A list of driving hazards
C.T.
Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
in any number of behaviors.
1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
Carl
el...@spam.free.at.last
And here's #16:
16) Being so busy observing what other drivers are doing in the
privacy of their cars that you have no time to look at the road.
And could you share with us what car accidents you've witnessed that
were caused by a driver's smoking? IMTWK.
Kevin Miller
On Sun, 10 May 1998 21:02:52 GMT, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) wrote:
>Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
>and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
>witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
>hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
>could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
>driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
>in any number of behaviors.
>
>1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
>
>2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
>
>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>
>4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
>
>5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
>
>6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
>
>7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
>
>8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
>
>9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
>
>10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
>
>11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
>
>12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
>
>13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
>
>14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
>
>15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
>
>
>Carl
So how long have you been driving in New England? :)
Kevin Miller
GO 'SKINS!
Chuck Tomlinson
>
>2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
I'm with you on ALL of those except #2. BTW, when the speed limits
jumped by 5-15 mph a few years ago, did the start of that "inherent
risk zone" increase by the same amount? IMWTK.
--
Chuck Tomlinson
C.T.
On 10 May 1998 21:17:41 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>And here's #16:
>
>16) Being so busy observing what other drivers are doing in the
>privacy of their cars that you have no time to look at the road.
Not true in the least. My eyes are in constant motion on the road;
never staring at anything for too long. The things in my list are
easily observable, and in fact are indicators that I'm paying MORE
attention than many of you. I do things like predicting a car's
merging speed by its make and the look of the driver, or always
staying as far right as possible on a two lane highway to gain an
extra few feet if someone should fall asleep and swerve. It pays to
glance (not stare, of course) at what people are doing so you can
stay out of harm's way.
>And could you share with us what car accidents you've witnessed that
>were caused by a driver's smoking? IMTWK.
I smell some serious self-interest there, along with acrid smoke.
Please don't try to claim that handling a burning ember does not
affect your control of a vehicle. The smoke can blur your vision too.
Cellphones are the most obvious hand-related hazard, but unless you
can smoke an entire cigarette in your mouth (dribbling ashes on your
lap) you are going to compromise your driving whenever you handle
it. The fact that the damned thing is on fire is a major factor. A
lollipop would be more benign, but I think both hands should always
be as free as possible.
An unfortunate teenage girl in my hometown had her life ruined when
she reached down to grab a cassette tape and killed two bicyclists.
When I have to reach for things I make certain that nothing is coming
and I mostly do it by feel.
Carl (Too much posting today - time to get some Sun.)
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <35672ab4...@news.jps.net>, C.T. <ct...@jps.net> wrote:
>On 10 May 1998 21:17:41 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>>And here's #16:
>>
>>16) Being so busy observing what other drivers are doing in the
>>privacy of their cars that you have no time to look at the road.
>
>Not true in the least. My eyes are in constant motion on the road;
>never staring at anything for too long. The things in my list are
>easily observable, and in fact are indicators that I'm paying MORE
>attention than many of you. I do things like predicting a car's
>merging speed by its make and the look of the driver, or always
>staying as far right as possible on a two lane highway to gain an
>extra few feet if someone should fall asleep and swerve. It pays to
>glance (not stare, of course) at what people are doing so you can
>stay out of harm's way.
You must have a lot of trouble driving at night. (Or, actually, that's
probably the only time you really have your eyes on the road, given that
it's too dark for your voyeurist activities.)
>>And could you share with us what car accidents you've witnessed that
>>were caused by a driver's smoking? IMTWK.
>
>I smell some serious self-interest there, along with acrid smoke.
>Please don't try to claim that handling a burning ember does not
>affect your control of a vehicle. The smoke can blur your vision too.
>Cellphones are the most obvious hand-related hazard, but unless you
>can smoke an entire cigarette in your mouth (dribbling ashes on your
>lap) you are going to compromise your driving whenever you handle
>it. The fact that the damned thing is on fire is a major factor. A
>lollipop would be more benign, but I think both hands should always
>be as free as possible.
>
>An unfortunate teenage girl in my hometown had her life ruined when
>she reached down to grab a cassette tape and killed two bicyclists.
>When I have to reach for things I make certain that nothing is coming
>and I mostly do it by feel.
So you have NO reports of accidents due to smoking, I see. Just as I
thought.
Corey Heim
In article <356015fa...@news.jps.net>, ct...@jps.net wrote:
>
> Carl
Too bad you missed that right lane exit, huh?
--
Corey Heim--...@students.wisc.com----------------------UW-Madison
Free DVD! Fight DIVX!---Make obvious change to address to send email.
Given the choice between accomplishing something, and just lying around, I'd rather just lie around. No contest. --Eric Clapton
S.T. Marcus
C.T. wrote in message <356015fa...@news.jps.net>...
>Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
>and distractions are.
Tailgating is dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
In some situations this may be regarded as "excessive speed", but in many
situations, 10 mph+ above the speed limit is not inherently risky (i.e. when
the flow of traffic is 10 mph+ above the speed limit; and/or the speed limit
is excessively low)
>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
As long as you're not running people off of the road, and your are using the
left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
Unexpected? No speed relation at all.
>5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
Again, no speed relation.
>6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
This would fall into the category of "inattention." When you're behind the
wheel of a car, driving the car is all you should be doing. Inattention is
dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
No speed relation. Poor judgement is dangerous, irregardless of speed.
>8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
This goes without saying. Again, no speed relation.
>9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
This goes without saying. Again, no speed relation.
>10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
This goes without saying. Again, no speed relation.
>11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
Unsafe, irregardless of speed.
>12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
Unsafe, irregardless of speed.
>13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
No speed relation.
>14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
No speed relation.
>15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
Once again no speed relation.
Of your 15 most dangerous driving habits, only #1 is speed related. All are
(to varying degrees) dangerous irregardless of speed. The unbelievable fact
is that numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,12 (if not more) are included by the
NHTSA as "speed related" factors in fatal accidents (see below).
"In 1990, speed too fast for conditions and other speed-related factors were
reported as contributing factors in 34 percent of all fatal crashes
[emphasis added]." Then it goes on to list the other factors: "Improper lane
changes, following too closely, unsafe passing, inattention, reckless
driving, high-speed chase, erratic/ changing speeds, and driving slower than
posted minimums." from an article by Patrick Bedard at
http://www.caranddriver.com/member/curIssue/sep_96/speed/
In my opinion, these are the most dangerous driving habits:
1. Inattention. When you are driving, you need to stop doing anything else
(cell phone, smoking, make-up, etc.) and concentrate on DRIVING.
2. Poor Judgement. It's very important that you make good decisions. If
you make a bad decision AT ANY SPEED, there is a good chance there will be
negative consequences.
There are probably more, but most will fall into these two categories.
This is from a person (me) who has been driving for 12 years, has received 5
tickets (3 for speeding). On most 55 or 65 mph highways, I am comfortable
driving 10+mph over the speed limit. I've been in 2 accidents; neither my
fault, neither speed related, and neither avoidable (if they were. I would
have). There's nothing you can tell me about driving. So get off your
soapbox and go somewhere else; this newsgroup is rec.autos.driving. Not
rec.autos.speed.kills.
Adrian Vickers
ct...@jps.net (C.T.) wrote on Sun, 10 May 1998 22:46:10 GMT:
> On 10 May 1998 21:17:41 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>>And here's #16:
>>
>>16) Being so busy observing what other drivers are doing in the
>>privacy of their cars that you have no time to look at the road.
>
> Not true in the least. My eyes are in constant motion on the road;
> never staring at anything for too long. The things in my list are
> easily observable, and in fact are indicators that I'm paying MORE
> attention than many of you. I do things like predicting a car's
> merging speed by its make and the look of the driver, or always
Why don't you look at it's speed when trying to judge it's merging
speed? It's far easier, and means you won't be caught out by the
ageing hippy in a VW camper with a 6ltr V8 under the lid?
> staying as far right as possible on a two lane highway to gain an
> extra few feet if someone should fall asleep and swerve. It pays to
It is more likely that people in the slow lane will fall asleep, esp.
hard-worked lorry drivers. This is why the hard-shoulder is the most
dangerous place to be on on a motorway.
> glance (not stare, of course) at what people are doing so you can
> stay out of harm's way.
I have to admit, I usually glance at drivers as I pass them, or they
pass me. Many of the ones I pass are staring blindly ahead, gripping
the wheel as if it will escape from the car in sheer boredom... these
are the dangerous people IMO
>
>>And could you share with us what car accidents you've witnessed that
>>were caused by a driver's smoking? IMTWK.
>
PMFBI, but as a smoker I too have an interest in this...
> I smell some serious self-interest there, along with acrid smoke.
> Please don't try to claim that handling a burning ember does not
> affect your control of a vehicle. The smoke can blur your vision too.
For the former, well, generally you don't let it get to your fingers -
too painful! Also, as the filter starts burning the taste changes
(that's where they hide the drugs <VBG>)
As for the latter, that's nonsense - at least for me. I always have
the window open a crack when I smoke; the smoke goes straight out
through the window, as does the ash and the butt.
> Cellphones are the most obvious hand-related hazard, but unless you
> can smoke an entire cigarette in your mouth (dribbling ashes on your
> lap) you are going to compromise your driving whenever you handle
> it.
You can easily hold a cigarette in one hand whilst it is still on the
wheel. Watch any smoker and you'll see it is pinched between the first
and second finger, allowing all remaining fingers and the palm of your
hand to stay in contact with the wheel. The only time your hand leaves
the wheel is to flick the ash, take a drag, or throw the butt out.
Hardly long periods of time, and besides you use your other hand on
the wheel during those periods...
> The fact that the damned thing is on fire is a major factor. A
> lollipop would be more benign, but I think both hands should always
> be as free as possible.
The fire hazard is nil. I speak after having dropped at least three
burning cigarettes onto the floor (damn them!). No fire. The only
real hazard is dropping it into your crutch, which can be very painful
I am told...
> An unfortunate teenage girl in my hometown had her life ruined when
> she reached down to grab a cassette tape and killed two bicyclists.
