This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in terms of justice

[Arif Khokar]

In http://thenewspaper.com/news/38/3831.asp

> "Officer Elliott had probable cause to believe a traffic violation
> had occurred based on speed," US District Court Judge Richard L.
> Voorhees ruled. "He's trained to estimate speeds. His difficulty with
> measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not
> depend on time or distance."

[N8N]

On Jun 29, 9:19 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> Inhttp://thenewspaper.com/news/38/3831.asp

Speed does not depend on time or what...? My brain just shut down.

nate

[gpsman]

To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
either the time or distance? I'm at ± 1 mph.

Imagine you sit at the same spot (among others) on and off for years,
watching (with a recent pair of your glasses on) vehicles approach as
you electronically determine their speeds. Think you could get pretty
good at it?

A ticket for 75 in a 70 with no exacerbating circumstances is complete
bullshit.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would suspect "they" knew Sowards
was getting away with a load of blow and had no legal way to stop him,
so they called on this cop, by pure chance, who appears in court to be
a nitwit.

(And, it turns out, the nitwit had no formal training in speed
estimation.)

> My brain just shut down.

Mmm... it's in neutral, it least.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<fd31016a-3945-43d2...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 29, 12:04 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 9:19 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> > "He's trained to estimate speeds. His difficulty with
> > > > measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not
> > > > depend on time or distance."
> >
> > Speed does not depend on time or what...?
>
> To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

> either the time or distance? I'm at ą 1 mph.

Complete and utter bullshit.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[gpsman]

On Jun 29, 5:20 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:

> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

> > either the time or distance?  I'm at ± 1 mph.
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.

Nyuh-uh hasn't yet reached the level of sparkling refutation.

What's your tolerance?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<d982a222-2dbb-419d...@s1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

I've never imagined a need to measure it. That's why we have instruments
such as the speedometer, and why *I* have worked on having a consistent
scan. Road, mirrors, instruments: lather rinse repeat.

But the idea that you can estimate the speed of a vehicle you're driving
to with a single mph: utter nonsense.

[gpsman]

On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d982a222-2dbb-419d-8cf8-d85111425...@s1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 5:20 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
>
> > > Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> > Nyuh-uh hasn't yet reached the level of sparkling refutation.
>
> > What's your tolerance?
>
> I've never imagined a need to measure it.

Ah. So you got your nyuh-uhs all warmed up and ready to fire, based
on complete and utter ignorance. Brilliant.

> That's why we have instruments
> such as the speedometer, and why *I* have worked on having a consistent
> scan. Road, mirrors, instruments: lather rinse repeat.

Good for you.

> But the idea that you can estimate the speed of a vehicle you're driving
> to with a single mph: utter nonsense.

So you don't know what ± 1 mph means, either...

You sure are smart.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<6fb56794-5d94-4795...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d982a222-2dbb-419d-8cf8-d85111425...@s1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 29, 5:20 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
> >
> > > > Complete and utter bullshit.
> >
> > > Nyuh-uh hasn't yet reached the level of sparkling refutation.
> >
> > > What's your tolerance?
> >
> > I've never imagined a need to measure it.
>
> Ah. So you got your nyuh-uhs all warmed up and ready to fire, based
> on complete and utter ignorance. Brilliant.

Nope.

>
> > That's why we have instruments
> > such as the speedometer, and why *I* have worked on having a consistent
> > scan. Road, mirrors, instruments: lather rinse repeat.
>
> Good for you.

Yes. Good for anyone who's serious about driving, but even then, I'm not
really concerned with what particular number is on the speedometer. No
number on there magically makes one safe.

>
> > But the idea that you can estimate the speed of a vehicle you're driving
> > to with a single mph: utter nonsense.
>
> So you don't know what ± 1 mph means, either...

What are you now claiming it means?

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/29/2012 1:21 PM, gpsman wrote:
> To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> either the time or distance? I'm at ± 1 mph.

I can get to that tolerance while walking. :)

Of course, I compare speed and rpm if I forget what gear I am in.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/29/2012 9:59 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Yes. Good for anyone who's serious about driving, but even then, I'm not
> really concerned with what particular number is on the speedometer. No
> number on there magically makes one safe.

I feel safest with the mirrors removed, brake light taped over, and
*not* looking at the speedometer. :)

[Harry K]

I agree that your claim is BS but...back in the day prior to speed
controlI spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph. However
that is based on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed.

I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
estimating speed
within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.

Harry K

[Brent]

It's the new physics where speed is read from the machine. Like the new
math that uses a calculator. No need to understand what the machine is
doing.

[gpsman]

On Jun 29, 10:59 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 29, 5:20 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
>
> > > > > Complete and utter bullshit.
>
> > > > Nyuh-uh hasn't yet reached the level of sparkling refutation.
>
> > > > What's your tolerance?
>
> > > I've never imagined a need to measure it.
>
> > Ah.  So you got your nyuh-uhs all warmed up and ready to fire, based
> > on complete and utter ignorance.  Brilliant.
>
> Nope.

So... what is the basis of your disbelief, humanly impossible?

> I'm not
> really concerned with what particular number is on the speedometer.

So... why is it in your scan...?

> No
> number on there magically makes one safe.

You got your stupid turned up way too high. There is no claim that a
speedometer serves as a safeometer,

Please do try to keep up with the subject.

> > > But the idea that you can estimate the speed of a vehicle you're driving
> > > to with a single mph: utter nonsense.
>
> > So you don't know what ± 1 mph means, either...
>
> What are you now claiming it means?

You really are functionally illiterate. I never claimed it meant
anything.

It means what it means. It does not mean "to with[in] a single mph".

Now, gimme some your nyuh-uh and Lol rebuttals. I can't get enough of
them.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 12:00 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.

> I agree that your claim is BS

Great!. On what basis?

> I spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
> where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph.

Me, too! And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
measured by GPS.

> However
> that is based on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed.

