How would you rate a typical driver (from 1 to 10)

[Arklin K.]

In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.

Obviously, if a bell curve were to apply, that can't be ... so the
question is what would you use as criteria that someone could ask
themselves to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on their personal driving
ability?

[Arklin K.]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:25 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:

> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.

Here is what was initially proposed in that thread ...

I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?

Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need:
a) To have over 25 years experience (if not, subtract five points)
b) To have zero tickets (subtract 3 points for each ticket)
c) To have zero accidents (subtract 4 points for each accident)
d) To have both a motorcycle & car license (if not, subtract 5 points)
e) To have taken at least a half dozen driving classes (add 2 points for
each class)
f) To be able to drive a stick & automatic & motorcyle (add 2 points for
each)
g) To have driven on the track at least once a year (add 2 points)
h) To understand how an engine works (especially the oil, cooling, belts,
etc. that can break while driving)
i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail
etc.

And, you'd have to pass a test that asked 'real' driving questions, like:
Q1: What roads do 3-digit federal highways connect to?
Q2: Does ABS make you stop faster or straighter?
Q3: What direction do you go if the orange construction stripes are from
left to right?
Q4: What direction are you going if you just passed mile 3 and the next
mile is mile 4 on an even numbered two-digit federal highway?
Q5: What is the difference between a white turn arrow painted in the road
and a white turn arrow with 'must' or 'only'.
Q6: Are shopping mall parking lot STOP signs legal or not?
Q7: Can you dial a phone with push-button dialing in a hands-free state
or not?
etc.

[Silk]

A good driver will be aware of what it going on around him and be able to
process this information accurately and drive accordingly using skill and
judgement.

He'll be driving at an appropriate speed and in an appropriate gear for the
speed - making good progress where possible but using restraint when
conditions dictate.

He'll have mastered the use of the controls and drive in a smooth and
uneventful manner with regard for other road users without undue wear and
tear to the vehicle.

In my experience, most drivers manage around a 3, a driver who has passed
an Advanced driving test will start off around a 5 to 6 and the very best
drivers will achieve an 8 or 9. On rare occasions, I've been driven by
people approaching a 10, but this is extremely rare. A 10 requires bags of
natural ability and top-notch training.

Hucker gets a 1, and he only gets that as I assume he manages to complete
most journeys without actually killing anyone.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>drivers will achieve an 8 or 9. On rare occasions, I've been driven by
>people approaching a 10, but this is extremely rare.

When was that , when you were nicked for careless driving and taken to
the police station in a plodmobile? ;)

B2003

[Barb Dwyer]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled

> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.

> Here is what was initially proposed in that thread ...
>
> I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?
>
> Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need: a) To have over
> 25 years experience (if not, subtract five points)

Why? My mother has this. She's not a great driver.

b) To have zero tickets (subtract 3 points for each ticket)

Why? My mother has this. She's not a great driver.

c) To have zero accidents

Why? My mother has this. She's not a great driver.

d) To have both a motorcycle & car license.

Why? It's irrelevant. Also, if you're going to post your drivel to a UK
group, spell it "licence" please.. I have both BTW, and have had for 23
years..

e) To have taken at least a half dozen driving classes

What sort of classes? Before you get your licence, it is normal to need
10 or 20 classes here in the UK, and pass a mandatory theory exam.

f) To be able to drive a stick & automatic & motorcyle

Everyone here learns to drive a manual transmission car. That's cos we
are not all lazy retards like you lot over there.

g) To have driven on the track at least once a year

What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I've done plenty, on motorcycles and cars,
but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.

> understand how an engine works and how belts can break etc?

Why? Why the hell does my mother want to know any of that shit? Why does
anyone who doesn't have an unreliable POS yank-tank need to know?. My 13
year old car has 225,000 miles on the clock. It's fine thanks.

> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.

Why? It's irrelevant to 99% of drivers.

> And, you'd have to pass a test that asked 'real' driving questions,
> like: Q1: What roads do 3-digit federal highways connect to? Q2: Does
> ABS make you stop faster or straighter? Q3: What direction do you go if
> the orange construction stripes are from
> left to right?

> Q4: What direction are you going if you just passed mile 3 and the next
> mile is mile 4 on an even numbered two-digit federal highway?

This is a uk group you fucking moron. We don't have your shitty federal
highways over here for a start. So, please feel free to fuck off


--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten (c) George Carlin

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <jtp5at$k7n$2...@dont-email.me>, Barb Dwyer <u...@yours.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled
>

>g) To have driven on the track at least once a year
>
>What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
>driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I've done plenty, on motorcycles and cars,
>but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.

Not at all, it permits you to understand where the limits of your vehicle
and the other drivers' vehicles really are. That's important. I think it
is experience that often gets overrated, but it's not useless.

>> understand how an engine works and how belts can break etc?
>
>Why? Why the hell does my mother want to know any of that shit? Why does
>anyone who doesn't have an unreliable POS yank-tank need to know?. My 13
>year old car has 225,000 miles on the clock. It's fine thanks.

Because some day it won't be.

>> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.
>
>Why? It's irrelevant to 99% of drivers.

It is, and it's irrelevant 99% of the time. But that 1% of the time when
it turns out to be actually important, it's really, really important.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:15:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article <jtp5at$k7n$2...@dont-email.me>, Barb Dwyer <u...@yours.com>
> wrote:
>>On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled
>>
>>g) To have driven on the track at least once a year
>>
>>What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
>>driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I've done plenty, on motorcycles and
>>cars, but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.
>
> Not at all, it permits you to understand where the limits of your
> vehicle and the other drivers' vehicles really are. That's important.
> I think it is experience that often gets overrated, but it's not
> useless.

Yes, it is useless on the road. Anyone who is getting near or past the
limits of their vehicle on the road really shouldn't be driving on the
road.

I say that as someone who road powerful Japanese sportsbikes and owned
various reasonably fast cars . The skidpand and defensive driving courses
I've taken on the road are far, far more useful than the track experience
that I have has ever been.

>>> understand how an engine works and how belts can break etc?
>>
>>Why? Why the hell does my mother want to know any of that shit? Why does
>>anyone who doesn't have an unreliable POS yank-tank need to know?. My 13
>>year old car has 225,000 miles on the clock. It's fine thanks.
>
> Because some day it won't be.

You didn't answer the question as to why the OPs mother needs to know
that? It's irrelevant to nearly everyone. Their car gets serviced in a
garage, belts get replaced as part of the schedule. On most cars these
days, replacing even an alternator belt is beyond many home mechanics, so
it's utterly irrelevant.

