Stupid drivers on snow/ice
Arif Khokar
their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
>their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
OMH! I can't believe the one idiot who got out of his vehicle while it
was still rolling towards the vehicle it would eventually hit. Even
more stupidity was demonstrated by the retards who were walking
between the wrecked vehicles while other vehicles were approaching the
fray.
If it wasn't for the thickness of the snow, I'd think those morons
were SC drivers.
--
gpstard (gps...@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: <1167151218....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l...@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy":
Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event.
Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5jo...@68.6.19.6>
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
And right below that is this one which I came across some time back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
contributing factor in most crashes.
Fortunately 3,000+ losers learn this lesson per month.
MLOM
Can't tell the location, but it looks like Kansas City every year in
the first snowstorm of the season.
Arif Khokar
From comments I read in the thread I got the link from, it took place
in Denver, CO.
MLOM
Ouch...my guess missed by almost exactly 600 miles.
gpsman
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> >And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> >their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>
> And right below that is this one which I came across some time back.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>
> Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
> contributing factor in most crashes.
Please explain how you concluded a vehicle with a velocity of zero
might be -the- contributing factor to a collision due to driver
inattentiveness.
-----
- gpsman
Eeyore
"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> >And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> >their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>
> And right below that is this one which I came across some time back.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>
> Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
> contributing factor in most crashes.
A roundabout would fix the problem there.
Graham
Alan Baker
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
Where did anyone draw that conclusion?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
necromancer
in rec.autos.driving:
> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
Just how stupid are these people? presumablly they live in this city and
that driving in snow should be a common occurance for them, yet they
were still able to all manage to lose control of their cars and were
magically drawn to each other. And I liked the comment by the one LAADY
who stated she wasn't going to go down that way next time. Presumablly
she knew what the road would be like if not plowed and yet still decided
to use it.....
Yet another reason why I thank God that I live in the Deep South where
such things as snow are a once every third decade or so occurance....
--
"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
necromancer
in rec.autos.driving:
Aunt Judy's neck of the woods, innit??
--
"My tars have been bald for two years.
Every month i glue some sandpaper to them and
everythings cool."
--Laura Buch murdered her boyfriend
/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 10/25/05
Message ID: s2ttl1tgnpq5pr6p4...@4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/7p7xq
Brent P
Harry K
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
> >
> >A roundabout would fix the problem there.
>
> MPH) intersect at a roundabout? What would the roundabout's speed
> limit be in that case? How many crashes would occur there because
> either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH, or b) 30
> MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
> --
> I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!
So a roundabout that slows 55 traffic to 30 is hazardous but a stop
sign or light that brings 55 to 0 isn't?
Harry K
Arif Khokar
> How many roads with vastly different speed limits (e.g. 30 MPH and 55
> MPH) intersect at a roundabout? What would the roundabout's speed
> limit be in that case? How many crashes would occur there because
> either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH, or b) 30
> MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph. That would mean
that traffic within the circle would be going around 30 to 40 mph. In
any case, traffic outside is required to yield to traffic already in the
roundabout.
necromancer
said in rec.autos.driving:
> necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >Organization: http://www.worldofnecromancer.org
>
> Your web page says it was "designed with widescreen monitors inmind"
> [sic.] but it looks messed-up on mine - the background image isn't
> wide enough and repeats awkwardly:
>
> http://i10.tinypic.com/29nza6o.jpg
>
> You might want to consider a background image that tiles a bit more
> seamlessly. :)
Interesting, on my widescreens (both the laptop and the desktop) it
looks fine.... ;)
necromancer
said in rec.autos.driving:
> necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >such things as snow are a once every third decade or so occurance....
>
> DOES fall EVERY driver instantly becomes an incompetent fuck.
I know. I remember the last time it snowed here about 15 years ago.
> On those
> days your only hope is to call in sick and stay home
Probablly won't even have to do that since the boss will most likely be
snowed in too (though, knowing my luck, It would start snowing and the
roads would close while I'm at work.....
> (and hope nobody runs off the road into your house).
Not too worried about that. I live on a corner lot with 4' to 5' ditches
between the streets and my yard. My own version of a moat, you might
say..... ;)
--
Aunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding
of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>,"
and what a "thread," is:
"Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile
me TWICE in the same thread and you expect
people to take you seriously???"
necromancer
said in rec.autos.driving:
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
> >
>
> MPH) intersect at a roundabout? What would the roundabout's speed
> limit be in that case?
Knowing most localities, the 55MPH traffic would probablly be reduced to
30MPH for the roudabout and in the US become a constantly patrolled
speed trap or in the UK would have Gatsoes spring up like mushrooms...
> How many crashes would occur there because
> either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH, or b) 30
> MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
IME, quite a few. Followed by more calls for lower speed limits. :/
--
Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfrined finally admits to what
we have known all along:
">You're an idiot.
>
>Graham
Coming from you that's a compliment. "
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qa5wx
Message ID: 0d3da2hgigdhgl9ck...@4ax.com
necromancer
in rec.autos.driving:
Forgot to add;
though, I am considering freshening up the home page a bit - never
particularly liked the washed out look of that image - but was tied up
with the othr pages and other projects.
Thanks for pointing that out, though....
--
"Years ago i had a vehicle in which i rigged up a switch so the horn
would stay on continuously. I used it when backing up or when
driving thru a congested area. Worked real well though it prolly
wouldn't if everybody had one."
