Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Ben Kaufman on 13 Jul 2010 09:26 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:48:10 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/9/2010 8:08 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT), Twibil<nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 7, 3:03 pm, Ben Kaufman<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >>> doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Depth perception tells you how far away something is, not how fast it's moving. >>> >>> Ben, I'm a retired racer and track instructor. I know how quickly the >>> normal human eye can judge speed differences, and I know that because >>> I rely on exactly that ability for my survival every single time I >>> climb on my bike. >>> >> Pete, you snipped my explanation of how speed perception works. Would you >> claim that if you performed the "one second" experiment you could tell how fast >> a car in the distance was going? > >Doesn't matter how fast it's going, only whether you're getting closer >or farther away. > >>> There is no possible way that the normal human reaction time for >>> judging closing rates can cause a biker to rear end a car stopped on >>> the road ahead of him unless he was (A) going *way* too fast for >>> conditions, or (B) was simply not paying attention. And that's all >>> there is to it. >>> >>> You can look for excuses as to why that accident wasn't the biker's >>> fault for the next six months, and that will *still* be all there is >>> to it. >> >> This is not true. All I have said with respect to this biker is "We don't >> know". > >We do know. But the prosecutor would _love_ to have you on the jury. >There should be a test for common sense. > >> The discussion of speed and object detection were "devil's advocate" >> responses to people who think they are certain they do know what happened. > >You didn't give any devils advocate responses though, just showed that >you can't see a car in front of you, then backed down when nobody agreed >with you. > Backed down? You believe that you never missed what you didn't see. It's a perfect picture and there's nothing else for me to do except let the paint dry. >> On >> the other hand, we do know how and why that car became stopped in the middle >> of the highway, which is why I do have a highly unfavorable opinion of the >> woman. > >Which makes the rider no less an example of Darwin at work.
From: Ben Kaufman on 13 Jul 2010 10:00 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:45:21 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/9/2010 8:15 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil<nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 7, 6:44 pm, Ben Kaufman<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >>> doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> In other words: Was he out running his sight distance? >>>> >>>> We don't know. >>> >>> Yes we do. >>> >>> He hit her. >> >> Until further information about this accident is available , we don't know the >> reason why he hit her. > >Either he meant to hit her or he screwed up. There's no third option. "Screwed up" implies a clear mistake. That might be the case if he was fiddling with a GPS, for example, but (for the umpteenth time) we don't know the actual reason he failed to avoid the car. On the other hand, there is no debate that stopping your car in the middle of the highway for ducks is a very conscious and deliberate decision. That is indeed a screw up. Ben
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 09:47 On 7/13/2010 9:26 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:48:10 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2010 8:08 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT), Twibil<nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 7, 3:03 pm, Ben Kaufman<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >>>> doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Depth perception tells you how far away something is, not how fast it's moving. >>>> >>>> Ben, I'm a retired racer and track instructor. I know how quickly the >>>> normal human eye can judge speed differences, and I know that because >>>> I rely on exactly that ability for my survival every single time I >>>> climb on my bike. >>>> >>> Pete, you snipped my explanation of how speed perception works. Would you >>> claim that if you performed the "one second" experiment you could tell how fast >>> a car in the distance was going? >> >> Doesn't matter how fast it's going, only whether you're getting closer >> or farther away. >> >>>> There is no possible way that the normal human reaction time for >>>> judging closing rates can cause a biker to rear end a car stopped on >>>> the road ahead of him unless he was (A) going *way* too fast for >>>> conditions, or (B) was simply not paying attention. And that's all >>>> there is to it. >>>> >>>> You can look for excuses as to why that accident wasn't the biker's >>>> fault for the next six months, and that will *still* be all there is >>>> to it. >>> >>> This is not true. All I have said with respect to this biker is "We don't >>> know". >> >> We do know. But the prosecutor would _love_ to have you on the jury. >> There should be a test for common sense. >> >>> The discussion of speed and object detection were "devil's advocate" >>> responses to people who think they are certain they do know what happened. >> >> You didn't give any devils advocate responses though, just showed that >> you can't see a car in front of you, then backed down when nobody agreed >> with you. >> > > Backed down? You believe that you never missed what you didn't see. It's a > perfect picture and there's nothing else for me to do except let the paint dry. This is pointless. Believe what you want to. And by all means keep not seeing cars in front of you.
From: Ben Kaufman on 13 Jul 2010 10:01 On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:10:49 -0600, "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: >Ben Kaufman wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil >> <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 7, 6:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >>> doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> In other words: Was he out running his sight distance? >>>> >>>> We don't know. >>> >>> Yes we do. >>> >>> He hit her. >> >> Until further information about this accident is available , we don't >> know the reason why he hit her. > >The only additional information required is knowing that she was >stopped. Given that, it's clear that the collision happend SOLELY >due to the motion of the motorcycle, and if the rider couldn't stop >or otherwise avoid that collision then it's perfectly clear that he was >outrunning his sight distance. That's sort of the definition, you know. > >Bob M. > You are confusing statistical probability with absolute certainty. Ben
From: S'mee on 13 Jul 2010 10:09
On Jul 13, 8:01 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:10:49 -0600, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > >Ben Kaufman wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil > >> <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 7, 6:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- > >>> doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > >>>>> In other words: Was he out running his sight distance? > > >>>> We don't know. > > >>> Yes we do. > > >>> He hit her. > > >> Until further information about this accident is available , we don't > >> know the reason why he hit her. > > >The only additional information required is knowing that she was > >stopped. Given that, it's clear that the collision happend SOLELY > >due to the motion of the motorcycle, and if the rider couldn't stop > >or otherwise avoid that collision then it's perfectly clear that he was > >outrunning his sight distance. That's sort of the definition, you know. > > >Bob M. > > You are confusing statistical probability with absolute certainty. The problem is too many people rely on statisical probability and not on reality. |