On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank

On Jun 23, 5:45*am, Hank wrote:

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank

"Driving" would not be affected unless you had traction control along
with ABS.

On Jun 23, 6:45*am, Hank wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:

On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank

Eh, *good* ABS is good. *BAD* ABS, which I've experienced, can in
fact cause significantly increased braking distances in some
conditions compared to not having it at all. But good tires make even
more of a difference; and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

nate

On Jun 23, 8:15*am, N8N wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:45*am, Hank wrote:





On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:

On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank

Eh, *good* ABS is good. **BAD* ABS, which I've experienced, can in
fact cause significantly increased braking distances in some
conditions compared to not having it at all. *But good tires make even
more of a difference; and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. *So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most are halls effect and can distiguish between any movement at all
and stopped. There are not any "resolution" issues.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:32:31 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:15Â*am, N8N wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:45Â*am, Hank wrote:





On Jun 23, 6:02Â*am, mm wrote:

On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank

Eh, *good* ABS is good. Â**BAD* ABS, which I've experienced, can in
fact cause significantly increased braking distances in some
conditions compared to not having it at all. Â*But good tires make even
more of a difference; and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. Â*So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most are halls effect and can distiguish between any movement at all
and stopped. There are not any "resolution" issues.
The VAST majority are variable reluctance - not Hall Effect - and are
basically AC generators - so YES, speed IS an issue. If they were Hall
Effect they would, generally, be 3 wire active devices - and all I've
seen and worked on are only 2 wire.

Also, check the manual how to check ABS sensors. AC voltmeter -
turn the wheel and note voltage. Compare wheel to wheel to determine
if one is weak. That means they are pulse generators, not
interupters. The faster they turn, the higher the amplitude of the
pulse (or highe voltage).

So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is
snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and
at times have slid the entire length.

Thomas wrote in news:3700a77b-2c84-4597-b072-
:

So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is
snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and
at times have slid the entire length.




This is a common complaint with ABS of all makes, especially once the tires
get a bit worn.


--
Tegger

On Jun 23, 9:27*am, Tegger wrote:
Thomas wrote in news:3700a77b-2c84-4597-b072-
:

So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is
snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and
at times have slid the entire length.

This is a common complaint with ABS of all makes, especially once the tires *
get a bit worn.

--
Tegger

My complaint, when going very slow my anti lock will come on, on bumpy
roads, and when you get wheel hop, and the anti lock feature is a
hazard in this case. Especially on one downhill slope onto an artery.

Greg

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Thomas
wrote:

So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is
snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and
at times have slid the entire length.
And if the ABS HAD worked, you'd have simply ROLLED the entire
length.

N8N wrote in news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:


snip


and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.



I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.


--
Tegger

On Jun 23, 9:26*am, Tegger wrote:
N8N wrote in news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:

snip

and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. *So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.

It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but
below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that
point.

nate

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:14:01 -0700 (PDT), N8N
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:26*am, Tegger wrote:
N8N wrote in news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:

snip

and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. *So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.

It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but
below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that
point.

Not sure where to post this: She indeed said she was going 5MPH, but
I was more curious about ABS at all speeds.

nate

"N8N" wrote

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.

It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but
below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that
point.

nate

My Buick ABS will kick in at a walking pace, much less than 5 mph. Only on
slippery road, I've never tried stomping them on dry at that speed.

In ,
N8N typed:
On Jun 23, 9:26 am, Tegger wrote:
N8N wrote in
news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:

snip

and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to
distinguish between very slow wheel rotation and a
stopped or locked wheel. So the ABS shuts itself off
at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or
15 mph.

My current vehicle seems to shut them off at about 12 mph last I tested it.

It depends on the particular system and how it is
programmed, but below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly
all will be inactive at that point.

nate

N8N wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:26 am, wrote:
wrote in news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:

snip

and5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to distinguish between
very slow wheel rotation and a stopped or locked wheel. So the ABS
shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.

It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but
below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that
point.

nate
Hi,
Any owner. manual talks about this.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02Â*am, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..

I don't have ABS, but I've had that feeling when I thought about it,
that it woudl do what you say.

I've actually driven very well on ice and snow, except that one time
there was no ice most places and black ice where the road bent to the
right and I slid to the outside lane and hit the car coming the other
way. Totalled his car, 3000 for mine, bumped my knee but no one hurt.