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, a.k.a SADDAM, LBMHB, lb-
VH..
12/6/2006, 0141hrs
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y72pnu
Message ID: 92pcn2dt4mhr8ojsa...@4ax.com
Eeyore
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> said
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
> >
> >A roundabout would fix the problem there.
>
> How many roads with vastly different speed limits (e.g. 30 MPH and 55
> MPH) intersect at a roundabout?
Lots. In fact one comes to mind instantly that's 30 and 70.
> What would the roundabout's speed limit be in that case?
I've never some across anyone ask that before ! It would be the higher speed.
> How many crashes would occur there because
> either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH
Doesn't happen. In any case why does slowing down cause crashes ? That sounds a
bit odd to me !
> or b) 30 MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
You clearly don't understand how roundabouts work.
Graham
Eeyore
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > How many roads with vastly different speed limits (e.g. 30 MPH and 55
> > MPH) intersect at a roundabout? What would the roundabout's speed
> > limit be in that case? How many crashes would occur there because
> > either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH, or b) 30
> > MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
>
> The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph.
LMFAO !
I've happily taken roundabouts here at 60+.
Graham
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán said
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> said
> >
> > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
> > >
> > >A roundabout would fix the problem there.
> >
> > How many roads with vastly different speed limits (e.g. 30 MPH and 55
> > MPH) intersect at a roundabout? What would the roundabout's speed
> > limit be in that case?
>
> Knowing most localities, the 55MPH traffic would probablly be reduced to
> 30MPH for the roudabout and in the US become a constantly patrolled
> speed trap or in the UK would have Gatsoes spring up like mushrooms.
Simply not so.
Also I have *never* seen a Gatso on a roundabout.
> > How many crashes would occur there because
> > either a) 55 MPH traffic had to suddenly slow down to 30 MPH, or b) 30
> > MPH traffic failed to speed up to 55 MPH?
>
> IME, quite a few. Followed by more calls for lower speed limits. :/
You haven't a clue.
On a decent dual carriageway here I might often be driving at 90. Coming up to a
roundabout with its 300, 200 and 100 yard warning markers, I'd adjust my speed
to be 80, 70, 60 mph and ~ 50 at the entrance to the roundabout.
Given good visibilty from 100 yards, you can easily come to a complete halt if
required from 60. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate away.
Graham
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph.
> I've happily taken roundabouts here at 60+.
I guess they don't build large roundabouts here. The only roundabout I
have experience with is signed at 15 mph (and I would be hard pressed to
take it at more than 20 mph). In any case, my information comes from
the roundabout design guide published by the FHWA.
necromancer
rec.autos.driving:
> You haven't a clue.
>
> On a decent dual carriageway here I might often be driving at 90. Coming up to a
> roundabout with its 300, 200 and 100 yard warning markers, I'd adjust my speed
> to be 80, 70, 60 mph and ~ 50 at the entrance to the roundabout.
And just doing 80 in the US would earn you a ticket in and of itself. I
was talking about traffic circles on surface streets, not freeways.
> Given good visibilty from 100 yards, you can easily come to a complete halt if
> required from 60. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate away.
Good visibility for this in the USA? Are you kidding? By the time they
get finished with the cost cutting and pacifying the NIMBY's and the
asthetics nuts in the area, you'd be lucky to have 100 ft visibility and
you'd almost certainly have a stop sign at the minimum at the entrance.
--
"You can't legislate away people's right to be assholes!"
--Wesley Snipes as Simon Phoenix
in "Demolition Man."
necromancer
President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
rec.autos.driving:
> OMH! I can't believe the one idiot who got out of his vehicle while it
> was still rolling towards the vehicle it would eventually hit.
"All hands ABANDON SHIP! Repeat: All hands ABANDO... <<BOOM!!!>>"
> Even
> more stupidity was demonstrated by the retards who were walking
> between the wrecked vehicles while other vehicles were approaching the
> fray.
Looks like Mr. Darwin was thwarted again....
> If it wasn't for the thickness of the snow, I'd think those morons
> were SC drivers.
Indeed....
--
--
"I'm all for making the SUV owners park in the rear of the lot. It
should be handled like handicapped parking. A special sticker on the
plate designating this vehicle as a highway tank that must be parked in
the tank area."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 10/23/05
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/dnox5 http://tinyurl.com/c92qg
Message ID:1130115926....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> > You haven't a clue.
> >
> > On a decent dual carriageway here I might often be driving at 90. Coming up to a
> > roundabout with its 300, 200 and 100 yard warning markers, I'd adjust my speed
> > to be 80, 70, 60 mph and ~ 50 at the entrance to the roundabout.
>
> And just doing 80 in the US would earn you a ticket in and of itself. I
> was talking about traffic circles on surface streets, not freeways.
This is about roundabouts not traffic circles. What exactly do you mean by 'surface
streets' btw - as opposed to those in tunnels or on overpasses ?
> > Given good visibilty from 100 yards, you can easily come to a complete halt if
> > required from 60. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate away.
>
> Good visibility for this in the USA? Are you kidding? By the time they
> get finished with the cost cutting and pacifying the NIMBY's and the
> asthetics nuts in the area, you'd be lucky to have 100 ft visibility and
> you'd almost certainly have a stop sign at the minimum at the entrance.
Roundabouts do not have stop signs.
