From: Brent on 7 Mar 2010 23:05 On 2010-03-07, 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? > > I define tailgating in terms of stopping ability, i.e. can the car > behind stop without hitting the car in front. > > On a 30 MPH city street the following distance in that video is more > than adequate. Just one big problem. I was going 45mph, the posted limit.
From: Alan Baker on 8 Mar 2010 02:09 In article <hn1t2c$o4c$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-07, 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? > > > > I define tailgating in terms of stopping ability, i.e. can the car > > behind stop without hitting the car in front. > > > > On a 30 MPH city street the following distance in that video is more > > than adequate. > > Just one big problem. I was going 45mph, the posted limit. Yup. I spotted that right off. I wonder why Scott couldn't. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: gpsman on 8 Mar 2010 11:13 On Mar 8, 10:25 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >Just one big problem. I was going 45mph, the posted limit. > > So if you felt you were in so much danger, and you were afraid to > speed up because a cop would appear out of nowhere, why didn't you > slow down so that you could stop more gently, if needed? Or, better > still, pull off the road and let the "tailgater" pass you? In fact, > you felt safe enough to take one hand off the wheel to futz with your > video camera. > > Obviously you were not in any real danger, and you knew it. False premise. Motoring is inherently dangerous. Trolling more and enjoying it less...? ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 8 Mar 2010 12:00 On 2010-03-08, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>Just one big problem. I was going 45mph, the posted limit. > So if you felt you were in so much danger, and you were afraid to > speed up because a cop would appear out of nowhere, why didn't you > slow down so that you could stop more gently, if needed? Or, better > still, pull off the road and let the "tailgater" pass you? In fact, > you felt safe enough to take one hand off the wheel to futz with your > video camera. Talk about diversion. I was going 45mph. You were wrong about the speed. That's all I stated. But let me address your nonsense: You wonder where I get the idea that you feel I am morally obligated to go some speed above the limit, that I deserve to be tailgated, that being tailgated is my fault. It's right there above as you try to blame me for it. It's four lane road scott, the left lane is wide open and yet you suggest that I should hop over the high square curb to the right rip up the underside of my car to let some tailgater go by? Who said I 'felt in danger'? Not I. I didn't slow down because he didn't cross the threshold to where I normally do. Some tailgaters will flip out when I slow, so that has to be taken into account when deciding what action to take. I am certainly not going to speed up and get a ticket for his sake. He was getting close to that threshold at the beginning of the video, pointing the camera around does get some to back off and he backed off. If I had slowed, you'd argue that I deserved the tailgating for slowing. Grabbing the camera with one hand pointing backwards without seeing what I was getting on it with open road in front of me isn't dangerous. I was watching forwards. It was about as dangerous as shifting gears. When I've done it before I ended up with videos of the backseat or the headliner. I am not watching what is being recorded. I'm not an idiot like carl talyor and the speed kills crowd that do their hand held speeding documentaries and drive with their knees. I merely reported that I was being tailgated in the right hand lane of a four lane road that was essentially wide open. Something you say doesn't happen. BTW, There were TWO cops on that stretch this morning. A c(r)ook county mounty in the median, door open, leaning out with the radar/lidar gun and further up a state trooper on the opposite side sitting in a crossed off portion of pavement. > Obviously you were not in any real danger, and you knew it. As you knock down the argument never made by me. Face it, some people tailgate when there is absolutely no reason to. You won't find me arguing safety in this thread, only the presence of tailgating under conditions you don't believe it occurs under. Now we see you divert into other areas and try to change the definition of tailgating to preserve your original viewpoint.
From: Alan Baker on 8 Mar 2010 15:26
In article <s55ap5t8tdtu0uc1j28josndabcbldlqlq(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >Just one big problem. I was going 45mph, the posted limit. > > So if you felt you were in so much danger, and you were afraid to > speed up because a cop would appear out of nowhere, why didn't you > slow down so that you could stop more gently, if needed? Or, better > still, pull off the road and let the "tailgater" pass you? In fact, > you felt safe enough to take one hand off the wheel to futz with your > video camera. > > Obviously you were not in any real danger, and you knew it. Which has nothing to do with your rather ignorant assessment that he wasn't being tailgated because you could see the driving lights of the car behind, does it? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |