|
General » rec.autos.driving » More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA
| More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795818] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 03:37 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795823 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 04:08 |
|
> Meanwhile, they're running this TV ad which shows CEO Thomas McKernan
> driving slothily and obliviously down the street while a frustrated
> driver repeatedly passes him (how McKernon manages to get back in
> front again and again is never shown).
The Sloth speeds up and passes the other driver, with the usual MFFY
attitude. They like driving Slothily until someone pulls in front of
them, and then they start tailgating and trying to get in front.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795835 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 05:08 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795839 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 05:38 |
|
In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij524o [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
the correct time. Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
however is foolish.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795840 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 06:03 |
|
In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij524o [at] 4ax.com>,
richard <spam [at] google.dom> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:37:47 -0800, Scott in SoCal
><scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Transportation Institute which concludes that "speeding nearly triples
>>the risk of being involved in a crash or near-crash," "a vehicle's
>>crash impact (whatever the fuck THAT is) increases exponentially with
>>speed," and "speeding is probably the single biggest cause of traffic
[...]
>
>What is "crash impact"? you ask?
>That is the force of the striking vehicle upon the receiving vehicle.
>There are formulas for determining the speed of the striking vehicle.
Yeah. And you know what they don't include.... exponential growth.
The phrase "increases exponentially with" has a specific meaning. It
does NOT mean "increases by a lot". The force of one vehicle on
another increases in an inelastic collision is determined by three
terms -- the mass of the striking vehicle, the velocity of the
striking vehicle, and (inversely) the duration of the collision. None
of those terms changes exponentially with speed.
>I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
>lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
You should have changed lanes better.
>Here I am keeping my pace, in the same lane for 20 miles or more and
>in that time I've passed the same truck 5 times?
>Half the time I have no idea when he passed me.
And I've been on the highway, stopped to eat, gotten back on the road,
and passed a bunch of cars I passed before I stopped.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795845 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 06:34 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795846 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 06:37 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795847 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 06:40 |
|
In article <mtk4s3lhub5odg2ot93ki8vm9r6o631lp9 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:38:45 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij524o [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>>
>>> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
>>> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
>>
>>Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
>>the correct time. Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
>>move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
>>however is foolish.
>
> Richard is full of shit. If Truckers never change lanes trying to get
> ahead, then why are all the freeways clogged with semis micro-passing
> each other with a 0.001 MPH speed differential?
And truckers that won't obey the truck lane restrictions....
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795849 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 07:06 |
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) writes:
>And truckers that won't obey the truck lane restrictions....
This reminds me of my favourite day on CA 60 through the Badlands. For those
not familiar with it, it is a very narrow four-lane expressway, frequently
without shoulders and only jersey kerb between you and the other carriageway
or falling off the hills. For this reason, there is strict lane control and
trucks can only be in the rightmost.
Naturally, on this particular day, there was a semi trying to pass everyone
else on an upgrade chugging along at 56mph. Just as he gets to the top of
the hill where a turnout area exists, he starts to move back into the right
lane -- right in front of a CHP car who turns on his lights and pulls him
over.
I think all of us in the backup waved at him as the cop wrote him the
ticket.
--
Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser [at] floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795851 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 07:34 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> I just received my March/April issue of Westways, the magazine you get
> when you belong to AAA in SoCal. Among the tidbits of information is
> an article on "Wet-Weather Wisdom" which recommends "decreasing your
> speed by about one-third of the posted speed limit" when it rains, as
> well as a report on a study conducted by the Virginia Tech
> Transportation Institute which concludes that "speeding nearly triples
> the risk of being involved in a crash or near-crash,"
It looks like the magazine decided to reword the conclusion of the
study. The actual study states that "inappropriate speed" increases the
risk of being involved in a crash or near crash with an odds-ratio
significantly greater than 1.0. I haven't had the chance to read the
entire study, but I don't see where they say that "inappropriate speed"
== "speeding."
<http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/RiskyDrivingReport.pdf>
See pages 71 and 77 of the pdf.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795852 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 08:01 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij524o [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>
>> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
>> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
>
> Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
> the correct time.
Agree 100%. Knowing when and when not to change lanes is the key.
> Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
> move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
> however is foolish.
