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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 $30.00 pep boys special tires filled up with enough "tire in a can," to blow up the Hindenburg... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article <_oIBd.7865$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|