On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:28:48 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I probably ride a bike more than 99% of the general population - and
have been for sixty+ years.

I see obvious changes in driving behavior over the years.

The most obvious: people drive faster, signal less, run more red lights,
and more people are obviously doing other things besides driving -
mostly things that were not technologically available years past.

The red light thing has developed in the past few years since our area
went over to ludicrously-long red lights plus red-in-all-directions for
a seemingly very long time plus un-timed lights.

Most people running red lights used to be trying to slip through a stale
yellow light. Now I seem them coming in at speed and not even slowing
down.

I can't say you are wrong, we may be seeing the same thing
differently. But I will say that every generation complains about
"kids today... yada yada yada" and believes the youth are going to
hell in a hand basket. And they have been saying that since Socrates
day.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise.” - Socrates

I view how most people talk about "other drivers" the same way. No
matter who you talk to it's always the same, drivers are getting
worse, politicians are getting worse, everything is getting worse. It
seems that such a "it's getting worse" view is hard wired into most
people as they age.

On 08/22/2015 07:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

Glad I'm not the only one. The stupid things aren't on long enough for
our eyes to focus on them, and the next one is in a different place.
And what about that stupid chartreuse color that some cities are
painting their fire engines? So it's NOT a natural color, that doesn't
make it stand out any better. FIRE ENGINES ARE RED. PERIOD.

And have any Los Angeles residents noticed how few lights there are on
the overhead freeway signs no? I suspect that it just costs too much to
replace them. I can read the signs at a reasonable distance if I have
my lights on high, but that seems really rude -- in spite of the fact
that perhaps 1/4 of the drivers don't understand that their high beams
are to be used only OCCASIONALLY.

And what about those banks of bright lights they use when working on the
freeways at night? They ALWAYS point them directly into oncoming
traffic. It's like they WANT to cause crashes.

And another thing...

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmph. I used to have snow tires. Never again. They melted in the
spring. I won't even start going on about my wood stove.
-- websurf1

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





I'd expect this one to hit Bad Golferman's list.
Sure! I learned on a clutch car, so I'm totally
comfortable with left foot braking.

Lets hope the spammer gets spammed at his
Gmail adress. He tried to separate the email
in his posts.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does changing the radio station increase your
risk of collisions?


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/22/2015 9:36 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I view how most people talk about "other drivers" the same way. No
matter who you talk to it's always the same, drivers are getting
worse, politicians are getting worse, everything is getting worse. It
seems that such a "it's getting worse" view is hard wired into most
people as they age.


Well, some how we survived other Presidents
like Stagflation Carter. At least he didn't
give nukes to Iran, like Oh Bomb Us.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

| Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
| different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
| the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I wonder if my mostly urban/suburban driving might
be a factor. I see *a lot* of people on the phone,
and it's not kids. Occasionally I might see a teenager
texting at 60 mph, but mostly I see adults, of all kinds,
yapping away.

The man who sideswiped me veering into
my lane was probably 35-40 y.o. He was talking to his
friend, who in turn was dropping off her car at a repair
shop. He was engrossed in trying to follow her instructions
on which street to turn at when he hit me. A few years
earlier he would have figured out the directions before
he'd left the house. But this was about 2004 and he was
a "yuppie" on the go, with a phone glued to his ear.

When he pulled over after the accident he wouldn't
even talk to me. He called the police, then his insurance
company. I never saw him off the phone until the police
arrived. He was so much out to lunch that he'd called
the police, convinced that I'd hit him! In my experience
that's typical. As a taxpaying consumer he doesn't
feel he has to relate to the world around him, thus that
world has no business "relating" to him.

A very big change is that people don't signal anymore.
Maybe 30-50% of the time. It's crazy. They're just not
paying attention. In MA it's illegal not to signal, and it's
irritating to be behind someone and get no notice of
why they suddenly stepped on the brakes. That used to
be unheard of. Now it's almost the norm. Again, it has
nothing to do with young drivers. But it does have a lot to
do with phoners only having one freee hand.

