OT: Sens Lounge -The four seasons edition

[Beech]

not sure if it under counted, when the smallest granularity is 0.5 cubic metres. Seems like it would balance out, some times higher sometimes lower.

0.5 cubic metres is 500 litres of water, that allows for a lot of variance each way.
so more accurate the better.

Will take awhile to generate revenue when considering the upfront cost of purchasing the metres, and installation costs.

Wind currents are down from the artic over western Canada. They pass east of the Rockies. Once far enough south (roughly Texas), they climb again. This time they travel along the mountain ranges of the Eastern USA.

They deposit over Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec.

So, we get American pollution, American NOx, COx and so on. That makes for acid rain.

Acid rain melts the bedrock. The melting yields Calcium Carbonate.. In water, it precipitates out and we call it scale.

A scientist some while ago by the name of Langelier did a great deal of work, and produced the Langelier index. It takes water parameters, such as hardness, alkalinity, ph. temperature and so on and produces an index.

It is a fairly straight forward calculation. It relies heavily on normalizing these parameters, so the LOG scale is used. An index of above 1, means the water is likely to scale, below 1 means the water is corrosive.

Ottawa water is above 1. And so scale hurts us. It clogs things.. And so delicate water meters clog and gunk up. Once that happens, they under report. And so it is not uncommon for a meter to be 1-10% below true reading.

The city probably pushes 1 M^3 per Ottawa resident, per Month. So a million M^3.. at the high end, the system may be registering 100,000 M^3 less. At the $5-$10 / M^3. The city is out 500K- 1 M... So, 600 K -12 M a year.... Peanuts!!!!

Now, you go to Edsel Ford and he approves a delivery charge hike... You see the city needs Edsel's permission to hike delivery charges.

Now the city adds $15 delivery charge.. at 300,000 Ottawa homes, 100,000 businesses.. you have 400,000 users at $15.. that is a cool $6 M a month, or 72 M a year.. Add to it the 600K to 12 M in water consumption. And you have added 73-84 M to city coffers.

Markie Mark was not born yesterday, Nor was Edsel, Nor are the 26 little dwarfs.

By the way, there is no cure for water if the Langelier index is above one, other than filtration and possibly and RO/DI system. Any of these options, can trip the water into having an index of -1 or lower. Making the water corrosive. So now, you need to have a sacrificial anode to treat the corrosive component. Either an easy to "dissolve metal", or an acid neutralizer, which is some form of a soft ceramic. I had a patent application, but left the company before it was finalized. I am not sure if it was ever awarded.

Old Markie Mark has a 140 M transit deficit. A city that is collapsing with no true industry/corporate base. The Feds have abandoned him. Edsel does not like us, we are Liberal. The city does not have a Pot to Piss in.

No road work, no maintenance, no nothing the last 10 years. Earlier this year they hired a company to go after old ticket holder. They were ruining people's credit rating. 5 K over the limit photo radar. Ticketing left right and center ( a bylaw officer must have nested on my street, my poor neighbours were eaten alive). Now the meter change..

Markie Mark and his 26 dwarfs have no money and are chasing ambulances to get any dime they can.

The next scheme is around the corner.. Pay toilets are next. We will be nickeled and dimed to death the next 2-5 years. .

 

[Micklebot]

In case you are wondering, they have been at it since 8 AM. Are schools closed today?

French catholic has a PD day, not sure about the other boards.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Wind currents are down from the artic over western Canada. They pass east of the Rockies. Once far enough south (roughly Texas), they climb again. This time they travel along the mountain ranges of the Eastern USA.

They deposit over Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec.

So, we get American pollution, American NOx, COx and so on. That makes for acid rain.

Acid rain melts the bedrock. The melting yields Calcium Carbonate.. In water, it precipitates out and we call it scale.

A scientist some while ago by the name of Langelier did a great deal of work, and produced the Langelier index. It takes water parameters, such as hardness, alkalinity, ph. temperature and so on and produces an index.

It is a fairly straight forward calculation. It relies heavily on normalizing these parameters, so the LOG scale is used. An index of above 1, means the water is likely to scale, below 1 means the water is corrosive.

Ottawa water is above 1. And so scale hurts us. It clogs things.. And so delicate water meters clog and gunk up. Once that happens, they under report. And so it is not uncommon for a meter to be 1-10% below true reading.

The city probably pushes 1 M^3 per Ottawa resident, per Month. So a million M^3.. at the high end, the system may be registering 100,000 M^3 less. At the $5-$10 / M^3. The city is out 500K- 1 M... So, 600 K -12 M a year.... Peanuts!!!!

Now, you go to Edsel Ford and he approves a delivery charge hike... You see the city needs Edsel's permission to hike delivery charges.

