|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 7, 2017 3:18:37 GMT
Aggressive Driving: As a professional driver, I'm pretty much willing to throw this one down the memory hole. 1. At least two of the involved individuals noted that they'd help collect the spilled fruit if the circumstances of the test allowed them to exit the car. Some of the stress spikes were likely the result of not being able to and so having to watch the actor fumble. 2. As everyone noted, the "construction zone" wasn't wide enough for the car, making it inevitable that cones would be hit. Since each cone hit counted as a violation, that dinged people needlessly. A better, more accurate test would be to give enough clearance on each side of the car so that a person moving with enough caution could indeed slink on through. 2A. As a professional driver? If it's clear to me that I'm not getting my vehicle in to an area without issue, I go around if I don't have any alternatives. 3. No explanation for the fact that the "aggressive" music run actually led to fewer incidents with two of the test subjects? In my specific situation, "quiet" music is actually a danger when I'm behind a wheel; I need something more "aggressive" (classic rock I can sing along with, bare minimum) in order to stay awake and alert since I'm on the road for several hours at a time. Calm music can actually drop my vitals down enough that my response time can slow or even make me sleepy, both of which are direct hazards when I'm on the road. edit - krock1017fm.com/This is the station I keep the car radio to, and 99.5% of the time it's what I have on when I'm behind the wheel. You can actually stream the audio if you want a quick benchmark of what I listen to on a normal night. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 7, 2017 19:25:01 GMT
so, aggressive driving.
1: I saw one offer to help, and at least one that I would categorize as a gratuitous comment.
2: part of the point of the impossible chicane was the frustration level of NOT being able to avoid all the cones.
3: I was expecting that result to a degree, but I was expecting it to be distributed differently. I expected the people who favored that style of music more to have less frustration events logged, while the people who disliked it would have frustration events FROM the music.
all in all, it looked like nobody was getting angry - possibly partly due to it being a test - and in fact for the most part, the test appeared to be entertaining, despite the frustration factor. for an overall, "what have we learned from this" standpoint, my assessment is that we've confirmed that music makes a difference, but also shown that the relationship between music and driving is anything but simple and personality has a huge role in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 7, 2017 19:28:53 GMT
for the record, the initial testing of the carp cannon gave me the death giggles. I am left with the question, though. buster's body was well supported. would an actual water skier be knocked down on impact and sustain less neck injury?
|
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Dec 8, 2017 2:12:27 GMT
3: I was expecting that result to a degree, but I was expecting it to be distributed differently. I expected the people who favored that style of music more to have less frustration events logged, while the people who disliked it would have frustration events FROM the music. I hate "me too" posts, but me too  . I've been stuck in situations where I couldn't just turn off an annoying radio station, and I know I get irritable under those circumstances. My take-away from that segment was that the driver's personality is a larger factor in road rage than people tend to admit. (Granted, road rage usually hits the news when someone's hurt/dead as a result, and no lawyer is going to let his client admit any responsibility in that case.) As far as carp-in-the-face goes, I've never water-skied but I assume a skier is holding on pretty tight. If Buster's joints can be locked into place so he'll stand up on his own, then a grip rig that matches a human's grip strength connected to the tow bar should keep him steady enough for a revisit. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2017 2:42:32 GMT
3: I was expecting that result to a degree, but I was expecting it to be distributed differently. I expected the people who favored that style of music more to have less frustration events logged, while the people who disliked it would have frustration events FROM the music. I hate "me too" posts, but me too . I've been stuck in situations where I couldn't just turn off an annoying radio station, and I know I get irritable under those circumstances. My take-away from that segment was that the driver's personality is a larger factor in road rage than people tend to admit. (Granted, road rage usually hits the news when someone's hurt/dead as a result, and no lawyer is going to let his client admit any responsibility in that case.) As far as carp-in-the-face goes, I've never water-skied but I assume a skier is holding on pretty tight. If Buster's joints can be locked into place so he'll stand up on his own, then a grip rig that matches a human's grip strength connected to the tow bar should keep him steady enough for a revisit. I have. you do hold on tight, but there's a limit to grip strength, and a shock like that would probably also contribute to a loss of grip. addendum: a pro skiier might be different, but at my skill level, anything that causes a jolt causes a loss of grip. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Dec 8, 2017 21:33:18 GMT
I think that's a valid point and worth retesting. Someones natural reaction might be to raise their hands, and/or let go. That would have to lessen the impact, but would it be enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 9, 2017 1:46:09 GMT
I think that's a valid point and worth retesting. Someones natural reaction might be to raise their hands, and/or let go. That would have to lessen the impact, but would it be enough? and now we have their second revisit |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 9, 2017 7:40:50 GMT
Reaction...
