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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote: > Alan Baker > wrote in message > ... > > Rod Speed > wrote > >> Alan Baker > wrote > >>> Bob Ward > wrote > >>>> Alan Baker > wrote > > >>>>> But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking > >>>>> pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on. > > >>>> some? SOME? How far? Millimeters? Inches? Feet? > >>>> Yards? You sure like to start tossing out weasel words > >>>> when the egg hits your face, don't you? > > >>> Well, the least it will move is going to be in the case where > >>> both cars are moving at the same speed after collision. > > >> Pity that when the stationary car has the brakes on when hit, > >> that same speed may well be considerably lower than it would > >> be if the stationary car did not have the brakes on, stupid. > > >> Reams of completely irrelevant desperate wanking with > >> numbers plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong. > > > The speed of the two vehicles after collision is determined > > by the momentum and the degree of elasticity in the collision. > > Duh. > > > The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be > > is in the case of a completely inelastic collision (where both > > vehicles move together after the collide) and in the case of > > equal mass, it will be exactly half the speed of the rear vehicle.. > > Duh. > > Pity what was actually being discussed was the effect of the > stationary car HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT THE TIME OF > THE COLLISION ON THE DISTANCE IT MOVES FORWARD > AND WHETHER THAT CAN AVOID RUNNING INTO THE > CAR IN FRONT OF THE STATIONARY CAR. And it *does* move forward. Momentum doesn't just disappear. Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away. If a car on it's own can't stop from 5 mph in zero feet, then if that same car is struck by another just like it at 10 mph, it will take the at least the same distance to stop as it would take from 5 mph all on its lonesome -- more in fact; in the real scenario, it wouldn't necessarily have the colliding car braking as well. > > Presumably you actually are that thick, its hard to believe > that you can actually be pretending to be that thick. And since I already did the math, you can see that even at 20 mph, there's a significant chance of -- 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." |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote: > Alan Baker > wrote in message > ... > > Rod Speed > wrote > > >> Alan Baker > wrote > > >> >> >> > The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow > >> >> >> > speed > >> >> >> > is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks > >> >> >> > on. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with > >> >> >> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics. > >> >> > >> >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out > >> >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort. > >> >> > >> >> Its VERY basic physics that if the brakes are on, it takes a lot > >> >> more force to move the car into the car in front of it, dragging > >> >> the tyres across the road than it does with the brakes off. > >> > >> >> Try pushing the car in both situations and then find > >> >> a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face. > >> > >> > I never said it was as easy to move a car > >> > with the brakes on as with the brakes off. > >> > >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out > >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort. > >> > >> Obviously not. > >> > >> > But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking > >> > pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on. > >> > >> And what matters is whether it moves > >> enough to hit the car in front of it, stupid. > > > I'd tell you to do the math, but I don't think you can. > > You cant even manage to work out what is actually being discussed. > > WHETHER THE STATIONARY CAR HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT > THE TIME OF THE COLLISION WILL REDUCE THE RISK OF IT > GETTING RAMMED INTO THE STATIONARY CAR IN FRONT OF THAT. > > Of course it will, and you dont need any maths to work that out you fool. I never said it wouldn't. What I objected to was you saying it was: "> Even foot on brake if you are too close to the car > in front won't save you, your car is going to move. Wrong." It isn't wrong. If you are "too close" to the car in front of you, then having the brakes on won't save you. -- 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." |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:42:18 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
wrote: >> My driving instructor told me to stop far enough behind the >> vehicle in front be able to get around it without backing up, > >That is a completely silly approach and if everyone did >that, it would **** up traffic flow quite spectacularly. If you don't do that in Rhode Island, then you will have to wait another light cycle because the driver in front of you just put on his left turn signal right after the light turned green and right after he started turning his wheels to the left, while everyone behind you is now passing on the right. Since there is no marking on the road except for the center line, and since the road is wide enough, I always stay back and slightly to the right of the driver ahead of me so I can get past him if he's turning left. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote: > The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be is in the case > of a completely inelastic collision (where both vehicles move together > after the collide) and in the case of equal mass, it will be exactly > half the speed of the rear vehicle.. :-) Tonight's homework: Solve the motion equations for a Cooper Mini stopped 30 feet behind a stopped H2 and rear ended by a Freightliner semi truck hauling a vehicle transport trailer fully loaded with Ford Expeditions and traveling at 18 mph at time of impact. Bonus: does the H2 driver drop his/her cell phone? show all math. ..max -- <blink> |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote: >In article >, > "Rod Speed" > wrote: >> >> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with >> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on. > >I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics. Smart move. Trying to educate Rod Speed is like mud-wrestling with a pig, except that there ARE people who enjoy the latter. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Don Klipstein > wrote: > > Too many drivers in Philadelphia start their turn signals when they >start turning the wheel - if they signal turns at all! An ignorant observer of Philadelphia traffic would probably come to the conclusion that turn signal use is illegal and the law strictly enforced. > And too many Philadelphia drivers who bother to signal their turns do >not signal lane changes. And too many who consider to signal lane changes >do not do so when the lane change is entering or exiting the parking lane. > (And in the last 5 years plenty of drivers parking in Philadelphia or >nearby parts of some "inner suburbs" such as Upper Darby double-park even >when empty legal parking spaces can be found within 1 block - in some >cases even double-parking against a parking space!) That's nonsense. There aren't any legal parking spots in Philadelphia. They're either handicapped spots, loading zones, valet parking areas, blocked by construction or dumpsters, or marked with well-weathered cardboard signs that say "NO PARKING TEMPORARY POLICE REGULATION". I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove away from it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell was I supposed to park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the nearby spots fit into the above categories? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Around 4/25/2005 9:10 AM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove away from > it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell was I supposed to > park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the nearby spots fit into > the above categories? How about the loading zones you mentioned, or is unloading in a loading zone also prohibited? Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case... -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:59:07 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote: >In article >, >Bob Ward > wrote: >>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:57:34 -0500, Alan wrote: >> >>>Not to mention that many traffic light systems have sensors imbedded in the >>>road, and if you don't pull up to within a few feet of the car in front, >>>the system may not realize how many cars are waiting, and may not give you >>>a green light for a long time. Or, may give you a short green, because it >>>thinks only a couple cars are waiting. >>> >>Can you follow your own advice and provide a cite that indicates that >>this is actually how the sensors work, or are you one of those twits >>that keeps pressing the "Walk" button to try to convince the signal >>that there is a large crowd waiting to cross? > >It's pretty easy to see when such a system is in use -- there will be >an extra sensor loop (visible because of the sealant) back from the usual >one. > >I've seen some lights that won't give a green in a particular >direction if both sensor loops aren't occupied. So you are asking us to accept your description as fact. Got it. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:58:29 -0700, The Real Bev > > wrote: > > >> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things > >> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average. > > > >I believe that. I do not believe it's correct. > > > Correct, or proper. You appear to be contradicting yourself here. Sorry, I'll be more specific/accurate: I believe it's true; I do not believe it's right. -- Cheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------------- "I don't think they could put him in a mental hospital. On the other hand, if he were already in, I don't think they'd let him out." -- Greek Geek |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If you have GEICO Insurance | JR | Ford Mustang | 6 | February 24th 05 05:23 AM |
Auto Insurance Question (foreign driver) | Mike | General | 0 | August 16th 04 06:52 PM |
MY BAD GEICO INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ! | Nospam | 4x4 | 14 | February 2nd 04 02:56 AM |
MY BAD GEICO INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ! | Nospam | General | 1 | January 27th 04 09:02 AM |