Now the city adds $15 delivery charge.. at 300,000 Ottawa homes, 100,000 businesses.. you have 400,000 users at $15.. that is a cool $6 M a month, or 72 M a year.. Add to it the 600K to 12 M in water consumption. And you have added 73-84 M to city coffers.

Markie Mark was not born yesterday, Nor was Edsel, Nor are the 26 little dwarfs.

By the way, there is no cure for water if the Langelier index is above one, other than filtration and possibly and RO/DI system. Any of these options, can trip the water into having an index of -1 or lower. Making the water corrosive. So now, you need to have a sacrificial anode to treat the corrosive component. Either an easy to "dissolve metal", or an acid neutralizer, which is some form of a soft ceramic. I had a patent application, but left the company before it was finalized. I am not sure if it was ever awarded.

Old Markie Mark has a 140 M transit deficit. A city that is collapsing with no true industry/corporate base. The Feds have abandoned him. Edsel does not like us, we are Liberal. The city does not have a Pot to Piss in.

No road work, no maintenance, no nothing the last 10 years. Earlier this year they hired a company to go after old ticket holder. They were ruining people's credit rating. 5 K over the limit photo radar. Ticketing left right and center ( a bylaw officer must have nested on my street, my poor neighbours were eaten alive). Now the meter change..

Markie Mark and his 26 dwarfs have no money and are chasing ambulances to get any dime they can.

The next scheme is around the corner.. Pay toilets are next. We will be nickeled and dimed to death the next 2-5 years. .

Sure whatever, then why are complaining they’re changing metres, make up your mind.

 

[mysens]

Is anyone watching the Presidents Cup PGA? Holy cow, what a turn of events yesterday! Should be an incredible one today and the rest of the weekend!

 

[coladin]

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

View attachment 910543

 

[mysens]

What an amazing experience

 

[thinkwild]

City of Ottawa is having a name the Snowplow contest. I mean Plowy McPlowface is there for the taking. Maybe bring back those old snow plow commercials too.

 

[jbeck5]

I wonder what the numbers are on the age demographic of collisions caused. Is that data easily available? Young people need to mature as drivers, and that's one area I think they should be smacked down more and sooner with traffic violations be it pulled over or a camera ticket. Whenever I see someone going way too fast (not just a little over), speeding through a school zone, or most times I have a close call with someone obviously on their cell phone, they look like they're about 18 years old.

Can we look at data for unskilled drivers and how many accidents they cause, and also, what type of demographic they are?

I find more often than not, there is some completely clueless driver not knowing what to do...like stopped in the middle of traffic talking on their phone with the car off last week, and no hazard lights, for example. Caused 20 mins of traffic for no reason.

I'm more scared of an unskilled driver than I am of a young driver.

We need to make tests tougher, and make them mandatory every once in a while. Should have to complete an obstacle course in a certain amount of time without hitting any cones, to show you have skill. To show you can 3 point turn, or parallel park, of make a last second avoidance manoeuvre without taking a minute to do it and causing a huge traffic jam.

 

[Beech]

Sure whatever, then why are complaining they’re changing metres, make up your mind.

I answered, it got deleted

 

[Beech]

Saw them in Manotick at around 12:30 pm. They were heading up River towards Ottawa.

Police officers from across Ontario participate in 'Run to Remember' from Toronto to Ottawa

Police officers from all over Ontario have been running from Toronto to Ottawa the past few days for the National Police Officers' Memorial Run (NPOMR).

ottawa.ctvnews.ca

 

[Relapsing]

Can we look at data for unskilled drivers and how many accidents they cause, and also, what type of demographic they are?

I find more often than not, there is some completely clueless driver not knowing what to do...like stopped in the middle of traffic talking on their phone with the car off last week, and no hazard lights, for example. Caused 20 mins of traffic for no reason.

I'm more scared of an unskilled driver than I am of a young driver.

We need to make tests tougher, and make them mandatory every once in a while. Should have to complete an obstacle course in a certain amount of time without hitting any cones, to show you have skill. To show you can 3 point turn, or parallel park, of make a last second avoidance manoeuvre without taking a minute to do it and causing a huge traffic jam.

I'm all for regular re-testing. I would gladly do so. I know I'm not a perfect driver because no one is. Bad habits have a way of creeping in over time, and no one is infallible.

I hesitate to refer to personal experience, as I don't believe it's really representative of the average. That said, I could point to dozens of times this year alone where I have witnessed drivers of all stripes being utterly reckless, putting themselves and others in danger, whether it's on the highway, a collector, a traffic filled downtown street, or a quiet neighborhood side street.

