Ignore all the advertising propaganda.

If the minimum safe distance between cars on the open road could be calculated from physics then I could calculate it as well as anyone.

But the minimum safe distance is a question of pshchology as much as physics, and each person has their own ideas of how close it’s safe to travel to the car in front. Consider how close cars are in races for instance.

Measuring gaps between cars on the road in light to moderate traffic by standing adjacent to the road holding out a standard length over 20 minutes I get.
0 km/hr (eg. stopped at traffic lights), 1/2 a car length gap.
60 km/hr, 2 car length gap.
80 km/hr, typically 3 car length gap, but several as short as 2 car lengths.

100 km/hr . I recorded:
2 gaps at 1 car length
2 gaps at 1.5 car length
6 gaps at 2 car length
4 gaps at 2.5 car length
10 gaps at 3 car length
7 gaps at 4 car length
13 gaps at 5 car length
3 gaps at 6 car length
1 gap at 7 car length
And there would have been many more instances of large gaps because this was only light to moderate traffic.

Keeping that in mind, what would you personally consider a minimum safe distance between cars at 100 km/hr, on an Australian freeway or tollway?

mollwollfumble said:

Ignore all the advertising propaganda.

If the minimum safe distance between cars on the open road could be calculated from physics then I could calculate it as well as anyone.

But the minimum safe distance is a question of pshchology as much as physics, and each person has their own ideas of how close it’s safe to travel to the car in front. Consider how close cars are in races for instance.

Measuring gaps between cars on the road in light to moderate traffic by standing adjacent to the road holding out a standard length over 20 minutes I get.
0 km/hr (eg. stopped at traffic lights), 1/2 a car length gap.
60 km/hr, 2 car length gap.
80 km/hr, typically 3 car length gap, but several as short as 2 car lengths.

100 km/hr . I recorded:
2 gaps at 1 car length
2 gaps at 1.5 car length
6 gaps at 2 car length
4 gaps at 2.5 car length
10 gaps at 3 car length
7 gaps at 4 car length
13 gaps at 5 car length
3 gaps at 6 car length
1 gap at 7 car length
And there would have been many more instances of large gaps because this was only light to moderate traffic.

Keeping that in mind, what would you personally consider a minimum safe distance between cars at 100 km/hr, on an Australian freeway or tollway?

Should it be a worst case scenario type distance, were the two drivers are considered to be quite distracted nowhere near SSSF quality in driving ability (I mean how could they be) and thus allowing for these considerations

I use a four-second rule on the highway/freeway (four seconds between me and the car in front). Most mining companies mandate a three-second rule for highways/freeways in their SOPs.

Remember that reaction time is generally 0.4 sec or more.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ignore all the advertising propaganda.

If the minimum safe distance between cars on the open road could be calculated from physics then I could calculate it as well as anyone.

But the minimum safe distance is a question of pshchology as much as physics, and each person has their own ideas of how close it’s safe to travel to the car in front. Consider how close cars are in races for instance.

Measuring gaps between cars on the road in light to moderate traffic by standing adjacent to the road holding out a standard length over 20 minutes I get.
0 km/hr (eg. stopped at traffic lights), 1/2 a car length gap.
60 km/hr, 2 car length gap.
80 km/hr, typically 3 car length gap, but several as short as 2 car lengths.

100 km/hr . I recorded:
2 gaps at 1 car length
2 gaps at 1.5 car length
6 gaps at 2 car length
4 gaps at 2.5 car length
10 gaps at 3 car length
7 gaps at 4 car length
13 gaps at 5 car length
3 gaps at 6 car length
1 gap at 7 car length
And there would have been many more instances of large gaps because this was only light to moderate traffic.

Keeping that in mind, what would you personally consider a minimum safe distance between cars at 100 km/hr, on an Australian freeway or tollway?

Should it be a worst case scenario type distance, were the two drivers are considered to be quite distracted nowhere near SSSF quality in driving ability (I mean how could they be) and thus allowing for these considerations

“Consider how close cars are in races for instance.”

Racing car drivers knowingly risk collisions: it’s an occupational hazard and they are all going to have a few collisions during their careers. So they accept shorter stopping distances than people who don’t want any collisions at all, ie regular drivers on a public road.

“Car length” is a bit vague, could be anything from 2.5 to 5 metres, so let’s stick to metres.

Collisions can cause basically instantaneous low speed or stationary obstructions that require a complete stop by oncoming vehicles. In other words, a safe driving distance equals stopping distance.

