Accident statistics

[Marc Adler]

Does anyone have any good sources for statistics on flying accidents.
Specifically, I'd like to know 1) what % of accidents are fatal to all
occupants, 2) what % of accidents are fatal to some but not all
occupants, and how these stats compare to similar stats for automobile
accidents.

As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...

Marc

[Peter R.]

Marc Adler > wrote:

> Does anyone have any good sources for statistics on flying accidents.
> Specifically, I'd like to know 1) what % of accidents are fatal to all
> occupants, 2) what % of accidents are fatal to some but not all
> occupants, and how these stats compare to similar stats for automobile
> accidents.

This might be a good place to start. The most recent NALL report, which
provides analysis for 2004:

http://www.gaservingamerica.com/library_pdfs/05nall.pdf

Here is a list of NALL reports from years prior:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html


--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
> worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...

You're not going to be able to use the data, Marc. Statistically,
everything I've seen shows that flying a light plane is about the same
level of risk as riding a motorcycle.

Which, in my opinion, is quite acceptable. However, wives have been
known to disagree...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Lee]

"Marc Adler" > wrote:

>As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
>worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...

Your real analysis should indicate what percentage are due to pilots
tempting the Law of Darwinism and losing. Common sense, being prudent
about the inherent risks of flying (or driving, snowmobiling or taking
a shower), would dramatically cut accident and fatality rates.

Ron Lee

[Marc Adler]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Your real analysis should indicate what percentage are due to pilots
> tempting the Law of Darwinism and losing.

That might be true, but I'm pretty sure my wife thinks I would be on
the losing side of that equation.

I found this:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_03.html

According to that site, there were 1,741 GA accidents vs 79,081 for
motorcycles in 2004 (and 4,746,307 for passenger cars). Now we just
need to find points of reference to compare those stats (hours, size of
pool, etc.).

Marc

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

Hi Marc;

You might be approaching the issue from the wrong direction based on my
experience through the years advising potential pilots on this very issue.
Family members not well versed on aviation safety are prone not to take
positive stats as a source of relief from their anxiety about a loved one
flying.
Not that good stats don't help mind you, but they're not enough.
What you should do is by all means gather up all the good stats you can
muster, then instead of placing these in front of your wife as the end all
for you taking up flying; instead use the stats as a point of departure into
convincing her that although there is an element of risk in flying as there
is risk in any endeavor like flying, the way you intend to approach that
risk is through a competent and intelligent learning process.
The bottom line on what you need to get across to her and ease her fears is
that the danger isn't the fact that risk exists. The danger is there when
risk is mishandled and mismanaged, and you are intelligent enough to know
this and are approaching the issue from that direction.
Even if you could produce stats that could prove there is a 99% safety
factor in flying, people who love you and are uneducated in flying would
still be worrying about that remaining 1%.
What you have to do to ease her fear is show her you are capable of managing
that 1%.
Best of luck to you. Its not the easiest thing to accomplish, but its worth
the effort :-)
Dudley Henriques

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Does anyone have any good sources for statistics on flying accidents.
> Specifically, I'd like to know 1) what % of accidents are fatal to all
> occupants, 2) what % of accidents are fatal to some but not all
> occupants, and how these stats compare to similar stats for automobile
> accidents.
>
> As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
> worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...
>
> Marc
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> Your real analysis should indicate what percentage are due to pilots
> tempting the Law of Darwinism and losing.

But add back the accidents caused by tempting Darwin, knowing the pilot will win (and being wrong).

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

"Marc Adler" > wrote:
> Does anyone have any good sources for statistics on flying accidents.

A good place to check is here:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/

Generally, aviation safety stats for GA seem to normalized on a per-hour
basis, and you can get that information here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm

While automobile safety stats generally seem to be normalized on a
per-mile basis, and you can get that information here:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/html/table_02_21.html

[Dan Luke]

"Marc Adler" wrote:


> As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
> worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...

If that's what you're after, you probably won't like what you find.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan[_1_]]

So, based on these numbers, I have a 1.3% chance of a fatal accident
before I reach 1000 hours. Wow, that is a bit high....

My mother recently died in a motorcycle accident, and that brings the
risk of such things a bit closer to home if you know what I mean...

--Dan


Dan Luke wrote:
> "Marc Adler" wrote:
>
>
> > As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
> > worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...
>
> If that's what you're after, you probably won't like what you find.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-09-19, Dan > wrote:
> So, based on these numbers, I have a 1.3% chance of a fatal accident
> before I reach 1000 hours. Wow, that is a bit high....

But you will only kill 1.75 people in the plane . If you carry 1.75
passengers all the time, the chances of YOU dying go way down. Just
make sure they don't wear their seatbelts.

also 1.6% of one person on the ground. Maybe someone will lose a
hand.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Thomas Borchert]

Marc,

> Does anyone have any good sources for statistics on flying accidents.
>

The problem with all GA statistics is that flying hours are not
recorded in a reliable form, but rather estimated.

The problem about the worries of wives is that they are typically not
calmed by statistics or any other approach involving reason ;-)

Small aircraft GA is about as dangerous as riding a motor bike, IOW
more dangerous than driving a car. However, much of the dangers of
bikes come from drivers around you. Most of the dangers to a GA pilot
come from the pilot himself. "Don't do nothing stupid" is the prime
directive. Running out of fuel or pressing on into bad weather are
surprisingly common accident reasons.

In the end, it all comes down to what is an acceptable level of risk in
your life. There is no "zero risk", everything you do involves risk.
The question is: Is it acceptable to you and do you manage it well
enough to minimize it? In short: no risk, no fun.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dudley,

Excellent advice!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RNR]

On 18 Sep 2006 14:12:25 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
>> worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...
>
>You're not going to be able to use the data, Marc. Statistically,
>everything I've seen shows that flying a light plane is about the same
>level of risk as riding a motorcycle.
>
>Which, in my opinion, is quite acceptable. However, wives have been
>known to disagree...
>
>;-)

I agree with Jay on both counts. I would add, however, that the
opportunity to avoid being a statistic is more readily available in
the airplane. It is my opinion that the pilot of an airplane is in a
better position to influence the safety of the trip than a motorcycle
driver is. I do both, and I am very cognicent of the lesser level of
control that I have over the outcome of a motorcycle ride.

