OT anti-lock brakes.

Page 2 of 6  

mm wrote:

Hi, Had you winter tires on your car?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Baltimore. Not much snow or ice until 3 years ago. Most people use all-season and so do I.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Hi, Stopping straight and avoiding going out of control is two different thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Correct - I've stopped sideways under full control on occaisions
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/23/2011 6:45 AM, Hank wrote:

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not breaking. If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after one close call.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars that had ABS vs those that do not. One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Of course. It's like putting your foot on a dead groundhog only to find that it's still moving. You have to get your foot off right away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think anti-lock would have far less effect on dry pavement, but could still come into operation. The system is looking for unusual differences in wheel speed during braking. For example if one wheel stopped turning while the others continued, it would reduce braking pressure on that wheel to stop it from skidding. That wheel could be the one skidding because of tire condition, inflation, cornering forces, etc. I also think it's possible it could actually increase braking distance on dry pavement, while at the same time increasing directional control. And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind under the circumstances cited, is at fault.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the case everywhere I have lived. If you can't stop in time then you were to close to begin with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

That's probably true, but, I had a case where traffic suddenly stopped on a busy interstate. It was a little wet. I stood on the brake of a Park Ave. The anti-locks did their pulsing thing and the car stopped a foot or 2 from the car in front of me. But then, I looked in the rear view mirror and the car in back was still going about 45 or so. He hit me hard and pushed me in the the car in front of me and actually that car hit the car in front of it also. Only that one person in the back car got the ticket and 3 of the 4 cars involve all hit a car in front of them. Surveying the carnage the cop said, "I know you all had your seat belts on or there would have been injuries." Only the cars were injured.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you are in control of the seperation, And that's certainly the vast majority of cases. However, consider the case where you have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. You can't stop in time and hit him. In that case, it's the other person's fault.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

May depend on the state (or the cop). I was riding one night and that happened. The cop gave the cut-offer the ticket. Don't recall the exact charge, but IN has a law on un-safe lane changes and that was considered (by the cop anyway) to qualify.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does that law in your state say that it's always the fault of the person in the rear, "unless the cop witnessed an unsafe lane change?" Somehow I doubt that and I also doubt there is any law in your state that actually says it's always the fault of the driver that's behind. Nor could you possibly know the motor vehicle laws in all 50 states.
I'd bet in the example Kurt cited, if the driver in back sued the driver who cut him off and who he hit, he'd win for damages. Or consider the case of a car that goes out of control, crosses three lanes, winds up ahead of you and you wind up hitting them. Fact is it's very high probability it's the driver in back's fault, because the usual problem is that it's a case of following to closely, not paying attention, etc. But it's not established by law and sometimes it's not the fault of the person behind. The above being examples. If you have a law that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.

No problem there. Motorists claim all kinds of things. It's up to a judge to then decide based on evidence and witnesses who is telling the truth and what really happened.

Nice way to behave on the roads. Hope I'm not anywhere near you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're the one claiming it's simple and the law says the person who runs into you from behind is ALWAYS at fault. First, you could not possibly know the MV laws in all 50 states. Second, I'd like to see the law from ANY one state that actually says that.

That's exactly the whole point. It;'s the totality of all the evidence available that has to be weighed to determine who is at fault.

Simply not true. Kurt gave you a good example of a guy who passed him on a multi-lane road, then cut in front of him and slammed on the brakes. A cop saw it and gave the OTHER GUY THE TICKET. You yourself said you had done similar, by deliberately slamming on the brakes when someone was following closely behind you. So, let's say the guy who hit you sues you for damages. Are you telling us you think you could go to court, tell the judge "Yeah, I deliberately slammed on the brakes to mess with him, but the law says it's always his fault" and you'd prevail? As I said before, I'd like to see that law.
You're confusing two different things. The law and who USUALLY loses. Under the law, the loser is the guy who is proven to be negligent and thereby caused the accident. In the case of what you did, or in the case of what happened to Kurt, that person would be the person in front, who wound up getting hit. In the vast majority of rear end collisions, you don't have that happening. It's usually a case of following too close or failing to pay attention. However, if you have good credible evidence that it was in fact the person ahead of you who was negligent, then you clearly can win in court. An example would be a driver in another car or someone walking on the street that witnessed what happened and can state that the other driver cut you off then slammed on the brakes.
Still don't believe me? Here's an attorney's opinion:
http://www.caraccidentattorneys.com/resources/personal-injury/auto-accidents/rear-end-fault.htm
"Rear end accidents are amongst the most common types of car accidents that occur, and generally speaking, the driver of the car that rear ends someone is placed at fault and liable for all property damage and injury. However, liability and negligence in a rear end accident is not always as clear as that. We will discuss some issues of fault, negligence, and liable injuries for rear end accidents."
And a state trooper:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2008/08/25/rear-end-accident-whos-at-fault /
"Q: I have heard that no matter what, if a vehicle rear-ends someone, regardless of the nature of the accident, t is always said drivers fault. Is there any truth to this?
A: From State Patrol Trooper Keith Trowbridge:
No, that is not always the case in a rear-end collision. Many circumstances affect the decision to cite a driver in a collision.
The State Patrol looks at the totality of the circumstances when deciding to cite drivers. That being said, generally most people who rear-end other vehicles are found to be at fault and cited.
Here are a couple of examples of collisions where drivers probably would not be cited:
When someone makes an unsafe lane change in front of your vehicle and brakes at the same time, causing you to rear-end the vehicle that cut you off.
When your vehicle is stopped for traffic and rear-ended by another vehicle, causing your vehicle to strike the vehicle in front of you."

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also dangerous, illegal and even worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:58:17 -0700, Smitty Two

If you were joking about something you hadn't done, that would be morbid but okay. But you say you did it. You're just lucky.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:21:35 -0700, Smitty Two

That's big of you. If you want to accept the odds you'll be killed, fine, but it's the other two cars that crashed and the people in the other two cars who would have been injured or killed. You have no right to put them in that position.

I ddon't care who is more lucky. What they do is no excuse for what you did.
If people tailgate you, slow down or pull over until they pass you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:28:18 -0700, Smitty Two

Not the girlfriend in the passenger seat, and not the driver behind him, and even for him, his putting himself in a dangerous position doesn't entitle you to intentionally do something that might kill him (and her). Admit it. You should have pulled over to let him pass or slowed down until he went around you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:51:10 -0700, Smitty Two

You can have the last word (if you don't count these 6, oops, 14).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:21:35 -0700, Smitty Two

I understand that it was only once in 40 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.