If you’re a good, attentive driver with a normal reaction time, you’ll observe, process, decide and have your brake down in 1.5 seconds. In good conditions, you can probably brake at 7.5 m/s/s. All up, then, your stopping distance at 100 km/h is about 93 metres.

establishing a safe trailing distance (often neglected) is as important as the safe distance, and the former can be much longer than the latter, especially if braking is to be avoided (gradual deceleration instead).

of a vehicle ahead (obstacle), in the case of it having an unknown speed, if the speed is zero or a low speed then establishing a safe trailing distance and the safe trailing distance are fairly much the same thing (safe braking distance), though paradoxically it sort of requires seeing them separately to know that.

you might also observe that trailing a vehicle is the only way to get its speed, and an attention rejig happens (important in the case of/for overtaking).

people often tend toward the minimum safe distance because they get their speed somewhat from other vehicles on the road, it also makes watching convergence easier, perhaps a quicker judgement, which you might see can be dangerous. But too traffic compression is a normal aspect of city driving.

as for M(V^2), what it means for trailing distance and braking, i’d guess a good portion of drivers have NFI, it’s hardly an intuitive thing.

should add too, the safe distance depends on the amount of attention you want to give, demands of, like if doing something else you hang back further.

I have done and still do most of my driving on country roads at 95-100km/hr. You need enough space for the car behind you to pass you and still get back in. Because they will. And they may have a trailer on and they will still do it. And then as soon as they have slotted in, they will put on their brakes. So you need quite a bit of space.

buffy said:

I have done and still do most of my driving on country roads at 95-100km/hr. You need enough space for the car behind you to pass you and still get back in. Because they will. And they may have a trailer on and they will still do it. And then as soon as they have slotted in, they will put on their brakes. So you need quite a bit of space.

Some people drive at a speed just a bit too slow for what you’d like so you wait for and overtaking lane and when you get there they speed up.

Peak Warming Man said:

buffy said:

I have done and still do most of my driving on country roads at 95-100km/hr. You need enough space for the car behind you to pass you and still get back in. Because they will. And they may have a trailer on and they will still do it. And then as soon as they have slotted in, they will put on their brakes. So you need quite a bit of space.

Some people drive at a speed just a bit too slow for what you’d like so you wait for and overtaking lane and when you get there they speed up.

I do not!!

dv said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ignore all the advertising propaganda.

If the minimum safe distance between cars on the open road could be calculated from physics then I could calculate it as well as anyone.

But the minimum safe distance is a question of pshchology as much as physics, and each person has their own ideas of how close it’s safe to travel to the car in front. Consider how close cars are in races for instance.

Measuring gaps between cars on the road in light to moderate traffic by standing adjacent to the road holding out a standard length over 20 minutes I get.
0 km/hr (eg. stopped at traffic lights), 1/2 a car length gap.
60 km/hr, 2 car length gap.
80 km/hr, typically 3 car length gap, but several as short as 2 car lengths.

100 km/hr . I recorded:
2 gaps at 1 car length
2 gaps at 1.5 car length
6 gaps at 2 car length
4 gaps at 2.5 car length
10 gaps at 3 car length
7 gaps at 4 car length
13 gaps at 5 car length
3 gaps at 6 car length
1 gap at 7 car length
And there would have been many more instances of large gaps because this was only light to moderate traffic.

Keeping that in mind, what would you personally consider a minimum safe distance between cars at 100 km/hr, on an Australian freeway or tollway?

Should it be a worst case scenario type distance, were the two drivers are considered to be quite distracted nowhere near SSSF quality in driving ability (I mean how could they be) and thus allowing for these considerations

“Consider how close cars are in races for instance.”

Racing car drivers knowingly risk collisions: it’s an occupational hazard and they are all going to have a few collisions during their careers. So they accept shorter stopping distances than people who don’t want any collisions at all, ie regular drivers on a public road.

In a race you are all up against known adversaries. You all have better braking capability and all have new or near new tyres. You are all also travelling at near the same speed on a known course.

buffy said:

I have done and still do most of my driving on country roads at 95-100km/hr. You need enough space for the car behind you to pass you and still get back in. Because they will. And they may have a trailer on and they will still do it. And then as soon as they have slotted in, they will put on their brakes. So you need quite a bit of space.

Yep. This is sensible open road country driving advice. I’ve often counted the seconds between them getting back in line and impact point and most drivers are willing to risk four or five seconds gap but a heck of a lot get away with two. Only just.

If on a freeway, usually 4-5 car lengths. Highway, a bit more because you have different speed zones and lights quite close so easier to sit back. open road, bit more because of unexpected stuff.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

“Consider how close cars are in races for instance.”

Racing car drivers knowingly risk collisions: it’s an occupational hazard and they are all going to have a few collisions during their careers. So they accept shorter stopping distances than people who don’t want any collisions at all, ie regular drivers on a public road.

In a race you are all up against known adversaries. You all have better braking capability and all have new or near new tyres. You are all also travelling at near the same speed on a known course.

all the same way and with no traffic lights, no pedestrians and (hopefully) no fatigue. completely different type of driving and hardly comparable to regular road driving

I reckon the problem with freeway driving is that not enough people read far enough ahead of them. They watch the person in front of them and that’s about it, maybe the person in front of the person in front. They don’t put their foot on the brake until the one immediately in front of them does… which is likely too late in an emergency situation.

Car length is 3.5 metres.

Assume that the driver in front is at least as good a driver as you.

It’s not a physics question because if everybody drives at the same speed and applies brakes at the same gentle rate (as is bog standard) then it is easy to mathematically prove that the safe inter-car distance can be very much less than reaction time times speed. The slower or more predictable the deceleration rate is, the smaller the safe distance is.

It’s a psychology question. ie.

How close would you be frightened at?
a) At constant speed.
b) When overtaking.

Everybody closes up when overtaking.

mollwollfumble said:

Car length is 3.5 metres.

Assume that the driver in front is at least as good a driver as you.

That is an unearthly assumption. If everyone was a good driver there’d be few collisions. You have to drive knowing that some percentage of drivers are shit and there could be a collision between two vehicles ahead of you or for that matter between a vehicle ahead of you and a siderail or tunnel wall.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Car length is 3.5 metres.

Assume that the driver in front is at least as good a driver as you.

That is an unearthly assumption. If everyone was a good driver there’d be few collisions. You have to drive knowing that some percentage of drivers are shit and there could be a collision between two vehicles ahead of you or for that matter between a vehicle ahead of you and a siderail or tunnel wall.

Which is why most drivers don’t attempt becomeing racing drivers.

> completely different type of driving and hardly comparable to regular road driving

out on the highway fatigue happens fairly quick, has got a proper name, might be called monotony-induced hypovigilance, good-part caused by driving being uninteresting (happens in twenty minutes or something, quickly anyway), you’re confined, both movement and space, like a type of sensory deprivation, absent are the usual feedbacks from actualizing movement, even sensing of your body becomes numb. There’s another aspect, your habits or unconscious aspects of driving come to include the motor vehicle extension, so add comforts and the reality of physics isn’t exactly banging on your door. Detachment really.

transition said:

> completely different type of driving and hardly comparable to regular road driving

out on the highway fatigue happens fairly quick, has got a proper name, might be called monotony-induced hypovigilance, good-part caused by driving being uninteresting (happens in twenty minutes or something, quickly anyway), you’re confined, both movement and space, like a type of sensory deprivation, absent are the usual feedbacks from actualizing movement, even sensing of your body becomes numb. There’s another aspect, your habits or unconscious aspects of driving come to include the motor vehicle extension, so add comforts and the reality of physics isn’t exactly banging on your door. Detachment really.

A tv on the dash would solve that problem.

Michael V said:

I use a four-second rule on the highway/freeway (four seconds between me and the car in front). Most mining companies mandate a three-second rule for highways/freeways in their SOPs.

Remember that reaction time is generally 0.4 sec or more.

So Michael V never travels closer than a 23 car gap. That’s a 3 second gap at 100 km/hr.

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

if you compare that to race driving, the speeds are more consistent. So they are all braking at almost the same speed and reflex.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Racing car drivers knowingly risk collisions: it’s an occupational hazard and they are all going to have a few collisions during their careers. So they accept shorter stopping distances than people who don’t want any collisions at all, ie regular drivers on a public road.

In a race you are all up against known adversaries. You all have better braking capability and all have new or near new tyres. You are all also travelling at near the same speed on a known course.

all the same way and with no traffic lights, no pedestrians and (hopefully) no fatigue. completely different type of driving and hardly comparable to regular road driving

To be fair, dv didn’t say that. Your quote crops left out the fact that I said it.

>The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop

+ the thing in brackets M(V^2)

.5M(V^2) should say

transition said:

>The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop

+ the thing in brackets M(V^2)

High speed cars don’t want to stop. They’d prefer to try slowing down first.