A couple of weeks ago I was pulling out of a supermarket
and was going straight across the street, up a sidestreet.
Traffic was stopping in both directions in front of me. The
near side traffic had left a gap. A man driving on the far side,
heading toward my left, slowed down and seemed to be leaving
a gap. I started to pull out. He then turned into the supermarket
and almost hit me. I beeped. We both put down our windows.
He looked at me with a condescending smile and said, "I'm
turning in here", as though I must be an idiot. I said, "how
about a signal?!" His face dropped. It had never occurred to
him to signal. To his credit, though, he apologized.

I see the phones and the anti-social behavior as
related. For instance, where I live it's always been
customary, on a narrow road with a parked car, to
wait for an oncoming car if the parked car is on your
side. The oncoming driver then waves a thankyou. Now
it's usually a game of chicken. That's a very clear
difference in driver behavior. It's not related to phones,
but phones seem to be related to the general social
disconnection. People are no longer experiencing
themselves as being where they are.

The same is true of people walking across streets,
on cellphones or not. People used to *always* look
before crossing. Now it's common to see people cross
without breaking step, trusting that the universe is
looking out for them. Maybe many of them are the
children of "helicopter moms". At first I thought it was a
kind of passive-aggressive entitlement, but the more
it's happened, the more I'm thinking that these people
are actually entitled to the core. They're not trying to
show me who's boss. They don't even know I'm there.
It hasn't occurred to them that they could actually
suffer the indignity of being run over by a car! Maybe
that's because they've spent their lives getting trophies
for showing up? I'm not sure. It's actually a very intriguing
pattern to me.

(A friend who tutors gradeschool children recently told
me that helicopter moms have been replaced by "snowplow
moms". The kids are pushed through endless achievements,
with no breaks to just sit, reflect, get bored, discover a
bug, or even think about what they might *want* to do.)

Do you really not see any changes? When I was growing
up, kids behaved and anyone nearby was a parent. Today,
when I see kids running and shrieking in a store I don't
dare say anything. The parents are likely to be outraged.
And often as not, they're standing there proudly as their
kids act out. In a nutshell, being considerate has become
a sucker's pastime, while "self-empowerment" is considered
an important goal.

I think my own generation, the baby boomers, actually
started with being entitled. Not all of us, but many. In
the 50s life was about kids. Baby boomers then grew up
feeling they needed to be special. They had kids. Their
kids were very special accomplishments, so many of those
kids are now hyper-spoiled and entitled. That's a unique
situation. (It's not so long ago that child labor was
considered OK and that people had kids to save money.
The kids could work the farm. They weren't cherished
possessions. They were low paid workers.)

It's certainly true that young people are more selfish
and old people are less tolerant. That's timeless. But I'm
surprised that anyone, say, over 50 doesn't see some
dramatic changes in American culture during the past
decades, which have nothing to do with young vs old.
But those changes may be less pronounced in small towns
and rural areas.

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.

A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Mayayana:
People used to *always* look
before crossing. Now it's common to see people cross
without breaking step,

Does anybody remember being taught "The curb step" as a child?
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I cannot say, but I can make some strong arguments against braking with
your nose.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 8:37:27 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


Speaking of the UK, they did a study of the influence of speed cameras
(they have a LOT of them) on accidents and it showed that where there
were cameras that statistically the accidents INCREASED. They
attempted to bury the report. It was eventually released but
uniformly ignored by those in power. Further proof, as if more was
needed, that speed cameras are for revenue, not safety.

Same here in the U.S. Same result.

But this will be a temporary blip until drivers are retrained to obey traffic lights, not abuse them.

When traffic lights first came into use, there was no delay between red and green for the opposite road, that's what the yellow was for. Back then, drivers knew that when the yellow appeared, the red would follow and they would either stop or complete the drive through the intersection based on their speed and where they were when the yellow appeared.

