Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:vVf1f.

Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or
do accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to
say about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?

Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.

You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that went
into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in performance
driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I know that most
training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But the number of
safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet, we're taught and
reminded that, without rote procedures, things can quickly get out of hand.
The skill of being able to maintain grace under pressure and follow a
checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have written for you to follow,
is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting has little in common with race
or performance driving. Or great pitching or goaltending. And a great deal
depends on the equipment. Planes use technology that was old, I remember,
in the sixties. But one tends to listen to the AME's opinion with a bit
more respect than the race mechanic. So, you may think that your skill
trumps bad luck and the safeguards available to counter it. But, you're
likely dreaming.

Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
don't accept that premise.


Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The
difference between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one
who doesn't is, eventually, luck.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy than
another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison), still
doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an accident
guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the biggest, baddest
SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather focus on avoiding
the accident and having 100% survivability, than to accept a few accidents
and hope that I survive the accident.

You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents involve
people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can? Almost nobody
who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving, F1 races would
be done in Hummers.

The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase my
odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to do
that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are better
overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more accidents,
but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle.

Idiot.

It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
years ago.


That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
pedestrian.

There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.

Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc by
their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation would
require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and Euclidean
Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep your foot
over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.


Cites, please?

Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.

Cites please. Just give me anything that show small cars being, generally,
more crashworthy than large cars will do.

No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger.
Not always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck
plays a big part.

Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
driver. :-)

Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared your
driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than your own
self-revering speculation.

You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and
small (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where to
look.

Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:vVf1f.


Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or
do accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to
say about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?

Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.


You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter
what kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?


Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that went
into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in performance
driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I know that most
training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But the number of
safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet, we're taught and
reminded that, without rote procedures, things can quickly get out of hand.
The skill of being able to maintain grace under pressure and follow a
checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have written for you to follow,
is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting has little in common with race
or performance driving. Or great pitching or goaltending. And a great deal
depends on the equipment. Planes use technology that was old, I remember,
in the sixties. But one tends to listen to the AME's opinion with a bit
more respect than the race mechanic. So, you may think that your skill
trumps bad luck and the safeguards available to counter it. But, you're
likely dreaming.

AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?


Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were
clearly avoidable.


I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
don't accept that premise.


Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The
difference between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one
who doesn't is, eventually, luck.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy than
another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison), still
doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an accident
guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the biggest, baddest
SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather focus on avoiding
the accident and having 100% survivability, than to accept a few accidents
and hope that I survive the accident.


You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents involve
people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can? Almost nobody
who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving, F1 races would
be done in Hummers.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes
very little to put you over the edge. I'm a pilot and mechanical
failure isn't a big concern at all with most pilots. Less than 15% of
all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical failure. 85% are pilot
error. The stats for car accidents aren't nearly as good as for
aviation as aviation accidents are all professionally investigated,
however, I'll be that the stats for cars are even more skewed towards
driver.


The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase my
odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to do
that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are better
overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more accidents,
but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle.


Idiot.

I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
self-awareness.


It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
years ago.


That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
pedestrian.

There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.


Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc by
their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation would
require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and Euclidean
Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep your foot
over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).


Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.


Cites, please?

Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.


Cites please. Just give me anything that show small cars being, generally,
more crashworthy than large cars will do.

No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger.
Not always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck
plays a big part.

Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
driver. :-)


Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared your
driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than your own
self-revering speculation.

I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I
was 17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but
my insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a
29 year accident free record. What is your record?

I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.



You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and
small (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where to
look.


Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

Rethink my beliefs because you are too lazy to do some research? I
think not.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter what
kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?

You said that collisions above 40MPH were, basically unsurvivable. That's
incorrect.


Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that
went into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in
performance driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I
know that most training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But
the number of safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet,
we're taught and reminded that, without rote procedures, things can
quickly get out of hand. The skill of being able to maintain grace under
pressure and follow a checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have
written for you to follow, is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting
has little in common with race or performance driving. Or great pitching
or goaltending. And a great deal depends on the equipment. Planes use
technology that was old, I remember, in the sixties. But one tends to
listen to the AME's opinion with a bit more respect than the race
mechanic. So, you may think that your skill trumps bad luck and the
safeguards available to counter it. But, you're likely dreaming.

AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?

Canadian thing. "Authorized Maintenance Engineer"

Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were clearly
avoidable.

By "all the time", I meant "many, every day" But, go with less than 50%
unavoidable. (Where did that come from?) Admitting that makes your
previous stance look a bit odd.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather
focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability, than to
accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.


You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents
involve people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can?
Almost nobody who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving,
F1 races would be done in Hummers.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes very
little to put you over the edge.

Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of driving.
And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race speeds.

I'm a pilot and mechanical failure isn't a big concern at all with most
pilots. Less than 15% of all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical
failure.

A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

You are saying you would rather have more accidents, but have them in a
more crashworthy vehicle.


Idiot.

I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
self-awareness.