As noted, I do believe that the risk levels of the two activities are
similar enough to be relevant. I also believe that the risk is much
more random for the bike rider than it is for the pilot. A pilot who
is doing all that he can to enhance the safety of the flight will
likely fare better than the motorcylce rider who is doing the same.

I have accepted the risk level of both and have no intention of giving
either one up.
Rich Russell

[Marc Adler]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> However, much of the dangers of
> bikes come from drivers around you.

This point was driven home to me in a very real way one day when I was
following a pickup with a few mattresses stacked in the bed. I was
looking at the ties they guy had used to secure the mattresses, when I
noticed they weren't ties at all, just bits of rope that were still
tied to the eyes around the bed. The mattresses weren't tied down!!!

As soon as that thought crossed my mind, like clockwork, the top
mattress started to slide. I was directly behind the pickup, so the
mattress was aimed right at me. I changed lanes just as the mattress
slid off the truck, and it came far too close to me - maybe three feet.
It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

I sold my motorcycle shortly after that.I was still in college then,
but I've got kids now, and for me riding a motorcycle is too great an
act of faith in the drivers around me. I know how people drive, and I
don't want my life in their hands.

> Most of the dangers to a GA pilot
> come from the pilot himself.

That's what I explained to my wife. The likelihood of hitting another
plane seems pretty slim. Weather is another problem, but at least you
can usually see it change.

> The question is: Is it acceptable to you and do you manage it well
> enough to minimize it? In short: no risk, no fun.

I finished my argument by promising to up my life insurance. That
seemed to satisfy her. <gulp>

Time to go hide the cooking knives...

Marc

[Thomas Borchert]

Marc,

> I finished my argument by promising to up my life insurance.
>

More important is to check if it covers death while piloting general
aviation airplanes.

If not, AOPA can be a great resource. Are you familiar with them?
Membership is highly recommended and comes with a nice magazine for 38
$ a year. www.aopa.org.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Marc Adler wrote:

> It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
> the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.

Glad to hear your attentiveness served you well!

[Marc Adler]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> More important is to check if it covers death while piloting general
> aviation airplanes.

Ah...

> If not, AOPA can be a great resource. Are you familiar with them?
> Membership is highly recommended and comes with a nice magazine for 38
> $ a year. www.aopa.org.

I'll check it out. Thanks for all the info.

Marc

[Marc Adler]

B A R R Y wrote:

> I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
> always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.

Also, why isn't carrying people in the bed illegal? Just a few months
ago four women died in Hawaii when the truck whose bed they were riding
in collided with another car.

The scary thing is all the kids you see riding around in the beds of
pickups. You don't even need to crash. One sharp turn could send them
flying.

> Glad to hear your attentiveness served you well!

That makes two of us!

Marc

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Marc Adler wrote:
>
> > It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
> > the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.
>
> I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
> always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.


.....especially those cop cars with flashing lights! They really don't
like it if you are driving around loaded! ;>)

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Marc Adler wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
>> always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.
>
> Also, why isn't carrying people in the bed illegal?

It _is_ in Connecticut.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> ....especially those cop cars with flashing lights! They really don't
> like it if you are driving around loaded! ;>)

I only fly MSFS while _that_ version of loaded! <G>

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> As soon as that thought crossed my mind, like clockwork, the top
> mattress started to slide. I was directly behind the pickup, so the
> mattress was aimed right at me. I changed lanes just as the mattress
> slid off the truck, and it came far too close to me - maybe three feet.
> It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
> the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would not
have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you would
have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.

> I sold my motorcycle shortly after that.I was still in college then,
> but I've got kids now, and for me riding a motorcycle is too great an
> act of faith in the drivers around me. I know how people drive, and I
> don't want my life in their hands.

Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to maintain a
safe following distance. That was your choice, not his.

Pete

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Adler" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would
not
> have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
would
> have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
> mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
> of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.

I agree with your post, but it leaves me wondering......

The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to react,
and stop your own vehicle.

If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much faster
than the vehicle is capable of.

I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
than 'normal'.

[Dan[_1_]]

Side note - In Singapore pickups and other flatbed trucks are placarded
as the the MAXIMUM number of people allowed to ride in the bed. The
most I've seen is 55... crazy!

--Dan



B A R R Y wrote:
> Marc Adler wrote:
> > B A R R Y wrote:
> >
> >> I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
> >> always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.
> >
> > Also, why isn't carrying people in the bed illegal?
>
> It _is_ in Connecticut.

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Marc Adler" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>
>> Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would
> not
>> have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
> would
>> have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
>> mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
>> of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.
>
> I agree with your post, but it leaves me wondering......
>
> The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
> require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to react,
> and stop your own vehicle.
>
> If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much faster
> than the vehicle is capable of.

And three seconds is a lot of time. One second is more than enough for
me to react if I clearly see what's going on before me. Even taking
rearviewmirror and additional half of a second three seconds should give
reasonable safety margin.

Of course if you're in good condition and paying attention...

> I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
> than 'normal'.

That's sometimes easier to say than to actually do.


--
Leonard

[Peter Duniho]

"Leonard Milcin Jr." > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
>> than 'normal'.
>
> That's sometimes easier to say than to actually do.

Why do you say that? There is always as much room between you and the
vehicle ahead as you'd like there to be.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:yoXPg.1258$F46.1094@trndny09...
> [...]
> The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
> require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to
> react,
> and stop your own vehicle.
>
> If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much
> faster
> than the vehicle is capable of.
>
> I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
> than 'normal'.

Assuming a "three second rule" is normal (I've more commonly heard two
seconds and the Washington State driver's manual actually suggests four
seconds, so I don't know that there's a true consensus), that should give
plenty of room to come to a complete stop even if the mattress comes to a
halt the instant it leaves its vehicle. Assuming 60mph, that still leaves
almost 180 feet of stopping distance after wasting 1 second for the
emergency to register. Most modern vehicles should have no trouble doing 60
to 0 in 180 feet, and certainly no motorcycle should take anywhere near that
much distance.

Nonetheless, I absolutely agree that "<n> second" rules are only rules of
thumb. They do not guarantee a safe following distance...they offer
guidance to a driver of what a *minimum* safe following distance might be.
Any number of factors could require even more distance following, you are
right about that for sure. It's up to each driver to exercise *judgment*
and make a new determination at any given moment about what the actual safe
following distance is.

Of course, here in the US the idea of a motorist actually exercising any
judgment is a fantasy. But that's how it *ought* to be.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Leonard Milcin Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>>> I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE
>>> DISTANCE than 'normal'.
>>
>> That's sometimes easier to say than to actually do.
>
> Why do you say that? There is always as much room between you and the
> vehicle ahead as you'd like there to be.

In heavy traffic on multi-lane freeways it often happens that when I allow
a decent space between myself and the car in front, drivers in the other
lane will change lanes into the gap I tried to allow. If you keep trying to
back off to re-acquire the safety gap, the more nature magically puts cars
into it. Eventually you've slowed so much that you're actually driving
backward on the freeway and you end up back where you started.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> In heavy traffic on multi-lane freeways it often happens that when I allow
> a decent space between myself and the car in front, drivers in the other
> lane will change lanes into the gap I tried to allow. If you keep trying
> to
> back off to re-acquire the safety gap, the more nature magically puts cars
> into it. Eventually you've slowed so much that you're actually driving
> backward on the freeway and you end up back where you started.

That is not actually true. It's a common enough claim by people who don't
want to be bothered to leave the proper distance between them and the car in
front of them, but it's simply not true. If traffic is actually backed up,
there is no way for new cars to show up quickly enough to change into your
lane and impede your progress. If the other lane were moving so fast so as
to allow that, the drivers would just stay in their own lane.

I drive in so-called "bumper-to-bumper" traffic far more often than I'd
like, I always leave at *least* two car lengths between me and the car ahead
(even when basically stopped), and more if our speed gets high enough to
warrant it, and I have never ever had any trouble at all keeping up with the
general flow of traffic.

Added bonuses include the fact that at least in front of me, other cars can
change lanes unimpeded, allowing lane changes to occur without making the
backup worse, and the fact that with a large enough following distance I can
often maintain a constant speed even as the rest of the cars stop and go.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In heavy traffic on multi-lane freeways it often happens that when I allow
> > a decent space between myself and the car in front, drivers in the other
> > lane will change lanes into the gap I tried to allow. If you keep trying
> > to
> > back off to re-acquire the safety gap, the more nature magically puts cars
> > into it. Eventually you've slowed so much that you're actually driving
> > backward on the freeway and you end up back where you started.
>
> That is not actually true.

yes it is.

> It's a common enough claim by people who don't
> want to be bothered to leave the proper distance between them and the car in
> front of them,

try leaving 3 seconds around here and some idiot will move into your lane

>but it's simply not true.

yes it is.


> If traffic is actually backed up,
> there is no way for new cars to show up quickly enough to change into your
> lane and impede your progress. If the other lane were moving so fast so as
> to allow that, the drivers would just stay in their own lane.

not around Boston MA.


>
> I drive in so-called "bumper-to-bumper" traffic far more often than I'd
> like, I always leave at *least* two car lengths between me and the car ahead
> (even when basically stopped), and more if our speed gets high enough to
> warrant it, and I have never ever had any trouble at all keeping up with the
> general flow of traffic.

Then you don't have actual bumper-to-bumper.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter R.]

Bob Noel > wrote:

> try leaving 3 seconds around here and some idiot will move into your lane

I concur. There are rules of thumb and there are rules of locality.
Practical Northeast US metropolitan driving trades protection from rear-end
accidents with more efficient traffic flow.

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> If traffic is actually backed up,
>> there is no way for new cars to show up quickly enough to change into
>> your
>> lane and impede your progress. If the other lane were moving so fast so
>> as
>> to allow that, the drivers would just stay in their own lane.
>
> not around Boston MA.

It is physically impossible for traffic to behave as you suggest. Even in
Boston. The drivers there are crazy, but they still don't have a free pass
on the laws of physics.

>> I drive in so-called "bumper-to-bumper" traffic far more often than I'd
>> like, I always leave at *least* two car lengths between me and the car
>> ahead
>> (even when basically stopped), and more if our speed gets high enough to
>> warrant it, and I have never ever had any trouble at all keeping up with
>> the
>> general flow of traffic.
>
> Then you don't have actual bumper-to-bumper.

I put "bumper-to-bumper" in quotes because it seemed to me it would be
obvious to the reader, even you, that if I am leaving a couple of car
lengths in front of me, my car is not literally bumper to bumper with the
car ahead. However, rest assured pretty much all the other drivers are
doing the dumb literal bumper-to-bumper you seem to cherish so much.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> I concur. There are rules of thumb and there are rules of locality.
> Practical Northeast US metropolitan driving trades protection from
> rear-end
> accidents with more efficient traffic flow.

Tailgating and efficient traffic flow are mutually exclusive.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> >> If traffic is actually backed up,
> >> there is no way for new cars to show up quickly enough to change into
> >> your
> >> lane and impede your progress. If the other lane were moving so fast so
> >> as
> >> to allow that, the drivers would just stay in their own lane.
> >
> > not around Boston MA.
>
> It is physically impossible for traffic to behave as you suggest.

Have you actually seen traffic here?

>Even in
> Boston. The drivers there are crazy, but they still don't have a free pass
> on the laws of physics.

defying laws of physics is not required.