While I usually do not speed during rush hour traffic (it's nearly
impossible because of the congestion) I found that by making the
appropriate lane changes at the correct time, I can get to a destination
that's 40 miles away about 20 to 30 minutes faster than my friends who
just stick to driving mostly in a single lane. And my lane changes do
*NOT* involve cutting off people or tailgating. It's just knowing how
to proactively drive around overly congested lanes and sloth drivers who
will impede everyone else's progress.
- Peter
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795854 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 08:11 |
|
On Feb 25, 2:01 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb... [at] aol.com> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij5... [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>
> >> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
> >> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
>
> > Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
> > the correct time.
>
> Agree 100%. Knowing when and when not to change lanes is the key.
>
> > Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
> > move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
> > however is foolish.
>
> While I usually do not speed during rush hour traffic (it's nearly
> impossible because of the congestion) I found that by making the
> appropriate lane changes at the correct time, I can get to a destination
> that's 40 miles away about 20 to 30 minutes faster than my friends who
> just stick to driving mostly in a single lane.
Lol.... Really...?
Over what distance?
> And my lane changes do
> *NOT* involve cutting off people or tailgating. It's just knowing how
> to proactively drive around overly congested lanes and sloth drivers who
> will impede everyone else's progress.
Lol. What criteria do you use to determine which drivers are "slothy"
when congestion a degree where "speeding" is "nearly impossible"...?
Have you had your hourglass checked for accuracy...?
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795857 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 09:17 |
|
Scott in SoCal:
> I just received my March/April issue of Westways, the magazine you get
> when you belong to AAA in SoCal. Among the tidbits of information is
> an article on "Wet-Weather Wisdom" which recommends "decreasing your
> speed by about one-third of the posted speed limit" when it rains, as
> well as a report on a study conducted by the Virginia Tech
Hmmmm, Lessseeeee, Virginia Tech. Isn't that where some ritalin fiend
went ape and shot up abunch of people a few months ago? Isn't that
Michael Vick's Alma Mater? Isn't VT just a diploma mill for athletes?
The credibility of this, "study," from VT is simply swirling down the
loo as I speak....
> Transportation Institute which concludes that "speeding nearly triples
> the risk of being involved in a crash or near-crash," "a vehicle's
> crash impact (whatever the fuck THAT is) increases exponentially with
> speed," and "speeding is probably the single biggest cause of traffic
> fatalities." Of course, in the same article, they state that "40% of
> collisions that result in death are alcohol-related," so since
> speeding is the biggest cause it must account for at least another
> 50%, but "a 10% reduction in average traffic speed would likely reduce
> fatal traffic crashes by 34%." It's as if VTTI went out and hired Carl
> Troller to do research studies for them...
>
> Meanwhile, they're running this TV ad which shows CEO Thomas McKernan
> driving slothily and obliviously down the street while a frustrated
> driver repeatedly passes him (how McKernon manages to get back in
> front again and again is never shown).
Maybe he is using a time machine?
> The message is "speeding
> doesn't get you to your destination any faster, so just drive like a
> Sloth" is driven home when the "speeder" arrives at the elevator door
> to find McKernan already inside.
Must be one of the New Physics, kinda like the New Math that was the
rage one upon a time....
> THIS is what my membership dues are paying for? Seems to me that AAA
> should be looking out for MY interests and the interests of the other
IMO, the only thing that AAA is good for is using the travel agency to
book hotels while traveling and for the roadside assistance. FWIW,
they have paid to tow my DROF's a few times....
> dues-paying members instead of Joan Claybrook's. Instead of all the
> sanctimonious finger-wagging telling me I should always obey the speed
> limit, how about lobbying to get all speed limits appropriately set?
> Then you'd get (*gasp!*) VOLUNTARY compliance!!
Three words, Scott: National Motorists Association.
--
F ools
E gomaniacs &
M orons
A ssociation
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795858 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 10:20 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:01 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb... [at] aol.com> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij5... [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
>>>> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
>>>> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
>>>
>>> Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
>>> the correct time.
>>
>> Agree 100%. Knowing when and when not to change lanes is the key.
>>
>>> Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
>>> move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
>>> however is foolish.
>>
>> While I usually do not speed during rush hour traffic (it's nearly
>> impossible because of the congestion) I found that by making the
>> appropriate lane changes at the correct time, I can get to a destination
>> that's 40 miles away about 20 to 30 minutes faster than my friends who
>> just stick to driving mostly in a single lane.
