Nope. The heavier vehicle requires 5800/2050=2.8 times more braking torque than your sedan and it will stop in exactly the same distance. braking torque * effective brake radius = vehicle mass * deceleration. Peak deceleration can be assumed fixed per given stopping distance and speed. If vehicle mass goes up by a given factor, braking torque needs to go up by the same factor. Assumption is that you don't exhaust road friction of course. This is elementary school physics.
If you can "easily" double your minimum stopping distance when the car is heavily loaded and the ABS has not turned on yet, you're simply not pushing the pedal hard enough. IOW, it's your fault and only your fault -- either as a driver, or in not maintaining your brake system correctly, or in picking up a car that has inadequate brakes.
At the time when ABS comes on, you've exhausted the available road friction. Before that happens, though, it's either you not braking hard enough, or your brakes being inadequate.
I have a simple test for brake performance: no matter what the speed and load (within car specs), you should be able to activate the ABS by braking hard on dry pavement. If you can't, it means that you're not fully using the road friction, and your brakes perform poorly. In fact, if you're a good driver in a car with good brakes and were to brake hard, the ABS should activate within 0.1s or so of you applying brake pressure.
Ideally I'd also like to see the brakes being powerful enough to activate ABS (exhaust road friction) while full engine torque is applied at low speeds (say middle of power band in 1st gear). But I've yet to see any popular stock cars be able to do that. Both my and my wife's Volvos can do that, but that's only because the brakes have been upgraded (beefier discs and calipers, good pads).
Now, having a tiny bit of human factors experience, I'd certainly like it if brake systems were calibrated such that on all cars, same brake pedal pressure gives same deceleration. This would need to be "tuned" for seat vs. brake pedal geometry, as relative location of your butt vs. the pedal does change braking effort. But this would be essentially a workaround to not having proper habits as a driver.
Your SUV's stock brakes must suck donkey balls so to speak. There's no reason for an SUV not to stop on a dime. SUVs are not all that heavier than sedans, and remember that the stopping force is only proportional to mass. Same goes with energy to be dissipated. A SUV's brakes may only need to produce 1.5-2x more braking torque, compared to a sedan, to stop in the same distance.
If you really cannot stop your SUV, on dry pavement, in the same distance as your sedan, starting from the same speed, then -- seriously -- get your brakes checked/upgraded.
I have seen some yellow lights lasting about 1.5 seconds in Cleveland, and that's on intersections without traffic cameras. I think they are conditioning people to accept an overly short yellow light as somewhat OK. It makes no sense, IMHO, for the yellow light to be any shorter than 5 seconds.
The difficulty is nothing. This is done on purpose to make it as hard as possible to get at the materials without doing something illegal. It's otherwise known as skirting the law.
You should use a virtual number every single time when online. All merchants are shady in that there's no telling when their records may be compromised.
Those must be some very well hidden friends, then, because it's the first I heard of them. Why the conspiracy theory -- can't you just accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong and your post seems trollish to enough people other than me and yourself?
Oh boy, have you completely missed my point or what. The hardware is designed in such a way that the LED is on when camera has power. At least the hardware I personally looked at in my MacBook Pro. The LED is connected, via a series resistor, directly to the power and ground traces on the camera assembly.
For the camera to operate without the LED being on requires the camera to work without power applied to its power pins. If there's power on the power pins, the LED will be on unless something is physically broken or modified.
It is possible for some low-power digital logic to get enough juice coming in on the signal pins to operate without power. I've just opened up the damn thing to verify that applying up to 4.5V on the USB data lines going to the camera assembly will not power it up in any real sense of the word. I've put the camera assy into an empty paint can, with three AA batteries providing power. The can is my EMI test can and has a BNC connector soldered on its side, and I've put a little "stub" antenna on the inside to couple with any emissions from the camera. I hooked up the output to a Tektronix 7L14 spectrum analyzer with an 18dB preamp in line. With 4.5V on either or both USB data lines, there's no activity of any sort visible at 10MHz span over 1.5GHz worth of spectrum. This shows that none of the oscillators are running. That same camera, when hooked up to a well shielded beagleboard (so that USB enumeration succeeds), shows plenty of activity, you can pick out pixel clock etc.
You illustrate my original point: BAC is a very poor measure of the effect of alcohol on your brain. Even self-awareness of the effect is rather poor. Humans have this interesting ability to very quickly adapt to things being wrong with them. Fighter jet pilots who have vestibular nystagmus simply fly into the ground, unaware that their brain is substituting expected values to instrument/HUD readings -- nystagmus lowers high spatial frequency acuity while paradoxically improving low spatial frequency acuity. Same with intoxication: most people, especially those for whom it's not the first drink "in a long time", are woefully unaware that their perception is affected enough to cause a problem. There are powerful adaptation mechanisms that try to work around poor sensory input. Those help and conspire against us at the same time.
A BAC test is a very, very poor stand-in to measuring actual oculomotor and vestibulomotor (including VOR) performance, and the latter gives a reasonably good indication of how fit your visual system is.
I don't think that going "tough" on crime has been ever shown to work. It's one of those things that seems "sensible enough", yet in reality turns out to be completely false. That's the problem with "common sense": most people's common sense has nothing to do with scientific common sense...
I'm not arguing that drunk driving is a problem, just make sure you understand how those numbers are arrived at. In the U.S., alcohol is considered a "factor" if anyone in the car was drinking, whether driver or passenger.
Government cannot fix stupid, sorry. Any expectation of it is stupid in itself. Government can educate and enforce, these actions may have no effect on amount of stupidity out there. I'd think they are mostly ineffective. People are set in their ways and resilient to external influences. Most people who drive drunk cannot be fixed. You literally have to wait for them to die off, and hope there's no new ones turning drunk drivers. Oh yeah, you could also lock them all up, but it seems that a lifetime incarceration costs more than the value of human life typically used in insurance calculations by automobile manufactures (a couple $1M USD). It literally may cost more to keep a drunk driver locked up for life than it costs to deal with one death caused by such driver. Sad, yes.
Automotive analogy: The problem with using BAC is that it's akin to checking the speed of your car by putting strain gages in the tires and measuring the radial strain to get at the rotational speed. It's just as silly.
What you need to do is a functional test: measure reflex speeds, vestibular nystagmus and its suppression, and such. All of that could be done with a portable eye tracker, quite cheaply, too (read: big profits for manufacturer). This would take care of people's varying sensitivity to alcohol, and would automatically catch drug users, too. It tests the performance of the visual system -- kinda important when you're driving.
BAC is an indirect way to measure impairment: it's impairment you're after, not BAC itself. BAC is a very approximate estimate for impairment! Even worse, BAC is measured indirectly again by poorly testing the amount of alcohol in exhaled air. That's two layers of indirection for measuring something that has direct, reproducible measurements available.
I agree that the data breach is inexcusable, but wait a minute -- you claim it's somehow their problem that you are apparently emotionally attached to a 16 digit number?! WTF? I wouldn't mind not having a fixed CC number period. For all online transactions I'm using their single-use number generator (virtual account number), and for brick-and-mortar stores I try to use cash whenever possible.
Without a hardware mod, if the camera's image sensor has power, the LED is on. When the camera is not in use, it receives no power, thus LED is off. So, no, the driver cannot play with the LED, it can only activate and deactivate the camera, and the LED will duly indicate that.
No. At lest not in my 1st gen MBP. The camera's LED is hardwired to the power supply. If the camera is on, the LED is on. "Light Test" functionality can be had simply by turning on photo booth.
You have a point. I remember how hard was it to get Microsoft's development tools in Poland in the 90s. Things such as driver development kits, early "Visual" langauges, MSDN content were available within 45 minutes from the local pirates -- that's about as long as it took to copy things, or, later, burn them to CDs. Getting the same from local Microsoft reps/offices was a multiweek bureaucratic hurdle, even if you had money in your hand and were willing to pay right then and there. To be frank, Microsoft only recently got a clue and Windows 7 is the first version IIRC that you can buy as a download. I hate the wait and waste of resources that is physical shipping of media and license keys.
It always brightens my day when one kills someone else's paragraph-or-longer argument in a single sentence. A sharp fang indeed. Have a great day, mine sure started so!
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I'm not saying it's a minor issue, just that you'd live.
Nope. The heavier vehicle requires 5800/2050=2.8 times more braking torque than your sedan and it will stop in exactly the same distance. braking torque * effective brake radius = vehicle mass * deceleration. Peak deceleration can be assumed fixed per given stopping distance and speed. If vehicle mass goes up by a given factor, braking torque needs to go up by the same factor. Assumption is that you don't exhaust road friction of course. This is elementary school physics.
