perhaps you are just full of yourself and have a narrow view of the world where you are king shit and everyone else "just doesn't get it"? 99% of the time thats the case - especially with nerds.
That's the excuse the stupid (or worse; willfully ignorant) tend to use to justify their behaviour. It's a fact; some people just don't apply common sense, or even some form of reasoning before they open their mouths. Granted, we all have our "duh" moments, but for some people their life is a perpetual series of "duh" moments.
.. I just want solid, reliable recording first. Sounds like the cart is being put before the horse first. I want a CD-R that's gonna burn perfectly every time. I don't care how fast it is. Burning something at 52x 4 times to get it to work (and making 3 coasters in the process) is slower than burning it at 12x.
Enter BurnProof<tm>! While my Athlon XP1800+ and WD ATA100 hard drive rarely have trouble feeding my burner data at the full 24X, if the system is really busy the burn slows down. I've tested burning CDs while booting a VMWare Windows 2000 session and haven't produced a coaster yet. I also very rarely drop below 20X burn speed. The 32X at work is similar (and on a lower-powered Athlon, no less) but still doesn't often drop below 30X.
Of course, were I burning an audio CD I'd likely drop the speed down to about 8X anyways, because some CD players don't appear able to read discs burned greater than that (the 10 CD changer in a friend's car, for example).
I've got myself a 24X burner, and I can burn a complete ~650MB ISO over my LAN (100BaseTX) in about 3:30 minutes. What more do I need?
n.b. I was just telling a colleague last night that "Within three or four months, drives will re-write as fast as mine can write." Whoa.. Egg on my face!
This is obviously written by someone who has never ridden a motorcycle for any length of time and who's getting advice from someone who thinks he's a better rider than he is (which is scary).
This was obviously written by a person who's never taken a fall before. Sticking your appendages outwards while flying through the air is a good way to get them ripped off.
As a former editor at Motorcycle Online (http://www.motorcycle.com)
I'm glad you told us that; now your opinions carry so much more weight. (Just remember that they're just opinions).
I can tell you that when you're tossed off a bike at 70 miles per hour, the first thing that goes through your mind isn't, "Ah, now I'll tuck my legs and roll!" That's just ridiculous. You hit the ground so quickly (if you're lucky and don't highside which involves you being tossed through the air and is definitely the most dangerous way to wad) that about all you have time for is "OHSHIT!!", which is, interestingly, what anyone who claims otherwise is full of.
When riding something one knows is dangerous, one should condition their minds to know what to do instinctively, rather than have to think about it. If you're thinking about your actions in any emergency situation, be it in a car or on a bike, it's already too late. I think various studies (along with personal experience; both behind the wheel and in vehicles in situations like that) have shown that you've got all of half a second to make and execute your decision, if even that. The time, for example, between your bike and a car pulling out of a driveway without looking as you travel at 80KPH.
This is part of the reason I think driver training should be mandatory for all drivers who wish to use public roads. There should also be standards about what is taught in driver training courses; including how to deal with motorcycles and bicycles (which it seems 75% or more of drivers on the road don't seem to be able to do), and vice-versa for bikers.
As far as the vest is concerned, well, if it works, great. Many would refuse to wear it just like many refuse to wear helmets, citing rights and freedoms and fashion and whatever. But research into this kind of technology is nice to see because, at the very least, it keeps a dialog open and fresh about motorcycle safety.
True, but probably only in the biker community itself. It's (unfortunately) not something that car drivers will likely ever read about en masse, letalone understand the issues about how to allow two-wheeled vehicles the same space as the four-wheeled variety.
Let's recap: if your suspension is gone, or you drive on loose gravel or freshly falling snow, or you are an experienced race driver, speeding toward an intersection with intention to break just in time is a worse idea with ABS than it already is without.
Actually, I summarized it in an earlier posting. Your car has to be in good condition (tires, suspension, the ABS and braking systems themselves, etc.) in order for the brakes to be effective. Moreover, if you are driving on loose-pack or dry pavement, your braking distance will almost surely be increased. Come winter time we tend to get a lot of fresh packed snow, and sure enough people stomp on their brake pedals to stop; engaging the ABS brakes. Ironically enough, if they'd been trained on a non-ABS car they might pump their brakes, disable the system, and plow to a comfortable stop in half the distance.
Further to that, if the driver can't apply adequate pressure to the pedal the brakes aren't likely to be effective.
