2 ms·

> 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 foo

> 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

> 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.