It's usenet, darling. You misrepresented my position by claiming I take an
idiotic position. I'm just returning the favour using more concise
language.


There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.


Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc
by their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation
would require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and
Euclidean Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep
your foot over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).

And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to get
the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or using
your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You drive a
bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety measure?

Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared
your driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than
your own self-revering speculation.

I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I was
17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but my
insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a 29
year accident free record. What is your record?

I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.

Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times, somebody
made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is about
average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people who are
apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical reality and
believeing too much in your own prowess.

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where
to look.

Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

Rethink my beliefs because you are too lazy to do some research? I think
not.

I was thinking that you should rethink your beliefs because they're wrong.

http://www.central-insurance.com/doc...cid.htm#Bigger

moo

Happy Dog wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message


You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter what
kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?


You said that collisions above 40MPH were, basically unsurvivable. That's
incorrect.

Hit anything hard above 40 MPH and you are in a world of hurt. Sure, if
you hit a large marshmallow, then you'll be in good shape.



Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that
went into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in
performance driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I
know that most training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But
the number of safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet,
we're taught and reminded that, without rote procedures, things can
quickly get out of hand. The skill of being able to maintain grace under
pressure and follow a checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have
written for you to follow, is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting
has little in common with race or performance driving. Or great pitching
or goaltending. And a great deal depends on the equipment. Planes use
technology that was old, I remember, in the sixties. But one tends to
listen to the AME's opinion with a bit more respect than the race
mechanic. So, you may think that your skill trumps bad luck and the
safeguards available to counter it. But, you're likely dreaming.

AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?


Canadian thing. "Authorized Maintenance Engineer"

OK, US is Aviation Medical Examiner.


Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were clearly
avoidable.


By "all the time", I meant "many, every day" But, go with less than 50%
unavoidable. (Where did that come from?) Admitting that makes your
previous stance look a bit odd.


Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather
focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability, than to
accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.


You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents
involve people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can?
Almost nobody who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving,
F1 races would be done in Hummers.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes very
little to put you over the edge.


Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of driving.
And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race speeds.

I've never raced (well not on a track anyway and I ain't talking about
anything else!), but I trust it would hone one's skills. However,
accident avoidance is about a whole lot more than raw driving skills.
It is about attitude, anticipation, alertness, situation awareness, etc.


I'm a pilot and mechanical failure isn't a big concern at all with most
pilots. Less than 15% of all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical
failure.


A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

Yes, but a lot more training goes into learning how to fly, flight plan
and exercise judgement to avoid pilot errors. I don't think more than
10% of my flight training has been invested in procedures to handle
mechanical failures.


You are saying you would rather have more accidents, but have them in a
more crashworthy vehicle.


Idiot.

I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
self-awareness.


It's usenet, darling. You misrepresented my position by claiming I take an
idiotic position. I'm just returning the favour using more concise
language.

No, I represented exactly what you are saying. You've said several
times that you would rather have a vehicle that is less likely to avoid
a crash, but more likely to allow occupant survivability in a crash.
The result is exactly what I wrote above.


There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.


Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc
by their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation
would require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and
Euclidean Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep
your foot over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).


And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to get
the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or using
your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You drive a
bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety measure?

The luck factor is always there. I've never said it wasn't. The reason
is most drivers can't keep their feet from getting confused if they
brake with their left foot, which is why in the US most states teach
against that. I personally brake with my left foot when driving my AT
equipped vehicles and find it works great, but most driving schools
teach against it.


Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared
your driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than
your own self-revering speculation.

I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I was
17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but my
insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a 29
year accident free record. What is your record?

I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.


Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times, somebody
made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is about
average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people who are
apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical reality and
believeing too much in your own prowess.

Two accidents in how many years of driving?

I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive.
I can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I
don't fret it.


Matt

On 2005-10-07, Happy Dog wrote:
In this country, at least, the Mini had quite a good safety record
despite its lack of crashworthiness. Since a Mini was my student car, I
know why - you feel very vulnerable in a Mini. So you drive bloody
carefully and try and avoid the situations in the first place that may
result in a crash.

Oh please. Kids will drive like maniacs in anything. Anything. Teenage
boys are unstoppable when it comes to reckless behaviour and there are sound
biological reasons for this.

No, I related my own teenage experience. I was *not* reckless in my Mini
because I felt vulnerable in it doing stupid things, so I didn't do
stupid things. Other teenagers I knew who owned Minis generally also
drove MUCH more carefully than their peers - because they also felt
vulnerable.

Of course, careful is relative; my definition of careful at the time is
probably reckless to an old fart like yourself g But it was
(relatively speaking) a lot more careful than my friends. I never roofed
my car. None of my Mini-owning friends roofed their cars. However,
friends with larger cars often roofed theirs, and some to an extent that
a couple of them were uninsurable even in a Fiat 126 (which can't pull
the skin of rice pudding)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
Oh please. Kids will drive like maniacs in anything. Anything. Teenage
boys are unstoppable when it comes to reckless behaviour and there are
sound
biological reasons for this.

