HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spe2mje@thor.cf.ac.uk (Michael Evans)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:37:11 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <-#h2caq@rpi.edu> kaminl@aix.rpi.edu (Matt Garretson) writes:
|
|  I have a question, but first, here is the background:
|
|A few weeks ago, I saw an accident (via my rearview mirror, thank god) in
|which a car in the center lane started to pull into the left. Only problem
|was that there was a car already in the left lane, in the first car's blind 
|spot. So the car in the left lane freaked out and swerved to the left so
|as to avoid being hit by the first car. But there was a cement divider, so
|the car in the left lane bounced off it and right across the middle and right
|lanes, causing a many-car pileup.  
|
|At least, that's what it looked like. So my question is this:
|
|   Suppose I'm going along in the left lane maybe 70mph, and a car to my
|right starts to come into my lane where I already am (i.e. to bump into
|my right side). There is no shoulder to the left to swerve into safely-
|only a guardrail (or oncoming traffic! :( ).  I don't want to end up 
|bouncing all over the place like the car above. And I can't brake quickly
|since there are cars on my tail (%^*&@! tailgaters). So, is it a good idea
|to steer into the car, with the intention of keeping it from pushing me
|where I don't want to go? I don't mean swerving into it, but trying to
|exert enough pressure once contact is made to maintain my own position,
|and hopefully give the other driver enough time to correct his steering.
|Will side-to-side contact between cars be disasterous at 70mph?  It
|seems to work ok in the movies, anyway.  What is the best thing to do in
|a situation like this? I know there are many variables, but any
|comments would be appreciated.
|
|Thanks,
|Matt 


	My opinion is to brake if possible, because either hitting the cement divider or hitting the other driver is likely to render the car beyond your control at such a speed. If you were to hit him from behind, then the damage to both
cars would be minor, and there is far less likeleyhood of losing control.
	Also, This is why the driving instructor tells you to hold the wheel with both hands at all times. So the chances of losing control are reduced.
From: imfacks@prism.gatech.EDU (K.K. Srinivasan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:14:48 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec13.161057.7835@pts1.pts.mot.com> eu507dac@pts.mot.com writes:
>In article h2caq@rpi.edu, kaminl@aix.rpi.edu (Matt Garretson) writes:
>>
>>  I have a question, but first, here is the background:
>>
>>A few weeks ago, I saw an accident (via my rearview mirror, thank god) in
>>which a car in the center lane started to pull into the left. Only problem

           (DELETED TEXT)

>
>Now if he steers left, your RF contacts his LR.  If you steer into him, you 
>will effectivly steer him more to the left (your FR corner will pivot his
>car counter clockwise, or to the left).  Now you will have a car perpendiclular
>to you car in front of you, his drivers door to your front bumper.  Not good.

From my personal experience, I can say this is true. In an accident in Jan' 92,
I was hit by a truck trying to move into my lane. The cab portion hit the
left rear side of my car. I spun around (pivoting on the left rear wheel) two
lanes to the left and was hit by another car.

Just a data point.

KK

-- 
Krishnakumar (KK) Srinivasan, School of Management. 
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0520
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!imfacks
Internet: imfacks@prism.gatech.edu
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: More Police Intimidation
Date: 11 Dec 1992 16:23:32 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

twj2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

|        1. Friday night last fall.  I'm driving along in traffic
| and I slide over toward the middle of the car to roll down the
| passenger side window (the Malibu is a big car!) and then slide
| back and refasten my seat belt.  I never even left the lane although
| I did jerk the wheel once or twice.  Anyways a local police officer
| pulled me over, put me through the third degree about where I was
| coming from, what I was doing, etc...  I was there on the side of the road
| for about thirty minutes while my car was searched and I was put through
| a battery of simple DUI tests.  (I was NOT drunk.)  I was let go with
| a 'warning'.  For what?

Ummm.  I would say that the indiscretion of leaving the driver's seat,
coupled with "jerking the wheel once or twice", gives probable cause to
the officer to "seize" you to question and test you for intoxication.

However, unless you assent, I do not think he can search your car.  He
can, on his probable cause, seize it until he gets a warrant, though.

|        2. Another example (these aren't the only ones) - My car stalled
| out while going through a deep (6-8") puddle right after a big storm.
| It's happened before so I just got the car off to the side of the road,
| put the flashers on, and sat there waiting for it to dry out.  Lo and
| behold, a cop drives by in the other direction and does a U-turn.  She 
| pulled up behind me and put her lights on.  I got the usual 'everything
| ok?' but all of a sudden it was how fast were you going?  have you
| had anything to drink tonight?  I had not even been pulled over this time.
| While I suppose it's possible that I just naturally appear intoxicated
| I really doubt it.