>>> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.
>>
>>Why? It's irrelevant to 99% of drivers.
>
> It is, and it's irrelevant 99% of the time. But that 1% of the time
> when it turns out to be actually important, it's really, really
> important

No, it really isn't. Especially not with a modern, safe European
hatchback. If my mother (or wife's) car started sliding around, I'd much
rather she just hit the brakes and the ESP/ABS brought her to a quick
halt, rather than have her fuck about slipping and sliding around and
trying to keep the car out the trees. I've experimented myself with a
couple of cars with ESP and ABS - all cars in the EU must be sold with
both now anyway. My mum's Kia is impressive for a small car. I put it
into a ridiculous roundabout corner in the wet and hit the brakes to see
what happened. I expected the rear to come round and it to try and spin.
It just stopped. In my older Saab 900 SPG or Focus, that would have been
a hairy lift-off oversteer moment. In my mum's tiny little Kia, it was
nothing at all.





--
Mike P

[Clive George]

On 13/07/2012 15:15, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article<jtp5at$k7n$2...@dont-email.me>, Barb Dwyer<u...@yours.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled
>>
>> g) To have driven on the track at least once a year
>>
>> What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
>> driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I've done plenty, on motorcycles and cars,
>> but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.
>
> Not at all, it permits you to understand where the limits of your vehicle
> and the other drivers' vehicles really are. That's important. I think it
> is experience that often gets overrated, but it's not useless.

Significantly overrated by some, including people on this thread. The
technical skills of driving are much less important than the mental
skill of knowing your personal limits and being able to keep to them, ie
not getting angry etc.

>>> understand how an engine works and how belts can break etc?
>>
>> Why? Why the hell does my mother want to know any of that shit? Why does
>> anyone who doesn't have an unreliable POS yank-tank need to know?. My 13
>> year old car has 225,000 miles on the clock. It's fine thanks.
>
> Because some day it won't be.

Disagree. There are plenty of mechanical failures which can't be dealt
with at the roadside. If you're worried about them, get breakdown cover,
at which point the rest of the failures become irrelevant too.

>>> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.
>>
>> Why? It's irrelevant to 99% of drivers.
>
> It is, and it's irrelevant 99% of the time. But that 1% of the time when
> it turns out to be actually important, it's really, really important.

In Norway use of ABS is part of the test, and I think skid pan might be
too. This might of course be rather more relevant there :-)

Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
abusing that skill in normal driving.

[Mike P]

There's very little, bar a puncture, a blown bulb/fuse or loose wire that
I could deal with at the roadside on a Xantia.


--
Mike P

[Clive George]

Diesel lift pump :-( Though I did eventually fix it at the roadside (or
rather where I'd parked it), it just took a couple of days to get the
new pump first.

I did try the headlamp bulb at the roadside, but got bored and drove the
15 miles home instead - rather easier in the light. And the other one
definitely needs tools - I think I'd have to remove the headlamp.

[Mike P]

Yours is an S2 isn't it? Yes, you do, unless you have curiously deformed
hands.



--
Mike P

[m6onz5a]

I've been in several accidents, but none were my fault. Do I lose
points for that? :)

[jgar the jorrible]

On Jul 13, 7:50 am, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/07/2012 15:15, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>

> > In article<jtp5at$k7...@dont-email.me>, Barb Dwyer<u...@yours.com>  wrote:

> >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled
>
> >> g) To have driven on the track at least once a year
>
> >> What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
> >> driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I've done plenty, on motorcycles and cars,
> >> but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.
>
> > Not at all, it permits you to understand where the limits of your vehicle
> > and the other drivers' vehicles really are.  That's important.  I think it
> > is experience that often gets overrated, but it's not useless.

I agree some people overrate it, and especially that it is not
useless. With sufficient experience, a sudden need for the skill can
be the difference between driving away and not. For example, if
someone suddenly drops off a bridge in front of you on the highway,
most people would either freeze and hit them, with or without panic
braking, or over-react and go out of control. I know I've saved my
butt several times hitting sand or gravel on street motorcycles and
having dirt-track experience kick in. The same with unexpected skids
from oil and water on the road, the adrenaline makes time seem to slow
down and you just go into drift mode. Thinking about some incidents
afterwards I've gotten the shakes...

>
> Significantly overrated by some, including people on this thread. The
> technical skills of driving are much less important than the mental
> skill of knowing your personal limits and being able to keep to them, ie
> not getting angry etc.

Don't agree with that, see above examples. The benefit comes with
knowing the techniques when suddenly presented with an unusual
situation.

Anger control is a separate skill learned off the track. Haven't you
ever seen an F1 driver jump out and fight a competitor who just hit
them?

>
> >>> understand how an engine works and how belts can break etc?
>
> >> Why? Why the hell does my mother want to know any of that shit? Why does
> >> anyone who doesn't have an unreliable POS yank-tank need to know?. My 13
> >> year old car has 225,000 miles on the clock. It's fine thanks.
>
> > Because some day it won't be.
>
> Disagree. There are plenty of mechanical failures which can't be dealt
> with at the roadside. If you're worried about them, get breakdown cover,
> at which point the rest of the failures become irrelevant too.

I'd go further and point out how many sports cars like the Porsche
Boxster don't even let you do basic maintenance without an engine
hoist and special equipment. The mechanicals are black boxes, which
may upset many old-timers, but I think is countered by how long you
can go without having to do anything.

>
> >>> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.
>
> >> Why? It's irrelevant to 99% of drivers.
>
> > It is, and it's irrelevant 99% of the time.  But that 1% of the time when
> > it turns out to be actually important, it's really, really important.
>
> In Norway use of ABS is part of the test, and I think skid pan might be
> too. This might of course be rather more relevant there :-)

I think more so here (I'm in southern California), as rain and snow
skills are so rarely exercised. One of the problems here is it will
rain after months of dry, and oil will leach out of the cement and sit
on top of the water. The freeways turn into destruction derbies,
highway patrol won't even bother to respond to minor crashes.

A few years ago, Chevrolet took some Corvettes on a marketing tour,
with switches to turn off the ABS. They soaped up a skid pad and let
the general public go at it, with ABS off and on. Fun!

>
> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
> abusing that skill in normal driving.

That's correct, but all relative. I remember driving "slowly" on the
freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.

jg
--
@home.co is bogus.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/10/jumper-i-805-dies-freeway-closed-balboa-ave/

[Silk]

I know, as a pikey, you only come into contact with the police when
you're "helping them with their enquiries, but some of us know people in
the the police socially.

[Silk]

On 13/07/2012 18:43, m6onz5a wrote:

> I've been in several accidents, but none were my fault. Do I lose
> points for that? :)

You lose the lot for being a class one fucking dickhead.

[dsi1]

As to your question - I would rate the typical driver as a 5. I'd rate
myself as a perfect "10." From the looks of your rating system you'd
probably rate yourself in the mid-twenties. I'm no 10 but my guess is
that you're no 25 either. :-)

[Steve W.]

dsi1 wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 8:28 PM, Arklin K. wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:25 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:
>>
>>> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
>>> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.
>> Here is what was initially proposed in that thread ...
>>
>> I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?
>>
>> Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need:
>> a) To have over 25 years experience (if not, subtract five points)

Doesn't make any difference IF your a crappy driver or not.