So, you had your eyes closed?

> I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
> estimating speed
> within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.

But, like Alan, Nate and Brent, aren't you perfectly ignorant of the
subject of speed estimation?
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

On Jun 30, 3:45 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:00 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
> > I agree that your claim is BS
>
> Great!.  On what basis?
>
> > I spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
> > where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph.
>
> Me, too!  And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> measured by GPS.
>

Wild raucous laughter!

> > However
> > that is based on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed.
>
> So, you had your eyes closed?
>

Do you drive with your eyes closed when mainatining speed not using
speed controld? Wierd.

> > I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
> > estimating speed
> > within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.
>
> But, like Alan, Nate and Brent, aren't you perfectly ignorant of the
> subject of speed estimation?

No, not ignorant of it. Very cognizant of the limitation of the human
eye/brain/ etc. to estimate such things.

Harry K

[Brent]

I see gpstroll is at it again.

While someone might learn that 2+2=4 by seeing it on the calculator over
and over again he's still not adding when he sees 2+2 on piece of paper
and answers 4. give the same person pi+e and he won't know what to
do. This is the modern government way of teaching various subjects. No
thinking, just memorize the problem and the answer.

The problem with speed estimation is that no two problems are identical.
Different vehicles. Different sounds. Different angles of observation
and so on. One actually must estimate time and distance well to arrive
at an accurate answer. Even when conditions are more or less held
constant there is still a time estimation between two points being made.
Plus, if a cop doesn't understand distances, observation angles, etc he
won't even be able to use a radar gun properly to measure speed.

But even if we accept the idea that the cop has learned to eyeball
speed directly, as absurd as it is, the judge's written ruling is still
of such absolute ignorance it needs to be tossed.

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 10:56 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:45 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:00 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
> > > I agree that your claim is BS
>
> > Great!.  On what basis?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Answer missing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
> > > I spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
> > > where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph.
>
> > Me, too!  And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> > measured by GPS.
>
> Wild raucous laughter!

I don't know why, that is not an extraordinary claim, nor is it at all
difficult.

For me. I can't attest for others.

I'm speaking relatively flat ground, of course, maybe up to a 2%
grade.

If you couldn't do better than "a few mph" you're not as good as a
modern electronic speed control ("drivers" are better), so maybe your
abilities are not exactly at the top of the heap.

> > > However
> > > that is based on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed.
>
> > So, you had your eyes closed?
>
> Do you drive with your eyes closed when mainatining speed not using
> speed controld?  Wierd.

Yeah, it's weird you don't understand what you wrote, and you must
have read it at least twice: You attributed your "few mph" [tolerance]
"on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed". ^^^ right up
there ^^^

> > > I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
> > > estimating speed
> > > within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.
>
> > But, like Alan, Nate and Brent, aren't you perfectly ignorant of the
> > subject of speed estimation?
>
> No, not ignorant of it.  Very cognizant of the limitation of the human
> eye/brain/ etc. to estimate such things.

Great! What are they?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<96b7658e-7aae-45b3...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 12:00 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
>
> > I agree that your claim is BS
>
> Great!. On what basis?
>
> > I spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
> > where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph.
>
> Me, too! And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> measured by GPS.

Which is not what you initially claiming.

[Alan Baker]

In article
<6ca3e145-2d85-46b8...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

"It means what it means" and you'll go to great lengths to say what you
claim it doesn't mean...

...which would be redundant if you'd you'd just state what you claim it
means.

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 2:28 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <6ca3e145-2d85-46b8-bdbc-f6e08573d...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Feigning insanity is best dodge you can come up with...?!

> ...which would be redundant if you'd you'd just state what you claim it
> means.

And... we should add "functionally illiterate" and "Googletard" to
that?
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>

> And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> > measured by GPS.
>
> Which is not what you initially claiming.

And...?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<1c647b9b-34d8-44db...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > But the idea that you can estimate the speed of a vehicle you're
> > > > > > driving
> > > > > > to with a single mph: utter nonsense.
> >

> > > > > So you don't know what ą 1 mph means, either...

> >
> > > > What are you now claiming it means?
> >
> > > You really are functionally illiterate.  I never claimed it meant
> > > anything.
> >
> > > It means what it means.  It does not mean "to with[in] a single mph".
> >
> > > Now, gimme some your nyuh-uh and Lol rebuttals.  I can't get enough of
> > > them.
> >
> > "It means what it means" and you'll go to great lengths to say what you
> > claim it doesn't mean...
>
> Feigning insanity is best dodge you can come up with...?!
>
> > ...which would be redundant if you'd you'd just state what you claim it
> > means.
>
> And... we should add "functionally illiterate" and "Googletard" to
> that?

Why are you working so hard to avoid explaining what you meant by:

"To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph."

...hmm?

[Alan Baker]

In article
<fc38198c-11c2-4ae4...@t8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
about 1mph--is nonsense....

...and you know it.

:-)

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 8:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> > > > measured by GPS.
>
> > > Which is not what you initially claiming.
>
> > And...?
>

> And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
> about 1mph--is nonsense....

Don't be silly. You can probably estimate your speed to within 2-3
mph with little or no practice. Of course you're too stupid to think
of trying it on your own.

And that's a non sequitur. One doesn't cancel the other.

> ...and you know it.

You're just being silly. Mine are not extraordinary claims.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<8b29d24a-7caf-4ad2...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 8:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> > > > > measured by GPS.
> >
> > > > Which is not what you initially claiming.
> >
> > > And...?
> >
> > And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
> > about 1mph--is nonsense....
>
> Don't be silly. You can probably estimate your speed to within 2-3
> mph with little or no practice. Of course you're too stupid to think
> of trying it on your own.

Actually, I highly doubt that. I think that on an unfamiliar road with a
car with which I wasn't familiar, I might be able to estimate my speed
+/- 5 mph.. ..maybe.

But +/- 1: nonsense.

