Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
When is a car accident really an "accident"?
29 views
Skip to first unread message
thekma...@gmail.com
Apr 29, 2013, 7:33:23 AM4/29/13
to
Is there a better term for some cases?
Harry K
Apr 29, 2013, 10:55:20 AM4/29/13
to
Ummm...one caused by a mechanical failure? Flat tire? But even those
could be
caused by poor maintenance.
Harry K
could be
caused by poor maintenance.
Harry K
T0m $herman
Apr 29, 2013, 7:58:52 PM4/29/13
to
Suicide.
The is a well known spot in SW Wisconsin, chosen for obvious reasons.
<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lone+rock,+wi&ll=43.163558,-90.194503&spn=0.001949,0.005284&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Lone+Rock,+Richland,+Wisconsin&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.163698,-90.194276&panoid=1_31oCSQNTmzdhdCIulzLg&cbp=12,196.16,,0,4.32>
--
T0m $herm@n
The is a well known spot in SW Wisconsin, chosen for obvious reasons.
<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lone+rock,+wi&ll=43.163558,-90.194503&spn=0.001949,0.005284&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Lone+Rock,+Richland,+Wisconsin&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.163698,-90.194276&panoid=1_31oCSQNTmzdhdCIulzLg&cbp=12,196.16,,0,4.32>
--
T0m $herm@n
Ashton Crusher
Apr 29, 2013, 8:15:20 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT), thekma...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Is there a better term for some cases?
The politically correct term these days is to call them "crashes". To
me any crash that you didn't intend to have is an accident. But the
PC crowd wants to make sure anyone who has an accident is suitably
beaten around the head for their poor driving and withholds the term
accident as if that somehow makes it willful. To the PC safety crowd
ALL crashes are preventable and no human should ever be let off the
hook for any failing (unless they are poor of course, then "we" are
all to blame for not paying to send them to drivers school). So if
you have a blow out and "crash" it's YOUR fault for driving on tires
that you*could* have replaced even if they are not technically worn
out.
wrote:
>Is there a better term for some cases?
me any crash that you didn't intend to have is an accident. But the
PC crowd wants to make sure anyone who has an accident is suitably
beaten around the head for their poor driving and withholds the term
accident as if that somehow makes it willful. To the PC safety crowd
ALL crashes are preventable and no human should ever be let off the
hook for any failing (unless they are poor of course, then "we" are
all to blame for not paying to send them to drivers school). So if
you have a blow out and "crash" it's YOUR fault for driving on tires
that you*could* have replaced even if they are not technically worn
out.
thekma...@gmail.com
May 1, 2013, 9:24:04 PM5/1/13
to
I'm referring to instances where.....
..Waiting one extra second after the light turned green prevented you from being T-boned by a red-light runner.
...Slowing down just a couple mph allowed you to negotiate that icey hair-pin turn exit off the parkway instead of skidding down a steep embankment and crashing and bursting into flames.
...Pulling into a parking lot to take that cellphone call instead of completing it on the road, so you didn't drift into the opposite traffic lanes - into the path an oncoming bus.
...Waiting at a 4-way stop sign when it really was your turn, saved you from being followed by an angry roadrager to your house.
I don't call those things "accidents".
..Waiting one extra second after the light turned green prevented you from being T-boned by a red-light runner.
...Slowing down just a couple mph allowed you to negotiate that icey hair-pin turn exit off the parkway instead of skidding down a steep embankment and crashing and bursting into flames.
...Pulling into a parking lot to take that cellphone call instead of completing it on the road, so you didn't drift into the opposite traffic lanes - into the path an oncoming bus.
...Waiting at a 4-way stop sign when it really was your turn, saved you from being followed by an angry roadrager to your house.
I don't call those things "accidents".
Peter Lawrence
May 2, 2013, 12:53:41 AM5/2/13
to
Collision?
- Peter
- Peter
Ashton Crusher
May 2, 2013, 5:08:15 PM5/2/13
to
nothing happened - accidents were avoided.
So I guess I don't understand the point of your question.
thekma...@gmail.com
May 2, 2013, 9:23:14 PM5/2/13
to
Ashton:
My point is, if those actions in those examples were not taken, would the outcomes(being T-boned by a redlight runner, etc) be considered "accidents" or simply "crashes"?
My point is, if those actions in those examples were not taken, would the outcomes(being T-boned by a redlight runner, etc) be considered "accidents" or simply "crashes"?
gpsman
May 3, 2013, 11:06:38 AM5/3/13
to
On Apr 29, 8:15 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT), thekmanro...@gmail.com
used term accident is considered unsuitable for technical use. -
Accident conveys a sense that the losses are due exclusively to fate.
Perhaps this is what gives accident its most potent appeal - the sense
that it exonerates participants from responsibility. Accident also
conveys a sense that losses are devoid of predictability.
Yet the purpose of studying safety is to examine factors that
influence the likelihood of occurrence and the resulting harm from
crashes.
Some crashes are purposeful acts for which the term accident would be
inappropriate even in popular use. At least a few percent (perhaps as
much as 5%) of driver fatalities are suicides.There is a body of
evidence that media reports of suicide generate copycat suicides,
including by motor vehicle, which provides the most socially
acceptable and readily available means.<>
There is ongoing discontinuance of the word accident. In 2001 the
British Medical Journal prohibited the use of the term in its
publications, and in 1999 the NHTSA renamed various data files. For
example, the former Fatal Accident Reporting System had its name
changed to the present Fatality Analysis Reporting System, thus
preserving the acronym FARS. The traffic engineering profession is
proving a slower learner on this matter.</q>
- Leonard Evans, Traffic Safety, 2004
> To
> me any crash that you didn't intend to have is an accident.
That apparently common logic dispenses with any "duty of care".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care
-----
- gpsman
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT), thekmanro...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Is there a better term for some cases?
>
> The politically correct term these days is to call them "crashes".
<q>A vehicle striking anything is referred to as a crash. The widely
>
> >Is there a better term for some cases?
>
> The politically correct term these days is to call them "crashes".
used term accident is considered unsuitable for technical use. -
Accident conveys a sense that the losses are due exclusively to fate.