And what has this to do with smoking?
> When I have to reach for things I make certain that nothing is coming
> and I mostly do it by feel.
Good idea. I do that too. Also, I know where everything is (esp. my
cigs and the radio). Am I any less safe than you? (apart, of course,
from suddenly contracting lung-cancer and dying at the wheel...)
--
Ade.
Please send mail you wish to have read to avickers@, not disregard@
All mail sent to disregard@ will be junked.
***
Vtec060
S.T., I see you are also a big fan of Mr. Bedard's writing. I have probably
worn out my Sept. '96 issue by reading the interview of Dr. Martinez. With
every new issue, I look straight toward the subject of his (Bedard's) column.
I think I'm going to contact Car and Driver and ask for permission to reprint
some of his writings so that I may send them to the appropriate city officials.
-Drew Boyles-
Replying to vte...@aol.com will get your mail bounced back. To email, do so
to domain: mccallie.org, username: abboyles.
Douglas Kilpatrick
C.T. wrote:
>
> Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
> 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
> 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
At least these idiots are easy to predict.
> 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
Can't predict these at all...drive me nuts.
> 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
> 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
> 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
> 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
> 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
> 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
> 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
> 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
> 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
> 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
> 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
All very good points... All dangerous driving habits.
> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
Why did you have to ruin a perfectly good, reasonable post with this tripe?
Question:
You are traveling down a 4 lane divided highway. This road is as
straight as a chalk-line. You can see the road forward for 4 miles, and
2 miles behind you. There is one cut in sight, a dirt road with noone
approaching. The sides of the road are cleared for at least a
half-mile. There is not another car in sight. Its daylight, and there
is nothing in your sight range that can move. There are no houses, no
animals, nothing in sight... The speed limit is 65.
Is 76 mph too fast for safety in this situation?
Doug
-- kilp...@erols.com
John
did you write this JUST to get flamed?
--
lisa...@spamx.vail.net
John in Colorado (remove [spamx] for email)
C.T. <ct...@jps.net> wrote in article <356015fa...@news.jps.net>...
> Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
> and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
> witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
> hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
> could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
> driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
> in any number of behaviors.
>
> 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
>
> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
>
> 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>
> 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
>
> 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
>
> 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
>
> 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
>
> 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
>
> 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
>
> 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
>
> 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
>
> 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
>
> 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
>
> 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
>
> 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
>
>
> Carl
>
C.T.
On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:03:38 -0400, "S.T. Marcus" <sma...@i-Plus.net>
wrote:
>>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>
>
>As long as you're not running people off of the road, and your are using the
>left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
>dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
Sure it's dangerous! It's often unexpected from the other driver's
point of view, and it's often useless, getting the weaver there no
faster than the pack.
>>4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
>
>
>Unexpected? No speed relation at all.
<snip>
I never claimed that ALL of these were speed related. I was
demonstrating that I recognize hazards other than speed, but
that I think the *top* hazards are speed related. I'm getting too
weary of this to address all your other points.
>This is from a person (me) who has been driving for 12 years, has received 5
>tickets (3 for speeding). On most 55 or 65 mph highways, I am comfortable
>driving 10+mph over the speed limit. I've been in 2 accidents; neither my
>fault, neither speed related, and neither avoidable (if they were. I would
>have).
Well jeez, hasn't that been my point all along about the "unexpected?"
It goes without saying that most crashes are not avoidable. That's
the whole reason you're usually safer at lower speeds. Consider
yourself lucky, not special.
>There's nothing you can tell me about driving. So get off your
>soapbox and go somewhere else; this newsgroup is rec.autos.driving. Not
>rec.autos.speed.kills.
There's nothing you speeders are willing to concede, that's for sure.
You are as cool as Alaskan ice and possessors of all driving knowledge
under the Sun.
I've been driving for 18 years for a total of over 400,000 miles (a
good deal of that in a large truck). I was only in one 5 mph
fender-bender long ago, and received one speeding ticket for
going 65 in a 60 zone long ago. Funny thing is I was driving with
the pack and was singled out probably because I looked like a young
punk. The fact that my truck was red probably had a lot to do with it
too. I digress...
Carl
C.T.
On 11 May 1998 00:54:26 -0500, "John" <lisa...@spamx.vail.net> wrote:
>did you write this JUST to get flamed?
Only by unreasonable people who don't care for safety.
Carl
C.T.
>> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
>
>Why did you have to ruin a perfectly good, reasonable post with this tripe?
It's "tripe" to speeders, but it's logic to those of us who have to
deal with speeders. There is a push, push, push mentality on the road
that sets up hazardous situations and creates tailgating by default as
the fastest 10% or 15% of drivers try to squeeze past the rest. IMO,
speeding raises the general anxiety level and contributes to road
rage. There are many days when I am burned out from working and
want the commute to be as relaxing as possible. I don't want to be
pushed from behind by a bunch of type-A road racers.
I have noticed an interesting thing, though. Very late at night or
whenever the roads are not crowded, people tend to slow down
and take it easy. Speeding may be a psychological response to
overcrowding and claustrophobia. In that sense I can at least
understand the perceived need for it, but it doesn't make it any
less hazardous.
>Question:
>
>You are traveling down a 4 lane divided highway. This road is as
>straight as a chalk-line. You can see the road forward for 4 miles, and
>2 miles behind you. There is one cut in sight, a dirt road with noone
>approaching. The sides of the road are cleared for at least a
>half-mile. There is not another car in sight. Its daylight, and there
>is nothing in your sight range that can move. There are no houses, no
>animals, nothing in sight... The speed limit is 65.
>
>Is 76 mph too fast for safety in this situation?
In theory, no, but even in those rare, ideal conditions you are better
off going slower. A tire could be blown by a small object and you'd
be in more control at a slower speed. You will also save fuel by
slowing down (up to 25% depending on the vehicle).
How often do you find such perfect conditions though? Does a
particular highway come to mind? I've seen people speed on all
sorts of roads under all sorts of conditions. It's real-world
behavior that concerns me. If people reading this don't speed
except under ideal conditions, I don't have much of a beef with them
except that they are burning our future oil faster than they need to.
Carl
Kate Brown
C.T. wrote >...
>Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
>and distractions are.
(snip)
>1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
Agreed.
>2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
Er, 10mph+ is just your opinion. Some would say 1mph+ is speeding.
>4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
Take the handbrake off! :)
>8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
I've just met a very nice, very old lady, in her 80s, who has just passed
her UK Advanced driving test.
>
>9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
>11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
Funny, I've never seen this one before! I just can't imagine someone driving
along with Fido on their lap.
>
>12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
Best to leave the kids at home then.
>
>13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
Unless you are on a cushion (see 9)
>
Kate
Richard Berkeley
C.T. wrote:
> Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
> and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
> witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
> hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
> could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
> driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
> in any number of behaviors.
>
> 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
I see most of that in heavy traffic.
> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
Hmm. I think 10 mph above the limit is far safer than 10 mph below the
limit. Something's wrong with the picture since I'd have it the other way
around.
> 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
Not really. I see that on heavy traffic and there's somebody who is
hellbent on maintaining the legal speed limit.
> 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
I agree.
> 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
(Gasp!) C.T. said that?
> 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
Oh, that's a problem here!
> 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
Never saw that as a problem.
> 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
And we're still paying for the buses?!
> 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
Funny you should mention this. I saw a dwarf driving a banged up Nissan
pick up yesterday. It was my first time!
> 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
That's ONE MAJOR problem. I keep seeing junked up cars in L.A. and
they're not even fit to exceed 20 mph.
> 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
But they're cute!
> 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
That's why I advocate chaining kids to their seats.
> 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
That's downright aggravating and they drive with only parking lights on as
well as POORLY ADJUSTED fog lamps that just hit you in the eyes through
the rear-view mirror. ARGH!
> 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
>
> 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
>
> Carl
Richard
Richard Berkeley
C.T. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 01:54:20 -0400, Douglas Kilpatrick
> <kilp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
> >
> >Why did you have to ruin a perfectly good, reasonable post with this tripe?
>
> It's "tripe" to speeders, but it's logic to those of us who have to
> deal with speeders. There is a push, push, push mentality on the road
> that sets up hazardous situations and creates tailgating by default as
> the fastest 10% or 15% of drivers try to squeeze past the rest. IMO,
> speeding raises the general anxiety level and contributes to road
> rage. There are many days when I am burned out from working and
> want the commute to be as relaxing as possible. I don't want to be
> pushed from behind by a bunch of type-A road racers.
>
> I have noticed an interesting thing, though. Very late at night or
> whenever the roads are not crowded, people tend to slow down
> and take it easy. Speeding may be a psychological response to
> overcrowding and claustrophobia. In that sense I can at least
> understand the perceived need for it, but it doesn't make it any
> less hazardous.
I really doubt it. It could be attributable to the fact police vehicles are
harder to spot at night. That's the reason I slow down. Also, there could be
obstacles, etc.
Chuck Tomlinson
In article <3558b534...@news.jps.net>, ct...@jps.net wrote:
>There are many days when I am burned out from working and
>want the commute to be as relaxing as possible. I don't want to be
>pushed from behind by a bunch of type-A road racers.
Try to keep right, then...
>I have noticed an interesting thing, though. Very late at night or
>whenever the roads are not crowded, people tend to slow down
>and take it easy. Speeding may be a psychological response to
>overcrowding and claustrophobia. In that sense I can at least
>understand the perceived need for it, but it doesn't make it any
>less hazardous.
Man, where do you come up with these gems? Has it ever occurred to
you that people slow down at night because they can't see as far as
they can in daylight?
Also, light traffic offers easy pickings for thumb-twiddling traffic
cops. At least one cop has admitted on this NG that they *prefer*
to hand out speeding tickets in light traffic, because it's easy and
safe! Never mind that driving conditions are often *safest* in
light traffic; speed enforcement has little or nothing to do with
safety, and most drivers realize that. But that's another story...
--
Chuck Tomlinson
GO SUV
In article <35573985...@ix.netcom.com>, Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> C.T. wrote:
>
> > Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
> > and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
> > witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
> > hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
> > could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
> > driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
> > in any number of behaviors.
