The Insight at 1 year and 12,500 miles

[Thomas E.]

Why the post about a car? It involves iOS and iPhone.

The good: The car does what I bought it for in the first place. It gets great gas mileage.

Just before the last fill-up: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iQKiU-3jepFRK6AClCUO362eZhyt0rnd/view?usp=sharing

or for my Canadian friends: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GU5102JK5JdfvHY2WyvlWTT9R19EYTpN/view?usp=sharing

About 600 of the miles were on 3 highway trips, the rest was mixed urban streets and local Interstate. Mileage is very sensitive to speed. The trips were at 60-65 mph. Over 65 mph gas mileage drops off quickly. The EPA rating for my touring version is 45 highway, 51 city.

After several iOS + Apple Car Play updates and 1 Honda entertainment system update the smartphone connection is working very reliably after a rocky start.

The car has been a pleasure to drive, but not trouble-free.

The bad: At about 5,000 miles the #4 spark igniter failed and was repaired under warranty.

The passenger seat has no vertical adjustment and is set up to accommodate a 6-footer. The wife feels like she is riding in a hole. The only structural fix is to get longer bolts and use spacers to raise the seat, but that might compromise safety. So she has a cushion to ride on. Not ideal.

Engine noise under heavy loads is loud, but not a frequent annoyance. Sidebar: It's very strange to be parked and in neutral, press the gas pedal, and nothing happens.

The ugly: The car has been in the body shop twice. While parked it was hit in the passenger door by a hit and run driver. The repair was only $50 over the deductible, no claim filed.

Late last year I was T-Boned, also on the passenger side. Both doors, part of the roof, the floor pan and the post between the front and rear doors had to be replaced. All the right side airbags deployed, so a new headliner and passenger seat cover also required. The total damage bill for the Insight alone was $16,500. It was my fault too.

[Alan Baker]

Well at least you admitted it.

I'm surprised with that much damage that it wasn't written off.

[ed]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
...

> Late last year I was T-Boned, also on the passenger side. Both doors, part of the roof, the floor pan and the post between the front and rear doors had to be replaced. All the right side airbags deployed, so a new headliner and passenger seat cover also required. The total damage bill for the Insight alone was $16,500. It was my fault too.

damn, dude. you're not hurting for money - with that much damage i'd replace the car out of concern for passenger safety. those are serious repairs with major structural implications if both doors, floor, roof, and b pillar had to be repaired, never mind replaced. no matter how good the repair shop is, i wouldn't trust that much work done on a car.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> ...
> > Late last year I was T-Boned, also on the passenger side.
> > Both doors, part of the roof, the floor pan and the post
> > between the front and rear doors had to be replaced. All
> > the right side airbags deployed, so a new headliner and
> > passenger seat cover also required. The total damage bill
> > for the Insight alone was $16,500. It was my fault too.

The "fault" admission is a bit disconcerting as it may translate
to a potential concern for aircraft piloting proficiency.


> damn, dude. you're not hurting for money - …

Well, a claim of, since Tom's not really substantiated.
But even that is a bit dated, since those conversations
were prior to the recent market downturn(s), etc. Of course,
this doesn't apply for an accident & repair made back in 2019.


> … with that much damage i'd replace the car out of concern

> for passenger safety. those are serious repairs with major
> structural implications if both doors, floor, roof, and
> b pillar had to be repaired, never mind replaced. no matter
> how good the repair shop is, i wouldn't trust that much work
> done on a car.

While that's a good point, I'd want to see pics of the level
of the damage before going that far for a lot of aspects of
modern construction promote replace rather than repair from
a cost-effectiveness standpoint, even when it isn't merited
from a structural perspective. Then again, the tolerances
(etc) are often such that its become much harder for a hit car
to ever "be right" again, but for a car that's expected to
spend most of its time parked or local driving, it may not
be as much of an issue...ie, "live with it" because its not
as important to spend the money (yet) to replace.


-hh

[ed]

sure, for a fender or door. both doors, b pillar, roof, floor plan? getouttahere. it sounds like ran a light or something and was tboned hard enough that the b pillar didn't hold up and there was crumpling of the roof and floor - there were structural issues.

> Then again, the tolerances
> (etc) are often such that its become much harder for a hit car
> to ever "be right" again, but for a car that's expected to
> spend most of its time parked or local driving, it may not
> be as much of an issue...ie, "live with it" because its not
> as important to spend the money (yet) to replace.

<sarcasm>and it's not a big deal because it's the passenger side</sarcasm>

[Thomas E.]

Of course I admitted it. The car appraised at $25k cost to total out. Salvage value was apparently not enough to justify totaling. I was already looking around for another car when the adjuster called and told me to have it taken to the repair shop.

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:

My cost was $1,000 plus a small overage on rental car reimbursement.

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:04:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

Really want to see the repair bill? The issue with the doors and pillar was the high strength imbedded steel was bent. That cannot be repaired. The roof and floor pan were partially cut out and new steel patched. It is all covered by a lifetime structure and rust warranty from the Honda dealer that did the work.

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:04:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

I'm trying to e-mail the picture you requested but your client is bouncing it.

Try this

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iQKiU-3jepFRK6AClCUO362eZhyt0rnd/view?usp=sharing

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:04:02 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

So now you are a body shop repair expert good enough to accurately appraise the damage from an exterior picture? The adjuster's estimate based on apparent damage was a little over $11k. There was more too it than that.

I looked both ways, then was distracted for a second, and pulled out from a stop sign. I think the car that hit me was in the blind spot created by the right side windshield pillar. I should have looked both ways again.

[ed]

not sure what that has to do with my post, but ok.

[ed]

60mph is only 88ft/s, so you either looked away for a lot longer than a second, or you weren't looking down the road anyway.

[-hh]

Thomas E.wrote:
> -hh wrote:

>>, ed wrote:
>> > , Thomas E. wrote:
>> > > ...

>> > > Late last year I was T-Boned, …

>>
>> The "fault" admission is a bit disconcerting as it may translate
>> to a potential concern for aircraft piloting proficiency.
>>
>> > damn, dude. you're not hurting for money - …
>>
>> Well, a claim of, since Tom's not really substantiated.
>> But even that is a bit dated, since those conversations
>> were prior to the recent market downturn(s), etc. Of course,
>> this doesn't apply for an accident & repair made back in 2019.
>>
>> > … with that much damage i'd replace the car out of concern
>> > for passenger safety. those are serious repairs with major
>> > structural implications if both doors, floor, roof, and
>> > b pillar had to be repaired, never mind replaced. no matter
>> > how good the repair shop is, i wouldn't trust that much work
>> > done on a car.
>>
>> While that's a good point, I'd want to see pics of the level
>> of the damage before going that far for a lot of aspects of
>> modern construction promote replace rather than repair from
>> a cost-effectiveness standpoint, even when it isn't merited
>> from a structural perspective. Then again, the tolerances
>> (etc) are often such that its become much harder for a hit car
>> to ever "be right" again, but for a car that's expected to
>> spend most of its time parked or local driving, it may not
>> be as much of an issue...ie, "live with it" because its not
>> as important to spend the money (yet) to replace.
>
>

> So now you are a body shop repair expert good enough to accurately appraise
> the damage from an exterior picture?