Perhaps this is what gives accident its most potent appeal - the sense
that it exonerates participants from responsibility. Accident also
conveys a sense that losses are devoid of predictability.
Yet the purpose of studying safety is to examine factors that
influence the likelihood of occurrence and the resulting harm from
crashes.
Some crashes are purposeful acts for which the term accident would be
inappropriate even in popular use. At least a few percent (perhaps as
much as 5%) of driver fatalities are suicides.There is a body of
evidence that media reports of suicide generate copycat suicides,
including by motor vehicle, which provides the most socially
acceptable and readily available means.<>
There is ongoing discontinuance of the word accident. In 2001 the
British Medical Journal prohibited the use of the term in its
publications, and in 1999 the NHTSA renamed various data files. For
example, the former Fatal Accident Reporting System had its name
changed to the present Fatality Analysis Reporting System, thus
preserving the acronym FARS. The traffic engineering profession is
proving a slower learner on this matter.</q>
- Leonard Evans, Traffic Safety, 2004
> To
> me any crash that you didn't intend to have is an accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care
-----
- gpsman
Ashton Crusher
May 3, 2013, 6:56:02 PM5/3/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT), thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>Ashton:
>
>My point is, if those actions in those examples were not taken, would the outcomes(being T-boned by a redlight runner, etc) be considered "accidents" or simply "crashes"?
>Ashton:
>
>My point is, if those actions in those examples were not taken, would the outcomes(being T-boned by a redlight runner, etc) be considered "accidents" or simply "crashes"?
..Waiting one extra second after the light turned green prevented you
from being T-boned by a red-light runner.
that's an accident for the guy with the green and a crash for the guy
from being T-boned by a red-light runner.
with the red
...Slowing down just a couple mph allowed you to negotiate that icy
hair-pin turn exit off the parkway instead of skidding down a steep
embankment and crashing and bursting into flames.
This is where it starts to get into the PC territory. Some people
embankment and crashing and bursting into flames.
would say it's a crash because "they didn't slow down enough". Others
would say it's an accident because it was pretty much the same as
other times where they didn't skid and no one can be expected to
always judge everything perfectly. To satisfy people like that you
would have to somehow always drive slow enough to never skid yet
always drive fast enough to not become a hazard to those behind you.
...Pulling into a parking lot to take that cellphone call instead of
completing it on the road, so you didn't drift into the opposite
traffic lanes - into the path an oncoming bus.
matter what the reason (unless it was to avoid the locomotive in your
own lane) is pretty much always a crash.
...Waiting at a 4-way stop sign when it really was your turn, saved
you from being followed by an angry roadrager to your house.
accident, more of an altercation.
The real solution as far as book keeping is to just call em all
crashes OR accidents and in the report list the ostensible cause.
T0m $herman
May 3, 2013, 8:08:46 PM5/3/13
to
On 4/29/2013 6:33 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a better term for some cases?
>
Excessive deceleration.
>
--
T0m $herm@n
thekma...@gmail.com
May 4, 2013, 11:56:31 AM5/4/13
to
For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or prudence could avoid.
If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
T0m $herman
May 4, 2013, 8:22:15 PM5/4/13
to
On 5/4/2013 10:56 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
>
Does driving on an elevated highway or bridge that collapses (e.g. 1989
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
>
Loma Prieta earthquake, I-35 Mississippi River bridge) count as an accident?
--
T0m $herm@n
Ashton Crusher
May 4, 2013, 10:04:49 PM5/4/13
to
driven faster so you were past the collapsed area before it collapsed,
or to have driven slower so that it collapsed before you got there and
could therefore avoid it. You also had the option to fly instead of
drive. Accidents are like pornography, you know them when you see
them. Trying to come up with ironclad rules ahead of time is a fools
errand.
thekma...@gmail.com
May 5, 2013, 8:30:54 AM5/5/13
to
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 8:22:15 PM UTC-4, T0m $herman wrote:
___________________
No.
That's a disaster!
No.
That's a disaster!
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
May 28, 2013, 1:55:55 AM5/28/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fe3d483-97c7-4e92...@googlegroups.com...
forced evasive move situation--as opposed to a deliberate collision due to
bullying on the road.
Example #1: a driver making a lane change--with their mirrors not in BGE
position among other factors--fails to judge oncoming vehicles in the next
lane and collides with them. This is accidental because they did not intend
to hit the other vehicle. The deliberate case would be specifically noting
the oncoming vehicle and deliberately cutting them off. The former would end
up being a sideswipe type of collision. The latter would end up being a rear
end collision.
Example #2: a lane reduction. Driver #1 is in front of driver #2 as the lane
reduction starts to end. Driver #1 checks mirrors and looks over the
shoulder and sees driver #2 is still behind them. Driver #2 decides to be an
idiot and speeds up to pass driver #1. If driver #1 did not take immediately
evasive action and got hit by driver #2, then driver #1 had an accidental
collision. Driver #2 is totally at fault. Don't follow any closer than a 2
to 3 second gap even with traction control or ABS.
Example #3: a collision type merge. Driver #1 is keeping as close a gap as
possible to prevent vehicles from entering. Driver #2 is merging and
attempting to enter. Driver #3 is in front of driver #1. Driver #2 has to
speed up just as the gap in front of driver #1 opens up, but ends up
rear-ending driver #3. This is a common problem with collision style merges
as opposed to added lane merges. Still, driver #2 had an accidental
collision because their intent was to enter, not deliberately hit driver #3.
But get this--the yellow warning sign for thru traffic that there is merging
traffic is NOT an indicator sign to close gaps and block out traffic;
therefore, driver #1 should be partially at fault for causing the situation
where driver #2 ended up rear-ending driver #3.
Compare vs. something like this:
Driver #1 is in the leftmost lane and driving at the speed limit. Driver #2
tailgates driver #1. Driver #1 brake checks to get driver #2 to back off.
Driver #2 follows even more closely, already on the verge of an imminent
collision. Driver #1 needs to stop, for example, due to a traffic jam up
ahead. Driver #2 rear-ends them. Driver #2 had an at fault collision and it
was not accidental since they were bullying driver #1 to make them go faster
or change lanes.
