OT anti-lock brakes.

[Twayne]

As opposed to NOT stopping! Once a wheel locks up, nearly all traction/stopping power is lost from that tire. Boy, there are some stupid allegations beng made in this thread.

IF you do not brake hard enough to lock up a tire, absolutely nothing is any different than not having anti-lock. If one does lock up a tire, the brake quickly releases to let the tire start turning again and then braking is reapplied (wthin milliseconds), adding back the lost traction from the lockup. The actiion repeats until the car either stops or the brake pedal is released. So rather than a locked up, low-traction tire/s, you have the added traction replaced and one of the by products of that is by not being locked up momentarily, some semblence of steering ability is returned if it's a front tire, less if it's a back tire. Usually the back tires will lock up first, because in a hard stop, the vehicle's weight is thrown forward, with mass placing more weight on the front tires while the back tires tend to lift, losing traction compared to the front tires.

One thing about the court system anywhere: Regardless of who's really right or wrong, if it's a law, it's a law; there's very seldom any way around it but to prove there were extenuating circumstances that skews the law so it can't be directly applied. But often there's another that can, depending on the type of court.

Neither did my Gram; but then again, she never drove a car or even had a license.

You appear to be anti-brained, in the context of your usage IMO. I never had any trouble in winter driving either because I learned to drive on ice & snow early & knew how to pump the brakes and recover direction of travel if I needed it. And I knew what speeds hills & curves could be negotiated. Fortunately I knew how to drive and how to perform on ice & snow as a result. But that does NOT mean in any way that anti-lock brakes didn't improve the situatons considerably. However, the appearance of ant-lock brakes has always been "fun" to have for me. And it certainly stops me a LOT faster than any physical pedal-pumping can do on ice, is never noticeable on clean, dry roads, and a superb addition to any vehicle that can use anti-lock brakes. No way is the pedal-return/rest to braking manually going to outperform the incredibly fast pumping anti-lock brakes can provide. Anyone that says differenty is guessing, has listened to a few of the posters here, or misread something because they are wrong and have very likely never actually had any actual comparative experiences.

Let's hope if there are more people going to post here, that they are either already knowledgeable OR at least take the time to research the subject a bit.

HTH,

Twayne`

[Twayne]

My current vehicle seems to shut them off at about 12 mph last I tested it.

[Twayne]

...

But, that IS the spirit of the law because it's common sense.

...

"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies in small claims courts when asking for damages. Most small claims courts don't allow large enough settlements to make using them of any advantage. These cases will go to courts, depending on their size and the insurance companies, where the old evidence rules apply. They are quite clear, by the way.

He can do that by saying

Never heard of that! What state is this and what country?

Not at all; boy, let's bring some reality in here!

HTH,

Twayne`

[mm]

That may be the only place you have come across it, but preponderance applies in all civil courts, all lawsuits by one person or corporation against another. It's not limited to small claims by any means. What would the standard of proof be if not preponderance in a contract case where Ford sues IBM for 50 million dollars? Or where you sued Ford for selling an unsafe car that injured you? Do you want it to be beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think, even if one wants an injunction, specific performance, or other non-money relief, the standard used to decide if you get one is preponderance.

In civil cases, all the evidence is added together and judged as a whole by that one standard, preponderance.

In criminal cases, proof of guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but affirmative defenses have two possible standards, depending on what state one is in. I was wrong when I said it just a preonderance, it can be "clear and convincing". Both standards are lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[4] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.[citation needed]" This third situation would be an even lower standard than the other two.

I'll have to think about the ramifications of this later: "An affirmative defense can be different from a negating defense. A negating defense is one which tends to negate an essential element of the state's case. An example might be a mistake of fact claim in a prosecution for intentional drug possession, where the defendant asserted that he or she mistakenly believed that the object possessed was an innocent substance like oregano. Because this defense simply shows that an essential element of the offense is not present, the defendant does not have any burden of persuasion with regards to a negating defense. At most the defendant has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to raise the issue." I guess this means that if the defendant has some evidence that raises the issue, and that causes reasonable doubt in the jury, that's all the defendant has to do. There is no particular standard of proof required.

What "old" evidence rules?

Not sure if you're asking me or the guy before me, but...

In any USA state,"in a two car accident most places these days will apply 50:50 at fault". There are a lot of states that use "comparitive negligence", and dividing the negligence equally is common, I"m sure, but they're not applying "50:50". They're applying comparative negligence which can be anywhere from 1:99 to 99:1.

"Contributory negligence" used to be a more common rule, that if one party A was mostly at fault and B was somewhat at fault, even just a little bit, B couldn't recover anything from A. I don't know how that rule got started, but most states have decided it's not fair.

I agree with you here.

[mm]

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.

[mm]

I understand that it was only once in 40 years.