The junction in that example had plenty of visibility btw. A roundabout would stop
almost all accidents there.
Graham
necromancer
rec.autos.driving:
> What exactly do you mean by 'surface
> streets' btw - as opposed to those in tunnels or on overpasses ?
Surface street = non limited access (i.e. non interstate) roads;
especially those in cities.
> > > Given good visibilty from 100 yards, you can easily come to a complete halt if
> > > required from 60. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate away.
> >
> > Good visibility for this in the USA? Are you kidding? By the time they
> > get finished with the cost cutting and pacifying the NIMBY's and the
> > asthetics nuts in the area, you'd be lucky to have 100 ft visibility and
> > you'd almost certainly have a stop sign at the minimum at the entrance.
>
> Roundabouts do not have stop signs.
Wait untill some safety hound over here gest its hands on them (and I am
referring to roundabouts, traffic circles or what ever here in the US).
> The junction in that example had plenty of visibility btw. A roundabout would stop
> almost all accidents there.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But the simple fact is that to get
one built would be a feat similar to raising the Titanic when you factor
in all the legal hurdles that must be jumped through first.
--
"If a pastor buys meth, does that make
him a Methodist?"
--Jay Leno
Arif Khokar
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>>>> Given good visibilty from 100 yards, you can easily come to a complete halt if
>>>> required from 60. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate away.
>>> Good visibility for this in the USA? Are you kidding? By the time they
>>> get finished with the cost cutting and pacifying the NIMBY's and the
>>> asthetics nuts in the area, you'd be lucky to have 100 ft visibility and
>>> you'd almost certainly have a stop sign at the minimum at the entrance.
>> Roundabouts do not have stop signs.
> Wait untill some safety hound over here gest its hands on them (and I am
> referring to roundabouts, traffic circles or what ever here in the US).
This illustrates the unfortunate fact that many people in the US do not
know what a roundabout really is. It's even more unfortunate that this
includes the majority of posters in this newsgroup.
FYI, roundabouts in the US do not have stop signs on approaches. They
have deflected entry points controlled by yield signs. Traffic in the
circle itself has the right of way over entering traffic. Traffic
circles, on the other hand required traffic in the circle to yield to
entering traffic.
Here's some more information on roundabouts:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm
> Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But the simple fact is that to get
> one built would be a feat similar to raising the Titanic when you factor
> in all the legal hurdles that must be jumped through first.
That's not the case at all. I know that NC has several roundabouts.
There's also one that I know of in VA. Just GIS for roundabout to find
many more examples.
Brent P
> This illustrates the unfortunate fact that many people in the US do not
> know what a roundabout really is. It's even more unfortunate that this
> includes the majority of posters in this newsgroup.
>
> FYI, roundabouts in the US do not have stop signs on approaches. They
> have deflected entry points controlled by yield signs. Traffic in the
> circle itself has the right of way over entering traffic. Traffic
> circles, on the other hand required traffic in the circle to yield to
> entering traffic.
You forget that most implementation is done half assed to outright wrong.
Thusly, most drivers in the USA have never seen a properly constructed
roundabout. I certainly haven't seen one. What is seen are poorly
constructed traffic circles with stop signs and even traffic lights. I've
seen all sorts of farked up arrangements but never a proper roundabout in
the USA.
DYM
@news02.roc.ny:
> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
Reminds me of a consersation my boss had with a nursing home last winter
during a snow storm. She had closed the terminal and wouldn't send out any
buses. A nursing home called to get a resident to a doctor's app. "Yes, all
our drivers are proffesionals. That means they know when NOT to go out and
drive. Reschedule it."
Doug
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving:
>> The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph. That would mean
>> that traffic within the circle would be going around 30 to 40 mph. In
>> any case, traffic outside is required to yield to traffic already in the
>> roundabout.
> Which is why a roundabout won't do jack shit to solve the problem.
Actually, it would in a way. Collisions in roundabouts are much less
severe (i.e., property damage only) as compared to broadside collisions.
Plus, they make it much easier for people to go straight or make a
left since you only have to watch for traffic coming from the left.
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> >
> > Roundabouts do not have stop signs.
>
> Wait untill some safety hound over here gest its hands on them (and I am
> referring to roundabouts, traffic circles or what ever here in the US).
The whole *CONCEPT* of roundabouts involves them not having stop signs ! With stop signs
it's no longer a roundabout.
> > The junction in that example had plenty of visibility btw. A roundabout would stop
> > almost all accidents there.
>
> Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But the simple fact is that to get
> one built would be a feat similar to raising the Titanic when you factor
> in all the legal hurdles that must be jumped through first.
There are none.
Roundabouts are becoming gradually accepted in the USA. Their use prevents all those
high speed T-bone accidents.
Graham
Eeyore
Brent P wrote:
They do exist in the USA and where they've been introduced have resulted in
fewer accidents and have proven popular.
http://www.roundaboutsusa.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout
Graham
Eeyore
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving:
> Which is why a roundabout won't do jack shit to solve the problem.
> Traffic at a stop sign is required to yield to traffic on the cross
> street, as well, but it didn't protect the driver of that pickup truck
> in the video.
A roundabout would have though.
Graham
Eeyore
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >> The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph. That would mean
> >> that traffic within the circle would be going around 30 to 40 mph. In
> >> any case, traffic outside is required to yield to traffic already in the
> >> roundabout.