> >
> > 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
>
> I see most of that in heavy traffic.
And in heavy traffic hardly we can exceed the speed limit.
> > 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
>
> Hmm. I think 10 mph above the limit is far safer than 10 mph below the
> limit. Something's wrong with the picture since I'd have it the other way
> around.
Sure. Blindly adhering to the limit is the greatest risk!
> > 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>
> Not really. I see that on heavy traffic and there's somebody who is
> hellbent on maintaining the legal speed limit.
As long as we signal our lane changes (the turn signals seem to be an
optional equipment on most vehicles), and check the mirrors I don't
see a problem
> > 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
> > 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
>
> (Gasp!) C.T. said that?
Couldn't believe it too. Hey C.T. was that really you who wrote this
original post?
> > 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
> > 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
>
> Never saw that as a problem.
Me neither. Perhaps C.T. always look into other vehicles and check
to see whether they still have their cruise control on.
> > 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
> > 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
> > 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
> > 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
>
> But they're cute!
Are you sure that it is not the animal who's doing the driving, while
the human under it only functions as a "cushion" (see #9)? :-)
> > 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
> > 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
> > 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
> > 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
Or large stickers on the windshield which reads "ADNOH" or "ARUCA"
or some sort which blocks 1/4 of one's view.
S.T. Marcus
C.T. wrote in message <3556b28a...@news.jps.net>...
>I never claimed that ALL of these were speed related. I was
>demonstrating that I recognize hazards other than speed, but
>that I think the *top* hazards are speed related. I'm getting too
>weary of this to address all your other points.
>
>>This is from a person (me) who has been driving for 12 years, has received
5
>>tickets (3 for speeding). On most 55 or 65 mph highways, I am comfortable
>>driving 10+mph over the speed limit. I've been in 2 accidents; neither my
>>fault, neither speed related, and neither avoidable (if they were. I would
>>have).
>
>Well jeez, hasn't that been my point all along about the "unexpected?"
>It goes without saying that most crashes are not avoidable. That's
>the whole reason you're usually safer at lower speeds. Consider
>yourself lucky, not special.
Accident #1: Snowing. I'm driving a 72 Bronco (4x4) well below the speed
limit. A rear-drive station wagon swerves into my lane and hits me.
Accident #2: Car in front of me is stopped in the road making a left hand
turn. I stop. The person behind me fails to apply their brakes at all.
I probably could have been in a few other accidents caused by people who
lacked the judgement and/or attention level needed to safely operate a
vehicle. But they were easily avoided. You may call it lucky, and maybe
that's true. But if you think you've avoided accidents without being a
little lucky, than you truly are deluded.
>
>>There's nothing you can tell me about driving. So get off your
>>soapbox and go somewhere else; this newsgroup is rec.autos.driving. Not
>>rec.autos.speed.kills.
>
>There's nothing you speeders are willing to concede, that's for sure.
>You are as cool as Alaskan ice and possessors of all driving knowledge
>under the Sun.
I don't speed because it's cool. I drive the speed that I am comfortable
driving. If that comfort level drops because of conditions, my speed will
drop. No one but me knows what speed I'M comfortable driving at. You drive
whatever speed you want, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Just don't come in here and tell all of the drivers here, who are JUST AS
SAFE as you, that our luck is going to run out. Because your luck is just
as likely to run out.
C.T.
On 11 May 1998 18:26:06 GMT, ad...@spamblockers.com (GO SUV) wrote:
>> > 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
>> > 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
>>
>> (Gasp!) C.T. said that?
>
>Couldn't believe it too. Hey C.T. was that really you who wrote this
>original post?
I have been labeled as a speed Nazi, but that's just because I focus
on that topic. I consider speeding the first deadly sin, but not the
only one.
>> > 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
>> > 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
>> > 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
>> > 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
>
>Or large stickers on the windshield which reads "ADNOH" or "ARUCA"
>or some sort which blocks 1/4 of one's view.
The worst are the stickers on the front windows of suicide-mobiles
that say: "THGIR PEEK CIFFART REWOLS"
I'm also weary of pickups with Oakley, Rancho and Moroso stickers
plastered all over them. What is it with some people's desire to be
affiliated with brand names? The biggest dummies are the ones who
advertise their make of stereo in big bold letters ("come steal me!")
Carl
C.T.
On Mon, 11 May 1998 10:28:12 -0400, "S.T. Marcus" <sma...@i-Plus.net>
wrote:
>>There's nothing you speeders are willing to concede, that's for sure.
>>You are as cool as Alaskan ice and possessors of all driving knowledge
>>under the Sun.
>
>
>I don't speed because it's cool. I drive the speed that I am comfortable
>driving. If that comfort level drops because of conditions, my speed will
>drop. No one but me knows what speed I'M comfortable driving at. You drive
>whatever speed you want, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.
>Just don't come in here and tell all of the drivers here, who are JUST AS
>SAFE as you, that our luck is going to run out. Because your luck is just
>as likely to run out.
Luck isn't the issue at 65 mph vs. 80 mph. I will be able to stop
and maneuver faster than a speeder when the unexpected rears
its ugly head. All other factors being equal, slower means safer
(at a reasonable minimum speed).
Carl (repeater of the obvious)
Adrian Vickers
ct...@jps.net (C.T.) wrote:
> affiliated with brand names? The biggest dummies are the ones who
> advertise their make of stereo in big bold letters ("come steal me!")
Now that /is/ true! I have a mental picture of these people... they
have a lot of orange hair, and my! Is that a pair of arms dragging
on the ground??
:-)
Matthew T. Russotto
}I'm also weary of pickups with Oakley, Rancho and Moroso stickers
}plastered all over them. What is it with some people's desire to be
}affiliated with brand names? The biggest dummies are the ones who
}advertise their make of stereo in big bold letters ("come steal me!")
Oh really? I've had no trouble at all with my KRACO sticker.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Doug Kilpatrick
C.T. wrote:
> I have noticed an interesting thing, though. Very late at night or
> whenever the roads are not crowded, people tend to slow down
> and take it easy. Speeding may be a psychological response to
IMHO, that's more to fear of getting caught. Cops seem to prefer empty
roads as its easier to catch the "reckless dangerous speeder" going a
whopping +10.
That said, I've done a bit of long-distance travel. On my last trip to
Greenville from DC (and back) I averaged better than 70, including
stops. This was at night, when the roads were empty. (I did keep
closing speeds down. Trucks have this habit of blocking the road if
they think you are a menance. Since they were clearing the road for me,
I guess they didn't consider me one. I also kept my speed down while in
the DC area...).
> >Question:
> >
> >You are traveling down a 4 lane divided highway. This road is as
> >straight as a chalk-line. You can see the road forward for 4 miles, and
> >2 miles behind you. There is one cut in sight, a dirt road with noone
> >approaching. The sides of the road are cleared for at least a
> >half-mile. There is not another car in sight. Its daylight, and there
> >is nothing in your sight range that can move. There are no houses, no
> >animals, nothing in sight... The speed limit is 65.
> >
> >Is 76 mph too fast for safety in this situation?
>
> In theory, no, but even in those rare, ideal conditions you are better
> off going slower. A tire could be blown by a small object and you'd
> be in more control at a slower speed. You will also save fuel by
> slowing down (up to 25% depending on the vehicle).
Quick! Someone Save this! Carl _admits_ that safe speed changes with
conditions other than the speed-limit sign!
FWIW, the new car I hope to pick up on Friday was tires that can
completely rupture, and still travel ~50 miles. A friend of mine (with
the same type of car) managed to tear a ~5 inch gash in the middle of
the tread... the car didn't even twitch. He claims the only differences
he noticed while driving the car to a tire-shop (with a COMPLETELY
uninflated but not flat tire) was increased road noise and a
computer-enforced 55mph top-speed.
> How often do you find such perfect conditions though? Does a
> particular highway come to mind? I've seen people speed on all
When you don't live near major urban areas, and are not on trucking
routes, a lot more frequently than you think. I do have a specific
highway in mind...although I expect the traffic on it is much higher
than the last time I traveled that way.
Doug
-- do...@tis.com
I do not speak for my employer.
Aardwolf
Chuck Tomlinson wrote
> Man, where do you come up with these gems? Has it ever occurred to
> you that people slow down at night because they can't see as far as
> they can in daylight?
> Also, light traffic offers easy pickings for thumb-twiddling traffic
> cops. At least one cop has admitted on this NG that they *prefer*
> to hand out speeding tickets in light traffic, because it's easy and
> safe! Never mind that driving conditions are often *safest* in
> light traffic; speed enforcement has little or nothing to do with
> safety, and most drivers realize that. But that's another story...
Hmmm, I actually tend to speed up at night, on the open highway. Less
traffic and other drivers seem much more likely to move right. But this is
only on roads where I know all the entry and exit points, and I also never
overdrive my headlights.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Michel Gagnon wrote:
> One very popular thing around here is dangling objects from the rear
> view mirror : St. Joseph statues, giant dices, parking permits, etc. I
> think Carl is referring to these objects -- especially dangling ones --
> which are likely a source of distraction.
Yeah--and prisms, which I admit do look cool, but really shouldn't be hung
in cars, are even distracting to people in _other_ cars, with that bright
diffraction glinting as they swing back and forth.
Aardwolf.
Patrick Austin
: 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
Absolutely agree.
: 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
People wouldn't have to do this if people in this country knew how to
drive. How many times have you been driving on a 4 lane highway that
wasn't crowded, but you couldn't go at or above the limit because some
MORON was jammed in the left lane.
: 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
Fast stops, sure, that can be dangerous, but how many times has someone
come close to hitting you because they STARTED fast?
: 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
Agreed. #3
: 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
Talking on the phone should be up at number one, as it's the second most
common cause of accidents, after alcohol.
: 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
Yep.
: 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
Yep.
: 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
Oh come on, does this deserve to be on a top 15 list? I can think of
other things, like not being properly familiar with your car. Of course,
I kind of doubt that you're as familiar with your car as most of this
group. I kind of doubt you know what your car is going to do in an
emergency manuever, as you don't seem the type to engage in drivers'
schools, auto-x's, and the like.