No, not what I was trying to say at all. I was generally looking at the question
from the perspective of how much intrusion as a gage on Ed’s comment on
structural ...and FWIW, I was actually thinking more of your accident being
another “sideswipe” in a traffic circle.

> I looked both ways, then was distracted for a second, and pulled out from a stop
> sign. I think the car that hit me was in the blind spot created by the right side
> windshield pillar. I should have looked both ways again.

So, A column then. Sounds like you were lucky to have not had a passenger?

-hh

[Alan Baker]

Given your propensity to make excuses for your failures "of course" was
far from a given.

You got t-boned and it's your fault:

If I were your wife or friend, I'd seriously consider never ever driving
with you again.

[Alan Baker]

And (thankfully), not the death or serious injury to your passenger.

[Alan Baker]

How is a picture of your car's multifunction display relevant?

[Alan Baker]

You failed in your responsibility as a driver.

Don't whine about blind spots, because you should have known where your
blind spots were.

[Alan Baker]

More like any prospective passenger was lucky not to have had Tommy for
a driver.

[-hh]

Apparently, I'd clicked on 'request' on the first pic, not the second.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Nobody was hurt. There was no passenger. It was on a city street, not a highway. The side curtain airbags would have protected the passenger. There was no glass breakage, interior deformation or intrusion. The high tensile steel inside the doors and the frame worked as designed. My car absorbed the blow with a lateral skid and 270 degree spin to the right, substantially reducing max g. The car did it's job.

[Thomas E.]

The other car was going about 30. If it had been going 60 I would have seen it.

[Thomas E.]

The gas mileage comment. Did you even read that? The link is right under it.

[ed]

Your description of events make no sense. If it was going about 30, it was moving at 44ft/s. And still wouldn't have been blocked by your a pillar if you had been distracted for only a second.

To hh's point about safety when flying, what's worrisome here is that you don't seem to a actually know what happened here.

That, and you'd rather save a few thousand bucks then get another car when you've had major structural damage. But hey, it's only the passenger side, right? :-O

[-hh]

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 11:18:20 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 11:22:24 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:

> > > > ...

> > > > I looked both ways, then was distracted for a second,
> > > > and pulled out from a stop sign. I think the car that
> > > > hit me was in the blind spot created by the right side
> > > > windshield pillar. I should have looked both ways again.
> > >
> > > 60mph is only 88ft/s, so you either looked away for a lot
> > > longer than a second, or you weren't looking down the road anyway.
> >
> > The other car was going about 30. If it had been going 60 I
> > would have seen it.
>
> Your description of events make no sense. If it was going
> about 30, it was moving at 44ft/s. And still wouldn't have
> been blocked by your a pillar if you had been distracted for
> only a second.

The 'look away' distraction is the factor here, for it was
evidently long enough for traffic with the right-of-way to
have closed some significant distance .. particularly if it
was indeed only going ~30mph.

> To hh's point about safety when flying, what's worrisome here
> is that you don't seem to a actually know what happened here.

I suspect that Tom knows, but doesn't want to go any further
in admitting that he screwed up. Hopefully, it was just a
momentary lapse, and not a bad behavioral pattern.

> That, and you'd rather save a few thousand bucks then get
> another car when you've had major structural damage. But hey,
> it's only the passenger side, right? :-O

The money-squeezing has been self-evident all along, from the
emphasis on fuel economy. For example, Tom made it a point
to show off the ~50mpg performance, even though 12.5K miles
at 50 vs 30mpg, at $3/gal, means a savings of but $500/yr.
Granted, a savings is a savings is a savings, for only as long
as the trade-offs being made is considered to be worth it.

In the meantime, I'm trying to drive *enough* to minimize
problems from stale fuel. Currently, I have my one of my
battery chargers loaned out to a friend who found that the
battery in his convertible has gone flat/DOA - second such
example of "dead battery" I've heard of amongst friends
within the past ~2 months (the other was street-parked).


-hh

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-20 7:11 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 2:50:47 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2020-06-18 8:02 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Thomas E.
>>>> wrote: ...
>>>>> Late last year I was T-Boned, also on the passenger side.
>>>>> Both doors, part of the roof, the floor pan and the post
>>>>> between the front and rear doors had to be replaced. All the
>>>>> right side airbags deployed, so a new headliner and passenger
>>>>> seat cover also required. The total damage bill for the
>>>>> Insight alone was $16,500. It was my fault too.
>>>>
>>>> damn, dude. you're not hurting for money - with that much
>>>> damage i'd replace the car out of concern for passenger safety.
>>>> those are serious repairs with major structural implications if
>>>> both doors, floor, roof, and b pillar had to be repaired, never
>>>> mind replaced. no matter how good the repair shop is, i
>>>> wouldn't trust that much work done on a car.
>>>
>>> My cost was $1,000 plus a small overage on rental car
>>> reimbursement.
>>>
>>
>> And (thankfully), not the death or serious injury to your
>> passenger.
>
> Nobody was hurt. There was no passenger.

And you'd have been driving differently if there had been a passenger?

> It was on a city street, not a highway.

You think that accidents on city streets can't kill or injure?

> The side curtain airbags would have protected the passenger.

MIGHT have protected the passenger.

> There was no glass breakage, interior deformation or intrusion.

There was no PERMANENT deformation or intrusion.

> The high tensile steel inside the doors and the frame worked as
> designed. My car absorbed the blow with a lateral skid and 270 degree
> spin to the right, substantially reducing max g.

You think movement of the car reduces max g? Get hit by a bird doing
30mph and your car won't move enough for you to tell, but according to
your analysis, that would be worse.

No, the more massive the object that hits you, the greater will be the
acceleration you undergo. And less deformation of the structure means
higher accelerations as well.

You need to brush up on your physics. Which is a sad thing to say to a
pilot. Do you believe in the "downwind turn" as well?

> The car did it's job.

But you are failing in yours both then in your failure to spot oncoming
traffic and now in your attempts to excuse and diminish the severity of
your failure and in your misunderstanding of the dangers involved.

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 11:18:20 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:

How many times have you had an auto accident and saw the car that hit you?

It makes perfect sense. I took a very quick look to the right, saw nothing, then a car coming from the left caught my attention and distracted. I was worried about that one and never looked back to the right. BAM. I'll never forget the sound of those airbags going off.

[Thomas E.]

See my response to Ed. I pay about an extra $200 a year in insurance vs the Civic and $50 a year in registration for the Indiana hybrid tax. But then, at some point, the propulsion battery has to be replaced if I keep it long enough. It's very likely more expensive per mile than the Civic once that battery becomes a cost. On The Other Hand, I REALLY enjoy recycling energy rather that shedding it via the brakes. :)

[Thomas E.]