Over the years, a delay was added for "safety" reasons. Of course, drivers took advantage of that and started slipping under the red knowing the other side wouldn't get the green for another second or two. In response, even more delay time was added and if you could believe it, drivers took advantage of the extra time delay!

The fact is, there is NO delay required. The yellow is sufficient, but drivers have now become used to running red lights knowing the delay exists.

I'm all for the traffic cams. There will be some problems initially, but drivers will again learn to use the yellow to judge when to stop, not the built in delay after the red.

| People used to *always* look
| before crossing. Now it's common to see people cross
| without breaking step,
|
| Does anybody remember being taught "The curb step" as a child?

I remember "look both ways before crossing".
It sounds like you're talking about something
similar.
In my city the police got a $10K federal
grant to run a scam trap to catch drivers
who don't stop. A plainclothes woman cop
steps into the crosswalk as a car approaches.
If they don't stop they get a $200 fine. The
city made far more than the grant money in
a single weekend. I was thinking.... what
happened to "look both ways"?

On 08/23/2015 07:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.

My early attempts at left foot braking were a disaster as they usually
occurred when I was trying to throw the clutch out in a car with an
automatic.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

Three on the tree? Four on the floor? One down, four up?


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 08/23/2015 12:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages.
Should I start a "left foot braking thread"???

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is
true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the risk of accidents?

Three on the tree? Four on the floor? One down, four up?

European or Japanese?


--
Cheers, Bev
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:53:16 -0500, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 08/23/2015 12:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages.
Should I start a "left foot braking thread"???

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is
true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the risk of accidents?

Three on the tree? Four on the floor? One down, four up?

European or Japanese?


I got to ride a Norton once, long ago. I think there was some
odd critter with an actual hand gear shift.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:54:02 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
| different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
| the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I wonder if my mostly urban/suburban driving might
be a factor. I see *a lot* of people on the phone,
and it's not kids. Occasionally I might see a teenager
texting at 60 mph, but mostly I see adults, of all kinds,
yapping away.

The man who sideswiped me veering into
my lane was probably 35-40 y.o. He was talking to his
friend, who in turn was dropping off her car at a repair
shop. He was engrossed in trying to follow her instructions
on which street to turn at when he hit me. A few years
earlier he would have figured out the directions before
he'd left the house. But this was about 2004 and he was
a "yuppie" on the go, with a phone glued to his ear.

When he pulled over after the accident he wouldn't
even talk to me. He called the police, then his insurance
company. I never saw him off the phone until the police
arrived. He was so much out to lunch that he'd called
the police, convinced that I'd hit him! In my experience
that's typical. As a taxpaying consumer he doesn't
feel he has to relate to the world around him, thus that
world has no business "relating" to him.

A very big change is that people don't signal anymore.
Maybe 30-50% of the time. It's crazy. They're just not
paying attention. In MA it's illegal not to signal, and it's
irritating to be behind someone and get no notice of
why they suddenly stepped on the brakes. That used to
be unheard of. Now it's almost the norm. Again, it has
nothing to do with young drivers. But it does have a lot to
do with phoners only having one freee hand.

A couple of weeks ago I was pulling out of a supermarket
and was going straight across the street, up a sidestreet.
Traffic was stopping in both directions in front of me. The
near side traffic had left a gap. A man driving on the far side,
heading toward my left, slowed down and seemed to be leaving
a gap. I started to pull out. He then turned into the supermarket
and almost hit me. I beeped. We both put down our windows.
He looked at me with a condescending smile and said, "I'm
turning in here", as though I must be an idiot. I said, "how
about a signal?!" His face dropped. It had never occurred to
him to signal. To his credit, though, he apologized.

I see the phones and the anti-social behavior as
related. For instance, where I live it's always been
customary, on a narrow road with a parked car, to
wait for an oncoming car if the parked car is on your
side. The oncoming driver then waves a thankyou. Now
it's usually a game of chicken. That's a very clear
difference in driver behavior. It's not related to phones,
but phones seem to be related to the general social
disconnection. People are no longer experiencing
themselves as being where they are.

