Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> In .com>, rick++ wrote:
> >>With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have
> >>$10k in liability insurance.
> >
> >Collision and liability are seperate animals. Liability is for medical
> >and pain & suffering. An hour in an emergency room can
> >approach $10K (list price) as in an accident I was in.
>
> Liability is also for damage to cars crashed by the liable insured, and
> for rental car costs while the car(s) crashed by the insured liable are
> being repaired.

AAA would only pay for a rental car until they made the offer. If I'd needed
a rental car (the Datsun was driveable at non-freeway speeds, you just
couldn't get into the passenger side) I guess I would have had to sue them for
that too.

> Keep in mind that a fender-bender can cost $2500-$3,000-plus for repairs
> if any crumple zones get crumpled - possible at only about 5 MPH crash
> speed! (USA used to require "5 MPH bumpers" but now the requirement is
> only 2.5 MPH)

Different accident -- when a tiny Nissan of some sort rear-ended my 1978
deVille (the Nissan chicklet wasn't wearing her seatbelt, she shattered the
windshield with her head [there was no blood and she kept whining "My mom's
gonna kill me"] and the whole front end was smashed in) the body shop wanted
to replace the whole sprung bumper assembly along with some other misc. sheet
metal parts. No functional damage so I pocketed the cash. That was actually
a profitable accident because all I had to spend was $50 to put the car on the
frame-realignment machine.

--
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

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> 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.

Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.

> Momentum doesn't just disappear.

Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.

> Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.

It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.

> If a car on it's own can't stop from 5 mph in zero feet,

Doesnt need to if it bounces back. And it
can do if the crumple zones crumple, stupid.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that that is what happens if you run into an immovable
object like a concrete barrier at 5 mph,

> 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;

Not necessarily, see above.

> in the real scenario, it wouldn't necessarily
> have the colliding car braking as well.

Sure.

>> 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,

Pity the math you did wasnt relevant. Just like the crap above aint either.

> you can see that even at 20 mph, there's a significant chance of

Whoops, must have had a short circuit between the ears this time.

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> 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.

Corse it is, most obviously if the moving car is going slow enough.

> If you are "too close" to the car in front of you,
> then having the brakes on won't save you.

And if you are the usual distance from the
other stopped car, it may well do, stupid.

On average its better to have the brakes on because that will
avoid getting rammed into the stationary car in front with the
lower speeds and weights of the moving vehicle behind you.

Sure, if a fully loaded semi comes barrelling down into you
at say 60 mph because its brakes have failed on a long
downhill run, you're ****ed anyway, but that isnt that common.

The Etobian > wrote in message
...
> 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,

He aint 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.

Only the couple after the one at the front needs to leave
that much space, not the car say 10 cars behind that.

> 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.

Sure, that can be useful if you are close to the front of the
queue, but pointless for everyone in the queue to do that.

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rod Speed > wrote
> >> Alan Baker > wrote
> >>> 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.
>
> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.
>
> > Momentum doesn't just disappear.
>
> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.

Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better


Study "Conservation of Momentum.

>
> > Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.
>
> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.

Do the math.

>
> > If a car on it's own can't stop from 5 mph in zero feet,
>
> Doesnt need to if it bounces back. And it
> can do if the crumple zones crumple, stupid.
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
> that that is what happens if you run into an immovable
> object like a concrete barrier at 5 mph,

Do the math.

>
> > 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;
>
> Not necessarily, see above.

Do the math.

>
> > in the real scenario, it wouldn't necessarily
> > have the colliding car braking as well.
>
> Sure.
>
> >> 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,
>
> Pity the math you did wasnt relevant. Just like the crap above aint either.
>
> > you can see that even at 20 mph, there's a significant chance of
>
> Whoops, must have had a short circuit between the ears this time.

Do the math.

--
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."

