Dr. Thompson I presume

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 8, 2:10Â*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

Â*MagillaGorilla wrote:
It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. Â*In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

So, space _and_ time are distorted in your little world. Curious.
Don't ever go on that show, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

Extra Credit Questions
1). Assuming the above, how fast were the cyclists going when they
crashed into the back of the car?
2). Were there car skid marks from the MCF's braking?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

15 feet to engage brakes
s = 30 - 15 feet of braking
a = 0.6 g.

energy dissipated = E = m.a.s = m.(v_1^2 - v_0^2)/2
(v_1^2 - v_0^2) = 2.a.s

v_0 = sqrt{v_1^2 - 2.a.s} = sqrt{44^2 - 2x32x15x0.6}
= sqrt{44^2 - 2x32x9} = sqrt{1360} ~= 37 feet /sec ~= 25 mile/hour

--
Michael Press

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:

This is precisely why intent is assumed when such "accidents" occur.

No, intent is not "assumed." But the intent that must be proven in a
case such as this is not the intent to injure, it is the intent to
perform an act which has injury as a likely consequence.

I think we mean the same thing but you're putting it in the proper manner.

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

The doctor was likely going in excess of 35-40 mph when he braked because he
passed the cyclists and cut in front of them and slowed down. Also, I notice
you used maximum braking calculations. On what basis do you conclude he did a
maximum braking event? You can't make those assumptions and then from those
assumptions claim he stopped in 30 feet.

How come the cyclists didn't slow down at all, according to their GPS?

I showed you how to do it.
Make your own calculation.
Keep working until you get
the number you want.

--
Michael Press

On Nov 9, 10:59*pm, Michael Press wrote:

I showed you how to do it.
Make your own calculation.
Keep working until you get
the number you want.

He doesn't need a calculation. He _knows_ the number. Jesus told
him.

And he disses religion...sheesh. He's built a shrine to his personal
opinion of his own intelligence. He doesn't need anything more than
his faith in his religion of Him to proselytize.

That's the hallmark of a true boob. Whether it's religion or science
- to believe with absolute certainty that they have the answer and any
other way is absolutely wrong. That's simply self-inflicted
intellectual blinders to ease the strain on the brain.

R

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 9, 7:02*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"z" wrote in ...

One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not go
around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was no
immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not been
mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely enough for
them to hit the car).

Huh? The good "doctor" passed them while they were descending at high speed
(meaning they were probably tucked in with their chins on the stem) pulled
in front of them and slammed on his brakes. While he might have thought that
he was going to give them a scare he pulled in too close and slammed on the
brakes too hard.

This is precisely why intent is assumed when such "accidents" occur.

No, intent is not "assumed." But the intent that must be proven in a
case such as this is not the intent to injure, it is the intent to
perform an act which has injury as a likely consequence.
DR

Those are all subjective words that mean different things to different people.
But as a general rule, brake-checking someone isn't likely to cause serious
injury and in the vast majority of most cases does not. It certainly can, but
it's not likely. I've been brake-checked in a car...never came close to an
accident. But if you brake-check Liz Hatch, brother, she's going down.

Magilla

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 9, 10:59*pm, Michael Press wrote:

I showed you how to do it.
Make your own calculation.
Keep working until you get
the number you want.

He doesn't need a calculation. He _knows_ the number. Jesus told
him.

And he disses religion...sheesh. He's built a shrine to his personal
opinion of his own intelligence. He doesn't need anything more than
his faith in his religion of Him to proselytize.

**** religion. **** God, and **** Jesus.

Thanks,

Magilla

On Nov 10, 7:10*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Those are all subjective words that mean different things to different people.
But as a general rule, brake-checking someone isn't likely to cause serious
injury and in the vast majority of most cases does not. *It certainly can, but
it's not likely. *I've been brake-checked in a car...never came close to an
accident. *But if you brake-check Liz Hatch, brother, she's going down.

The law is there to "protect" people like Liz Hatch so they only go
down when they want to.
--D-y

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 9, 1:01*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. *You guys are so prejudiced against Dr. T and
you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt them with his car. *

Try this one:
"Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the
trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the
bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit
anybody the last few times I shot at someone. "

MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent."

You equate brake-checking with pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger? That's a
disingenuous analogy.

Magilla

Tom Kunich wrote:

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 1:01 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. You guys
are so prejudiced against Dr. T and
you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt
them with his car.

Try this one:
"Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the
trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the
bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit
anybody the last few times I shot at someone. "

MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent."

Pretty easy to see he's pulling chains and you're responding.

If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911
and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me
with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick."

Or...do you do as I do..and flash your high beams and say, "Dumb ****"...and
then just continue your cell phone conversation.

You people are all major league faggots in here the way you talk and see
things in life. I believe most people in here actually still think the French
lab techs framed Fraud. You honestly believe that. And the only way I'm
going to change that kind of ****ed-up thinking is with an aluminum baseball
bat.

Magilla

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 9, 2:45*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...

On Nov 9, 1:01 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. You guys
are so prejudiced against Dr. T and
you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt
them with his car.

Try this one:
"Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the
trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the
bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit
anybody the last few times I shot at someone. "

MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent."

Pretty easy to see he's pulling chains and you're responding.

Can't say that you're wrong.

Nice little circle jerk you guys got going on.

Magilla