The long and short of it is this; ABS will only give you approximately the same stopping distance as pumped or locked brakes under ideal conditions. It is not guaranteed, nor is it designed to decrease your stopping distance. For the record; most times people have to make emergency maneuvers aren't ideal conditions.
The original point of this thread, however, was the general complacency of drivers. Drivers are told, be it by ignorant driving instructors, car salesmen, advertising (propaganda), or just ignorant people in general that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they're waiting longer to brake. Having spoken with a few police officers about it, they agree that in a lot of collision situations the driver(s) involved (often the one 'at fault') will claim to have used their ABS and not know what went wrong.
BTW - I've used my ABS personally in an emergency; travelling 40-50KPH up a wet off-ramp (fresh rainfall), because I'd misjudged the distance between myself and the van ahead of me (the offramp was a blind curve). They did nothing to reduce my stopping distance, so I had to disengage them to aim my vehicle sharply to the left to go off the ramp and on to the grass. Had I relied on my ABS, even at such a low rate of speed, I'd have plowed the guy and then some. Thankfully all I got out of it was a smashed drivers-side mirror and a broken muffler strap (which was already rusted to begin with).
Only an idiot suggests someone's privilege (right to use the road) is of higher regard than someone's constitutional right (esp. in the US) against cruel and unusual punishments.
Where did I suggest this? I don't recall ever stating that anybody's privilege to use the road (BTW - it is not a right to use the roads, as you further stated) outweighed anything. If anything, I believe that the rights of people who are properly using the road and are killed every year due to stupid drivers outweighs the privilege stupid drivers have of walking after having crippled another person for life. An eye for an eye and all that.
BTW - I can post my opinions under my name, but you can't do me the same courtesy? If you lack the testicular fortitude to come forward with your opinions, why not keep them to yourself? To coin a phrase; "Freakin dumbass".
So you want ankles, with a smiley, while our society has decided on money, e.g. insurance claims and civil courts, as the way to reimburse and the primary means to resolve these issues.
Yes, because civil action is doing so well in America (your country, not mine) to help serve the people and make for a safer place. Money is why stupid people are able to be rewarded for their stupidity at the expense of tax payers, consumers, and most everybody else ("It's just an insurance company!" is all well and good until my premiums go up because everybody sues them. "It's a big corporation with lots of money - they can afford the lawsuit!" is fantastic until I have to start paying a premium on products and services they offer so they can afford to pay off the morons who hurt themselves using their products incorrectly.)
Regardless of what you believe, I firmly believe stupid people should not be protected, and moreover should be punished when their screw-ups adversely affect the lives of others. If you're not paying attention on the road and you ram into me, it's your fault and you should be punished. If we take away your license, you'll just get back into a car.
Or of course equipment failure or uncontrollable events that occur to the driver.
That's why we have regular maintainance. Cars also give telltale signs of when things are about to go wrong. Noises, vibrations, decreased fuel economy, rattling, etc. Asking a competent mechanic to put the car on a hoist will result in finding the flaws that could cause you serious danger down the road (cracks in the frame, suspension control arms, shocks, brake burn, etc.)
If your mechanic finds nothing indicating a potential problem in an older car (5+ years) that hasn't been serviced in 6 months or greater, you should find yourself a new mechanic. If you're not taking your 2000lb+ projectile into a shop periodically, you shouldn't be on the road, IMHO. (For the record, I also think there should be periodic, ie; every 3 years, mandatory written and road testing for all drivers)
you attempt to support the "ABS increases stopping distance" argument by providing a number of references which state that "ABS does not shorten stopping distance"
So I take it you didn't read what I referenced, did you? Stopping distances are only decreased under ideal road and vehicle conditions and even then only when the driver has enough strength, control, and presence of mind to stomp 150lbs of pressure onto the brake pedal.
That's a lot of if's.
Incidentally, the first, second, fourth, and fifth references I provided did state that stopping distance was increased (note the use of ambiguous "under most road conditions" phraseology). Are you sure we're talking about the same post?
Excellent post.. except for the part about cars being light nowadays. The compact cars of 10 years ago were quite a bit lighter than those of today. Its rare to find any car under 2600 lbs and most of them are over 3000 (especially if it's a luxury marquee).
Granted, they're not as light as those toy Hondas of old, but studies being performed by the Big Boys of the automotive industry are finding that they've under-estimated the car weight required to make ABS effective.
My mother's Oldsmobile Intrigue is heavy enough that ABS work as intended; the car keeps all four wheels firmly in contact with the pavement during the stop; even when hitting small to medium sized bumps. My and my fathers' Cavaliers (1995 and 2002, respectively) do not have this luxury, as they both come in light enough to allow the wheels to 'skip'.