There was no intrusion into the passenger compartment. Period. The high tensile steel in the doors and frame stopped that. Neither door window broke. The steel in the doors prevented that.

Aircraft downwind versus upwind turns are an optical illusion created by ground reference. There is no difference in airspeed or stall tendencies at a given weight, bank angle, altitude and power setting. Every pilot worth his salt knows that.

Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity (K=0.5*mv^2). A given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the same mass at 60 mph. Less kinetic energy = lower collision g forces. Simple physics seem to escape you. It was a Kia Sorento that hit me, not a bird.

I feel awful about what happened. The lady driving the Kia was not hurt either. We both had our seatbelts on.

This criticism is pure irony coming from a person who regularly drives aggressively and wrecks a car about every summer. That car has no doors, no roof, and no airbags. It also has the potential to hurt other drivers. Wow :)

[ed]

1 off the top of my head - rear ended at a stop, at a red light.

> It makes perfect sense. I took a very quick look to the right, saw nothing, then a car coming from the left caught my attention and distracted. I was worried about that one and never looked back to the right. BAM. I'll never forget the sound of those airbags going off.

no, it makes no sense, as you describe. you were either totally inattentive and didn't see a car already in your line of sight when you looked right, your vision is so bad you didn't see a car you should have, or you didn't look right at all. regardless, a moving vehicle coming from your right at 30mph that broadsides you when you're starting from a stop is unlikely to ever have been unseen due to the a-pillar - it IS moving and will be out of it shortly, and if you glanced so quickly that it was in your blind spot when you looked, when you looked away for a second, then proceed, it's not going to blindside you across the doors. unless, *maybe* you're doing something even more stupid like flooring it through the intersection WHILE looking left.

but i'm willing to be convinced i'm wrong - describe the scenario to me that makes it plausible where you looked right and left, got distracted for just a second, and the car was blocked by the a-pillar.

[ed]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 3:58:46 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:51:27 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

..

> > > My car absorbed the blow with a lateral skid and 270 degree
> > > spin to the right, substantially reducing max g.
> >
> > You think movement of the car reduces max g? Get hit by a bird doing
> > 30mph and your car won't move enough for you to tell, but according to
> > your analysis, that would be worse.
> >
> > No, the more massive the object that hits you, the greater will be the
> > acceleration you undergo. And less deformation of the structure means
> > higher accelerations as well.

...
> Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity (K=0.5*mv^2). A given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the same mass at 60 mph. Less kinetic energy = lower collision g forces. Simple physics seem to escape you...

oh boy, this is going to be a good one. :D


...

[Thomas E.]

Crap. Revised

Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity (K=0.5*mv^2). A given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the kinetic energy as the same mass at 60 mph. Less kinetic energy = lower collision g forces.

You have a problem with that equation? Liarboy Baker drives aggressively around a race track hitting over 100 mph speeds in a car with no roof, no doors and no airbags. Then he accusing others of being reckless.

[Thomas E.]

That must be awful! You should move to Indiana. No problem keeping the cars exercised here! Most restaurants are open for dining, we went to the Art Museum this morning, we have an outdoor concert coming up in a few weeks, July 4 fireworks show happening a mile from here, going to Clifty Falls State Park on the Ohio River for 3 days next week, and have hosted 2 dinner parties in the last 2 weeks. The park lodge and restaurants are open. We have been to see the grandkids and the wife's family, and they have been guests here. We even have a few movie theaters about to open next week. Some churches are having services again. As of July 4 life almost gets back to completely normal.

This has been going on for over a month, and no signs of an uptick in COVID cases or deaths. Weather is definitely on our side.

Instead of Canada and it's closed border we are heading west this year. Glacier, Yellowstone and the Tetons/Jackson Hole are on the list for September. We will probably stop in Vail on the way back.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-23 1:32 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 4:03:45 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 3:58:46 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:51:27 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> ..
>>>>> My car absorbed the blow with a lateral skid and 270 degree
>>>>> spin to the right, substantially reducing max g.
>>>>
>>>> You think movement of the car reduces max g? Get hit by a bird
>>>> doing 30mph and your car won't move enough for you to tell, but
>>>> according to your analysis, that would be worse.
>>>>
>>>> No, the more massive the object that hits you, the greater will
>>>> be the acceleration you undergo. And less deformation of the
>>>> structure means higher accelerations as well.
>> ...
>>> Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity
>>> (K=0.5*mv^2). A given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the same mass at
>>> 60 mph. Less kinetic energy = lower collision g forces. Simple
>>> physics seem to escape you...
>>
>> oh boy, this is going to be a good one. :D
>>
>>
>> ...
>
> Crap. Revised
>
> Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity (K=0.5*mv^2). A
> given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the kinetic energy as the same mass
> at 60 mph. Less kinetic energy = lower collision g forces.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with your bullshit claim that your
cars lateral skid and 270 degree spin "substantially reduced max g."

The only reason that your car skidded and spun in the first place was
that kinetic energy was imparted to the vehicle.

The acceleration you will experience getting hit by another vehicle is
proportional to:

The mass ratio of the other vehicle to yours.

The inverse of the available crush distance.

>
> You have a problem with that equation? Liarboy Baker drives
> aggressively around a race track hitting over 100 mph speeds in a car
> with no roof, no doors and no airbags. Then he accusing others of
> being reckless.

You're right.

I drive around a race track (not "aggressively" however) hitting over
100mph; my personal high is about 130mph.

But I took a 3 day course for my initial training with highly
experienced instructors (Skip Barber)...

...then took a further 2 day advanced course with them...

...and then a second 2-day advanced course...

...and then got selected as one of their top 33 students for the year.


And even without all that, I do my "reckless" driving on a closed course...

...where there is no one who does not agree to be a participant to be
involved.

Oh, and I didn't accuse you of being reckless over this, Liarboy.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:

>> ed wrote:
>> > That, and you'd rather save a few thousand bucks then get
>> > another car when you've had major structural damage. But hey,
>> > it's only the passenger side, right? :-O
>>
>> The money-squeezing has been self-evident all along, from the
>> emphasis on fuel economy. For example, Tom made it a point
>> to show off the ~50mpg performance, even though 12.5K miles
>> at 50 vs 30mpg, at $3/gal, means a savings of but $500/yr.
>> Granted, a savings is a savings is a savings, for only as long
>> as the trade-offs being made is considered to be worth it.
>>
>> In the meantime, I'm trying to drive *enough* to minimize
>> problems from stale fuel. Currently, I have my one of my
>> battery chargers loaned out to a friend who found that the
>> battery in his convertible has gone flat/DOA - second such
>> example of "dead battery" I've heard of amongst friends
>> within the past ~2 months (the other was street-parked).
>
>

> That must be awful!

Not really, as it’s just a ‘First World‘ problem from having twice as many cars
as drivers, combined with teleworking instead of commuting to work.

> You should move to Indiana. No problem keeping the cars exercised here!