: 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
Yep.
: 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
Yep.
: 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
I think this is probably a bigger cause of teenage driving problems than
anything. I know that when I was younger, the most dangerous experiences
I had were when someone in the car would do something distracting, I'd
look, and the guy in front of me would stop.
: 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
Woo Hoo....once again, get a grip, this isn't such a big deal.
: 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
By this logic, any car with sufficient sound deadening to make a 80mph
cruise quiet would be unacceptable. I think we just need louder horns.
Oh, wait, you wouldn't want us cruising at 80.
: 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
Things that block one's view? By this logic, Truckers would be the most
dangerous, because they have no rear view at all, but mile for mile,
they're just about the safest people on the roads.
: Carl
Thanks for the great stuff, Carl the Car God, but I'm not going to respond
to #2. I'm from Michigan, up in the northern part originally, and my
first car was a Porsche 924S with Z-rated rubber. You can guess where I
stand.
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) says:
>On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:03:38 -0400, "S.T. Marcus" <sma...@i-Plus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>>
>>
>>As long as you're not running people off of the road, and your are using the
>>left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
>>dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>
>Sure it's dangerous! It's often unexpected from the other driver's
>point of view, and it's often useless, getting the weaver there no
>faster than the pack.
Huh? That's what the turn signal is for. Put the blinker on,
check mirror, check blind spot, check car ahead, and then change
lanes. If the signal is on, you'd have to be dead or ignorant
to not expect me to change lanes, in which case you'd be the
real hazard on the road.
Oh well... I suppose BETTER DRIVER EDUCATION wouldn't fix things...
let's just throw more legislation at the problem!
--
Shallow Pockets Racing Team -*-*- "That blowed up real good"
got slack?
C.T.
On 12 May 1998 00:56:19 GMT, aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J.
Remner) wrote:
>>>As long as you're not running people off of the road, and your are using the
>>>left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
>>>dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>>
>>Sure it's dangerous! It's often unexpected from the other driver's
>>point of view, and it's often useless, getting the weaver there no
>>faster than the pack.
>
>Huh? That's what the turn signal is for. Put the blinker on,
>check mirror, check blind spot, check car ahead, and then change
>lanes. If the signal is on, you'd have to be dead or ignorant
>to not expect me to change lanes, in which case you'd be the
>real hazard on the road.
Sure, we all know that people use their turn signals religiously.
Does the phrase "that $#@*! cut me off!" ring a bell? Any driving
safety expert will tell you that constant weaving is a hazard.
I can't count the number of times I watched someone zipping all
over the place, while I, the "boring" driver in the middle/right lane,
ended up passing him down the road. Younger drivers who aren't
experienced with traffic patterns weave all the time. I used to do it
in my teens but I soon learned to be patient.
Carl
Michel Gagnon
> Carl T. Wrote :
>
> > 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
Patrick Austin <paa...@bu.edu> wrote:
> Things that block one's view? By this logic, Truckers would be the most
> dangerous, because they have no rear view at all, but mile for mile,
> they're just about the safest people on the roads.
>
One very popular thing around here is dangling objects from the rear
view mirror : St. Joseph statues, giant dices, parking permits, etc. I
think Carl is referring to these objects -- especially dangling ones --
which are likely a source of distraction.
--
Michel Gagnon -- Montréal (Québec, Canada)
Michel...@videotron.ca
David Chen
On Sun, 10 May 1998, C.T. wrote:
> Here is my opinion of what the most dangerous driving habits
> and distractions are. I base this on hundreds of situations I've
> witnessed and the potential degree of injury involved. These are
> hard to rank precisely of course. Items within 2 points of each other
> could be considered equal, except for the top 3 on the list. Drunk
> driving is a given and I don't list it because it can manifest itself
> in any number of behaviors.
>
> 1) Tailgating and aggressive driving (usually speed-related)
Here you are wrong. A recent study by AAA shows that tailgating and
aggressive driving happens most in traffic congestion situations. When
there's light traffic, those speedsters don't have to tailgate nor do they
change lanes aggressively. They simply do on their way. It is when
there's congestions that people tend to get restless and more aggressive.
> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
You're making personal opinion here that has no fact in basis whatsoever.
First off, the speed limit was not set for safety reasons but conservation
of gas during oil crisis. In fact, there is no study ever conducted on
what is "safe speed" because it couldn't be done. So you decided to add
the magic 10 mph over a speed limit that was set to conserve gas in the
first place, and trying to tell us anything more would be inherent risk?
> 3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
again see above. constant lane-changing only happens when there's lots of
traffic. And lots of traffic usally means slow speed, around 45-50 mph.
Well within your 10 mph cussion.
> 4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
Again probably congestion cost. Because if there's no car in front, there
will be no need to stop.
> 5) Driving far too slow in the left lane or an onramp, etc.
Oh.. so now you're condoming slow drivers? I though you think slow is
safe? Maybe they are trying to be safe? You had just proven to yourself
that slow drivers have as much to contribute to accident than speedsters.
But the facts remains, speed usually has little if non to do with traffic
accidents. But tends to be blame for it the most.
> 6) Eating, talking on phone, applying makeup or smoking
> 7) Refusing to disengage cruise control when it's not safe
> 8) Being very old or senile and lacking reflexes
funny old people rarely gets into traffic accidents. It's usually under
the age of 40.
> 9) Being too short to see properly (use a cushion!)
do you have proof that short people get into accidents more than tall
people?
> 10) Poor maintenance of a vehicle (erratic performance)
Huh? As long as the cars don't slide left and right, there is no danger
as long as the driver drives the car.
> 11) Animals on driver's lap and similar distractions
> 12) Roughhousing among passengers inside a vehicle
> 13) Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
> 14) Loud stereos that mask horns or emergency vehicles
> 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
please........
>
> Carl
>
>
C.R. Krieger
On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:21:04 GMT, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) brazenly
asserted:
>On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:03:38 -0400, "S.T. Marcus" <sma...@i-Plus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
>>
>>As long as you're not running people off of the road, and you are using the
>>left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
>>dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>
>Sure it's dangerous! It's often unexpected from the other driver's
>point of view
Well, somewhere up a little higher in the thread, you said you were
constantly aware of your surroundings. Thus, the only way a lane
change can be unexpected is if YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Therefore, it is YOU who is the danger, not ME, when I make a signaled
lane change (as I OFTEN do). I do NOT drive to meet YOUR
expectations.
>
>>>4) Jerky driving with unexpected fast starts and stops
>>
Once again, YOUR expectations are not MY responsibility. I can and do
accelerate and brake as quickly as the mood strikes me. I am
well-trained and observant, so it causes no one around me any harm.
>Well jeez, hasn't that been my point all along about the "unexpected?"
>It goes without saying that most crashes are not avoidable.
Unfortunately, this is flat WRONG! MOST crashes ARE avoidable! You
and your kind are simply too stupid to realize how to do so except in
forcing those of us who KNOW what we're doing to drive at ridiculously
low speeds so you slow learners who can't see farther than 20 feet
past your Oldsmobile hood ornaments can FINALLY figure out what we're
doing.
BTW, I find your server's initials to be particularly ironic. I'll
bet you don't have a clue why ...
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath your dignity." - W.C. Fields
Reply to warp1 at lakefield dot net
C.R. Krieger
On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:38:01 GMT, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) brazenly
asserted:
> IMO,
>speeding raises the general anxiety level and contributes to road
>rage.
IMO, you Left Lane Bandits of the Anti-Destination League going slow
raises the general anxiety level and certainly contributes to MY road
rage. Just a difference of opinion, eh?
>There are many days when I am burned out from working and
>want the commute to be as relaxing as possible. I don't want to be
>pushed from behind by a bunch of type-A road racers.
Here's a novel idea:
KEEP RIGHT WHEN BEING OVERTAKEN!
>
>I have noticed an interesting thing, though. Very late at night or
>whenever the roads are not crowded, people tend to slow down
>and take it easy.
Some may; I don't. "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT"
> Speeding may be a psychological response to
>overcrowding and claustrophobia. In that sense I can at least
>understand the perceived need for it, but it doesn't make it any
>less hazardous.
>
>>Question:
>>
>>You are traveling down a 4 lane divided highway. This road is as
>>straight as a chalk-line. You can see the road forward for 4 miles, and
>>2 miles behind you. There is one cut in sight, a dirt road with noone
>>approaching. The sides of the road are cleared for at least a
>>half-mile. There is not another car in sight. Its daylight, and there
>>is nothing in your sight range that can move. There are no houses, no
>>animals, nothing in sight... The speed limit is 65.
>>
>>Is 76 mph too fast for safety in this situation?
>
>In theory, no, but even in those rare, ideal conditions you are better
>off going slower. A tire could be blown by a small object and you'd
>be in more control at a slower speed. You will also save fuel by
>slowing down (up to 25% depending on the vehicle).
Another crock. When is the last time you actually blew a tire? If
you can remember it and it was during a time in your life when you
could AFFORD tires, then you're most likely a typical drone who pays
no attention to his tires anyway. Do you know THIS MINUTE what your
tires' inflation pressure is? As for fuel savings, I'll do that as it
suits me. I'll also be one of the last ones in line to pay
ridiculously high prices for those last few gallons because I truly
LOVE to drive. It is NOT simply a task to be accomplished to get from
one place to another for me. As BMW's latest ads say, "... it IS the
corner."
>
>How often do you find such perfect conditions though?
Depends on your definition of 'perfect conditions'. One of my
'perfect conditions' to travel about 10 mph faster than everybody else
is in about 3 inches of snow or in a driving thunderstorm. Gotta LOVE
those Quattros! =8^)
C.R. Krieger
On 11 May 1998 23:54:36 GMT, russ...@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T.
Russotto) brazenly asserted:
>In article <3559783a...@news.jps.net>, C.T. <ct...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>}I'm also weary of pickups with Oakley, Rancho and Moroso stickers
>}plastered all over them. What is it with some people's desire to be
>}affiliated with brand names? The biggest dummies are the ones who
>}advertise their make of stereo in big bold letters ("come steal me!")