Sorry for not being more clear, but my use of 'light' was a relative term in comparison to larger luxury cars, SUVs, minivans, etc.
As a rider, I can tell you the best thing people can wear is the existing safety equipment. A good set of leathers is good for 150+ MPH slide and tumble. The problem is, sudden deceleration (impacting something or something impacting your) tends to be the killer. Even with good gear on, it doesn't protect the neck which is made worse by the weight of the helmet. After it's all said and done, unless this prevents broken necks, object pentration or extreme blunt trama (being run over), it's going to be worthless.
lol.. Most riders I know aren't too terribly fond of their brain-buckets.:) (n.b. I'd be a rider myself if the 'Wing in the garage didn't need a total carb overhaul, new front-end wiring, rear brakes (the calipers, apparently, aren't available anymore for the '79...) just to make it road-worthy. {sigh} )
My friend was reading some of the online forums/lists he participates in, and the general consensus is pretty bleak towards this vest. Of particular note was a question asked by one of the members; "What happens to a passenger when that thing goes off?". What followed were several amusing hypothetical situations involving people being launched forwards and backwards into the windsheilds of SUVs and the like.:) (Have you seen the "Bubble Boy" previews/movie? {BOING!})
After all, if he's wearing that vest, chances are he's already smart enough to be wearing REAL safety gear in the first place.
Very true. The riders that wear tennis shoes and t-shirts are probably the ones contributing to rider fatality statistics, and there's not much chance they'll buy a (likely) expensive vest if they won't even pick up a standard leather jacket and boots, letalone leg leathers.
According to a friend that is a cop, for a collision to occur a formal or informal rule MUST have been broken.
I'm glad you referred to it (be it a paraphrasal or a direct quote) as a "collision", not an "accident".
There are no 'accidents' in motor vehicles. For a collision to occur, be it vehicle/vehicle or vehicle/pedestrian, someone had to do something wrong. In most cases it is the driver of one or more vehicles not paying attention or not following the rules of the road, or driving too aggressively, driving incorrectly for conditions, etc. that causes collisions.
Do you understand how ABS works? It alternatively locks and unlocks the wheel, which gives a pulse pattern, which means you stop for a second, roll for a second, etc. (Not actually 'a second', but short, pre-determined time intervals)
Read the first 10 pages of google results for "abs increases stopping distance".
"1) It isn't entirely clear that antilock braking will reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver;"
"The IIHS report, issued December 10, 1996, notes that in single-vehicle accidents, cars with antilock brakes are as much as 44% more likely to produce fatalities than are cars without the antilock system."
"Other factors affecting ABS performance include the condition of the tires, shocks, and suspension components, as well as their design. For example, if a tire hits a bump and the shocks/springs are weak, the tire may lift off the ground and lock under brake pressure. ABS interprets lockup and releases the brakes. The more the tire is off the ground, the more the brakes will release, thus extending the stopping distance."
"Stopping distance is nearly the same for pumped brakes as it is when the brakes are locked. However, with locked brakes the driver has little, if any, control over vehicle direction. ABS pumps the brakes automatically during emergency stop. It prevents wheel lock and allows the driver to maintain a higher degree of control."
"Most people who have tested ABS in panic situations feel positively towards them. ABS, as stated before, does not shorten stopping distance. If the driver doesn't leave enough room to stop, an accident could occur. Drivers must apply good judgement whether or not their vehicle has ABS."
"Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without it? Not always. Although the stopping distance with ABS is shorter under most road conditions, drivers should always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions. While a vehicle with ABS maintains its steering capability in a sudden stop, it may not turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement."
"ABS technology is designed to maintain rolling traction and steering. The rolling action may produce longer stopping distances on some surfaces, such as freshly fallen snow or loose gravel."
I think you get the point. The comonality between all of thesee pages looks like this;
Ideal conditions are required (both road and vehicle)
Drivers must be trained/knowledgeable in use of the system
Stopping distance is not always reduced, but the steering advantage is hilighted.
The problem with light cars (a very large number of consumer purchased vehicles lately) is that they don't have the weight to keep the skipping wheels on the ground, thus dramatically reducing the efectiveness in both stopping distance and steering control, hence the reason for removing them from the likes of the Cavalier and Sunfire.
