90MPH is too fast to let small children try to jump out of a moving car. 
Who knows, perhaps the driver was not able to control the situation. Ya get hyper kids in a car with a sunroof, ya get the end result.
I love fairy tales…
Still waiting for an answer.
pours more gasoline on fire
Child restraint laws are on the books precisely to prevent the scenario in the OP. Children bouncing around in the car are dangerous for both children and driver, so every state now requires mandatory child safety seats for every child until they’re tall enough to fit in a regular seat belt. These laws exist because of dinks like the woman in the OP who allow their kids free rein in the car. When too many kids get killed or injured, it’s usually a good idea to make sure it doesn’t happen as much.
And, FTR, I’m glad you see the humor in this. A child’s funeral is a bucket of laffs, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
Robin
Hmmm…hh not only ignores posts by those who don’t agree with him but also stoops to name calling. Say, hh, as long as you’re handing out “moron” signs, I have a sign for you 'cept this one reads “another proud graduate of the december school of debate.”
And apparently, a little math illiteracy. The following car would have covered the 50 feet in .38 seconds, but unless the lead car stopped instantly, it ain’t there anymore. It’s decelerated by about 12 feet per second during that .38 seconds, meaning that the following car has closed the gap by (.38 x 12) or a little less than 5 feet. From that point, we follow both cars through the next 4.125 seconds, as Henry said, before there is an actual collision at 4.11 seconds later. At this point, the following car would be traveling (132 ft./sec - (4.1 x 32 ft./sec) or .8 feet per second. This wouldn’t even damage the bumper, and would give the following car ample opportunity to evade the lead car.
However, this assumes that the lead car is braking for maximum deceleration at 90 mph, which is the most extreme situation. In most cases, any braking done occurs at much less than maximum emergency braking. In anything less than this, 50 feet is going to be more than adequate.
By the way, while this is going on, what’s happened to those kids are hanging their heads out of the sunroof while mommy brakes hard at 90mph? An emergency stop at that speed could well be deadly to these kids regardless of whatever else might happen, which is exactly what the OP was complaining about in the first place.
Hey Henry!
We’ve got that buddy you need for the experiment!
We’ll expect full reports by Monday
and yep, the kids would have been injured by a collision - so why did the OP increase the risk of a collision?
Duh…
I’m running out of signs…
I have no idea why I’m bothering to post this but in the event of a sudden deceleration, the kids in the Mercedes most likely would no longer be in the car by the time it’s rear-ended by the OP. They’d become projectiles headed toward the windshield and I don’t think they would stop there.
ELEUSIS (and HAPPY HEATHEN) –
This, of course, only begs the question of whether the behavior in question is “minor shit” – which is the entire crux of the entire thread. You two apparently think it is; the OP’er (and others) think it is not. The difference is that the others have been entirely rational in explaining why such behavior is not “minor shit” but instead a big deal, whereas you have merely parroted that’s it’s “minor shit.”
Here’s a news flash: You are not the arbiter of what constitutes “minor shit.” You do not get to decide what is or is not a big deal. You are not the authority on matters of safety. So you can come in here and pronounce how “ridiculous” the OP’er’s actions were, but when others challenge you on that – and they have – you’d better be able to back your pronouncement up with rational arguments, and not just make the pronouncement again and again and again and again in a way that is surpassingly tiresome and that indicates that neither of you are, frankly, the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Observing a parent acting in a way that in the opinon of the observer clearly endangers the life of a child, certainly merits a phone call to the authorities. If you want to disagree with this, start with explaining why this sort of behavior is okay. Do not simply restate that it is okay, as if you are typing monkey that has only been trained to hit certain keys.
If you are not willing to back up your position, then you certainly are entitled to your opinion that the actions in question are ever so okay. We, in turn, are entitled to conclude that your opinions are unfounded crap, the weakness of which is proven by your inability to defend them.