There is a huge difference between maintaining a constant speed and
estimating what that speed actually is.

>
> And that's a non sequitur. One doesn't cancel the other.
>
> > ...and you know it.
>
> You're just being silly. Mine are not extraordinary claims.

Your initial claim is absurd...

...and you should know it.

[gpsman]

On Jun 30, 9:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 8:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
> > > about 1mph--is nonsense....
>
> > Don't be silly.  You can probably estimate your speed to within 2-3
> > mph with little or no practice.  Of course you're too stupid to think
> > of trying it on your own.
>
> Actually, I highly doubt that. I think that on an unfamiliar road with a
> car with which I wasn't familiar, I might be able to estimate my speed
> +/- 5 mph.. ..maybe.

Why introduce those variables?

> But +/- 1: nonsense.

Well, I didn't say -you- could.

You seem to be under the impression that what you are incapable of is
impossible.

> There is a huge difference between maintaining a constant speed and
> estimating what that speed actually is.

Thanks, Cap'n!

> > And that's a non sequitur.  One doesn't cancel the other.
>
> > > ...and you know it.
>
> > You're just being silly.  Mine are not extraordinary claims.
>
> Your initial claim is absurd...

O N W H A T B A S I S...?
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

On Jun 30, 11:04 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:56 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 3:45 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 12:00 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of
> > > > > > > > > either the time or distance? I'm at 1 mph.
> > > > I agree that your claim is BS
>
> > > Great!.  On what basis?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Answer missing.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

Answered below but not surprised you closed your eyes and ignored it.

>
>
> > > > I spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
> > > > where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph.
>
> > > Me, too!  And I can maintain a constant speed within tenths of 1 mph,
> > > measured by GPS.
>
> > Wild raucous laughter!
>
> I don't know why, that is not an extraordinary claim, nor is it at all
> difficult.

It not only is an extraordinary claim, it is wildliy fantastic claim.

>
> For me.  I can't attest for others.

Yes, yes, we understand you are an astoundingly superior example of
human kind.

>
> I'm speaking relatively flat ground, of course, maybe up to a 2%


> grade.
>
> If you couldn't do better than "a few mph" you're not as good as a
> modern electronic speed control ("drivers" are better), so maybe your
> abilities are not exactly at the top of the heap.
>

Another totally rediculous claim. As to my "abilities" perhaps you
can
show where I claimed anything about being at the top, bottom or in
between the heap.

> > > > However
> > > > that is based on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed.
>
> > > So, you had your eyes closed?
>
> > Do you drive with your eyes closed when mainatining speed not using
> > speed controld?  Wierd.
>
> Yeah, it's weird you don't understand what you wrote, and you must
> have read it at least twice: You attributed your "few mph" [tolerance]
> "on the sound of the vehicle at the chosen speed".  ^^^ right up
> there  ^^^

Which led you just how to the wild assumpiton I drive with eyes
closed?

> > > > I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
> > > > estimating speed
> > > > within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.
>
> > > But, like Alan, Nate and Brent, aren't you perfectly ignorant of the
> > > subject of speed estimation?
>
> > No, not ignorant of it.  Very cognizant of the limitation of the human
> > eye/brain/ etc. to estimate such things.
>
> Great!  What are they?

Non ability for anyone to judge within 1mph the speed of a vehicle for
starters.

I assume you mean you can tell the speed a vehicle is approachng head-
on, at an angle, at 90degrees. Amazing! You should take your show on
the road.

Harry k


>
> - gpsman

[Harry K]

On Jun 30, 9:30 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I suspect in this case, with such fantastic claims, he is just back to
his usual trolling.

Harry K

[Alan Baker]

In article
<c9fcef39-9467-433b...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 9:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 8:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
> > > > about 1mph--is nonsense....
> >
> > > Don't be silly.  You can probably estimate your speed to within 2-3
> > > mph with little or no practice.  Of course you're too stupid to think
> > > of trying it on your own.
> >
> > Actually, I highly doubt that. I think that on an unfamiliar road with a
> > car with which I wasn't familiar, I might be able to estimate my speed
> > +/- 5 mph.. ..maybe.
>
> Why introduce those variables?

Because otherwise you're not really estimating speed.

>
> > But +/- 1: nonsense.
>
> Well, I didn't say -you- could.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that what you are incapable of is
> impossible.

You can't either.

>
> > There is a huge difference between maintaining a constant speed and
> > estimating what that speed actually is.
>
> Thanks, Cap'n!
>
> > > And that's a non sequitur.  One doesn't cancel the other.
> >
> > > > ...and you know it.
> >
> > > You're just being silly.  Mine are not extraordinary claims.
> >
> > Your initial claim is absurd...
>
> O N W H A T B A S I S...?

It's obvious, but if you think it's not. Let's see you do it.

[gpsman]

I didn't assume it, you wrote it: "that is based on the sound of the

vehicle at the chosen speed."

And you still can't understand what you wrote... assuming you're
trying.

This is a perfect example of why you should consider you are stupider
than average.

> > > > > I will bet that in a controlled experiment you would fail miserably at
> > > > > estimating speed
> > > > > within even 5mph whether driving the vehicle or observing it.
>
> > > > But, like Alan, Nate and Brent, aren't you perfectly ignorant of the
> > > > subject of speed estimation?
>
> > > No, not ignorant of it.  Very cognizant of the limitation of the human
> > > eye/brain/ etc. to estimate such things.
>
> > Great!  What are they?
>
> Non ability for anyone to judge within 1mph the speed of a vehicle for
> starters.

Petitio principii. Your conclusion is assumed.

> I assume you mean you can tell the speed a vehicle is approachng head-
> on, at an angle, at 90degrees.  Amazing!  You should take your show on
> the road.

