You’re right. There is a minute chance that a flying toddler could smash through your windshield and kill you. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Jester:
Minimum safe following distance is 2 seconds (pretty much the standard, in the US at least…if not actually practiced). At 90mph = 1.5 miles per minute = .05 miles/ 2 seconds = 264 feet minimum safe following distance. That’s a mightly long way to read three inch letters and still keep an eye on the road…
Nothing in life is safe. Some things are pretty dangerous. Some things are pretty stupid and life-threatening. Letting a kid have some (gasp) kinda dangerous fun shouldn’t invite a call to the cops.
Driving 90 mph, close enough to read a plate - does that sound safe?
And how, exactly, am I now endangering you?
And, if you cannot foresee road hazards, well…
you stay on that side of the Rockies, too, 'K?
dipshit. be useful for something. lizard food seems a good use for your demonstrated intellectual capacity - go play with a ‘gator - say about 20’ worth.
Alright, heathen. Fine. If you drive responsibly and are able to account for any and all roadside hazards ever, then bully for you. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now answer me this. How is someone going 90 mph on a road with traffic on it not a hazard? And I’ll ask again: what happens when one of the unrestrained kids decides to put his/her hands over mommy’s eyes?
Sorry, Myrr21, I somehow managed to miss your post above. Good point about the following distance. Just to play devil’s advocate, though, what if it was a four-lane interstate and Nightingale was “following” in the next lane over?
Also, the tailgating doesn’t change the fact that it was really freakin’ dangerous to begin with. This isn’t “slightly dangerous fun.” This is “incredibly stupid and irresponsible and potentially hazardous to everybody else on the road fun.”
Here is a timely article from today’s (Oct. 21) MSNBC, dateline Cheboygan, Michigan.
“Teen injured After Fall From Car”
Hmmm. Let’s see. Driveway. Friend Driving. Hospitalized. Serious Condition. Felonious Driving. More charges possible.
Hey, what could have gone wrong? All they were doing was having the time of their lives! And it was certainly in a well-controlled enviironment – the driveway. Heck, no other traffic, slow speed. Where do sign up?
FWIW–I know it has been rebutted well a couple times, but to emphasis the point – the issue of tailgating was raised by the “children are chattel” crowd despite there being no evidence to support it. Clearly anyone who has ever driven knows that you get the best view of bumper stickers, license plates, etc. by driving in the adjoining lane. Sheesh, are you people braindead about everything?
You must have missed that memo, Jester. hh doesn’t normally address any arguments that he knows he’s already lost. Waste of time, really. But if he thinks he’s right (even if, for the most part, he’s its exact opposite), he’ll keep on going until he’s shown his normal colors.
And FTR, a vehicle would not need to be much closer than 50 feet or so for me to be able to read the license plate in daylight under even decent conditions (no rain, etc). And unless the Mercedes’ brake lights are out, it’s not like the car can go 90-0 with no warning whatsoever.
which means you will cover that 50’ in approx. .38 seconds - about as long as it takes to wink your eye.
and you presume to lecture anyone about highway safety?
brilliant! fucking brilliant!
and, since you couldn’t figure that one out:
I don’t respond to moron Q’s such as “And I’ll ask again: what happens when one of the unrestrained kids decides to put his/her hands over mommy’s eyes?”
a) the question is irrelevant - what if the kid decides to jump out a window? what if driver falls asleep? what if…
pointless excercise.
b) anyone asking such a Q should be allowed to slink off and sober up (or learn limit him/herself to relevant points).
moron[sub]1[/sub], meet moron[sub]2[/sub]
p.s. - it takes about .5 seconds for the eyes to see a brake light and relay the “hit the brakes” signal to the feet - and that is best case - your .38 cushion would cause you to rear-end the MBZ (and probably kill the little darlings about whom you are so concerned)
p.p.s - as point of argument, I will specify that 90 mph is probably irresponsible (even though I have hit 130 mph - I-80 in Utah runs over the salt lake - 4 lanes of clear, flat, straight, smooth concrete - no traffic for 2 miles in front of me - never got within 1000’ of anybody) YMMV.
(and, once, while doing some mountain driving (fun!) at night, over the posted limit, I encountered a doe standing over her dead fawn - in my lane. I didn’t even come close -YMM definately V.)
p.p.p.s. (if that is possible) - if you are in an adjacent lane:
a) if the plate is at all recessed, you will have a tough time reading it.
b) if we are to throw out irrelevant “what if’s”: if the driver is so reckless to allow the kids to move about in a moving vehicle (horrors), why would you assume that he/she would not swerve/change lanes irresponsibly?
What the Hell do you mean it’s not relevant? Guess what: if the kid is strapped in, like they should be, then they’re not going to jump out of the window. If the driver falls asleep and crashes, the kid has a much better chance of surviving if he/she is strapped in. That’s why you strap your kid down, instead of letting them roam around the car! Thank you for helping me prove my point.
