For any idiot who thinks it's about safety

[meat]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

Once more Cobrabill proves his single digit IQ number.

Reckless driving is often attributed to the lead driver in a rear-end collision on non-highway/non-freeway accidents.

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

NOPE, not in Texas,
If you are hit from behind it is because the car behind you is following too close and the car that actually makes or causes physical contact is the one doing the reckless driving.

Nope.

If you slam on your brakes to stop short - 'lock up your tires' was the term used above - then YOU are the one who is doing the reckless driving. YOU are the one not in control of your vehicle. YOU are the one impeding the right of way. YOU are the one who is primarily at fault. YOU are the one that 'causes physical contact' not the other driver. I'd make sure you were thoroughly investigated to see if you're part of a swoop and squat scam.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by meat

Once more Cobrabill proves his single digit IQ number.

Reckless driving is often attributed to the lead driver in a rear-end collision on non-highway/non-freeway accidents.

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

Once again you show that you are a safe distance from genius.Your limited intellect is exhibited by the constant use of the word"duh".

The cases presented above(staged accidents & weaving in & out) are extreme and not the norm.
Not to mention they require witnesses to have the lead driver faulted.99.9% of the time the party that impacted the car ahead is in the "at fault" situation.
ALL states DMV codes are written to the effect that you shall maintain a "a safe distance" between your vehicles.*So,the driver that rear-ends someone is guilty of not maintaining a safe distance.PERIOD,END, PHUCKING STOP.This point isn't open to debate-as it's codified FACT.Anyone who disagrees probably says "duh" a lot.

*Meathead, i spelled it out for you so we wouldn't have to "hear" another "duh" from you.

[Joe Wicked]

Thank god for anti-lock brakes. I do not lock up my brakes, but I am on them as hard as I have to be to stop. If I was able to stop behind the line and still maintain complete control of my car, then the person who hit me was following too close. No one was talking about cutting in front of someone and then slamming on their brakes. The conversation is about driving along and the light turns yellow, slamming on brakes. Drop the road rage and cutting off, because it does not apply to the conversation.

As far as the safety aspect, I always felt that if it was for safety, then why implement a system that allows the person to drive off and continue the same type of behavior, issue a ticket with a fine attached, and then move on? What was done to stop the behavior when the actions took place? Nothing. A cop on the corner that stops the driver who ran the light and detains them is more effective in my opinion. Most of the red light runners I see are people on phones, digging for something, or just is such a hurry that they are not going to stop and speed up. This behavior does not stop at that light they just ran, but continues until they cause a wreck. Police presence deters this behavior, not cameras.

[Cobrabill]

JW-stop with the logic-would ya?

[meat]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

The cases presented above

There have been no 'cases' presented above.

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

ALL states DMV codes are written to the effect that you shall maintain a "a safe distance" between your vehicles.

NO state has ANY code "written to the effect."

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

So,the driver that rear-ends someone is guilty of not maintaining a safe distance.PERIOD,END, PHUCKING STOP.This point isn't open to debate-as it's codified FACT.

Untrue, incorrect, and shows an incredible lack of intelligence for believing that something so ludicrous is a "codified fact."

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

i spelled it out for you so we wouldn't have to "hear" another "duh" from you.

I'm not sure how many people are talking to you in your head, but it's obvious by your use of the word "we" when describing yourself that it's a plural amount. Please be advised that all of the people who are speaking to you in your head are providing you with nonsense and incorrect data. You may wish to seek new imaginary friends.

I will continue to use the term "duh" as long as you continue to post in a manner that will inevitably lead you to a 'significant' runner-up position in the Darwin Awards, thus securing your place in history as another "what not to do."

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Cobrabill]

Meathead,your non-sequiturs not with-standing, you are invited to find the nearest exit,walk outside,fall down and go phuck yourself.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Joe Wicked

Thank god for anti-lock brakes.

I concur.