This one sounds like the cop was definitely in the wrong.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: adt@Virginia.EDU ("Anthony D. Townsend")
Subject: Re: Driving in Vermont
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:01:17 GMT

Watch out for the speed trap on I-91 just north of the Welcome
Center over the Mass line heading north.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: Re: What are some common myths about driving?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:26:30 GMT

In <1gsvvbINNci5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>In a previous article, linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) says:
>>In a previous article rbusch@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Robert Busch) spake...
>>>So here's a call for help: send me your myths!
>>
>Driving is an inalienable right.

Driving is clearly not an "inalienable" right, but I would argue that (contrary
to current legal thought) it is indeed a "right" as opposed to a privilege.

American society assumes you have an automobile.  No matter how good public
transit gets, no matter the cries of "railroads!  See how they work in [Europe,
India, wherever]", you generally have to have a car to go to work, to shop for
groceries, etc.

This is a particular sticking point of mine; so many people are so willing to
ban cars, tax gasoline, revoke licenses for minor offenses, etc.  They do not
realize however that in the real world (as applies to most of America) you just
have to have a car.

Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science
"See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the
 money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they do with it.
 Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating jobs." -- Dave Barry

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tonym@world.std.com (Tony Matt)
Subject: Re: Police Intimidation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:51:29 GMT

In article <1g5om1INN95n@armory.centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>>From everything I've read about this, I'd say they had absolutely
>>no right to conduct those searches.  I have never heard of a court
>>issueing an "open" search warrant that would allow such a thing.
>>The paper, would have to have been a search warrant of some type.
>
>It was my impression that blanket warrants were not legal; the warrant
>must specifically mention the search area (the particular house, car,
>whatever) and specifically mention what's being searched for (drugs,
>etc).

There was a Supreme Court case in the 80s that, if I remember correctly,
established that search warrants are not necessary to search a motor
vehicle on a public thoroughfare.  I believe that 'probable cause' was
the standard deemed constitutional.  I have not heard of any revisions
to that case (refinements of probable cause notwithstanding).

When Massachusetts started using weekend roadblocks to reduce drunk 
driving, they were stopping every nth car.  I think that was struck 
down by the state court, so they changed it to stop every car.  Having
alcohol breath, slurred speech, or the sufficient level of antagonism
when responding to the officer's "How're you doing this evening?" was
considered probable cause for detainment, sobriety testing, and a
search of the vehicle for open containers.

Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:7249 misc.legal:21402
From: john@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Romanski)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cars, tape recorders, and the police...
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:24:08 GMT
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

sohl,william h (whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
: I don't recall ever seeing any restriction/law that would prohibit
: recording as asked about by James Linley.  Most recording prohibitions
: have to do with telephone conversations.  The police routinely "wire"
: informants and undercover cops all the time.  Even if the recorded
: conversation might not be admissable as evidence, just hand it over
: to the newspapers and see how quickly the police chief and/or mayor
: jumps on avoiding an embarresing sitution.

I remember seeing sonething on a documentary about police cruisers being built with video cameras built in to the roof console (on the inside of the car) so    that the traffic stops can be videotaped.

I think that police are doing this for there own protection, physical, as well   as legal.

--
        _________                    
       |         |             John Romanski
 _o_  _| ___=___ |_  _o_       john@picasso.temple.edu
/`-'\( )         ( )/`-'\
|   |-|  ___@___  |-|   |      Temple University
|   | | (-+-+-+-) | |   |      
|   |--\_KAR120C_/--|   |      "I am not a number, 
`---'               `---'          I am a free man!"
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:37:02 GMT

>In article <-#h2caq@rpi.edu> kaminl@aix.rpi.edu (Matt Garretson) writes:
>   Suppose I'm going along in the left lane maybe 70mph, and a car to my
>right starts to come into my lane where I already am (i.e. to bump into
>my right side). There is no shoulder to the left to swerve into safely-
>only a guardrail (or oncoming traffic! :( ).  

i wrote:
>if you're driving a callaway sledgehammer corvette, stomp the gas.
>if you're driving a more mundane car, hit the brakes.
>the tailgaters are going to have to take care of themselves.
>countersteering after contact has been made is a good idea, but
>it's better to get your car out of the immediate vicinity.  if he's
>moving into your lane, it's probably because you're in his blind
>spot (which means your car will be further back than his).  it takes
>only a fraction of a second of hard braking to put your car behind his.