>
>Oh really? I've had no trouble at all with my KRACO sticker.
Only because you couldn't find a K MART sticker?
Mick Sheppard
C.T. wrote:
> Luck isn't the issue at 65 mph vs. 80 mph. I will be able to stop
> and maneuver faster than a speeder when the unexpected rears
> its ugly head. All other factors being equal, slower means safer
> (at a reasonable minimum speed).
All other factors aren't equal. I will be able to stop and maneuver
faster at 80 mph in my Alfa than you can at 65 mph in your truck. Come
over to the UK and we'll prove it.
Mick "fed up with CT's drivel" Sheppard
S.T. Marcus
C.T. wrote in message <355b7f13...@news.jps.net>...
>Luck isn't the issue at 65 mph vs. 80 mph. I will be able to stop
>and maneuver faster than a speeder when the unexpected rears
>its ugly head. All other factors being equal, slower means safer
>(at a reasonable minimum speed).
>
As many others here have said, you don't know how I drive. 80 mph is very
unusual for me, I stated 10+ mph above the speed limit, and in my state 65
mph is the top speed limit. You can do the math. If that's the comparison
you're going to make, 65 vs. 75, I must assume you're talking about LIMITED
ACCESS interstate highways. By definition, the UNEXPECTEDs are greatly
reduced. I'm comfortable driving 75 mph on limited access interstate
highways. I HAVE weighed the risks (and will weigh the risks every time I
go onto the highway), and as long as I am operating the vehicle I'm riding
in, I will decide what speed is safe for ME to travel. YOU DO THE SAME!!!!
David Chen
On Sun, 10 May 1998, C.T. wrote:
> On 10 May 1998 21:17:41 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
> >And here's #16:
> >
> >16) Being so busy observing what other drivers are doing in the
> >privacy of their cars that you have no time to look at the road.
>
> Not true in the least. My eyes are in constant motion on the road;
> never staring at anything for too long. The things in my list are
> easily observable, and in fact are indicators that I'm paying MORE
> attention than many of you.
this is absurd. So it's ok for your eyes to wonder around and not ok for
someone to have a smoke? Not that I smoke but....
> I do things like predicting a car's
> merging speed by its make and the look of the driver, or always
> staying as far right as possible on a two lane highway to gain an
> extra few feet if someone should fall asleep and swerve.
You are preparing for things that happens once every 50,000 times.
> It pays to
> glance (not stare, of course) at what people are doing so you can
> stay out of harm's way.
yeah. glance at the interior of someone else's car. When you should of
been looking for fallen tree branches, pop out deers, or fallen rocks.
> Carl (Too much posting today - time to get some Sun.)
>
>
David Chen
On Mon, 11 May 1998, C.T. wrote:
> On 11 May 1998 00:54:26 -0500, "John" <lisa...@spamx.vail.net> wrote:
>
> >did you write this JUST to get flamed?
>
> Only by unreasonable people who don't care for safety.
actually who flamed him? Certainly not the responds I saw. What I saw
and wrote myself are counter-arguments. Definitely no flames....
> Carl
>
>
David Chen
On Mon, 11 May 1998, C.T. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:03:38 -0400, "S.T. Marcus" <sma...@i-Plus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>3) Constant lane-changing (again, usually speed-related)
> >
> >
> >As long as you're not running people off of the road, and your are using the
> >left lane only for passing, constant lane-changing is not inherently
> >dangerous, irregardless of the speed.
>
> Sure it's dangerous! It's often unexpected from the other driver's
> point of view, and it's often useless, getting the weaver there no
> faster than the pack.
it is definitely not useless, especially in long trips. I drive from VA
to NY every weekend, and I know the difference between cruising up there
at 90 mph and settling for 65 mph (when I have passengers, they tend to be
nosy.) It saves a lot of time and hassle on the road. Oh, lane changes,
you would be surprise the time you can save by *safely* going ahead of the
pack. Sometimes I stop at a rest stop, come out, and saw the very
same pack of cars that I passed.
> Carl
>
>
Graham Hodgson
On 12 May 1998, P. J. Remner wrote:
> Huh? That's what the turn signal is for. Put the blinker on,
> check mirror, check blind spot, check car ahead, and then change
> lanes. If the signal is on, you'd have to be dead or ignorant
I think that I am right in saying that over here we are told to check
mirrors and cars before engaging the indicator (blinker i presume...). Of
course, on the motorway some people seem to think that the sequence is
move, mirror indicate. And these are the ones you should watch out for.
Just my thoughts...
Graham
*****************************************************************************
Graham Hodgson
2nd Year MEng Automotive Engineering
Loughborough University - AAETS
Lupine
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 01:54:20 -0400, Douglas Kilpatrick
> <kilp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
> >
> >Why did you have to ruin a perfectly good, reasonable post with this tripe?
>
> It's "tripe" to speeders, but it's logic to those of us who have to
> deal with speeders.
Why do you continually refuse to answer my question? Afraid to open your eyes?
If your pet "theory" contradicts the reality of actual scientific and federal
studies.. how do you explain it? It has been empiracally proven, as a
*FACT* that
drivers who travel at a rate of 10 to 15 miles per hour OVER the median
speed, are the SAFEST drivers, and have the LEAST amount of fatal
accidents.. than ANY OTHER speed bracket.
Do you even realize that when you are argueing for a flat earth.. with
compelling evidence to the contrary that you refuse to acknowledge.. you
merely make yourself out as a fool.
Osman Ullah
|| >> On Mon, 11 May 1998 01:54:20 -0400, Douglas Kilpatrick
|| >> <kilp...@erols.com> wrote:
||
|| >> >> 2) Speeding (10 mph+ above limit creates *inherent* risk)
||
|| Looks like someone missed the following:
||
|| Interstate System Accident Research
|| Study II, Interim Report II
||
|| By the Office of Research and Development, Bureau of Public Roads
||
|| Reported by Julie Anna Cirillo, Mathematician, Traffic Systems Division
|| (now head of the Western Region of the Federal Highway Administration.)
||
|| Published in the research journal Public Roads, Vol. 35, No. 3
||
|| Table 1 - (Accident) Involvement rate (per 100,000,000 vehicle miles) by
|| deviation from mean speed.
||
|| Deviation from mean speed (mph)
But if aeveryone goes 10 above the mean speed, the mean speed goes up,
and more people go 10 above, and the cyce will continue until we reach
dangerously high levels.
BTW, I am not a speed-limit advocate...
Osman
|=------------------------------------------=|
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte213f
P.J. Hartman
disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote:
>You can easily hold a cigarette in one hand whilst it is still on the
>wheel. Watch any smoker and you'll see it is pinched between the first
>and second finger, allowing all remaining fingers and the palm of your
>hand to stay in contact with the wheel. The only time your hand leaves
>the wheel is to flick the ash, take a drag, or throw the butt out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but could you (smokers) please
refrain from this activity? For one, it's littering. It can also be
a fire hazard. Lastly, it's just plain slovenly. Do you throw butts
onto your floor at home?
--
P.J. Hartman mailto:har...@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Neon
http://www.tconl.com/~hartman
Steve Rudd
Osman Ullah wrote:
>
> But if aeveryone goes 10 above the mean speed, the mean speed goes up,
> and more people go 10 above, and the cyce will continue until we reach
> dangerously high levels.
>
> BTW, I am not a speed-limit advocate...
>
Most people drive their comfort level. If the speed is 80 in the left
lane, that does mean folks in the slow lanes will speed up. If that were
true, then we would not have the problems of slower trraffic in the fast
lanes.
SR
Richard Berkeley
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> In article <35606723....@news.uswest.net>,
> P.J. Hartman <har...@NOSPAM.tconl.com> wrote:
> >disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote:
> >
> >>You can easily hold a cigarette in one hand whilst it is still on the
> >>wheel. Watch any smoker and you'll see it is pinched between the first
> >>and second finger, allowing all remaining fingers and the palm of your
> >>hand to stay in contact with the wheel. The only time your hand leaves
> >>the wheel is to flick the ash, take a drag, or throw the butt out.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but could you (smokers) please
> >refrain from this activity? For one, it's littering. It can also be
> >a fire hazard. Lastly, it's just plain slovenly. Do you throw butts
> >onto your floor at home?
>
> I agree. It's also potentially dangerous, especially in drought areas.
>
> But know that fewer and fewer cars come with ashtrays. Those who really
> object to butt-strewn highways (as we all should) should object to cars
> that have no ashtrays. (And some can't even have them added as options,
> e.g. the Civic in the rear seat.) Some nonsmokers seem to think that
> one can prevent smoking by not providing ashtrays. But smokers do not
> need an ashtray to smoke. In a pinch, the world is our ashtray. ;)
>
> Next time you go car-shopping, tell the dealer you want a car with
> ashtrays. :-)
Actually, it was a Briton who said that. Having been to England, it's quite
an offence to ask a person to extinguish a cigarette because you think it
stinks. Same holds true especially in Netherlands.
Richard
Daigoro Toyama
In article <3557fd62....@news.lakefield.net>,
Just_r...@my.sig_line says...
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:21:04 GMT, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) brazenly
> asserted:
>
> bet you don't have a clue why ...
>
> C.R. Krieger
You must have liked those black Lotus F1 cars. :) Gosh I hated it when
they switched to Camel.
--
Daigoro Toyama
da...@wolfenet.com
1996 BMW 328is Coupe
Richard Berkeley
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> In article <3559127D...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >Actually, it was a Briton who said that. Having been to England, it's quite
> >an offence to ask a person to extinguish a cigarette because you think it
> >stinks. Same holds true especially in Netherlands.
> >
> >Richard
>
> I should hope so! If you've got a problem with a smell, the polite
> thing to do is for YOU to leave. (What if you don't like their
> face? Do you ask them to wear a veil? ;) )
Well, now that California has banned smoking in bars, the smokers are on a losing
edge! I don't have a problem with them and I most certainly do think it
offensive if one should ask another to extinguish a cigarette.