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

roughbarked said:

if you compare that to race driving, the speeds are more consistent. So they are all braking at almost the same speed and reflex.

Yes. And that’s exactly the same on Australian freeways give or take 3 km/hr.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

if you compare that to race driving, the speeds are more consistent. So they are all braking at almost the same speed and reflex.

Yes. And that’s exactly the same on Australian freeways give or take 3 km/hr.

Is science always so black and white without the 50+ shades of grey?

You have to be fucking joking.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

That’s so fucking long ago. No.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The “stopping time” should increase with speed because of the greater time taken for a high speed car to stop.

I estimated 91 metres for 100 km/h before but Qld Transport recommends 98 metres.

Here are Qld transport’s estimated stopping distances for various speeds, and the corresponding stopping times.

60km/h, 45 metres, 2.7 seconds
80km/h, 69 metres, 3.1 seconds
100km/h, 98 metres, 3.5 seconds

This assumes dry roads in good conditions without fatigue etc

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

lake illawarra

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

I never leave 27 lengths if I am intent on going faster than the person in front of me but if nobody is coming up on my front bumper rapidly, it could easily often be thousands of lengths.

and you are still missing the point.

Your reply still has not taken into account the word, reflex. In my post you quoted.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

lake illawarra

That’s him.

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

lake illawarra

That’s him.

and don’t ask me for the answer but who was the captain of the ship or was it a barge?

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

lake illawarra

That’s him.

and don’t ask me for the answer but who was the captain of the ship or was it a barge?

Cant remember.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

Peak Warming Man said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

That’s him.

and don’t ask me for the answer but who was the captain of the ship or was it a barge?

Cant remember.

Isn’t that what I said? If I recall, it was a barge.

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

On average, most people leave at least 60/70m. One cannot see what is coming from close up. Despite the horrendous statistics of road deaths, most of us make it with at max two seconds to spare on overtaking unless overtaking into dense fog or a wall of water being thrown off truck wheels.

I count such statistics while driving just to stay awake.

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

Right but as mentioned before, a collision between two cars or between the car and a barrier can make the cars stop much much faster than a car can stop by braking.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

Right but as mentioned before, a collision between two cars or between the car and a barrier can make the cars stop much much faster than a car can stop by braking.

Yes. but surely you are actually watching the road and what is happening beyond your bonnet? can we get a little realism into this discussion?

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Which is what happened when the Hobart bridge collapsed.
Can anyone remember what the name of the ship that struck the bridge was without looking it up?

lake illawarra

That’s him.

the owner of the monaro teetering on the edge lived behind me at rose bay, nice bloke

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

Right but as mentioned before, a collision between two cars or between the car and a barrier can make the cars stop much much faster than a car can stop by braking.

Yes. but surely you are actually watching the road and what is happening beyond your bonnet? can we get a little realism into this discussion?

It could give it some direction.

it was a bulk carrier. bit bigger than a barge

ChrispenEvan said:

it was a bulk carrier. bit bigger than a barge

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

Your eye.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

yes

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it was a bulk carrier. bit bigger than a barge

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

If you are talking about devices. I would request devices that do various things. Tell people that they are far exceeding the speed for a main street of a shopping precinct or a school. Tell people the possibilities of why they wish to bully their way through a roundabout because they thik either that they have the right of way rule or because they want to get past the roundabout to stop at a railway crossing they know is red or almost always is.
I’d prefer it to be in the way of a magnetic hand grenade. Other than that I’d prefer not to actually hurt anyone, I’d rather that they didn’t come back to cause me to think that way again.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it was a bulk carrier. bit bigger than a barge

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

If you are talking about devices. I would request devices that do various things. Tell people that they are far exceeding the speed for a main street of a shopping precinct or a school. Tell people the possibilities of why they wish to bully their way through a roundabout because they thik either that they have the right of way rule or because they want to get past the roundabout to stop at a railway crossing they know is red or almost always is.
I’d prefer it to be in the way of a magnetic hand grenade. Other than that I’d prefer not to actually hurt anyone, I’d rather that they didn’t come back to cause me to think that way again.

Yes, a device that slaps people across the face when they are speeding or think they have right of way when they dont.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

ffs if you say so.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

or are you actually daring me to look up the actual initial news posts via Trove?

I know that since I’ve mentioned it, you have probably been having a go to get some ammunition for a useless bullying argument. The clues will be Captain of barge hitting bridge on Tasman.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

ffs if you say so.

