[rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 49, Issue 17

[Phil Stracchino]

Meelis Roos wrote:
>> I re-iterate:  Speed is not inherently dangerous.
> 
> Our reaction time is still the same. So for higher speed, we _must_ have 
> proportionally bigger empty space between us and any potential 
> obstacles.

Precisely, which is why you have to think further ahead and allow
greater following distances.  (Which can be hard ... it was almost
impossible to maintain a safe following distance at ANY speed in even
mildly congested California freeway traffic, because as soon as you
managed to open up a safe following distance, someone would move into
the gap.)  If I'm on open road and driving (or riding) fast, I'm
scanning a quarter to a half mile down the road.

Now, failure to do so is dangerous ....  but failure to anticipate, to
scan ahead, and to allow safe following distance is unsafe at *any* speed.




-- 
 Same geek, same site, new location
 Phil Stracchino                     Landline: 603-429-0220
 phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net         Mobile: 603-216-7037
 Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker, Free Stater