MFFY Group on Facebook
in [Cars]
|
From: Alan Baker on 6 Mar 2010 18:51 In article <gik5p5pdj4nufei3davgigm3f8c1o3jo3r(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >Another video for scott... http://blip.tv/file/3306844 > > He may be a duckling, but he's not tailgating you. > > He's far enough back that you can clearly see his taillights and his > driving lights. He is CLEARLY tailgating him. The fact that you define tailgating in terms of whether or not you can see his lights (not taillights, obviously) without regard for the speed is just... ....how about, "incredibly stupid". -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 6 Mar 2010 20:09 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-CE2263.15511606032010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <gik5p5pdj4nufei3davgigm3f8c1o3jo3r(a)4ax.com>, > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: >> >> >Another video for scott... http://blip.tv/file/3306844 >> >> He may be a duckling, but he's not tailgating you. >> >> He's far enough back that you can clearly see his taillights and his >> driving lights. > > He is CLEARLY tailgating him. > > The fact that you define tailgating in terms of whether or not you can > see his lights (not taillights, obviously) without regard for the speed > is just... > > ...how about, "incredibly stupid". > More than that, it opens my eyes to what he could be thinking "sloth" might be, what "safe following distance" might be, and I can even extrapolate that to possibly being what a "safe merging gap" might be.
From: Brent on 6 Mar 2010 22:46 On 2010-03-06, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>Another video for scott... http://blip.tv/file/3306844 > > He may be a duckling, but he's not tailgating you. > > He's far enough back that you can clearly see his taillights and his > driving lights. At the end when I turn it back forwards. When I turned it around initially, he had already backed off some, but only the top of the bumper is visible. If I nailed the brakes he would be hard pressed to keep that barn on wheels from hitting my rear bumper. Pause at 19 seconds.
From: Alan Baker on 7 Mar 2010 16:10 In article <uv38p5p24phgs9v7onnqgivlui13n5432c(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > said: > > >In article <gik5p5pdj4nufei3davgigm3f8c1o3jo3r(a)4ax.com>, > > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > >> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >> > >> >Another video for scott... http://blip.tv/file/3306844 > >> > >> He may be a duckling, but he's not tailgating you. > >> > >> He's far enough back that you can clearly see his taillights and his > >> driving lights. > > > >He is CLEARLY tailgating him. > > > >The fact that you define tailgating in terms of whether or not you can > >see his lights (not taillights, obviously) without regard for the speed > > As opposed to you and Daniel, who define it in whatever way will help > you "win" a USENET argument? Hardly. > > I define tailgating in terms of stopping ability, i.e. can the car > behind stop without hitting the car in front. Funny. That's how I define it too. > > On a 30 MPH city street the following distance in that video is more > than adequate. 1. That wasn't a city street. 2. They are clearly doing more than 30 mph. 3. No, it's not enough following distance to stop even at 30 mph. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 7 Mar 2010 21:24
"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uv38p5p24phgs9v7onnqgivlui13n5432c(a)4ax.com... > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > said: > >>In article <gik5p5pdj4nufei3davgigm3f8c1o3jo3r(a)4ax.com>, >> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> >>> >Another video for scott... http://blip.tv/file/3306844 >>> >>> He may be a duckling, but he's not tailgating you. >>> >>> He's far enough back that you can clearly see his taillights and his >>> driving lights. >> >>He is CLEARLY tailgating him. >> >>The fact that you define tailgating in terms of whether or not you can >>see his lights (not taillights, obviously) without regard for the speed > > As opposed to you and Daniel, who define it in whatever way will help > you "win" a USENET argument? > I believe I defined it quite clearly, but let me be even more clear: * If I am following another vehicle, I expect to keep a patch of road in between me and the vehicle in front of me (and preferably that following distance should be 2 to 3 seconds except for the slowest speeds of a traffic jam). * If another vehicle is following mine, I expect to be able to see a patch of road in front of the vehicle following behind me (and I might even measure two seconds from the point I pass until the point that vehicle passes to ensure they are keeping that much distance away from me). Anything closer than that is too close. If I can only see their lights--that's tailgating. If I can only see their hood--they are not only tailgating but IMHO driving recklessly. If that's somehow trying to "win" a USENET argument, then it just means my standards of what's a safe following distance are obviously higher than yours. [snip...] |