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>This is really dumb advice.  Neither accelerating nor braking will
>get you out of the way of a lane changer in time.  
>
>To answer the question, situations vary of course, but assuming a quick 
>toot on the horn does not stop the move, the safest thing to do is to 
>steer INTO the oncoming vehicle.  This is about the first thing you 
>learn when you set wheel on a stock car track.  The object is to balance
>the forces so you both stay headed in the same direction.  Better 
>a bit of bent sheet metal than one of you spinning or going over the guard
>rail. 

let's assume that the other car is 17 ft. long, which should take care of
just about any car this side of a crown victoria.  if he's moving over,
he probably didn't see you which would mean you're in his rear quarter.
let's say it's 10 ft. from your current position to a spot immediately
behind his bumper.  also assume your car has mediocre 60-0 braking
of 150 ft.  this generates a decceleration of about 26 ft/sec^2.
but not all drivers are capable of instant threshold braking, so
reduce that to 20 (about 0.62g).  assuming that you're both traveling
at the same speed, you'll need half a second.

unless he's moving over very quickly, or you noticed him late, there
should be time.  if you agree with my assumptions, which you may not.
swerving into the guy before contact may well cause an accident that
would not have happened in the first place (i.e. the twink realized 
what was happening and started to move back).  in any event, i did
not say that you should not countersteer after contact has been made.
perhaps someone could explain why it's bad to hit the brakes
before contact and start countersteering the moment he hits you.

>As soon as contact is made, the idiot will bezerk, of course, so you
>should be prepared to get on the brakes HARD the instant contact is 
>broken.  You want to be out of the way of the carnage as the idiot 
>jerks across two lanes of traffic on the other side of him.

i agree with this.

-teddy
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jeff@crash.cts.com (Jeff Makey)
Subject: Re: Calling CAA for a jump start
Organization: Future Procrastinators of America
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:25:11 PST

In article <1992Dec11.160059.24492@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st901745@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>One of the reasons I would never buy an automatic transmisison'ed vehicle
>(unless I have no choice, ie: Mercedes :) ) is that I never have to
>worry about a dead battery... giver 'er a little push and I'm all set..

Not all automatic transmissions are created equal.  On my 1964
Plymouth with its A-727 Torqueflight, just get the car moving about 20
MPH and select first gear, and a few seconds later it will start.  The
bit of magic that makes this happen is a pump driven by the rear shaft
of the tranny, a feature that has long since been dropped.

                            :: Jeff Makey

Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department
    Domain: jeff@crash.cts.com    UUCP: nosc!crash!jeff
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jimd@fraser.sfu.ca (Jim Davies)
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:35:20 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:

>>In article <-#h2caq@rpi.edu> kaminl@aix.rpi.edu (Matt Garretson) writes:
>>>   Suppose I'm going along in the left lane maybe 70mph, and a car to my
>>>right starts to come into my lane where I already am (i.e. to bump into
>>>my right side). There is no shoulder to the left to swerve into safely-
>>>only a guardrail (or oncoming traffic! :( ).  
>>>a situation like this? I know there are many variables, but any
>>>comments would be appreciated.

>>if you're driving a callaway sledgehammer corvette, stomp the gas.
>>if you're driving a more mundane car, hit the brakes.
>>the tailgaters are going to have to take care of themselves.
>>countersteering after contact has been made is a good idea, but
>>it's better to get your car out of the immediate vicinity.  if he's
>>moving into your lane, it's probably because you're in his blind
>>spot (which means your car will be further back than his).  it takes
>>only a fraction of a second of hard braking to put your car behind his.

>This is really dumb advice.  Neither accelerating nor braking will
>get you out of the way of a lane changer in time.  

>To answer the question, situations vary of course, but assuming a quick 
>toot on the horn does not stop the move, the safest thing to do is to 
>steer INTO the oncoming vehicle.  This is about the first thing you 
>learn when you set wheel on a stock car track.  The object is to balance
>the forces so you both stay headed in the same direction.  Better 
>a bit of bent sheet metal than one of you spinning or going over the guard
>rail. 

>As soon as contact is made, the idiot will bezerk, of course, so you
>should be prepared to get on the brakes HARD the instant contact is 
>broken.  You want to be out of the way of the carnage as the idiot 
>jerks across two lanes of traffic on the other side of him.