A Dummy can not react.
Humans may "dodge", may let go, may try to avoid, dummies get hit?.
On the speed of impact, if an impact happens, it happens, if you let go on impact, newtons law of motion, it wont lessen an impact, because you let go AFTER the impact?. therefore, the impact is just the same?.
Unless, of course, you sense impending impact and let go beforehand.
However. Ski's.
I am hypersensitive to any type of ski, thats not allergic per say, but definitely against using them.
One of the reasons is the steadfast refusal of any maker of ski's to fit Brakes.
Find me a set of snow ski's with a really good set of dual circuit vented disc brakes attached, I will re-assess that statement?.
Until then, sliding down a hill with a couple of thin poles and nothing else to stop you at all other than throwing yourself sideways into a "skid", well, its kind of against all my rules of travelling?.
And just for the record, as its been a few years, I seam to remember, a skiddoo snowmobile thing has a brake on the tracks doesnt it?.
Water ski?. Your using a perfectly good boat, why cant I just ride up there?.
Brakes on a boat = Reverse gear, for those who may want to argue they dont have disc brakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 9, 2017 15:34:49 GMT
Keep in mind that in order to water ski you need to be moving at 15-20 miles per hour, as an estimate a Carp coming out of the water is probably going to be moving around 20mph* for a combined speed of 40mph at the time of impact.
Given that the fish is probably going to come out of the water no less that 10 feet away, and people are not as a general rule used to seeing a fish flying at their heads. It is doubtful that any human would have enough time to do more than register the existence of the fish, let alone actually react to it. Remember that reaction time goes up if you have to process what you are seeing and decide on how to react.
In fact the majority of water skiers would probably be distracted enough just skiing they might only register having been hit; In fact I seem to recall seeing a video of a man being hit by a fish while water skiing, and his first comment when they went back for him was 'What happened?' I also recall that his hands didn't slip off the bar until after the fish had bounced off him and was well on its way back to the water.
(*Note; I have not seen this episode, and any figures given on the show may well differ from my own and would be more accurate)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 9, 2017 15:51:21 GMT
Keep in mind that in order to water ski you need to be moving at 15-20 miles per hour, as an estimate a Carp coming out of the water is probably going to be moving around 20mph* for a combined speed of 40mph at the time of impact. Given that the fish is probably going to come out of the water no less that 10 feet away, and people are not as a general rule used to seeing a fish flying at their heads. It is doubtful that any human would have enough time to do more than register the existence of the fish, let alone actually react to it. Remember that reaction time goes up if you have to process what you are seeing and decide on how to react. In fact the majority of water skiers would probably be distracted enough just skiing they might only register having been hit; In fact I seem to recall seeing a video of a man being hit by a fish while water skiing, and his first comment when they went back for him was 'What happened?' I also recall that his hands didn't slip off the bar until after the fish had bounced off him and was well on its way back to the water. (*Note; I have not seen this episode, and any figures given on the show may well differ from my own and would be more accurate) the show calculated the skier at 25 and the fish at 10. interestingly, they also showed footage of people in boats getting hit, and I think one of them did get hit in the face. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2017 6:13:31 GMT
I question the maths.
May I remind people that two cars doing 30 does NOT equate to a combined collision of 60mph.....
Therefore, a skier doing 25 and a fish doing 10 equates to....
Well it has to be NOT 35?.
Otherwise, I was interrupted by Kids, will re-watch the show tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 14, 2017 11:44:29 GMT
25mph seems a reasonable figure for water skiing - I was going off the minimum speed needed.
The fishes speed of 10mph is and isn't reasonable, basically because it depends on the fish. In the case of jumping out of the water this is usually a defensive move and done at the fishes top burst speed. For a Carp this burst speed out of the water has been observed to average at just over 20 mph.