Especially in snow, gravel, and sand (loose pack) ABS will drastically increase your stopping distance (by about 200% in some cases, depending on speed and density of the material you're driving in). The plow effect by your car's tires slows the trajectory of your vehicle.
ABS isn't designed to reduce stopping distance, it is designed to give steering control. These are two VERY different things. Incidentally, locking your tires and knowing how to change directions can/will significantly reduce your stopping distance with the same amount of control, as anyone who's ever taken or instructed a crash course will tell you.
I've conducted 80KM/h tests myself, in snow (loose and hard packed), gravel, sand, and wet and dry asphalt and under many of the conditions, especially the non-ideal driving conditions, my stopping distance was increased. I will grant you that my tires did suffer more on the locking tests, but if I'm making an emergency stop, I'd much sooner replace some tires than find myself face-first in the side of an SUV/Minivan/truck/etc.
BTW, speaking of ideal conditions; This study hilights another problem with ABS - Driver reaction time and leg strength. Many (most?) women and smaller men have great difficulty in putting 100lbs pressure on their brake pedals in a real hurry, which the NHTSA has discovered increases stopping distance (150-200lbs is the desired pressure, which was difficult to attain, except by the TRC (professional) test driver).
As for your suggestion about a law against stupid accidents. In Sweden there is a law against accidents, so if noone ever broke any rules, but still caused an accident, they will be punished. As for many of your examples, they are allready illegal (intoxicated driving, driving while using a cell phone, etc) and the rest are just things that one shouldn't do while driving.
This may come as a shock to you, but such things are illegal in most of the rest of the civilized world, too.;)
I wasn't suggesting a creation of a new LAW, but of a new punishment system. People aren't afraid of paying fines, they aren't afraid of going to jail, and they aren't afraid of losing their license. People would be afraid of having their ankles smashed, or their ribs broken, or having happen to them the same things they've caused for the people they hit.
I've never been a fan of creating more laws to enforce existing laws; that's just stupidity. Creating new enforcement and punishment practises, however, would curb a lot of problems. If somebody knows deep down that driving drunk WILL, not MIGHT mortally wound them, they'd probably think just a little bit harder before they got behind the wheel.
I'd say that this is probably a publicity stunt, and not really a life saver as airbags in cars are, but thats just MHO.
Airbags, much like ABS brakes and anything else used in cars are only partially effective, and only when used right. In many circumstances people have walked away from rather non-fatal collisions with broken jaws, ribs, and being partially or completely blinded.
Having spoken with a biker (sitting in the next room from me.;) ) he agrees that this vest is highly impractical. When you're launched from your bike, you keep your appendages close to your body and roll, similar to how paratroopers roll on landing to reduce the stress on your body. Also, they have to be able (barring physical injury) to get up and walk away, so as to prevent them from being flattened by passing cars (who tend to pay so much attention to the wreck they'd hit the broad side of a barn if it were planted in front of them). This vest looks like it has serious potential to create a situation faced by Ralphie's brother in "A Christmas Story". (Think 'big snow suit', and 'can't move')
Much as I hate to abuse a cliche; the best life saver in all these cases is education. Motorcyclists have to observe proper safety precautions, and cars have to be told that no, you can NOT share a lane space with a motorcycle, and that while they're not as big, they're considered the same as a car when it comes to road usage. There are many statistics about how motorcyclists have been faulted as the cause of collisions, but I'd be willilng to bet that most of those have been indirectly (or directly) caused by the car, or other surrounding motorists (I'm not including those plastic, 20lb "sport" bikes, because the guys who drive those seem to have a death wish).
If people don't use safety devices properly, they have this habit of backfiring and causing death or injury, rather than the desired prevention. Take my above example of ABS brakes; people have started to become complacent, believing that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they drive faster towards intersections and brake later. What they don't realize is that ABS actually increases your stopping distance. I can only imagine how the bikers have felt watching a car speed towards them at 80KM/h while they sat stopped at a light, often behind another car.
Chevrolet (and perhaps all of General Motors, I'm not sure) has apparently decided to make ABS once again an optional, rather than standard feature in their new product lines. I only wish I'd had that option for my '95 Cavalier.
Unfortunately, my usual opinion of 'Remove the safety labels/devices and let the stupid take care of themselves' doesn't apply here. The drivers of cars would cream motorcycles, and innocent (and perhaps highly intelligent) bikers would be dead, while drivers of cars would walk away.
How about this - retroactive corporal punishment for any driver who causes an accident due to stupidity (which includes not paying attention, driving while tired, intoxicated, being distracted by cell phones, kids, oral sex from the passenger seat, etc.)? What we do is break their ankles on a cinder block, much like in Misery, and then revoke their drivers license for five years with mandatory driver training in order to get it back. That is, of course, if their ankles are fit to operate the pedals.;)
Second browser option: "Check for Internet Explorer Updates". Amazing what one sees when they take 10 seconds to look.
Wow, see, that's interesting because I already knew about that option - but it still 'phones home' (as a previous poster already indicated). I'm sorry I forgot to be more specific, but I was looking for an answer from someone who knew what they were talking about, not a smartass button-pusher.
And out of the box, mozilla does check for updates.
Actually, out of the box Mozilla checks for updates weekly.
Sorry - was that another bursting bubble I just heard?
I'm not the poster you asked, but I'll answer anyway.:-)
Well that's clearly unacceptable! I expect a penance of five karma for my trouble!:)
I am having scrolling problems on some pages. The scroll wheel simply won't work. Works on slashdot, works on Amazon, doesn't work at http://start.earthlink.net. What is really strange, is if I move the cursor over to the scroll bar and use the scroll wheel it will work. I will sometimes have to click somewhere in the body of the page to get the scroll wheel to work, but even that does not work on that
Is there a reproducible way you can cause this? I've just tested that on Win'XP w/ Phoenix 0.5 and under Linux with a slightly-before 0.5 nightly build and it worked. I don't think I've ever had scrolling problems, except for the nuisance when I've got a text box selected and it scrolls it instead of the page, but that's PEBKAC.
How are you calling start.earthlink.net? Is it your homepage, a bookmark, do you type it into the location bar? New or existing window/tab?
Yeah, it doesn't have to check with windows update first, so it can get right down to business.
Do you know how to make it (IE) NOT do that? I've got customers who share a 56k dialup connection for a 20+ computer network (Yeah yeah, I'm trying to get them out of the stoneage) and even for the ones on high speed this is annoying as all hell. Even worse on low-end Pentiums with pre-PIO hard drives where IE takes forever to start to begin with, then it has to Phone Home...
If Mozilla or Phoenix ever forced me to "Check For Updates" with one of their releases, it would be the last time any of my computers ever loaded it.
Electomagnetic funnyness, odd light displays, melted iron bits in a regular pattern... there's SOMETHING going on beyond just a couple of hoaxers.
There's as much reason to believe this was performed by an other-worldly force as there is to believe there is a magical place "where socks go". Sorry, but I prefer to wait for proof that there is something awry than to jump to conclusions.
Y'know, "christian" doesn't imply "moron."
I never said it did. Don't tell me you've got a persecution complex?
This is just more fallout (no pun intended) from the Bush/Ashcroft "War On Terrorism", which is really just a thinly veiled way to erode people's Constitutional rights. Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution? Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
Clearly this will prevent airplanes from falling out of the sky and landing on buildings.
I bet Bush could get approval to perform personal in-home inspections so long as it would prevent errant airplane collisions, cha'know?
Crop circles seem to be a genuine real phenomina, most likely caused by an as-yet undetermined natural event. Sure, there are folks who go out and create crop circles at random--but they don't account for all of the crop circles.
Just because we can't account for and itemize each and every occurance of an event doesn't mean it's mystical forces or some magical unexplained phenomina.
It is more reasonable to believe that there are hundreds of groups of crop circle makers in the world out to get some attention and have a laugh at the public's expense than it is to believe that supernatural forces are involved.
The best way for a totalitarian regime to maintain power is to involve the population in their own oppression. The people in power have the work of rooting out potential subversives done for them, while the people under control believe they're doing something great for their country by rooting out those subversives who threaten the nation's stability.
This reminds me of that age-old joke about the cold war, set in Russia;
The police arrive at a man's house, shove him aside, and proceed to dig up his entire garden! The man stands calmly by, watching as they dig and dig, tossing clumps of soil aside and back again in a fervent search. Finding nothing, they grunt in disgust and leave.
The man walks to his neighbor's house and says;
"Thanks! So tomorrow I phone and tell them you have secret documents stashed in the logs in your woodshed, right?"
Slashdot Mirror
Enter BurnProof<tm>! While my Athlon XP1800+ and WD ATA100 hard drive rarely have trouble feeding my burner data at the full 24X, if the system is really busy the burn slows down. I've tested burning CDs while booting a VMWare Windows 2000 session and haven't produced a coaster yet. I also very rarely drop below 20X burn speed. The 32X at work is similar (and on a lower-powered Athlon, no less) but still doesn't often drop below 30X.
Of course, were I burning an audio CD I'd likely drop the speed down to about 8X anyways, because some CD players don't appear able to read discs burned greater than that (the 10 CD changer in a friend's car, for example).
I've got myself a 24X burner, and I can burn a complete ~650MB ISO over my LAN (100BaseTX) in about 3:30 minutes. What more do I need?
n.b. I was just telling a colleague last night that "Within three or four months, drives will re-write as fast as mine can write." Whoa.. Egg on my face!
Threshold braking isn't nearly as demanding on my car as ABS. Threshold braking won't lock or release one of my wheels if it leaves the ground.
The point stands; there is too much potential for failure with ABS, and they only work under ideal conditions.
Fin.
When riding something one knows is dangerous, one should condition their minds to know what to do instinctively, rather than have to think about it. If you're thinking about your actions in any emergency situation, be it in a car or on a bike, it's already too late. I think various studies (along with personal experience; both behind the wheel and in vehicles in situations like that) have shown that you've got all of half a second to make and execute your decision, if even that. The time, for example, between your bike and a car pulling out of a driveway without looking as you travel at 80KPH.
This is part of the reason I think driver training should be mandatory for all drivers who wish to use public roads. There should also be standards about what is taught in driver training courses; including how to deal with motorcycles and bicycles (which it seems 75% or more of drivers on the road don't seem to be able to do), and vice-versa for bikers.
True, but probably only in the biker community itself. It's (unfortunately) not something that car drivers will likely ever read about en masse, letalone understand the issues about how to allow two-wheeled vehicles the same space as the four-wheeled variety.
Further to that, if the driver can't apply adequate pressure to the pedal the brakes aren't likely to be effective.
The long and short of it is this; ABS will only give you approximately the same stopping distance as pumped or locked brakes under ideal conditions. It is not guaranteed, nor is it designed to decrease your stopping distance. For the record; most times people have to make emergency maneuvers aren't ideal conditions.
The original point of this thread, however, was the general complacency of drivers. Drivers are told, be it by ignorant driving instructors, car salesmen, advertising (propaganda), or just ignorant people in general that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they're waiting longer to brake. Having spoken with a few police officers about it, they agree that in a lot of collision situations the driver(s) involved (often the one 'at fault') will claim to have used their ABS and not know what went wrong.
BTW - I've used my ABS personally in an emergency; travelling 40-50KPH up a wet off-ramp (fresh rainfall), because I'd misjudged the distance between myself and the van ahead of me (the offramp was a blind curve). They did nothing to reduce my stopping distance, so I had to disengage them to aim my vehicle sharply to the left to go off the ramp and on to the grass. Had I relied on my ABS, even at such a low rate of speed, I'd have plowed the guy and then some. Thankfully all I got out of it was a smashed drivers-side mirror and a broken muffler strap (which was already rusted to begin with).
Where did I suggest this? I don't recall ever stating that anybody's privilege to use the road (BTW - it is not a right to use the roads, as you further stated) outweighed anything. If anything, I believe that the rights of people who are properly using the road and are killed every year due to stupid drivers outweighs the privilege stupid drivers have of walking after having crippled another person for life. An eye for an eye and all that.
BTW - I can post my opinions under my name, but you can't do me the same courtesy? If you lack the testicular fortitude to come forward with your opinions, why not keep them to yourself? To coin a phrase; "Freakin dumbass".
Yes, because civil action is doing so well in America (your country, not mine) to help serve the people and make for a safer place. Money is why stupid people are able to be rewarded for their stupidity at the expense of tax payers, consumers, and most everybody else ("It's just an insurance company!" is all well and good until my premiums go up because everybody sues them. "It's a big corporation with lots of money - they can afford the lawsuit!" is fantastic until I have to start paying a premium on products and services they offer so they can afford to pay off the morons who hurt themselves using their products incorrectly.)
Regardless of what you believe, I firmly believe stupid people should not be protected, and moreover should be punished when their screw-ups adversely affect the lives of others. If you're not paying attention on the road and you ram into me, it's your fault and you should be punished. If we take away your license, you'll just get back into a car.
That's why we have regular maintainance. Cars also give telltale signs of when things are about to go wrong. Noises, vibrations, decreased fuel economy, rattling, etc. Asking a competent mechanic to put the car on a hoist will result in finding the flaws that could cause you serious danger down the road (cracks in the frame, suspension control arms, shocks, brake burn, etc.)