No, the premise is: -I- can estimate -my- speed. You really ought to
give your stupid a think if you can't keep up with the basic premise
of the argument.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Jul 1, 1:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 30, 8:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 30, 2:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > And hence your initial claim--that you can estimate your speed to with
> > > > > about 1mph--is nonsense....
>
> > > > Don't be silly.  You can probably estimate your speed to within 2-3
> > > > mph with little or no practice.  Of course you're too stupid to think
> > > > of trying it on your own.
>
> > > Actually, I highly doubt that. I think that on an unfamiliar road with a
> > > car with which I wasn't familiar, I might be able to estimate my speed
> > > +/- 5 mph.. ..maybe.
>
> > Why introduce those variables?
>
> Because otherwise you're not really estimating speed.

Why not...?

> > > But +/- 1: nonsense.
>
> > Well, I didn't say -you- could.
>
> > You seem to be under the impression that what you are incapable of is
> > impossible.
>
> You can't either.

Why not...?

> > > There is a huge difference between maintaining a constant speed and
> > > estimating what that speed actually is.
>
> > Thanks, Cap'n!
>
> > > > And that's a non sequitur.  One doesn't cancel the other.
>
> > > > > ...and you know it.
>
> > > > You're just being silly.  Mine are not extraordinary claims.
>
> > > Your initial claim is absurd...
>
> > O N  W H A T  B A S I S...?
>
> It's obvious, but if you think it's not. Let's see you do it.

That's all you got, a nyuh-uh in slightly different clothes...? Don't
I feel stupid, I expected something else...

You've been motoring around all your motoring life ignoring your due
diligence to your speeds (etc., etc., etc.). You are unable to
imagine that anyone can estimate their speed with a high degree of
accuracy.

I was taught, beginning at age 8, to attend closely to speed.
Eventually, due diligence to that practice, and practice, can lead to
using the speedometer for confirmation of speed rather than detection.

We didn't have electronic entertainment when I was growing up, but I
don't think that would have mattered. We were far more interested in
cars, everything about cars and driving. We would play the estimate
speed game from the back seat, and got pretty good at it.

You didn't choose to develop any driving skills, so you're stuck as a
motorist unable to even comprehend there might be more to driving than
you have the capability to imagine.

Sorry about your luck.
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

So you are forced to resort to straight insults. Not a surprise.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Come on...I need another belly laugh. Surely you have another piece
of BS you want to share with us.

Hary K

[Alan Baker]

In article
<a6bf3377-3081-4a4d...@f16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Whether or not you can drive as well as you talk...

...you're still a huge dick.

[Arif Khokar]

On 6/29/2012 2:21 PM, gpsman wrote:

> On Jun 29, 12:04 pm, N8N<njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 9:19 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:

>>>> "He's trained to estimate speeds. His difficulty with
>>>> measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not
>>>> depend on time or distance."
>>
>> Speed does not depend on time or what...?
>

> To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

> either the time or distance? I'm at ą 1 mph.

Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?

[gpsman]

On Jul 2, 9:30 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 6/29/2012 2:21 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

> > either the time or distance?  I'm at ± 1 mph.

>
> Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
> of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?

I can estimate knowledge of/serious interest in "driving" by questions
asked.

You're a -97/0.
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

Apparently, but not surprising, you missed the point of the question.

Harry K

[gpsman]

On Jul 2, 11:01 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:51 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 9:30 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
> > > of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?
>
> > I can estimate knowledge of/serious interest in "driving" by questions
> > asked.
>
> > You're a -97/0.
>

> Apparently, but not surprising, you missed the point of the question.

Single cause fallacy. Maybe you missed it. Or mine.

Or both.

How do you know...?
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

LOL. thanks, you do keep the laughs flowing.

Harry K

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/2/2012 8:30 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
> of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?

Yes, of course. 0 < speed < 3x10^8 m/sec.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/2/2012 10:51 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:30 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> On 6/29/2012 2:21 PM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

>>> either the time or distance? I'm at ą 1 mph.

>>
>> Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
>> of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?
>

> I can [not]

Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
elapsed or distanced traveled.

[gpsman]

On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 10:51 AM, gpsman wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 9:30 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >> On 6/29/2012 2:21 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> >>> To what tolerance can you estimate your own speed w/o knowledge of

> >>> either the time or distance? I'm at ± 1 mph.

>
> >> Can you estimate the speed of a moving object by looking at a photograph
> >> of it (assuming you don't have knowledge of the exposure time)?
>
> > I can [not]
>
> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
> elapsed or distanced traveled.

Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility. I've
never seen its equal.

Ensure that I understand:

In order to accurately estimate my own velocity, in real time, I must
also possess the ability to estimate (I assume you intend that
estimate to possess some similar degree of accuracy...) the speed of
any moving object, from a glacier to a bullet to a star, any of which
may no longer exist, from a photo capturing a single split-second
moment of its motion from anytime in photographic history...?

Do I have that exactly right?
-----

- gpsman

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:

>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>
> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility. I've
> never seen its equal.

Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
g., 70 miles in an hour). If you don't have knowledge of both for a
given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate. Hence the
point of asking you the question about estimating the speed of a moving
object by looking at a picture of it.

It's quite obvious that you're an imbecile.

[gpsman]

On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>  wrote:
> >> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
> >> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
> >> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>
> > Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility.  I've
> > never seen its equal.
>
> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
> g., 70 miles in an hour).  If you don't have knowledge of both for a
> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.

Non sequitur. If you use that data you're not estimating.

> Hence the
> point of asking you the question about estimating the speed of a moving
> object by looking at a picture of it.

So, your point is humans are incapable of accurately recalling
physical sensation/s, despite all repetition?

> It's quite obvious that you're an imbecile.

That really stings coming from an expert driver who can't maintain a
constant speed without constant reference to the speedometer.
-----

- gpsman

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/4/2012 11:42 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
>>>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
>>>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>>
>>> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility. I've
>>> never seen its equal.
>>
>> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
>> g., 70 miles in an hour). If you don't have knowledge of both for a
>> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.
>
> Non sequitur. If you use that data you're not estimating.

