Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 13 Jul 2010 10:11 On Jul 13, 7:47 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/13/2010 9:26 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:48:10 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(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<nowayjo...(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. lol...obviously you didn't see that grey audi that almost creamed you from the left rear quarter (7o'clock pos)
From: Ben Kaufman on 13 Jul 2010 11:16 On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Jul 9, 4:15�am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >doll...(a)pobox.com> 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. > >What we know is that he was traveling at a speed too >fast to allow him to stop when he saw a stationary >obstacle in the road. > >This is outrunning his sight or stopping distance and >it's generally considered bad practice for obvious reasons. Let's say that a rider wants to stay with good practices. Initially, the visibility distance is good at 55mph and is suddenly reduced by blinding sun glare to (say) 20mph. One cannot instantaneously reduce the speed of their bike from 55mph to 20mph, it is a physical impossibility. Even the fastest possible deceleration would be an unwise thing to do if there are cars behind you. Ben
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 13 Jul 2010 13:17 On Jul 13, 7:16 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt > > > > <Rkleinsch1216...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >On Jul 9, 4:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- > >doll...(a)pobox.com> 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. > > >What we know is that he was traveling at a speed too > >fast to allow him to stop when he saw a stationary > >obstacle in the road. > > >This is outrunning his sight or stopping distance and > >it's generally considered bad practice for obvious reasons. > > Let's say that a rider wants to stay with good practices. Initially, the > visibility distance is good at 55mph and is suddenly reduced by blinding sun > glare to (say) 20mph. One cannot instantaneously reduce the speed of their bike > from 55mph to 20mph, it is a physical impossibility. Even the fastest possible > deceleration would be an unwise thing to do if there are cars behind you. And this relates to the accident which you describe because ???? You're saying that the sun might have been in the rider's eyes ? Sounds more to me as if he was in an accident which could have been avoided by good riding. Instant appearance of a thermonuclear flash, maybe. Instant appearance of blinding sun glare with no warning sounds pretty far fetched. I ride lots of roads that go from deep forest shade to bright sun all the time. My speed is adjusted accordingly and I'm not taken by surprise when it happens. I also make sure that I have a helmet/visor system that allows me to block most head on sunlight. Let me suggest that if you ride, you really ought to consider the idea of adjusting your speed to match the distance you can see. Whether you succeed in doing this perfectly or not, it's still good practice and could one day save your life. Way better than viewing yourself as at the mercy of every road obstacle.
From: BrianNZ on 13 Jul 2010 16:22 J. Clarke 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. > Mechanical failure? Act of God? :)
From: Bob Myers on 13 Jul 2010 17:07
Ben Kaufman wrote: > Let's say that a rider wants to stay with good practices. Initially, > the visibility distance is good at 55mph and is suddenly reduced by > blinding sun glare to (say) 20mph. One cannot instantaneously reduce > the speed of their bike from 55mph to 20mph, it is a physical > impossibility. Even the fastest possible deceleration would be an > unwise thing to do if there are cars behind you. Yeah, I just hate it when the sun jumps right into your line of sight like that. Bob M. |