>
> >> I drive in so-called "bumper-to-bumper" traffic far more often than I'd
> >> like, I always leave at *least* two car lengths between me and the car
> >> ahead
> >> (even when basically stopped), and more if our speed gets high enough to
> >> warrant it, and I have never ever had any trouble at all keeping up with
> >> the
> >> general flow of traffic.
> >
> > Then you don't have actual bumper-to-bumper.
>
> I put "bumper-to-bumper" in quotes because it seemed to me it would be
> obvious to the reader, even you, that if I am leaving a couple of car
> lengths in front of me, my car is not literally bumper to bumper with the
> car ahead. However, rest assured pretty much all the other drivers are
> doing the dumb literal bumper-to-bumper you seem to cherish so much.

Given your obvious lack of experience with of actual bumper-to-bumper
traffic, I can understand your misconceptions.

btw - don't make the mistake of thinking I cherish or enjoy bumper-to-bumper.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Have you actually seen traffic here?

Yes.

> defying laws of physics is not required.

Yes, it is. Or are you saying that Boston drivers are so dumb that if they
are in a lane that is passing another lane, they will still switch over to
the slower lane?

Try as you might to convince me you guys are dumb, I'm still not prepared to
believe you're that dumb.

> Given your obvious lack of experience with of actual bumper-to-bumper
> traffic, I can understand your misconceptions.

Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
bumper-to-bumper all over the country. The physics work the same
everywhere, and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is 5mph
or slower.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote:
>> defying laws of physics is not required.
>
> Yes, it is. Or are you saying that Boston drivers are so dumb that if
> they are in a lane that is passing another lane, they will still
> switch over to the slower lane?

Well ... they may need to exit at the next exit ramp - that normally
requires changing into the slow lane. And I think you're also conflating
the laws of physics with human psychology. But a more fundamental issue is
that the two most common scenarios where I see people changing lanes into
my front "safety gap" is either when traffic in both lanes is traveling
about the same speed or when I am in the fast lane and someone uses my
"safety gap" to enter the fast lane from the slow lane.

I found traveling in the fast lane with the other speeders but trying to
maintain a safe following distance during rush hour in the San Jose
California area was generally difficult. As you point out, drivers in the
fast lane are not inclined to pull into the slow lane unless they have to
(a psychological issue, not a Pauli exclusion principle sort of issue) but
drivers in the slow lane do tend to want to join the fast lane crowd (and
then there are the drivers who seem to constantly switch lanes trying to
find the "fast" one when both lanes are traveling about the same speed).
The result is that safe following distances are sometimes hard to maintain
- at least they were for me.

> Try as you might to convince me you guys are dumb, I'm still not
> prepared to believe you're that dumb.

I suspect no one here is dumb. Opinionated - yeah. Mistaken sometimes -
well I know have been.

I now work from home - the morning and evening commutes are wonderful.
:-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Well ... they may need to exit at the next exit ramp - that normally
> requires changing into the slow lane.

The question isn't whether they ever do. The question is whether enough
cars can pull in front of a given driver so as to force him to go backwards
(or even, giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, making him stop).

One car moving through now and then makes no real difference at all.

> And I think you're also conflating
> the laws of physics with human psychology.

I am, to some extent. What's wrong with that?

My point is that if the lanes are moving at similar speeds, or the lane a
person is in is the faster lane, traffic from the other lane cannot possibly
move into that person's lane fast enough to slow him down significantly.
It's a physical impossibility. The effect drawing all these other supposed
cars into the driver's lane, even if it exists, is self-limiting. If all
these drivers are leaving the one lane for the other, eventually the lane is
going to be travelling so slowly that it is no longer the fast lane.

This means that a person who is claiming an endless stream of people moving
into his own lane is assuming the other lane is moving faster, AND that for
some reason all those drivers moving faster still want to jump in front of
him.

It is both physics and psychology. Thus the conflation.

I have plenty of experience (decades) driving in a wide variety of
congested, urban areas. I have spent my fair share of time stuck in
traffic, traffic equal to any that is relevant to this discussion. And I
have NEVER had any trouble whatsoever leaving sufficient room in front of me
(once I figured out that that was a desireable goal...I admit, I spent a
large portion of my youth tailgating, rushing, worried that other drivers
might get there before me).

It is simply not true that leaving a safe following distance results in an
endless stream of cars blocking one's progress.

Do cars get in front of you? Of course they do. Do the really impatient
people take advantage of the situation and make faster progress relative to
the bulk of traffic? Yes, that's true. Is there any significant increase
in the total trip time for the driver who is allowing a safe following
distance? Absolutely NOT. One might lose a few minutes at most on a 60
minute commute. Big deal.

In any case, I find it absurd that anyone, but a pilot most of all, would
suggest that improving one's trip time is a valid justification for
sacrificing a genuine safety margin as has been claimed here. As long as
traffic isn't backup up, if I drive as fast as I can, weaving back and forth
through traffic, I can easily cut my trip times by 25-30%. That doesn't
justify the action though, nor does cutting a few minutes from one's commute
justify driving unsafely.

> But a more fundamental issue is
> that the two most common scenarios where I see people changing lanes into
> my front "safety gap" is either when traffic in both lanes is traveling
> about the same speed or when I am in the fast lane and someone uses my
> "safety gap" to enter the fast lane from the slow lane.

Your safety gap is not exclusive to your own use. It is a given that other
drivers will have moments when they need or desire to use it and it is one
of the failings of driving in the US that one driver would begrudge another
of that use. It is, in fact, that gap that makes things MORE efficient so
that traffic can change lanes more freely and without causing the sudden
slowdowns that result in crawling traffic in the first place.

> I found traveling in the fast lane with the other speeders but trying to
> maintain a safe following distance during rush hour in the San Jose
> California area was generally difficult.