You can estimate time and distance to come up with an estimated speed.
But you cannot estimate speed when you have no idea of either time
elapsed or distance traveled.

[gpsman]

On Jul 4, 5:12 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 7/4/2012 11:42 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>  wrote:
> >> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>    wrote:
> >>>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
> >>>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
> >>>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>
> >>> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility.  I've
> >>> never seen its equal.
>
> >> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
> >> g., 70 miles in an hour).  If you don't have knowledge of both for a
> >> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.
>
> > Non sequitur.  If you use that data you're not estimating.
>
> You can estimate time and distance to come up with an estimated speed.

Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
of thousands of instances, and be right.

How does your method work? Can you provide an example of the internal
dialogue that takes place?

> But you cannot estimate speed when you have no idea of either time
> elapsed or distance traveled.

If I can't tell I'm moving, I can't accurately estimate my speed...

Watch your step, you've left this place littered with abandoned goal
post holes.
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

On Jul 4, 3:17 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 5:12 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/4/2012 11:42 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>  wrote:
> > >> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>    wrote:
> > >>>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
> > >>>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
> > >>>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>
> > >>> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility.  I've
> > >>> never seen its equal.
>
> > >> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
> > >> g., 70 miles in an hour).  If you don't have knowledge of both for a
> > >> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.
>
> > > Non sequitur.  If you use that data you're not estimating.
>
> > You can estimate time and distance to come up with an estimated speed.
>
> Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> of thousands of instances, and be right.
>

So you go by how x speed "feels" Do you shut your eyes when doing
tht?

Harry K

[gpsman]

No, vision imparts much if not most of the feel.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<e5bfa961-0942-40ab...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 5:12 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> > On 7/4/2012 11:42 AM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>  wrote:
> > >> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu>    wrote:
> > >>>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
> > >>>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
> > >>>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
> >
> > >>> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility.  I've
> > >>> never seen its equal.
> >
> > >> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
> > >> g., 70 miles in an hour).  If you don't have knowledge of both for a
> > >> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.
> >
> > > Non sequitur.  If you use that data you're not estimating.
> >
> > You can estimate time and distance to come up with an estimated speed.
>
> Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> of thousands of instances, and be right.

No. You can't; not within the error margins you claim.

[gpsman]

On Jul 5, 2:50 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> > of thousands of instances, and be right.
>
> No. You can't; not within the error margins you claim.

Because...?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<7aaa05b9-4adf-4901...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Sorry, but since it's your claim, you prove it.

WHY should anyone believe you can estimate speed within 1 mph?

[gpsman]

On Jul 5, 11:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <7aaa05b9-4adf-4901-8280-94833d919...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 2:50 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> > > > of thousands of instances, and be right.
>
> > > No. You can't; not within the error margins you claim.
>
> > Because...?
>
> Sorry, but since it's your claim, you prove it.

The only suggestion of why you find this impossible has been nyuh-uh.

> WHY should anyone believe you can estimate speed within 1 mph?

±.

Why should they not?

To be honest I thought every rad poster that purports to be a driving
expert could do it as well, and practiced it, or I'd never have
mentioned it.

I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
constant speed. I have several hundreds of thousands.

Your disdain for speed limits has resulted in frequent if not constant
variations of velocity, you're very often required to slow for traffic
and when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
chosen velocity.

Sorry you thought the 40 hours or less of training you chose to ignore
and no practice bestowed upon you all driving expertise.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<a6661c40-a157-4e18...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 11:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7aaa05b9-4adf-4901-8280-94833d919...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 2:50 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> > > > > of thousands of instances, and be right.
> >
> > > > No. You can't; not within the error margins you claim.
> >
> > > Because...?
> >
> > Sorry, but since it's your claim, you prove it.
>
> The only suggestion of why you find this impossible has been nyuh-uh.
>
> > WHY should anyone believe you can estimate speed within 1 mph?
>
> ±.
>
> Why should they not?
>
> To be honest I thought every rad poster that purports to be a driving
> expert could do it as well, and practiced it, or I'd never have
> mentioned it.
>
> I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
> incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
> constant speed. I have several hundreds of thousands.

Again, you incorrectly conflate maintaining a constant speed with being
able to estimate what that speed is.

>
> Your disdain for speed limits has resulted in frequent if not constant
> variations of velocity, you're very often required to slow for traffic
> and when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
> Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> chosen velocity.

Nonsense. If one maintains one's "chosen velocity" in the face of
changing conditions, one is just an idiot.

[gpsman]

On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
> > incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
> > constant speed.  I have several hundreds of thousands.
>
> Again, you incorrectly conflate maintaining a constant speed with being
> able to estimate what that speed is.

No, you misunderstand that maintaining a constant speed is part of the
process of learning to accurately estimate speed; the repeated and
extended "experience" at that speed is how you identify that speed
from memory.

> > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > chosen velocity.
>
> Nonsense. If one maintains one's "chosen velocity" in the face of
> changing conditions, one is just an idiot.

Straw man. Room to accelerate is not reason to accelerate.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<fe10f494-b83a-4b2d...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
> > > incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
> > > constant speed.  I have several hundreds of thousands.
> >
> > Again, you incorrectly conflate maintaining a constant speed with being
> > able to estimate what that speed is.
>
> No, you misunderstand that maintaining a constant speed is part of the
> process of learning to accurately estimate speed; the repeated and
> extended "experience" at that speed is how you identify that speed
> from memory.

Nope. You misunderstand.

>
> > > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > > chosen velocity.
> >
> > Nonsense. If one maintains one's "chosen velocity" in the face of
> > changing conditions, one is just an idiot.
>
> Straw man. Room to accelerate is not reason to accelerate.

Nope. I said nothing about acceleration. That's just your ignorant
assumption.

If one is traveling at one's "chosen velocity" and the road conditions
change for the worse, then one would DEcelerate, don't you think?

