roadcraft site

"Kevin Gleeson" <kevingleeson.RemoveThis@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
> <toosmoky.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In drag racing, a 0.4 second reaction time is considered perfect.
>>
>>First time I took the Pig for a run a got a 0.411 reaction time. Was
>>pipped for the prize for the best reaction time of the meet by some
>>arseclown who got 0.409. Beaten by two-thousandths of a second...
>
> Yeah, but that is when you are anticipating something happening. When
> you aren't expecting anything, about 1.5 would be a closer bet.
>
Mate; if you're riding but NOT anticipating something happening (or
EVERYTHING happening) then you're gonna' get hurt no matter how much of a
gap you leave!
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers DeleteThis @bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:47c33009$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>> Yeah, but that is when you are anticipating something happening. When
>> you aren't expecting anything, about 1.5 would be a closer bet.
>
> I doubt I'd react even that fast on the Nullarbor if an emu suddenly
> appeared in front of me.
>
My belief is that in most circumstances people DO react in sufficient time
to avoid a crash... It's just that in a lot of cases they do the WRONG
thing as a result of that reaction!!
I've certainly done it myself. I've had crashes where had I NOT reacted I
would've been OK but the very fact that I had a lightning reaction resulted
in pain and gravel-rash!
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers.DeleteThis@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Seriously though, in the cut and thrust of city traffic, with
> lane-splitting etc, you might achieve a reaction time of between .5 and 1
> second. After riding for six or more hours with no traffic going your way
> and a vehicle coming the other way every 20 minutes or so, your reaction
> time to an unexpectant event, (emu travelling at 40+kms/h crossing the
> road at right angles), is going to be slower than that.
>
Yeah but I've been in sort-of that situation and I've been surprised that my
body HAS reacted even though my mind wasn't really on-the-subject.
I've genuinely been surprised that I'd already dropped 30kph and set myself
up for evasive action before I've even consciously worked out what's going
on.
I seriously doubt that you did absolutely NOTHING for 1.5 to 2 seconds after
you saw the movement of that emu.
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:54:59 GMT, "Knobdoodle"
<knobdoodle.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Kevin Gleeson" <kevingleeson.DeleteThis@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>> <toosmoky.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In drag racing, a 0.4 second reaction time is considered perfect.
>>>
>>>First time I took the Pig for a run a got a 0.411 reaction time. Was
>>>pipped for the prize for the best reaction time of the meet by some
>>>arseclown who got 0.409. Beaten by two-thousandths of a second...
>>
>> Yeah, but that is when you are anticipating something happening. When
>> you aren't expecting anything, about 1.5 would be a closer bet.
>>
>Mate; if you're riding but NOT anticipating something happening (or
>EVERYTHING happening) then you're gonna' get hurt no matter how much of a
>gap you leave!

Haven't done so yet

Yeah, I know what you are saying, but I still don't think .4 seconds
is a good mark to refer to. I doubt whether that 1.5 second value was
plucked out of thin air, I'm sure it was researched.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers.RemoveThis@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> Seriously though, in the cut and thrust of city traffic, with
>> lane-splitting etc, you might achieve a reaction time of between .5
>> and 1 second. After riding for six or more hours with no traffic
>> going your way and a vehicle coming the other way every 20 minutes
>> or so, your reaction time to an unexpectant event, (emu travelling
>> at 40+kms/h crossing the road at right angles), is going to be
>> slower than that.
> Yeah but I've been in sort-of that situation and I've been surprised
> that my body HAS reacted even though my mind wasn't really
> on-the-subject. I've genuinely been surprised that I'd already dropped
> 30kph and set
> myself up for evasive action before I've even consciously worked out
> what's going on.
> I seriously doubt that you did absolutely NOTHING for 1.5 to 2
> seconds after you saw the movement of that emu.

There wasn't that much time. The truckie behind me thought I'd hit a gravel
patch (it was on a bend). He didn't even see the emu until I pointed it out
to him. It was still under the bike.

I mean for Christs' sake, there are no predators, why do emus need to be
camouflaged. Couldn't they come in dayglo?

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> I mean for Christs' sake, there are no predators, why do emus need to be
> camouflaged. Couldn't they come in dayglo?
>

Setting aside the fact that these things evolved before the dinosaurs
went extinct, when there probably were one or two raptors around, what
would you call human beings and dingoes if not predators?