I find your analysis interesting, in that it exhibits the very selfishness
that I'm talking about:

> As you point out, drivers in the
> fast lane are not inclined to pull into the slow lane unless they have to
> (a psychological issue, not a Pauli exclusion principle sort of issue) but
> drivers in the slow lane do tend to want to join the fast lane crowd

And what is wrong with the drivers in the slow lane wanting to join the fast
lane? If the only reason that the fast lane is a fast lane is because
everyone in that lane has conspired to keep the other vehicles from using
it, that's just selfish behavior.

And if you are concerned that the slow vehicles don't merge into the fast
lane at an appropriate speed (that is, matched with the speed of the lane
itself), well that's just a natural consequence of them tailgating in the
slow lane (that is, engaging in the same unsafe behavior that the drivers in
the fast lane are). They are no different from the drivers in the fast
lane, other than the fact that they haven't managed to get there yet.

> (and
> then there are the drivers who seem to constantly switch lanes trying to
> find the "fast" one when both lanes are traveling about the same speed).

Yup. Sometimes they win, more often they don't. Who cares about them
anyway? It's not like they're hurting anyone other than themselves.

> The result is that safe following distances are sometimes hard to maintain
> - at least they were for me.

Maintaining a safe following distance is no more challenging than any other
aspect of driving. Does it mean that a driver may now and then pull in
front of you, requiring further adjustment? Sure. So what? Driving on a
public road is a matter of constant adjustments. That's a natural
consequence of sharing a road with other cars.

Does it result in any significant increase in your own trip time? No, it
does not. It's absurd to claim that it does.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > Have you actually seen traffic here?
>
> Yes.
>
> > defying laws of physics is not required.
>
> Yes, it is. Or are you saying that Boston drivers are so dumb that if they
> are in a lane that is passing another lane, they will still switch over to
> the slower lane?

It would appear that you are confusing laws of physics with lack of common
sense on the part of a number of drivers in the Boston area. In rush hour
traffic (around here at least) it is quite common for one lane to be moving
for a short time and then the other lane to move. Rush hour here never has
one specific lane always moving faster than another. On average, one lane
may make better progress and a lane-switcher may or may not do better
than average. I normally pick a lane and stay with it, and reassess when
the cause of the backup can be determined, but there are other drivers
that seems to be constantly looking to switch lanes.


>
> Try as you might to convince me you guys are dumb, I'm still not prepared to
> believe you're that dumb.

Not everyone has to be dumb, just a minority of inconsiderate folks in a hurry
driving in manner that lacks common sense.


>
> > Given your obvious lack of experience with of actual bumper-to-bumper
> > traffic, I can understand your misconceptions.
>
> Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
> bumper-to-bumper all over the country.

Yet you've never seen people switching lanes? That's hard to believe.

>The physics work the same
> everywhere,

There are no laws of physics that apply to common sense.


> and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
> faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
> distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is 5mph
> or slower.

Yet you say you've driven in Boston.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[PPL-A]

Dan:

Remember, these figures http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm are
based on "Flight Hours", which are different from "Air Hours" (at least
where I'm from in Canada). For small aircraft flight hours start at
the time the electrical system of the plane is started, to when it is
shut off, and the AC is no longer moving.

In essence what this means is that all the time the aircraft is being
operated in any way, even on the ground, are included in "Flight
Hours". If any power source in the plane is operational (or the AC is
moving with a person on board), then this is counted as a Flight Hour.
Thus, all ground accidents, such as those where people walk into moving
propellers, and taxiing accidents, are included here.

There are a considerable number of fatal accidents involving small AC
on the ground, most of which are due to carelessness, or unkowledgable
people being allowed to walk too close to an operating AC.

On the other hand, "Air Hours" are those hours that the AC spends from
the time its wheels leave the ground to the time they (hopefully
extended) touch down again.

During flight training operations non-Air Hours can make up a
considerable portion of the Flight Hours (For instance, during my
training flights as much as 20% of my "Flight Hours" were not "Air
Hours", so this fact should be taken into account when looking at these
accident figures.).

One conclusion to be drawn is that these rates include accidents on the
ground involving AC powered in any way, or moving in any way with a
person on board.

I don't know if this will serve to comfort your wife at all however ...


I am unsure if there are stats anywhere that remove the accidents that
occur during non Air Hours. These would give a more accurate idea of
the danger involved in flying, as opposed to the danger of being around
operating and dangerous equipment, which, when you think about it, is
all an AC is when it is on the ground and running - a dangerous
machine, but not essentially different from working with any number of
other large machines with rapidly moving parts.

PPL-A


Dan wrote:
> So, based on these numbers, I have a 1.3% chance of a fatal accident
> before I reach 1000 hours. Wow, that is a bit high....
>
> My mother recently died in a motorcycle accident, and that brings the
> risk of such things a bit closer to home if you know what I mean...
>
> --Dan
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > "Marc Adler" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
> > > worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...
> >
> > If that's what you're after, you probably won't like what you find.
> >
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"PPL-A" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thus, all ground accidents, such as those where people walk into moving
> propellers, and taxiing accidents, are included here.
>
> There are a considerable number of fatal accidents involving small AC
> on the ground,

The Nall Report lists US ground fatalities (taxi or preflight) separately
from other fatal accidents. In 2004, there were no taxi/preflight deaths. In
2003, there was one. In 2002, there were none. These years are typical.
Taxi/preflight fatalities are rare, and do not noticeably change the GA
fatality statistics.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

--Gary

[[email protected]]

On 18 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0700, "Dan" > wrote:

>So, based on these numbers, I have a 1.3% chance of a fatal accident
>before I reach 1000 hours. Wow, that is a bit high....
>
>My mother recently died in a motorcycle accident, and that brings the
>risk of such things a bit closer to home if you know what I mean...
>
> --Dan
>
>
>Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Marc Adler" wrote:
>>
>>
>> > As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
>> > worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...
>>
>> If that's what you're after, you probably won't like what you find.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>> C172RG at BFM

This thread seems to have been hijacked by problems with vehicles on
the road but to reply to the original question. My way of thinking is
as follows:

As has been already said, the vast majority of accidents are pilot
error. The more cautious you are the safer you're likely to be.

