RE: Interestsing study results

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Interestsing study results

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Interestsing study results

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Interestsing study results - 2/16/2015 10:06:32 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well back in the day when I got high and drove, you could catch a turtle piss'n on my tire.

Sometimes, the slower driver is an issue. When everyone else is doing 80 on the interstate and there's that one guy, going the speed limit, he becomes a rolling obstruction; everyone - in their un-bridled hurry - tries to pass him. He may not crash but he's caused his fair share of 'em.

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Interestsing study results - 2/16/2015 11:34:00 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well back in the day when I got high and drove, you could catch a turtle piss'n on my tire.

Sometimes, the slower driver is an issue. When everyone else is doing 80 on the interstate and there's that one guy, going the speed limit, he becomes a rolling obstruction; everyone - in their un-bridled hurry - tries to pass him. He may not crash but he's caused his fair share of 'em.

Michael

I disagree. Those insistent on going 80 cause the accidents much of which from tailgating those doing the speed limit.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Interestsing study results - 2/17/2015 12:38:27 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 2/17/2015 12:46:47 AM >

(in reply to Gauge)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Interestsing study results - 2/17/2015 1:54:30 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

just went and read the blog, and perused the article and I have a major criticism of the newspaper blog title (maybe some of this was already mentioned in the thread):

Since it’s not a controlled study and this appears to be the case: “In heavy marijuana users, measurable amounts of THC can be detectable in the body days or even weeks after the last use, and long after any psychoactive effects remain” --- any finds that emerge from the study need to be mindful of that. Given that then the author cannot say “stoned drivers are more safe” because they actually didn’t study only “stoned drivers.” They just studied drivers with elevated THC counts. He actually hints at this later when he says sober people may be finding themselves in trouble.

but one wonders what damage is already been done just by the title...

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Interestsing study results - 2/17/2015 2:49:28 AM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Well back in the day when I got high and drove, you could catch a turtle piss'n on my tire.

Sometimes, the slower driver is an issue. When everyone else is doing 80 on the interstate and there's that one guy, going the speed limit, he becomes a rolling obstruction; everyone - in their un-bridled hurry - tries to pass him. He may not crash but he's caused his fair share of 'em.

That is such a silly argument! The one guy doing the speed limit...IS OBEYING THE LAW! That you think 'oh, everyone else is doing it, then its ok", is not ok. Blaming accidents on that driver is like directly blaming someone for sixteen murders in a whole other state; and his alibi checks out!

There are reasons for the speed limit. One of them is called 'Physics'. A car doing the speed limit of 55 mph, will stop quicker than one doing 80 mph. Another is called 'Reflexes'. Most people are not 20 years of age, and with a 20 year old's reflexes. Which means something happens, they have less time to handle the issue before they are on top of it.

The person that tailgates at any speed....

....is an idiot wanting to lose their car and be crippled for the rest of their lives. An the insurance person will...KNOW...that person was tailgating.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 25