>
> Lol.... Really...?
>
> Over what distance?
I already stated the distance. Please read more carefully next time.
>> And my lane changes do
>> *NOT* involve cutting off people or tailgating. It's just knowing how
>> to proactively drive around overly congested lanes and sloth drivers who
>> will impede everyone else's progress.
>
> Lol. What criteria do you use to determine which drivers are "slothy"
> when congestion a degree where "speeding" is "nearly impossible"...?
Simple. The speed limit is 65 MPH, but because of rush hour congestion
one would be hard press to drive over 60 MPH safely. Yet most traffic
will still manage to travel between 45 to 55 MPH for stretches at a time
except for lanes blocked by sloth drivers who accelerate slowly and
insist on going along at a 35 to 40 MPH clip while there's no car ahead
of them for a good quarter-mile or so.
So basically I define a sloth driver in these driving conditions people
who accelerate too slowly and insist on driving 10 to 15 MPH *below* the
flow of the traffic.
- Peter
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795873 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 14:36 |
|
On Feb 25, 4:20 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb... [at] aol.com> wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 2:01 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb... [at] aol.com> wrote:
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>> In article <14f4s3diqho2seagkl8prsv6obhaij5... [at] 4ax.com>, richard wrote:
> >>>> I learned a long long time ago, before I became a trucker. Changing
> >>>> lanes trying to get ahead never pays off.
>
> >>> Odd... for me I find it is a matter of making the correct lane change at
> >>> the correct time.
>
> >> Agree 100%. Knowing when and when not to change lanes is the key.
>
> >>> Today I got way ahead thanks to knowing what lane to
> >>> move into and when. Changing lanes to get ahead without a longer term plan
> >>> however is foolish.
>
> >> While I usually do not speed during rush hour traffic (it's nearly
> >> impossible because of the congestion) I found that by making the
> >> appropriate lane changes at the correct time, I can get to a destination
> >> that's 40 miles away about 20 to 30 minutes faster than my friends who
> >> just stick to driving mostly in a single lane.
>
> > Lol.... Really...?
>
> > Over what distance?
>
> I already stated the distance. Please read more carefully next time.
Just allowing you the opportunity to say "whoops"... and/or get
someone to do the math for you and/or "remain silent" instead.
> >> And my lane changes do
> >> *NOT* involve cutting off people or tailgating. It's just knowing how
> >> to proactively drive around overly congested lanes and sloth drivers who
> >> will impede everyone else's progress.
>
> > Lol. What criteria do you use to determine which drivers are "slothy"
> > when congestion a degree where "speeding" is "nearly impossible"...?
>
> Simple. The speed limit is 65 MPH, but because of rush hour congestion
> one would be hard press to drive over 60 MPH safely. Yet most traffic
> will still manage to travel between 45 to 55 MPH for stretches at a time
For "stretches"...?!?!
I hope to fuck at the end of those stretches their velocity increases,
despite your implication that it decreases, which kinda makes your
extraordinary claim/s... mmmore than just a tad more difficult to
substantiate.
> except for lanes blocked by sloth drivers who accelerate slowly and
> insist on going along at a 35 to 40 MPH clip while there's no car ahead
> of them for a good quarter-mile or so.
Lol... shuuure they do...
I bet you see drivers on your planet operating at 35-40mph in a 65
zone with a wide-open highway to their front/s for 1320ft+ for no
compelling reason all the time, huh...?
Which planet did you say this was...?
> So basically I define a sloth driver in these driving conditions people
> who accelerate too slowly and insist on driving 10 to 15 MPH *below* the
> flow of the traffic.
Your tinfoil hat has a hole... and there's a hell of a leak where the
bullshit is escaping.
You should plug that.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795875 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 15:39 |
|
On Feb 25, 3:17=A0am, necromancer <o.20.t... [at] spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal:
>
> > I just received my March/April issue of Westways, the magazine you get
> > when you belong to AAA in SoCal. Among the tidbits of information is
> > an article on "Wet-Weather Wisdom" which recommends "decreasing your
> > speed by about one-third of the posted speed limit" when it rains, as
> > well as a report on a study conducted by the Virginia Tech
>
> Hmmmm, Lessseeeee, Virginia Tech. Isn't that where some ritalin fiend
> went ape and shot up abunch of people a few months ago? Isn't that
> Michael Vick's Alma Mater? Isn't VT just a diploma mill for athletes?