>> b) To have zero tickets (subtract 3 points for each ticket)

Doesn't make a difference, just that you're either lucky or in an area
with little police coverage.

>> c) To have zero accidents (subtract 4 points for each accident)

I know a BUNCH of folks who drive and haven't hit or been hit. Most of
them I wouldn't want to be in the vehicle with because they are scary
bad behind the wheel.

>> d) To have both a motorcycle & car license (if not, subtract 5 points)

Fine then add a few points for those of us who hold CDL's.

>> e) To have taken at least a half dozen driving classes (add 2 points for
>> each class)

I take EVOC on a yearly basis, doesn't do much other than show that you
can set through the class and maneuver fire equipment.

>> f) To be able to drive a stick & automatic & motorcyle (add 2 points for
>> each)

Can handle all the above, PLUS twin stick and splitter transmissions,
two speed rear axles and more. Still doesn't mean I can drive worth a crap.

>> g) To have driven on the track at least once a year (add 2 points)

Gave up track driving a few years ago, just got WAY to expensive.

>> h) To understand how an engine works (especially the oil, cooling, belts,
>> etc. that can break while driving)

Can tear them down with my eyes closed, and could even build one out of
billet if needed. Doesn't make any difference in on road ability.

>> i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail

What about understeer, trail braking, apex cornering, effects of tire
pressure on handling????

>> etc.
>>
>> And, you'd have to pass a test that asked 'real' driving questions, like:
>> Q1: What roads do 3-digit federal highways connect to?

How about what the difference is in even vs odd numbering, or if
interstates the difference between an even numbered connection and an
odd numbered. Or maybe how you can determine address numbers from road
direction?

>> Q2: Does ABS make you stop faster or straighter?

Sometimes, However it can also increase the stopping distance against a
good foot on the brakes.

>> Q3: What direction do you go if the orange construction stripes are from
>> left to right?

Don't use orange stripes around here. Just line tape and cones with
arrows, and the occasional flag-person.

>> Q4: What direction are you going if you just passed mile 3 and the next
>> mile is mile 4 on an even numbered two-digit federal highway?

If the road is properly marked you would be going West and be 3-4 miles
from the state line. BUT that doesn't always apply because some roads
are marked wrong.

>> Q5: What is the difference between a white turn arrow painted in the road
>> and a white turn arrow with 'must' or 'only'.

In theory you can drive straight across an unmarked arrow BUT in reality
they are all the same.

>> Q6: Are shopping mall parking lot STOP signs legal or not?

Depends on the state and locality.

>> Q7: Can you dial a phone with push-button dialing in a hands-free state
>> or not?

Sure, as long as you're not behind the wheel driving the vehicle at the
time.

>> etc.
>>



--
Steve W.

[Mr Pounder]

"Silk" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1881096063363874923....@news.aioe.org...

Hucker is away for a week competing in Death Race 2012.

[Mike P]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:01:30 PM UTC+1, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Jul 13, 7:50 am, Clive George &lt;cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On 13/07/2012 15:15, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; In article&lt;jtp5at$k7...@dont-email.me&gt;, Barb Dwyer&lt;u...@yours.com&gt;  wrote:
> &gt; &gt;&gt; On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:28:33 +0000, Arklin K. drooled
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; g) To have driven on the track at least once a year
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; What in the name of fuck has track driving got to do with on-road
> &gt; &gt;&gt; driving? Answer? Fuck all. Oh, I&#39;ve done plenty, on motorcycles and cars,
> &gt; &gt;&gt; but it is utterly irrelevant to being on the road.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Not at all, it permits you to understand where the limits of your vehicle
> &gt; &gt; and the other drivers&#39; vehicles really are.  That&#39;s important.  I think it
> &gt; &gt; is experience that often gets overrated, but it&#39;s not useless.

>
> I agree some people overrate it, and especially that it is not
> useless. With sufficient experience, a sudden need for the skill can
> be the difference between driving away and not. For example, if
> someone suddenly drops off a bridge in front of you on the highway,
> most people would either freeze and hit them, with or without panic
> braking, or over-react and go out of control.

Do you often get people jumping off bridges in front of you when you were driving on tracks? I can't say it ever happened to me.

I have a friend who is a retired police driver trainer. He can really drive. He knows exactly what he's talking about, and has been driving high performance cars for 30 years. Here's what he has to say about track driving and it's relevance to road driving..

"Track days are irrelevant for road driving as they don't teach you anything useful unless you are about to go off the road due to excess speed/poor hazard assessment, the skill of advanced driving is observing, anticipating and planning your drive based upon what can be seen, cannot be seen and can reasonably be expected to happen, clearly track days won't cover any of this!"

So, unless you have better driving qualifications than him, and more experience of high speed training - and I'm talking 130mph plus pursuit training on open, public roads, without incident over 30 years, then I would kindly suggest you're wrong..

[Mike P]

You don't have a monopoly on that. It happens everywhere.

Unless you are driving like a total moron and/or have worn out tyres/
are exceeding a safe speed for the conditions, there is little
difference between driving on a wet and greasy road, or a dry one.

Of course, it helps if you have to have a mandatory inspection once a
year where the important parts of your vehicle are tested - tyres,
brakes, steering, suspension etc, but as far as I am aware, all that
happens in CA is a smog test every 2 years on cars over 4 years old,
and no safety inspection...

[Clive George]

On 13/07/2012 20:01, jgar the jorrible wrote:

> I know I've saved my
> butt several times hitting sand or gravel on street motorcycles and
> having dirt-track experience kick in. The same with unexpected skids
> from oil and water on the road, the adrenaline makes time seem to slow
> down and you just go into drift mode. Thinking about some incidents
> afterwards I've gotten the shakes...
>
>> Significantly overrated by some, including people on this thread. The
>> technical skills of driving are much less important than the mental
>> skill of knowing your personal limits and being able to keep to them, ie
>> not getting angry etc.
>
> Don't agree with that, see above examples. The benefit comes with
> knowing the techniques when suddenly presented with an unusual
> situation.

Disagree - see later.

> Anger control is a separate skill learned off the track. Haven't you
> ever seen an F1 driver jump out and fight a competitor who just hit
> them?

Not watched F1 since the 80s. But anger control is something it's
important to have both on the track and rather more importantly on the
road. "Red mist" causes rather too many crashes.

>> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
>> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
>> abusing that skill in normal driving.
>
> That's correct, but all relative. I remember driving "slowly" on the
> freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
> a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.

I think you're doing a very good job of proving my point. You'd not
mentally adjusted to road driving, and weren't taking enough care.
Though I admit it's very easy to do based on experiences driving home
after karting...