Hell, I've almost been smoked 3 times as a pedestrian in a crosswalk in broad daylight this year alone. One wonderful lady who stopped less than a foot from my shins after turning left on a fresh green cried out she didn't see me there. In the middle of the god damned day.

For all the complaints about speed cameras and speed limits and blah blah blah, a polite reminder to the drivers in here that your impatience isn't worth risking someone else's health and wellbeing. You aren't perfect. You will make mistakes. And if you can't be bothered to be present while behind the wheel, then you should either be forced to relearn how to drive, or have the priveledge revoked entirely.

 

[jbeck5]

I'm all for regular re-testing. I would gladly do so. I know I'm not a perfect driver because no one is. Bad habits have a way of creeping in over time, and no one is infallible.

I hesitate to refer to personal experience, as I don't believe it's really representative of the average. That said, I could point to dozens of times this year alone where I have witnessed drivers of all stripes being utterly reckless, putting themselves and others in danger, whether it's on the highway, a collector, a traffic filled downtown street, or a quiet neighborhood side street.

Hell, I've almost been smoked 3 times as a pedestrian in a crosswalk in broad daylight this year alone. One wonderful lady who stopped less than a foot from my shins after turning left on a fresh green cried out she didn't see me there. In the middle of the god damned day.

For all the complaints about speed cameras and speed limits and blah blah blah, a polite reminder to the drivers in here that your impatience isn't worth risking someone else's health and wellbeing. You aren't perfect. You will make mistakes. And if you can't be bothered to be present while behind the wheel, then you should either be forced to relearn how to drive, or have the priveledge revoked entirely.

I have no problems with people mildy speeding provided they are skilled, and like you said, paying attention and present.

I find the speed limits are off (some are too high, some are too low) but generally, I would rather drive with people that go 10 or 20 over but are skilled, then people who drive under the speed limit but are horribly unskilled drivers.

Speed does kill, but unskilled drivers also kill, and then also piss off everyone on the road around them.

I will add clueless drivers to unskilled....like the ones who don't know you shouldn't just block a lane because you changed your mind, which I see people do all the time lol like "oh shit, wrong lane...let me just block this open lane until someone lets me in rather than going around and not blocking an open lane" which we often see downtown.


It's like 9/10 of the traffic jams I see aren't caused by an accident or by too many cars, but rather by one or two idiots doing something idiotic blocking a lane without realizing they're going to create some massive ripple affect traffic jam because they can't keep it flowing.

 

[Relapsing]

I have no problems with people mildy speeding provided they are skilled, and like you said, paying attention and present.

I find the speed limits are off (some are too high, some are too low) but generally, I would rather drive with people that go 10 or 20 over but are skilled, then people who drive under the speed limit but are horribly unskilled drivers.

Speed does kill, but unskilled drivers also kill, and then also piss off everyone on the road around them.

I will add clueless drivers to unskilled....like the ones who don't know you shouldn't just block a lane because you changed your mind, which I see people do all the time lol like "oh shit, wrong lane...let me just block this open lane until someone lets me in rather than going around and not blocking an open lane" which we often see downtown.


It's like 9/10 of the traffic jams I see aren't caused by an accident or by too many cars, but rather by one or two idiots doing something idiotic blocking a lane without realizing they're going to create some massive ripple affect traffic jam because they can't keep it flowing.

To your point, I think the most important thing a driver needs to understand and exhibit is how to be predictable.

Unskilled drivers are at least more predictable than nervous drivers, which are probably the worst of the bunch. Neither of those kinds of drivers should be on the road without additional training, IMO.

Regarding speeding, consider this: Stopping distances based on speed is not a linear increase, it's exponential.

So even a skilled driver going 10km/h over in a 50 km/h zone requires something like an extra 10 meters to come to a stop in dry road conditions, or 13 meters in wet road conditions. The average driver takes 1.5 seconds to react, and even at 50 km/h, that's around 20 meters of distance travelled before you hit the brakes. At 10 km/h over, that's 25 meters. At 20 km/h over, that's now almost 30 meters.

At 20 km/h over in a 50 zone, you're now at 21 meters and 28 meters of additional distance respectively before you come to a complete stop (total stop distance is 56m and 69m[nice]).

If the average person can run at 13 km/h, that's around 5 meters of distance travelled in that same 1.5 second reaction time to get out of the way of a driver.

In other words: Physics doesn't care about how skilled of a driver you are.

 

[jbeck5]

To your point, I think the most important thing a driver needs to understand and exhibit is how to be predictable.

Unskilled drivers are at least more predictable than nervous drivers, which are probably the worst of the bunch. Neither of those kinds of drivers should be on the road without additional training, IMO.

Regarding speeding, consider this: Stopping distances based on speed is not a linear increase, it's exponential.