And HAPPY HEATHEN, your little bit about the signs is pretty tiresome as well. First, I hope you’re paying royalties to Bill Engvall, the comic from whom you stole that little witticism, though even he, who earns his living from it, doesn’t flog it to this extent. Second, it puts one too much in mind in being advised on table manners by a man who’s poking his eye out with his fork.
That gimpnugget link seems to be down.
No, the cops have nothing better to do than chase down people breaking the law, even laws you think are silly. It’s called…wait…my sign is distracting me…um…oh yea,
what they do,
AKA their job,
also see “raisonner pour existant”
YOU Don’t decide what is illegal, society does, and society has deemed that unrestrained children in an automobile is unacceptable.
Maybe you should start a campaign to legalize it if it’s a really straight road.
As you’ve said exactly nothing to refute anything in my post, I can only assume you have conceded the substance therein. Concession accepted.
Come on, it was a minor traffic violation. Who calls the cops for minor traffic violations?
I don’t know where the OP lives, but I found this little item for Illinois:
speeding is also a minor violation of the law, yet the police seem to have time to act on them.
Do you call the police when you see somebody speeding? If nobody ever speeded, thousands of lives would be saved.
Do you call the cops when you see somebody not wearing a seatbelt? Thousands more could be saved if everybody always wore their seatbelts. Oh, it was child who doesn’t know better. What if it was a 9 year old child, to big for child restraints, not wearing a seatbelt? Do you call the cops then?
Almost 1 in 10 children under five are not restrained properly. You’ve got a lot of cop-calling to do.
your point was that it was a minor crime, therefore no one should bother calling, since the police had better things to do.
I pointed out, in rebuttal, that the police actually do deal w/quite a few ‘minor’ issues. I never said everyone should call everytime they see some minor violation of the law. That’s called a straw man. You seem particularly fond of that one. Have you given him a name yet? cuddle w/him at night?
A combination of factors led to the OP deciding to call:
-
multiple violations of the law (speeding, people not restrained in the vehicle)
-
minors in danger of being harmed by said actions.
-
the ability to actually make a call and perhaps get some assistance to the children.
Had there been just 1 and 3, it’s possible/probable that the OP wouldn’t have called (you choose not to use a seat belt while speeding down the highway? your choice).
Had it been unrestrained kids in a car going 20 mph in a residential street, it’s possible that the OP wouldn’t have called.
had it been just #1 and 2, I doubt that they’d have pulled off the highway to make a call.
BUt, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, it was:
- car going way fast
- kid(s) plural so obviously unrestrained that they were poking their heads out a sun roof
and - The OP had the opportunity to do something about it (ie call and give a description of the car, liscense plate etc.) perhaps saving those specific children from being harmed by the drivers actions.
now, who wants to bet that our friend here will take his favorite strawman out for yet another dance?
Well wring you can call it a straw man, but I didn’t address you personally. I addressed everybody who thinks it was necessary to it upon themselves to enforce the law and call the cops for a petty offense.
So, now you are saying there should be at least two petty offenses to warrant calling them. They are still petty offenses.
well, a variation of it, so I still win.
Straw man= suggesting your opponents are arguing a point that A. they are not arguing.
B. is easy to knock down.
So, when you give us data about how many kids are unrestrained, suggesting ‘why aren’t we calling on all of them’, since no one has suggested that everybody call the cops every time they see a child unrestrained, well, that’s what makes it a straw man.
what we did suggest was that if you see a situation where some one’s doing something illegal and dangerous, and (notice that word ‘and’ in there, it’s key) their actions are placing minors at risk and (did ya notice that one, too??? hope so) you’re in a position where you can do something about it, you should, like do something about it.
there’s many a case where some one is choosing to do something illegal and dangerous, also lots of times when said actions risk a child, and there’s nothing we can do about it (like, for example all the cases in the cites you linked). But here was a case where some one was doing something illegal and dangerous and their actions were placing two small kids at risk, and happily enough, they were in a position where they could easily do something about it.
Oh for fucksake Eleusis, now you are being purposefully obtuse or you truly aren’t the brightest bulb in the socket.
I tend to lean toward the latter.