[rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 49, Issue 17
phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
Fri Dec 8 07:18:04 CST 2006
Meelis Roos wrote:
>> I re-iterate: Speed is not inherently dangerous.
> Our reaction time is still the same. So for higher speed, we _must_ have
> proportionally bigger empty space between us and any potential
Precisely, which is why you have to think further ahead and allow
greater following distances. (Which can be hard ... it was almost
impossible to maintain a safe following distance at ANY speed in even
mildly congested California freeway traffic, because as soon as you
managed to open up a safe following distance, someone would move into
the gap.) If I'm on open road and driving (or riding) fast, I'm
scanning a quarter to a half mile down the road.
Now, failure to do so is dangerous .... but failure to anticipate, to
scan ahead, and to allow safe following distance is unsafe at *any* speed.
Same geek, same site, new location
Phil Stracchino Landline: 603-429-0220
phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net Mobile: 603-216-7037
Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker, Free Stater
More information about the rescue