Hope that helps explain, IMHO, when a car collision is really an "accident".
news:2fe3d483-97c7-4e92...@googlegroups.com...
> Is there a better term for some cases?
It's an accidental collision--generally due to a lapse in concentration or a
forced evasive move situation--as opposed to a deliberate collision due to
bullying on the road.
Example #1: a driver making a lane change--with their mirrors not in BGE
position among other factors--fails to judge oncoming vehicles in the next
lane and collides with them. This is accidental because they did not intend
to hit the other vehicle. The deliberate case would be specifically noting
the oncoming vehicle and deliberately cutting them off. The former would end
up being a sideswipe type of collision. The latter would end up being a rear
end collision.
Example #2: a lane reduction. Driver #1 is in front of driver #2 as the lane
reduction starts to end. Driver #1 checks mirrors and looks over the
shoulder and sees driver #2 is still behind them. Driver #2 decides to be an
idiot and speeds up to pass driver #1. If driver #1 did not take immediately
evasive action and got hit by driver #2, then driver #1 had an accidental
collision. Driver #2 is totally at fault. Don't follow any closer than a 2
to 3 second gap even with traction control or ABS.
Example #3: a collision type merge. Driver #1 is keeping as close a gap as
possible to prevent vehicles from entering. Driver #2 is merging and
attempting to enter. Driver #3 is in front of driver #1. Driver #2 has to
speed up just as the gap in front of driver #1 opens up, but ends up
rear-ending driver #3. This is a common problem with collision style merges
as opposed to added lane merges. Still, driver #2 had an accidental
collision because their intent was to enter, not deliberately hit driver #3.
But get this--the yellow warning sign for thru traffic that there is merging
traffic is NOT an indicator sign to close gaps and block out traffic;
therefore, driver #1 should be partially at fault for causing the situation
where driver #2 ended up rear-ending driver #3.
Compare vs. something like this:
Driver #1 is in the leftmost lane and driving at the speed limit. Driver #2
tailgates driver #1. Driver #1 brake checks to get driver #2 to back off.
Driver #2 follows even more closely, already on the verge of an imminent
collision. Driver #1 needs to stop, for example, due to a traffic jam up
ahead. Driver #2 rear-ends them. Driver #2 had an at fault collision and it
was not accidental since they were bullying driver #1 to make them go faster
or change lanes.
Hope that helps explain, IMHO, when a car collision is really an "accident".
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
May 28, 2013, 1:59:25 AM5/28/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ad2244-4c1b-4fc8...@googlegroups.com...
Driver #2, doing the T-bone collision to driver #1, is driving unsafely;
therefore it would be an at-fault collision for driver #2, not an accident.
In other words, it would be a crash.
news:44ad2244-4c1b-4fc8...@googlegroups.com...
therefore it would be an at-fault collision for driver #2, not an accident.
In other words, it would be a crash.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
May 28, 2013, 2:11:32 AM5/28/13
to
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:plf8o8djq1a82el2s...@4ax.com...
[snip...]
> The real solution as far as book keeping is to just call em all
> crashes OR accidents and in the report list the ostensible cause.
That is why--in the case of the State of California--I keep something like 3
copies of DMV form SR-1 in the vehicle. Just in case more than one driver
ends up colliding with me.
See, in the event of a collision, I am not going to establish fault. But I
need to collect all the relevant collision information from the driver(s)
and provide it as well to the driver(s)--as is required when a collision
occurred. Form SR-1 gives me all the required information fields on the form
so I don't go from memory and miss some information, even if filling it out
is just an initial draft.
If the collision is estimated to be over $750 in damage, or there are any
injuries no matter how slight, I will contact the police as required.
Then I am going to contact my insurance agent, to inform them of the
collision.
It has also been suggested to me to have available a few towing company
numbers, should my vehicle need to be towed.
At that point, if I need to officially file form SR-1 to the DMV, then I
have all the information collected to fill out the form officially and mail
it to the DMV within the required 10 days.
Then the insurance companies will take their next steps to determine fault,
actual damages, body shops available if the vehicle is not a total loss,
etc.
As I further understand it, some insurance companies waive the deductible if
their insured driver was not at fault.
Actual process may vary from state to state, and even country to country.
news:plf8o8djq1a82el2s...@4ax.com...
[snip...]
> The real solution as far as book keeping is to just call em all
> crashes OR accidents and in the report list the ostensible cause.
copies of DMV form SR-1 in the vehicle. Just in case more than one driver
ends up colliding with me.
See, in the event of a collision, I am not going to establish fault. But I
need to collect all the relevant collision information from the driver(s)
and provide it as well to the driver(s)--as is required when a collision
occurred. Form SR-1 gives me all the required information fields on the form
so I don't go from memory and miss some information, even if filling it out
is just an initial draft.
If the collision is estimated to be over $750 in damage, or there are any
injuries no matter how slight, I will contact the police as required.
Then I am going to contact my insurance agent, to inform them of the
collision.
It has also been suggested to me to have available a few towing company
numbers, should my vehicle need to be towed.
At that point, if I need to officially file form SR-1 to the DMV, then I
have all the information collected to fill out the form officially and mail
it to the DMV within the required 10 days.
Then the insurance companies will take their next steps to determine fault,
actual damages, body shops available if the vehicle is not a total loss,
etc.
As I further understand it, some insurance companies waive the deductible if
their insured driver was not at fault.
Actual process may vary from state to state, and even country to country.
N8N
May 29, 2013, 11:06:26 AM5/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 8:15 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT), thekmanro...@gmail.com
consider my mindset to be definitely anti-PC.
Most crashes are not "accidents" at all but are preventable and have
one or more discernable root causes, be it driver inattention,
mechanical failure that gave warning beforehand, etc.
Unfortunately I see driver behavior that could contribute to a crash
nearly every time I get behind the wheel and it is only through the
actions of myself or another alert motorist that a crash does not
result (lack of signaling, failure to yield right of way, etc.) So I
don't really have much sympathy for those who *do* crash and I feel
that we are far too easy on many of them.