Richard
el...@spam.free.at.last
el...@spam.free.at.last
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <355929E0...@ix.netcom.com>,
Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>edge!
Or California is... ;)
>I don't have a problem with them and I most certainly do think it
>offensive if one should ask another to extinguish a cigarette.
Glad to hear that! :-)))
DPH
Hey, I've done that. Or, I stop and eat at a fast food, get gas, and
come back on to get just in front of a truck I had passed a half hour
ago.
Lane changing shouldn't be a problem if you are going _faster_ than the
car behind. So what if its unexpected for him - I'm going faster, so he
doesn't have to do anything about it.
Of course, some people just can't drive - I remember this one engineer I
rode with in DC. Made a point to never, ever ride with him again. On a
subsequent encounter with him, at a meeting he drove to on Long Island,
he had wrecked his car because someone "cut him off" and he hit the
guard rail. I woulda bet money that somebody changed lanes close to
him, he panicked, and _drove_ his car into the guard rail. And I've
known some otherwise "smart" people who just keep having accident after
accident. Strange. No power of concentration, apparently, maybe
combined with an immortality delusion or something.
DPH
Brent A. Peterson
Ever have one of these fools throw their cigarette butt out
the window of their vehicle and have it land on yours?
Have those nice burning embers bouncing on to your
car's finish?
Driving down the road I had one land right on the cowl
vents, still lit. The defroster immediately sucked the
smoke into the car. I did some manuvers trying to shake
it off and finally had to pull into a parking lot
and remove it.... although by the time I had parked
it fell off...
Frankly, I don't care if their car has an ash tray
or not. I think the people living in the apartment
two floors above me can at least use one there? no.
they drop the butts over the side, landing on the
patio of my apartment. The fact is if someone is
smoking, it is his responsibility to dispose
of the remains in a decent manner..... Factory
equiped ash trays for every passenger or not.
--
-Bp Email:\petebre\@armour.iit.edu\ (remove anti-spam \'s)
Maverick & Comet: http://www.iit.edu/~petebre/maverick/
Lupine
In article <35606723....@news.uswest.net>, har...@NOSPAM.tconl.com
(P.J. Hartman) wrote:
> disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote:
>
> >You can easily hold a cigarette in one hand whilst it is still on the
> >wheel. Watch any smoker and you'll see it is pinched between the first
> >and second finger, allowing all remaining fingers and the palm of your
> >hand to stay in contact with the wheel. The only time your hand leaves
> >the wheel is to flick the ash, take a drag, or throw the butt out.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but could you (smokers) please
> refrain from this activity? For one, it's littering. It can also be
> a fire hazard. Lastly, it's just plain slovenly. Do you throw butts
> onto your floor at home?
We had an office girl who would throw her butt's everywhere. We would buy
small candies, e.g. hershey kisses..e tc.. and litter her desk with them..
it was hilarious at how she would get so angry at us.. yet never "get the
point".
Adrian Vickers
har...@NOSPAM.tconl.com (P.J. Hartman) wrote:
>>the wheel is to flick the ash, take a drag, or throw the butt out.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but could you (smokers) please
> refrain from this activity? For one, it's littering. It can also be
Westminster Council (in London) recently passed the first (in the UK)
laws about discarding cigs. AFAIK there are no other laws about it in
the UK.
> a fire hazard. Lastly, it's just plain slovenly. Do you throw butts
It's pretty rare in the UK for it to be so dry that it's a fire hazard,
although every once in a while it becomes a problem...
As for slovenly, sure! But OTOH it means my car doesn't stink of dead
cigs. all the time. I /know/ that's a bit selfish, but bad habits die
hard!
> onto your floor at home?
Only if the ashtray is there!
--
Ade.
Please send mail you wish to have read to avickers@, not disregard@
All mail sent to disregard@ will be junked.
***
Adrian Vickers
Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Actually, it was a Briton who said that. Having been to England, it's quite
> an offence to ask a person to extinguish a cigarette because you think it
> stinks. Same holds true especially in Netherlands.
That's true, but then we do have some very odd social graces :-) For instance,
it is exceptionally rude to light up in a non-smoking area (not necessarily
illegal), just as it is rude to ask someone to put their cig. out!
Someone once leaned over to me (when on a train) and sternly said "Would you
mind not smoking, please?"; we were in the smoking section so I politely
informed him of this fact; his response being to storm off in a huff!!!
Some people :-)
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <6jc4u8$e7s$1...@trotsky.cig.mot.com>,
Brent A. Peterson <"\\peterson\\"@\\armour.iit.edu\\> wrote:
>el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>>
>> In article <35606723....@news.uswest.net>,
>> >disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote:
>> >
>> >>You can easily hold a cigarette in one hand whilst it is still on the
>> >>wheel. Watch any smoker and you'll see it is pinched between the first
>> >>and second finger, allowing all remaining fingers and the palm of your
>> >>hand to stay in contact with the wheel. The only time your hand leaves
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but could you (smokers) please
>> >refrain from this activity? For one, it's littering. It can also be
>>
>>
>> But know that fewer and fewer cars come with ashtrays. Those who really
>> object to butt-strewn highways (as we all should) should object to cars
>> that have no ashtrays. (And some can't even have them added as options,
>> e.g. the Civic in the rear seat.) Some nonsmokers seem to think that
>> one can prevent smoking by not providing ashtrays. But smokers do not
>> need an ashtray to smoke. In a pinch, the world is our ashtray. ;)
>
>or not. I think the people living in the apartment
>two floors above me can at least use one there? no.
>they drop the butts over the side, landing on the
>patio of my apartment. The fact is if someone is
>smoking, it is his responsibility to dispose
>of the remains in a decent manner..... Factory
>equiped ash trays for every passenger or not.
People should also poop in a toilet -- but if you had a 12-hour
flight in a plane with no lav, you'd have a lot of violators. ;)
There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
IMO.
RMoburg
On 13 May 1998 18:25:11 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
>IMO.
>
>
Interesting parallel, ne is a act of self preservation, one is an act
of self destruction. I guess we should have to provide for both.
ezb...@vagrenpprff.pbz (ROT13)
C.T.
On Tue, 12 May 1998 18:00:26 GMT, lang*lo...@teleport.com (BKL) wrote:
>Looks like someone missed the following:
>
>Interstate System Accident Research
>Study II, Interim Report II
>
>By the Office of Research and Development, Bureau of Public Roads
>
>Reported by Julie Anna Cirillo, Mathematician, Traffic Systems Division
>(now head of the Western Region of the Federal Highway Administration.)
>Published in the research journal Public Roads, Vol. 35, No. 3
The only references I could find to that study (on the Web) were from
1968-1969, and not coincidentally on motorist-advocacy sites. See:
http://www.itis.com/motorists/modellaw.htm Funny how Ms. Cirillo is a
mathematician, also. I have no doubt it was an exercise in theory of
some kind. People will go to great lengths to find the odd statistic
that "proves" their case.
>Table 1 - (Accident) Involvement rate (per 100,000,000 vehicle miles) by
>deviation from mean speed.
>
>Deviation from mean speed (mph)
> Involvement Rate
>-30 to -35 63222
>-25 to -30 6673
>-20 to -25 777
>-15 to -20 282
>-10 to -15 143
>-5 to -10 68
>0 to -5 42
>0 to +5 37
>5 to 10 28
>10 to 15 25 (safest)
>15 to 20 35
>20 to 25 136
>25 to 30 307
>30 to 35 11627
>
>The same study also looked at the effects of speed enforcement, and concluded
>that: "the level of enforcement has little or no effect on the mean speed or
>on the accident experience of a study section."
The huge disparity in those low-speed figures makes no sense, and
there is no indication of the speed limit in any given situation. Are
those stats for highways or boulevards or what?
Nonetheless I could throw that 15 to 20 = 35 figure back at you.
Notice I was talking about *over* 10 mph faster, not *just* 10 mph
faster. I would like to see a URL with full context on that 30 y/o
study. In fact, people who post stats here should always make sure
they're available on the Web for anyone to verify at no cost.
I should mention that most speed limits already take the 85th
percentile into account because they know people will
always exceed limits.
Carl
Adrian Vickers
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
> People should also poop in a toilet -- but if you had a 12-hour
> flight in a plane with no lav, you'd have a lot of violators. ;)
>
> There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
> IMO.
>
On a related note, I wish they'd re-introduce flights with smoking
allowed! Three waking hours without a cig is seriously painful...
Adrian Vickers
rmo...@sickofspam.interaccess.com (RMoburg) wrote:
> On 13 May 1998 18:25:11 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>>
>>There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
>>IMO.
>
> Interesting parallel, ne is a act of self preservation, one is an act
> of self destruction. I guess we should have to provide for both.
But both provide a most enjoyable relief :-)
S.T. Marcus
C.T. wrote in message <355a1600...@news.jps.net>...
>The only references I could find to that study (on the Web) were from
>1968-1969, and not coincidentally on motorist-advocacy sites. See:
>http://www.itis.com/motorists/modellaw.htm Funny how Ms. Cirillo is a
>mathematician, also. I have no doubt it was an exercise in theory of
>some kind. People will go to great lengths to find the odd statistic
>that "proves" their case.
Just like the NHTSA includes "speed related" factors such as improper lane
changes, following too closely, unsafe passing, inattention, reckless
driving, high-speed chase, erratic/ changing speeds, and driving slower than
posted minimums, to inflate their "Speed Kills" numbers.
Quoted from Patrick Bedards article "They say speed kills," from Car &
Driver magazine: http://www.caranddriver.com/member/curIssue/sep_96/speed/
NHTSA likes to inflate that body count as much as it can, however. We
discovered one of its inflators while reading "Beyond the Limits: A Law
Enforcement Guide to Speed Enforcement," a NHTSA publication dated February
1992. It states, "In 1990, speed too fast for conditions and other
speed-related factors were reported as contributing factors in 34 percent of
all fatal crashes [emphasis added]." Then it goes on to list the other
factors: "Improper lane changes, following too closely, unsafe passing,
inattention, reckless driving, high-speed chase, erratic/ changing speeds,
and driving slower than posted minimums."