So even a skilled driver going 10km/h over in a 50 km/h zone requires something like an extra 10 meters to come to a stop in dry road conditions, or 13 meters in wet road conditions. The average driver takes 1.5 seconds to react, and even at 50 km/h, that's around 20 meters of distance travelled before you hit the brakes. At 10 km/h over, that's 25 meters. At 20 km/h over, that's now almost 30 meters.

At 20 km/h over in a 50 zone, you're now at 21 meters and 28 meters of additional distance respectively before you come to a complete stop (total stop distance is 56m and 69m[nice]).

If the average person can run at 13 km/h, that's around 5 meters of distance travelled in that same 1.5 second reaction time to get out of the way of a driver.

In other words: Physics doesn't care about how skilled of a driver you are.

Reaction time would definitely be a part of the skill equation though...so you can't talk about reaction time and then say skill doesn't matter at the end.

Theres a video of a formula 1 drivers reaction time with I believe an NFL receiver where they're both trying to catch something that drops, and the F1 driver is so much quicker with his reaction. That's PART of the skill factor for sure. A skilled driver will also see the traffic ahead of the vehicle ahead of him start to brake and will be prepared. A skilled driver will also have checked all his mirrors and would know where to steer to avoid contact. These are all factors of what I'm talking about when I say skilled.

But what you mentioned about braking distance has me thinking as well...the type of car someone has makes a difference. If I see a gentleman in a Porsche speeding by 20, I'm less worried than a driver in a 2008 dodge ram speeding by 20.

I would wage that their braking distances at certain speeds are drastically different. Especially if the Porsche is maintained and the 16 year old ram isn't.

 

[Relapsing]

Reaction time would definitely be a part of the skill equation though...so you can't talk about reaction time and then say skill doesn't matter at the end.

Theres a video of a formula 1 drivers reaction time with I believe an NFL receiver where they're both trying to catch something that drops, and the F1 driver is so much quicker with his reaction. That's PART of the skill factor for sure. A skilled driver will also see the traffic ahead of the vehicle ahead of him start to brake and will be prepared. A skilled driver will also have checked all his mirrors and would know where to steer to avoid contact. These are all factors of what I'm talking about when I say skilled.

But what you mentioned about braking distance has me thinking as well...the type of car someone has makes a difference. If I see a gentleman in a Porsche speeding by 20, I'm less worried than a driver in a 2008 dodge ram speeding by 20.

I would wage that their braking distances at certain speeds are drastically different. Especially if the Porsche is maintained and the 16 year old ram isn't.

Here's a list of the top 100 cars by braking distance at 60mph (~95 km/h)

Top 100 quickest braking cars and bikes from 60 mph 2024 - FastestLaps.com

quickest braking cars and bikes from 60 mph

fastestlaps.com

How many of those do you see on the road at any given time?

Even within that top 100, the difference between first and last is around 45 feet at 95 km/h

F1 drivers are quite frankly a different breed. Their reaction times are near inhuman, given the typical spread of normal driver reaction times

1.5 second reaction time is an average of on-the-road drivers: there will be lower and higher reaction times. There is a lot of data available about F1 reaction times, but I think it's realistic to say they're around 1 second faster than the average person, if not faster.

Does the Porsche driver go through additional training to improve their reaction time? No. Do they have better brakes assuming regular maintenance? Of course.

Based on a consumer report from 2021, the average stop distances at 95 km/h for sports cars (best average results) is 120 feet, compared to 143 feet for large SUV's. Source: Cars, SUVs, and Trucks With the Best and Worst Braking Distances - Consumer Reports

Anyways, yes, skill is part of the equation, but only to a point. The rest is pure physics based on the car you're driving. And if the average is accurate, then 20 over isn't nearly as safe as some might want to think, and neither is 10 over.

 

[jbeck5]

Here's a list of the top 100 cars by braking distance at 60mph (~95 km/h)

Top 100 quickest braking cars and bikes from 60 mph 2024 - FastestLaps.com

quickest braking cars and bikes from 60 mph

fastestlaps.com

How many of those do you see on the road at any given time?

Even within that top 100, the difference between first and last is around 45 feet at 95 km/h

F1 drivers are quite frankly a different breed. Their reaction times are near inhuman, given the typical spread of normal driver reaction times

1.5 second reaction time is an average of on-the-road drivers: there will be lower and higher reaction times. There is a lot of data available about F1 reaction times, but I think it's realistic to say they're around 1 second faster than the average person, if not faster.

Does the Porsche driver go through additional training to improve their reaction time? No. Do they have better brakes assuming regular maintenance? Of course.