N8N
May 29, 2013, 11:08:09 AM5/29/13
to
On May 4, 11:56 am, thekmanro...@gmail.com wrote:
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
I agree with this post. "accident" seems to be a word used by those
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive outcome.
who don't wish to take responsibility for their actions.
"I wrecked my car" is much more pejorative, and yet in most instances
more accurate than "I was involved in an accident." However the
former is a much rarer utterance than the latter.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
May 30, 2013, 1:19:09 AM5/30/13
to
"N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f98b9f6-39fe-4c9a...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane they are
changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get hit), that is
intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an accident. However,
if they do not intend to force someone out of the lane, and they use the
mirrors and over-the-shoulder glance but misjudge the lane change--a
collision occurs is an "accident". And that is only one example.
"I wrecked my car" is much more pejorative, and yet in most instances
more accurate than "I was involved in an accident." However the
former is a much rarer utterance than the latter.
*** I usually associate "wrecking" the car with the vehicle being a total
loss.
news:8f98b9f6-39fe-4c9a...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 11:56 am, thekmanro...@gmail.com wrote:
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or
> prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative
> measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as
> "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive
> outcome.
I agree with this post. "accident" seems to be a word used by those
who don't wish to take responsibility for their actions.
*** As I said in my previous post, an "accident" is unintentional. I mean,
> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or
> prudence could avoid.
>
> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative
> measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as
> "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a positive
> outcome.
I agree with this post. "accident" seems to be a word used by those
who don't wish to take responsibility for their actions.
if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane they are
changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get hit), that is
intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an accident. However,
if they do not intend to force someone out of the lane, and they use the
mirrors and over-the-shoulder glance but misjudge the lane change--a
collision occurs is an "accident". And that is only one example.
"I wrecked my car" is much more pejorative, and yet in most instances
more accurate than "I was involved in an accident." However the
former is a much rarer utterance than the latter.
loss.
Nate Nagel
May 30, 2013, 5:16:43 PM5/30/13
to
On 05/30/2013 01:19 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f98b9f6-39fe-4c9a...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 11:56 am, thekmanro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or
>> prudence could avoid.
>>
>> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative
>> measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as
>> "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a
>> positive outcome.
>
> I agree with this post. "accident" seems to be a word used by those
> who don't wish to take responsibility for their actions.
>
> *** As I said in my previous post, an "accident" is unintentional. I
> mean, if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane
> they are changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get
> hit), that is intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an
> accident. However, if they do not intend to force someone out of the
> lane, and they use the mirrors and over-the-shoulder glance but misjudge
> the lane change--a collision occurs is an "accident". And that is only
> one example.
>
But that's still not an "accident." Misjudging a lane change is
> "N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f98b9f6-39fe-4c9a...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 11:56 am, thekmanro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> For me, an "accident" is something that no amount of prevention or
>> prudence could avoid.
>>
>> If the events in my examples did happen - that is, the preventative
>> measures I listed were not taken - none of them would qualify as
>> "accidents", because in every case there were options to create a
>> positive outcome.
>
> I agree with this post. "accident" seems to be a word used by those
> who don't wish to take responsibility for their actions.
>
> *** As I said in my previous post, an "accident" is unintentional. I
> mean, if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane
> they are changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get
> hit), that is intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an
> accident. However, if they do not intend to force someone out of the
> lane, and they use the mirrors and over-the-shoulder glance but misjudge
> the lane change--a collision occurs is an "accident". And that is only
> one example.
>
negligent behavior and there's at least one definable cause of the
incident, well, actually at least two (one, the person who initiated the
unsafe maneuver and two, the person who failed to react to it to avoid
the collision.)
Far more likely however is someone who doesn't signal, doesn't shoulder
check, and has his/her mirrors adjusted such that there are blind spots
and therefore a shoulder check is required but expects others to make
way for him/her anyway.
> "I wrecked my car" is much more pejorative, and yet in most instances
> more accurate than "I was involved in an accident." However the
> former is a much rarer utterance than the latter.
>
> *** I usually associate "wrecking" the car with the vehicle being a
> total loss.
a word used by those who wish to avoid accepting responsibility.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
T0m $herman
Jun 2, 2013, 10:43:38 AM6/2/13
to
On 5/30/2013 12:19 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> *** As I said in my previous post, an "accident" is unintentional. I
> mean, if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane
> they are changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get
> hit), that is intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an
> accident.
In Chicagoland it is common for people to try to prevent you from being
> *** As I said in my previous post, an "accident" is unintentional. I
> mean, if someone deliberately wants to force out someone in the lane
> they are changing to (i.e., get them out of that lane or they will get
> hit), that is intentional unsafe driving, and any collision is not an
> accident.
able to change lanes on purpose - as soon as you signal a turn, they
close up the gap. Moving over on these people as if you did not see
them gives them a dose of their own medicine. Of course, it is best to
not actually hit them, but just give them the impression that you might.
"Defensive driving" means letting the MiFfY's win.
--
T0m $herm@n
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 3, 2013, 8:06:02 AM6/3/13
to
Tom $: "In Chicagoland it is common for people to try to prevent you from being able to change lanes on purpose - as soon as you signal a turn, they
I've been driving BGE now for over 10 years and would feel completely vulnerable without it. Now if only we could get the manufacturers to stop thinking they're eliminating "blind spots" by moving the side mirrors further and further out from the damn A-pillars! smh...
close up the gap. Moving over on these people as if you did not see "
Sounds like driving with a BGE mirror setup is a must in that mental ward! lol
I've been driving BGE now for over 10 years and would feel completely vulnerable without it. Now if only we could get the manufacturers to stop thinking they're eliminating "blind spots" by moving the side mirrors further and further out from the damn A-pillars! smh...
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 3, 2013, 9:38:04 AM6/3/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d315054b-652f-44c6...@googlegroups.com...
motorcycles. I don't think everyone knows about BGE because it's probably
not enforced during driver's education. Still others find it too confusing
and will simply not use BGE.
I've been driving BGE now for over 10 years and would feel completely
vulnerable without it. Now if only we could get the manufacturers to stop
thinking they're eliminating "blind spots" by moving the side mirrors
further and further out from the damn A-pillars! smh...
*** What this does is it makes it so that two headlights in the side mirror
does not always mean cutting off the other driver's vehicle at lower
bumper-to-bumper speeds, where a lane change or merge would occur, unless
those two headlights are closer in proximity in the side mirror. When that
driver closes the gap to block the merge or lane change, they make it
difficult to get into a gap large enough to have one headlight in the side
mirror and one headlight in the rearview mirror.
news:d315054b-652f-44c6...@googlegroups.com...
Tom $: "In Chicagoland it is common for people to try to prevent you from
being able to change lanes on purpose - as soon as you signal a turn, they
close up the gap. Moving over on these people as if you did not see "
Sounds like driving with a BGE mirror setup is a must in that mental ward!
lol
*** I also use BGE mirror setup, there isn't any blind spot even for
being able to change lanes on purpose - as soon as you signal a turn, they
close up the gap. Moving over on these people as if you did not see "
Sounds like driving with a BGE mirror setup is a must in that mental ward!
lol
motorcycles. I don't think everyone knows about BGE because it's probably
not enforced during driver's education. Still others find it too confusing
and will simply not use BGE.
I've been driving BGE now for over 10 years and would feel completely
vulnerable without it. Now if only we could get the manufacturers to stop
thinking they're eliminating "blind spots" by moving the side mirrors
further and further out from the damn A-pillars! smh...
does not always mean cutting off the other driver's vehicle at lower
bumper-to-bumper speeds, where a lane change or merge would occur, unless
those two headlights are closer in proximity in the side mirror. When that
driver closes the gap to block the merge or lane change, they make it
difficult to get into a gap large enough to have one headlight in the side
mirror and one headlight in the rearview mirror.
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 10:08:09 AM6/4/13
to
Daniel R Jr.: "*** What this does is it makes it so that two headlights in the side mirror
does not always mean cutting off the other driver's vehicle at lower
bumper-to-bumper speeds, where a lane change or merge would occur, unless "
By "what this does" do you mean, what BGE accomplishes, or, moving sideview mirrors out further from the vehicle?
bumper-to-bumper speeds, where a lane change or merge would occur, unless "
Nate Nagel
Jun 4, 2013, 10:17:50 AM6/4/13
to
wide-angle mirror glasses that actually get more convex as you go away
from the A-pillar. There's a dotted line on the glass marking the
transition from less to more convexity.
When I got my latest car I was actually a little annoyed with the
mirrors because they were a very stylish shape but seemed a little on
the small side, I could never get them adjusted so that I felt 100%
comfortable with them. Now with the convex mirror glasses in I see why
the stylists felt comfortable making them so small - they're more than
adequate.
Difficulty: they're not legal for sale on new motor vehicles in the US,
so you have to drive a car that is sold in Europe and offered with
convex glass (I know that at least VW and BMW offer them; I would assume
that M-B and Audi do as well but have not checked) and also at least in
my case I had to part with a couple Benjamins as the mirrors are also
electrochromic and heated (although the heat feature I also appreciate
in the wintertime, or on dewy mornings.) They're extortionately
expensive through US based online "tuners" but if you can find the
factory part numbers at least mine I was able to find at about 1/3 the
price through an overseas eBay seller, and they are indistinguishable
from new.
Message has been deleted
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 8:33:40 PM6/4/13
to
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:17:50 AM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> What has totally eliminated blind spots for me is the European
>
> wide-angle mirror glasses that actually get more convex as you go away
>
> from the A-pillar. There's a dotted line on the glass marking the
>
> transition from less to more convexity.
>
>
>
> When I got my latest car I was actually a little annoyed with the
>
> mirrors because they were a very stylish shape but seemed a little on
>
> the small side, I could never get them adjusted so that I felt 100%
>
> comfortable with them. Now with the convex mirror glasses in I see why
>
> the stylists felt comfortable making them so small - they're more than
>
> adequate.
>
>
>
> Difficulty: they're not legal for sale on new motor vehicles in the US,
>
> so you have to drive a car that is sold in Europe and offered with
>
> convex glass (I know that at least VW and BMW offer them; I would assume
>
> that M-B and Audi do as well but have not checked) and also at least in
>
> my case I had to part with a couple Benjamins as the mirrors are also
>
> electrochromic and heated (although the heat feature I also appreciate
>
> in the wintertime, or on dewy mornings.) They're extortionately
>
> expensive through US based online "tuners" but if you can find the
>
> factory part numbers at least mine I was able to find at about 1/3 the
>
> price through an overseas eBay seller, and they are indistinguishable
>
> from new.
>
>
>
> nate
>
___________________
>
>
> What has totally eliminated blind spots for me is the European
>
> wide-angle mirror glasses that actually get more convex as you go away
>
> from the A-pillar. There's a dotted line on the glass marking the
>
> transition from less to more convexity.
>
>
>
> When I got my latest car I was actually a little annoyed with the
>
> mirrors because they were a very stylish shape but seemed a little on
>
> the small side, I could never get them adjusted so that I felt 100%
>
> comfortable with them. Now with the convex mirror glasses in I see why
>
> the stylists felt comfortable making them so small - they're more than
>
> adequate.
>
>
>
> Difficulty: they're not legal for sale on new motor vehicles in the US,
>
> so you have to drive a car that is sold in Europe and offered with
>
> convex glass (I know that at least VW and BMW offer them; I would assume
>
> that M-B and Audi do as well but have not checked) and also at least in
>
> my case I had to part with a couple Benjamins as the mirrors are also
>
> electrochromic and heated (although the heat feature I also appreciate
>
> in the wintertime, or on dewy mornings.) They're extortionately
>
> expensive through US based online "tuners" but if you can find the
>
> factory part numbers at least mine I was able to find at about 1/3 the
>
> price through an overseas eBay seller, and they are indistinguishable
>
> from new.
>
>
>
> nate
>
Ain't living in America great Nate? ;)
We gotta work our asses off and pay through the nose for what is just expected on cars in Europe and/or other regions.
Well, glad to know we are onboard with BGE. Hope it spreads more here in the States.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 5, 2013, 2:24:00 AM6/5/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dc0009c-32d9-48c5...@googlegroups.com...
Using BGE, you see two headlights in the side mirror, not safe to merge or
change lanes, right? Even in a traffic jam. That's with the "normal" mirror
design.
However, using BGE and the mirrors further out from the A-pillars by design:
two headlights in the rearview mirror but not quite one headlight in the
rearview mirror--and also not approaching any further--DOES mean one can
merge or change lanes in a traffic jam as long as the gap doesn't close up.
news:4dc0009c-32d9-48c5...@googlegroups.com...
change lanes, right? Even in a traffic jam. That's with the "normal" mirror
design.
However, using BGE and the mirrors further out from the A-pillars by design:
two headlights in the rearview mirror but not quite one headlight in the
rearview mirror--and also not approaching any further--DOES mean one can
merge or change lanes in a traffic jam as long as the gap doesn't close up.
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 7:16:04 AM6/5/13
to
Daniel Rouse Jr:
In my experience, BGE has become harder to achieve the further from the A-pillars mfgs place the side mirrors.
In my current car, I lost an entire BOX TRUCK between the rearview and my left side-view mirror when attempting to merge into the center lane of I-95 a few months ago! Boy did I get an earful of horn.
This is the design issue I've been bringing up on here and elsewhere, about side mirror placement closer to the driver's and passenger side window glass and as far forward of the driver's position(so driver does not have to turn head as much). My best BGE experience was with my 1996 Ford Contour - as I recall only 1 inch gap between the inside edge of the mirror glass and the side-window glass.
And having mirrors that fold for tight quarters is no excuse: Several 1980s model Mercedes and Volvos had folding mirrors yet very close to the side window glass on both sides.
If you can get BGE to work in current models, good for you. You are probably tall enough where you have to sit back far enough from all mirrors to see everything seamlessly in them.
In my experience, BGE has become harder to achieve the further from the A-pillars mfgs place the side mirrors.
In my current car, I lost an entire BOX TRUCK between the rearview and my left side-view mirror when attempting to merge into the center lane of I-95 a few months ago! Boy did I get an earful of horn.
This is the design issue I've been bringing up on here and elsewhere, about side mirror placement closer to the driver's and passenger side window glass and as far forward of the driver's position(so driver does not have to turn head as much). My best BGE experience was with my 1996 Ford Contour - as I recall only 1 inch gap between the inside edge of the mirror glass and the side-window glass.
And having mirrors that fold for tight quarters is no excuse: Several 1980s model Mercedes and Volvos had folding mirrors yet very close to the side window glass on both sides.
If you can get BGE to work in current models, good for you. You are probably tall enough where you have to sit back far enough from all mirrors to see everything seamlessly in them.
Harry K
Jun 5, 2013, 10:43:36 AM6/5/13
to
demagnifying passenger side mirrors - no clue _where_ that car is and
I still have to do a headcheck.
Harry K
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 6, 2013, 1:39:25 AM6/6/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa928635-ba77-433f...@googlegroups.com...
from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and look
in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if I
had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the driver's
seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is adjusted
so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear door
of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
This is the design issue I've been bringing up on here and elsewhere, about
side mirror placement closer to the driver's and passenger side window glass
and as far forward of the driver's position(so driver does not have to turn
head as much). My best BGE experience was with my 1996 Ford Contour - as I
recall only 1 inch gap between the inside edge of the mirror glass and the
side-window glass.
*** I think the more distance away design is to allow drivers to set mirrors
to the wrong position and still have less of a blind spot. That they see two
headlights in the side mirror even before the vehicle is out of the vision
of the rearview mirror. Still annoying, and makes it actually look like the
vehicle is closer than it really is. I prefer the BGE setting of the side
mirrors.
And having mirrors that fold for tight quarters is no excuse: Several 1980s
model Mercedes and Volvos had folding mirrors yet very close to the side
window glass on both sides.
If you can get BGE to work in current models, good for you. You are probably
tall enough where you have to sit back far enough from all mirrors to see
everything seamlessly in them.
*** Actually, I sit closer to the steering wheel and pedals so I have more
of an upright driving position. I still got BGE to work. Even with the right
side mirror that says "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear".
news:aa928635-ba77-433f...@googlegroups.com...
Daniel Rouse Jr:
In my experience, BGE has become harder to achieve the further from the
A-pillars mfgs place the side mirrors.
In my current car, I lost an entire BOX TRUCK between the rearview and my
left side-view mirror when attempting to merge into the center lane of I-95
a few months ago! Boy did I get an earful of horn.
*** Those mirrors were turned too far out. The more away the mirrors are
In my experience, BGE has become harder to achieve the further from the
A-pillars mfgs place the side mirrors.
In my current car, I lost an entire BOX TRUCK between the rearview and my
left side-view mirror when attempting to merge into the center lane of I-95
a few months ago! Boy did I get an earful of horn.
from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and look
in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if I
had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the driver's
seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is adjusted
so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear door
of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
This is the design issue I've been bringing up on here and elsewhere, about
side mirror placement closer to the driver's and passenger side window glass
and as far forward of the driver's position(so driver does not have to turn
head as much). My best BGE experience was with my 1996 Ford Contour - as I
recall only 1 inch gap between the inside edge of the mirror glass and the
side-window glass.
to the wrong position and still have less of a blind spot. That they see two
headlights in the side mirror even before the vehicle is out of the vision
of the rearview mirror. Still annoying, and makes it actually look like the
vehicle is closer than it really is. I prefer the BGE setting of the side
mirrors.
And having mirrors that fold for tight quarters is no excuse: Several 1980s
model Mercedes and Volvos had folding mirrors yet very close to the side
window glass on both sides.
If you can get BGE to work in current models, good for you. You are probably
tall enough where you have to sit back far enough from all mirrors to see
everything seamlessly in them.
of an upright driving position. I still got BGE to work. Even with the right
side mirror that says "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear".