If you can "easily" double your minimum stopping distance when the car is heavily loaded and the ABS has not turned on yet, you're simply not pushing the pedal hard enough. IOW, it's your fault and only your fault -- either as a driver, or in not maintaining your brake system correctly, or in picking up a car that has inadequate brakes.
At the time when ABS comes on, you've exhausted the available road friction. Before that happens, though, it's either you not braking hard enough, or your brakes being inadequate.
I have a simple test for brake performance: no matter what the speed and load (within car specs), you should be able to activate the ABS by braking hard on dry pavement. If you can't, it means that you're not fully using the road friction, and your brakes perform poorly. In fact, if you're a good driver in a car with good brakes and were to brake hard, the ABS should activate within 0.1s or so of you applying brake pressure.
Ideally I'd also like to see the brakes being powerful enough to activate ABS (exhaust road friction) while full engine torque is applied at low speeds (say middle of power band in 1st gear). But I've yet to see any popular stock cars be able to do that. Both my and my wife's Volvos can do that, but that's only because the brakes have been upgraded (beefier discs and calipers, good pads).
Now, having a tiny bit of human factors experience, I'd certainly like it if brake systems were calibrated such that on all cars, same brake pedal pressure gives same deceleration. This would need to be "tuned" for seat vs. brake pedal geometry, as relative location of your butt vs. the pedal does change braking effort. But this would be essentially a workaround to not having proper habits as a driver.
Your SUV's stock brakes must suck donkey balls so to speak. There's no reason for an SUV not to stop on a dime. SUVs are not all that heavier than sedans, and remember that the stopping force is only proportional to mass. Same goes with energy to be dissipated. A SUV's brakes may only need to produce 1.5-2x more braking torque, compared to a sedan, to stop in the same distance.
If you really cannot stop your SUV, on dry pavement, in the same distance as your sedan, starting from the same speed, then -- seriously -- get your brakes checked/upgraded.
I don't think you'd be killed. Some whiplash and seatbelt bruises maybe, but that'd be about it.
I have seen some yellow lights lasting about 1.5 seconds in Cleveland, and that's on intersections without traffic cameras. I think they are conditioning people to accept an overly short yellow light as somewhat OK. It makes no sense, IMHO, for the yellow light to be any shorter than 5 seconds.
The difficulty is nothing. This is done on purpose to make it as hard as possible to get at the materials without doing something illegal. It's otherwise known as skirting the law.
You should use a virtual number every single time when online. All merchants are shady in that there's no telling when their records may be compromised.
Those must be some very well hidden friends, then, because it's the first I heard of them. Why the conspiracy theory -- can't you just accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong and your post seems trollish to enough people other than me and yourself?
Oh boy, have you completely missed my point or what. The hardware is designed in such a way that the LED is on when camera has power. At least the hardware I personally looked at in my MacBook Pro. The LED is connected, via a series resistor, directly to the power and ground traces on the camera assembly.
For the camera to operate without the LED being on requires the camera to work without power applied to its power pins. If there's power on the power pins, the LED will be on unless something is physically broken or modified.
It is possible for some low-power digital logic to get enough juice coming in on the signal pins to operate without power. I've just opened up the damn thing to verify that applying up to 4.5V on the USB data lines going to the camera assembly will not power it up in any real sense of the word. I've put the camera assy into an empty paint can, with three AA batteries providing power. The can is my EMI test can and has a BNC connector soldered on its side, and I've put a little "stub" antenna on the inside to couple with any emissions from the camera. I hooked up the output to a Tektronix 7L14 spectrum analyzer with an 18dB preamp in line. With 4.5V on either or both USB data lines, there's no activity of any sort visible at 10MHz span over 1.5GHz worth of spectrum. This shows that none of the oscillators are running. That same camera, when hooked up to a well shielded beagleboard (so that USB enumeration succeeds), shows plenty of activity, you can pick out pixel clock etc.
No, I drank plenty, but I have the sense to understand my own limitations. See my other post above.