Traffic circles - no thanks!

With the lockdown that’s just now lifting, I’d say our total mileage over the past
~100 days has probably been <1K miles. Keep in mind that everything needed
is typically quite conveniently nearby; IIRC, we’ve had only two trips to anyplace
that was more than ten miles away...


> Most restaurants are open for dining, ..

Outdoor dining here just opened as the heat wave started. Think indoor is 2? July.
Not that it matters too terribly much, as we don’t typically eat out much when at home.
But we’ve been making it up with takeout; have polled five different pizzerias within
five minutes of home...think we still have 3 more to go.

> …we went to the Art Museum this morning, we have an outdoor concert coming up
> in a few weeks, ...

Outdoor Concert here on Thursday. Thought I saw an email today from MoMA for
their reopening date. But overall, things are still pretty appropriately cautious here.

> ...July 4 fireworks show happening a mile from here, ...

Most here have been canceled, which is IMO a good thing because we have a rain deficit;
probably going to be a drought year. Not that it matters much to us, personally - haven’t
found them to be enjoyable since 9/11...

> This has been going on for over a month, and no signs of an uptick in COVID cases or deaths.

Good. But four weeks is still a little early to gage the slow feedback loop to claim control.
Pragmatically, one needs 6-8 weeks after behavior change, not merely the “reopen” date.

> Weather is definitely on our side.

Yuma’s a lot hotter (108F today), yet is having an outbreak.

> Instead of Canada and it's closed border we are heading west this year. Glacier, Yellowstone
> and the Tetons/Jackson Hole are on the list for September. We will probably stop in Vail on
> the way back.

Sounds promising. Our plans had been still in flux when this all hit, so we don’t yet have anything
planned. Perhaps Australia will open so that we can go back to visit a friend for his birthday?
Caymans too at some point, also quite TBD on the when...plus the house we’d been renting for
years is going up for sale and we’ve been invited to make an offer.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

I'm seriously concerned that a person with such a minimal understanding
of very basic physics can hold a pilot's licence.

[Alan Baker]

And that means that the accelerations had to be high, Liarboy.

If the structure doesn't deform, then all it can do is accelerate.

>
> Aircraft downwind versus upwind turns are an optical illusion created
> by ground reference. There is no difference in airspeed or stall
> tendencies at a given weight, bank angle, altitude and power setting.
> Every pilot worth his salt knows that.

An amazing number do not.

>
> Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity (K=0.5*mv^2). A
> given mass at 30 mph has 25% of the same mass at 60 mph. Less kinetic
> energy = lower collision g forces. Simple physics seem to escape you.
> It was a Kia Sorento that hit me, not a bird.

Kinetic energy and momentum are different things, and I used an extreme
example to point out to you the absurdity of your claim.

>
> I feel awful about what happened. The lady driving the Kia was not
> hurt either. We both had our seatbelts on.

And your incompetence behind the wheel was the cause.

>
> This criticism is pure irony coming from a person who regularly
> drives aggressively and wrecks a car about every summer. That car has
> no doors, no roof, and no airbags. It also has the potential to hurt
> other drivers. Wow :)

Another lie.

I don't wreck a car every summer. Not even close. I've been in
collisions that have damaged my car, but not one a year. And only once
has there been damage to my vehicle that was my fault.

What's more, the only drivers I put at risk are others who have agreed
to participate, and they have been far more dangerous to me than vice versa.

The most senior and successful drivers in our club make up the RDC (Race
Drivers Committee), who are responsible for the training of new drivers.
They invited me to join their ranks after I'd only been racing for 3
years. Do you think they do that for drivers they consider to be reckless?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Then you failed as a driver. Period.

[Thomas E.]

How many times have you failed as a driver? I can remember at least 5 race incidents.

[Thomas E.]

The skid absorbs part of the energy and lessens the damage to the struck vehicle. I forgot to mention that the Kia that hit me did not deploy any airbags. However the radiator was punctured, so it was towed away too.

We both walked away without a scratch. I was not even sore the next day.

[Thomas E.]

Only one was your fault in your opinion.

[Alan Baker]

Only one was my fault, Liarboy. And that opinion is shared by everyone
who saw thin incidents.

You DO realize that when there is an incident on track that results in
damage, there is an investigation, right?

[Alan Baker]

Racing is not the same as driving on the road...

...or hadn't you figured that out, Liarboy?

[Alan Baker]

No. Utterly wrong.

The skid only happens BECAUSE YOUR CAR ABSORBED THE ENERGY.

[Thomas E.]

My vehicle's skidding absorbed energy from the crash, reducing the damage to my car and intrusion into the passenger compartment. Imagine my car up against an immovable wall when the Kia struck it. All of the crash energy would have been expended into my car structure, possibly causing life-threatening intrusion. Bouncing off the Kia reduced structural damage.

[Thomas E.]

LOL. You wreck cars and call it a hobby.

In designing modern cars engineers have created structures designed to absorb energy and keep people safe. It's a tradeoff. Make a structure too strong and crash energy goes straight to the passengers. Make it too flimsy and the structural collapse kills. Air bags, seat belt inertia reels, crush zones, high tensile steel in strategic parts of the structure, etc. all go in a design compromise.

Think about the SAFER Barrier at race tracks. A friend I'm having dinner with tonight helped install the first one at IMS in time for the May 2002 Indy 500. It's not very thick, only about 24" of polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel barrier structure. Cars hitting the concrete walls before the barrier often saw severe injuries and death. Just that 24" absorbs enough energy to mitigate g forces and reduce car damage to the point that drivers walk away from crashes that would have been fatal. It also reduces cars rebounding back into traffic, causing further hazards.

The human body can absorb high momentary g forces. A crash with about 100 g's is survivable, albeit with injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Purley

The human body cannot absorb a steering column through the chest.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> LOL. You wreck cars and call it a hobby.

As opposed to a chicken farmer trying to pretend to be an Engimeer?

> In designing modern cars engineers have created structures designed to absorb
> energy and keep people safe. It's a tradeoff. Make a structure too strong and crash
> energy goes straight to the passengers. Make it too flimsy and the structural collapse kills.

Oversimplification.
For example, how was it that your car was tossed a distance, yet not collapsed?

> Think about the SAFER Barrier at race tracks. A friend I'm having dinner with tonight
> helped install the first one at IMS in time for the May 2002 Indy 500. It's not very thick,
> only about 24" of polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel barrier structure. Cars
> hitting the concrete walls before the barrier often saw severe injuries and death. Just
> that 24" absorbs enough energy to mitigate g forces and reduce car damage to the
> point that drivers walk away from crashes that would have been fatal.

No, it doesn’t work that way.

> It also reduces cars rebounding back into traffic, causing further hazards.

Which might be a clue for you.

> The human body can absorb high momentary g forces. A crash with
> about 100 g's is survivable, albeit with injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Purley

Falling out of an airplane without a parachute is also survivable. But that doesn’t make it
the expected outcome.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

No, you incredible simpleton.

IT DID NOT.

The collision imparted energy and momentum to your car in an instant and
the skid was the result of that.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

I've not wrecked a single car.

You're a liar.

:-)

>
> In designing modern cars engineers have created structures designed
> to absorb energy and keep people safe. It's a tradeoff. Make a
> structure too strong and crash energy goes straight to the
> passengers. Make it too flimsy and the structural collapse kills. Air
> bags, seat belt inertia reels, crush zones, high tensile steel in
> strategic parts of the structure, etc. all go in a design
> compromise.

Gee, thanks.

I think I'll take my physics knowledge from someone who understands that
the skid AFTER a collision doesn't reduce the accelerations your car
experieces.

>
> Think about the SAFER Barrier at race tracks. A friend I'm having
> dinner with tonight helped install the first one at IMS in time for
> the May 2002 Indy 500. It's not very thick, only about 24" of
> polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel barrier structure. Cars
> hitting the concrete walls before the barrier often saw severe
> injuries and death. Just that 24" absorbs enough energy to mitigate g
> forces and reduce car damage to the point that drivers walk away from
> crashes that would have been fatal. It also reduces cars rebounding
> back into traffic, causing further hazards.
>
> The human body can absorb high momentary g forces. A crash with about
> 100 g's is survivable, albeit with injuries.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Purley
>
> The human body cannot absorb a steering column through the chest.

Nor can the roads absorb drivers who think they really didn't do
anything wrong...

...because the car saved them from the consequences of their incompetence.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-27 1:34 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:

> Think about the SAFER Barrier at race tracks. A friend I'm having
> dinner with tonight helped install the first one at IMS in time for
> the May 2002 Indy 500. It's not very thick, only about 24" of
> polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel barrier structure. Cars
> hitting the concrete walls before the barrier often saw severe
> injuries and death. Just that 24" absorbs enough energy to mitigate g
> forces and reduce car damage to the point that drivers walk away from
> crashes that would have been fatal. It also reduces cars rebounding
> back into traffic, causing further hazards.

For a guy who claims to have a "friend" who did this, you've gotten
pretty much everything wrong about the SAFER barrier.

It is NOT polystyrene "polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel
barrier structure"

It is a stack of rectangular steel tubes with 3/16" thick walls that are
backed at intervals of approximately 10 feet by bundles of 2" thick
extruded polystyrene.

[Thomas E.]

You description is the same as mine, different language. The tubes are the "steel structure" I mentioned and the foam bundles are about 24" stacks. This was my reference material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrier

[Thomas E.]

HH, my car was tossed but not destroyed, by design. The steel in the unibody frame and doors deformed, but did not allow intrusions that could have injured a passenger. The g forces were far from sufficient to injure me on the driver's side. Had the other car hit me from the left I would have been saved by the side curtain airbags and lack of structural intrusion.

[Thomas E.]

You have described several racing "accidents" that caused damage to your car, Liarboy.

[Alan Baker]

No. It is not. The foam is NOT "sandwiched INSIDE a steel barrier
structure".

[Alan Baker]

No.

The getting tossed had literally no effect on the acceleration your car
experienced.

[Alan Baker]

And in none of them was the car "wrecked" (your deliberately loaded
term, Liarboy).

[-hh]

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 11:32:05 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:46:34 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > Tom wrote:
> > > LOL. You wreck cars and call it a hobby.
> >
> > As opposed to a chicken farmer trying to pretend to be an Engimeer?
> >
> > > In designing modern cars engineers have created structures
> > > designed to absorb energy and keep people safe. It's a tradeoff.
> > > Make a structure too strong and crash energy goes straight to
> > > the passengers. Make it too flimsy and the structural collapse kills.
> >
> > Oversimplification.
> > For example, how was it that your car was tossed a distance,
> > yet not collapsed?
>

> HH, my car was tossed but not destroyed, by design.

Understood - but I asked "how"? C'mon, if you're trying to pretend
to be an engineer, you need to step up and deliver the details.

> The steel in the unibody frame and doors deformed, but did
> not allow intrusions that could have injured a passenger.

Which has what bearing on what you've said?

> The g forces were far from sufficient to injure me on the
> driver's side.

How is that so?

> Had the other car hit me from the left I would have been
> saved by the side curtain airbags and lack of structural
> intrusion.

How is that a confident statement to make? Note that given
that I've not seen pics of just how much intrusion occurred
on the right side...


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Tommy doesn't understand the difference between "intrusion" and
"permanent deformation"...

...or apparently anything about the collision of two bodies.

;-)

[Thomas E.]

Because there was no interior intrusion. And no, I don't have any pictures.

[Thomas E.]

Bullshit. Intrusion in this case is deformation of the interior of the cabin. There was none. There was very permanent deformation of the door exteriors, the door post, and minor damage to the the floor pan below and roof above the door post.

[Thomas E.]

Yes it is. Every see a sandwich? Meat between 2 pieces of bread. SAFER is foam between steel.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QgsSVhSttfbQk67S5xkC42sm_KDgHM7G/view?usp=sharing

[Alan Baker]

There was no PERMANENT interior intrusion, Liarboy.

Unless you've got a high speed camera, you're never going to see the
temporary intrusion.

[Alan Baker]

No, Liarboy. This is just more physics you don't understand.

What you see afterward is the permanent deformation, but to get that
deformation, the structure will have undergone forces that flexed it
inward elastically as well.

[Alan Baker]

And that picture shows foam between the steel barrier nearest the track...

...and the concrete wall that was the original outer barrier.

<https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/crash.net/styles/amp_1200/s3/original/32868.jpg?itok=kPMgmGwI>

Note the clear labeling of the outer wall as concrete:

(3) 3/8" DIA. CABLES ANCHORED TO THE CONCRETE BARRIER WALL AND TO THE
STEEL TUBE MODULES EVERY 10'

You lose... ...again.

[Thomas E.]

OK, sandwiched in steel and concrete.

[Thomas E.]

LOL. Had there been intrusion the passenger side windows would have shattered. They did not. You also assume that high tensile steel will rebound. It's made to bend without breaking, absorbing impact energy. For the most part this type of steel as used in Hondas cannot be safely repaired.

https://rts.i-car.com/collision-repair-news/repair-or-replace-material-tensile-strength-key-to-repairability.html

[Alan Baker]

But the real loss is that you doubled-down on your bullshit.

[Alan Baker]

You really don't understand the first about thing about collision
dynamics, Liarboy.

Structures absorb energy when the permanently deform, doofus. If the
structure bounces back, then the energy was NOT absorbed. The stiffer
the structure, the MORE acceleration you will undergo.

And no: it does not necessarily follow that that there was no intrusion
since the passenger side window didn't break.

[ed]

how do you figure?

[Alan Baker]

Well obviously it's temporarily absorbed by the elastic deflection of
the steel, but it isn't permanently absorbed by the plastic deformation.

If you want a structure to absorb energy in a manner that that will
reduce the accelerations felt by the passengers, you need:

1. A structure that will crush.

2. Sufficient DISTANCE for it to crush.

I'm by no means saying that people would be better off in side impact
collisions if the car and a structure that had was more crushable (there
simply isn't the necessary distance), but imagining that the fact that
there was no permanent deformation of the structure must mean that the
structure didn't bend elastically into the passenger compartment is just
so much nonsense.

So is imagining that "bending without breaking" in some way absorbs the
impact so that the passengers won't feel the forces (which is what was
under discussion).

So was imagining that the movement of the car (the skid and spin) AFTER
the impact was over in any way reduced the forces felt in the passenger
compartment.

[ed]

A lot of stuff I wasn't asking about, but I'm still not clear on your argument that if the structure bounces back it didn't absorb energy from the crash. Do you mind trying again?

[Alan Baker]

Sure.

If what we're talking about is how to reduce the forces/acceleration on
the passengers, then the energy that is temporarily absorbed by the
structure (because it bounces back) doesn't really count: BECAUSE it's
only temporary.

Permanent deformation converts kinetic energy into heat whereas elastic
deformation just hangs on to the energy for a split second and then
spits it right out again.

[Thomas E.]

Maybe you will believe this from the Insight press release kit:

https://hondanews.com/en-US/releases/2019-honda-insight-press-kit#overview

The relevant quote follows. The essence is that the unibody is carefully designed to divert side impact forces away from the passenger compartment and into the B pillar and lower sill. That's exactly why the roof above the B pillar and the sill were bent. To the extent that the pillar gave it bent in the floor area under the passenger seat. Does your race car have this level of crash protection?

Quote:

In-Die Soft Zone

Insight employs selectively-tempered "soft zone" technology. This special forming technique allows the creation of specially tempered areas, or soft zones, within an ultra-high-strength hot-stamped steel part. As a result, simpler, lighter components are able to provide the appropriate energy pathways necessary to absorb crash forces. The process minimizes both parts count and weight.

The process involves heating the sheet steel to 930-degrees Centigrade before simultaneously stamping and cooling key areas of the part. A laser cutting trimming process then completes the component.

Side Crash area

Located where the B-pillar joins the lower sill, a built-in soft zone is designed to bend during a side collision, channeling crash forces away from the passenger compartment and into the B-pillar and lower sill. The soft zone's advanced high-strength steel material is rated at 550-650 MPa, compared to the much stronger 1500 MPa hot-stamp steel of the overall B-pillar and lower sill.

[Thomas E.]

It's your BS that keeps getting repeated here is the issue.

[Alan Baker]

I've already said that permanent deformation reduces the
forces/accelerations experienced by the passengers, Liarboy.

But the very fact that the floor and roof were deformed means that the
b-pillar itself has intruded further into the cabin that its normal
position...

...AND that that intrusion was even farther in the instant as both it
and the floor and sill both flexed inward and then bounced back.

But I do love the way you keep trying to divert to discussing my race car.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

[Thomas E.]

LOL, you could not tell it by looking at the interior. It was a relatively low speed impact that bent a lot of external sheet metal.

Speaking your race car, are you going try to beat the field with your superior Honda-powered FF #21 when SSBC starts up again this month? I was reminded to look at that schedule when I saw Scott Dixon interviewed after the IRL race here today sporting Honda emblems on his hat and uniform.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-07-04 2:41 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>> I've already said that permanent deformation reduces the
>> forces/accelerations experienced by the passengers, Liarboy.
>>
>> But the very fact that the floor and roof were deformed means that
>> the b-pillar itself has intruded further into the cabin that its
>> normal position...
>>
>> ...AND that that intrusion was even farther in the instant as both
>> it and the floor and sill both flexed inward and then bounced
>> back.
>>
>> But I do love the way you keep trying to divert to discussing my
>> race car.
> LOL, you could not tell it by looking at the interior. It was a
> relatively low speed impact that bent a lot of external sheet metal.

You couldn't tell from the appearance of the interior AFTER it was all over.

>
> Speaking your race car, are you going try to beat the field with your
> superior Honda-powered FF #21 when SSBC starts up again this month? I
> was reminded to look at that schedule when I saw Scott Dixon
> interviewed after the IRL race here today sporting Honda emblems on
> his hat and uniform.

We've been over and over this, Liarboy, so you can't claim you're not
lying about the "superiority" of the Honda-engined FFs.

[Thomas E.]

Then why did you suddenly start winning races when you bought one? Why are so many SCCA Runoff cars Honda powered?

LOL! You lose by winning!

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:57:42 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2020-06-27 1:34 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 8:08:40 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2020-06-23 12:58 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:51:27 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-06-20 7:11 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:

> >>>>> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 2:50:47 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker

> > LOL. You wreck cars and call it a hobby.
>

> Nope.
>
> I've not wrecked a single car.
>
> You're a liar.
>
> :-)
>
>
> >

> > In designing modern cars engineers have created structures designed
> > to absorb energy and keep people safe. It's a tradeoff. Make a
> > structure too strong and crash energy goes straight to the

> > passengers. Make it too flimsy and the structural collapse kills. Air
> > bags, seat belt inertia reels, crush zones, high tensile steel in
> > strategic parts of the structure, etc. all go in a design
> > compromise.
>
> Gee, thanks.
>
> I think I'll take my physics knowledge from someone who understands that
> the skid AFTER a collision doesn't reduce the accelerations your car
> experieces.
>
> >

> > Think about the SAFER Barrier at race tracks. A friend I'm having
> > dinner with tonight helped install the first one at IMS in time for
> > the May 2002 Indy 500. It's not very thick, only about 24" of
> > polystyrene foam sandwiched inside a steel barrier structure. Cars
> > hitting the concrete walls before the barrier often saw severe
> > injuries and death. Just that 24" absorbs enough energy to mitigate g
> > forces and reduce car damage to the point that drivers walk away from
> > crashes that would have been fatal. It also reduces cars rebounding
> > back into traffic, causing further hazards.
> >

> > The human body can absorb high momentary g forces. A crash with about
> > 100 g's is survivable, albeit with injuries.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Purley
> >
> > The human body cannot absorb a steering column through the chest.
>
> Nor can the roads absorb drivers who think they really didn't do
> anything wrong...
>
> ...because the car saved them from the consequences of their incompetence.
> >

You have wrecked your race cars, and bragged about it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-07-07 5:47 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 9:57:42 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

>>>> The most senior and successful drivers in our club make up the RDC
>>>> (Race Drivers Committee), who are responsible for the training of
>>>> new drivers. They invited me to join their ranks after I'd only
>>>> been racing for 3 years. Do you think they do that for drivers they
>>>> consider to be reckless?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> LOL. You wreck cars and call it a hobby.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I've not wrecked a single car.
>>
>> You're a liar.
>>
>> :-)
>>

> You have wrecked your race cars, and bragged about it.
>

Nope.