[gpsman]

On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <fe10f494-b83a-4b2d-818f-1e9a8a22a...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
> > > > incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
> > > > constant speed.  I have several hundreds of thousands.
>
> > > Again, you incorrectly conflate maintaining a constant speed with being
> > > able to estimate what that speed is.
>
> > No, you misunderstand that maintaining a constant speed is part of the
> > process of learning to accurately estimate speed; the repeated and
> > extended "experience" at that speed is how you identify that speed
> > from memory.
>
> Nope. You misunderstand.

Fascinating rebuttal.

> > > > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > > > chosen velocity.
>
> > > Nonsense. If one maintains one's "chosen velocity" in the face of
> > > changing conditions, one is just an idiot.
>
> > Straw man.  Room to accelerate is not reason to accelerate.
>
> Nope. I said nothing about acceleration. That's just your ignorant
> assumption.

No, that's what I wrote, to which you have responded with nothing but
nyuh-uhs and straw men.

> If one is traveling at one's "chosen velocity" and the road conditions
> change for the worse, then one would DEcelerate, don't you think?

Straw man. I covered that: "...you're very often required to slow for
traffic...".

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the argument?
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

LOL. Project much do you?

Harry K

[Harry K]

so when you see a pretty girl you are feeling her! Lucky, lucky
you...
well other than making BS claims.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Jul 4, 8:42 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

I'm curious. You have made the sttement several times that you can
estimaate speed to withing 1 mph and now you are going on about how
xspeed feels.

Qustion. Can you crawl into a strange car and hit your fantastic 1mph
accurace without looking at the speedo? Awaiting another good belly
laugh.

Harry K

[gpsman]

± 1 mph. Yes. Did it less than 72 hours ago. 2010

> accurace without looking at the speedo?

You can't be sure without reference to a more reliable source.

> Awaiting another good belly
> laugh.

What's the premise, nobody could be as good or better than you?

From: Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in
terms of justice
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:00:37 -0700 (PDT)

"back in the day prior to speed
controlI spent may dayis and hours traveling across country and got to
where I could maintain a constant speed within a few mph."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/643833d632c1aa76?hl=en&dmode=source
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<cdf538ec-efd1-4089...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 3:26 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 8:42 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > - gpsman
> >
> > I'm curious.  You have made the sttement several times that you can
> > estimaate speed to withing 1 mph and now you are going on about how
> > xspeed feels.
> >
> > Qustion.  Can you crawl into a strange car and hit your fantastic 1mph
>

> ą 1 mph. Yes. Did it less than 72 hours ago. 2010

No. You may have maintained speed to within +/- 1mph, but that's not the
same thing.

[Alan Baker]

In article
<0f8347aa-a8a8-4bf9...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fe10f494-b83a-4b2d-818f-1e9a8a22a...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 1:10 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I think I'm coming to understand the bases of your unfounded
> > > > > incredulity, you have 0 miles of practice or experience maintaining a
> > > > > constant speed.  I have several hundreds of thousands.
> >
> > > > Again, you incorrectly conflate maintaining a constant speed with being
> > > > able to estimate what that speed is.
> >
> > > No, you misunderstand that maintaining a constant speed is part of the
> > > process of learning to accurately estimate speed; the repeated and
> > > extended "experience" at that speed is how you identify that speed
> > > from memory.
> >
> > Nope. You misunderstand.
>
> Fascinating rebuttal.

Every attempt at dealing with you on this issue with simple logic has
failed, so I give you back what you deserve.

>
> > > > > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > > > > chosen velocity.
> >
> > > > Nonsense. If one maintains one's "chosen velocity" in the face of
> > > > changing conditions, one is just an idiot.
> >
> > > Straw man.  Room to accelerate is not reason to accelerate.
> >
> > Nope. I said nothing about acceleration. That's just your ignorant
> > assumption.
>
> No, that's what I wrote, to which you have responded with nothing but
> nyuh-uhs and straw men.

Nope.

>
> > If one is traveling at one's "chosen velocity" and the road conditions
> > change for the worse, then one would DEcelerate, don't you think?
>
> Straw man. I covered that: "...you're very often required to slow for
> traffic...".

Wow. You think they only reason you might slow from one's "chosen speed"
is traffic?

Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
speed is complete nonsense. A good driver should be varying speed for
conditions a lot of the time...

...because road conditions are varying a lot of the time. Visual range,
surface condition, traffic, presence or absence of pedestrians, presence
or absence of other roads and driveways... ...all these affect the speed
which is appropriate for a given moment on the road.

As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
that not all drivers drive at the same speed. If I'm doing the speed
limit, and a car ahead of me is traveling more slowly, am I suddenly
just a motorist because I "close the gap" from 500 yards down to safe
following distance?

[Harry K]

On Jul 5, 12:54 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:26 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 8:42 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > - gpsman
>
> > I'm curious.  You have made the sttement several times that you can
> > estimaate speed to withing 1 mph and now you are going on about how
> > xspeed feels.
>
> > Qustion.  Can you crawl into a strange car and hit your fantastic 1mph
>
> ± 1 mph.  Yes.  Did it less than 72 hours ago.  2010
>
> > accurace without looking at the speedo?
>
> You can't be sure without reference to a more reliable source.

So you can't hit within 1mph but can maintain it after knowing what it
is. Here I though you said you can estimate speed to that accuracy.

> > Awaiting another good belly
> > laugh.
>
> What's the premise, nobody could be as good or better than you?

the premise is that nobody can estimate speed within 1mph...well, 2
mph sgiven ur plus minus.

That was your claim but now you haved backed off to maintaining speed
to theat accuaracy. I aslo call that BS although it is a bit more
within the realms of possibility..


Harry K

[gpsman]

On Jul 5, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote

Do you mean to say nyuh-uh? To... what? That you don't respond with
nyuh-uhs?