It's an excellent idea to put a braking system in a car that allows it to safely stop in a greater distance than it should if the person behind the wheel were a competent driver. That way drivers can get an unwarranted belief that they are a 'good driver' and can move on the more important tasks while behind the wheel like applying make-up, eating lunch, reading the paper and talking on a cell phone.

I used to be able to bring my 1965 Mustang Fastback with manual brakes safely to a stop from 65 mph in about 120 feet.

The quintessential soccer-mom vehicle - the Chevy Tahoe - equipped with ABS and following a safe distance behind at 65 mph stops 12 feet beyond where I did. So, technically, the Tahoe with it's ABS system stops when it hits my non-ABS car.

That distance changes dramatically if the driver of the vehicle is on a cell phone.

Yeah, thank God for anti-lock brakes. They empower the incompetent.

Your pal,
Meat.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Meathead,your non-sequiturs not with-standing, you are invited to find the nearest exit,walk outside,fall down and go phuck yourself.

There's no hyphen in 'non-sequiturs' and 'not with-standing' is spelled 'notwithstanding' as it is only one word, not three.

...duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Jamo]

Bring it down to a mild roar or the discussion ends.

Thanks for your expected cooperation.

[Ron61]

I am not starting an argument just stating what I read in the Calif. Vehicle drivers manual and also I just talked to our local traffic officer.

Solid Yellow. A yellow
signal light means
“CAUTION.” The red
signal is about to appear. When
you see the yellow light, stop if
you can do so safely. If you can’t
stop safely, enter the intersection.

You may enter the intersection as long as you DON'T SPEED UP and it is safe to do so. The traffic officer told me that if you do the above and get hit from behind then the person that hits you is following to close. These are her words as an addition. "And probably talking on a cell phone or text messaging." If you speed up then you will get a ticket even if it is to keep the person from behind from hitting you unless you have witnesses that was what you sped up for. I believe the percent she quoted was that 98% of rear end collisions are going to be the fault of the vehicle behind as they are following to close for conditions no matter what they are.
This is not the cutting in front of and jamming on the brakes type of thing.

Ron

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by meat

I concur.

It's an excellent idea to put a braking system in a car that allows it to safely stop in a greater distance than it should if the person behind the wheel were a competent driver. That way drivers can get an unwarranted belief that they are a 'good driver' and can move on the more important tasks while behind the wheel like applying make-up, eating lunch, reading the paper and talking on a cell phone.

I used to be able to bring my 1965 Mustang Fastback with manual brakes safely to a stop from 65 mph in about 120 feet.

The quintessential soccer-mom vehicle - the Chevy Tahoe - equipped with ABS and following a safe distance behind at 65 mph stops 12 feet beyond where I did. So, technically, the Tahoe with it's ABS system stops when it hits my non-ABS car.

That distance changes dramatically if the driver of the vehicle is on a cell phone.

Yeah, thank God for anti-lock brakes. They empower the incompetent.

Your pal,
Meat.

I will bet that the tahoe with antilock brakes stops shorter than the tahoe without antilock brakes thereby being safer. Guess what, my Mustang stops shorter than my F150. Big surprise there huh? You continue to compare apples to oranges. It is simple, If I can stop without running the light, and fully maintain control of my car, and someone hits me, they are following to close. They are at fault for the accident no matter how hard I hit the brakes. If their vehicle requires more stopping room than mine and they are not accounting for that increased distance, they are guilty of "Failure to maintain a safe distance."

[meat]

Originally Posted by Joe Wicked

I will bet that the tahoe with antilock brakes stops shorter than the tahoe without antilock brakes thereby being safer.

That would be a pretty silly bet for a number of reasons:

1. Driver knowledge.
2. Driver experience.
3. Road conditions.
4. ABS physics. The layman's explanation of how antilock brakes work: is antilock brakes operate by pulsing the brakes on and off. Brakes work by friction. When the brakes are on, the friction increases, when they're off, there ain't no friction. Therefore, class, if the brakes are being applied intermittently - like an ABS system does - rather than continuously the stopping distance will increase with the ABS system chattering merrily away.