I've definitely damaged them, but "wrecked" has a particular connotation
which doesn't apply, sorry, Liarboy.

But hey, way to dig back for some more diversion!

[Alan Baker]

We've discussed this many times, Liarboy.

First, I've been getting better as a race driver, AND my first car was
definitely an oddball (meaning there was no information out there about
how to set it up), and it was also about 20 pounds overweight. That's
about 2%, which makes a difference.

The new car was pretty much at the lower limit for weight, and it was a
car that was very successful overall and so there is LOTS of good
information about setting it up.

Is it a better car than the RF89? Well of course it is! Do you think
that 9 years of development by Van Diemen wouldn't result in a better car?

As for the Honda, as I've told you already, the engine was designed to
mimic the power curve of the Kent, and did so to a very fine level of
accuracy. People choose to run the Honda because neither time nor money
are in infinite supply; particularly time on a racing weekend.

The Kent requires far more attention and it is far, far more expensive
to acquire a Kent with competitive power. A new engine from a top engine
builder (there are basically only 3 or 4 in North America) will cost you
north of $10,000USD, and you'll be getting rebuilds on at least the top
end every year.

By contrast, you can buy a Honda L15A7 engine from a 2009-2012 Honda Fit
from a wrecker for less than $1,000, and there is no tweaking needed
(nor really allowed) to be done. Yes: blueprinting is allowed, but
according to the engine builders, it will gain you a maximum of 2hp...

...which is what you'd get simply by running a brand-new engine in.

And the Kent is operating beyond the operating limits for which it was
designed just to be competitive. It is running well beyond the rev limit
it was designed to run in the mid 1960s and a very small over-rev can
lead to the destruction of the engine (as I learned once to my dismay).

The Honda is detuned to run BELOW it's designed limits, and it is a far
better engineered piece to begin with, having been designed in the
mid-2000s with the aid of computer-aided engineering. So...

...nothing goes wrong and you don't need to spend any time taking care
of the engine when there is so much more that needs doing on a race car.

That is why the top teams run Hondas. That is why anyone who is serious
about racing every weekend.

People who know say that the Honda has a small advantage where tracks
have corners that must be taken at below the absolute optimum RPM,
because a modern electronically controlled engine tends not to have a
throttle response issue when the throttle is opened from slightly below
the best operating range, but the Kent has the advantage in absolute
top-end power as well as the fact that there is no rev limiter, so you
are able to choose a slightly shorter top gear and get better
acceleration when running alone, and still be able to take advantage of
the tow from a car running ahead of you.

By contrast, the Honda does have a limiter, so you have to ensure you
choose a gear that is tall enough that the car won't stumble when you
gain those 5mph running in the draft of a car ahead. That means your
acceleration when there isn't a tow will be compromised.

In short, Hondas don't make you faster overall, but they're more
reliable, which makes them a better choice for anyone who wants to
concentrate more on the rest of racing.

[Thomas E.]

OK, accepted. I damaged my Honda too. My only car ever wrecked by your definition was a 1968 Corolla. A panel truck ran a red light. If it were not for the shoulder harness in that car we would not be having this conversation. I walked away with a broken rib. Got a nice settlement from the other guy's insurance too.

[Alan Baker]

Except I never said you wrecked your car, Liarboy.

What you did was show that you're an extremely poor driver and you got
lucky that it wasn't much worse.

[Thomas E.]

He's a quote from you in this thread:

"Well at least you admitted it.

I'm surprised with that much damage that it wasn't written off."

How's NOT saying you said I wrecked that car, Liarboy. Almost written off is a wreck, and you repeated that it was my fault.

>
> What you did was show that you're an extremely poor driver and you got
> lucky that it wasn't much worse.

By your definition a single incident makes you an extremely poor driver. You are therefore an extremely poor driver. I think I'm about average. Three at fault incidents since 1964 and 3 speeding tickets, one for 65 in a 55. I've been with the same insurance company that entire time, 56 years, and never had rates increased due to accidents or my driving record. No violations other than speeding. If I was or am an extremely poor driver that would not have happened.

PS, the wife and at one time the kids, were also on that policy. Now that had me worried, especially the kids. I taught them well. Between the 2 only 1 accident, and that was on an icy road.

[-hh]

My read on Alan's comment is that based on how it was described,
he expressed surprise that it _wasn't_ considered to be totaled.

> > What you did was show that you're an extremely poor driver and you got
> > lucky that it wasn't much worse.
>
> By your definition a single incident makes you an extremely poor driver.

Except as you go on to state, its not been just a single incident:

"Three at fault incidents since 1964 and 3 speeding tickets..."

Plus there's also been some questionable ones, such as the traffic
circle one from a year or two ago. Granted, it pedantically may
not have had you at "fault", but my recollection is that it did
sound like an inattentiveness on defensive driving practices was
a factor.

> I've been with the same insurance company that entire time,
> 56 years, and never had rates increased due to accidents or
> my driving record. No violations other than speeding. If I
> was or am an extremely poor driver that would not have happened.

No, that history just shows that you weren't a poor driver
for the past ~50 years … but that doesn't really address
the point on your current proficiency level. Unfortunately,
we all become less sharp as we get older.

And your latest rates aren't really proof of if your insurance
company isn't taking notice. An elderly family member had
a rash of three claimed accidents within two years, with all
of them being "at fault" and including one in which the vehicle
was indeed totaled...nevertheless, because of ~50 year history
of no/low claims, their rates didn't go up a dime. After the
third accident within said two years, they gave up driving.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

It was your fault, Liarboy.

I was surprised, but I was smart enough not to declare it a wreck.

>
>>
>> What you did was show that you're an extremely poor driver and you
>> got lucky that it wasn't much worse.
>
> By your definition a single incident makes you an extremely poor
> driver. You are therefore an extremely poor driver. I think I'm about

Ummmm.... ....no.

Racing is a totally different activity than driving on the road.

On the road, the primary goal is to get where one is going without
incident. In racing, the goal is to win and to do that, one must push
the car hard.

But of all my racing incidents, only one was my fault.

> average. Three at fault incidents since 1964 and 3 speeding tickets,
> one for 65 in a 55. I've been with the same insurance company that
> entire time, 56 years, and never had rates increased due to accidents
> or my driving record. No violations other than speeding. If I was or
> am an extremely poor driver that would not have happened.

A low number of ticket in no way says anything about your ability as a
driver.

I'm at ZERO at fault incidents while actually driving on the roads
(onece, I DID get distracted while backing my brother's truck out of his
parking space when the radio suddenly turned on at full volume, and I
hit the fender of the car parked across the way).

>
> PS, the wife and at one time the kids, were also on that policy. Now
> that had me worried, especially the kids. I taught them well. Between
> the 2 only 1 accident, and that was on an icy road.
>

What about that incident you mentioned a couple of years ago in a
traffic circle (IIRC)? Oh, right: that was the accident your WIFE caused
by being in the wrong lane!

