|
bounty44 -> RE: Interestsing study results (2/17/2015 12:38:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 that cannot be so gauge---if im going 60 miles an hour and drive off the road, I may have one second to react to the trees that are in front me. if I am going 30, I have double that time. reaction time is important in both cases yes, but much more so in the first instance. whether or not that is enough to make a difference (or balances out) in the cases we are talking about here is another question. that said---I haven't read the post article yet nor the actual journal article that inspired it but I hope to soon... Sure, in that instance, your time is longer to be sure. However, driving through the city at 30 MPH and a kid runs out in the street your reaction time matters equally. Sorry, you cannot pick and choose scenarios to defend reaction time. Impaired reaction is impaired reaction regardless. I think what we might be doing, or at least I am, is including "time to react" with conversation about reaction time. I agree reaction time is equal regardless of external conditions. my reaction time at 60 mph is my reaction time at 30 mph. but reaction time is only part of the equation when it comes to accidents. if I have twice as long to react, then an impaired reaction time is less harmful in one situation as opposed to the ones where I have 1/2 as long to react. in that conception, it doesn't matter if its trees, or kids running out in the road. yes impaired reaction time is important---and more so the faster you are driving.
|
|
|
|