> > > If one is traveling at one's "chosen velocity" and the road conditions
> > > change for the worse, then one would DEcelerate, don't you think?
>
> > Straw man. I covered that: "...you're very often required to slow for
> > traffic...".
>
> Wow. You think they only reason you might slow from one's "chosen speed"
> is traffic?

Straw man. The premise is "closing the gap".

> Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
> speed is complete nonsense.

Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap.

> A good driver should be varying speed for
> conditions a lot of the time...

Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap

> ...because road conditions are varying a lot of the time. Visual range,
> surface condition, traffic, presence or absence of pedestrians, presence
> or absence of other roads and driveways... ...all these affect the speed
> which is appropriate for a given moment on the road.

Thanks, Cap'n!

> As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
> that not all drivers drive at the same speed.

Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap.

> If I'm doing the speed
> limit, and a car ahead of me is traveling more slowly, am I suddenly
> just a motorist because I "close the gap" from 500 yards down to safe
> following distance?

What have you discovered about your ability to estimate your speed?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<ce0a53eb-ff08-4baf...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

No.

You made a general statement that "driver" shows his skill by his
ability to maintain a constant speed.

>
> > Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
> > speed is complete nonsense.
>
> Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap.

Which is nonsense because they do. All the time.

>
> > A good driver should be varying speed for
> > conditions a lot of the time...
>
> Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap
>
> > ...because road conditions are varying a lot of the time. Visual range,
> > surface condition, traffic, presence or absence of pedestrians, presence
> > or absence of other roads and driveways... ...all these affect the speed
> > which is appropriate for a given moment on the road.
>
> Thanks, Cap'n!
>
> > As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
> > that not all drivers drive at the same speed.
>
> Straw man. The premise is they don't close the gap.

So then if they encounter someone traveling slower, they must change
their constant speed.

>
> > If I'm doing the speed
> > limit, and a car ahead of me is traveling more slowly, am I suddenly
> > just a motorist because I "close the gap" from 500 yards down to safe
> > following distance?
>
> What have you discovered about your ability to estimate your speed?

What have you demonstrated that shows you can estimate (not maintain;
that's an entirely different thing) your speed to within 1 mph.

[gpsman]

On Jul 6, 12:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote
>

> > > Wow. You think they only reason you might slow from one's "chosen speed"
> > > is traffic?
>
> > Straw man.  The premise is "closing the gap".
>
> No.
>
> You made a general statement that "driver" shows his skill by his
> ability to maintain a constant speed.

"when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.

Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
chosen velocity. "

> > > Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
> > > speed is complete nonsense.
>
> > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
>
> Which is nonsense because they do. All the time.

Straw man. You are responding to your straw men:

"when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.

Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
chosen velocity."
>

> > > As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
> > > that not all drivers drive at the same speed.
>
> > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
>
> So then if they encounter someone traveling slower, they must change
> their constant speed.

No, they crash into them.

> > What have you discovered about your ability to estimate your speed?
>
> What have you demonstrated that shows you can estimate (not maintain;
> that's an entirely different thing) your speed to within 1 mph.

How can you conclude my ability is fantastic if you haven't tried it
yourself?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<2b40d4ab-d470-4911...@s1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 6, 12:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote
> >
> > > > Wow. You think they only reason you might slow from one's "chosen speed"
> > > > is traffic?
> >
> > > Straw man.  The premise is "closing the gap".
> >
> > No.
> >
> > You made a general statement that "driver" shows his skill by his
> > ability to maintain a constant speed.
>
> "when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
> Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> chosen velocity. "
>
> > > > Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
> > > > speed is complete nonsense.
> >
> > > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
> >
> > Which is nonsense because they do. All the time.
>
> Straw man. You are responding to your straw men:
>
> "when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
> Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> chosen velocity."

Two clauses that are at odds with each other: if you encounter a slower
driver, maintaining one's chosen velocity will result in the gap closing.

> >
> > > > As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
> > > > that not all drivers drive at the same speed.
> >
> > > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
> >
> > So then if they encounter someone traveling slower, they must change
> > their constant speed.
>
> No, they crash into them.

And that's a "driver" skill, is it?

>
> > > What have you discovered about your ability to estimate your speed?
> >
> > What have you demonstrated that shows you can estimate (not maintain;
> > that's an entirely different thing) your speed to within 1 mph.
>
> How can you conclude my ability is fantastic if you haven't tried it
> yourself?

Your claim is fantastic on its face.

[gpsman]

On Jul 6, 1:23 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 12:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 5, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote
>
> > > > > Wow. You think they only reason you might slow from one's "chosen speed"
> > > > > is traffic?
>
> > > > Straw man.  The premise is "closing the gap".
>
> > > No.
>
> > > You made a general statement that "driver" shows his skill by his
> > > ability to maintain a constant speed.
>
> > "when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
> > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > chosen velocity. "
>
> > > > > Your premise--that "driver's" show their skill by maintaining a constant
> > > > > speed is complete nonsense.
>
> > > > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
>
> > > Which is nonsense because they do. All the time.
>
> > Straw man.  You are responding to your straw men:
>
> > "when an open space appears before you, you endeavor to close it.
> > Closing the gap is a sure sign of the motorist, drivers maintain their
> > chosen velocity."
>
> Two clauses that are at odds with each other: if you encounter a slower
> driver, maintaining one's chosen velocity will result in the gap closing.

Straw man. The premise is "endeavor" to close the gap "when space
appears", not that they never approach slower traffic.

> > > > > As for "closing the gap", it is an inevitable consequence of the fact
> > > > > that not all drivers drive at the same speed.
>
> > > > Straw man.  The premise is they don't close the gap.
>
> > > So then if they encounter someone traveling slower, they must change
> > > their constant speed.
>
> > No, they crash into them.
>
> And that's a "driver" skill, is it?

Uh huh. Extra points if they can roll the vehicle.