The same is true of people walking across streets,
on cellphones or not. People used to *always* look
before crossing. Now it's common to see people cross
without breaking step, trusting that the universe is
looking out for them. Maybe many of them are the
children of "helicopter moms". At first I thought it was a
kind of passive-aggressive entitlement, but the more
it's happened, the more I'm thinking that these people
are actually entitled to the core. They're not trying to
show me who's boss. They don't even know I'm there.
It hasn't occurred to them that they could actually
suffer the indignity of being run over by a car! Maybe
that's because they've spent their lives getting trophies
for showing up? I'm not sure. It's actually a very intriguing
pattern to me.

(A friend who tutors gradeschool children recently told
me that helicopter moms have been replaced by "snowplow
moms". The kids are pushed through endless achievements,
with no breaks to just sit, reflect, get bored, discover a
bug, or even think about what they might *want* to do.)

Do you really not see any changes? When I was growing
up, kids behaved and anyone nearby was a parent. Today,
when I see kids running and shrieking in a store I don't
dare say anything. The parents are likely to be outraged.
And often as not, they're standing there proudly as their
kids act out. In a nutshell, being considerate has become
a sucker's pastime, while "self-empowerment" is considered
an important goal.

I think my own generation, the baby boomers, actually
started with being entitled. Not all of us, but many. In
the 50s life was about kids. Baby boomers then grew up
feeling they needed to be special. They had kids. Their
kids were very special accomplishments, so many of those
kids are now hyper-spoiled and entitled. That's a unique
situation. (It's not so long ago that child labor was
considered OK and that people had kids to save money.
The kids could work the farm. They weren't cherished
possessions. They were low paid workers.)

It's certainly true that young people are more selfish
and old people are less tolerant. That's timeless. But I'm
surprised that anyone, say, over 50 doesn't see some
dramatic changes in American culture during the past
decades, which have nothing to do with young vs old.
But those changes may be less pronounced in small towns
and rural areas.


Which is what every older generation says. If this continual
degradation of the 'young' were true we'd be back in the stone age.
Don't take my next comment personally, it could apply to me too, but
have you considered that all that bad stuff you see that causes you
problems is because when you were younger it simply didn't bother you
and/or your defensive driving skills and ability to "see ahead" and
avoid those situations was better. So what you think of as everyone
else getting worse is at least partly due to you getting worse at
avoiding those positions?

Like you, I see bad drivers all around but I"m not convinced that on
average it's any worse particularly when the accident rates keep going
down.

On 8/23/15 8:37 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:27:22 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Mayayana:
People used to *always* look
before crossing. Now it's common to see people cross
without breaking step,

Does anybody remember being taught "The curb step" as a child?

I have one single memory from when I was perhaps 18 months old and
it's having to climb up a tall curb step in Albany NY in the winter.
It seemed VERY tall and someone holding my hand helped me levitate up
to the top.

J Burns wrote:

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.


None that you know of, anyway. ;-)

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:49:11 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 08/22/2015 07:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

Glad I'm not the only one. The stupid things aren't on long enough for
our eyes to focus on them, and the next one is in a different place.
And what about that stupid chartreuse color that some cities are
painting their fire engines? So it's NOT a natural color, that doesn't
make it stand out any better. FIRE ENGINES ARE RED. PERIOD.