Based on a consumer report from 2021, the average stop distances at 95 km/h for sports cars (best average results) is 120 feet, compared to 143 feet for large SUV's. Source: Cars, SUVs, and Trucks With the Best and Worst Braking Distances - Consumer Reports

Anyways, yes, skill is part of the equation, but only to a point. The rest is pure physics based on the car you're driving. And if the average is accurate, then 20 over isn't nearly as safe as some might want to think, and neither is 10 over.

For sure there are a lot of factors. I was pointing to the ones I care about more.


To me, something like 25-40 ft or whatever is quite the distance. It can be the difference between stopping 3 ft shy of hitting them, and smashing right through them at 20-30km/h and causing potential permanent injuries...

So of course performance of car matters.

And then reaction time being a skill matters too. 1 second at 100km/h is almost 92 ft travelled.

So having a reaction time closer to 1 than 2(taking your 1.5 average) can make the difference of 92 ft. Add in the superior car, and it can be a total of 120 ft or so...

Can be the difference between stopping no problem and causing a 5 car accident.

 

[Micklebot]

For sure there are a lot of factors. I was pointing to the ones I care about more.


To me, something like 25-40 ft or whatever is quite the distance. It can be the difference between stopping 3 ft shy of hitting them, and smashing right through them at 20-30km/h and causing potential permanent injuries...

So of course performance of car matters.

And then reaction time being a skill matters too. 1 second at 100km/h is almost 92 ft travelled.

So having a reaction time closer to 1 than 2(taking your 1.5 average) can make the difference of 92 ft. Add in the superior car, and it can be a total of 120 ft or so...

Can be the difference between stopping no problem and causing a 5 car accident.

why would you convert 100km/h to ft per second? like, we have the metric system for a reason, damnit...

 

[Relapsing]

For sure there are a lot of factors. I was pointing to the ones I care about more.


To me, something like 25-40 ft or whatever is quite the distance. It can be the difference between stopping 3 ft shy of hitting them, and smashing right through them at 20-30km/h and causing potential permanent injuries...

So of course performance of car matters.

And then reaction time being a skill matters too. 1 second at 100km/h is almost 92 ft travelled.

So having a reaction time closer to 1 than 2(taking your 1.5 average) can make the difference of 92 ft. Add in the superior car, and it can be a total of 120 ft or so...

Can be the difference between stopping no problem and causing a 5 car accident

So if you start looking into distribution charts of perception reaction times, you'll see the lower bounds at around the .5 second mark, with upper thresholds ranging from 2-3 seconds.

How frequently does the person travelling at 100 km/h stopping have a faster perception reaction time than 1.5 seconds? As far as I can tell, it would be less frequent than someone exceeding the average.

For the sake of argument, lets use your example of someone travelling at 100 km/h in a high performance car with a higher than average perception reaction time. How do you factor in the people driving behind them? Do they also benefit from the same stopping ability and reaction times as the initial driver? While that initial driver may stop in time to prevent a 5 car accident, that doesn't mean the person behind them will.

In any event, we're still talking about non-insignificant distances, whether you're travelling at 50 km/h or 100+. While in some cases, improved car performance and perception reaction times may reduce the frequency of accidents, in other cases it becomes utterly irrelevant. To the pedestrian crossing the street, the difference between 1 and 1.5 second perceptive reaction times is still injury or death.

 

[jbeck5]

why would you convert 100km/h to ft per second? like, we have the metric system for a reason, damnit...

Because we were talking and how many ft it takes to stop... And we were talking about seconds of reaction time...

But I think you're being facetious.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Can we look at data for unskilled drivers and how many accidents they cause, and also, what type of demographic they are?

I find more often than not, there is some completely clueless driver not knowing what to do...like stopped in the middle of traffic talking on their phone with the car off last week, and no hazard lights, for example. Caused 20 mins of traffic for no reason.

I'm more scared of an unskilled driver than I am of a young driver.

We need to make tests tougher, and make them mandatory every once in a while. Should have to complete an obstacle course in a certain amount of time without hitting any cones, to show you have skill. To show you can 3 point turn, or parallel park, of make a last second avoidance manoeuvre without taking a minute to do it and causing a huge traffic jam.

I don't entirely disagree, but unskilled is not as easily correlated to youth and more random, I assume. Unskilled can mean a lot of things and have a lot of factors that affect all demographics to a certain extent. Some people will never be good drivers because they're low functioning and/or lack common sense. I just think there's likely statistics that show the learning curve of driving for youth is real. A large part of it is just maturity and respecting a machine, instead of driving with ego blinding you.

Of course it's entirely anecdotal, but if I had to label my close calls it would be heavy in youth that are driving way to fast and if they were being honest with themselves, are not "in control" of the vehicle, and same goes for cell phone use. The "unskilled" I find are the ones trying to lane change into me without looking, running yellow's too closely, not signaling, tailing too close.