When it comes to aircraft failures they are minimal but if you do
loose an engine hopefully it will not be a serious problem. All
aircraft are gliders, they only need power to take-off!

Small aircraft will still fly (just) at around 50mph so any
unscheduled landing (crash) should be safer than say hitting another
car coming in the opposite direction at the same speed (100mph head
on?).

For non-flyers I usually mention the space shuttle is a glider and
lands without an engine! Ok if flies like a brick but it can still be
controlled to a safe landing.

Maybe you and your wife could be persuaded to take an introductory
flight with an instructor who maybe able to reduce her fears.

My wife gave me an introductory lesson in about 1987 as a way of
"getitng it out of my system". Wrong!!! In 1991 I got my PPL and now
have nearly 500 hours and fortunately my wife will fly with me.

Good luck!

DAvid

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Well ... they may need to exit at the next exit ramp - that normally
>> requires changing into the slow lane.
>
> The question isn't whether they ever do. The question is whether
> enough cars can pull in front of a given driver so as to force him to
> go backwards (or even, giving the poster the benefit of the doubt,
> making him stop).

Just to be clear - I expected my "going backward" comment to be
sufficiently over-the-top silly that it would be recognized as hyperbolic
humor. However, considering the incredible absurdities that other people
sincerely believe and post to Usenet, I should have made my attempt at
humor more explicit. My oversight. I agree with much of what you wrote in
reply and I don't think it would serve any useful purpose for either of us
to discuss the things I don't agree with.

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>> Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
>> bumper-to-bumper all over the country.
>
> Yet you've never seen people switching lanes? That's hard to believe.
>
>>The physics work the same
>> everywhere,
>
> There are no laws of physics that apply to common sense.
>
>
>> and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
>> faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
>> distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
>> 5mph
>> or slower.

Are we confusing bumper-to-bumper with stop-and-go?

Driving bumper-to-bumper at anything above a crawl is nuts--and unnecessary.
In the heaviest *moving* traffic in LA and Houston, generally regarded as
the worst in the nation, I have no trouble maintaining a safe interval. Do
cars cut in front of me sometimes? Yes. Does this cause me a big problem?
Not since I stopped regarding driving as a contest.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Tailgating and efficient traffic flow are mutually exclusive.

Only if you blink...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
> bumper-to-bumper all over the country. The physics work the same
> everywhere, and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
> faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
> distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
5mph
> or slower.

When you have to move into certain lanes for an exit onto another highway,
that can in fact happen...

One side note here though... If you're moving at 5mph, the 3-second rule
gives 22 ft between your car and the one in front of you and as such,
probably doesn't leave enough room for most cars to actually squeeze in
anyway... That's not to say that they won't try though...

[Peter Duniho]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>> Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
>> bumper-to-bumper all over the country. The physics work the same
>> everywhere, and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from
>> a
>> faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
>> distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
> 5mph
>> or slower.
>
> When you have to move into certain lanes for an exit onto another highway,
> that can in fact happen...

What can in fact happen?

> One side note here though... If you're moving at 5mph, the 3-second rule
> gives 22 ft between your car and the one in front of you and as such,
> probably doesn't leave enough room for most cars to actually squeeze in
> anyway... That's not to say that they won't try though...

The <n>-second rules are just rules of thumb. They are not absolutes, and
in particular they are the *minimum* safe distance one should be striving
for. If other conditions require more following distance than the rule
would suggest, then obviously one increases following distance as
appropriate.

One relevant example is that, at very low speeds, an <n>-second rule isn't
the limiting factor. You still need to leave enough room to allow for
smooth flow of traffic, including lane changes.

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to maintain a
> safe following distance. That was your choice, not his.

To believe that a safe following distance will protect you from all
harm is dangerously naive. There are plenty of situations which require
quick thinking and fast reaction. I survived the incident because
luckily the matresses slid off peacefully and rather slowly and I had
time to react.

I was at a safe following distance from the truck, but what would have
happened if the wind had caught the matress and flipped it over?

Please let me know what the safe following distance is from airborne
matresses on the freeway.

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> To believe that a safe following distance will protect you from all
> harm is dangerously naive.

I never said it would. But it's a LOT safer than tailgating.

> There are plenty of situations which require
> quick thinking and fast reaction. I survived the incident because
> luckily the matresses slid off peacefully and rather slowly and I had
> time to react.

Had you been following at a safe distance, you would have had time to react
regardless of how quickly the mattress had fallen off.

> I was at a safe following distance from the truck,

By definition, you were not. By definition, a safe distance would have
ensured enough time to react without the heroics.

> but what would have
> happened if the wind had caught the matress and flipped it over?
>
> Please let me know what the safe following distance is from airborne
> matresses on the freeway.

At highway speeds, a couple hundred feet should be sufficient.

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I never said it would. But it's a LOT safer than tailgating.

<spit-take>

> By definition, you were not. By definition, a safe distance would have
> ensured enough time to react without the heroics.

What heroics? I went into the next lane, and watched the matress as it
slid down the freeway alongside me in the lane I had previously
occupied.

Where did you get the idea that I was so close to the truck?

> At highway speeds, a couple hundred feet should be sufficient.

Okay! Get that everyone?

Safe following distance for motorcycles is "a couple hundred feet."

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I never said it would. But it's a LOT safer than tailgating.
>
> <spit-take>

Is that supposed to mean something?

>> By definition, you were not. By definition, a safe distance would have
>> ensured enough time to react without the heroics.
>
> What heroics? I went into the next lane, and watched the matress as it
> slid down the freeway alongside me in the lane I had previously
> occupied.
>
> Where did you get the idea that I was so close to the truck?

I quote:

"I changed lanes just as the mattress slid off the truck, and it came far
too close to me - maybe three feet. It all happened in a split second."

Do you recognize that text? You wrote it.

If "it all happened in a split second", then you were following the truck at
a distance of less than a second. That's what "split second" means.