>
> > Which is why a roundabout won't do jack shit to solve the problem.
>
> Actually, it would in a way.
It would completely because of how they work. In the accident in that video for
example the driver of the red car wouldn't have had her vision bloked by that
white van.
Also, *all* traffic has to proceed with caution round one.
> Collisions in roundabouts are much less
> severe (i.e., property damage only) as compared to broadside collisions.
> Plus, they make it much easier for people to go straight or make a
> left since you only have to watch for traffic coming from the left.
Collisions on roundabouts are very rare IME.
Graham
Eeyore
DYM wrote:
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in
>
> > And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> > their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>
> Reminds me of a consersation my boss had with a nursing home last winter
> during a snow storm. She had closed the terminal and wouldn't send out any
> buses. A nursing home called to get a resident to a doctor's app. "Yes, all
> our drivers are proffesionals. That means they know when NOT to go out and
> drive. Reschedule it."
Very wise indeed.
Graham
Eeyore
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >This is about roundabouts not traffic circles. What exactly do you mean by 'surface
> >streets' btw - as opposed to those in tunnels or on overpasses ?
>
> In America, urban freeways are typically grade-separated from the
> surrounding streets (mostly elevated, but occasionally in a depression
> as in the case of LA's "downtown slot" or completely underground as in
> Boston's "Big Dig."
>
> The term "surface streets" is commonly used to refer to any
> non-freeway street/road/highway.
Thanks for the explanation. This is sometimes done here but not so often I guess.
Graham
Fred G. Mackey
>
> "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
>
>
>>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>>And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
>>>their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>>
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>>
>>Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
>>contributing factor in most crashes.
>
>
> A roundabout would fix the problem there.
>
Congratulations! You've reached a new plateau of stupidity.
> Graham
>
Eeyore
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
Do explain why it wouldn't rather than make a silly unsupported assertion.
I suspect you know very little about modern roundabouts as found widely in Europe and
pioneered in the UK since 1963 as a combined accident reduction and traffic flow
enhancement method.
Graham
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
gpsman wrote:
> Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip>
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > >And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> > >their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> > >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
> >
> > And right below that is this one which I came across some time back.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
> >
> > Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
> > contributing factor in most crashes.
>
> might be -the- contributing factor to a collision due to driver
> inattentiveness.
OMFG, not only can you not properly interpret the written word, you are
also a failure at general observation.
Which vehicle had a velocity of zero, genius?
God you are just too damned stupid to be useful.
At least you're entertaining.
DYM
news:45AF061B...@hotmail.com:
Shoulda kept my moth closed. We had snow this morning, not much, but at
the worst time. It started snowing about 5:30 am. Too late to cancel or
delay school. We did pretty good, over a hundred vehicles we put out on
the road each day, this morning, only one needed to be pulled out of a
ditch, and none damaged. We were late, almost 90 minutes late is some
caces, but we got them there without anyone getting hurt. This afternoon
will be a piece of cake, it will all have melted by then. 14 tons on ice
is a lot of fun.
Doug
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>
>
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
>
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> >their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>> >
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>>
>> Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
>> contributing factor in most crashes.
>
Teaching people how to drive would also fix the problem.
If you don't teach them how to drive, then the results are similar to
those presented by the video. No loss; I thought the situation was
pretty funny.
What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
*had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
driving maneuvers.
Even more amazing is the dullard on 119th, who obviously looked at the
van crossing 53rd, and used that for their visual clue that it was
safe for them to cross 53rd.
Fortunately both inattentive drivers got what they deserved.
--
gpstard (gps...@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: <1167151218....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l...@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy":
Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event.
Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5jo...@68.6.19.6>
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
> Plus, they make it much easier for people to go straight or make a
>left since you only have to watch for traffic coming from the left.
Uh, I would *never* count on traffic *NOT* coming from the right in
that type of setting. Impractical as it is, some idiot will be going
the wrong way one day, and not paying attention to that little detail
could get expen$ive.
--
gpstard (gps...@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: <1167151218....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
GPSboi demonstrates he doesn't understand the concept of "zero velocity":
: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/4b00dc234d5fd559
Please explain how you concluded a vehicle with a velocity of zero might be -the- contributing factor to a collision due to driver inattentiveness.
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>
>
>Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> > Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
>> >> The largest roundabouts have a design speed of 30 mph. That would mean
>> >> that traffic within the circle would be going around 30 to 40 mph. In
>> >> any case, traffic outside is required to yield to traffic already in the
>> >> roundabout.
>>
>> > Which is why a roundabout won't do jack shit to solve the problem.
>>
>> Actually, it would in a way.
>
>It would completely because of how they work. In the accident in that video for
>example the driver of the red car wouldn't have had her vision bloked by that
>white van.
Hmm, I learned when I began to drive that you should never proceed
across an intersection unless you're positive there is no oncoming
traffic. Obviously the stupid bitch in the car didn't learn that
lesson, or was more interested in something else than she was the
road. She got what she asked for.
>Also, *all* traffic has to proceed with caution round one.
Yeah, that'll happen.
>> Collisions in roundabouts are much less
>> severe (i.e., property damage only) as compared to broadside collisions.
>> Plus, they make it much easier for people to go straight or make a
>> left since you only have to watch for traffic coming from the left.
>
>Collisions on roundabouts are very rare IME.
