[rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 49, Issue 17

[Patrick Finnegan]

On Friday 08 December 2006 01:18, William Barnett-Lewis wrote:
> On 12/7/06, rescue-request at sunhelp.org <rescue-request at sunhelp.org> 
wrote:
> > Send rescue mailing list submissions to
> >         rescue at sunhelp.org
> > No, you imbeciles.  Speed doesn't in and of itself cause accidents.
> > Now, idiots driving well beyond their ability and then not even
> > paying attention DEFINITELY cause accidents ....
>
> I'm not sure why I'm trying as this is the attitude throughout north
> america but what the hell, it might save _my_ life some day.
>
> Speed does cause accidents. Daily.

Actually, differences in speed are the problem.  If everyone drove 100mph 
down the highway, and no one drove slower or faster than that (assuming 
the highway was designed for that), it'd be just as safe as everyone 
driving 55mph.

People only cause accidents when the delta-V between them is non-zero.  
The only exception is stupid people who collide with stationary 
objects...  and in that case, I'll claim stupidity to be the cause of 
the accident, not speed.  Speed *by itself* doesn't cause accidents.

> I am a professional driver - I walked away from a job as a sysadmin
> and took a 50% pay cut to drive 18 wheel rigs instead. Overall it's a
> good trade: Stupid drivers to avoid vs. stupid MS Scheiss that I can't
> avoid.

I avoided it by not putting anything microsoft related on my resume, and 
taking a job in academia.  Now, my biggest problems are beaurocracy and 
people who have an over-inflated ego.  And, I do my best to sidestep 
beaurocracy as much as I can.

> 99% of those on the road do not know how to drive. And yeah, I include
> all of you so called racers. Of that 1% that do know how to drive, 99%
> over estimate thier ability.  Those ass*oles are the ones that kill
> other people. I fear those the most.

Personally, I'm more worried about the person who's eating lunch, talking 
on a cell phone, using a blackberry, reading, or just too tired to be 
driving.

> Let me ask you one thing - when is the last time you took 10 seconds
> to perform a lane change? That's the minimum safe amount of time for
> you to look twice and be sure your car/truck is clear of all other
> traffic.

There are no absolutes.  Good drivers monitor traffic as they are 
driving, and have a good idea of whether or not they're goign to merge 
into something before they try to change lanes.  And yes, it's different 
for larger vehicles, and takes longer to make that decision for a truck 
(or semi) than, say, my MINI.

> [Blah, blah, blah]

> Yeah, it really is that "simple". But most north americans are in too
> god da*ned much of a hurry to give a rats ass about safety. That is
> the real truth. Especially the fuc&tards in SUVs. There needs to be a
> 10,000 % tax on those fuc&ing things ... ahem, I digress...

Well, that I might agree with you about. :)

> I have no doubt that all of you assume that you "know" how to drive.
> Yeah? Lets watch you merge into traffic at highway speed correctly.
> I'd bet that 2% of the readers of this list would do it _legally_...
> and that is more than would do it correctly...

You can do things "safely" and "correctly" without doing 
them "legally."  "Correct" is a subjective term that can only be 
properly determined by the reader. :)

Oh, and there's people that try to be so "safe" that they cause traffic 
problems themselves.

> Oh, and by the way, yeah, I do still consider this better than dealing
> with the scuzzballs  in redmond.

There's plenty of IT jobs out there that don't require any significant 
interaction with Microsoft products.  You just have to be smarter than 
the average MSCE, and look for jobs in sectors that avoid Windows like 
the plague (and academic supercomputing is one such field).

Pat
-- 
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC       --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge               --- http://computer-refuge.org