toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) (02/25/86)
[EAT ME] >> I drive a pickup truck (4 wheel drive, no less). >> I own four motorcycles. I envy you. I wish I had a pickup and four motorcycles. I'd settle for a pickup and three motorcycles. I'd settle just for three motorcycles. Oh well. >> I split lanes regularly. If you did that where I live you'd get arrested. It's illegal. (Oregon) >> I try not to ride in a way that lets cars (or trucks) bother me. >> Speed up or get out of the slow lane, and people won't tailgate you. I ride daily (5 of 7) in rush-hour traffic. That means there is a vehicle immediately in front of me, immediately behind me, and one just off my right handlebar. (Can you guess what false assumption(s) you made? Hint: all exits aren't on the right.) I make an attempt to keep at least 1 car length between my self and the car in front of me for each 60 mph. I prefer 1.5 . >> Stop wearing that bright orange vest, and they won't aim at you. This is starting to sound like a good idea. But I believe that everyone is out to get me. How unsporting to make myself hard to see. >> >> Seriously, I ignored your posting originally on net.auto, where I expect >> this kind of narrow-minded attitude, but please keep it off net.cycle. Sorry, but my attitude isn't the problem. The problem is your reaction to a valid conclusion drawn from repeated observations of deviant driver behavior. It's certainly not my fault that the offensive twits like pickups. And unless you are amongst their ranks, there's no reason for you to be upset. Todd Vierheller
dist@gc49.UUCP (71GC060820) (02/27/86)
In article <200@copper.UUCP> toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) writes: >>> I split lanes regularly. >I ride daily (5 of 7) in rush-hour traffic. That means there is a vehicle >immediately in front of me, immediately behind me, and one just off my right >handlebar. (Can you guess what false assumption(s) you made? Hint: all >exits aren't on the right.) I make an attempt to keep at least 1 car length >between my self and the car in front of me for each 60 mph. I prefer 1.5 . One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!)
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/03/86)
> >I ride daily (5 of 7) in rush-hour traffic. That means there is a vehicle > >immediately in front of me, immediately behind me, and one just off my right > >handlebar. (Can you guess what false assumption(s) you made? Hint: all > >exits aren't on the right.) I make an attempt to keep at least 1 car length > >between my self and the car in front of me for each 60 mph. I prefer 1.5 . > > One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) This last author is from NC if I believe the article header. I invite him to ride the Garden State Parkway at 08:15 on a weekday morning. Or the Long Island Expressway at 07:35. Or the Saw Mill River Parkway at 07:15 . Or the FDR (East River) Drive at anytime between 06:30 and 19:00 . The Long Island Expressway, also known as the Big LIE or the World's Longest Parking Lot, can go from 60 to 0 in 0 seconds. And back again. The Saw Mill River Parkway was the first parkway in the country. It was called a parkway because it went through a park, and it was designed for leisurely travel . . . you could do 30 on most sections, but you'd miss the scenery, and it some places were only safe for 20 or so. It's now used by 60 MPH rush hour traffic. Oh, the Bronx River Parkway is worse. There are 90 degree turnds with an inner radius of half the width of the road, and people's driveways right on the shoulderless parkway. And it is presumably legal, if suicidal, to cross the double yellow line when entering or leaving a driveway! Yes, double yellow line. NOT barrier! The East River Drive is the most fun of all. Ever want to learn how to fly? You can do it in your car on the roller-coaster stretches. The best one is southbound, just after you emerge from under the UN. Then there are the unbanked airpine turns 4 and 5 stories off the ground to get onto the Brooklyn Bridge, the Caddy-eating potholes down by Houston Street. (dat's pronounced House-ton, mista!) and NONE of it slows traffic significantly. (Of course, you gotta have the Right Stuff to drive in NYC anyway . . .) 1.5 car lengths at 60 MPH is too much under these circumstances. Some asshole WILL cut in front of you. About .8 car lengths is all you can manage, and someone will STILL try. In New York, other cars are simply obstacles, unless they are parked, in which case they are potential income. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) (03/07/86)
> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). -- Mikel Manitius @ AT&T-IS Altamonte Springs, FL ...{ihnp4|akgua|bellcore|clyde|koura}!codas!mikel
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (03/11/86)
In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP> mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: >> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into >> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > >Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly >or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity >of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). >-- He can if he stops because he has run into the rear end of a 30-car pileup. Dave
braman@dataioDataio.UUCP (Rick Braman) (03/11/86)
