Text 15957, 132 rader
Skriven 2005-11-12 11:00:42 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 15909 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
12 Nov 05 10:48, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>>> Wrong. Apparently you've never ridden a motorcycle.

 MvdV>>> Wrong. It appear *you* are the one who has never ridden a motor
 MvdV>>> cycle.

 >> LOL! I was riding motorcycles long before you became old
 >> enough to know what they are.

 MvdV> You can not possible be that old.

You claim not to be the 55 that I estimated. If you were, you would have
been born six years prior to my buying my first motorcycle. However, I
rode them at 15 without a license; my dad owned a few.

 >>>> When a driver fails to see the bike coming and pulls out
 >>>> in front of it, the biker, if he doesn't have time to swerve
 >>>> out of the vehicles path, will hit the car broadside.

 MvdV>>> Exactly. If the biker assumes the driver of the car has seen him,
 MvdV>>> he is toast if his assumption is wrong. So either the biker
 MvdV>>> learns very quickly to cease making that assumption or he very
 MvdV>>> quickly ceases to be a survivor.

 >> See 'time', above.

 MvdV> The biker that is a survivor will create the time by slowing down
 MvdV> so that he can always stop before the line where the car would be
 MvdV> if it suddenly decides to pull up.

That doesn't always work out that way. Nothing is written in stone.

 MvdV> He will only accelerate when he has reached the point where he can
 MvdV> pull out in front of the car no matter what the car does.

When one has the right of way, one cannot empahatically state that the one
without the right of way will obey the law or even see the motorcycle.

 >> Anticipating the vehicle's movement still
 >> requires enough reactionary time to avoid it.

 MvdV> See above. An experienced and careful biker can not be tricked into
 MvdV> running into the side of car.

I never was, but I had plenty of close calls that would have happened if I
had not been paying attention. There is always going to be the exception
in any case.

 >> new 1959 Cadillac...if you've ever seen the tailights and fins
 >> on that car, they're really dangerous to people on bikes. I broke
 >> the left rear tailight lense with my knee.

 >> http://home.earthlink.net/~gallery59/cadangR.jpg

 MvdV> Oops, that look s awful. I remember those fins from when I was
 MvdV> young. I always wondered why people thought that was nice...

That tail light lense cut my Levis and gouged my thigh for about 4 inches
just above the knee. It hurt to high heaven, but I was only bruised and
not cut.

 >>>> Seat belts don't have anything to do with pedestrians.

 MvdV>>> Indirectly they do.

 >> Maybe when they become passengers or drivers.

 >>>> And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with
 >>>> a different method of driving.

 MvdV>>> But is does. See my massage to Frank S.

 >> I saw it, but I didn't think it was relevant.

 MvdV> That's not my problem.

Which means your explanation was rejected and you have nothing to say?
Great, then I've won that arguement, hands down.

 >> I feel no safer with seat belts on than I did without them. I
 >> have no more confidence that I'll somehow be saved from injury
 >> than I did with out them. Until there's an opportunity to prove
 >> they're safer than not, I only feel inconvenienced by having
 >> to strap myself into the car before I can go anywhere.

 MvdV> The staistics show that you have a better chance of surviving a
 MvdV> serious accident when you are buckled up. Most people seem to
 MvdV> believe that and DO feel safer when belted in.

I still find the belts to be constraining and a nuisance to freedom of
movement within the confines of the vehicle.

 MvdV>>>>> Yes, sure under adverse conditions having the lights on is a
 MvdV>>>>> good idea. In broad daylight and clear weather it is nonsense.

 >>>> Actually just the opposite. On a clear day, it's just as easy
 >>>> to miss an oncoming car as any other day. With DRLs, the chance
 >>>> of not seeing the other car is less.

 MvdV>>> Yeah, but the marginal increased visibility does not
 MvdV>>> automatically lead to an overall reduction in casualities.

 >> The increased viisbility isn't merely marginal...

 MvdV> Whatever. I have been hearing all these arguments for decades. I
 MvdV> have yet to see the accident statisctics to back it up.

I just gave you an arms length of studies that prove otherwise. You
ignored them?

 MvdV>>> In bright sunshine the enhanced visibility isa marginal. That
 MvdV>>> marginal enhanced visibility does not necesarily lead to an
 MvdV>>> overall reduction of casualties. The statistics do not support
 MvdV>>> the theory that it does.

 >> Wrong...by now you've seen the list of studies, which prove
 >> your theory wrong.

 MvdV> I have seen a list of article about visibility. There was nothing
 MvdV> to prove that carrying lights in broad daylight improves overall
 MvdV> road safety.

 MvdV> I do not feel safer with the lights on in broad daylight.

That's your problem...


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)