Consider yourself lucky. Its extinct relative the Elephant Bird of
Madagascar apparently weighed 450kg, compared to your average 60kg emu.

--
Cheers

Andrew
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Feb 29, 4:03 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee... RemoveThis @imagine-it.com.au>
wrote:

> Yeah, I know what you are saying, but I still don't think .4 seconds
> is a good mark to refer to. I doubt whether that 1.5 second value was
> plucked out of thin air, I'm sure it was researched.

The RTA can employ as many researchers as they like determining what
an average person's reaction time is, etc. but when someone in another
department is writing a learner book, creating examples which
specifically highlight the importance of considering reaction time,
gap distance, speed, even if they do refer to the research, do you
think they're going to use an example which show the best case
scenario, or the worst case scenario?

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:02:33 -0800 (PST), "Nev.." <idiot.TakeThisOut@mindless.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 29, 4:03 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee....TakeThisOut@imagine-it.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I know what you are saying, but I still don't think .4 seconds
>> is a good mark to refer to. I doubt whether that 1.5 second value was
>> plucked out of thin air, I'm sure it was researched.
>
>The RTA can employ as many researchers as they like determining what
>an average person's reaction time is, etc. but when someone in another
>department is writing a learner book, creating examples which
>specifically highlight the importance of considering reaction time,
>gap distance, speed, even if they do refer to the research, do you
>think they're going to use an example which show the best case
>scenario, or the worst case scenario?
>
>Nev..
>'07 XB12X

Yeah, no denying that.

I still think it is going to be more like a second than half a second
in most circumstances . . .
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:02:33 -0800 (PST), "Nev.." <idiot.RemoveThis@mindless.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 4:03 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee....RemoveThis@imagine-it.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you are saying, but I still don't think .4 seconds
>>> is a good mark to refer to. I doubt whether that 1.5 second value was
>>> plucked out of thin air, I'm sure it was researched.
>> The RTA can employ as many researchers as they like determining what
>> an average person's reaction time is, etc. but when someone in another
>> department is writing a learner book, creating examples which
>> specifically highlight the importance of considering reaction time,
>> gap distance, speed, even if they do refer to the research, do you
>> think they're going to use an example which show the best case
>> scenario, or the worst case scenario?
>>
>> Nev..
>> '07 XB12X
>
> Yeah, no denying that.
>
> I still think it is going to be more like a second than half a second
> in most circumstances . . .

I think people are confusing reaction time with time taken to begin
braking. I think that, when you're waiting for something to happen,
there's approximately a 1/3 second reaction between seeing something and
your muscles starting to move. Then there's the time taken to actually
grab the brake lever, set up the suspension and start effective braking.
I can easily see 1.5 seconds in that.

The big problem is that, in most cases, you leave a 2 second gap, and it
gets filled by other traffic. Gaps of less than a second are pretty much
the norm from what I've seen - unfortunately.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:12:42 +1000
Peter Cremasco <Firstname.Lastname.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote:
> The big problem is that, in most cases, you leave a 2 second gap, and it
> gets filled by other traffic. Gaps of less than a second are pretty much
> the norm from what I've seen - unfortunately.

I find it depends.

If my lane is moving faster than the other, then it gets filled
sometimes yes. It's not a given though.

If there's a lot of traffic so that most people leave less of a gap,
then the gap I leave is more obvious, but if the traffic is also
moving at a reasonable rate, say within 10-15% of the speed limit,
then there's not that much lane changing going on.

Does depend on the time of day too. If it's getting closer to a usual
deadline, such as 9am, then there's more traffic carving as people
feel they are late.

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:44:03 GMT, Andrew McKenna
<NOcmorSPAM3047 DeleteThis @NObigpond.SPAMnet.au> wrote:

>Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>> I mean for Christs' sake, there are no predators, why do emus need to be
>> camouflaged. Couldn't they come in dayglo?
>>
>
>Setting aside the fact that these things evolved before the dinosaurs
>went extinct, when there probably were one or two raptors around, what
>would you call human beings and dingoes if not predators?
>


>Consider yourself lucky. Its extinct relative the Elephant Bird of
>Madagascar apparently weighed 450kg.
*sigh* I remember them well - hard to skin and they took a fair while
to cook - but the wait was worth it!

Johno

Beer?
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site