They're very high in my area, which is one of the reasons they've been
slowly replaced with standard intersections.
necromancer
President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
rec.autos.driving:
> What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
> *had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
> driving maneuvers.
Really. When ever I approach an intersection where I don't have a stop
sign, I am looking for apporaching vehicles and from time to time, I
have started easing away from one side of the intersection and preparing
to take evasive action due to an approaching vehicle that I think is not
going to stop.
--
F ools
A nd
A rrogance
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
There was a stop sign there wasn't there but it was a bit back from the junction
itself.
Graham
Eeyore
"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
> What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
> *had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
> driving maneuvers.
His view was blocked by the white van crossing.
This is another advantage of roundabouts. Your view of traffic can't be blocked this way.
Graham
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>
>>What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
>>*had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
>>driving maneuvers.
>
>critical moment by the white van that crossed between the pickup truck
>and the car. By the time the white van was out of the way, the red car
>was already directly in front of the pickup truck.
Watch the video again, and tell me what percentage of time the red
car's view was actually obscured by the white van. The red car begins
to move through the intersection before the white van completes it's
cross. The driver of the truck wasn't paying proper attention to cross
traffic, so he contributed to the incident. This type of
inattentiveness will get you killed in my locale.
Interestingly enough, the camera man pans the camera to include the
red car at just the correct time, as if the incident were staged.
>>Even more amazing is the dullard on 119th, who obviously looked at the
>>van crossing 53rd, and used that for their visual clue that it was
>>safe for them to cross 53rd.
>
>I'm guessing the dullard assumed it was a 4-way stop.
I'm with the anchor, who at the beginning plainly states people aren't
paying enough attention.
--
gpstard (gps...@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: <1167151218....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
GPSboi demonstrates he doesn't understand the concept of "zero velocity":
: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/4b00dc234d5fd559
Please explain how you concluded a vehicle with a velocity of zero might be -the- contributing factor to a collision due to driver inattentiveness.
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
The driver of the red car began to proceed through the intersection
prior to it's view being blocked by the white van. Though the driver
of the red car is the main cause of the accident, the truck driver
contributed to it by not being more aware of his situation. If I drove
with the level of attentiveness evidenced by either driver in the
video, I'd have been killed in an automobile "accident" years ago.
--
gpstard (gps...@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: <1167151218....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
GPSboi demonstrates he doesn't understand the concept of "zero velocity":
: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/4b00dc234d5fd559
Please explain how you concluded a vehicle with a velocity of zero might be -the- contributing factor to a collision due to driver inattentiveness.
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Arif Khokar said
>in rec.autos.driving:
>> MLOM wrote:
>> > Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>> >> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
>> >> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>>
>> > the first snowstorm of the season.
>>
>> From comments I read in the thread I got the link from, it took place
>> in Denver, CO.
>
>Aunt Judy's neck of the woods, innit??
Why am I not surprised? Think AJ got some air time?
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in
>rec.autos.driving:
>
>>Yet another reason why I thank God that I live in the Deep South where
>>such things as snow are a once every third decade or so occurance....
>
>That's a double-edged sword. Yeah, there's less snow, but when snow
>DOES fall EVERY driver instantly becomes an incompetent fuck. On those
>days your only hope is to call in sick and stay home (and hope nobody
>runs off the road into your house).
Heh heh. Back in '94 a couple of friends came down from London,
Ontario, to hang out with some local friends of mine. Came down at the
beginning of January, and, I believe, brought their frozen
precipitation down in their trunk.
Anyways, considering our "blizzard", the fine merchants and denizens
of this fine town decided to roll the sidewalks up. So my friends and
I sit around calling various restaurants in the vain attempt to locate
one that's open. We finally find an Applebees, and set out about our
trek. I'm driving a Gran Prix, my friend a Cougar, and she tells me to
stay behind her, and she'll teach me how to drive. I laughed.
We made the trek, ate, and departed. I must say that as the only
patrons in the establishment, Applebee's *finally* provided me with a
decent dining experience, but I digress. We all go to leave again,
three in my car, three in hers. We depart, and she got hung at a light
that I didn't. We make it back to my friend's house and sit there for
about five minutes, waiting for the other group. When they didn't
show, we went looking for them. Found them on the other side of the
block, where my Canadian friend had managed to slide off the road and
get stuck in the ditch.
"ya'll need some hep?" =))
And I thought the old winter weather driving pro was gonna teach us
southerners how to drive in the white stuff. Ah well, at least we had
something new to pick on her about. :-)
Eeyore
"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
> Watch the video again, and tell me what percentage of time the red
> car's view was actually obscured by the white van.
At the critical time.
This is the trouble with this kind of junction.
That's all it needed unless you're to suggest the driver of the red car was intentionally attempting to kill themselves.
Graham
Eeyore
"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" wrote:
> >
> >> What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
> >> *had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
> >> driving maneuvers.
> >
> >His view was blocked by the white van crossing.
> >
> >This is another advantage of roundabouts. Your view of traffic can't be blocked this >way.
>
>
> The driver of the red car began to proceed through the intersection
> prior to it's view being blocked by the white van.
No. It proceeded to the edge of the intersection.
Graham
Eeyore
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> In all fairness, the pickup driver had no reason to expect the dumbass
> car driver not to yield the right-of-way. Think about it: do you
> expect cross traffic to jump out in front of you every time you go
> through a green light?
Unfortunately it happens.