[Thomas E.]

Uh, in the traffic circle accident the wife was driving. I was in the passenger seat and we were on the way to a local hospital for my hernia surgery. Despite the accident and attendant delay the surgery still happened. The at-fault driver turned into our car. She was the one who was in the wrong lane and inattentive. When I turned around to see if she was OK she was talking on her cell phone. Go figure.

She has had one at-fault in about 20 years, and that was on a patch of glare ice at night. About average.

If I have 3 in 2 years I'll give it up too! Believe me when I say that I know age plays a role. Yet, on Tuesday, I went out with a flight instructor and flew 6 approaches (1 ILS, 1 VOR, 4 GPS) and 2 holds using all the bells and whistles in a G1000 C182-T. All went well. I'm now IFR current for 6 months.

[Thomas E.]

Wrong again Liarboy. We were in the straight-on or left turn inside lane. The at-fault driver was in the right turn or straight-on outside lane. She tried to make a left turn from her lane and ran into the right front fender of our car. Her insurance fixed our car, no questions asked.

[Alan Baker]

You said the other driver was overtaking you, and the basic rule of the
road is "kept right except to pass".

There was no reason for you to be in the left lane.

[Thomas E.]

Bullshit Liarboy. The left lane was for straight-on travel. The other driver had no business trying to turn left out of the right lane.

The accident report cited the other driver (vehicle 1) for improper lane use and the wife (vehicle 2) for no contributing circumstances. This after driver 1 admitted that she intended to turn left out of the wrong lane. Had driver 1 not be overtaking she would have passed safely behind us.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcUH-PGbyTAsfJS_nfqxiET314nCuy66/view?usp=sharing

Do you REALLY need a copy of our repair bill showing that Pekin Insurance, not our carrier Allstate, paid to fix our car?

I'm not going to share the paperwork with the other drivers information, including her address, phone and insurance. I will share the repair bill.

Is there any end to your need to lie? What else have you lied about, other than actually knowing enough about Windows to be paid to consult?

[Thomas E.]

Another way to look at it. You are on a 4 lane street stopped at a traffic light. You are in the left lane, another car in the right. You pull out to go straight. The car in the right lane makes a left turn, striking your car. Who is at fault?

[Thomas E.]

And here's where we were struck by the other car. Pay attention to the arrows painted on the road in several places.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10nKbaMTOYHuDhYeOqeyXkSE2SffRO2py/view?usp=sharing

Do you actually know anything rules of the road?

[Alan Baker]

Both lanes were for straight on travel.

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyr85vdk80ievrg/116th%20approaching%20Illinois.png?dl=0>

>
> The accident report cited the other driver (vehicle 1) for improper
> lane use and the wife (vehicle 2) for no contributing circumstances.
> This after driver 1 admitted that she intended to turn left out of
> the wrong lane. Had driver 1 not be overtaking she would have passed
> safely behind us.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcUH-PGbyTAsfJS_nfqxiET314nCuy66/view?usp=sharing
>
> Do you REALLY need a copy of our repair bill showing that Pekin
> Insurance, not our carrier Allstate, paid to fix our car?
>
> I'm not going to share the paperwork with the other drivers
> information, including her address, phone and insurance. I will share
> the repair bill.

And that will tell us what about the causes of the accident.

You DO admit that if you'd been in the right-hand lane there would have
been no accident, right?

>
> Is there any end to your need to lie? What else have you lied about,
> other than actually knowing enough about Windows to be paid to
> consult?

You were still supposed to be in the right lane, Liarboy.

'Indiana requires motorists to drive in the right lane, except when
overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction;'

<https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SLOWER-TRAFFIC-KEEP-RIGHT.pdf>

The fact that your wife wasn't cited for violating that regulation
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Alan Baker]

It's blackletter, Liarboy.

<https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SLOWER-TRAFFIC-KEEP-RIGHT.pdf>

[Alan Baker]

Indeed.

The arrows indicate that you could have proceed straight from the right
lane.

'Indiana requires motorists to drive in the right lane, except when

overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction;'

<https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SLOWER-TRAFFIC-KEEP-RIGHT.pdf>

[Thomas E.]

Not true, the lane markers are very clear. We were in the correct lane to go straight. In that situation we did not even know we were the slower traffic.

>
> 'Indiana requires motorists to drive in the right lane, except when
> overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
> direction;'
>

That is correct. The driver in the right lane was overtaking us. The left lane is for overtaking. She was in the wrong lane for overtaking, violating yet another ROW law in addition to the lane markings.

You are not supposed to pass on the right anywhere, but rude people do it.

Also, had the other driver obeyed the lane markings the accident would not have happened.

[Thomas E.]

You are citing a regulation that applies to highways. Indiana roundabout regulations are different. They clearly state that you can go straight through in either lane and that you are NOT to change lanes once in the circular. It says nothing about overtaking. PLEASE READ THE LAST SENTENCE!

https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SD_US421SR62HowtoDriveaRoundabout.pdf

Quotes:

A driver should use the same caution as approaching any yield sign.
Drivers must be prepared to stop and wait for a sufficient gap in the
circulating traffic before entering the roundabout. Vehicles already
inside the circulatory roadway have the right-of-way over vehicles entering the circulatory roadway.

Use the Following Precautions when Driving a Roundabout

» Slow down (most roundabouts can be safely traveled at about 15 mph).
» Make the appropriate lane choice prior to entering the roundabout. If you
want to turn left, stay left. If you want to turn right, stay right.
» When preparing to enter a roundabout, look to the left for traffic and yield to all traffic that is already circulating the roundabout.
» Once inside the roundabout, do not change lanes. If you are in the correct
lane, you will already be lined up with the correct exit.
» Avoid stopping in the roundabout. If you have to pull over for an emergency vehicle, continue to exit the roundabout, then pull over.

Through Movement

Through movements can be made from the right or left lanes. Pay attention to
signage and pavement markings that indicate which lanes have through movements. Remember to stay in your lane as you navigate through the roundabout.

Left-Turn Movement

Similar to a traditional intersection, left turn movements should only be made from the left lane. Drive in the left lane as you approach the roundabout, yield to circulating traffic, then proceed into
the roundabout to make the left turn. When you see your exit, you can continue straight out of the roundabout. Remember not to change lanes within the roundabout, and do not turn left if you are in the right lane.

[Alan Baker]

I agree, but if you had obeyed Indiana law and the lane markings the
accident would not have happened either.

You were in the wrong FIRST.

'Indiana requires motorists to drive in the right lane, except when
overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;'

By your own admission, you were not overtaking, so you should not have
been in the left lane, and your own image shows that going straight
through in the right lane was allowed.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but please cite the part of the law that states that "keep right"
only applies to highways.

You were in the left lane PRIOR to the roundabout.

[Thomas E.]

I will. It says enter the circular and stay in lane until ready to exit. We were in the left lane because there was a slower car that we passed as we entered the circular. That car turned right then the accident car caught up and hit us.