If your mechanic finds nothing indicating a potential problem in an older car (5+ years) that hasn't been serviced in 6 months or greater, you should find yourself a new mechanic. If you're not taking your 2000lb+ projectile into a shop periodically, you shouldn't be on the road, IMHO. (For the record, I also think there should be periodic, ie; every 3 years, mandatory written and road testing for all drivers)
So I take it you didn't read what I referenced, did you? Stopping distances are only decreased under ideal road and vehicle conditions and even then only when the driver has enough strength, control, and presence of mind to stomp 150lbs of pressure onto the brake pedal.
That's a lot of if's.
Incidentally, the first, second, fourth, and fifth references I provided did state that stopping distance was increased (note the use of ambiguous "under most road conditions" phraseology). Are you sure we're talking about the same post?
Except that now you're dragging a flapping piece of stiff cloth along with you, which could get caught on (or under) any number of things.
I've seen a number of inflated airbags in my life, and that's not an insignificant amount of cloth.
Granted, they're not as light as those toy Hondas of old, but studies being performed by the Big Boys of the automotive industry are finding that they've under-estimated the car weight required to make ABS effective.
My mother's Oldsmobile Intrigue is heavy enough that ABS work as intended; the car keeps all four wheels firmly in contact with the pavement during the stop; even when hitting small to medium sized bumps. My and my fathers' Cavaliers (1995 and 2002, respectively) do not have this luxury, as they both come in light enough to allow the wheels to 'skip'.
Sorry for not being more clear, but my use of 'light' was a relative term in comparison to larger luxury cars, SUVs, minivans, etc.
lol.. Most riders I know aren't too terribly fond of their brain-buckets. :) (n.b. I'd be a rider myself if the 'Wing in the garage didn't need a total carb overhaul, new front-end wiring, rear brakes (the calipers, apparently, aren't available anymore for the '79...) just to make it road-worthy. {sigh} )
My friend was reading some of the online forums/lists he participates in, and the general consensus is pretty bleak towards this vest. Of particular note was a question asked by one of the members; "What happens to a passenger when that thing goes off?". What followed were several amusing hypothetical situations involving people being launched forwards and backwards into the windsheilds of SUVs and the like. :) (Have you seen the "Bubble Boy" previews/movie? {BOING!})
Very true. The riders that wear tennis shoes and t-shirts are probably the ones contributing to rider fatality statistics, and there's not much chance they'll buy a (likely) expensive vest if they won't even pick up a standard leather jacket and boots, letalone leg leathers.I'm glad you referred to it (be it a paraphrasal or a direct quote) as a "collision", not an "accident".
There are no 'accidents' in motor vehicles. For a collision to occur, be it vehicle/vehicle or vehicle/pedestrian, someone had to do something wrong. In most cases it is the driver of one or more vehicles not paying attention or not following the rules of the road, or driving too aggressively, driving incorrectly for conditions, etc. that causes collisions.
Do you understand how ABS works? It alternatively locks and unlocks the wheel, which gives a pulse pattern, which means you stop for a second, roll for a second, etc. (Not actually 'a second', but short, pre-determined time intervals)
What, like;
I think you get the point. The comonality between all of thesee pages looks like this;
The problem with light cars (a very large number of consumer purchased vehicles lately) is that they don't have the weight to keep the skipping wheels on the ground, thus dramatically reducing the efectiveness in both stopping distance and steering control, hence the reason for removing them from the likes of the Cavalier and Sunfire.
Especially in snow, gravel, and sand (loose pack) ABS will drastically increase your stopping distance (by about 200% in some cases, depending on speed and density of the material you're driving in). The plow effect by your car's tires slows the trajectory of your vehicle.
ABS isn't designed to reduce stopping distance, it is designed to give steering control. These are two VERY different things. Incidentally, locking your tires and knowing how to change directions can/will significantly reduce your stopping distance with the same amount of control, as anyone who's ever taken or instructed a crash course will tell you.
I've conducted 80KM/h tests myself, in snow (loose and hard packed), gravel, sand, and wet and dry asphalt and under many of the conditions, especially the non-ideal driving conditions, my stopping distance was increased. I will grant you that my tires did suffer more on the locking tests, but if I'm making an emergency stop, I'd much sooner replace some tires than find myself face-first in the side of an SUV/Minivan/truck/etc.
BTW, speaking of ideal conditions; This study hilights another problem with ABS - Driver reaction time and leg strength. Many (most?) women and smaller men have great difficulty in putting 100lbs pressure on their brake pedals in a real hurry, which the NHTSA has discovered increases stopping distance (150-200lbs is the desired pressure, which was difficult to attain, except by the TRC (professional) test driver).