In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote:

<snip>

> > >> 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.
> >
> > Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
> > car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.
> >
> > > Momentum doesn't just disappear.
> >
> > Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
> > just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
> > of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.
>
> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better
>
>
> Study "Conservation of Momentum.
>
> >
> > > Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.
> >
> > It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
> > back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.
>
> Do the math.

I have to apologize for asking you to do the math; it's clearly beyond
you.

So you think that crumple zones will save the situation, do you?

Let's examine that:

Two cars, same mass, the rear travelling at 10 mph, the front one
stationary and -- let's be generous -- capable of crumpling 4 feet (far
more than real life is likely to grant you).

So if the rear car is to be stopped completely in 4 feet without the
front car moving, the acceleration necessary to do so must be less than
the locked tires can provide.

Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec

If we assume constant acceleration (unrealistic, but any other
assumption makes for larger peak acceleration)

v(initial): v: 10 mph, 14.667 feet/second
V(final): V: 0 feet/second
distance: d: 4 feet

V^2 = v^2 + 2ad

Solving:

0 = (14.667)^2 + 8a

a = -215.094/8 = -26.886 feet/sec/sec

IOW, at best, the deceleration necessary is greater than the tires can
provide. Even with the unrealistic (and generous) assumptions of 4 feet
of crumple space and a constant decelerating force.

The front car is going to get push along.

--
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."

Did anyone ever answer you questions in this mile long thread. I am
not in the insurance business, but like everyone else, I have
insurance, I have been in a couple of accidents in the past (I have
been driveing about 25 years)

Steven O. wrote:
> First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out
> GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire
insurance
> industy. Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part of what
I
> want to ask is whether what I experienced does, in fact, occur with
> other insurance companies.
>
> Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
> accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the
guy
> behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me
doing
> about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me.

So we can assume you're not "at fault" in this accident.

> Fortunately, I am basically fine (at least so far, but we'll see if
my
> neck and back are still sore in two weeks). However, the rear and
> front bumpers of my car were messed up pretty good. The body was
> scrunched, just slightly. Now, several issues have come up with
> GEICO:
>
> 1. I have an older car (about 10 years old), and the book value is
> (according to GEICO) about $2000. GEICO also estimates the cost of
> the repair about a bit over $2000. They say they will not pay for
the
> repairs, if the repairs cost more than the cost of the car. They
have
> referred to my car as a "total loss", or something to that effect,
> even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for
> another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.)

Your car is going to be covered for its fair market value (less the
dedeuctable if YOUR collision coverage is paying). This is always
something you have to consider when paying for collision and
comprehensive on an older car. You often end up paying a pretty high
percentage of the car's value as a premium. If you thought your 1995
Oldsmobuick was more than the average 1995 Oldsmobuick, then you need
to deal with the insurance company ahead of time to get additional
coverage.

If the other guy is paying, the only thing he (and his insurer) are
responsible for is the fair market value of your car, unless you can
prove that your car, for some special reason, was worth more. Good
luck.

> So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance companies,
> that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated repair costs are
> more than than the estimated value of the car?

Yes. That is where the term "total loss" or "totalled" comes from.
Repair costs exceed the total value... it's totalled. It often
doesn't take much damage to "total" an older car.

This is pretty mcuh standard operating procedure with all companies.

> If this is routine, is it even possible to purchase a rider on
> insurance which says, in essence: "Even when the value of my car
> drops, you will guarentee to cover the repair costs, up to $X?
(Where
> $X might be, say, $10,000.)

If your car was customized in a significant way, you can get additional
coverage. But your premiums will of course reflect the additional
coverage. Some companies won't provide such coverage, other may be
very wary of your desire for additional coverage as sometime "over
insuring" can make insurance fraud a concern.

> 2. Now, GEICO will pay for what they say is the replacement value of
> the car, which I can then spend on whatever I want (such as, as much
> repairs as that will cover). However, GEICO has also told me that:
> (a) I need to bring in my title to my car, for them to make a copy
of
> that. And...