> > One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > > a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > > the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > > Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly > or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity > of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). > -- > Mikel Manitius @ AT&T-IS Altamonte Springs, FL > ...{ihnp4|akgua|bellcore|clyde|koura}!codas!mikel Given the fact that at 60 MPH you are covering 88 ft/sec, at 1 car length you have somewhere around 1/4 to 1/5 of a second between you and the guy in front. If he slams on his brakes I defy anyone to react that fast unless they drive with one foot on the brake pedal all the time. When I took drivers training this test was done with all students. They had a simulator with a light in front of the driving position, which when it lit up you slammed on the brakes and were timed. No one in a class of 30+ did it in less than 1/2 second. So unless you are incredibly gifted and are able to move you foot from floor to brake pedal in 1/4 second you will be imprinted on the back of that slowing car before you even start braking! -- Rick Braman FutureNet - a division of Data I/O Corp. Redmond, WA UUCP: uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!braman
svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (03/12/86)
In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP> mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: >> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into >> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > >Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly >or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity >of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). >-- According to the California Driver Handbook, at 55mph, it takes 168 feet to stop *once the brakes are applied* and 228 feet overall (due to reaction time). So, once the person in front of you has applied the brakes, his car will stop in 168 feet. You however will stop in 228 feet, a difference of 60 feet. Obviously, if you are following closer than 60 feet, you will hit. -- Bill Svirsky Citicorp/TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcb!svirsky
tjsmedley@watmum.UUCP (Trevor J. Smedley) (03/12/86)
>> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into >> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > >Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equally >or better then the guy in front of you And provided you can go from having you foot on the gas pedal going 60 mph to your foot on the brake pedal at full force in less than 1/6 of a second. It takes about that amount of time to travel 1 car length (estimated at 15 feet) doing 60 mph, so that's how long you have to get your braking force up to the same force as he had when you started to react (actually you have a little bit longer when you take into account that you may actually get your foot off the gas pedal within the 1/6 sec., so you start to slow down a little). A better estimate for the time required for this would be about 2 sec. and that's how far behind the car you should follow (longer for cars which have superior braking power or for motorcycles). If you were following one car length behind me doing 60, and for some reason I slammed on my brakes without warning, and perhaps my brake lights didn't work, then you would almost undoubtedly be in my back seat before you had time to get your foot poised over the brake. Didn't anyone else learn the 2-second rule? Trevor J. Smedley University of Waterloo {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,utzoo}!watmum!tjsmedley Disclaimer: I will be the first to admit that the 2-second rule is not always appropriate, but it's a much better guideline than one car length per 60 mph. BTW, someone here says that it should actually be one car length per 10 mph. This makes a little more sense to me.
tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) (03/14/86)
> >> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > >> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > >> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > > > >Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equally > >or better then the guy in front of you > > A better estimate for the time required for this would be about 2 sec. > and that's how far behind the car you should follow (longer for cars > which have superior braking power or for motorcycles). If you were > Didn't anyone else learn the 2-second rule? > > Trevor J. Smedley University of Waterloo I had always heard of the 3-second rule: When the car ahead of you passes a landmark (i.e. mile marker, big tree, dead cat in the middle of the road) start counting. If you get to the landmark before you count to three, you're following too close. I assume this is the same basis for the 2-second rule (?) Anyone else heard of this or follow it? -- +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Tim Thompson 414 Morton Hall Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 ihnp4!{amc1,cbdkc1,cbosgd,cuuxb}!oucs!tim Disclaimer: If the University finds out what I'm doing, they probably couldn't care less. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
aoki@oracle.UUCP (Don Aoki) (03/15/86)
In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP>, mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: > > One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > > a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > > the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > > Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly > or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity > of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). Taking a car length to be around 15 feet, and since 60 MPH = 88 feet/sec, you would have to apply your brakes within 0.17 seconds of the driver in front of you in order for it to "work out pretty well." Easier said than done. -- Don Aoki ("The Oak") ORACLE Corporation (415)598-8077 Belmont, California hplabs!oracle!aoki
