Suzuki Samurai was Re: [geeks] SPARC proprietary (waaaay

[Kurt Huhn]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:28:32 -0600 (MDT)
Dan Duncan wrote:

> As I recall, 'Kurt Huhn' wrote:
> > 
> > Non sequitor.
> 
> How so?   You're clearly aware that the rear driver is at fault,
> thus the jail time, so why shouldn't he increase his following
> distance?
> 

See email of a few minutes ago.  It is *entirely* possible to be
following at a safe distance, and still not be able to stop in time.  To
be 100% assured of stopping in the event that the person in front of you
pulls a panic stop, you'd need to leave half a mile of space cushion. 
In some parts of the country, you'd always be in reverse.

As far as legality, that's very difficult to prove.  Don't even get me
started on the insurance aspect - my wife worked in insurance for
several years, I know all about how their fucked up little world works.

You can't always say "driver-A who rear-ended driver-B has done
something illegal and is at fault".  That's like saying "your breath
smells minty, clearly you are using Binaca, which means you're covering
up the smell of alcohol".

Jeez people, the world isn't nearly as black and white was some of you
have been led to believe.

> > Some vehicles stop *way* more quickly than others, and a variety of
> > reasons could prevent you from stopping in time.  
> 
> Primarily following too closely.  If you're behind a vehicle that
> stops more quickly than yours, you need to INCREASE your following
> distance.  The burden is on YOU, as the following driver.  YOU will
> get the ticket.  
> 
> > The person slamming on their brakes to avoid the tree-rat needs to
> > be taken out back and beaten mercilessly.  They're a danger to
> > everyone behind them because a) they think a squirrel is more
> > important the safety of themselves and anyone behind them, and b)
> > that had no idea anyone was behind them and might hit them if they
> > slammed on their brakes.
> 
> While it's not a good idea for the front driver to brake too quickly, 
> especially if there's a moron on their tail, the rear driver will most
> 
> likely be found at fault and likely ticketed for FOLLOWING TOO
> CLOSELY.
> 
> > > A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what they are driving, but
> > > they amplify their risk to ME by driving a big vehicle.   I'd like
> > > to see repeat bad drivers suffer successive limits in vehicle size
> > > until they either shape up or enjoy their mopeds.
> > 
> > Er...no.  While you might find that idea great, 99.99% of the rest
> > of the folks in this country would no more take to that idea than
> > they would a 50% federal income tax.
> > 
> > The long and the short of it is that you can't limit people's
> > freedom to choose in that fashion. 
> 
> Umm.. we CAN limit people's freedom in exactly that fashion.
> 
> I'm not pre-limiting their freedom.  I'm suggesting a reduction in
> vehicle size as part of their SENTENCE for causing a traffic
> collision.  Freedom can be limited, but only by due process.  Being
> convicted of a crime in a court of law can indeed legally limit
> someone's freedom and a prior history of causin traffic collisions is
> a HUGE factor in determining future driving risk.  Ask any insurance
> company.
> 
> > It simply isn't feasable, not at this point in
> > time, at least not in the USA.  You might get away with that in some
> > European contries where a Ford Contour (er, Mondeo, sorry) is a
> > "full size" vehicle.  But that would *only* be because nobody drives
> > anything as large as an Excursion and the grand bulk of people see
> > no need for a vehicle that large anyway.  How the frig would it fit
> > down those narrow streets anyway?
> 
> > > People who drive 15 passenger vans often do so professionally and 
> > > I haven't noticed any greater tendency to cause accidents.  This
> > > is NOT true for SUVs.  In my experience.  YMMV.
> > 
> > Not *really*.  At least not if you watch the media.  According to
> > various prime-time magazine shows (dateline, 20/20) here in the
> > states, a 15 passenger van is a deadly threat to passengers, driver,
> > and surrounding vehicles.
> 
> You mean the same shows that use explosives to stage footage "proving"
> fire risks?  No thanks.  I'll stick with hard data, like insurance
> companies use, based on ACTUAL events.
> 
> > A lot of 15 passenger vans are used
> > non-professionally - that is, the driver has not been specifically
> > trained in piloting that vehicle.  Such as the ones used as campus
> > shuttles, church buses, by people carting around huge familys, etc.
> 
> They are far less common than SUVs.
> 
> > I'm not saying that 15-passenger vans are dangerous, but the media
> > certainly would have you think so.
> > 
> > Anyway, where was I going with this...oh yeah!  If you're believing
> > some statistic that SUVs are dangerous, or drivers of SUVs are
> > dangerous, you've been led down a very wrong path.  Any car is
> > dangerous, and you're driving a Honda Civic, and you get hit by a
> > bad driver in a Honda Civic - you'll still get injured.  Yes physics
> > plays a small part in*how* injured, but in this litiguous society,
> > that matters not.
> 
> And if you get hit by an SUV while you're in a Honda Civic, you'll get
> even more injured.  IF a driver proves they can't handle an SUV
> (or a vehicle of any size) I propose we downgrade them to a smaller
> vehicle to reduce their damage potential.  They have to EARN the
> downgrade.  I don't propose we impose it on them in advance.  I 
> would like to see license classes with a little more granularity.
> 
> -DanD
> 
> -- 
> #  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  dand at pcisys.net  http://pcisys.net/~dand
> # If a person offend you and you are in doubt as to whether it was
> # intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures. Simply watch
> # your chance and hit him with a brick.  -Mark Twain
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks


-- 
Kurt                   I've been searching for the holy grail 
kurt at k-huhn.com        I found out it's for sale
                       And it's going to the highest bidder
                                    -- Neil Anderson