Hence my closing comment, "ignoring the discussion of whether such a judgment could be made to stick outside the US"... and considering there ARE United States companies involved (Paypal, VISA, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if winning this case let them chase down buyers in spite of not being able to touch AllOfMP3 itself (or Chronopay etc).
They also accepted Paypal and a few other forms of payment (the list has changed slightly over time), but you might be right -- other than a username/password, I don't think they requested any other information from their users. IP addresses are a possibility, though I can't think of a good reason they'd store that info for any significant period of time.
I suppose, though, there is probably some legal means of using a judgment against AllOfMP3 to work their way down the line to Chronopay and the others to obtain those details (ignoring the discussion of whether such a judgment could be made to stick outside the US).
I also notice that the cyclists tend to take a rather liberal view of their obligation to obey traffic control devices. If you scaled the available road space down and traffic levels up, cyclists would have just as much trouble. The only reason they don't is because we build roads for cars, then we allow bicycles to use them.
People who drive feeling as though they are _moving through traffic_ are what causes problems. You should drive _with_ traffic, be a _part of traffic_.
That's a really excellent comment, and it also does a great job of explaining why the choads who trundle along 20 MPH under the limit are equally to blame.
A two second gap at 70 MPH (which is the speed at which they recommend two seconds) is 315 feet. Have you EVER driven in 70 MPH traffic and allowed more than a football field's length between you and the car ahead? I assume the answer is no, because it is patently ridiculous.
I certainly agree that following distance is important, but the magical two-second figure is completely unrealistic.
The NHSTA's data actually supports your comment, too.
Accidents happen at a drastically lower rate as the speed increases. They concluded this is because people pay more attention to what is happening the faster they're driving. Naturally there is a point at which reactions can't make up for the speed, but speeds in the neighborhood of 70-80 MPH are very manageable for even borderline drivers.
And as for ultra-right-wing pundits being the issue, I find it's usually the asshole in an oil-burning 1987 Tercel covered with Phish and Greenpeace stickers that is more likely to be jerking off in the fast lane. Not that I have any great love for ultra-right-wingers, mind you.:)
Your point is valid, but I would actually lay the blame for the accident on the SUV driver (not that it helps the guy behind him any), and my point was that such incidents are rare. I have witnessed many, many accidents in my life (I drive quite a lot) and the majority of them happen at very low speeds and typically involve intersections or somebody simply not watching at all and rear-ending someone (in which case ANY separation wouldn't have helped -- you can't react if you're not actually watching the road).
You were unfairly modded as a Troll, but you're absolutely right. I especially enjoyed the technical-looking but uncaptioned and completely-ignored graphics which accompanied the article.
Feeling you're unable to turn at the current rate and so slowing down is safe driving. Following the person so closely you need to slow to an even larger degree is unsafe driving.
I disagree. It is difficult to judge the speed of another vehicle visually under any circumstances. It is impossible to determine the rate at which another vehicle is braking -- as an AC posted above, brake lights don't give you any information except BRAKE!
It is therefore very likely that any following car will slow to a larger degree.
The "safe distance" required to alleviate this effect has many associated problems. It increases the difficulty of judging the rate of travel and rate of braking of the vehicle ahead. Such distances are difficult to judge and impossible to maintain at highway speeds (the two-second rule equates to 1/16th of a mile, more than a football-field's length, at 70 MPH). Maintaining that gap while accommodating merging and departing traffic is virtually impossible. Such a large gap invites lane changes.
And finally, such enormous gaps (1 car every 16 miles) simply do not allow for the traffic levels -- by that I mean the USAGE levels -- that are required of highways during rush-hour periods.
It's one of those things which sounds great in theory, but is an impossible, miserable failure in practice.
It's too bad you posted AC, that's an excellent point. This is especially problematic for people who tap their brake frequently (particularly those drivers who always have to be on the gas or on the brake, and never anything in between -- which is hell on earth to endure as a passenger), as well as people who ride the brake (which gives the following car no information at all).
So I give free driving lessons. Like braking suddenly for tailgaters.
This is why people who actually give driving lessons tell you that your job as a driver is to watch the road ahead. Let the guy behind you worry about his own driving. Without exception the worst drivers I have ever seen are the ones who are preoccupied to distraction with whatever is happening behind them.
If people could and would simply maintain the 2 second following distance no matter what speed, when the fewer traffic jams did occur, they would resolve themselves much more quickly. But just try telling the person 500 cars back to just sit still for 10 minutes.
The two-second rule is unrealistic for many reasons. I broke it down in an earlier post, above, but basically two seconds at 70 MPH is a 24 car-length gap. That's 1/16th of a mile. Can you imagine the complexity that would be necessary to account for cars entering and leaving traffic, complete with acceleration and deceleration into and out of the existing football-field-sized gaps, all while maintaining this magical 2-second gap? It is pure fantasy. Sure it would eliminate traffic jams if it was possible -- mainly because it requires eliminating most of the cars on the road.
1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
"The producer of an effect" sure as hell sounds like "set in motion" to me.
The two-second gap is typically recommended for 70 MPH speeds. It is dramatically smaller for lower speeds. It is also completely unrealistic at any speed. A two-second gap at 70 MPH is about 315 feet, or about 24 car lengths. At 70 MPH the assumption is that the average person requires about 2/5th of a second to react, which equates to just under 70 feet. That leaves 247 feet for braking. The NHSTA pegs the average 70 MPH braking distance for modern cars around 170 feet. I personally suspect it's much lower these days, and with panic braking plus ABS it would be far, far lower. But give them the benefit of the doubt (though god only knows why) and call it 160 feet. That leaves you 87 feet, so the two-second gap is overly conservative by a factor of about 25%.
BUT -- and here is where it gets stupid for real-world conditions -- that braking scenario assumes that you must stop within that two-second gap. Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead. What are the actual chances of this happening to any responsible, alert driver doing 70 MPH? Very small. In fact what will happen is that the car ahead begins to slow, and you burn your 0.4 second reaction time (which I also think is unrealistically high), then you begin to slow in concert with the car ahead. It is obviously impossible to derive any specific numbers for the rates at which this happens as they'll be random, but it certainly doesn't equate to a 70MPH-to-zero panic stop in a limited space.
In any case, his figure of 120 cars per minute is probably a lot closer to reality than anything provided for by the 2-second rule, which is a 24-car-length gap -- have you ever seen a busy highway where anyone was maintaining a 24-car-length gap? Would it even be possible to actually estimate and maintain this at 70 MPH? That's about 1/16th of a mile... 16 cars per mile and the highway would look positively empty.
I used to rate PGR over GT until I put force-feedback wheels on GT. PGR can't touch it. But Forza is generally better all-around, even if the original Xbox lacked FF wheels. I have high hopes for Forza 2 even though I'm not too terribly impressed with the 360's FF wheel (rather weak force level, otherwise it's ok).
Simbin is the real-deal though. On the PC side the game outputs performance data which can actually be run through the real-world Motec analysis software -- that's saying quite a lot in terms of simulation realism. The owner of Simbin actually runs a Viper GTS-R in Europe. I think the biggest shortcoming of Simbin's GTR is the lack of realistic control options to support the software. That's a fairly rare state of affairs in a world where software typically lags hardware by a serious margin.
It's a lot easier to understand when you're talking about cars with adjustments for each pedal. Also a lot of it depends on where the gas pedal actually moves -- most gas pedals sort of rotate quite a lot around the linkage that actually moves. On quite a few cars the position of the linkage just happens to be better-suited to being depressed by the upper portion of the foot.
As I said, it really tends to be a combination of the vehicle and personal preference. I mostly run a Viper, and my three closest Viper-driving friends all do it differently. One used to be a very successful professional racer and he brakes Vipers with the heel.
Bullshit. I spend about 60 days a year on-track and I guarantee you that everyone has a slightly different position. Some guys point their feet one way, and some guys the other. Some people I know use the edges of their foot on both pedals. I use my heel on the brake and the outer edge of my foot on the gas. Has a lot to do with pedal placement in your vehicle of choice, too -- the position you describe was more comfortable for me in the Rustang-based Panoz GTR-A's that I learned in quite a few years back.
Whatever works and is comfortable is what you use and what is "right".
And that fact comes from the professionals who taught me, because I asked that very question...
Slashdot Mirror
Hence my closing comment, "ignoring the discussion of whether such a judgment could be made to stick outside the US"... and considering there ARE United States companies involved (Paypal, VISA, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if winning this case let them chase down buyers in spite of not being able to touch AllOfMP3 itself (or Chronopay etc).
I get frustrated every time I see people trying to make distinctions between the subgroups of some group or another they're claiming affiliation with.
Hmm...
to please his core demographic in the south
It would appear you have no objections when any such distinctions originate from your own brain.
They also accepted Paypal and a few other forms of payment (the list has changed slightly over time), but you might be right -- other than a username/password, I don't think they requested any other information from their users. IP addresses are a possibility, though I can't think of a good reason they'd store that info for any significant period of time.
I suppose, though, there is probably some legal means of using a judgment against AllOfMP3 to work their way down the line to Chronopay and the others to obtain those details (ignoring the discussion of whether such a judgment could be made to stick outside the US).
Oh well, that's what I get for quoting the British government's website. :)
I also notice that the cyclists tend to take a rather liberal view of their obligation to obey traffic control devices. If you scaled the available road space down and traffic levels up, cyclists would have just as much trouble. The only reason they don't is because we build roads for cars, then we allow bicycles to use them.
If we planned for the worst case, driving would be illegal. :)
Probably not.
Larger trucks have much larger and better brakes, and significantly larger contact patches.
All factors except inertia are in the truck's favor.
People who drive feeling as though they are _moving through traffic_ are what causes problems.
You should drive _with_ traffic, be a _part of traffic_.
That's a really excellent comment, and it also does a great job of explaining why the choads who trundle along 20 MPH under the limit are equally to blame.
A two second gap at 70 MPH (which is the speed at which they recommend two seconds) is 315 feet. Have you EVER driven in 70 MPH traffic and allowed more than a football field's length between you and the car ahead? I assume the answer is no, because it is patently ridiculous.
I certainly agree that following distance is important, but the magical two-second figure is completely unrealistic.
"deign" does not mean "decide"...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deign
1. to think fit or in accordance with one's dignity; condescend
So tell me again, who is the selfish twat?
The NHSTA's data actually supports your comment, too.
:)
Accidents happen at a drastically lower rate as the speed increases. They concluded this is because people pay more attention to what is happening the faster they're driving. Naturally there is a point at which reactions can't make up for the speed, but speeds in the neighborhood of 70-80 MPH are very manageable for even borderline drivers.
And as for ultra-right-wing pundits being the issue, I find it's usually the asshole in an oil-burning 1987 Tercel covered with Phish and Greenpeace stickers that is more likely to be jerking off in the fast lane. Not that I have any great love for ultra-right-wingers, mind you.
Your point is valid, but I would actually lay the blame for the accident on the SUV driver (not that it helps the guy behind him any), and my point was that such incidents are rare. I have witnessed many, many accidents in my life (I drive quite a lot) and the majority of them happen at very low speeds and typically involve intersections or somebody simply not watching at all and rear-ending someone (in which case ANY separation wouldn't have helped -- you can't react if you're not actually watching the road).
You were unfairly modded as a Troll, but you're absolutely right. I especially enjoyed the technical-looking but uncaptioned and completely-ignored graphics which accompanied the article.
Feeling you're unable to turn at the current rate and so slowing down is safe driving. Following the person so closely you need to slow to an even larger degree is unsafe driving.
I disagree. It is difficult to judge the speed of another vehicle visually under any circumstances. It is impossible to determine the rate at which another vehicle is braking -- as an AC posted above, brake lights don't give you any information except BRAKE!
It is therefore very likely that any following car will slow to a larger degree.
The "safe distance" required to alleviate this effect has many associated problems. It increases the difficulty of judging the rate of travel and rate of braking of the vehicle ahead. Such distances are difficult to judge and impossible to maintain at highway speeds (the two-second rule equates to 1/16th of a mile, more than a football-field's length, at 70 MPH). Maintaining that gap while accommodating merging and departing traffic is virtually impossible. Such a large gap invites lane changes.
And finally, such enormous gaps (1 car every 16 miles) simply do not allow for the traffic levels -- by that I mean the USAGE levels -- that are required of highways during rush-hour periods.
It's one of those things which sounds great in theory, but is an impossible, miserable failure in practice.
It's too bad you posted AC, that's an excellent point. This is especially problematic for people who tap their brake frequently (particularly those drivers who always have to be on the gas or on the brake, and never anything in between -- which is hell on earth to endure as a passenger), as well as people who ride the brake (which gives the following car no information at all).
So I give free driving lessons.
Like braking suddenly for tailgaters.
This is why people who actually give driving lessons tell you that your job as a driver is to watch the road ahead. Let the guy behind you worry about his own driving. Without exception the worst drivers I have ever seen are the ones who are preoccupied to distraction with whatever is happening behind them.