You admit to pushing your driving/riding such that you scare yourself on
the roads, and that is more dangerous than somebody with less skill
driving well within their limits. You may have l33t technical driving
skills, but on the road they're not the most important thing - what's
important is knowing your own limits and keeping well within them.

Your car and bike handling may be exemplary, you may be really very fast
round a track, but for road driving you lack the mental ability to
refrain from abusing that skill, and that means you're not going to be
an excellent driver on the road.

[Mike P]

On Jul 13, 10:57 pm, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/07/2012 20:01, jgar the jorrible wrote:
>
> > I know I've saved my
> > butt several times hitting sand or gravel on street motorcycles and
> > having dirt-track experience kick in.  The same with unexpected skids
> > from oil and water on the road, the adrenaline makes time seem to slow
> > down and you just go into drift mode.  Thinking about some incidents
> > afterwards I've gotten the shakes...
>
> >> Significantly overrated by some, including people on this thread. The
> >> technical skills of driving are much less important than the mental
> >> skill of knowing your personal limits and being able to keep to them, ie
> >> not getting angry etc.
>
> > Don't agree with that, see above examples.  The benefit comes with
> > knowing the techniques when suddenly presented with an unusual
> > situation.
>
> Disagree - see later.
>
> > Anger control is a separate skill learned off the track.  Haven't you
> > ever seen an F1 driver jump out and fight a competitor who just hit
> > them?
>
> Not watched F1 since the 80s. But anger control is something it's
> important to have both on the track and rather more importantly on the
> road. "Red mist" causes rather too many crashes.

Well, quite. The most famous incident is the Piquet-Salazar one. I
have watched pretty much every F1 race since 1983. I can't recall it
happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JogHiSR5P4

Being the incident everyone remembers. Of course, there's been a
couple since, like Mansell grabbing Senna by the throat in the pits,
Schuey wandering down to Coulthard's pit in Belgium 98 after MS hit DC
in the rain, but that's all. It simply doesn't happen.

Of course, in comedy racing series like NASCAR and Indycar/CART it
does, but that's because the drivers and cars aren't really that
great .

> >> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
> >> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
> >> abusing that skill in normal driving.
>
> > That's correct, but all relative.  I remember driving "slowly" on the
> > freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
> > a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.
>
> I think you're doing a very good job of proving my point. You'd not
> mentally adjusted to road driving, and weren't taking enough care.
> Though I admit it's very easy to do based on experiences driving home
> after karting...
>
> You admit to pushing your driving/riding such that you scare yourself on
> the roads, and that is more dangerous than somebody with less skill
> driving well within their limits. You may have l33t technical driving
> skills, but on the road they're not the most important thing - what's
> important is knowing your own limits and keeping well within them.
>
> Your car and bike handling may be exemplary, you may be really very fast
> round a track, but for road driving you lack the mental ability to
> refrain from abusing that skill, and that means you're not going to be
> an excellent driver on the road.

This is exactly what the ex-instructor I know (and I suspect you are
aware of who I mean) , and who is giving me some tuition in September,
says..

[jgar the jorrible]

On Jul 13, 2:57 pm, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/07/2012 20:01, jgar the jorrible wrote:
>
> > I know I've saved my
> > butt several times hitting sand or gravel on street motorcycles and
> > having dirt-track experience kick in.  The same with unexpected skids
> > from oil and water on the road, the adrenaline makes time seem to slow
> > down and you just go into drift mode.  Thinking about some incidents
> > afterwards I've gotten the shakes...
>
> >> Significantly overrated by some, including people on this thread. The
> >> technical skills of driving are much less important than the mental
> >> skill of knowing your personal limits and being able to keep to them, ie
> >> not getting angry etc.
>
> > Don't agree with that, see above examples.  The benefit comes with
> > knowing the techniques when suddenly presented with an unusual
> > situation.
>
> Disagree - see later.
>
> > Anger control is a separate skill learned off the track.  Haven't you
> > ever seen an F1 driver jump out and fight a competitor who just hit
> > them?
>
> Not watched F1 since the 80s. But anger control is something it's
> important to have both on the track and rather more importantly on the
> road. "Red mist" causes rather too many crashes.

Yes the control is important, but the anger causes road rage, not
crashes. More likely to get you shot 'round here.

Of course, what are most crashes caused by: lack of attention,
stupidity, DUI, inability to respond appropriately to a sudden event.

>
> >> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
> >> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
> >> abusing that skill in normal driving.
>
> > That's correct, but all relative.  I remember driving "slowly" on the
> > freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
> > a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.
>
> I think you're doing a very good job of proving my point. You'd not
> mentally adjusted to road driving, and weren't taking enough care.
> Though I admit it's very easy to do based on experiences driving home
> after karting...

Well, I guess you understandably don't have the context for that
speeding ticket example. These are freeways engineered for 75MPH
speeds (or more accurately, Air Force plane landing speeds), but with
a ridiculous 55MPH speed limit. The Nevada LEO intimated as much,
giving me a "Waste Of Natural Resources" ticket and explaining it
wouldn't even appear on my CA driving record, just pay the fine.

>
> You admit to pushing your driving/riding such that you scare yourself on
> the roads, and that is more dangerous than somebody with less skill
> driving well within their limits. You may have l33t technical driving
> skills, but on the road they're not the most important thing - what's
> important is knowing your own limits and keeping well within them.

You seem to be misreading me in a most dense fashion. I don't have
any need to push, I'm talking about sudden change in environment.
Those with the skills can immediately adapt, those without crash.

I saw one right in front of me a while back. 5 lanes of moderate SB5
traffic (I'm reading this in ca.driving), clear sunny day. Idiot in
SUV in third lane from the left changes lane cutting off second SUV.
Second SUV over-reacts, turns hard right, goes up on 45 degree slope
landscaping, comes back down, bounces hitting bumper on pavement,
rolls spectacularly, glass, luggage and parts flying everywhere in
random walks. I just slowed down and drove around it all. What could
the crasher have done? The same thing. Knowing limits is irrelevant
when all you can do is instinctively react. Such "instinct" is
strongly influenced by experience. Just generally driving around does
not give you that experience.

Now that people are recognizing this, commercial interests are
creating schools for teenage and elderly drivers. They seem to be
working.

>
> Your car and bike handling may be exemplary, you may be really very fast
> round a track, but for road driving you lack the mental ability to
> refrain from abusing that skill, and that means you're not going to be
> an excellent driver on the road.

I can't imagine you are a very good driver if you think your mental
state is more important than the physical reality.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/melting-ice-cream-alibi-456213

[gpsman]

Many if not most... real... instructors, both road and track, feel the
same.

The basic problem is that additional training, both road and track,
too often leads to overconfidence on the street when it should instill
more caution and doubt.