[clare]

In the US of A that IS the way it is in many cases. Try fighting homeland security, or the DEA

[clare]

I won't say NEVER, but seldom

[clare]

I've done it too - Not hard enough to cause an accident, or even the likelihood of one - but enough to make the trucker behind remember that I could outstop him about 3:1, and unless he wanted to have an at fault accident he better back off to a safe distance.

This only after having tapped the brakes enough to just put on the brake lights several times as a hint. 3 flashes of the brake tlights, then just enough brake to make the car dive a bit, and the back end come up.

When he's close enough behind that I can't see his headlights in a PT cruiser he's WAY too close!!!

[Twayne]

No I don't, but; that's how it is. That's also why you need lawyers in any federal court and most state courts.

Apples & oranges, neither. Ah! This is too much to bother reading; parroting a few things that seem to agree with you isn't reality.

[Twayne]

When I worked at Hammond Organ in Chgo, I happened to look out the stairway window and saw an acquaintance do a quick-stop on a 4-lane crowded city street. He got tapped. He got out of his car carryng a tire iron to go talk to the truck driver and the truck driver got out wth a gun in his hand! When he got back into his car, he didn't even turn into our parkng lot but drove off, so the truck driver wouldn't know where he worked, he said later. Funny as hell at the time but it could have been serious. He took a lot of ribbing over it as by the tme it was over there were about 6 of us standing there watchng out the 1 1/2 flr stair window.

I'll often use the triple-tap on a trucker behind me because most of the time they'll back off for you unless they're looking to pass. For cars I either ignore them or if there's enough room n front of me I'll slow down and force them to pass. Once they pass or back off, then I'll resume whatever speed traffic is moving at and almost always end up right behind them again.

[mm]

No it's not.

"Preponderance of the evidence Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases.

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. ....

Beyond reasonable doubt This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. ... The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy."

No, there are other reasons for that.

[trader4]

Of course, once again you are correct. And last time I checked laws also don't have spirits. It's what the law says and the appropriate case law that count.

I have no idea what he's talking about either.

Now that I have to disagree with. First, clearly this is not true when it comes to adjudicating motor vehicle tickets. And the only place where it would be close to true would be for damage cases that qualify in states that have no fault insurance laws. Even there, they are not saying the accident fault was 50-50. They are only saying by law that each drivers insurance company pays their own insured without regard to who was at fault. Meaning they want to reduce litigation and costs associated with it. Even then, it only applies to cases that meet certain standards of the injuries being non-severe. If you seriously injure someone, then it can be litigated the normal way, which means determining who is at fault.

[trader4]

You must be referring to your own allegation above. On dry pavement a locked up wheel does not "lose nearly all stopping power". If it did, we would not be seeing black tire marks left on pavement for 100 ft or so until the car stopped. Those of us who have been around before ABS know that not only do you see these short skid marks, but cars without ABS did in fact stop in relatively short distances with locked wheels. If what you claim were true, we'd see these cars continuing on down the road for thousands of feet. In short, you've misapplied what happens on wet, low traction surfaces to dry surfaces.

The main and critical advantage that ABS brings is not related to stopping distance. And I'm not sure you can state that they will always stop a car under any conditions faster than a conventional braking system. The big advantage they are supposed to bring is that they allow the driver to maintain control of the car and avoid skidding out of control. And even that is questionable. I remember seeing a study a few years ago that looked at serious accident statistics and fatalities of accidents with and without ABS. There was no evidence that ABS was reducing those accidents.

This coming from the guy who just claimed a locked wheel on dry pavement has lost almost all it's stopping ability. And the guy who claimed in this thread that the standard of preponderance of evidence only applies in small claims court. Go figure.

[mm]

As well you should. It was gobbledy gook. Looking back at my post, I can only guess at what happened, that I started a sentence and then put more stuff in almost at the front, and ended up saying, confusingly, the opposite of what I meant to say.

The most likely thing I was going to say was:

WRT what someone said a couple posts ago,"in a two car accident most places these days will apply 50:50 at fault": There are a lot of states that use "comparitive negligence", and dividing the negligence equally is common, I"m sure, but they're not applying "50:50". They're applying comparative negligence which can be anywhere from 1:99 to 99:1.

Yes, all true.

[trader4]

,

Twayne, you've brought a sling shot to a gun fight. I can't believe that you continue to drone on and make an ass of yourself instead of learn from your mistakes. The simple fact is MM is right. In civil cases, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, clearly it's exceeded your knowledge level.

[Harry K]

It mayi be the "assumption" from which people work but it is _not_ written into the law as such.

Harry K

[Tony Hwang]

Hi, If you rear end some one, 99% of time you are at fault. ABS is for safe stopping not shortest stopping. He had a poor excuse.

[Tony Hwang]

Hi, Any owner. manual talks about this.

[Tony Hwang]

Hi, Stopping straight and avoiding going out of control is two different thing.