This may come as a shock to you, but such things are illegal in most of the rest of the civilized world, too. ;)
I wasn't suggesting a creation of a new LAW, but of a new punishment system. People aren't afraid of paying fines, they aren't afraid of going to jail, and they aren't afraid of losing their license. People would be afraid of having their ankles smashed, or their ribs broken, or having happen to them the same things they've caused for the people they hit.
I've never been a fan of creating more laws to enforce existing laws; that's just stupidity. Creating new enforcement and punishment practises, however, would curb a lot of problems. If somebody knows deep down that driving drunk WILL, not MIGHT mortally wound them, they'd probably think just a little bit harder before they got behind the wheel.
Airbags, much like ABS brakes and anything else used in cars are only partially effective, and only when used right. In many circumstances people have walked away from rather non-fatal collisions with broken jaws, ribs, and being partially or completely blinded.
Having spoken with a biker (sitting in the next room from me. ;) ) he agrees that this vest is highly impractical. When you're launched from your bike, you keep your appendages close to your body and roll, similar to how paratroopers roll on landing to reduce the stress on your body. Also, they have to be able (barring physical injury) to get up and walk away, so as to prevent them from being flattened by passing cars (who tend to pay so much attention to the wreck they'd hit the broad side of a barn if it were planted in front of them). This vest looks like it has serious potential to create a situation faced by Ralphie's brother in "A Christmas Story". (Think 'big snow suit', and 'can't move')
Much as I hate to abuse a cliche; the best life saver in all these cases is education. Motorcyclists have to observe proper safety precautions, and cars have to be told that no, you can NOT share a lane space with a motorcycle, and that while they're not as big, they're considered the same as a car when it comes to road usage. There are many statistics about how motorcyclists have been faulted as the cause of collisions, but I'd be willilng to bet that most of those have been indirectly (or directly) caused by the car, or other surrounding motorists (I'm not including those plastic, 20lb "sport" bikes, because the guys who drive those seem to have a death wish).
If people don't use safety devices properly, they have this habit of backfiring and causing death or injury, rather than the desired prevention. Take my above example of ABS brakes; people have started to become complacent, believing that ABS will reduce their stopping distance, so they drive faster towards intersections and brake later. What they don't realize is that ABS actually increases your stopping distance. I can only imagine how the bikers have felt watching a car speed towards them at 80KM/h while they sat stopped at a light, often behind another car.
Chevrolet (and perhaps all of General Motors, I'm not sure) has apparently decided to make ABS once again an optional, rather than standard feature in their new product lines. I only wish I'd had that option for my '95 Cavalier.
Unfortunately, my usual opinion of 'Remove the safety labels/devices and let the stupid take care of themselves' doesn't apply here. The drivers of cars would cream motorcycles, and innocent (and perhaps highly intelligent) bikers would be dead, while drivers of cars would walk away.
How about this - retroactive corporal punishment for any driver who causes an accident due to stupidity (which includes not paying attention, driving while tired, intoxicated, being distracted by cell phones, kids, oral sex from the passenger seat, etc.)? What we do is break their ankles on a cinder block, much like in Misery, and then revoke their drivers license for five years with mandatory driver training in order to get it back. That is, of course, if their ankles are fit to operate the pedals. ;)
Sorry - was that another bursting bubble I just heard?
How are you calling start.earthlink.net? Is it your homepage, a bookmark, do you type it into the location bar? New or existing window/tab?
If Mozilla or Phoenix ever forced me to "Check For Updates" with one of their releases, it would be the last time any of my computers ever loaded it.
I bet Bush could get approval to perform personal in-home inspections so long as it would prevent errant airplane collisions, cha'know?
Might want to consider a shave, or a geographic location change.
It is more reasonable to believe that there are hundreds of groups of crop circle makers in the world out to get some attention and have a laugh at the public's expense than it is to believe that supernatural forces are involved.
This reminds me of that age-old joke about the cold war, set in Russia;
The police arrive at a man's house, shove him aside, and proceed to dig up his entire garden! The man stands calmly by, watching as they dig and dig, tossing clumps of soil aside and back again in a fervent search. Finding nothing, they grunt in disgust and leave.
The man walks to his neighbor's house and says;
"Thanks! So tomorrow I phone and tell them you have secret documents stashed in the logs in your woodshed, right?"