>> At highway speeds, a couple hundred feet should be sufficient.
>
> Okay! Get that everyone?
>
> Safe following distance for motorcycles is "a couple hundred feet."

You left out "from airborne mattresses on the freeway".

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Is that supposed to mean something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spit-take

> I quote:
>
> "I changed lanes just as the mattress slid off the truck, and it came far
> too close to me - maybe three feet. It all happened in a split second."
>
> Do you recognize that text? You wrote it.

If I had meant "three feet directly in front of me" I wouldn't be alive
writing this today. It was three feet to the left of me as it came off
the truck and slid along the free way.

> If "it all happened in a split second", then you were following the truck at
> a distance of less than a second. That's what "split second" means.

You're probably one of those people who objects "That's more than one
word!" when someone uses the phrase "in a word" and then uses more than
one word.

(In a word - a pedant.)

> You left out "from airborne mattresses on the freeway".

Exactly. My life was in the hands of the driver of that truck because
even at the safe following distance that I was at, there is no way I
could've predicted that the matress would come off the truck.

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Is that supposed to mean something?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spit-take

That carries no useful meaning in this context.

> If I had meant "three feet directly in front of me" I wouldn't be alive
> writing this today. It was three feet to the left of me as it came off
> the truck and slid along the free way.

My concern is not regarding the "three feet". My reply made that clear.
Why do you bother to mention that? You are arguing a straw man of your own
making. Congratulations...you knocked your own straw man down. Good for
you.

>> If "it all happened in a split second", then you were following the truck
>> at
>> a distance of less than a second. That's what "split second" means.
>
> You're probably one of those people who objects "That's more than one
> word!" when someone uses the phrase "in a word" and then uses more than
> one word.

Are you suggesting that the phrase "split second" has a meaning other than
to split (that is, divide, fractionalize, make smaller than, etc) a second?
If so, what DID you mean by a "split second"? And what possible
justification could you have for expecting the rest of us to understand
that?

Not one of the four definitions offered here suggests anything longer than a
second:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=split+second

>> You left out "from airborne mattresses on the freeway".
>
> Exactly. My life was in the hands of the driver of that truck because
> even at the safe following distance that I was at, there is no way I
> could've predicted that the matress would come off the truck.

By definition, at a safe following distance, no lane change would have been
necessary to avoid the mattress. In the worst-case scenario, you simply
come to a stop before hitting the mattress. Had a lane-change not been
possible, this would in fact be your only other option.

The question of whether you could have predicted the mattress would come off
the truck is irrelevant. Safe following distances aren't predicated on your
ability to predict the future; they are predicated on maintaining a safe
enough distance that you don't NEED to predict the future.

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> That carries no useful meaning in this context.

I spit-taked at the tailgating assumption, which is wrong but
apparently vital to your argument/worldview/self-esteem/etc.

> If so, what DID you mean by a "split second"?

"Very quickly." Next time I'm riding a motorcycle on a freeway, I'll be
sure to keep a stopwatch handy.

> Not one of the four definitions offered here suggests anything longer than a
> second:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=split+second

My god you _are_ a pedant.

> The question of whether you could have predicted the mattress would come off
> the truck is irrelevant. Safe following distances aren't predicated on your
> ability to predict the future; they are predicated on maintaining a safe
> enough distance that you don't NEED to predict the future.

Anyway, your inflexible belief that the rules will always save you is
dangerously naive, as I said before. Sometimes situations happen where
the rules don't apply. Luckily, I wasn't tailgating (or even
particularly near the truck), and that gave me time to change lanes and
avoid the matress. But if the wind had caught it and flipped it up,
I'da been a goner, even further back than three seconds behind the
truck.

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> That carries no useful meaning in this context.
>
> I spit-taked at the tailgating assumption, which is wrong but
> apparently vital to your argument/worldview/self-esteem/etc.

My statement was that following at a safe distance is safer than tailgating.
I don't know what "tailgating assumption" you're talking about, but it
wasn't contained in any of the text you quoted while doing your "spit-take".

>> If so, what DID you mean by a "split second"?
>
> "Very quickly." Next time I'm riding a motorcycle on a freeway, I'll be
> sure to keep a stopwatch handy.

"Very quickly" is MORE ambiguous than "split second", not less.

Here's a suggestion: if you want people to understand your meaning, use
terms in the way they are normally used, and don't use more ambiguous terms
to try to explain something that's already been misunderstood when expressed
in a less ambiguous way.

>> Not one of the four definitions offered here suggests anything longer
>> than a
>> second:
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=split+second
>
> My god you _are_ a pedant.

It's pedantic to expect people to use accepted definitions of words and
phrases? You have a VERY odd dictionary. Does it contain ANY definitions
that match those used in mainstreadm dictionaries? Because so far, you're 0
for 2.

> Anyway, your inflexible belief that the rules will always save you

I have no such belief. Again, you are creating straw men. I admit, it's
easier to argue against invented points, but you aren't really getting
anywhere doing so.

> [...] But if the wind had caught it and flipped it up,
> I'da been a goner, even further back than three seconds behind the
> truck.

If you had been following at three seconds behind the truck, you could have
come to a complete stop before reaching the mattress (assuming a normal
motorcycle and rider). Conversely, if for some reason you are unable to
stop your motorcycle within the distance you can travel in three seconds,
then three seconds is not a safe following distance for you on your
motorcycle.

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I don't know what "tailgating assumption" you're talking about

"Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event
would not
have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
would
have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with
plenty
of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response."

and

"Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to
maintain a
safe following distance. That was your choice, not his."

> Conversely, if for some reason you are unable to
> stop your motorcycle within the distance you can travel in three seconds,
> then three seconds is not a safe following distance for you on your
> motorcycle.

Too bad we're not talking about bicycles, because then you might be
able to get away with this kind of back-pedaling.

Anyway, you either see that there are situations not accounted for in
the rule books, which require flexible and repid response, or you
don't.