"High performance street driving" classes are complete bullshit.
You'll have a hard time finding a crash if you merely comply with
traffic code and exercise a little foresight and caution.
-----

- gpsman

[Clive George]

On 14/07/2012 00:49, jgar the jorrible wrote:

>> Not watched F1 since the 80s. But anger control is something it's
>> important to have both on the track and rather more importantly on the
>> road. "Red mist" causes rather too many crashes.
>
> Yes the control is important, but the anger causes road rage, not
> crashes. More likely to get you shot 'round here.
>
> Of course, what are most crashes caused by: lack of attention,
> stupidity, DUI, inability to respond appropriately to a sudden event.

And your first one, lack of attention, is often caused by anger.

I did of course say "not getting angry etc", so it's not responsible for
all, but it's an example of inappropriate mental state for driving.

>>
>>>> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
>>>> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
>>>> abusing that skill in normal driving.
>>
>>> That's correct, but all relative. I remember driving "slowly" on the
>>> freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
>>> a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.
>>
>> I think you're doing a very good job of proving my point. You'd not
>> mentally adjusted to road driving, and weren't taking enough care.
>> Though I admit it's very easy to do based on experiences driving home
>> after karting...
>
> Well, I guess you understandably don't have the context for that
> speeding ticket example. These are freeways engineered for 75MPH
> speeds (or more accurately, Air Force plane landing speeds), but with
> a ridiculous 55MPH speed limit. The Nevada LEO intimated as much,
> giving me a "Waste Of Natural Resources" ticket and explaining it
> wouldn't even appear on my CA driving record, just pay the fine.

I did wonder if you might say something like that. You still missed the
cop. You were the one who said you were going that fast because it was
after a race, implying you'd normally be doing something else - whether
that be driving a bit slower, paying more attention for cops while
speeding, whatever.

>> You admit to pushing your driving/riding such that you scare yourself on
>> the roads, and that is more dangerous than somebody with less skill
>> driving well within their limits. You may have l33t technical driving
>> skills, but on the road they're not the most important thing - what's
>> important is knowing your own limits and keeping well within them.
>
> You seem to be misreading me in a most dense fashion. I don't have
> any need to push, I'm talking about sudden change in environment.
> Those with the skills can immediately adapt, those without crash.

You mean you don't have any need to push it to get you incidents where
you're sliding around and have to catch it? Isn't that a bit scary? (and
I mean beyond the immediate incident). You're getting caught out rather
more often than most people expect - that's not good.

FWIW sudden change in environment - yup, that sort of thing happens. On
the road, drive in such a manner that it won't be a problem.

> I saw one right in front of me a while back. 5 lanes of moderate SB5
> traffic (I'm reading this in ca.driving), clear sunny day. Idiot in
> SUV in third lane from the left changes lane cutting off second SUV.
> Second SUV over-reacts, turns hard right, goes up on 45 degree slope
> landscaping, comes back down, bounces hitting bumper on pavement,
> rolls spectacularly, glass, luggage and parts flying everywhere in
> random walks. I just slowed down and drove around it all. What could
> the crasher have done? The same thing. Knowing limits is irrelevant
> when all you can do is instinctively react. Such "instinct" is
> strongly influenced by experience. Just generally driving around does
> not give you that experience.

Not convinced. Sure, the crasher was an idiot, and could have done with
more training, but here we're discussing whether or not track experience
is important, and that training doesn't need to come from track driving.

(OTOH I do think skid pan training is good - but that's different to
hooning round a track as fast as possible).

> Now that people are recognizing this, commercial interests are
> creating schools for teenage and elderly drivers. They seem to be
> working.

And this is good, but it's not track.

>> Your car and bike handling may be exemplary, you may be really very fast
>> round a track, but for road driving you lack the mental ability to
>> refrain from abusing that skill, and that means you're not going to be
>> an excellent driver on the road.
>
> I can't imagine you are a very good driver if you think your mental
> state is more important than the physical reality.

On the road, mental state is more important. The motor skills involved
in normal driving aren't that hard. The mental skills - observation,
keeping calm, planning, learning, knowing one's limits, etc are rather
more important than the ability to eg hold the car in a drift. Not
getting into that situation in the first place is much better than
having to control it.

As for whether or not I'm a very good driver - dunno. I just drive on
the road, and seem to not get into trouble doing so. I'm not a potterer,
but I drive slower than properly fast people. I've managed my trips to
snowy places ok, and quite enjoy the way losing traction isn't a big
deal - and still drive like an absolute granny compared to the locals. I
try and not drive like an arsehole, eg using lanes on motorways
properly, not cutting people up, and I also try not to drive
erratically. I do take pleasure from planning speed appropriately and
not using brakes where others do yet still doing a similar speed, though
this only really applies on roads with bends in them - rather more
common over here :-). I'd probably be useless on a track. How's that?

[Mike P]

And red mist, leading to stupid overtaking attempts on blind corners
or into incoming traffic, or many other stupid things that are not to
do with car control.

> > >> Learning that if you lose grip it's not the end of the world is a useful
> > >> skill. But this has to be balanced with the mental ability to keep from
> > >> abusing that skill in normal driving.
>
> > > That's correct, but all relative.  I remember driving "slowly" on the
> > > freeway after a race, as it seems so pointless off the track, getting
> > > a ticket for 70MPH in a 55 zone.
>
> > I think you're doing a very good job of proving my point. You'd not
> > mentally adjusted to road driving, and weren't taking enough care.
> > Though I admit it's very easy to do based on experiences driving home
> > after karting...
>
> Well, I guess you understandably don't have the context for that
> speeding ticket example.  These are freeways engineered for 75MPH
> speeds (or more accurately, Air Force plane landing speeds), but with
> a ridiculous 55MPH speed limit.  The Nevada LEO intimated as much,
> giving me a "Waste Of Natural Resources" ticket and explaining it
> wouldn't even appear on my CA driving record, just pay the fine.

So, you were on a track, and you didn't mentally adjust to road
driving.

Thanks for proving Clive's point so well.

> You seem to be misreading me in a most dense fashion.  I don't have
> any need to push, I'm talking about sudden change in environment.
> Those with the skills can immediately adapt, those without crash.

This appears to exclude yourself, as you don't appear to be able to
adapt from track to road conditions even NOT immediately.

You're not doing well here..

> Now that people are recognizing this, commercial interests are
> creating schools for teenage and elderly drivers.  They seem to be
> working.

Have you enrolled for some lessons? You appear to need some.

> > Your car and bike handling may be exemplary, you may be really very fast
> > round a track, but for road driving you lack the mental ability to
> > refrain from abusing that skill, and that means you're not going to be
> > an excellent driver on the road.
>
> I can't imagine you are a very good driver if you think your mental
> state is more important than the physical reality.

In my experience, those that think they are excellent drivers usually
aren't..

[Ashton Crusher]

Mostly a dumb list having little or nothing to do with whether someone
is a good driver on PUBLIC roads.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:25 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."
<ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:

>In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
>on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.
>

>Obviously, if a bell curve were to apply, that can't be ... so the
>question is what would you use as criteria that someone could ask
>themselves to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on their personal driving
>ability?

- how smoothly is your driving, i.e. are you always on and off the gas
and brake, jerking the wheel, etc, or do you mostly drive at a uniform
speed along with the rest of traffic; do you anticipate the "next
event" so you can brake smoothly, esp if you have passengers, instead
of bouncing peoples heads off the dashboard and headrests.

- how often do the cars around you get surprised by something you do?

- how often do you wind up doing really hard braking because you
failed to anticipate what might happen ahead of you.

- how often are you cussing out the drivers around you?

- How often are you at fault in an accident? how often are you in an
accident that the other person was the real cause of but that you
could have avoided if you'd been paying more attention to what was
going on around you?

- how often do you get a ticket? The ticket itself is not necessarily
the issue, the fact that you can't drive and anticipate where a cop
might be waiting is the issue.

The shorter version of this is:
- how often are YOU surprised by what happens around you
- how often do you surprise OTHERS by what you do.

[Nick Finnigan]

On 13/07/2012 07:28, Arklin K. wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:25 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:
>
>> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
>> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.
>

> Here is what was initially proposed in that thread ...
>
> I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?
>
> Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need:

Lots of things I would disagree with. Which is why everyone could
honestly assess themselves as above average.

[gpsman]

On Jul 13, 9:24 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>
> - how smoothly is your driving, i.e. are you always on and off the gas
> and brake, jerking the wheel, etc, or do you mostly drive at a uniform
> speed along with the rest of traffic;

You have the right idea, but going with the flow makes maintaining a
constant speed impossible; flow speed is rarely if ever constant for
long.

If you're "running with the pack" the members are always following too
closely and forced to brake fairly often. In truck driving they call
that "letting the guy/s in front of you drive your truck".

> do you anticipate the "next
> event" so you can brake smoothly, esp if you have passengers, instead
> of bouncing peoples heads off the dashboard and headrests.

Again, right idea, wrong application. Braking for the "next event"
suggests you missed its development.

Habitual overuse of brakes can get a truck driver fired from a safety
conscious company. It is evidence of too much speed, following too
closely and failure to respond early enough to circumstances that
merely lifting off the throttle sooner would have solved.

The best drivers consider braking on an interstate at all evidence of
a serious error in judgment. For the terminally stupid that does not
mean to suggest crashing is preferable to braking.
-----

- gpsman

[Nate Nagel]

On 07/14/2012 09:18 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:24 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>>
>> - how smoothly is your driving, i.e. are you always on and off the gas
>> and brake, jerking the wheel, etc, or do you mostly drive at a uniform
>> speed along with the rest of traffic;
>
> You have the right idea, but going with the flow makes maintaining a
> constant speed impossible; flow speed is rarely if ever constant for
> long.

Help the flow, "rubber-banding" is your friend, especially when you can
see that traffic is stop-and-go or speeding up and slowing down
regularly. Helps traffic behind you from developing "braking waves."

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[gpsman]

On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 09:18 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > going with the flow makes maintaining a
> > constant speed impossible; flow speed is rarely if ever constant for
> > long.
>
> Help the flow, "rubber-banding" is your friend, especially when you can
> see that traffic is stop-and-go or speeding up and slowing down
> regularly.  Helps traffic behind you from developing "braking waves."

Huh?
-----

- gpsman

[Steve Firth]

Arklin K. <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:

> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.
>

> Obviously, if a bell curve were to apply, that can't be ... so the
> question is what would you use as criteria that someone could ask
> themselves to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on their personal driving
> ability?

Do they keep ranting on about their ability to teach their children how
to drive - score=0

Do they come from the USA - score=0

Do they come from Californicate - score=-1

Add up the numbers to rate your ability as a driver.

Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year:

UK: 3.6
USA: 12.3

You might want to think about that when attempting to work out what a
shit driver looks like.

[Nate Nagel]

Imagine yourself connected to the car in front of you by a rubber band.
When he accelerates, accelerate less hard and let him pull away. When
he brakes, lift off or brake more lightly, and let yourself catch up a
little. Smooths out the flow.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jts1m...@news6.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
<njn...@roosters.net> writes

>On 07/14/2012 09:54 AM, gpsman wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2012 09:18 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>>
>>>> going with the flow makes maintaining a
>>>> constant speed impossible; flow speed is rarely if ever constant for
>>>> long.
>>>
>>> Help the flow, "rubber-banding" is your friend, especially when you can
>>> see that traffic is stop-and-go or speeding up and slowing down
>>> regularly. Helps traffic behind you from developing "braking waves."
>>
>> Huh?
>
>Imagine yourself connected to the car in front of you by a rubber band.
>When he accelerates, accelerate less hard and let him pull away. When
>he brakes, lift off or brake more lightly, and let yourself catch up a
>little. Smooths out the flow.
>

An important thing is to do initially is to try and move off as soon as
he does, and don't - as many drivers - wait several seconds. However,
take care in case he stalls his engine, and you rear-end him!
--
Ian

[gpsman]

On Jul 14, 11:02 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 09:54 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> On 07/14/2012 09:18 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> >>> going with the flow makes maintaining a
> >>> constant speed impossible; flow speed is rarely if ever constant for
> >>> long.
>
> >> Help the flow, "rubber-banding" is your friend, especially when you can
> >> see that traffic is stop-and-go or speeding up and slowing down
> >> regularly.  Helps traffic behind you from developing "braking waves."
>
> > Huh?
>
> Imagine yourself connected to the car in front of you by a rubber band.
>   When he accelerates, accelerate less hard and let him pull away.  When
> he brakes, lift off or brake more lightly, and let yourself catch up a
> little.  Smooths out the flow.

Close. Rubberbanding is a description of the normal pattern of stop/
slow and go traffic.

But that's not bad for you.

The tactic consists of smoothing one's own pattern of rubberbanding by
building following distance then reacting to traffic far ahead as it
slows, before the motorist to your front has any idea he's going to
have to lift off the throttle in 10 seconds.

Reacting to the vehicle immediately to your front as it slows isn't
going to accomplish much if anything to reducing rubbberbanding.

To be fair, neither does doing it right. There's always a generous
supply of knuckleheads measuring travel by motor vehicle in seconds
and feet if not fractions thereof that think they're losing ground and
throughput isn't being maximized if more than 1 car length is being
allowed between vehicles, so they are going to endeavor to fix what
isn't wrong by attempting to fight their way through what they see as
a "phalanx of sloth" consisting of motorists who only took to the road
to be in their way.
----

- gpsman

[Steve W.]