Either way, I drive pretty defensively and am always scanning for the hazards that are often drivers themselves. It's scary sometimes.

 

[jbeck5]

So if you start looking into distribution charts of perception reaction times, you'll see the lower bounds at around the .5 second mark, with upper thresholds ranging from 2-3 seconds.

How frequently does the person travelling at 100 km/h stopping have a faster perception reaction time than 1.5 seconds? As far as I can tell, it would be less frequent than someone exceeding the average.

For the sake of argument, lets use your example of someone travelling at 100 km/h in a high performance car with a higher than average perception reaction time. How do you factor in the people driving behind them? Do they also benefit from the same stopping ability and reaction times as the initial driver? While that initial driver may stop in time to prevent a 5 car accident, that doesn't mean the person behind them will.

In any event, we're still talking about non-insignificant distances, whether you're travelling at 50 km/h or 100+. While in some cases, improved car performance and perception reaction times may reduce the frequency of accidents, in other cases it becomes utterly irrelevant. To the pedestrian crossing the street, the difference between 1 and 1.5 second perceptive reaction times is still injury or death.

A skilled driver also takes into account the people behind them to avoid collisions though.

I once stopped for a light very easily in winter, but the car behind me didn't (maybe all season tires instead of winter) so I could see that they were going to smack into me, so I looked to my left and saw no cars coming, so I advanced and turned right at the red. The car slid right through where I was and teetertot itself on the snow bank at the corner.

So that is a perfect example of a skilled driver stopping quicker than the car behind them, while using skill and know how to get out of the situation and avoid a collision. An unskilled driver would have panicked and just braced for the hit rather than make a quick reaction manoeuvre to avoid a collision.

I disagree with your claim at the bottom that 1-1.5 doesn't make a difference...that could be the difference between them being able to jump out of the way and you clipping them.

A decade ago I was driving down chemin de la montagne in Gatineau going around 80 on a Friday night along a straight section. A deer was running along a fence line and I couldnt see it until it was basically leaping across the road from my left to my right. I was driving a 4,000 pound Chrysler 300. I jammed on the breaks and slowed to about 40 before I clipped it's back legs with the right side of my vehicle. That deer was paralyzed and in pain and the police had to come shoot it dead. Very sad. Now my reaction time was very good. I was very awake and paying attention fully. But my genesis or Kona N stop about 15-20 ft quicker at 100 than the 300... That could be the difference between missing the deer, and clipping it's back legs.

Someone with worse reaction time or in a heavier car or worse performing car could have hit it dead on and have the deer come through the windshield.

 

[Relapsing]

A skilled driver also takes into account the people behind them to avoid collisions though.

I once stopped for a light very easily in winter, but the car behind me didn't (maybe all season tires instead of winter) so I could see that they were going to smack into me, so I looked to my left and saw no cars coming, so I advanced and turned right at the red. The car slid right through where I was and teetertot itself on the snow bank at the corner.

So that is a perfect example of a skilled driver stopping quicker than the car behind them, while using skill and know how to get out of the situation and avoid a collision. An unskilled driver would have panicked and just braced for the hit rather than make a quick reaction manoeuvre to avoid a collision.

I disagree with your claim at the bottom that 1-1.5 doesn't make a difference...that could be the difference between them being able to jump out of the way and you clipping them.

A decade ago I was driving down chemin de la montagne in Gatineau going around 80 on a Friday night along a straight section. A deer was running along a fence line and I couldnt see it until it was basically leaping across the road from my left to my right. I was driving a 4,000 pound Chrysler 300. I jammed on the breaks and slowed to about 40 before I clipped it's back legs with the right side of my vehicle. That deer was paralyzed and in pain and the police had to come shoot it dead. Very sad. Now my reaction time was very good. I was very awake and paying attention fully. But my genesis or Kona N stop about 15-20 ft quicker at 100 than the 300... That could be the difference between missing the deer, and clipping it's back legs.

Someone with worse reaction time or in a heavier car or worse performing car could have hit it dead on and have the deer come through the windshield.

I think we disagree on something fundamental: I think it's more common you're driving around an unskilled driver vs a skilled one.

Humorously, the first example you provided was having to drive defensively because you were in front of an unskilled driver that clearly did not have your reaction time. Along with driver reaction time and vehicle performance, if that deer was travelling any faster it would have been through your windshield, a factor that should not at all be ignored.

In the case of that deer, whitetail deer have a reaction time of around .16 seconds, and can run at around 56-64 km/h. No where comparable to a pedestrian (13 km/h average running speed). And you still hit it. And you had a bit more of a buffer because from your description, it was travelling from your left to right, giving you an extra lane of horizontal distance.