>John

You are correct! When you see the light bulb over the idiots head
*FINALLY* go on is the most dangerous moment. Their first reaction,
in my experience, is always wrong. The speed with which the human 
mind can switch from bovine contentment to idiot-panic-mode is a
source of wonder to me. Its almost better not to wake up the slumberer,
although your desire is to at least do that ;-) 

Jim Davies







From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:27:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Snow and 4x4's
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

Re: 4WD

Sean, a Coloradoan, has the concept exactly right. The 4WD system acts
like a terribly primitive anti-lock braking system right up until all
wheels break traction. 

I too have experimented with 2WD vs. 4WD braking and found that 4WD 
stops shorter. 

Also note that a 4WD system will not have forces leading it to ROTATE
when traction is lost like it would in RWD. When you lose it, you just
go straight.

I think the number of 4WDs in the ditch is just an indication of how
many owners overestimate the advantage that 4WD really is. You still can't
be an idiot, no car is smart enough to compensate for that.....


Ron Miller
From: stresres@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Vanetten)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Calling CAA for a jump start
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:07:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

>I have never been able to successfully jump start my manual gearbox
>fule-injected Supra.  It seems that to just run the fuel pump and
>injectors takes a healthy battery.


Do you mean jump start, or push start?  Big difference, and I am kind of 
curious, as a friend has one.
From: plisner@mips.com (Peter Lisner)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:37:13 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: ayersrock.mti.sgi.com

[Some of Doug's stuff deleted]
>
>Recommendations.  Don't stay in blind spots.  Look at the situation of the other
>car.  Does he need to change lanes?  Chances are, you can tell when someone is 
>about to change lanes.  Either give them enough room to squeeze in (just in case)
>or keep your front bumper in his view.  Horns work great too.  If you are going to
>hit, probably better to get hit in the back (straight in the back).  You can take
>a pretty good shot in the back without much fuss, even at speed. Have you seen
>a SCCA Showroom Stock Race?
>
>---
>Doug Christensen    SCCA SSB Scirocco 16V
>doug_christensen@pts.mot.com
>     _____
>   _/_|__|\__
>  | _ |61| _ \
> <-(_)----(_)-^       "When I'm racing, I'm alive.  Everthing else
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    is just waiting."  Steve McQueen, Le Mans.

I think these are good ideas. But what really bothers me is the fact that
so many people don't use their turn signals for lane changes. If they did, I'm
sure a lot of these kinds of situations could be avoided. 

Is it because people aren't taught to signal for lane changes when they learn
to drive, or do some people just think it is too much trouble to move one hand
a couple of inches to flick a lever ?

I apologize in advance if my gripe has already been beaten to death in this group.




All opinions are mine, not SGI's.
-- 
Peter Lisner                    
e-mail: plisner@mti.sgi.com
phone : (415)390-4419
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: hvozda@wilbur.psu.edu (Eric Hvozda)
Subject: Re: What are some common myths about driving?
Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:01:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.043358.22580@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>Pedestrians have the right of way! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Well techincally in PA at least this is correct, It's a myth the law defines
who HAS the right of way.  However, it does define who muts YEILD it. 

Weirdness.
-- 
Ack!                             esh101@psuvm.psu.edu             ESH101@PSUVM
hvozda@vivaldi.psu.edu           hvozda@wilbur.psu.edu            DoD #0217
From: phalke@pepper.rutgers.edu (V. Phalke)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Car-to-car contact at high speeds
Summary: my experience
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:23:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: pepper.Dec.14.13.23.00.1992.6005
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I think the best thing is to hold your steering hard.

This happened to me in Brussels. At about 70kmph I was in the right lane
(two lanes exiting from one highway and merging into another). There was
guard rail on my right, this truck (the small U-haul kind of) from the
left lane just cut across to the right. I was honking but no... he just
ripped off my left mirror and did a lot of scratch-bend-work on the left
side. The idiot had a right mirror too. On top of that he didn't stop.
Well then...
The point is -nothing fantastic like him pusing me into the rails etc. happened.
The car was a small Opal-Manta-or-Mensa or something sounding like that.

--V Phalke--
===============================================================================

VIDYADHAR PHALKE
phalke@paul.rutgers.edu
            ____    	--------  ZOOOOOOooooommmMMMM..........  IT USED TO GO
         __/__|_\_  	--------  PUT PUT PUT put puttttttt....  IT GOES NOW
        "-O-----O-"_____________________________________
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: 5-speed in the snow
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.184333.10242@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) writes:

>Also, what is the coin that if when inserted in the tread, alignment
>with the top of the president's head indicates tire replacement time?

A (president Lincoln head) penny.

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving