Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Ben Kaufman on 14 Jul 2010 07:43 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. Until the oil hits the beaches and then the reality sets in..
From: Vito on 14 Jul 2010 07:50 BrianNZ wrote: >> Mechanical failure? Act of God? :) I'm with you! Blame God. Let her family sue God and collect from the nearest church. They have plenty of money .....
From: Ben Kaufman on 14 Jul 2010 08:08 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:17:41 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote: >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 ? > Eh hem,, we don't know. I am simply explaining how it is possible to not be (in common usage of the phrase) running beyond your sight and crash. >Sounds more to me as if he was in an accident which >could have been avoided by good riding. > That's fine. You have stated it in such a way as to informally convey a statistical likelihood rather than absolute uncertainty. >Instant appearance of a thermonuclear flash, maybe. >Instant appearance of blinding sun glare with no warning >sounds pretty far fetched. > I have personally experienced sudden blinding sun glare when a low sun is suddenly revealed by a change in my position . >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. Absolutely. You are preaching to the choir.
From: Ben Kaufman on 14 Jul 2010 08:09 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:07:36 -0600, "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: >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. > You must drive on some boring roads. :-)
From: Ben Kaufman on 14 Jul 2010 08:26
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Jul 13, 1:07�pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > >The one real case that does come to mind is Tule fog >in the central valley. They've been known to have fifty >car pileups when drivers go ripping into a patch of fog >at 80 mph, only to find there's a pileup in the middle of it. > >I try real hard to avoid foggy conditions in the valley for >just that reason. If I'm worried, I'll normally slow down >and tuck in behind a truck, figuring he's pretty visible >and I'd rather have him be the first to encounter the carnage. > This sounds like you are not maintaining your sight distance. You are "tucking in" which implies following closely and relying upon the truck, who may very well be driving beyond his sight distance. >There was a rider killed several years ago while stopped >on the shoulder at the scene of an accident in the fog when >a woman tried to drive around the wreckage on the shoulder >of the road. That one, I really don't think was easily avoidable >by the rider. > |