> The credibility of this, "study," from VT is simply swirling down the
> loo as I speak....
Possibly, but one of my best friends from HS got his engineering
degree from there and I would hardly call him without credibility.
They do turn out competent engineers occasionally.
That said, I haven't read the study, but "decreasing one's speed by
about one-third of the posted speed limit" sounds like a singularly
bad idea. Either they have really poor drainage down in Blacksburg,
their speed limits are set more realistically, and/or there's
something that I'm missing here. 1/3 of the posted would be about 37
MPH on most freeways around here; I can't see how anyone with a
Functioning Cerebrum would think that that would be an appropriate
speed under any circumstances short of a heavy snow and/or freezing
rain, and prudence might dictate simply staying home under those
conditions.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795877 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 15:54 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795878 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 16:15 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795883 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 18:55 |
|
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:15:20 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In CA, the DMV services they offer are INVALUABLE. The real DMV
>offices are ridiculously understaffed, with lines regularly stretching
>out the door and into the parking lot. Yes, you can make an
>appointment, but all that does it qualify you to stand in a shorter
>line. At AAA, you can walk right in and get most things taken care of
>immediately - that alone is worth the annual membership dues.
THey do that out there? That's the first I've heard of them offering
such a service....
Though it does sound like a good idea....
C orny
A lmanac of
L eftcoast
R oads
O btuse &
G rainy
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795925 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 23:42 |
|
In article <5de6b49f-5840-4d09-a7cb-441350a1a9c1 [at] n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>That said, I haven't read the study, but "decreasing one's speed by
>about one-third of the posted speed limit" sounds like a singularly
>bad idea. Either they have really poor drainage down in Blacksburg,
>their speed limits are set more realistically, and/or there's
>something that I'm missing here. 1/3 of the posted would be about 37
>MPH on most freeways around here; I can't see how anyone with a
It says "decreasing one's speed by about one-third...." So if the
speed limit is 55, and you normally do 80, it means in the rain you should
do 61. A bit conservative for me, but not as bad as you make it out
:-)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795960 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 06:08 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795964 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 06:39 |
|
I figured out a long time ago that AAA is for little old ladies. Their
rates are insanely high for everybody else. What do you get for all
that money? Nothing! AAA always said they'd take care of everything
but collection notices would show up a few weeks later. How's that for
scary? You'd think they'd be happy to help when I'm not at fault.
The roadside service is just as bad. I once had a lengthy argument with
a AAA dispatcher about whether or not my car qualified for emergency
service when it was stuck on an offramp with a burst clutch line. The
tow truck comes out and gives you a short list of places that are within
range. If you're like most people and you call a tow truck once every 5
years, you'll save a lot of money paying on your own.
Northern CA AAA isn't Southern CA AAA but they're both bad. A sleepy
driver hit my car in So CA and the two AAAs argued over who had to
handle it. Meanwhile, I was stuck 520 miles from my Nor CA home and job
with a car that had only three wheels.
--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795965 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 06:55 |
|
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> I figured out a long time ago that AAA is for little old ladies. Their
> rates are insanely high for everybody else. What do you get for all
> that money? Nothing! AAA always said they'd take care of everything
> but collection notices would show up a few weeks later. How's that for
> scary? You'd think they'd be happy to help when I'm not at fault.
I'm not all that unhappy with what AAA did for me when their insured
wrecked my car. Yeah, I had to take them to small claims court for part
of it, but they paid off right away including (voluntarily) something
for pain and suffering, which was a surprise.
> The roadside service is just as bad. I once had a lengthy argument with
> a AAA dispatcher about whether or not my car qualified for emergency
> service when it was stuck on an offramp with a burst clutch line. The
> tow truck comes out and gives you a short list of places that are within
> range. If you're like most people and you call a tow truck once every 5
> years, you'll save a lot of money paying on your own.
OTOH, if your car dies on the freeway after dark and you don't happen to
have a yellow pages with you to call a private towing company, AAA is a
good idea.
--
Cheers,
Bev
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge
|
|
|
| Re: More Smarmy Bullshit from AAA [message #795985 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 15:23 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 03:59:55 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.09435 Sekunden |