No way to compare the UK with the US. They do not travel anywhere near
as many miles nor do they have close to the population.

--
Steve W.

[Mike P]

You travel around double the average miles that we do. Stats show average
over there is about 16,000 per year, here it's 8500 per year.

So, you travel less than double what we do, yet have almost 4 times the
death rate.

Steve's shit driver comment still stands.



--
Mike P

[John David Galt]

> Imagine yourself connected to the car in front of you by a rubber band. When he
> accelerates, accelerate less hard and let him pull away. When he brakes, lift
> off or brake more lightly, and let yourself catch up a little. Smooths out the
> flow.

That assumes that nobody manages to cut into the gap in front of you while you're
letting it get big. Which they almost always will, screwing you and those in line
behind you. That's why good drivers reject your strategy and always keep up.

[Mike P]

The septics on here just keep making it clear why they have an accident
rate so much higher than ours...



--
Mike P

[Steve Firth]

Steve W. <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:

> > UK: 3.6
> > USA: 12.3
> >
> > You might want to think about that when attempting to work out what a
> > shit driver looks like.
> >
>
> No way to compare the UK with the US. They do not travel anywhere near
> as many miles nor do they have close to the population.

It's very easy to compare the two. On the same basis as comparing any
pair of countries, deaths per 100,000/year or deaths per bn km.
Whichever you choose, the USA is a motoring death trap. Their death
rates are inferior to Italy, for example.

This is despite Italy having a widely ignored 130kph maximum and the USA
having rigidly enforced low speed limits.

[Steve Firth]

Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:

>
> Steve's shit driver comment still stands.

Indeed. If you take Mr Arkin's previously expressed attitude that
driving is some sort of right and that freedom should permit any old
person to teach driving and any old person to get in a car and aim it at
the horizon, it gives you a feel for *why* the USA is so poor.

All drivers in the USA think they have the god-given right to drive.

All drivers in the USA think that they can do all sorts of other things
while they drive other than look where they are going.

Play with your phone, run your office from your car, drink buckets of
coffee... behaviour that would see someone arrested or at least given a
stiff talking to across Europe are ignored by the cops in the US simply
to enforce harsh speed control. And outside of major cities people drive
junkheaps that wouldn't pass an MoT here.

[John David Galt]

>>> Imagine yourself connected to the car in front of you by a rubber band.
>>> When he accelerates, accelerate less hard and let him pull away. When
>>> he brakes, lift off or brake more lightly, and let yourself catch up a
>>> little. Smooths out the flow.

>> That assumes that nobody manages to cut into the gap in front of you
>> while you're letting it get big. Which they almost always will,
>> screwing you and those in line behind you. That's why good drivers
>> reject your strategy and always keep up.

> The septics on here just keep making it clear why they have an accident
> rate so much higher than ours...

When the delay caused by someone cutting in is ten million times more likely
than an accident resulting, the delay is the more important consideration.

If you're too big a coward to drive like a normal person, stay off the road.

[Mike P]

You're just making yourself look more and more stupid, and doing a great
job of explaining your country's ridiculous fatality rate with every
post. Do keep it up, it is rather amusing.




--
Mike P

[Clive George]

On 14/07/2012 20:40, John David Galt wrote:

>>> That assumes that nobody manages to cut into the gap in front of you
>>> while you're letting it get big. Which they almost always will,
>>> screwing you and those in line behind you. That's why good drivers
>>> reject your strategy and always keep up.

...

> If you're too big a coward to drive like a normal person, stay off the road.

Letting a gap appear in front of you makes your willy get smaller, it's
been medically proven. Or so some would believe...

[Steve Walker]

On 7/13/2012 08:46, Barb Dwyer wrote:
<SNIP>
> This is a uk group you fucking moron. We don't have your shitty federal
> highways over here for a start. So, please feel free to fuck off
>
>


Maybe you want to read what groups you respond to before being so
offensively defensive. Yes we do have shitty highways, and all the other
stuff you said, but your response was crossposted to 2 other newsgroups.


--
Steve Walker
Fusi...@frontierbrain.com (remove brain when replying)

[Ian Dalziel]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:11:34 -0700, John David Galt

In what way are you "screwed" because you have to lift off slightly?

Are you in a race? How much have you won so far?

--

Ian D

[Ian Dalziel]

I'll certainly stay off any road you're likely to be on, you fucking
imbecile.

--

Ian D

[The Welsh Windbag]

"John David Galt" wrote

>When the delay caused by someone cutting in is ten million times more
>likely
>than an accident resulting, the delay is the more important consideration.

In the UK, the recommended gap between you and the car in front is a minimum
of 2 seconds. I believe in the US it is 3 or 4 seconds depending on
circumstances?

So every time someone cuts into the gap, I drop back 2 seconds. Assuming the
driver that cuts in stays there, if it happens 30 times on a journey - and I
can't ever remember it happening anywhere near as often as that, it would
only add 1 minute to your journey time. That's a reasonable trade off for a
safer journey. Usually the car that cuts in carries on overtaking and gets
out of the way anyway, so the total delay is likely to be negligible.
--
Lyndon

[Barb Dwyer]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:20:48 -0400, Steve Walker drooled

> On 7/13/2012 08:46, Barb Dwyer wrote: <SNIP>
>> This is a uk group you fucking moron. We don't have your shitty federal
>> highways over here for a start. So, please feel free to fuck off
>>
>>
>>
>
> Maybe you want to read what groups you respond to before being so
> offensively defensive. Yes we do have shitty highways, and all the other
> stuff you said, but your response was crossposted to 2 other newsgroups.

And? Is California in the uk? I think not, you knob-end. Is
rec.autos.tech a uk group? No. Stop crossposting your shite here then.


--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten (c) George Carlin

[Steve Walker]

On 7/15/2012 07:56, Barb Dwyer wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:20:48 -0400, Steve Walker drooled
>
>> On 7/13/2012 08:46, Barb Dwyer wrote: <SNIP>
>>> This is a uk group you fucking moron. We don't have your shitty federal
>>> highways over here for a start. So, please feel free to fuck off
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you want to read what groups you respond to before being so
>> offensively defensive. Yes we do have shitty highways, and all the other
>> stuff you said, but your response was crossposted to 2 other newsgroups.
>
> And? Is California in the uk? I think not, you knob-end.

What makes me a knob-end? I was polite and not offensive.

Is
> rec.autos.tech a uk group? No. Stop crossposting your shite here then.

I did not start the thread. If you are unhappy with crossposts, there
are forums and support groups that can explain to you how to set up
filters in your particular newsreader to eliminate displaying threads
that are crossposted.