Now, care to actually debate the issue? Your posts seem to have gradually degenerated. First, the dubbing of “moron” was just a quick little quip in an actual attempt at discussion. Now, it would seem, it comprises the entirety of your posts.
Whatsamatter? Run out of points to avoid?
[sub]And does anybody else get the mental image of Thing 1 and Thing 2 from the Cat in the Hat books? Those guys were awesome.[/sub]
I think Jester’s trying to say that the point here is REDUCING the risk of something going very, very wrong (such as a child jumping out of the window, or playing hide and seek), not INCREASING it. Hence, why there are LAWS about toddler’s having to be in car seats and the like.
happyheathen, did you eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
Well, first of all, I’m not driving 90 mph with two unrestrained children, nor do I normally (read: much of any time) drive that fast at all. Second, yeah, I do presume to lecture someone who does what the subject of the OP did. Don’t fucking do it. It’s dangerous. That the OP had to go 90 mph just to be able to read the license plate of the person in question shouldn’t be coming back to bite her in the ass in the first place; it’s, sadly, yet another thing the driver in the OP was doing wrong and unfortunate that the OP had to drive that fast to be able to read the license plate to call the driver in.
Are you really that fucking stupid? You can strap a child down such that the child is virtually immobile. You can try to get as much sleep as possible before a roadtrip of any length or sort.
You cannot just assume that a completely unrestrained child is going to behave calmly (especially as the child in the OP was certainly not doing so) in a moving vehicle. Or any vehicle. Kids, unless they are physically prevented from doing so (say, by a child safety seat, a seat belt, or something similar), are generally going to move about. It’s not at all out of the ordinary or “irrelevant” to ask what happens if an unrestrained child decides to play “peek-a-boo” with mommy.
:rolleyes: Given a choice between debating flaming shit and debating you, I’ll debate the shit. At least the shit can flame, if nothing else.
Damnit … one of you is bad enough. Whatever spawned you spawned another one?
Damn gene pool ought to have an entrance examination.
That would be assuming that the Mercedes was flooring the brake, in which case it’s entirely possible that I would rear-end the vehicle.
And I probably wouldn’t have been so close (trying to read the plates so I could call the faulty, dangerous driver in) if not for the behavior of the driver in question.
Otherwise, a simple tap on the brake is not going to be that much of a problem. And if I feel 50 feet is too close, I can always get in another lane, or get in front of the vehicle and have a passenger read the plate.
Oh, and a cite for that whole half-second thing would be just gee-golly splenderful.
Damn fucking straight, horrors, you worthless excuse for … whatever the fuck you are. I’ve met balls sharper than you. Does your 2-volt brain not have the ability to grasp that a moving, uncontrollable, bouncy object in car moving at any speed is dangerous? Especially at 90 fucking miles an hour? I wouldn’t want a fucking professional stunt driver in a car moving 90 miles an hour if there were unrestrained children in said car. It’s simply not safe.
Yup - nail them damned kids down - let 'em loose in a car and they’ll blind you every time.
unless, of course, the little bastards are distracted by the moron[sub]x[/sub] tailgateing them so they can report 'em to the Po-leece. Yup.
yet another NEWSFLASH: - millions of kids were raised (more or less successfully) even though they were allowed to ride in a car GASPUNRESTRAINED!
Do y’all really feel so unqualified at living that you need laws to tell you how to transport kids?
(ftr: I think safety seats are wonderful - I also believe kids can survive car trips without them)
Now, about those idiots holding their kids in their laps on airplanes travelling 500+ mph… no takers on that one?
then shut up about free-range kids in cars
those who tailgate 50’ at 90mph get to lecture on highway safety. Suuurreee…
and the precious
You know, for the 1000’s of miles we 4 kids rode in that pre-belt Olds, we never played “peek-a-boo” with the driver. Amazing, huh? It’s like kids somehow have some sense. But that can’t be right - ya gotta immobilize them or they’ll wreck the car
(either that, or hijack it and drive it into their preschool for revenge - al-kidda?). lezlers - welcome to the party!
the Q;s here are:
a) probability of kids coming to harm by playing in the sunroof
(or somehow sabotaging the vehicle - morons[sub]1 & 2[/sub] have not yet suggested the kids could jump on the pedals, grab the shifter, slice the driver’s throat)
b) whether the risk of a) was sufficient cause of the OPer’s outrage.
c) whether the OPer, in his/her rage, placed the kids in greater danger by tailgateing them at 90 mph, close enough to read the plate.
note: the “I could have viewed the plate from another lane” is both:
irrelevant - that is not what the OPer did
as stated earlier, would have been more difficult or impossible due to the geometry of the location of the plate.
a general Q for you superior drivers:
When in heavy traffic, how far ahead do you look?
No. 1 answer at traffic schools: “the car in front of me”
This just proves my theory that no matter what jackassed, moronic, and absolutely indefensible behavior you can think of, somebody will invariably come along to defend it anyway.
Incidentally, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”; I hope this is not too subtle a comment for happyheathen to noodle out, but if so, I’m sure someone can explain it.