I've been crunching some numbers, and a driver at 80km/h would need 68 meters to come to a complete stop. That happens in around 4.7 seconds. The average person, on their toes, can move about 20 meters with a .5 second reaction time. Good odds there's enough time to get out of the way.

Now, you clearly didn't have 68 meters to stop given you still clipped the deer at half your original speed. So lets take that into account.

Assuming a deceleration rate of 7 m/s2 on dry asphalt, you would have had about 3.1 seconds between seeing the deer, and clipping it. I'm guessing you travelled around 60 meters between seeing the deer, and slowing down to 40 km/h from 80.

A faster reaction time, and you probably miss the deer. A slower reaction time, and well, probably not a great outcome.

Lets say for the sake of argument that there's a person standing there instead of a deer moving across the road. With a reaction time of .5 seconds, and a driver decelerating from 80 to 40 around 60 meters away, they could move around 13 meters before you got to them. That should be enough to get out of the way, but there's little in the way of margin available to the Pedestrian. Have their head phones on, looking at their phone, or just looking the other way? They're taking that much more time to move.

A Pedestrian that is hit at 40 km/h has a 60% chance at survival.

If that driver is slower to react, and meets the Pedestrian at 50 km/h, their survivability rate goes down to 10%.

Is this all largely academic? Yes. Real world conditions have a variety of factors that could influence any of the averages above. But I can't help but keep coming back to the fact that in this example, you ended up hitting the deer. You would have absolutely hit the person, and there's a 40% chance they would have died on your bumper.

To use my own anecdotal example, the lady that almost hit me at an intersection downtown was probably going 20 km/h at most through the turn and I completely froze. From my perspective, if she'd have had a slightly slower reaction time, was going a few km/h faster, or any combination of the two, and I would have been in the hospital with a pedestrian fracture of both legs.

IMO, it is better to assume that the driver next to you is not skilled. That they will not give you enough reaction time, whether you're a driver or a pedestrian. That their car has wear and tear and won't stop as quickly as an off the line car would.

 

[jbeck5]

I think we disagree on something fundamental: I think it's more common you're driving around an unskilled driver vs a skilled one.

Humorously, the first example you provided was having to drive defensively because you were in front of an unskilled driver that clearly did not have your reaction time. Along with driver reaction time and vehicle performance, if that deer was travelling any faster it would have been through your windshield, a factor that should not at all be ignored.

In the case of that deer, whitetail deer have a reaction time of around .16 seconds, and can run at around 56-64 km/h. No where comparable to a pedestrian (13 km/h average running speed). And you still hit it. And you had a bit more of a buffer because from your description, it was travelling from your left to right, giving you an extra lane of horizontal distance.

I've been crunching some numbers, and a driver at 80km/h would need 68 meters to come to a complete stop. That happens in around 4.7 seconds. The average person, on their toes, can move about 20 meters with a .5 second reaction time. Good odds there's enough time to get out of the way.

Now, you clearly didn't have 68 meters to stop given you still clipped the deer at half your original speed. So lets take that into account.

Assuming a deceleration rate of 7 m/s2 on dry asphalt, you would have had about 3.1 seconds between seeing the deer, and clipping it. I'm guessing you travelled around 60 meters between seeing the deer, and slowing down to 40 km/h from 80.

A faster reaction time, and you probably miss the deer. A slower reaction time, and well, probably not a great outcome.

Lets say for the sake of argument that there's a person standing there instead of a deer moving across the road. With a reaction time of .5 seconds, and a driver decelerating from 80 to 40 around 60 meters away, they could move around 13 meters before you got to them. That should be enough to get out of the way, but there's little in the way of margin available to the Pedestrian. Have their head phones on, looking at their phone, or just looking the other way? They're taking that much more time to move.

A Pedestrian that is hit at 40 km/h has a 60% chance at survival.

If that driver is slower to react, and meets the Pedestrian at 50 km/h, their survivability rate goes down to 10%.

Is this all largely academic? Yes. Real world conditions have a variety of factors that could influence any of the averages above. But I can't help but keep coming back to the fact that in this example, you ended up hitting the deer. You would have absolutely hit the person, and there's a 40% chance they would have died on your bumper.

To use my own anecdotal example, the lady that almost hit me at an intersection downtown was probably going 20 km/h at most through the turn and I completely froze. From my perspective, if she'd have had a slightly slower reaction time, was going a few km/h faster, or any combination of the two, and I would have been in the hospital with a pedestrian fracture of both legs.

IMO, it is better to assume that the driver next to you is not skilled. That they will not give you enough reaction time, whether you're a driver or a pedestrian. That their car has wear and tear and won't stop as quickly as an off the line car would.