You illustrate my original point: BAC is a very poor measure of the effect of alcohol on your brain. Even self-awareness of the effect is rather poor. Humans have this interesting ability to very quickly adapt to things being wrong with them. Fighter jet pilots who have vestibular nystagmus simply fly into the ground, unaware that their brain is substituting expected values to instrument/HUD readings -- nystagmus lowers high spatial frequency acuity while paradoxically improving low spatial frequency acuity. Same with intoxication: most people, especially those for whom it's not the first drink "in a long time", are woefully unaware that their perception is affected enough to cause a problem. There are powerful adaptation mechanisms that try to work around poor sensory input. Those help and conspire against us at the same time.
A BAC test is a very, very poor stand-in to measuring actual oculomotor and vestibulomotor (including VOR) performance, and the latter gives a reasonably good indication of how fit your visual system is.
Thank you!
Darn, I meant to say "I'm not arguing that drunk driving is not a problem". Of course it is a problem.
I don't think that going "tough" on crime has been ever shown to work. It's one of those things that seems "sensible enough", yet in reality turns out to be completely false. That's the problem with "common sense": most people's common sense has nothing to do with scientific common sense...
I'm not arguing that drunk driving is a problem, just make sure you understand how those numbers are arrived at. In the U.S., alcohol is considered a "factor" if anyone in the car was drinking, whether driver or passenger.
How the heck is "drunk" different from "buzzed". If you really care, stop using words that diminish what's really going on. Drunk is drunk.
Government cannot fix stupid, sorry. Any expectation of it is stupid in itself. Government can educate and enforce, these actions may have no effect on amount of stupidity out there. I'd think they are mostly ineffective. People are set in their ways and resilient to external influences. Most people who drive drunk cannot be fixed. You literally have to wait for them to die off, and hope there's no new ones turning drunk drivers. Oh yeah, you could also lock them all up, but it seems that a lifetime incarceration costs more than the value of human life typically used in insurance calculations by automobile manufactures (a couple $1M USD). It literally may cost more to keep a drunk driver locked up for life than it costs to deal with one death caused by such driver. Sad, yes.
Automotive analogy: The problem with using BAC is that it's akin to checking the speed of your car by putting strain gages in the tires and measuring the radial strain to get at the rotational speed. It's just as silly.
What you need to do is a functional test: measure reflex speeds, vestibular nystagmus and its suppression, and such. All of that could be done with a portable eye tracker, quite cheaply, too (read: big profits for manufacturer). This would take care of people's varying sensitivity to alcohol, and would automatically catch drug users, too. It tests the performance of the visual system -- kinda important when you're driving.
BAC is an indirect way to measure impairment: it's impairment you're after, not BAC itself. BAC is a very approximate estimate for impairment! Even worse, BAC is measured indirectly again by poorly testing the amount of alcohol in exhaled air. That's two layers of indirection for measuring something that has direct, reproducible measurements available.
I agree that the data breach is inexcusable, but wait a minute -- you claim it's somehow their problem that you are apparently emotionally attached to a 16 digit number?! WTF? I wouldn't mind not having a fixed CC number period. For all online transactions I'm using their single-use number generator (virtual account number), and for brick-and-mortar stores I try to use cash whenever possible.
Without a hardware mod, if the camera's image sensor has power, the LED is on. When the camera is not in use, it receives no power, thus LED is off. So, no, the driver cannot play with the LED, it can only activate and deactivate the camera, and the LED will duly indicate that.
No. At lest not in my 1st gen MBP. The camera's LED is hardwired to the power supply. If the camera is on, the LED is on. "Light Test" functionality can be had simply by turning on photo booth.
You live in Ohio?
You have a point. I remember how hard was it to get Microsoft's development tools in Poland in the 90s. Things such as driver development kits, early "Visual" langauges, MSDN content were available within 45 minutes from the local pirates -- that's about as long as it took to copy things, or, later, burn them to CDs. Getting the same from local Microsoft reps/offices was a multiweek bureaucratic hurdle, even if you had money in your hand and were willing to pay right then and there. To be frank, Microsoft only recently got a clue and Windows 7 is the first version IIRC that you can buy as a download. I hate the wait and waste of resources that is physical shipping of media and license keys.
Care to link to some legal sources for that, in the relevant jurisdictions?
It always brightens my day when one kills someone else's paragraph-or-longer argument in a single sentence. A sharp fang indeed. Have a great day, mine sure started so!