I need to check that episode out again, as I have a niggling suspicion they may have goofed in their calculations. Or they may have over-simplified things for the audience at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2017 15:06:00 GMT
I question the maths. May I remind people that two cars doing 30 does NOT equate to a combined collision of 60mph..... Therefore, a skier doing 25 and a fish doing 10 equates to.... Well it has to be NOT 35?. Otherwise, I was interrupted by Kids, will re-watch the show tonight. that is the incorrect maths application. the one that is relevant to this is the soccer ball launched out of a moving pickup. if the boat is moving forward at 25 MPH, and the fish is to hit the skier at a velocity of 10MPH towards the skier, then you must launch the fish at 35 MPH. but in the car scenario, the original myth was that one car hitting another car, both going 30, was like one car hitting a solid wall a 60 MPH. which was incorrect. the correct physics was that if the two cars collided both going 30 MPH, it was like two cars hitting opposite sides of a solid wall at 30 MPH. - or like a car at 60MPH hitting a parked car. - with the key that white the speed added up to a total, the total was then split between the two cars, in damage. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2017 15:09:25 GMT
25mph seems a reasonable figure for water skiing - I was going off the minimum speed needed. The fishes speed of 10mph is and isn't reasonable, basically because it depends on the fish. In the case of jumping out of the water this is usually a defensive move and done at the fishes top burst speed. For a Carp this burst speed out of the water has been observed to average at just over 20 mph. I need to check that episode out again, as I have a niggling suspicion they may have goofed in their calculations. Or they may have over-simplified things for the audience at home. they based the carp speed on a fish that was able to be measured against a scale, so the fish speed was the observed speed, rather than the maximum speed. but see my above comment for the key to their calculations. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 14, 2017 16:31:15 GMT
25mph seems a reasonable figure for water skiing - I was going off the minimum speed needed. The fishes speed of 10mph is and isn't reasonable, basically because it depends on the fish. In the case of jumping out of the water this is usually a defensive move and done at the fishes top burst speed. For a Carp this burst speed out of the water has been observed to average at just over 20 mph. I need to check that episode out again, as I have a niggling suspicion they may have goofed in their calculations. Or they may have over-simplified things for the audience at home. they based the carp speed on a fish that was able to be measured against a scale, so the fish speed was the observed speed, rather than the maximum speed. but see my above comment for the key to their calculations. Well, that means a revist is in order as their test was based on incorrect data. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2017 16:43:17 GMT
they based the carp speed on a fish that was able to be measured against a scale, so the fish speed was the observed speed, rather than the maximum speed. but see my above comment for the key to their calculations. Well, that means a revist is in order as their test was based on incorrect data. they have demonstrated that their worst case scenario can break a water skier's neck. do you imply that the fact that it can get worse than they calculated will change that? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 15, 2017 7:44:31 GMT
They need to clarify the maths.
I am being pedantic here, I know, but, it left me asking questions, and here is the best place to get answers?.
At what speed was the boat moving during the test.... they never mentioned that.
If that boat was moving at exactly 25mph, then they are exactly correct on the maths that the fish needs to be fired at 35mph backwards to have a speed of 10mph to an observer outside the boat, and then hitting a skier towed at 25mph, it will have the correct speed, of 25mph skier and 10mph fish.
However, I have a little problem... in that, I may be completely wrong, but lets suggest it just in case?.
"On observation", the rig that Buster was standing on, wasnt producing enough "wake" to suggest that it was travelling at 25mph?.
But...
Does that matter?.
Surely every 1mph slower the skier is doing, the towing boat is also doing that speed, so, the fish still flies at the right speed...
As in, it will still hit at 35mph.
But there is the problem.
Its not the speed, but the force implied.
If the two cars going at 30mph head to head were of uneven weight, the heavier mass will sustain less "stopping power", this hit a Bicycle, you may just need to wipe the oily marks of the bumper of the car but the bike will be totalled.
Also in consideration, if you are a motorcyclist, you may understand this, and if you have ever raced cars, you will as well, good racers tend to build up mass on their neck muscles, because keeping your head still requires a LOT of strength.
Even in a straight line, wind sheer at yer head requires you brace your head and lean into the wind.
a 10lb head impacting a 2lb fish will do a lot of damage... especially if braced into the impact?.
does the speed of the head "into" the fish matter then?.
But a 2-lb fish with a force behind it that creates a 35mph speed as it leaves the "gun", is a hell of a lot more force than is needed for a 10mph fish?.
How much of that force was imparted onto Buster?.
And also, how much "Wind damage" would having a 35psi air cannon pointed at your head do?. I know it was at distance, but, is there any effects to consider here?.
Finally, just to put everything into a spin, 25mph water-skiing... thats slow?.
I have built boats that do that kind of work, and the RIB's we built were ordered on the understanding they could do at least twice that on a calm day. [they can also do that on a rough day, but, you need to understand you wont be walking straight for a week afterwards?.. like being kicked by a donkey repeatedly whist someone throws buckets of water at you...]