If people could and would simply maintain the 2 second following distance
no matter what speed, when the fewer traffic jams did occur, they would resolve
themselves much more quickly. But just try telling the person 500 cars back to
just sit still for 10 minutes.
The two-second rule is unrealistic for many reasons. I broke it down in an earlier post, above, but basically two seconds at 70 MPH is a 24 car-length gap. That's 1/16th of a mile. Can you imagine the complexity that would be necessary to account for cars entering and leaving traffic, complete with acceleration and deceleration into and out of the existing football-field-sized gaps, all while maintaining this magical 2-second gap? It is pure fantasy. Sure it would eliminate traffic jams if it was possible -- mainly because it requires eliminating most of the cars on the road.
This is why slashdot sorely needs a "retarded" moderation.
Definition of "cause"
1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
"The producer of an effect" sure as hell sounds like "set in motion" to me.
The two-second gap is typically recommended for 70 MPH speeds. It is dramatically smaller for lower speeds. It is also completely unrealistic at any speed. A two-second gap at 70 MPH is about 315 feet, or about 24 car lengths. At 70 MPH the assumption is that the average person requires about 2/5th of a second to react, which equates to just under 70 feet. That leaves 247 feet for braking. The NHSTA pegs the average 70 MPH braking distance for modern cars around 170 feet. I personally suspect it's much lower these days, and with panic braking plus ABS it would be far, far lower. But give them the benefit of the doubt (though god only knows why) and call it 160 feet. That leaves you 87 feet, so the two-second gap is overly conservative by a factor of about 25%.
... 16 cars per mile and the highway would look positively empty.
BUT -- and here is where it gets stupid for real-world conditions -- that braking scenario assumes that you must stop within that two-second gap. Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead. What are the actual chances of this happening to any responsible, alert driver doing 70 MPH? Very small. In fact what will happen is that the car ahead begins to slow, and you burn your 0.4 second reaction time (which I also think is unrealistically high), then you begin to slow in concert with the car ahead. It is obviously impossible to derive any specific numbers for the rates at which this happens as they'll be random, but it certainly doesn't equate to a 70MPH-to-zero panic stop in a limited space.
In any case, his figure of 120 cars per minute is probably a lot closer to reality than anything provided for by the 2-second rule, which is a 24-car-length gap -- have you ever seen a busy highway where anyone was maintaining a 24-car-length gap? Would it even be possible to actually estimate and maintain this at 70 MPH? That's about 1/16th of a mile
I used to rate PGR over GT until I put force-feedback wheels on GT. PGR can't touch it. But Forza is generally better all-around, even if the original Xbox lacked FF wheels. I have high hopes for Forza 2 even though I'm not too terribly impressed with the 360's FF wheel (rather weak force level, otherwise it's ok).
Simbin is the real-deal though. On the PC side the game outputs performance data which can actually be run through the real-world Motec analysis software -- that's saying quite a lot in terms of simulation realism. The owner of Simbin actually runs a Viper GTS-R in Europe. I think the biggest shortcoming of Simbin's GTR is the lack of realistic control options to support the software. That's a fairly rare state of affairs in a world where software typically lags hardware by a serious margin.
It's a lot easier to understand when you're talking about cars with adjustments for each pedal. Also a lot of it depends on where the gas pedal actually moves -- most gas pedals sort of rotate quite a lot around the linkage that actually moves. On quite a few cars the position of the linkage just happens to be better-suited to being depressed by the upper portion of the foot.
As I said, it really tends to be a combination of the vehicle and personal preference. I mostly run a Viper, and my three closest Viper-driving friends all do it differently. One used to be a very successful professional racer and he brakes Vipers with the heel.
It's a pretty poor "simulator" that doesn't have a clutch, eh?
I sure hope Simbin's GTR retains the full simulation mode for the Xbox 360 that is available in the PC version...
Bullshit. I spend about 60 days a year on-track and I guarantee you that everyone has a slightly different position. Some guys point their feet one way, and some guys the other. Some people I know use the edges of their foot on both pedals. I use my heel on the brake and the outer edge of my foot on the gas. Has a lot to do with pedal placement in your vehicle of choice, too -- the position you describe was more comfortable for me in the Rustang-based Panoz GTR-A's that I learned in quite a few years back.
Whatever works and is comfortable is what you use and what is "right".
And that fact comes from the professionals who taught me, because I asked that very question...
A ten-pack of gold stars has been mailed to you.
It's based upon an episode of The Simpsons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord_meme