>
> > > > What have you discovered about your ability to estimate your speed?
>
> > > What have you demonstrated that shows you can estimate (not maintain;
> > > that's an entirely different thing) your speed to within 1 mph.
>
> > How can you conclude my ability is fantastic if you haven't tried it
> > yourself?
>
> Your claim is fantastic on its face.

Really? You want to add pussy to willfully ignorant, stupid, and
intellectually dishonest?!

I'll start another thread, report your ability there and we'll compare
them.
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<65d134dc-a366-41fc...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

You do something more than report your ability; say find a credible
reference that suggests it's possible.

[gpsman]

On Jul 6, 12:53 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 1:23 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Your claim is fantastic on its face.
>
> > Really?  You want to add pussy to willfully ignorant, stupid, and
> > intellectually dishonest?!
>
> > I'll start another thread, report your ability there and we'll compare
> > them.
>

> You do something more than report your ability; say find a credible
> reference that suggests it's possible.

Facts are facts regardless of whether or not they are proven.

It is a simple matter for you to establish your ability and post it as
a refutation. You have every piece of required gear, and obviously
the time at your disposal.

Is the holdup gas money...?
-----

- gpsman

[Alan Baker]

In article
<76befa90-eaaf-416b...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 6, 12:53 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:>
> >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 1:23 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Your claim is fantastic on its face.
> >
> > > Really?  You want to add pussy to willfully ignorant, stupid, and
> > > intellectually dishonest?!
> >
> > > I'll start another thread, report your ability there and we'll compare
> > > them.
> >
> > You do something more than report your ability; say find a credible
> > reference that suggests it's possible.
>
> Facts are facts regardless of whether or not they are proven.

True.

You have not presented a fact, however. You have made an assertion.

>
> It is a simple matter for you to establish your ability and post it as
> a refutation. You have every piece of required gear, and obviously
> the time at your disposal.
>
> Is the holdup gas money...?

I have no interested in posting an absolutely useless "skill".

The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have no
interest in how well anyone can answer that question.

[gpsman]

On Jul 6, 2:00 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <76befa90-eaaf-416b-b2fd-b62db5d36...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 12:53 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:>
> > >  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 1:23 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Your claim is fantastic on its face.
>
> > > > Really?  You want to add pussy to willfully ignorant, stupid, and
> > > > intellectually dishonest?!
>
> > > > I'll start another thread, report your ability there and we'll compare
> > > > them.
>
> > > You do something more than report your ability; say find a credible
> > > reference that suggests it's possible.
>
> > Facts are facts regardless of whether or not they are proven.
>
> True.

Not only not true, but preposterous.

> You have not presented a fact, however. You have made an assertion.

That's odd... that's exactly what you called facts for you regarding
your "simply posting the facts of one's life", the only evidence for
which included only you having all day every day to post nyuh-uhs and
Lols to Usenet.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/14211c001b4ac3e1?hl=en&dmode=source

> > It is a simple matter for you to establish your ability and post it as
> > a refutation.  You have every piece of required gear, and obviously
> > the time at your disposal.
>
> > Is the holdup gas money...?
>
> I have no interested in posting an absolutely useless "skill".

I don't think I suggested it was a skill, just an ability.

Are you sure English is your first language?

> The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
> represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have no
> interest in how well anyone can answer that question.

<spit take> Right. This is day 8 you've spent on exactly that
question. Granted, every bit of that includes 0 evidence you have any
interest in it.

Which brings up the question of what you think exhibiting your
stupidity accomplishes except exhibiting your stupidity?

If you wouldn't mind not shitting up my other thread with your lack of
interest, I'd appreciate it.
-----

- gpsman

[N8N]

On Jul 5, 4:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article

> <cdf538ec-efd1-4089-8f5f-9f11dc6dd...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 3:26 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 4, 8:42 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > - gpsman
>
> > > I'm curious.  You have made the sttement several times that you can
> > > estimaate speed to withing 1 mph and now you are going on about how
> > > xspeed feels.
>
> > > Qustion.  Can you crawl into a strange car and hit your fantastic 1mph
>

> > ± 1 mph.  Yes.  Did it less than 72 hours ago.  2010

>
> No. You may have maintained speed to within +/- 1mph, but that's not the
> same thing.

Indeed. That is actually not difficult for a musically inclined
person (e.g. someone who has an accurate sense of pitch) in a vehicle
with a manual transmission or lockup torque converter.

Estimating the speed of *someone else's* vehicle, from a stationary
position at the side of the road (or estimating speed differential
from a vehicle moving at a different speed) is another matter
entirely. I can take a stab at it; however I am never going to assert
that I could get any closer than 5-10 MPH and am not even certain that
it is humanly possible.

nate

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/4/2012 5:17 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 4, 5:12 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:

>> On 7/4/2012 11:42 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 10:50 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2012 9:09 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 10:32 am, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Then you're not telling the truth by stating that you're able to
>>>>>> estimate your speed within +/- 1 mph *without* knowledge of either time
>>>>>> elapsed or distanced traveled.
>>
>>>>> Your premise, I think, achieves absolute perfect imbecility. I've
>>>>> never seen its equal.
>>
>>>> Speed is defined by distanced traveled over a given interval of time (e.
>>>> g., 70 miles in an hour). If you don't have knowledge of both for a
>>>> given situation, then you cannot make a reasonable estimate.
>>
>>> Non sequitur. If you use that data you're not estimating.
>>

>> You can estimate time and distance to come up with an estimated speed.
>

> Or I can think, "This is what I remember x mph feel like", from tens
> of thousands of instances, and be right.

>[...]

For the same or similar vehicle. Going from a normal ride height car to
a larger rental truck (assuming one does not drive such vehicles on a
regular basis) will throw off one's estimate of speed, due to the very
different perspective of the ground in your peripheral vision.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/5/2012 12:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
> [...] Straw man. Room to accelerate is not reason to accelerate.

If you have a grunty, but free-revving V-2 with a nice intake sound and
exhaust note, it certainly is. :)