From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Speeding & radar gun locking
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
	<1992Jul20.231524.1576@srg.srg.af.mil> <TALE.92Jul20180301@ten.uu.net>
	<1992Jul21.152046.13503@srg.srg.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:41:45 GMT

In <1992Jul20.231524.1576@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552):
> As for driving smarter, not slower, I have never known a bad driver to 
> improve with the addition of speed...and rarely to admit that they are bad.

In <TALE.92Jul20180301@ten.uu.net> tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence):
> One day I was driving down the New York State Thruway from Albany to
> New York City and falling asleep at the wheel at a speed of 55-60.  I
> sped up to 75 and the resulting need to use more of my senses made it
> easier to stay awake.

In <1992Jul21.152046.13503@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552):
> This is largely my point.  You did a *smart* thing.  Most drivers who are
> stupid at 55 at stupid at 75, and seem to *prefer* 75 :-).

I did a smart thing?  That was far from what I expected as a reply; I
expected something like what the endearing Mr. Cunningham offered.
More on that in a moment.

> As an aside, given that a very large percentage of motorcycle
> fatalities occur in the first six months of ownership (50%?), I
> submit that experienced motorcycle drivers are safer drivers than
> those who feel "protected" in a car.

Well, I'm a bit of an anomaly here now.  For a while I wasn't, though,
and indeed my car driving skills improved a bit probably for the
reasons you mentioned.  I know it has been brought up by motorcycle
advocates before.

In the first message, you said, "I have [rarely known] a bad driver to
admit that they are bad."  I will admit that it does not take many
interstate miles in a car before I disappointed with my performance.
It bores me terribly.  That combined with very little current practise
driving one makes me below average for how good most drivers think
they are or probably about average for how good most drivers really
are.  (I got rid of my last car four years ago and have been
travelling mostly by motorcycle and bicycle ever since.)

I want to do things in cars that I don't generally do on bikes -- talk
to passengers, eat, play with the radio, read maps, et cetera.  They
don't have the acceleration, the handling or the braking of my preferred
vehicles and without that practise it can cause me to get in situations
I would have better avoided.  Becoming aware of this in the past year,
however, is probably making me better again when do I get in cars.

Now on to Terry.

In <4403@prcrs.prc.com> terry@prcrs.prc.com (Terry Cunningham):
> Sounds like bull to me Dave.  When you are tired you are tired period!

_That_ sounds like bull to me.  Are you familiar with my physiology?
Why do I fall asleep when listening to some talk for a long time when
I'm not really tired and that some simple activity would very easily
keep me awake?  I seem to respond to boredom with sleep.  Perhaps you
can't relate to that; fair enough.  But don't try to tell me that it
isn't true.

> Why didn't you need to use your senses at 55-60, and what if you had
> fallen asleep at 75?  Why didn't you pull over and nap?

Did I say I did not need to use my senses?  No.  Please try keeping up
with the discussion next time.  You can see what I wrote a few lines
up there.  

All caught up now?  Good.  As I was saying, the greater speed required
more use of my senses.  Instead of going with the basic flow of
traffic, by passing people I had to pay more attention.  I was less
bored.  My mind was more awake.  My driving was better, which was the
topic of the message.

I didn't pull over and take a nap because a) I really didn't need to
and b) I had an obligation to get some non-driver passengers to Staten
Island by a particular time that we would have missed unless it was a
terribly short, useless nap.  I wasn't about to fall asleep at 75, and
if I felt like I was still having a problem I would have told them and
we would have come up with a way to handle it.  There certainly have
been times when I have stopped due to being genuinely sleepy.

To think that I cancelled a longer message to remove some more
inflammatory comments out of consideration for the gentle readers of
dc.general.  It contained this:

> Sure, you can flame me all you want for suggesting that if I were
> sleepy I shouldn't have been driving and so on and so forth, and I'll
> basically ignore you.

Good thing I'd deleted it, because now I don't feel like ignoring it.
I deleted it in part because I thought that an intelligent reader
would have seen that "Why didn't you pull over and nap?" was _not_
within the direct scope of discussing someone becoming safer when they
sped up.

> I deleted your membership numbers for the AMA etc... but I don't see
> how you can claim membership in any responsible motoring assn. after
> describing a stunt like that.

Flame to live and live to flame and all that rot, eh?  A "stunt"?  Be
real.  You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about here.  Though
I know better to stoop and justify myself to you, I've feeling a
little irritable now so I'll do it anyway.

First, the "stunt" in question predated my membership in either
organization.  It even predated my motorcycling.

Second, people can and do improve as drivers.  My sister used to scare
me to death.  Since she became a professional driver her skills
improved remarkably.  She is one of the safest drivers I know now.
God help us all if everyone still drove like they did in their first
couple of years of motoring.

Third, I didn't include my membership numbers.  You should not cite
people's signatures anyway.

I could go on, but people will thank me not too and I'm getting bored
and sleepy with you anyway.

Too bad your name isn't on the East Coast Ride list for this weekend.
We could still get together for dinner sometime, though.  Your place
or mine?

Kiss kiss,
Dave