belanger@ulowell.UUCP (Jonathan D. Belanger) (03/16/86)
Followup-To: To the group of people talking about the so called fact that 1 car length for every 60 mph is all that is required to stop, I think you should look into the drivers manuals your states hopefully have. If they don't let me paraphrase for you: 1 car length per 10 mph is the minimum distance between cars in dry weather circumstances (2+ car lengths is recommended in adverse weather). I realize that many states don't require their drivers to talk a written test before they can get just a learners permit. As a matter of fact in some states you can receive your licence just because your 16 years old. I'm from Massachusetts and I realize that we are known in some states as MASSholes but when I have driven in those states I find that those drivers are at best as bad as MASSholes. The major problem is that not everyone knows the rules of the road. If everyone did then the need for enforced safety regulations whould not be necessary and there would also be no arguments about the safety of a 65 mph speed limit. ~Jon. Belanger UUCP: belanger@ulowell.UUCP CSNET: belanger@ulowell
deanh@mako.UUCP (Dean Hill) (03/18/86)
>In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP>, mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: >> > One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop In article <419@oracle.UUCP> aoki@oracle.UUCP (Don Aoki) writes: > >Taking a car length to be around 15 feet, and since 60 MPH = 88 feet/sec, >you would have to apply your brakes within 0.17 seconds of the driver >in front of you in order for it to "work out pretty well." I am one of those people who tend to follow closely and, behind a CAR, usually find myself around 1 1/2 to 2 car lengths (at 65 mph) behind the car in front of me. I will be watching the tail-lights of the car in front of him (her), rather than looking directly at his tail-lights, and also looking for patterns even further ahead. In many cases, I will have MY foot on the brake BEFORE the car in front of me. If I am behind a Van or Pickup, I will either try to get out from behind it or drop back further (2 1/2 to 3 car lengths. dwh -- ############################################################################### "Every night's a Saturday night and every day's a Sunday. I know I've done wrong but I'm gonna do it ONE MORE TIME!" Dean Hill (503) 685-2841 USENET: tektronix!orca!mako!deanh TEKTRONIX, INC. P.O. BOX 1000 D.S. 60-700 WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 ###############################################################################
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (03/18/86)
In article <926@dataioDataio.UUCP> (Rick Braman) writes: >>> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >>> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into >>> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) >> Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly >> or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity >> of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). >Given the fact that at 60 MPH you are covering 88 ft/sec, at 1 car length you >have somewhere around 1/4 to 1/5 of a second between you and the guy in front. >If he slams on his brakes I defy anyone to react that fast unless they drive >with one foot on the brake pedal all the time. as was pointed out in the middle quote, a car does not stop instantaneously. if i'm 40 feet behind a car and i decelerate at the rate of 20 ft/s^2 and the car in front decelerates at 19 ft/s^2 and we hit the brakes at the same time, i'll be further behind him than when i started braking. taking a full second to react, 40 ft may not be enough, but it's not that far off from the distance needed to avoid collision. one car length at 60MPH may not be enough, but 3 or 4 is plenty if both drivers are alert and the front car has working brake lights. around here anyways, often neither is true. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/18/86)
In article <711@ttidcb.UUCP> svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) writes: >In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP> mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: >>> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >>> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into >>> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) >> >>Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly >>or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity >>of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). >>-- >According to the California Driver Handbook, at 55mph, it takes >168 feet to stop *once the brakes are applied* and 228 feet >overall (due to reaction time). So, once the person in front of >you has applied the brakes, his car will stop in 168 feet. You >however will stop in 228 feet, a difference of 60 feet. >Obviously, if you are following closer than 60 feet, you will >hit. >-- >Bill Svirsky Aside from which, how do you know if the car in front is just slowing down, or screeching to a halt (if you've got the radio on load :-)). You can't go around screeching on your brakes every time the car in front of you flashes his brake lights. -- --MKR The first half of a project takes 90% of the time. The other half takes the other 90%.