Arif Khokar
Jun 6, 2013, 2:07:01 AM6/6/13
to
I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard manner.
Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts
(putting your head against the driver's side window for the driver's
side mirror and putting your head directly in line with the rearview
mirror for the passenger side mirror).
After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of view
of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require that
you adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than you did
when having your head against the driver's side window.
I usually do this by either having another person behind the car, or
positioning the car besides another vehicle in such a way that I can
determine if there's a gap or significant overlap between the rearview
and drivers side mirrors..
Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts
(putting your head against the driver's side window for the driver's
side mirror and putting your head directly in line with the rearview
mirror for the passenger side mirror).
After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of view
of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require that
you adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than you did
when having your head against the driver's side window.
I usually do this by either having another person behind the car, or
positioning the car besides another vehicle in such a way that I can
determine if there's a gap or significant overlap between the rearview
and drivers side mirrors..
Message has been deleted
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2013, 7:38:46 AM6/6/13
to
I set up BGE in a real-world environment - the road itself.
I'm in the center lane of a highway where traffic is light and I'm able to pace a car first on my left and then one on my right. I call it "splitting" the vehicle that is behind my position alongside me.
I tried using the leaning method both of you described, but I lose too many vehicles between the rearview and especially the left(flat) sideview mirrors in my 2008 Kia Optima.
This did NOT happen with the Ford because the sideviews in that car were barely one inch out from the side window glass.
And this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard:
"*** I think the more distance away design is to allow drivers to set mirrors
to the wrong position and still have less of a blind spot. That they see two
headlights in the side mirror even before the vehicle is out of the vision
of the rearview mirror."
I don't need some manufacturer(Asian or domestic) forcing me to have to use some form of "American Style"(three rear-views) mirror setting!
And yes Daniel, I do find the furthest back I can safely sit behind the wheel, the more of a traditional BGE setup(more like the EUROPEAN-inspired Contour/Mondeo) I can acchieve.
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2013, 7:44:58 AM6/6/13
to
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:39:25 AM UTC-4, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>
> *** Those mirrors were turned too far out. The more away the mirrors are
>
> from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
>
> mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and look
>
> in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if I
>
> had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the driver's
>
> seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
>
> vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is adjusted
>
> so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
>
> passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear door
>
> of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
>
_______________
>
>
> *** Those mirrors were turned too far out. The more away the mirrors are
>
> from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
>
> mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and look
>
> in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if I
>
> had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the driver's
>
> seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
>
> vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is adjusted
>
> so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
>
> passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear door
>
> of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
>
This sounds like splitting hairs Daniel, and is very confusing! (At least the way it is written).
So if I lean over until my head is touching my driver's side window glass, exactly HOW MUCH of my own car should I adjust my driver's sideview mirror to see in it??
And likewise how much of my car should I see when I position my head over my center console, in the pax-sideview mirror??
The rear bumper?, the whole trunk?
Again, I did not have to go through this with any 1990's era car I have driven, so enlighten me before I go out and retrograde my driving status - that is - a visit to the local used car lot. :)
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 7, 2013, 12:54:10 AM6/7/13
to
"Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
> Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
> following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts (putting
> your head against the driver's side window for the driver's side mirror
> and putting your head directly in line with the rearview mirror for the
> passenger side mirror).
>
Sometimes that is way too far out.
> After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
> eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of view
> of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require that you
> adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than you did when
> having your head against the driver's side window.
>
The adjustment is often not just a small incremental adjustment of the
mirrors.
> I usually do this by either having another person behind the car, or
> positioning the car besides another vehicle in such a way that I can
> determine if there's a gap or significant overlap between the rearview and
> drivers side mirrors..
I prefer the second method.
news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
>I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard manner.
>
If they stop posting through Google Groups that messes up quoting replies in
>
other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
> Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
> following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts (putting
> your head against the driver's side window for the driver's side mirror
> and putting your head directly in line with the rearview mirror for the
> passenger side mirror).
>
> After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
> eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of view
> of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require that you
> adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than you did when
> having your head against the driver's side window.
>
mirrors.
> I usually do this by either having another person behind the car, or
> positioning the car besides another vehicle in such a way that I can
> determine if there's a gap or significant overlap between the rearview and
> drivers side mirrors..
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 7, 2013, 1:01:41 AM6/7/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19925a55-cf0a-4df4...@googlegroups.com...
I had the chance to test drive a Nissan Versa. The mirrors are away from the
A-pillars. The usual guidelines for BGE put the left mirror way too far out.
I had to position my left side mirror so that--with my head against the
driver's side window and looking at the mirror--that the whole side of the
car was visible in the right 1/3 of the left mirror. I was not going to test
drive with mirrors in the wrong position.
> And likewise how much of my car should I see when I position my head over
> my center console, in the pax-sideview mirror??
>
> The rear bumper?, the whole trunk?
>
Again, it depends, but mostly to where the right rear passenger door/rear of
the vehicle is barely seen to not seen at all.
> Again, I did not have to go through this with any 1990's era car I have
> driven, so enlighten me before I go out and retrograde my driving status -
> that is - a visit to the local used car lot. :)
>
>
The most annoying part with newer vehicles having mirrors more out from the
side of the car will be having to make adjustments while moving, so be in
slower traffic.
news:19925a55-cf0a-4df4...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:39:25 AM UTC-4, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *** Those mirrors were turned too far out. The more away the mirrors are
>>
>> from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
>>
>> mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and
>> look
>>
>> in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if
>> I
>>
>> had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the
>> driver's
>>
>> seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
>>
>> vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is
>> adjusted
>>
>> so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
>>
>> passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear
>> door
>>
>> of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
>>
> _______________
>
> This sounds like splitting hairs Daniel, and is very confusing! (At least
> the way it is written).
>
> So if I lean over until my head is touching my driver's side window glass,
> exactly HOW MUCH of my own car should I adjust my driver's sideview mirror
> to see in it??
>
It depends on the car. Sorry, that's the best answer I can give.
>
>>
>>
>> *** Those mirrors were turned too far out. The more away the mirrors are
>>
>> from the A-pillar, the more invalid the normal guidelines for setting the
>>
>> mirrors to BGE become. If I put my head against the left windshield and
>> look
>>
>> in the left side mirror, I see the side of my car the same way I would if
>> I
>>
>> had the mirrors in the wrong position but looked at them from the
>> driver's
>>
>> seat--but, if I turn the mirror so that I can barely see the side of the
>>
>> vehicle then I just made a huge blind spot. The passenger mirror is
>> adjusted
>>
>> so that if I put my head in the middle between the driver's seat and
>>
>> passenger seat and look at the mirror, I just barely see the right rear
>> door
>>
>> of the car--any further out and I've made another blind spot.
>>
> _______________
>
> This sounds like splitting hairs Daniel, and is very confusing! (At least
> the way it is written).
>
> So if I lean over until my head is touching my driver's side window glass,
> exactly HOW MUCH of my own car should I adjust my driver's sideview mirror
> to see in it??
>
I had the chance to test drive a Nissan Versa. The mirrors are away from the
A-pillars. The usual guidelines for BGE put the left mirror way too far out.
I had to position my left side mirror so that--with my head against the
driver's side window and looking at the mirror--that the whole side of the
car was visible in the right 1/3 of the left mirror. I was not going to test
drive with mirrors in the wrong position.
> And likewise how much of my car should I see when I position my head over
> my center console, in the pax-sideview mirror??
>
> The rear bumper?, the whole trunk?
>
the vehicle is barely seen to not seen at all.
> Again, I did not have to go through this with any 1990's era car I have
> driven, so enlighten me before I go out and retrograde my driving status -
> that is - a visit to the local used car lot. :)
>
>
side of the car will be having to make adjustments while moving, so be in
slower traffic.
Arif Khokar
Jun 7, 2013, 2:37:24 AM6/7/13
to
On 6/7/2013 12:54 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
>> I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard
>> manner.
>>
> If they stop posting through Google Groups that messes up quoting
> replies in other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
I have that particular poster in my killfile, but after viewing his post
> "Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
>> I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard
>> manner.
>>
> If they stop posting through Google Groups that messes up quoting
> replies in other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
through the Google groups interface and viewing the original, there's
nothing in the post itself (headers or body) that should cause your
newsreader to screw up quoting the post you're replying to. Perhaps you
should use a different newsreader.
>> Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
>> following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts
>> (putting your head against the driver's side window for the driver's
>> side mirror and putting your head directly in line with the rearview
>> mirror for the passenger side mirror).
>>
> Sometimes that is way too far out.
optimal adjustment in the vehicles I have driven.
>> After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
>> eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of
>> view of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require
>> that you adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than
>> you did when having your head against the driver's side window.
>>
> The adjustment is often not just a small incremental adjustment of the
> mirrors.
inwards by my estimate).
>> I usually do this by either having another person behind the car, or
>> positioning the car besides another vehicle in such a way that I can
>> determine if there's a gap or significant overlap between the rearview
>> and drivers side mirrors..
>
> I prefer the second method.
fields of view of the two mirrors.
thekma...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2013, 5:59:37 AM6/7/13
to
Arif K: "I have that particular poster in my killfile, but after viewing his post
Sometimes I am replying via mobile, in which in order to quote someone I must, as above, indicate who they are and copy & paste a segment of their reply.
Sorry if this is not up to your standards. Have a nice day. :)
through the Google groups interface and viewing the original, there's
nothing in the post itself (headers or body) that should cause your
newsreader to screw up quoting the post you're replying to. Perhaps you "
If you are referring to me, I do not know why I'm on your killfile. Please clarify.
nothing in the post itself (headers or body) that should cause your
newsreader to screw up quoting the post you're replying to. Perhaps you "
Sometimes I am replying via mobile, in which in order to quote someone I must, as above, indicate who they are and copy & paste a segment of their reply.
Sorry if this is not up to your standards. Have a nice day. :)
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Jun 7, 2013, 6:04:51 AM6/7/13
to
"Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:Lcfst.43160$_91....@fed06.iad...
> On 6/7/2013 12:54 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
>>> I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard
>>> manner.
>>>
>> If they stop posting through Google Groups that messes up quoting
>> replies in other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
>
> I have that particular poster in my killfile, but after viewing his post
> through the Google groups interface and viewing the original, there's
> nothing in the post itself (headers or body) that should cause your
> newsreader to screw up quoting the post you're replying to. Perhaps you
> should use a different newsreader.
>
I use Windows Mail. It works fine except for certain posts from Google
>> "Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:8GVrt.578$ps4...@fed01.iad...
>>> I wish you would quote messages you're responding to in a standard
>>> manner.
>>>
>> If they stop posting through Google Groups that messes up quoting
>> replies in other newsreaders in some cases, this isn't a problem.
>
> I have that particular poster in my killfile, but after viewing his post
> through the Google groups interface and viewing the original, there's
> nothing in the post itself (headers or body) that should cause your
> newsreader to screw up quoting the post you're replying to. Perhaps you
> should use a different newsreader.
>
Groups.
>>> Regarding the BGE adjustment, you can get an initial adjustment by
>>> following the guidelines mentioned in a number of previous posts
>>> (putting your head against the driver's side window for the driver's
>>> side mirror and putting your head directly in line with the rearview
>>> mirror for the passenger side mirror).
>>>
>> Sometimes that is way too far out.
>
> IME, it's somewhat further out than necessary, but not that far off the
> optimal adjustment in the vehicles I have driven.
>
spot.
>>> After the initial adjustment, you should fine tune the adjustment to
>>> eliminate all but a minimal amount of overlap between the fields of
>>> view of the drivers side mirror and rearview mirror. This may require
>>> that you adjust the drivers side mirror slightly further inward than
>>> you did when having your head against the driver's side window.
>>>
>> The adjustment is often not just a small incremental adjustment of the
>> mirrors.
>
> IME, it's usually a small adjustment (probably not more than 10 degrees
> inwards by my estimate).
>
of the sides of the car (wrong way adjustment) or the adjacent lane (BGE
adjustment) still seems large to me.
[snip...]
0 new messages