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I don't know what "tailgating assumption" you're talking about
>
> "Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event
> would not
> have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
> would
> have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
> mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with
> plenty
> of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response."
>
> and
>
> "Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to
> maintain a
> safe following distance. That was your choice, not his."

Then perhaps you should have quoted those parts when you "did your spit
take".

Your posts would make a lot more sense if you'd actually post what you mean
to communicate.

>> Conversely, if for some reason you are unable to
>> stop your motorcycle within the distance you can travel in three seconds,
>> then three seconds is not a safe following distance for you on your
>> motorcycle.
>
> Too bad we're not talking about bicycles, because then you might be
> able to get away with this kind of back-pedaling.

What back-pedaling? The only only back-pedaling around here is you, as you
try to redefine things like "split second" and "pedant".

> Anyway, you either see that there are situations not accounted for in
> the rule books, which require flexible and repid response, or you
> don't.

You either see that you CAN follow at a safe enough distance to not put
yourself in unnecessary danger, or you don't.

Pete

[Marc Adler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Then perhaps you should have quoted those parts when you "did your spit
> take".

I don't know why I'm coddling you like this.

"But it's a LOT safer than tailgating."

<spit-take>

You keep saying I was tailgating, when I wasn't. In any case, the very
fact that was out of the way in time proves that I was at a safe
distance.

> You either see that you CAN follow at a safe enough distance to not put
> yourself in unnecessary danger, or you don't.

I'm saying that there exist situations in which even the recommended
safe driving distance isn't safe. You're saying that the safe driving
distance is absolute and will protect you from any and all harm. I say
that's dangerously naive.

That's the disagreement here.

You're not going to convince me that three seconds will save me from
absolutely every situation, and I'm not going to convince you that
unaccounted-for dangers exist on the roads (like people not tying down
their matresses).

That's fine. I can agree to disagree.

Marc

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> Then perhaps you should have quoted those parts when you "did your spit
>> take".
>
> I don't know why I'm coddling you like this.

Coddling? Oh, I feel so warm and fuzzy.

> "But it's a LOT safer than tailgating."
>
> <spit-take>
>
> You keep saying I was tailgating, when I wasn't.

Yes, I do. So far, you haven't posted anything that would suggest otherwise
(other than fact-free denials, that is).

However, nothing in the text you quoted with your "spit take" had anything
to do with such an implication. It was a simple, factual statement about
the relative safety of following at a safe distance versus tailgating.
Whether or not you were tailgating, the statement is true.

> In any case, the very
> fact that was out of the way in time proves that I was at a safe
> distance.

No, it doesn't. What if there was no place for you to change lanes? The
fact that you were able to change lanes as an alternative to slowing or
stopping doesn't in and of itself prove that you weren't tailgating. It
just shows that in that particular case, tailgating didn't prove to be a
problem (just as it often doesn't prove to be a problem...people tailgate
all the time, and yet accidents caused by tailgating are still infrequent,
relative to the total amount of traffic...absence of an accident in no way
proves absence of tailgating).

> I'm saying that there exist situations in which even the recommended
> safe driving distance isn't safe.

That is true. As I have posted already, sometimes you need MORE distance
than the various rules of thumb that are in use. They are, after all, only
rules of thumb.

> You're saying that the safe driving
> distance is absolute and will protect you from any and all harm.

I have never written that. Stop claiming that I have.

> I say
> that's dangerously naive.

Again, easy to knock down those straw men. Way to go.

> That's the disagreement here.

The "disagreement" you are claiming here is based on a false statement about
what I've written. That's hardly a worthwhile disagreement.

> You're not going to convince me that three seconds will save me from
> absolutely every situation,

Why would I try to convince you of something I don't believe?

> and I'm not going to convince you that
> unaccounted-for dangers exist on the roads (like people not tying down
> their matresses).
>
> That's fine. I can agree to disagree.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, whenever over whatever. But so far, all
you've disagreed with is stuff I never wrote. What could possibly possess
you to continue to focus on things I never wrote, even after I never wrote
them, and then finally conclude that you'll just have to "agree to disagree"
with the stuff I never wrote?

Frankly, I find your position a little bizarre. It's like watching someone
beat themselves up.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you had been following at three seconds behind the truck, you could have
> come to a complete stop before reaching the mattress...

What if the truck were in the other lane? The mattress could easily
have picked up some aerodynamic assistance and made it into the
motorcycle's lane. He'd have to be a "safe following distance" behind
anything within a few lanes.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> If you had been following at three seconds behind the truck, you could
>> have come to a complete stop before reaching the mattress...
>
> What if the truck were in the other lane? The mattress could easily have
> picked up some aerodynamic assistance and made it into the motorcycle's
> lane. He'd have to be a "safe following distance" behind anything within
> a few lanes.

I'd dispute the characterization of "easily", but I don't disagree with the
possibility and quibbling over the likelihood seems silly. It doesn't even
take a mattress as the load for it to be able to shift lanes; anything that
takes a bad bounce could shift over, at least a little. However, I have
never said it is possible to ensure against ALL risks. Just that some risks
are so obvious, and avoiding them is so easy, that not doing so doesn't make
any sense.

As far as your specific example, I do in fact treat potentially unsecure
loads as a hazard regardless of whether I am in the same lane or not. I do
not remain at an unsafe distance from the load in any lane, whether directly
behind or not, for the very reason that you bring up. I either remain well
behind, or I speed up to pass quickly, minimizing my exposure to the risk as
much as possible.

So in that sense, yes...I expect a safe driver to maintain the safe
following distance as is appropriate for the conditions, even if those
conditions dictate following at that distance even when not in the same lane
as the hazard.

However, that sort of thing does not appear to be at issue in this thread.
Marc has never said that he was in a different lane, and everything he's
written suggests he was in the same lane as the truck carrying the mattress.
If anything, your point illustrates just how important it would have been
for him to follow at a safe distance regardless of lane, since the mattress
could have "easily" (your word) followed him into the exact lane he changed
into.

Pete