Just how fast is too fast for a "Pro" water-skier?. what speed to competition skiers do anyway?.
The myth its self, I am quite happy to see its been proven as not just plausible, but entirely possible, and a 2lb carp, the ones I have in my own pond, a 2lb one is just a tiddler, some of mine are WAY over 10lbs.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 15, 2017 7:53:13 GMT
Music.
On that test, I wish to ask, why did they not try to find a "Fan" of that type of music?.
On the impossible cone lane, where was the option to refuse because you know the car wont fit through?.
I have had this on an extended test for HGV, you are asked to reverse your trailer into a parking spot, between two flag poles.
You are allowed to walk the course if you require, but you are not allowed to measure the distance between the poles except by eye.
The test is to see if you can put the trailer in with less than a foot either side, and how close together they can get the poles.
My refusal happened at 8inch either side, because I stated, I dont want to chance that but I know its going to be bloody close...
At that time, some of the more experienced lads refused at only six inch.
One newb still tried when the poles were at a MINUS distance, as in, there definitely want enough room.
As it stands, I still get out and double check if its less than 8 inch either side, and dont want to do that kind of distance anyway, because its a bloody tight squeeze to put the trailer legs down and set handbrake....
But I definitely wouldnt want to try putting a car between cones that are too damn close, because you always get the one thats going to get jammed under the back bumper isnt it?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 15, 2017 14:59:30 GMT
They need to clarify the maths. I am being pedantic here, I know, but, it left me asking questions, and here is the best place to get answers?. At what speed was the boat moving during the test.... they never mentioned that. If that boat was moving at exactly 25mph, then they are exactly correct on the maths that the fish needs to be fired at 35mph backwards to have a speed of 10mph to an observer outside the boat, and then hitting a skier towed at 25mph, it will have the correct speed, of 25mph skier and 10mph fish. However, I have a little problem... in that, I may be completely wrong, but lets suggest it just in case?. "On observation", the rig that Buster was standing on, wasnt producing enough "wake" to suggest that it was travelling at 25mph?. But... Does that matter?. Surely every 1mph slower the skier is doing, the towing boat is also doing that speed, so, the fish still flies at the right speed... As in, it will still hit at 35mph. But there is the problem. Its not the speed, but the force implied. If the two cars going at 30mph head to head were of uneven weight, the heavier mass will sustain less "stopping power", this hit a Bicycle, you may just need to wipe the oily marks of the bumper of the car but the bike will be totalled. Also in consideration, if you are a motorcyclist, you may understand this, and if you have ever raced cars, you will as well, good racers tend to build up mass on their neck muscles, because keeping your head still requires a LOT of strength. Even in a straight line, wind sheer at yer head requires you brace your head and lean into the wind. a 10lb head impacting a 2lb fish will do a lot of damage... especially if braced into the impact?. does the speed of the head "into" the fish matter then?. But a 2-lb fish with a force behind it that creates a 35mph speed as it leaves the "gun", is a hell of a lot more force than is needed for a 10mph fish?. How much of that force was imparted onto Buster?. And also, how much "Wind damage" would having a 35psi air cannon pointed at your head do?. I know it was at distance, but, is there any effects to consider here?. Finally, just to put everything into a spin, 25mph water-skiing... thats slow?. I have built boats that do that kind of work, and the RIB's we built were ordered on the understanding they could do at least twice that on a calm day. [they can also do that on a rough day, but, you need to understand you wont be walking straight for a week afterwards?.. like being kicked by a donkey repeatedly whist someone throws buckets of water at you...] Just how fast is too fast for a "Pro" water-skier?. what speed to competition skiers do anyway?. The myth its self, I am quite happy to see its been proven as not just plausible, but entirely possible, and a 2lb carp, the ones I have in my own pond, a 2lb one is just a tiddler, some of mine are WAY over 10lbs. I saw no inaccurate implication of force. they simply said the fish at 10 MPH and the skier at 25 MPH (skier speed was given as an element of the myth) added up to 35 MPH. you did mention one valid point, though - was the head the correct weight? that would make a difference. |
|
. I've been stuck in situations where I couldn't just turn off an annoying radio station, and I know I get irritable under those circumstances. My take-away from that segment was that the driver's personality is a larger factor in road rage than people tend to admit. (Granted, road rage usually hits the news when someone's hurt/dead as a result, and no lawyer is going to let his client admit any responsibility in that case.)