Under similar conditions, a non-ABS Tahoe can stop well before an ABS equipped one if the ABS system engages.

Therefore, antilock brakes are not 'safer.' They provide an illusion of safety - much like airbags do - and allow the neophyte to believe that he's Mario Andretti when, in actuality, he's just another idiot on the road who doesn't understand that his car isn't safer, it's been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator: the average, low-knowledge driver who couldn't drive himself out of a paper bag without putting an address into his GPS system first.

The rest of your post is totally moot and irrelevant as you don't understand the basics or the physics or the argument.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Doug I]

popcorn, popcorn, get your popcorn here.

[Ron61]

Doug,

You sell popcorn and I will sell locks and lets see which of us wins out.

Ron

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by meat

Nope.

If you slam on your brakes to stop short - 'lock up your tires' was the term used above - then YOU are the one who is doing the reckless driving. YOU are the one not in control of your vehicle. YOU are the one impeding the right of way. YOU are the one who is primarily at fault. YOU are the one that 'causes physical contact' not the other driver. I'd make sure you were thoroughly investigated to see if you're part of a swoop and squat scam.

Your pal,
Meat.

Nope, your wrong.

If I stop, regaurdless of why I stop in ANY siuation emergency or otherwise if you hit me from behind and we are both in the same lane traveling the same direction you are at fault, you are following too close.

I would advise you to check your highschool drivers ed book before giving your opinion a whirl.

[Doug I]

and Beer !!! get your popcorn and beer !!!!

popcorn with hot butter and cold beer !!!

[4RE KLR]

BTW:
Where is the damn cop when you need one.

Meat,
Your wrong on this buddy. No one is right all the time, come on admit it and lets talk about something else. It seems you tend to disagree with a lot of people on a lot of different issues on this site.

1) It isn't that big of a deal.
2) I am going to hit the phucking breaks regaurdless of what the "law" says. I am not getting a ticket for running the red light.
3) I hope like hell you are not the one behind me as we might need jamo to get you out of jail. (well you do seem to get upset rather quickly)
4) It is not that big of a deal...Dig I saw that already

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

If I stop, regaurdless of why I stop in ANY siuation emergency or otherwise if you hit me from behind and we are both in the same lane traveling the same direction you are at fault, you are following too close.

Reeeally.

So - given your hypothetical "ANY siuation" (assuming that "siuation" means 'situation') - If you and I were in the same lane, traveling the same direction and you slam on your brakes and come to a stop and I hit you, I was following too close?

What if I was three miles away from you when you slammed on your brakes and came to a stop, continued to drive for three miles and hit you? was I still following too close?

"I have nipples, Greg, can you milk me?" - Jack Byrnes, Meet The Parents

Your 'ANY siuation' model doesn't hold up.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I would advise you to check your highschool drivers ed book before giving your opinion a whirl.

And I would note that the Vehicle Code book is significantly more complete and quite a few more pages longer than your "highschool" drivers ed book.

Always use the best evidence, 4RE KLR. Always. If you're driving under the presumption that a drivers ed book is the 'be all, end all' of the law then you're in for a pretty rude awakening one day.

Your pal,
Meat.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

Your wrong on this buddy.

Nope.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

No one is right all the time, come on admit it and lets talk about something else.

I will cheerfully admit that no one is right all the time.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

It seems you tend to disagree with a lot of people on a lot of different issues on this site.

That's untrue; I'm better informed and use common sense more often than some on this site.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I am going to hit the phucking breaks regaurdless of what the "law" says. I am not getting a ticket for running the red light.

And that is your prerogative. That you'd choose to endanger the lives of others over getting a $75 ticket speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I hope like hell you are not the one behind me as we might need jamo to get you out of jail.

I sincerely hope that I am behind you, as I've got quite a bit of experience and the cat-like reflexes honed over years of dealing with idiots in California who think they can drive necessary to deal with people who can't figure out how something as simple as a traffic light works.

There are few better suited than me to drive behind the likes of you.

Your pal,
Meat.