[Barb Dwyer]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:00:36 -0400, Steve Walker drooled

> On 7/15/2012 07:56, Barb Dwyer wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:20:48 -0400, Steve Walker drooled
>>
>>> On 7/13/2012 08:46, Barb Dwyer wrote: <SNIP>
>>>> This is a uk group you fucking moron. We don't have your shitty
>>>> federal highways over here for a start. So, please feel free to fuck
>>>> off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe you want to read what groups you respond to before being so
>>> offensively defensive. Yes we do have shitty highways, and all the
>>> other stuff you said, but your response was crossposted to 2 other
>>> newsgroups.
>>
>> And? Is California in the uk? I think not, you knob-end.
>
>
> What makes me a knob-end? I was polite and not offensive.

Your condescending attitude.

>> rec.autos.tech a uk group? No. Stop crossposting your shite here then.
>
>
> I did not start the thread. If you are unhappy with crossposts, there
> are forums and support groups that can explain to you how to set up
> filters in your particular newsreader to eliminate displaying threads
> that are crossposted.

I'm perfectly capable thanks. Just as others should be able to stop
crossposting irrelevant shite into uk groups. I mean, it's just *so*
difficult to work out that uk.rec.driving isn't a septic group isn't it?

[Patrick Scheible]

You might want to calculate the fatalities per mile, rather than per
inhabitant. Americans drive a lot more. Bigger country, rail service
that makes British Rail look good.

-- Patrick

[Mike P]

They drive just under twice as much, and still have 4 times the
fatalities, as has already been pointed out.

My experience driving over there leads me to believe Americans are not
good drivers. That includes city driving, freeway driving and out in the
wilds driving.





--
Mike P

[Patrick Scheible]

Maybe, but I am not yet convinced. What's the accident rate? British
speeds are typically lower, so when they crash, then get owies instead of
dead.

-- Patrick

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:07:36 +0100
Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 13/07/2012 13:44, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
>> Silk<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> drivers will achieve an 8 or 9. On rare occasions, I've been driven by
>>> people approaching a 10, but this is extremely rare.
>>
>> When was that , when you were nicked for careless driving and taken to
>> the police station in a plodmobile? ;)
>
>I know, as a pikey, you only come into contact with the police when
>you're "helping them with their enquiries, but some of us know people in
>the the police socially.

Socially as in "Could you step out of the car please Sir. Ah, its you again
is it Mr Silk..."?

B2003

[Mike P]

a) Why don't you use google and work it out. The accident rate has
already been posted. You can easily find out the average mileage per
person in the USA is around 16,000 and 8700 pp in the UK.

b) Average speeds lower in the UK? Don't make me laugh. Like I said, I've
driven plenty over there. The Americans drive like they are on Mogadon
compared to our motorway (Freeway to you). Hell, there's a man in this
thread complaining about getting a ticket for 70 in a 50. Last time I
drove from Atlanta to Columbus (GA), I was in a hire (rental) car, my
American passenger was extremely nervous of me getting stopped for
speeding, and I was only doing 85. Not one car passed me in 100 miles
down the I-85/I-185..





--
Mike P

[Steve Walker]

On 7/15/2012 17:14, Barb Dwyer wrote:
<SNIP>
> Your condescending attitude.


Sorry, I didn't mean to come off that way.

<SNIP>

I mean, it's just *so*
> difficult to work out that uk.rec.driving isn't a septic group isn't it?

I do agree, much gets crossposted, even though it doesn't fit in certain
groups. Sorry If I offended you, I didn't mean to.

[hachiroku]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:25 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:

> In another thread, it was mentioned that everyone 'thinks' they're a 10
> on a scale of 1 to 10 for rating their driving ability.
>
> Obviously, if a bell curve were to apply, that can't be ... so the
> question is what would you use as criteria that someone could ask
> themselves to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on their personal driving
> ability?

I don't have to guess. I did an insurance co simulation and came up with a
score of 9/10.


And I drove like I really do: 5-10 MPH over the speed limit, cell phone,
water bottle, etc. Assessor said only the State Cops and a few others did
better than I did.

I also have started wearing my seat belt since doing that simulation...

[gpsman]

On Jul 18, 12:58 am, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
> I don't have to guess. I did an insurance co simulation and came up with a
> score of 9/10.
>
> And I drove like I really do: 5-10 MPH over the speed limit, cell phone,
> water bottle, etc. Assessor said only the State Cops and a few others did
> better than I did.

Then 10 must have represented "average". Old ladies and children with
20 hours behind the wheel can comply with speed limits and stay off
the phone.

> I also have started wearing my seat belt since doing that simulation...

Why?
-----

- gpsman

[hachiroku]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:16:20 -0700, gpsman wrote:

> On Jul 18, 12:58 am, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have to guess. I did an insurance co simulation and came up with a
>> score of 9/10.
>>
>> And I drove like I really do: 5-10 MPH over the speed limit, cell phone,
>> water bottle, etc. Assessor said only the State Cops and a few others did
>> better than I did.
>
> Then 10 must have represented "average". Old ladies and children with
> 20 hours behind the wheel can comply with speed limits and stay off
> the phone.

The scenario was youre late for work, you have a very important meeting
and can't be late. You were encouraged to go a little faster and a little
more aggressive than usual.

>
>> I also have started wearing my seat belt since doing that simulation...
>
> Why?
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Because he got tired of me dodging the accident scenarios he had set up
and put me in a "No Win" situation.

I asked him to set me up with another No Win situation.

I dodged that one...

[jgar the jorrible]

Ah, the Kobayashi Maru. So you cheated.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Are these all your guitars? http://www.10news.com/news/31286233/detail.html

[Nate Nagel]

Curious, what insurance company? Kind of want to try said simulation
just for shits and giggles.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[hachiroku]

The study is being done at the University of Mass, Amherst, by a guy
working on a Doctorate and contracted with by an insurance co, Amica, IIRC.
They are comparing experienced drivers who haven't had any kind of crash
in the past 10 years with drivers who have had their licenses 6-8 months
to find out how they can standardize Driver's Ed classes.


They are finding that kids that HAVE Driver's Ed are much more likely to
be involved in a collision, and MUCH more likely to be in a fatal
collision, than kids that DON'T have DE and are taught by a family member!

The guy running it was a cop who then became an accident investigator for
the PD, then became a reconstruction expert, then became an engineer. He
has worked for all the larger Ins cos, and is now seeking his Doctorate.
Real cool guy.


Post me a throw-away email addy....or Yahoo. Same thing! :)

[Nate Nagel]

Ah, so this is something that is local to Boston, and one couldn't
participate remotely? Or PC-based?

If you follow the demunging directions in my .sig this address works
(for now, it's a "legacy" email address that has never been turned off)
but I don't check it often, as it's old enough that the emails that I
receive are 90% spam spam spam spam lovely spam wonderful spam...

[hachiroku]

I knew about the "rooster" thing but couldn't remember where to look! ;)

You have mail...