The fire engine color is based on the same faulty logic of DRL's.
Studies have shown that you can see a Chartreuse colored fire engine
from farther away then a red painted one. Therefore, as the logic
goes, Chartreuse must be a better color to paint a fire engine. That
fallacy of that, as well as of DRL's, is that there is no need to see
a fire engine that is so far away that if it were red you would not
notice it. When it's that far away it's just not of any significance
to you. The same is true of DRL's. It's true that a DRL car can be
seen farther away. But no one needs to see a car that's a mile away,
they only need to see the ones within perhaps a quarter mile of them
and the worst drive is more then able to see a car without any DRL's
at that distance. That's why the studies of DRL's show that there is
no net safety benefit. Some types of accidents go down and other
types of accidents go up because while people look at the DRL's they
fail to see other cars coming crossways toward them, cars that they
would have normally noticed if those bright lights up ahead of them
hadn't distracted them from the actual danger that was just off to
their right or left.


And have any Los Angeles residents noticed how few lights there are on
the overhead freeway signs no? I suspect that it just costs too much to
replace them. I can read the signs at a reasonable distance if I have
my lights on high, but that seems really rude -- in spite of the fact
that perhaps 1/4 of the drivers don't understand that their high beams
are to be used only OCCASIONALLY.


The gvt doesn't want to pay for the electric to turn them on nor to
maintain them, it's strictly to save costs. There are better sign
materials that would make it so you don't need to use your high beams
as much but that stuff costs more so the gvt will either simply not
use it cuz they don't want to pay for it, or they will use it but not
before the old stuff is completely worn out. Since the sign sheeting
is expected to last around 10 to 20 years don't expect to see it
replaced any time soon.

And what about those banks of bright lights they use when working on the
freeways at night? They ALWAYS point them directly into oncoming
traffic. It's like they WANT to cause crashes.


Most of those workers have no idea about safety to the public, they
just stick em wherever it's convenient for themselves and a light that
shines ALL AROUND works a lot better, and you need less of them, then
a light that is directional and shines mostly downward so it won't
blind people. As you should know by now, gvt isn't there to serve
you, you are there to serve it. Pay your taxes and shut up.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:48:37 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?
Some definitely do.
Left foot braking is generally hard on brakes,
One car I drove for a few months pretty well REQUIRED left foot
braking, or the car would stall at intersections. Replacing the
dash-pot solved that problem.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:37:38 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Depends. Is the person left foot braking skilled at it? However,
knowing that would only let us speculate since there is zero data.
Speculatively, a skilled left foot braker will have less accidents
because they have, on average, shorter perception-reaction-braking
times then a right foot braker.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:13:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.


A driver that ALWAYS uses the right foot to Brake and Accelerate is
the one most likely to use that right foot on the wrong pedal. Someone
who is skilled at left foot braking is far less likely to try to push
the accelerator with the right foot with the intention of braking.
I'm sure there are always exceptions.


A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.

On 23 Aug 2015 08:36:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I cannot say, but I can make some strong arguments against braking with
your nose.
--scott

What if you have hand controls?

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:



Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Didn't Toyota make some claims about that? There was a recall for
driver side carpets if I remember correctly.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 08/23/2015 02:58 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:53:16 -0500, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 08/23/2015 12:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages.
Should I start a "left foot braking thread"???

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is
true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the risk of accidents?

Three on the tree? Four on the floor? One down, four up?

European or Japanese?

I got to ride a Norton once, long ago. I think there was some
odd critter with an actual hand gear shift.

And then there was the Harley suicide clutch...

For a while I rode a 1960 Ducati street bike and a 196x Honda dirtbike.
Even if I think about it now I can't decide which is the 'correct'
Japanese side to shift on, I have to find a picture. At the time, dirt
triggered one shift method and street triggered theother one. I still
can't remember which is 1 up four down or 1 down 4 up.

http://cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/d..._Monza_250.jpg
.. It's not. The tank is just like mine, although I can't verify that
all my parts were stock. I painted it orange.

And then there were the two different Japanese metric threads...


--
Cheers, Bev
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On 8/23/2015 8:48 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?


Not me. I learned on a clutch car.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 08/23/2015 6:10 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:13:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.


A driver that ALWAYS uses the right foot to Brake and Accelerate is
the one most likely to use that right foot on the wrong pedal. Someone
who is skilled at left foot braking is far less likely to try to push
the accelerator with the right foot with the intention of braking.
I'm sure there are always exceptions.