Happend at 6PM. The next day, when I tried to get out of bed, my leg
wouldn't work. I told it to straighten so I could stand on it and it
didnt' do anything. I had to use my hands to straighten it, to go to
the bathroom. Spent the day in bed. All day, leg didnt' work. Next
day, leg is fine. Works fine, jab it everywhere and nothing hurts at
all. My body was like the doctor saying, Give it a rest for a day.

mm wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..

I don't have ABS, but I've had that feeling when I thought about it,
that it woudl do what you say.

I've actually driven very well on ice and snow, except that one time
there was no ice most places and black ice where the road bent to the
right and I slid to the outside lane and hit the car coming the other
way. Totalled his car, 3000 for mine, bumped my knee but no one hurt.

Happend at 6PM. The next day, when I tried to get out of bed, my leg
wouldn't work. I told it to straighten so I could stand on it and it
didnt' do anything. I had to use my hands to straighten it, to go to
the bathroom. Spent the day in bed. All day, leg didnt' work. Next
day, leg is fine. Works fine, jab it everywhere and nothing hurts at
all. My body was like the doctor saying, Give it a rest for a day.
Hi,
Had you winter tires on your car?

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:36:28 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:



mm wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..

I don't have ABS, but I've had that feeling when I thought about it,
that it woudl do what you say.

I've actually driven very well on ice and snow, except that one time
there was no ice most places and black ice where the road bent to the
right and I slid to the outside lane and hit the car coming the other
way. Totalled his car, 3000 for mine, bumped my knee but no one hurt.

Happend at 6PM. The next day, when I tried to get out of bed, my leg
wouldn't work. I told it to straighten so I could stand on it and it
didnt' do anything. I had to use my hands to straighten it, to go to
the bathroom. Spent the day in bed. All day, leg didnt' work. Next
day, leg is fine. Works fine, jab it everywhere and nothing hurts at
all. My body was like the doctor saying, Give it a rest for a day.
Hi,
Had you winter tires on your car?

Baltimore. Not much snow or ice until 3 years ago. Most people use
all-season and so do I.

wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..
Hi,
Stopping straight and avoiding going out of control is two different thing.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:34:53 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:



wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..
Hi,
Stopping straight and avoiding going out of control is two different thing.
Correct - I've stopped sideways under full control on occaisions

On 6/23/2011 6:45 AM, Hank wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will
quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go
on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not
breaking. If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own
a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after
one close call.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 24, 12:08*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 6/23/2011 6:45 AM, Hank wrote:





On Jun 23, 6:02 am, *wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will
quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go
on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not
breaking. *If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own
a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after
one close call.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that
analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in
serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars
that had ABS vs those that do not.
One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to
react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that
analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in
serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars
that had ABS vs those that do not.
One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to
react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.

Of course. It's like putting your foot on a dead groundhog only to
find that it's still moving. You have to get your foot off right
away.

On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I think anti-lock would have far less effect on dry pavement, but
could still come into operation. The system is looking for
unusual differences in wheel speed during braking. For example
if one wheel stopped turning while the others continued, it
would reduce braking pressure on that wheel to stop it from
skidding. That wheel could be the one skidding because of
tire condition, inflation, cornering forces, etc. I also think it's
possible it could actually increase braking distance on dry
pavement, while at the same time increasing directional
control. And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

In article
,
" wrote:

And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

On Jun 23, 8:46*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.

On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:46 am, Smitty wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.
That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly
stopped on a busy interstate. It was a little wet. I stood on the
brake of a Park Ave. The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the
car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. But then, I
looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going
about 45 or so. He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in
front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also.
Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4
cars involve all hit a car in front of them. Surveying the carnage
the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would
have been injuries." Only the cars were injured.

On Jun 23, 9:26*am, Art Todesco wrote:
On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: On Jun 23, 8:46 am, Smitty *wrote:
In article
,

* *wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. *If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.

Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you
are in control of the seperation, And that's certainly the vast
majority of cases. However, consider the case where you
have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the
lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. You can't
stop in time and hit him. In that case, it's the other person's
fault.




That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly
stopped on a busy interstate. *It was a little wet. *I stood on the
brake of a Park Ave. *The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the
car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. *But then, I
looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going
about 45 or so. *He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in
front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also.
Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4
cars involve all hit a car in front of them. *Surveying the carnage
the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would
have been injuries." *Only the cars were injured.

On Jun 23, 9:26*am, Art Todesco wrote:
On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: On Jun 23, 8:46 am, Smitty *wrote:
In article
,

* *wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. *If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.