If they pay you anything for a totalled car they will require that the
title be changed to "salvage" (the term may vary by state). It's
basically a title that say the car was covered as a total loss and
someone may have just repaired or restored it. But once it's totalled,
the salvage title will follow it so every future buyer and insurance
company will know.

Most companies will not provide any collision coverage on salvaged
cars.

> (b) I'll have to "sign something" before they will give me the
check.
> And...

Probably an agreement that says the matter is settled and you won't
come back later and try to sue for more. You will probably have to
release them from further liability on the car (if they let you keep
the car and any damage do it causes you future injury, you can't go
back and blame them for letting you keep an unsfae car.)

> (c) After accepting this check, they will no longer provide
collision
> coverage for the car at all. (I can still get liability coverage.)

Because it's a totalled car. You can use the money they give you to
fix it, but the insurance companies will not pay to have fixed again if
you wreck it again later. They have paid all they will pay for the
car. From an insurability standpoint, the car is now junk.

> Second Question: What's up with all this -- the copy of the title to
> my car, and the "something" they will make me sign, and dropping my
> collision coverage? Would other insurance companies do the same
> thing?

Yes.

> 3. The car in front of me was a very, very expensive car. Although
> the damage was minimal, the bumper on that thing could cost $100,000.
> (Well, not that much, but a lot.) On the other hand, the bozo who
> caused the collision (the one who hit me from behind) is apparently
> not rich, and has about $10,000 of coverage for other people's cars.
> So, GEICO is now saying they will not pay anything until they first
> make sure that his $10,000 coverage will cover both the check they
> write for me, and the check they write to the guy in front of me (the
> guy with the fancy car that I was pushed into).

Leads me to a question. Did you file a claim under you policy with
Geico? If the driver at fault is underinsured, your policy should pay
(less your deductable). Your insurer (in the case the same as yours)
then has to try to recover the loss, if they think it's recoverable.
If they do recover their entire cost, they should give you bakc your
deductable.

Not that if YOUR policy pays, your rates may increase, even if the
accident was not your fault.

> Third Question: Can GEICO withhold payment -- even though all
parties
> have already admitted I'm not at fault -- because the guy who caused
> the accident might not have enough coverage?

They don't have to pay anything until they know what the estimated
costs are going to be. I am sure there is a limit, but it may be
reasonable then to take 30 days while they determine who's policy is
paying what.

> Bottom line, I've paid GEICO good money for many years, never had an
> accident, and now when I finally need them, they are basically
saying,
> "Our policies, plus our number crunching on your car and your
> accident, boil down to 'Get Lost'."

It sounds to me like a case of you not understanding how car insurance
works. You are getting what you paid for (or perhaps what the other
guy paid for since he was at fault).

> Two final notes
> (A) All three parties involved are insured by GEICO, yet the GEICO
> people are acting as adversaries to each other, essentially
> representing (or failing to represent) their clients as if they were
> separate companies. If common sense prevailed here, you would think
> that the fact that all three parties have poured money into GEICO
> would make them realize the fairness of simply paying out what they
> owe -- taking care of all their customers.

The fact the all three invovled are covered by Geico really doesn't
make any difference. The policies will be treated individually. Geico
is not going to pay any more than the policies require, not matter how
many of their policies are involved.

> You would also think one
> person could oversee the entire process, but instead they got three
> people dickering with each other.

Like I said, three policies treated individually. Unless you want your
rates to skyrocket, you want someone looking after what YOUR policy
will be paying for. Having separate adjusters handle everything will
keep it more transparent.

> (B) I asked GEICO if there was any person or committee within the
> company I could appeal to. The answer was, "Here is the phone number
> for the state insurance commissioner."
>
> GEICO: "We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...
> to tell you to go jump in a lake."
>
> Comments, insight, and feedback are much appreciated. Maybe a final
> question: Is there any chance of my getting anywhere if I bring in
my
> attorney? I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney,
> if it won't change anything.