And the left foot break idiot(s) who rests his/her foot on the brake
pedal and thus drives around all day with their brake lights on? Not to
mention wearing out the brake pads or (even worse) overheating the
brakes so they fail at an inopportune time...

I see that a lot, so I vote no to left foot braking. Unless you can't
use your right foot, but we are talking about folks without any sort of
handicap (cast, missing foot, etc.).

John :-#)#


A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.


--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 08/23/2015 5:31 PM, J Burns wrote:
On 8/23/15 8:37 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.

Hi Fred! (Flintstone)...

John ;-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:50:22 -0700, John Robertson
wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.

Hi Fred! (Flintstone)...

Didn't Fred back pedal to slow down?

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:48:51 -0700, John Robertson
wrote:

On 08/23/2015 6:10 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:13:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.


A driver that ALWAYS uses the right foot to Brake and Accelerate is
the one most likely to use that right foot on the wrong pedal. Someone
who is skilled at left foot braking is far less likely to try to push
the accelerator with the right foot with the intention of braking.
I'm sure there are always exceptions.

And the left foot break idiot(s) who rests his/her foot on the brake
pedal and thus drives around all day with their brake lights on? Not to
mention wearing out the brake pads or (even worse) overheating the
brakes so they fail at an inopportune time...

I've seen it maybe twice in 40 years. It's an imaginary problem. And
for all you know they were using their right foot and had it on both
the gas and brake at the same time... unless you have X-ray vision of
course and could actually see their feet. Or perhaps their brake
light switch was broken making the brake lights come on and off
without any one pushing on the pedal. Someone who rode their brakes
like that "all day" would be emitting smoke.


I see that a lot, so I vote no to left foot braking. Unless you can't
use your right foot, but we are talking about folks without any sort of
handicap (cast, missing foot, etc.).


No one has suggested that people should left foot brake if they don't
have the skills necessary. Some people just aren't trainable or don't
have the ability, or are too easily confused for anything above bare
minimum.


John :-#)#


A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:48:37 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?

Seems unlikely. Do pilots mash the bottom part of the Rudder pedal
which also controls the front steerable wheel instead of the top part
of the pedals that controls the brakes when they want to stop on the
ground?

In my experience as a driver and pilot those things just don't happen.
Even if it did, there's no reason it would be any more likely than
right foot brakers mashing the accelerator instead of the brake in a
panic situation. Since with LFB each foot has a defined task instead
of the right foot sharing two tasks there is reason to think it would
be less likely.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:16:39 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:



Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Didn't Toyota make some claims about that? There was a recall for
driver side carpets if I remember correctly.

That was for unintended acceleration, not foot confusion.

On 08/24/2015 04:08 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Seems unlikely. Do pilots mash the bottom part of the Rudder pedal
which also controls the front steerable wheel instead of the top part
of the pedals that controls the brakes when they want to stop on the
ground?

I flew an old Lark and got in the habit of pumping the brakes up on
final. Just another thing to add to the checklist...

Ashton Crusher wrote:

I've seen it maybe twice in 40 years. It's an imaginary problem. And
for all you know they were using their right foot and had it on both
the gas and brake at the same time... unless you have X-ray vision of
course and could actually see their feet. Or perhaps their brake
light switch was broken making the brake lights come on and off
without any one pushing on the pedal. Someone who rode their brakes
like that "all day" would be emitting smoke.

What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , says...

What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the
brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.
--scott

As in ### "I'm Jake the Peg, deedle, eedle, eedle, um" ###
(http://www.songlyrics.com/rolf-harri...he-peg-lyrics/)

Mike.

On 08/25/2015 07:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.

To say nothing of driving a Model T.

On 23/08/2015 10:37 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


**The left foot is for the clutch.

Sheesh!



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
says...

**The left foot is for the clutch.

Sheesh!

Darwinism?

Mike.