2 ms·

> ...ignoring traffic lights during the most critical 5 seconds to look behind you. > Oh, and I just completed my regular mirror check, and so I don't know how

> ...ignoring traffic lights during the most critical 5 seconds to look behind you. > Oh, and I just completed my regular mirror check, and so I don't know how long the yellow has been up. Do I stop or continue on? These statements are not describing the same activity. > As to breaking, or saving the car: Your link agrees with me. Read Tom's last paragraph. There was no traffic in front of me. The pedestrians were safely off the road because I honked and flashed. In the case that the pedestrians had kept going, I'd have done things differently. But it doesn't matter; because the point isn't whether braking or not braking was the correct decision. The point is that by looking in the rear view mirror I became aware that a decision needed to be made.

Retric 7y ago
> These statements are not describing the same activity. Yes they are. The window when the length of a yellow light matters is short. If check your rear view mirror right before the intersection then even if the light turns yellow that’s irrelevant you’re still going to cross. Alternatively, if you’re very far from the intersection, then not noticing a yellow light for ~2 seconds is irrelevant, you need to stop regardless of how long it’s been yellow at that point. The transition between those states is very rapid. > The pedestrians where safely off the road. There was still pedestrians around you. A rear end collision that’s directly bumper to bumper pushes you forward. But, it’s possible for someone to try and evade at the last second which means they and you go in some random direction, possibly onto a sidewalk or other objects near the road. Examples of off angle impacts with solid barriers: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/iihs-crash-tests-slam-some-popular-pickup-trucks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/iihs-crash-tests-slam-some-p.... Though if these where cars the car would be violently pushed in the opposite direction. Various rear end collisions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HD6QGx9d8ow https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HD6QGx9d8ow. Which show a wide range of possibilities. So, unless they where well behind you, picking your foot off the break was a poor choice for their safety.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  > Yes they are. No, they aren't. You misrepresented his point, and now you're changing the argument. > So, unless they where well behind you, picking your foot off the break was a poor choice for their safety. You're still making things up. Nothing you have linked here supports your claims. When a car collides with another car, things can happen with variable degrees of predictability. Yet, you are arguing with certainty that despite a successful outcome I made the wrong decision in a situation for which you don't have all the facts. I'm not sure how you hope any of this will convince me I did the wrong thing. Perhaps ironically, even by arguing that there was a right thing to do, you implicitly acknowledge that your previous statement about rear view mirrors which I objected to was wrong.
  - Retric 7y ago
    > You misrepresented his point No, I said his situation was avoidable and said how to avoid it, thus invalidating his point. Talking about how to safely drive drunk ignores the possibility to not get into that situation. As to your situation, you where not responding to a traffic light. In my original post I specifically said maintaining awareness was import, just a low priority. Checking your rear view window while breaking is perfectly reasonable as long as your not maneuvering to avoid a collision. As described not checking the rear view minor would have likely resulted in a near identical outcome, honking may have have helped or been pointless we don’t know. As to making things up, my statement is in response to the correct action on a rear end collision based on the information you had at the time. Saying it was a good idea using information unavailable at the time is like lottery winners saying they made the correct choice. However, as people can’t actually see the future it’s possible to make a poor gamble that pays off. Similarly, you where lucky that the oncoming car did not swerve at the last second which you had not way of predicting or responding to as your limited by human reaction times. The first videos I showed demonstrated my point but I don’t think you understand the physics involved. Watch the first shot here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JszLYsU1Duo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JszLYsU1Duo On a side impact ball 1 moves to the left, and ball 2 moves to the right. Now, considering that rewatch the first video with that idea. If you where rear ended at an angle you could have been shoved into the direction of the sidewalk as the other car was shoved away. The second video I posed starts with a collision like with a car being shoved to the left, except it’s hitting a stationary school buss who’s breaks and higher mass avoid significant movement. If you still don’t understand, I can only suggest learning some basic physics from online videos or whatnot. PS: And really your argument about not breaking is balancing people’s safety vs an slightly lower repair bill. That’s really hard to justify.

Retric 7y ago

> These statements are not describing the same activity. Yes they are. The window when the length of a yellow light matters is short. If check your rear view mirror right before the intersection then even if the light turns yellow that’s irrelevant you’re still going to cross. Alternatively, if you’re very far from the intersection, then not noticing a yellow light for ~2 seconds is irrelevant, you need to stop regardless of how long it’s been yellow at that point. The transition between those states is very rapid. > The pedestrians where safely off the road. There was still pedestrians around you. A rear end collision that’s directly bumper to bumper pushes you forward. But, it’s possible for someone to try and evade at the last second which means they and you go in some random direction, possibly onto a sidewalk or other objects near the road. Examples of off angle impacts with solid barriers: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/iihs-crash-tests-slam-some-popular-pickup-trucks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/iihs-crash-tests-slam-some-p.... Though if these where cars the car would be violently pushed in the opposite direction. Various rear end collisions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HD6QGx9d8ow https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HD6QGx9d8ow. Which show a wide range of possibilities. So, unless they where well behind you, picking your foot off the break was a poor choice for their safety.

cgriswald 7y ago
> Yes they are. No, they aren't. You misrepresented his point, and now you're changing the argument. > So, unless they where well behind you, picking your foot off the break was a poor choice for their safety. You're still making things up. Nothing you have linked here supports your claims. When a car collides with another car, things can happen with variable degrees of predictability. Yet, you are arguing with certainty that despite a successful outcome I made the wrong decision in a situation for which you don't have all the facts. I'm not sure how you hope any of this will convince me I did the wrong thing. Perhaps ironically, even by arguing that there was a right thing to do, you implicitly acknowledge that your previous statement about rear view mirrors which I objected to was wrong.
- Retric 7y ago
  > You misrepresented his point No, I said his situation was avoidable and said how to avoid it, thus invalidating his point. Talking about how to safely drive drunk ignores the possibility to not get into that situation. As to your situation, you where not responding to a traffic light. In my original post I specifically said maintaining awareness was import, just a low priority. Checking your rear view window while breaking is perfectly reasonable as long as your not maneuvering to avoid a collision. As described not checking the rear view minor would have likely resulted in a near identical outcome, honking may have have helped or been pointless we don’t know. As to making things up, my statement is in response to the correct action on a rear end collision based on the information you had at the time. Saying it was a good idea using information unavailable at the time is like lottery winners saying they made the correct choice. However, as people can’t actually see the future it’s possible to make a poor gamble that pays off. Similarly, you where lucky that the oncoming car did not swerve at the last second which you had not way of predicting or responding to as your limited by human reaction times. The first videos I showed demonstrated my point but I don’t think you understand the physics involved. Watch the first shot here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JszLYsU1Duo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JszLYsU1Duo On a side impact ball 1 moves to the left, and ball 2 moves to the right. Now, considering that rewatch the first video with that idea. If you where rear ended at an angle you could have been shoved into the direction of the sidewalk as the other car was shoved away. The second video I posed starts with a collision like with a car being shoved to the left, except it’s hitting a stationary school buss who’s breaks and higher mass avoid significant movement. If you still don’t understand, I can only suggest learning some basic physics from online videos or whatnot. PS: And really your argument about not breaking is balancing people’s safety vs an slightly lower repair bill. That’s really hard to justify.