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/19/86)
All of the followups to this that I have seen have been reasonably objective, discussing the time required for changing from accellerating or maintaining speed to braking, and the distances required to stop given the road conditions, etc. This is all well and good and theoretical. You are ignoring the real question: When you are maintaining the correct adequate distance between you and the car ahead, given the traffic speed and road conditions, how do you keep other drivers from cutting into that space? I don't think there is an answer -- all I can think of involves technology we don't have yet (forcefields, etc.). So it doesn't matter what you *should* do, or what the facts of reaction time and momentum might be. If you leave 6 car lengths between you and the preceeding car, this space will be filled with at least 5 cars in some number of seconds, if you are driving in commute-time traffic in any major metropolitan area. You CANNOT leave adequate room in front of you, because you will not be allowed to. If you continually slow down to leave adequate room each time someone pulls into the space you have left in front of you, you will be stopped in a short distance, plus having infuriated those behind you, who will have pulled around you and cut into this space anyway... In short, it is not possible to drive safely, if you define "safely" to be what the drivers-ed and state handbooks say it is. What this means, in practical terms, is that you *have* to drive one car-length or less from the car in front of you. This isn't tailgating; it is reality. (By the by, I am convinced I saw this exact same discussion a year or so ago here... is this not true?) Will
dist@gc49.UUCP (71GC060820) (03/20/86)
In article <1069@mako.UUCP> deanh@mako.UUCP (Dean Hill) writes: >>In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP>, mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: >>> > One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop >In article <419@oracle.UUCP> aoki@oracle.UUCP (Don Aoki) writes: >> >I am one of those people who tend to follow closely and, behind a CAR, usually >find myself around 1 1/2 to 2 car lengths (at 65 mph) behind the car in front >of me. I will be watching the tail-lights of the car in front of him (her), >rather than looking directly at his tail-lights, and also looking for >patterns even further ahead. In many cases, I will have MY foot on the brake >BEFORE the car in front of me. If I am behind a Van or Pickup, I will either >try to get out from behind it or drop back further (2 1/2 to 3 car lengths. Your method of preparing to stop quickly is all well and good (for you). However, in my humble opinion, one of the most annoying things that can happen in traffic is to be already going 65 mph or more in a 55 mph zone and have some jerk-off riding right on your ass apparently wanting to go 75 or over. If 15 to 20 mph over the speed limit is not enough for you, get your ass of the highway and charter an airplane. Have a nice day. Hank (The Shadow) Robertson.
stevew@leadsv.UUCP (Steve Wolff) (03/22/86)
In article <711@ttidcb.UUCP>, svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) writes: > In article <478@codas.ATT.UUCP> mikel@codas.ATT.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes: > >> One car length for each "60" mph??? I defy anyone out there to stop > >> a cycle going 60 mph in one car length (of course unless you run into > >> the back of the car, that should stop you rather suddenly!) > > > >Actually, that works out pretty well, as long as you can brake equaly > >or better then the guy in front of you (he can't go from a velocity > >of 60mph to 0 in less than a couple of seconds!). > >-- > According to the California Driver Handbook, at 55mph, it takes > 168 feet to stop *once the brakes are applied* and 228 feet > overall (due to reaction time). So, once the person in front of > you has applied the brakes, his car will stop in 168 feet. You > however will stop in 228 feet, a difference of 60 feet. > Obviously, if you are following closer than 60 feet, you will > hit. > -- This assumes that you are staring only at the brake lights of the car directly in front of you. If I cannot see the road ahead of the car in front of me through its windows (i.e. following a truck or van) I move to one side of the lane so I *can* see. Countless times I have begun to slow down for some condition ahead and the car in front of me keeps barrelling along, only to have to cram on the brakes at the last second to avoid a situation that I have already anticipated. The "ideal" speed to travel is that speed which requires the minimum amount of braking taking all factors into consideration. -- ======== stevew (Steve Wolff @ Lockheed, Sunnyvale) (( stevew@leadsv.UUCP )) (( ...{ihnp4,decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!stevew )) "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up!!"
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) (03/24/86)
In article <1069@mako.UUCP> deanh@mako.UUCP (Dean Hill) writes: > >I am one of those people who tend to follow closely and, behind a CAR, usually >find myself around 1 1/2 to 2 car lengths (at 65 mph) behind the car in front >of me. I will be watching the tail-lights of the car in front of him (her), >rather than looking directly at his tail-lights, and also looking for >patterns even further ahead. In many cases, I will have MY foot on the brake >BEFORE the car in front of me. In that case, you'd better hope the driver behind you isn't skipping up a car too, or you'll get your brakes on WAY before the person behind you... is your whiplash insurance paid up? :-) -- *** Speak for the company? Naaaah, it's hard enough speaking for ME! *** ... "What were you expecting, rock'n'roll?" Roger B.A. Klorese Celerity Computing, 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701, (617) 872-1772 UUCP: seismo!harvard!bu-cs!celtics!roger, ucbvax!sdcsvax!celerity!celtics!roger ARPA: bu-cs!celtics!roger@harvard.ARPA, celerity!celtics!roger@sdcsvax.ARPA