"Inattention" is a speed-related factor? Following too closely? Unsafe
passing? You have to admit, inflating a statistic with drivers proceeding
too slowly and then using it to beat up on speeders is a stylish touch. And
that's what happens. In NHTSA publications, the idea of "speed related" in
one paragraph becomes "speeding" in the next, as in, "Few drivers view
speeding as an immediate risk to their personal safety."
How much inflation is there between actual "speeding" and "speed
related" in FARS? Here's one estimate: In 1994, 30 percent of fatal crashes
were said to be speed related, but elsewhere in FARS we find that less than
1 percent of the drivers involved were charged with speeding (about 1.5
percent if you lump together both speeding and speeding under the influence
of alcohol or drugs). Of course, some drivers didn't survive the crash to be
ticketed, but 56 percent did. Wouldn't you expect more tickets if speeding
over the limit were an important contributor to fatalities?
Do yourself a favor C.T., read this article; if you've already read it,
read it again.
DPH
Graham Hodgson wrote:
>
> On 12 May 1998, P. J. Remner wrote:
>
> > Huh? That's what the turn signal is for. Put the blinker on,
> > check mirror, check blind spot, check car ahead, and then change
> > lanes. If the signal is on, you'd have to be dead or ignorant
>
> I think that I am right in saying that over here we are told to check
> mirrors and cars before engaging the indicator (blinker i presume...). Of
> course, on the motorway some people seem to think that the sequence is
> move, mirror indicate. And these are the ones you should watch out for.
And where I'm from (NW Ohio, and Toledo being the worst offender to
date) if you actually _use_ your turn signal, there will almost always
be a sudden acceleration of the car behind you to prevent you from
actually making the lane change. I generally practice "stealth" lane
changes, and _never_ use a turn signal, not if I want to do it
unimpeded. And I do.
DPH
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <895101183.9730.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Adrian Vickers <disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>rmo...@sickofspam.interaccess.com (RMoburg) wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 1998 18:25:11 GMT, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>>>
>>>There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
>>>IMO.
>>
>> Interesting parallel, ne is a act of self preservation, one is an act
>> of self destruction. I guess we should have to provide for both.
>
>But both provide a most enjoyable relief :-)
And neither are necessary for the relevant acts! Toilets and ashtrays
are merely to protect people's sensibilities. That was my point. I'm
not going to quit smoking because the car I'm renting has no ashtray --
just as people won't stop excreting just because someone has
removed all the loos.
So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
:-)
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <895101133.23765.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Adrian Vickers <disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>>
>> People should also poop in a toilet -- but if you had a 12-hour
>> flight in a plane with no lav, you'd have a lot of violators. ;)
>>
>> IMO.
>>
>allowed! Three waking hours without a cig is seriously painful...
Well, we wouldn't want anything to interfere with that wonderful
gasoline-flavored fart-filled CO2 that fills airplanes, now would we? ;)
Pilots can still smoke in the cockpit, btw. And of course there are
still some sensible airlines that haven't caved in to all this crap.
But for the most part we'll have to wait for the next generation to
come into power to get our wish.
Seriously, for smoking-ist-verboten flights, try Nicorettes (assuming
they have them where you are) -- doesn't replace the pleasure of a cig
but allays the pain of no cig. I got all the way from Harare to
London to Philadelphia with cigarettes only before and after the bus
from Gatwick to Heathrow -- and LOTS of Nicorettes.
Kate Brown
DPH wrote >...
>
>And where I'm from (NW Ohio, and Toledo being the worst offender to
>date) if you actually _use_ your turn signal, there will almost always
>be a sudden acceleration of the car behind you to prevent you from
>actually making the lane change.
Good grief! That hardly ever seems to happen in the UK. You may get some
'boy racer' trying this late at night after a few drinks, maybe with another
car that he's taken a personal dislike to, but in general if you wish to
make a lane change then you indicate and make the change. Our main problem
on the motorway seems to be that people drive too close to the car in front,
and don't look far enough ahead. So a couple of weeks ago for instance, the
rain came down really heavily, a car skidded on the motorway and lost
control, and the 30 cars behind it all piled into one another like dominos.
Amazingly, no-one was killed.
Kate
Bentley
Adrian Vickers <disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> said something like:
:> Interesting parallel, ne is a act of self preservation, one is an act
:> of self destruction. I guess we should have to provide for both.
: But both provide a most enjoyable relief :-)
And both foul the air for those around the person engaging in such
activity. Yet we do one in private, and one in public. Hmm.
--
> B E N T L E Y < bentley AT digex DOT net
A long frisbee throw from the pungent and lovely Potomac River
www.access.digex.net/~bentley/remove-this-bot-blocking-part
Bentley
el...@spam.free.at.last said something like:
:>On a related note, I wish they'd re-introduce flights with smoking
:>allowed! Three waking hours without a cig is seriously painful...
: Well, we wouldn't want anything to interfere with that wonderful
: gasoline-flavored fart-filled CO2 that fills airplanes, now would we? ;)
Exactly which airlines do you fly that use gasoline in their planes? I'd
like to know, so that I can avoid them.
: Pilots can still smoke in the cockpit, btw.
And most planes have a separate ventalation system for the cockpit, so
it's a non-issue.
: But for the most part we'll have to wait for the next generation to
: come into power to get our wish.
Yes, but by then, all of the smokers will have died agonizing deaths.
Darwinism in action.
Lupine
In article <6jcoi7$hed$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> People should also poop in a toilet -- but if you had a 12-hour
> flight in a plane with no lav, you'd have a lot of violators. ;)
>
> There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
> IMO.
You can purchase ashtrays from Pepboys for around $2 in most locations of the
nation.
Lupine
On the otherhand, as a frequent flier.. I am very much relieved and happy
of the no-smoking rules.
Adrian Vickers
Bentley <ben...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>
> : But for the most part we'll have to wait for the next generation to
> : come into power to get our wish.
>
> Yes, but by then, all of the smokers will have died agonizing deaths.
> Darwinism in action.
>
This is something World Govornments fail to see; surely they should
recognise that if we smoke, we die young, so they don't have to pay
us a pension!!
Also (in the UK anyway), all that tax we pay helps support the NHS!
Adrian Vickers
Lup...@mindspring.com (Lupine) wrote:
> On the otherhand, as a frequent flier.. I am very much relieved and happy
> of the no-smoking rules.
Back in the days when we could smoke on planes, the smoker's sections were
always at the rear of the plane; surely if you are a non-smoking frequent
flier you would request a seat at the front?
Adrian Vickers
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>>On a related note, I wish they'd re-introduce flights with smoking
>>allowed! Three waking hours without a cig is seriously painful...
>
> Well, we wouldn't want anything to interfere with that wonderful
> gasoline-flavored fart-filled CO2 that fills airplanes, now would we? ;)
You must be thinking of the drunken Brits coming back from a Spanish
Costa-del-Sunburn holiday?
> Seriously, for smoking-ist-verboten flights, try Nicorettes (assuming
Yeah, we have them. I've never tried one though (they just won't stay
rolled up, so you end up dropping all your tobacco on the floor!
P.J. Hartman
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
>should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
Simple enough, but I don't think that that's "the solution" to the
problem. I see enough butts flicked out of cars that I *know* are
equipped with ashtrays to make this assessment.
--
P.J. Hartman mailto:har...@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Neon
http://www.tconl.com/~hartman
Thug298
paanta said
<<13)Slouching in the seat to look "cool" for the homies
Woo Hoo.. once again, get a grip, this isn't such a big deal.
Do you know how many times I've almost ben hit by some young jackass doing such
an extreme gangsta lean, with maybe one finger draped loosely across the wheel
and the seat so far back that they really couldn't see over the dash? And then
of course when I let 'em have a blast of the horn and knindly educate them on
how to properly sit when driving a car, they give me the "what the hell is
wrong with
that guy" look, as if I should be the one ashamed for having interrupted them
as they cluelessly wafted along from one near miss to another.
Vtec060
>Do you know how many times I've almost ben hit by some young jackass doing
>such
>an extreme gangsta lean, with maybe one finger draped loosely across the
>wheel
I certainly don't want to get into any racial or ethical stereotypes, but I
tend to notice this in a certain part of town around here. Of course, this
could also be classes as inattention. I really cannot stand all the idiots who
have no respect for driving. These are the people who keep their cars in less
than drivable condition, park without thinking of others, and drive in a manner
that is not at all conducive to good driving. It's not limited to one class of
people, though.
-Drew Boyles-
Replying to vte...@aol.com will get your mail bounced back. To email, do so
to domain: mccallie.org, username: abboyles.
S.T. Marcus
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote in message <6jb2uf$t17$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>I agree. It's also potentially dangerous, especially in drought areas.
>
>But know that fewer and fewer cars come with ashtrays. Those who really
>object to butt-strewn highways (as we all should) should object to cars
>that have no ashtrays.
>Next time you go car-shopping, tell the dealer you want a car with
>ashtrays. :-)
>
Did any of you ever think that the reason that some cars don't have ashtrays
is because smokers DON'T USE THEM. Pretty soon turn signals will be an
option on all Chevys and Pontiacs (or maybe they already are and I just
didn't know it).
bye bye piggy
Chuck Tomlinson
vte...@aol.com (Vtec060) wrote:
>
[snip: comments about the "gangsta lean"]
>I certainly don't want to get into any racial or ethical stereotypes, but I
>tend to notice this in a certain part of town around here.
Around here, there is no common racial or even economic(?) factor
when it comes to the gangsta lean. The only common factors are:
relatively young, and male (and, I suppose, the backwards cap).
When I first started driving, I thought the racer lean was the thing
to do: arms straight, seat tilted waaay back. That was _very_
silly. Oh well, you live & learn :-)
--
Chuck Tomlinson
Mr. Randolf Pitchford
har...@NOSPAM.tconl.com (P.J. Hartman) wrote:
>el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>>So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
>>should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
>Simple enough, but I don't think that that's "the solution" to the
>problem. I see enough butts flicked out of cars that I *know* are
>equipped with ashtrays to make this assessment.