That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly
stopped on a busy interstate. *It was a little wet. *I stood on the
brake of a Park Ave. *The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the
car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. *But then, I
looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going
about 45 or so. *He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in
front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also.
Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4
cars involve all hit a car in front of them. *Surveying the carnage
the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would
have been injuries." *Only the cars were injured.

Having learned to drive in NYC (where as a young, aggressive driver we
used to screw with the cabbies in Manhattan - that'll teach you some
cool maneuvers!) I still employ this technique:

If I am forced to brake hard to avoid hitting a car in front of me, I
glance up at the rearview mirror to see what's going on behind me. If
need be, and *if possible* I release the brake momentarily to try and
extend the distance between me and the car behind me - as long as I
can still avoid hitting the car in front. Sometimes it's possible and
sometimes I just hope the driver behind me can stop.

It's not that big a deal where I live now, but I can say without
question that I avoided getting rear-end in NYC more than once by
using this technique. One time the driver behind me still wasn't going
to be able to stop in time, but I gave him just enough room to swerve
to the left and go by me. That "foot or 2" you left between you and
the car in front of you was probably all the guy behind me needed to
get by.

In article ,
Art Todesco wrote:

On
That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.
That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly
stopped on a busy interstate. It was a little wet. I stood on the
brake of a Park Ave. The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the
car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. But then, I
looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going
about 45 or so. He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in
front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also.
Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4
cars involve all hit a car in front of them. Surveying the carnage
the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would
have been injuries." Only the cars were injured.

The controlling variable was that you had already stopped.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:26:13 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:

On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:46 am, Smitty wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.
That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly
stopped on a busy interstate. It was a little wet. I stood on the
brake of a Park Ave. The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the
car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. But then, I
looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going
about 45 or so. He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in
front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also.
Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4
cars involve all hit a car in front of them. Surveying the carnage
the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would
have been injuries." Only the cars were injured.

The guy at the back of the chain is ALWAYS at fault. Occaisionally in
that kind of a situation, when it can be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that a car farthur up the line had also collided with a car in
front of him BEFORE being rear-ended, the other driver can also be
charged and convicted.

On Jun 23, 1:58*pm, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:46*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

" wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. *If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.

Certainly the case in the UK.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

Minnesota is a no-fault state, so fault is rarely assigned in most
traffic accidents. It's that way because of all the icy weather
collisions.

I was rear-ended by a cell-phoner and learned about this then. My
insurance did recover all costs from the other company, including my
deductible.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:50 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy
behind him hit her?

Trader gives another example.

In article ,
mm wrote:


There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy
behind him hit her?

Commonly done by insurance fraud rackets. They know the driver in back
will be found guilty. Usually involves a bunch of phony medical
treatment, which quickly adds up to a lot more than the cost of bent
metal.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:47:37 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:


There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy
behind him hit her?

Commonly done by insurance fraud rackets. They know the driver in back
will be found guilty.

Because he can't prove what happened. But if somehow he could, by an
admission, an admission by an accomplice**, or maybe notes in the car,
or that there was a string of such "accidents", he woudln't be guilty
or liable.

**The driver who stopped short on purpose can't be found guilty on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but accomplice testimony is
still evidence. The driver who hit her probably woudn't even be
charged, and would win a lawsuit.

Usually involves a bunch of phony medical
treatment, which quickly adds up to a lot more than the cost of bent
metal.

Yeah, you remind me that I've heard of that.

I was on exit ramp, one time. Fellow behind me was far too
close. I tried a couple taps on the brake lights, but still
too close. I then slowed down a LOT, and sped up. This time,
I got some more space behind me.

Off the ramp, and onto the freeway. The other driver pulled
out and passed me, gee why is that not a surprise. I let him
go, and followed at my usual safe following distance.

About a mile down the road, he tromped on the brake good and
hard. Since I was a good safe distance back, I let off the
gas for a moment, waited till he accelerated again, and
continued to follow at a safe distance.

We two different drivers (one safe, one unsafe) handled the
matter differently. I suspect that if the tail slam guy on
Peoples Court had a safe following distance and was alert,
they would not be in court.

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


"mm" wrote in message
news
There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in
front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making
the guy
behind him hit her?

"Smitty Two" wrote in message newsrestwhich-
In article
" wrote:

And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

Yeah, but . . .