Roundabouts fix the problem at source !
Graham
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
>Mothers)" <st...@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
>>>Mothers)" <st...@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>>>
>>>>What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
>>>>*had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
>>>>driving maneuvers.
>>>
>>>Actually, he was probably distracted and/or his view was blocked at a
>>>critical moment by the white van that crossed between the pickup truck
>>>and the car. By the time the white van was out of the way, the red car
>>>was already directly in front of the pickup truck.
>>
>>Watch the video again, and tell me what percentage of time the red
>>car's view was actually obscured by the white van.
>
>attention. That's why I used the word "distracted."
You also used "and/or", but we'll let that slide. :-)
>>The driver of the truck wasn't paying proper attention to cross
>>traffic, so he contributed to the incident.
>
>In all fairness, the pickup driver had no reason to expect the dumbass
>car driver not to yield the right-of-way. Think about it: do you
That's the "unexpected" that Carl Troller keeps harping about, and I
keep suggesting that doesn't exist. You've got to "drive ahead", or
your situational awareness factor will be insufficient for survival on
these streets.
>expect cross traffic to jump out in front of you every time you go
>through a green light?
Actually I do. And if I don't drive in an anticipatory stance in this
regard, I will be involved in an accident, most likely severe. That
link I posted some time back regarding this state's drivers being
among the worst in the nation wasn't fiction. :-)
>>This type of
>>inattentiveness will get you killed in my locale.
>
>Lots of failure-to-yield scofflaws where you live?
You got it.
>>Interestingly enough, the camera man pans the camera to include the
>>red car at just the correct time, as if the incident were staged.
>
>Perhaps the cameraman, unlike the two drivers, was paying attention
>and has good reflexes?
That would have been my guess. They're lucky the truck driver didn't
hit the white van, or the resultant vector would have directed them
into the reporter and camera man.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>
>
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
>
>> Watch the video again, and tell me what percentage of time the red
>> car's view was actually obscured by the white van.
>
>At the critical time.
The driver of the red car initiated motion before the white van was
half way through the intersection. Not recognizing that should result
in mandatory license suspension, although Darwin usually catches up to
these types.
>This is the trouble with this kind of junction.
>
>That's all it needed unless you're to suggest the driver of the red car was intentionally attempting to kill themselves.
Depends on how you want to interpret "intentionally." I consider
someone cleaning a loaded firearm to be "intentionally" trying to kill
themselves. I also believe inattentive drivers are "intentionally"
trying to kill themselves.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>
>
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" wrote:
>> >
>> >> What amazed me about the incident is that the truck driver on 53rd
>> >> *had* to see the car at the intersection, and didn't take defensive
>> >> driving maneuvers.
>> >
>> >His view was blocked by the white van crossing.
>> >
>> >This is another advantage of roundabouts. Your view of traffic can't be blocked this >way.
>>
>>
>> The driver of the red car began to proceed through the intersection
>> prior to it's view being blocked by the white van.
>
>No. It proceeded to the edge of the intersection.
Then it failed to come to a complete stop, also another suicidal
maneuver at a busy intersection.
Eeyore
"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" wrote:
> >
> >> The driver of the red car began to proceed through the intersection
> >> prior to it's view being blocked by the white van.
> >
> >No. It proceeded to the edge of the intersection.
>
> Then it failed to come to a complete stop, also another suicidal
> maneuver at a busy intersection.
It also slowed down to a near stop, then took off again with the view of the road blocked by the white van.
I presume the driver of the red car assumed that if it was safe for the van to cross the junction it must be for them too.
A foolish error.
Graham
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>>This type of
>>inattentiveness will get you killed in my locale.
>
In thinking about this further, the incident recorded by the camera
man smells strikingly familiar to the event I encountered at the gas
station a couple of weeks back. Only difference was that instead of
cross traffic obscuring the view, it was someone in the right lane.
Either way, it was the inattentiveness and the incompetence of the
drivers at a stand still that lead to both situations; in the case at
the gas station the driver of the truck was at least attentive enough
to respond appropriately.
By the way, I came back by the same gas station a week later, albeit
earlier in the day, and some other dullard was blocked in the middle
of the entrance again. Too bad I didn't need any gas. :-)
necromancer
President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
rec.autos.driving:
> necromancer wrote:
> >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Arif Khokar said
> >in rec.autos.driving:
> >> MLOM wrote:
> >> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> >> >> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
> >>
> >> > Can't tell the location, but it looks like Kansas City every year in
> >> > the first snowstorm of the season.
> >>
> >> From comments I read in the thread I got the link from, it took place
> >> in Denver, CO.
> >
> >Aunt Judy's neck of the woods, innit??
>
> Why am I not surprised? Think AJ got some air time?
I wouldn't mind seeing SADDAM star in a snuff film.
--
LBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops:
"Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take
the place of these two. "
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2
Message ID: dujhg25i1fecsoh79...@4ax.com
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Ted Kennedy -
>President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
>rec.autos.driving:
>> necromancer wrote:
>> >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Arif Khokar said
>> >in rec.autos.driving:
>> >> MLOM wrote:
>> >> > Arif Khokar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
>> >> >> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>> >>
>> >> > Can't tell the location, but it looks like Kansas City every year in
>> >> > the first snowstorm of the season.
>> >>
>> >> From comments I read in the thread I got the link from, it took place
>> >> in Denver, CO.