You don't know squat, PT.... The ashtrays might be full, or not
working.... live with it, bright boy.... there ain't squat you can do
about it...
Regards,
Mr. Randolf Pitchford
( the artist formerly known as "Cactus Jack" )
"WHEN THE SNOWBALL STARTS TO MOVE, PUSH"
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, ct...@jps.net (C.T.) says:
>On 12 May 1998 00:56:19 GMT, aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J.
>>Huh? That's what the turn signal is for. Put the blinker on,
>>check mirror, check blind spot, check car ahead, and then change
>>lanes. If the signal is on, you'd have to be dead or ignorant
>>to not expect me to change lanes, in which case you'd be the
>>real hazard on the road.
>
>Sure, we all know that people use their turn signals religiously.
>Does the phrase "that $#@*! cut me off!" ring a bell? Any driving
>safety expert will tell you that constant weaving is a hazard.
I didn't say "weaving". I said "changing lanes".
I am against constant weaving, but I hold true the idea
that once you have passed traffic GET THE HELL OUT OF
THE LEFT LANE, and yield to faster traffic trying to come through.
>I can't count the number of times I watched someone zipping all
>over the place, while I, the "boring" driver in the middle/right lane,
>ended up passing him down the road. Younger drivers who aren't
>experienced with traffic patterns weave all the time. I used to do it
>in my teens but I soon learned to be patient.
I laugh at these people a lot...
My typical scenario is me stuck behind fart #1 in left lane driving
.01mph faster than the right lane, yet slower than I want to travel.
After the right lane is clear for him, I politely blink the lights.
If no responce, i try again in about 10 seconds. After the third
try I drop into Third and boot it around in the right-hand lane.
After I pass him on the right is when i come near fart #2, although
he's actually driving in the slow lane, so I give a sheepish grin,
move back to the left, and pass him. Is this weaving?
--
Shallow Pockets Racing Team -*-*- "That blowed up real good"
got slack?
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <355ef614....@news.uswest.net>,
P.J. Hartman <har...@NOSPAM.tconl.com> wrote:
>el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>>So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
>>should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
>
>Simple enough, but I don't think that that's "the solution" to the
>problem. I see enough butts flicked out of cars that I *know* are
>equipped with ashtrays to make this assessment.
No excuse for that. Boo, hiss. ;)
el...@spam.free.at.last
In article <Lupine-1405...@192.168.1.65>,
I will not drive with an ashtry bouncing around the car. And I'm not
about to install a Pep Boys ashtray on the dash of a rental car.
Mr. Randolf Pitchford
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>Boo, hiss.
Nice to see that Ellen (so-called) is still consistent in "her"
attempts to elevate the level of debate in this group.
Mr. Randolf Pitchford
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>I will not drive with an ashtry bouncing around the car. And I'm not
>about to install a Pep Boys ashtray on the dash of a rental car.
Does that mean this thing would rather cause the folks behind to have
a fatal accident when the hot ashes hit them in the eyes and make them
lose control? Or put our firefighters lives in danger (not to mention
the threat to wildlife and property values) when that butt causes a
raging forest fire?
This attitude we're seeing here, friends, is typical of white liberal
types in Northern cities.
Brandon Sommerville
Chuck Tomlinson wrote:
It was the only way I could fit in my Scirocco without smacking my
head on the sunroof! At 5'14" and a bit, there wasn't too much room.
I actually went to an autocross school and was told I had an excellent
seating position. :)
--
Brandon
Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Bob Goudreau
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
: And neither are necessary for the relevant acts! Toilets and ashtrays
: are merely to protect people's sensibilities. That was my point. I'm
: not going to quit smoking because the car I'm renting has no ashtray --
: just as people won't stop excreting just because someone has
: removed all the loos.
: So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
: should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
: :-)
Then I guess you won't mind people defecating out the windows of
rental cars which were thoughtlessly built without on-board toilets?
:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
tvsk...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6j8688$eu3$3...@news1.bu.edu>,
paa...@bu.edu (Patrick Austin) wrote:
> : 15) Large fuzzy dice or other things that block one's view
> Things that block one's view? By this logic, Truckers would be the most
> dangerous, because they have no rear view at all, but mile for mile,
> they're just about the safest people on the roads.
>
I believe he's talking about FRONT view. I purchased a GMC Cabellero from a
guy once. He was a good foot shorter than me and had the rearview set down
low. I didn't notice it until I almost ran into a car that was hidden behind
the mirror when I looked (ok, glanced) to the right. Once I raised it up to
as high as it would go and set it from there, I had no more problems
with blocked vision.
Kevin
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
tvsk...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3559783a...@news.jps.net>,
ct...@jps.net wrote:
> I'm also weary of pickups with Oakley, Rancho and Moroso stickers
> plastered all over them. What is it with some people's desire to be
> affiliated with brand names? The biggest dummies are the ones who
> advertise their make of stereo in big bold letters ("come steal me!")
>
> Carl
>
Even as a lad I knew the economy of a Holley sticker combined with a Quadrajet
carb.;>)
Brent A. Peterson
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> So people who get upset about butts being flicked out of car windows
> should demand that cars come equipped with ashtrays. Simple.
>
> :-)
People who want to smoke in cars should install
some. Or get portable ones, or whatever it takes.
Not ask everyone else to pay for ash trays.
--
-Bp Email:\petebre\@armour.iit.edu\ (remove anti-spam \'s)
Maverick & Comet: http://www.iit.edu/~petebre/maverick/
Bentley
:> Darwinism in action.
:>
: This is something World Govornments fail to see; surely they should
: recognise that if we smoke, we die young, so they don't have to pay
: us a pension!!
True, but modern medicine requires that we keep the fools alive for as
long as possible, at great cost.
: Also (in the UK anyway), all that tax we pay helps support the NHS!
Ah, good point. Tobbaco taxes in the US aren't nearly as high as on your
side of the pond, due to strong tobacco lobbys from, among others, my own
state of Virginia. Sigh.
Lupine
In article <6jg73d$63t$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> In article <Lupine-1405...@192.168.1.65>,
> Lupine <Lup...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <6jcoi7$hed$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
> >
> >
> >> People should also poop in a toilet -- but if you had a 12-hour
> >> flight in a plane with no lav, you'd have a lot of violators. ;)
> >>
> >> There should be toilets in planes and there should be ashtrays in cars.
> >> IMO.
> >
> >You can purchase ashtrays from Pepboys for around $2 in most locations of the
> >nation.
>
> I will not drive with an ashtry bouncing around the car. And I'm not
> about to install a Pep Boys ashtray on the dash of a rental car.
As long as you admit that the problem is YOU choosing to not do so.
hsu....@mci2000.com
First of all, I am a smoker.
I think not liking someone's face (I think someone mentioned that as
an example), etc. differs from smoking and other discomforts others
might impose on you in that it is not simply a discomfort but a health
issue. We may have our different opinions about the degree of risk,
etc., but I can certainly understand the objections of all but the
most radical non-smokers. I never smoke in MY car when there are
non-smokers riding with me without asking permission.
I don't quite understand the California law because it well known by
most people that bars are a place where there is cigarette smoke. It
is not a location where minors are present. There is a certain degree
of presumption that if one condones one "sinful," unhealthy pleasure,
i.e., drinking, one should be tolerant of other "sinful," unhealthy
pleasures. I also assume that were there sufficient demand the
marketplace would supply non-smoking bars.
On Tue, 12 May 1998 22:04:34 -0700, Richard Berkeley
<bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Well, now that California has banned smoking in bars, the smokers are on a losing
>edge! I don't have a problem with them and I most certainly do think it
>offensive if one should ask another to extinguish a cigarette.
>
>Richard
>
P.J. Hartman
gri...@mindless.moc (Brandon Sommerville) wrote:
>Chuck Tomlinson wrote:
>>When I first started driving, I thought the racer lean was the thing
>>to do: arms straight, seat tilted waaay back. That was _very_
>>silly. Oh well, you live & learn :-)
>I actually went to an autocross school and was told I had an excellent
>seating position. :)
That surprises me greatly. Normally, a good seating position allows
you to rest your wrists upon the top of the steering wheel without
undue arm extension.
P.J. Hartman
toml...@ix.netcom.com (Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
>When I first started driving, I thought the racer lean was the thing
>to do: arms straight, seat tilted waaay back. That was _very_
>silly. Oh well, you live & learn :-)
It is indeed a silly way to drive. As you know, placing yourself at a
full arm's length away from the wheel reduces your ability to control
the vehicle.
P.J. Hartman
el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>I will not drive with an ashtry bouncing around the car. And I'm not
>about to install a Pep Boys ashtray on the dash of a rental car.
Why not use one with a beanbag-type base? Those don't seem to be
prone to "migration" within the vehicle.
Kawaone
Sorry to sound like a skipping record, but try riding a motorcycle. Nothing
irks me more than dodging a lit cigarrette at night. All you see is a piece of
fire coming at you. Something tells me the people that can't bother to find
their ashtrays are the same people who can't bother to find their turnsignals
or to pay attention to their driving.
Marty
a.k.a. Kawaone
"Its a freedom that we all wanna know
And its an obsession to some
To keep the world in you rearview mirror
While you try to run down the sun"
"Wheels" Rhestless Heart
96 S-10 ZQ8
87 250r ninja
Adrian Vickers
bi...@mindspring.com (Mr. Randolf Pitchford) wrote:
> el...@spam.free.at.last wrote:
>
>>I will not drive with an ashtry bouncing around the car. And I'm not
>>about to install a Pep Boys ashtray on the dash of a rental car.
>
> Does that mean this thing would rather cause the folks behind to have
> a fatal accident when the hot ashes hit them in the eyes and make them
Never happens. Sorry.
> lose control? Or put our firefighters lives in danger (not to mention
> the threat to wildlife and property values) when that butt causes a
> raging forest fire?
Rarely happens in the UK; although there have been some fires in the
past which have been attributed to cig. ends.
>
> This attitude we're seeing here, friends, is typical of white liberal
> types in Northern cities.
Funny, I'm from the north of England :-)
--
Ade.
Please replace "disregard" with "avickers" for e-mail to be accepted