If your only claim is only over property damage to your 10 year old
car, I wouldn't waste a dime on a lawyer. Any additional money your
MIGHT get for your car probably won't be worth the attorney costs. If
you thought you were injured, even slightly, then things might be
different. But if you wanted to recover damages for even slight
injuries, you should have gone to a hospital and contacted a lawyer on
day one.

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>>>> 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.

>> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
>> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.

>>> Momentum doesn't just disappear.

>> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
>> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
>> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.

> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better

Bull**** on the stopped car moving.

> Study "Conservation of Momentum.

Work on your bull****ting 'skills'

>>> Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.

>> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
>> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.

> Do the math.

No need to with that.

>>> If a car on it's own can't stop from 5 mph in zero feet,

>> Doesnt need to if it bounces back. And it
>> can do if the crumple zones crumple, stupid.

>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
>> that that is what happens if you run into an immovable
>> object like a concrete barrier at 5 mph,

> Do the math.

No need to with that. Even someone as stupid as you should
be able to work out that the immovable barried doesnt move.

>>> 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;

>> Not necessarily, see above.

> Do the math.

Get a parrot, it would be even better than your pathetic squawking.

>>> in the real scenario, it wouldn't necessarily
>>> have the colliding car braking as well.

>> Sure.

>>>> 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,

>> Pity the math you did wasnt relevant. Just like the crap above aint either.

>>> you can see that even at 20 mph, there's a significant chance of

>> Whoops, must have had a short circuit between the ears this time.

> Do the math.

Couldnt bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag even
if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

Going into parrot mode cuts no mustard around here, cocky;

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Alan Baker > wrote

>>>>> 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.

>>> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
>>> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.

>>>> Momentum doesn't just disappear.

>>> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
>>> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
>>> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.

>> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better

>> Study "Conservation of Momentum.

>>>> Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.

>>> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
>>> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.

>> Do the math.

> I have to apologize for asking you to do the math; it's clearly beyond you.

Couldnt bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag even
if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

> So you think that crumple zones will save the situation, do you?

Just rubbing your silly little nose in the FACT that your mindless drivel
about conservation of momentum aint quite as simple as you claim.

> Let's examine that:

Only if we want some light entertainment:

> Two cars, same mass, the rear travelling at 10 mph, the front
> one stationary and -- let's be generous -- capable of crumpling
> 4 feet (far more than real life is likely to grant you).

> So if the rear car is to be stopped completely
> in 4 feet without the front car moving,

I didnt even say that stationary car wouldnt move in
THAT situation, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

> the acceleration necessary to do so must
> be less than the locked tires can provide.

Must be one of those rocket scientist
pathetic excuses for a bull**** artist.

> Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec

More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.

Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Alan Baker > wrote
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> >>> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
> >>> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.
>
> >>>> Momentum doesn't just disappear.
>
> >>> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
> >>> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
> >>> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.
>
> >> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better
>
> >> Study "Conservation of Momentum.
>
> >>>> Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.
>
> >>> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
> >>> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.
>
> >> Do the math.
>
> > I have to apologize for asking you to do the math; it's clearly beyond you.
>
> Couldnt bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag even
> if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
>
> > So you think that crumple zones will save the situation, do you?
>
> Just rubbing your silly little nose in the FACT that your mindless drivel
> about conservation of momentum aint quite as simple as you claim.
>
> > Let's examine that:
>
> Only if we want some light entertainment:
>
> > Two cars, same mass, the rear travelling at 10 mph, the front
> > one stationary and -- let's be generous -- capable of crumpling
> > 4 feet (far more than real life is likely to grant you).
>
> > So if the rear car is to be stopped completely
> > in 4 feet without the front car moving,
>
> I didnt even say that stationary car wouldnt move in
> THAT situation, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.
>
> > the acceleration necessary to do so must
> > be less than the locked tires can provide.
>
> Must be one of those rocket scientist
> pathetic excuses for a bull**** artist.
>
> > Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec
>
> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.
>
> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

It seems I was right; the math *is* beyond 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."