You combined 2 different stories with different points. Not very humourous as I don't see them related. One was about vehicle performance and the other was about being aware of your surroundings.. They are two very different stories with different points.

The comparison you're making between the human and deer speed is irrelevant to the point that a half second can be the difference between hitting them and not...that goes for both deers and people. Not one or the other, but both.

I agree good odds to get out of the way. Even better with more skill meaning less reaction time, and more braking ability from a superior car.

Your numbers are way off. Not sure how you get 60 meters...I saw it, when it leaped across the road, maybe about 20 meters ahead, if that. I can show you screenshots of the area, where my car was, and where the deer came out of.

A faster reaction time and I definitely could have missed the deer. That's why I'm saying reaction time makes a difference. It's a skill. I'm not a master. I'm above average though.

It's hard to compare a human and a deer because the deer superman jumps across the whole road. People don't do that. So analyzing this to the meter and second seems silly, especially considering your math seems off.. especially reaction time...1.5 second reaction time seems very slow. Go to a drag strip. They will show you reaction time from the moment the light goes green to the moment they start moving. It's like 0.1 seconds...0.2 seconds would be slow.

When you're putting up 12 second quarter miles, no one has room for these 1.5-2 second reaction times you talk about. I didn't want to mention it, but we're you measuring using half human half sloths?


Imagine taking 2.0 seconds to react to a drag tree lol. The other racer would be way up ahead.

But going back to the deer, the deer was flying across the road at a speed way faster than humans are capable of running...so when the deer came into site, if it was a human, it never would have made it into the road before I passed. If it was a human, for it to be where I was at the time I was, would have had to have popped out from behind that fence much earlier to make it there, meaning I would have had wayyyyy more time to stop and would have been at a complete stop


You have to factor in when the object comes into view. The slower they are, the less likely they'll actually make it into the roadway by the time you drive by.

So if it was a human, I would have 100% just kept driving and they wouldn't have made it into the roadway unless they got launched by a machine and were flying at 60km/h across the whole road like Superman lol.

 

[Relapsing]

You combined 2 different stories with different points. Not very humourous as I don't see them related. One was about vehicle performance and the other was about being aware of your surroundings.. They are two very different stories with different points.

The comparison you're making between the human and deer speed is irrelevant to the point that a half second can be the difference between hitting them and not...that goes for both deers and people. Not one or the other, but both.

I agree good odds to get out of the way. Even better with more skill meaning less reaction time, and more braking ability from a superior car.

Your numbers are way off. Not sure how you get 60 meters...I saw it, when it leaped across the road, maybe about 20 meters ahead, if that. I can show you screenshots of the area, where my car was, and where the deer came out of.

A faster reaction time and I definitely could have missed the deer. That's why I'm saying reaction time makes a difference. It's a skill. I'm not a master. I'm above average though.

It's hard to compare a human and a deer because the deer superman jumps across the whole road. People don't do that. So analyzing this to the meter and second seems silly, especially considering your math seems off.. especially reaction time...1.5 second reaction time seems very slow. Go to a drag strip. They will show you reaction time from the moment the light goes green to the moment they start moving. It's like 0.1 seconds...0.2 seconds would be slow.

When you're putting up 12 second quarter miles, no one has room for these 1.5-2 second reaction times you talk about. I didn't want to mention it, but we're you measuring using half human half sloths?


Imagine taking 2.0 seconds to react to a drag tree lol. The other racer would be way up ahead.

But going back to the deer, the deer was flying across the road at a speed way faster than humans are capable of running...so when the deer came into site, if it was a human, it never would have made it into the road before I passed. If it was a human, for it to be where I was at the time I was, would have had to have popped out from behind that fence much earlier to make it there, meaning I would have had wayyyyy more time to stop and would have been at a complete stop


You have to factor in when the object comes into view. The slower they are, the less likely they'll actually make it into the roadway by the time you drive by.

So if it was a human, I would have 100% just kept driving and they wouldn't have made it into the roadway unless they got launched by a machine and were flying at 60km/h across the whole road like Superman lol.

Off to dinner, so I'll keep this short: I have been using publicly available data on driver perception reaction times, used average deceleration speeds on dry road conditions, used math to calculate stopping distances, etc... and otherwise have gone out of my way to use data from available studies.

You keep bringing up F1 and drag racing which are not activities the average person undertakes. So they're irrelevant to the discussion. I suspect you keep doing so to undercut the fact that driver reaction times have a range that can exceed double the average.

Anyways, off I go. I'm happy to live with the knowledge we won't agree.

E: on my way to the LRT and some old dude in a tesla tried to turn right on a fresh green and got halfway into the crosswalk before he realized he f***ed up and almost hit someone.