>> >
>> >Aunt Judy's neck of the woods, innit??
>>
>> Why am I not surprised? Think AJ got some air time?
>
>I wouldn't mind seeing SADDAM star in a snuff film.
You might be hard pressed to find a co-star for it, though. :-/
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>
>
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The driver of the red car began to proceed through the intersection
>> >> prior to it's view being blocked by the white van.
>> >
>> >No. It proceeded to the edge of the intersection.
>>
>> Then it failed to come to a complete stop, also another suicidal
>> maneuver at a busy intersection.
>
>It also slowed down to a near stop, then took off again with the view of the road blocked by the white van.
To me it appears that it took off before the van blocked the view, not
after.
>I presume the driver of the red car assumed that if it was safe for the van to cross the junction it must be for them too.
>
>A foolish error.
We get a fair amount of those assumptions around here. The only way I
would even remotely consider such an assumption would be if my "white
van" were a slow moving semi, and other conditions were favorable.
Fred G. Mackey
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad > Mothers)" wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
>>>>>their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>>>>
>>>>Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
>>>>contributing factor in most crashes.
>>>
>>>
>>>A roundabout would fix the problem there.
>>
>
>
> Do explain why it wouldn't rather than make a silly unsupported assertion.
A roundabout is NOT going to make roads any less icy. A roundabout 50
feet ahead cannot affect the laws of physics before a driver even
reaches it.
>
> I suspect you know very little about modern roundabouts as found widely in Europe
You (as usual) are dead wrong and in fact I'm an advocate of roundabouts.
I am not, however, an advocate of morons like you
> and
> pioneered in the UK since 1963 as a combined accident reduction and traffic flow
> enhancement method.
>
> Graham
>
necromancer
President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
rec.autos.driving:
> necromancer wrote:
> >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Ted Kennedy -
> >President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in
> >rec.autos.driving:
> >> necromancer wrote:
> >> >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Arif Khokar said
> >> >in rec.autos.driving:
> >> >> MLOM wrote:
> >> >> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And we thought that taking their hands off the steering wheel, covering
> >> >> >> their eyes and screaming in panic was the worst they could do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPPgVNxgDGU
> >> >>
> >> >> > Can't tell the location, but it looks like Kansas City every year in
> >> >> > the first snowstorm of the season.
> >> >>
> >> >> From comments I read in the thread I got the link from, it took place
> >> >> in Denver, CO.
> >> >
> >> >Aunt Judy's neck of the woods, innit??
> >>
> >> Why am I not surprised? Think AJ got some air time?
> >
> >I wouldn't mind seeing SADDAM star in a snuff film.
>
> You might be hard pressed to find a co-star for it, though. :-/
No need to. We'll just soup up about a couple of dozen M1A1 tanks to be
capable of about 180 or so, rent a racetrack like Daytona or Talladega,
set up a few hundred cameras (may need to consult with FOX here) and
then have a race: AJ's in its beater vs the tanks. I'd hazard that AJ
wouldn't last the first lap.... :P
I'm sure we wouldn't have trouble finding a couple dozen "jarheads," to
do the driving...
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
Hey ! Make it more fun. Forget hotrodding the tanks.
Set the speed limit for the track at 55 ! ;~)
Graham
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
>Mothers)" <st...@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>car driver not to yield the right-of-way. Think about it: do you
>>
>>That's the "unexpected" that Carl Troller keeps harping about, and I
>>keep suggesting that doesn't exist. You've got to "drive ahead", or
>>your situational awareness factor will be insufficient for survival on
>>these streets.
>
>Even as he approached the car, there was no discernable effort on his
>part to alter course or brake to avoid a collision - he just plowed
>right on ahead and T-boned the car. I'd split the culpability 80/20
>between the car driver and the truck driver.
Sounds like a reasonable culpability split to me. :-)
>>>expect cross traffic to jump out in front of you every time you go
>>>through a green light?
>>
>>Actually I do. And if I don't drive in an anticipatory stance in this
>>regard, I will be involved in an accident, most likely severe.
>
>I don't normally do that unless I see something out of the ordinary,
>like a vehicle that doesn't seem to be slowing down or something. If I
>weren't selective about it, I'd have to crawl through every
>intersection at 5 MPH like firetrucks do.
I'm not saying I reduce my speed to 5mph, but it does drop.
>>>Perhaps the cameraman, unlike the two drivers, was paying attention
>>>and has good reflexes?
>>
>>That would have been my guess. They're lucky the truck driver didn't
>>hit the white van, or the resultant vector would have directed them
>>into the reporter and camera man.
>
>Damn right! That reporter would never have known what hit him.
But he would have had a decent witness, even more so if it were a live
broadcast. :-)
Arif Khokar
> Eeyore wrote:
>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
>>>> > Mothers)" wrote:
>>>>> And right below that is this one which I came across some time back.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUSLCe3S58&NR
>>>>>
>>>>> Definite proof that inattentiveness, and not velocity, is the
>>>>> contributing factor in most crashes.
>>>> A roundabout would fix the problem there.
>>> Congratulations! You've reached a new plateau of stupidity.
>> Do explain why it wouldn't rather than make a silly unsupported
>> assertion.
> A roundabout is NOT going to make roads any less icy.
He was referring to the video link that was posted in
<g14rq2paa69bgk3v5...@4ax.com>, not the one I originally
posted. The roads weren't icy there.