No, I related my own teenage experience. I was *not* reckless in my Mini
because I felt vulnerable in it doing stupid things, so I didn't do
stupid things. Other teenagers I knew who owned Minis generally also
drove MUCH more carefully than their peers - because they also felt
vulnerable.

No, what? You're an exception. If you think otherwise, a biology lesson is
in order. Teenage boys. Think arrest stats, insurance rates, girls. Our
evolved history explains it just fine. Works for just about every other
sexual being as well. Some species of shore birds excepted.

moo

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

Hit anything hard above 40 MPH and you are in a world of hurt. Sure, if
you hit a large marshmallow, then you'll be in good shape.

Took you six posts to get to this bit of backpeddling. *Most* collisions do
not involve hitting an oak tree. Most collisions at 40 MPH are survivable.
And that's contrary to what you originally asserted. If you really meant to
say that most collisions that involve a 40 MPH side impact with a cement
mixer are unsurvivable, then, OK.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes
very little to put you over the edge.

Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of
driving. And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race
speeds.

I've never raced (well not on a track anyway and I ain't talking about
anything else!), but I trust it would hone one's skills. However,
accident avoidance is about a whole lot more than raw driving skills. It
is about attitude, anticipation, alertness, situation awareness, etc.

And you think this isn't a crucial part of racing? Qualifying laps are,
mostly, pushing the limits. But a race involves more than just getting
around an empty track as fast as you can. And many of those things
translate directly into accident avoidance maneuvers.

A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical
failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

Yes, but a lot more training goes into learning how to fly, flight plan
and exercise judgement to avoid pilot errors. I don't think more than 10%
of my flight training has been invested in procedures to handle mechanical
failures.

Even that's pretty significant. And the forced approach has the highest
failure rate of any flight test item.

And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to
get the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or
using your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You
drive a bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety
measure?

The luck factor is always there. I've never said it wasn't. The reason
is most drivers can't keep their feet from getting confused if they brake
with their left foot, which is why in the US most states teach against
that. I personally brake with my left foot when driving my AT equipped
vehicles and find it works great, but most driving schools teach against
it.

They get confused for a bit if they've always used their right foot. But,
covering the brake with either foot reduces the stopping distance in an
emergency. There's also a bunch you can do with almost simultaneous use of
both power and brakes. But, it's not really applicable to street driving.

Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times,
somebody made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is
about average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people
who are apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical
reality and believeing too much in your own prowess.

Two accidents in how many years of driving?

More than two. A few very minor ones as well. And about 34 years.

I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive. I
can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I don't
fret it.

Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise your
chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like flying
in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

Two accidents in how many years of driving?


More than two. A few very minor ones as well. And about 34 years.

I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive. I
can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I don't
fret it.


Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise your
chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like flying
in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

Well, my accident record is much better than yours, so I think I'll
stick with the choices I'm making vs. yours. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in
Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise
your chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like
flying in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

Well, my accident record is much better than yours, so I think I'll stick
with the choices I'm making vs. yours. :-)

Comment:

Well, that illustrates my point pretty succinctly. I know you're not
entirely serious. But, your argument could hold for people who smoke, or
climb mountains, or base jump, or a number of other risky activities, who
don't die. Yet. Or maybe ever (due to their chosen risky activity). But
you were speaking in general terms and didn't acknowledge that the unwashed
masses do not, as proved by statistics, share your skill or luck. We don't
know why you have better than average stats and, I suspect, neither do you.
But you're not lucky beyond belief. And, if you think that the activity and
equipment choices you've made, which have been proved to relate a higher
incidence of injury or death, are less risky for you than the choices shown
to be less risky for everyone else, then you are narcissistic by nature.
Because, though you may be right, you can't really make a sensible
(testable) argument for it. Your predictive powers are unlikely to trump
empirical reality but you refuse to acknowledge it in a meaningful way.

It reminds me of Las Vegas. I've been a few times. I stay up late anyway
so a trek through the casinos in the wee hours is obligatory. The first few
times I was there I was fascinated, not by the old people pulling slots at 3
AM, but by the people betting on Roulette. There are displays that show the
previous numbers chanced by the ball. People, determinedly writing the
previous numbers on paper (I guess now punching them into their PDAs),
"predict" the next numbers and place their bets. The Gambler's Fallacy is
logic 101. And I don't doubt that the many of the people engaging it are at
least as bright as me. But they're chasing a chimera. Because of their
failure to grasp a simple part of reality, somebody took their money and
built this shining jewel in the middle of the desert. A shrine to human
irrationality that takes up space where Mormons would be raising sheep or
something like that. Do they think that the laws of chance are suspended
for a moment just for them? Some do; like kids in love. But most think
they're playing poker. And so do you.

moo

ET wrote:
When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

The Heinkel He 162:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
"look" to it.

Perhaps - but add a touch of sweep-back to the wings and a more graceful
fuselage and a high-wing will look sexy enough.