop from 70mph. And it's one of the below average performing cars from
>>70mph in the C&D road test digest. There is no way 193ft is the average
>>of todays cars from 55mph.

>
>
> If you look at the nose of the vehicle graphics, they match up with the
> distances given (i.e. the nose of the car graphic is at 193 feet).
>
> 193 feet is absurdly long for any modern car stopping from 55mph.
> However, they may be including reaction time / distance -- i.e. the
> distance traveled from when the driver can see that s/he needs to stop
> to the time s/he hits the brakes. I.e. if the driver has a 1.1 second
> reaction time, then 90 feet traveled during the 1.2 seconds + 103 feet
> of braking distance adds up to 193 feet.
>
> Also consider that the "average" car driver includes those distracted (by
> cell phones or other things) or not paying much attention to driving at
> all. And that the "average" car in service may include those running
> on 8 year old waterlogged brake fluid, underinflated mismatched tires, etc..
>


You mean most people don't rip half their suspension apart every time
they hear a funny noise? (boggle) Ask me how I've spent my last couple
weekends. Go ahead, ask me (sigh.)

worst part is, I finally have one issue completely resolved, and now
have a new and exciting noise. I think it may be the sway bar bushings,
as I noticed that they were looking fairly deteriorated when I did my
last oil change, and again when tracking the original bad noise... (they
get soaked with oil whenever the engine leaks, which it was doing before
the last timing belt job) so maybe I will just change those before going
nuts. Like I said, sigh... (I'd consider buying a new car, if it
weren't for the fact that I don't think it would be any more reliable or
durable, and certainly wouldn't be as enjoyable to drive.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #28  
Old January 2nd 05, 05:54 PM
Mike Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jack Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?


No its plotted to the end of the car, not the bar. So it is correct!


> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>



  #29  
Old January 2nd 05, 05:54 PM
Mike Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jack Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently the New York Department of Motor Vehicles does not know
> how to graph. Look at this graph from the drivers manual below. The
> Stopping distance for a car is 193 ft but it is plotted as about 110 ft.
> Is this a stupid mistake or an attempt to scare drivers into being
> afraid of trucks?


No its plotted to the end of the car, not the bar. So it is correct!


> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/stopdist.gif
>



  #30  
Old January 2nd 05, 07:32 PM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>
>>>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.

>
>> Given how a large percentage of the driving public is either distracted
>> (by cell phones or other things) or just not paying that much attention
>> to driving, it would not be surprising that many of them have a reaction
>> time of 2 or more seconds. Especially when they have to see that the brake
>> lamps on the car ahead mean "stopping quickly" rather than the more common
>> "slowing down gradually".

>
>Stopping is rarely the only option to avoid an obstacle.


Most minimally skilled drivers of the type described above are unlikely
to consider other options like changing lanes, or be aware whether the
lane(s) next to them are clear at the time they see an obstacle. Plus,
some of them may not be skilled enough to do an emergency lane change
without spinning out (I have seen that happen -- the spinning car then
hit another car, causing that other car to spin, resulting in a third car
hitting the spinning second car). And if the unskilled driver is in a
top heavy SUV with underinflated poor quality tires, the result can be
worse.

>>>Even the Bosch Automotive handbook states
>>>that the average reaction time is around 0.8 to 1.2 seconds, IIRC.

>
>> Isn't Bosch based in a country where driver's licensing standards are
>> stricter than in the US?

>
>Well, I'm pretty sure that stricter licensing standards would not
>decrease one's reaction time by 50%.


Given the other threads about how some drivers take up to 5 seconds to
notice that their traffic light just changed from red to green, is it
hard to believe that some drivers on the roads have reaction times that
are much longer than what a skilled attentive driver should have?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


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