DYM
news:MPG.201d09aad...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Hell, you don't have to go that far. How about some fully loaded tri-axle
dump trucks. When AJ drafts, the dump a load of rip-rap.
Doug
Nate Nagel
I can't wait for it to snow! The girlie's Corrado is out of commission
for a while so I bit the bullet and got some real snow tires for the
944. It has been YEARS since I've had a RWD car to play in the snow
with, and never one this well balanced! I didn't want to spend the
money, but now that I have, I want to play!
BTW the tires I got were Dunlop "Winter Sport M3s" on sale at the Tire
Rack for about $250 a set. size 195/65-15, they look like itty bitty
baby tires on the car compared to the Yokohama 215/60s that came off,
but I figure as light as it is it needs all the "bite" in the snow that
it can get.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Brent P
> I can't wait for it to snow! The girlie's Corrado is out of commission
> for a while so I bit the bullet and got some real snow tires for the
> 944. It has been YEARS since I've had a RWD car to play in the snow
> with, and never one this well balanced! I didn't want to spend the
> money, but now that I have, I want to play!
I found that buying snow tires is a great way to keep the snow from
falling.
> BTW the tires I got were Dunlop "Winter Sport M3s" on sale at the Tire
> Rack for about $250 a set. size 195/65-15, they look like itty bitty
> baby tires on the car compared to the Yokohama 215/60s that came off,
> but I figure as light as it is it needs all the "bite" in the snow that
> it can get.
You got off cheap... that would get two of the tires I got for the
mustang....
Nate Nagel
well, sorta... in my area mount/balance is $100, and a pair of beater
Porsche rims (I only had six) was $100 + $50 shipping. So the whole
exercise ended up at a little over $550 with shipping of the tires, road
hazard, and all. That's a lot of money for a car that is maybe worth
$3-4K on a good day!
I figured it was worth it though if I only keep the car a couple years,
as with the mount/balance charges so high the extra rims pay for
themselves in two tire changes.
Brent P
>> You got off cheap... that would get two of the tires I got for the
>> mustang....
> well, sorta... in my area mount/balance is $100, and a pair of beater
> Porsche rims (I only had six) was $100 + $50 shipping. So the whole
> exercise ended up at a little over $550 with shipping of the tires, road
> hazard, and all. That's a lot of money for a car that is maybe worth
> $3-4K on a good day!
Same here... shipping + plus 2 '98 cobra rims to clear my front brakes at
$150 each + mount and balance of the other two on my rear rims for $50,
tires were about $118 each, then there was the alignment I had to get as
to not ruin a tire. (long story of me replacing the driver's side tie rod
end twice) so the whole excerise came in around $900.
I don't what my mustang is worth on the market these days, but it's
probably $7K at the highest, probably a good deal less. But I don't track
that sort of thing, I bought the car new to keep up and drive as long as
I can and it turned 10 last month.
> I figured it was worth it though if I only keep the car a couple years,
> as with the mount/balance charges so high the extra rims pay for
> themselves in two tire changes.
yep.
Nate Nagel
> Nate Nagel <njn...@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>
>>BTW the tires I got were Dunlop "Winter Sport M3s" on sale at the Tire
>>Rack for about $250 a set.
>
>
> much PER *TIRE*! :)
Why do you think I didn't even hesitate to buy them? I think the only
tires in the same price range were the generic no-name ones, everything
else was 80-90 a tire minimum. I know that still seems cheap to you,
but that is what happens when I drive an "old" car with 15" wheels :)
Motorhead Lawyer
> BTW the tires I got were Dunlop "Winter Sport M3s" on sale at the Tire
> Rack for about $250 a set. size 195/65-15, they look like itty bitty
> baby tires on the car compared to the Yokohama 215/60s that came off,
> but I figure as light as it is it needs all the "bite" in the snow that
> it can get.
Those are absolutely awesome snow tires. Either that or the wife's X-
Type in an absolutely awesome snow car ...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)
N8N
I'll find out tomorrow, it sounds like - supposed to snow again
tonight. (if it does stick, I'll drive the Porsche tomorrow - I'm
betting a Porsche on snows is better than an Impala on rock-hard
Goodyear all seasons.) This makes me happy, I'd hate to think that I
wasted all that $$.
nate
Arif Khokar
> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.53...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BTW the tires I got were Dunlop "Winter Sport M3s" on sale at the Tire
>>> Rack for about $250 a set. size 195/65-15, they look like itty bitty
>>> baby tires on the car compared to the Yokohama 215/60s that came off,
>>> but I figure as light as it is it needs all the "bite" in the snow that
>>> it can get.
>> Those are absolutely awesome snow tires. Either that or the wife's X-
>> Type in an absolutely awesome snow car ...
> I'll find out tomorrow, it sounds like - supposed to snow again
> tonight. (if it does stick, I'll drive the Porsche tomorrow - I'm
> betting a Porsche on snows is better than an Impala on rock-hard
> Goodyear all seasons.) This makes me happy, I'd hate to think that I
> wasted all that $$.
Even if it doesn't snow anytime soon, they're not a waste of money IMO.
I ended up delaying my tire changeout till the first part of January
due to the extended period of warm temperatures. But the way I see it,
even if the temps get up to the 60s while the Blizzacks are on (now in
their 4th season of use), I can always ride my bike instead :)