An unsafe lane change, IF IT CAN BE PROVED, will shift the blame to the
party making the unsafe change. It happens all the time on the DC Capital
Beltway (people cutting in front of other people, reducing their "safe
stopping distance.") If you're unlucky enough to do it in front of a cop,
(on or off-duty) you'll get a ticket. If you do it in front of a vehicle
with a camera (more and more commercials vehicles have dashcams) you'll be
blamed. Any truck driver on the Beltway can tell you how often cars will
zip in front of them never giving a thought how much they've shortened the
trucker's "safe following distance" or how much more room a truck needs to
stop quickly. So if you look at the cabs of newer trucks you'll see more
and more cameras because of people who make unsafe lane changes. Here in
the DC area people also cross solid lines to make lane changes, driving on
the shoulders or in other areas where lane changes are not allowed.

A rear-ending of someone who has just gotten on the highway from the
shoulder is NOT considered the fault of the driver hitting the merging car
in the rear. When rejoining moving traffic from the shoulder, almost
anything "bad" that happens as a result of that merge is the fault of the
driver who is NOT on the main roadway. The problem most people have is that
it's often impossible without witnesses or video to prove that the other
driver is at fault. That's because of the strong presumption, as you've
noted, of everyone to believe if you're struck from behind, it's the
striking driver's fault

That's one of the reasons I picked up a very nice electronic color dashcam
from Ebay that records up to several hours in ten minute segments, erasing
the oldest stuff first when the memory card is full. I installed mine
because I "T-boned" a car full of students who had run a red light. I
remember being bathed in the green of the traffic light at the moment of
impact, thinking "I'm going to die now and I had the green light!!!" It was
a serious impact - I was travelling at about 50MPH and there were extensive
injuries to the front seat passenger where my car hit.

Both cars were totaled and those sonovabitch students lied about what
happened - I even HEARD the driver saying "this is my third accident -
you've GOT to say it wasn't my fault or my folks will take the car away from
me." I still fume thinking about it. Anyway, that's when I decided I
needed a dashcam, just like the cops. Not only would it have shown who was
in the right in that crash, despite four people conspiring to lie, it would
show when someone did an unsafe lane change into the space in front of my
car. If it showed me in the wrong, well, those SD cards are SO tiny it
might just disappear!

So far, I've captured some pretty amazing "cut ins" on "film" (SD card,
actually) but I have not been in any accidents while driving with the cams
in place. On the DC Beltway during rush hour it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a
safe following distance. When bozos see that huge, empty space they rush to
get to it. If I am traveling in the inner two of four lanes, sometimes
people from both adjoining lanes will dive for the same spot.

The camera I got was under $100 from Ebay. It records in an endless loop,
plugs into the auxiliary lighter socket, comes on when the car is started
and records for 1 minute after the car is turned off via a built in
rechargeable lithium cell. Takes a standard SD card - I use a 1GB card
because in reality, in a crash you'll only need about 30 seconds of the
pre-impact video to prove who was at fault. The only real negative about
the cam is that the date is GOD AWFUL difficult to set and if it sits too
long without being driven, the internal battery dies and the unit needs to
be hooked up to a PC to set the clock with a special batch file that's not
correctly specified in the manual.

I moved that camera to my 20 year old Honda and installed a four-camera
system in my van because it's got $25K worth of handicapped equipment and a
single dash cam is not enough for "full protection." That takes a front,
rear and two side view cams and a solid state quad recorder. Instead of
using a "not likely to survive a hard impact hard disk, I got a 16GB CF card
with an IDE adapter so there are no delicate moving parts to fail in a
crash. That rig cost $300 for everything but I figure that's still less
than my deductible.

Most importantly, if something like the "T-bone" crash ever happens again,
I'll let those muthafu&kers lie their asses off to the cops before I reveal
I have video of the crash so I can totally discredit them. It was a bitter
pill to swallow to learn that if witnesses conspire to lie against the lone
driver of the other car, judges and adjusters will believe them in a
heartbeat. Never again! I ended up with a surcharge for three years
because I was considered "at fault" by the insurance company. Sometimes,
when I think about it, it makes me angry enough to wish I had killed the
whole carload of lying little *******s. If there's anything I hate it's
being "lied on" and blamed for something someone else did.

If you have any doubts about unsafe lane changes "trumping" the *almost*
universal assumption that if you hit a car from behind then you're at fault,
call your local State Troopers. They are usually well-informed about
highway traffic rules.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

points out a few other exceptions to the "hit from behind - the other
driver's fault" rule"

Exceptions to Rear-End Auto Accidents
There may be times when the driver who rear-ended you is not at fault or at
least is not completely at fault. It is possible that you were partly a
fault for the accident. Examples of where you could be partially at fault
include the following:

a.. Your brake or tail lights don't work, especially if it is dark out
b.. Your car has mechanical problems but you fail to move it off the road

--
Bobby G.