It is not actually my responsibility that reporters say what they do.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

always heard of it as a bulk carrier.

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

or are you actually daring me to look up the actual initial news posts via Trove?

I know that since I’ve mentioned it, you have probably been having a go to get some ammunition for a useless bullying argument. The clues will be Captain of barge hitting bridge on Tasman.

yeah, go get the reference.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

ffs if you say so.

It is not actually my responsibility that reporters say what they do.

you are saying it is an open water barge. not a reporter, unless you are quoting. if so get the source.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

OK. But in reality it is an open water barge.

or are you actually daring me to look up the actual initial news posts via Trove?

I know that since I’ve mentioned it, you have probably been having a go to get some ammunition for a useless bullying argument. The clues will be Captain of barge hitting bridge on Tasman.

yeah, go get the reference.

You are the one who reckons it isn’t there.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ffs if you say so.

It is not actually my responsibility that reporters say what they do.

you are saying it is an open water barge. not a reporter, unless you are quoting. if so get the source.

I’m only guessing what the reporter was thinking. You go and prove I am incapable of remembering a single word in a single headline. Off you go.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is there a device on the market that can tell you what speed the car in front is doing?

If you are talking about devices. I would request devices that do various things. Tell people that they are far exceeding the speed for a main street of a shopping precinct or a school. Tell people the possibilities of why they wish to bully their way through a roundabout because they thik either that they have the right of way rule or because they want to get past the roundabout to stop at a railway crossing they know is red or almost always is.
I’d prefer it to be in the way of a magnetic hand grenade. Other than that I’d prefer not to actually hurt anyone, I’d rather that they didn’t come back to cause me to think that way again.

Yes, a device that slaps people across the face when they are speeding or think they have right of way when they dont.

and slaps them in the face before they do it.

It would be interesting if such a device were to be compulsory and be fitted with a mobile phone, that sends all violations to the Road Traffic Authority.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

or are you actually daring me to look up the actual initial news posts via Trove?

I know that since I’ve mentioned it, you have probably been having a go to get some ammunition for a useless bullying argument. The clues will be Captain of barge hitting bridge on Tasman.

yeah, go get the reference.

You are the one who reckons it isn’t there.

no i haven’t. don’t lie. now go and back up your claim. but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

It is not actually my responsibility that reporters say what they do.

you are saying it is an open water barge. not a reporter, unless you are quoting. if so get the source.

I’m only guessing what the reporter was thinking. You go and prove I am incapable of remembering a single word in a single headline. Off you go.

it isn’t up to me. you made the claim. you back it up.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

If you are talking about devices. I would request devices that do various things. Tell people that they are far exceeding the speed for a main street of a shopping precinct or a school. Tell people the possibilities of why they wish to bully their way through a roundabout because they thik either that they have the right of way rule or because they want to get past the roundabout to stop at a railway crossing they know is red or almost always is.
I’d prefer it to be in the way of a magnetic hand grenade. Other than that I’d prefer not to actually hurt anyone, I’d rather that they didn’t come back to cause me to think that way again.

Yes, a device that slaps people across the face when they are speeding or think they have right of way when they dont.

and slaps them in the face before they do it.

It would be interesting if such a device were to be compulsory and be fitted with a mobile phone, that sends all violations to the Road Traffic Authority.

do recall one instance where I was already entering the roundabout when the leader of the pack from the stoplights on the railway, aprox 30m from the roundabout, tried to beat me through the roundabout. I hammered the skids and almost collected him entering the roundabout and squealed the tyres while mouthing what the fuck do you think you are doing? LOUDLY. He stuck his head out after he stopped and said, sorry. I said never mind, at least you understand, if a little late. Most people don’t care a whit, they are getting there even if they have to argue with the insurance co as to who was right or wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yeah, go get the reference.

You are the one who reckons it isn’t there.

no i haven’t. don’t lie. now go and back up your claim. but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.

I know it is there and the fact that it is is about as necessary to the survival of humans on this planet as to the survival of all the lower orders, ptoves there is probably far more relevant stuff for you to argue with me about.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you are saying it is an open water barge. not a reporter, unless you are quoting. if so get the source.

I’m only guessing what the reporter was thinking. You go and prove I am incapable of remembering a single word in a single headline. Off you go.

it isn’t up to me. you made the claim. you back it up.

Go back and look. Was it a claim?
WTF is your nurse doing with your medication?

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

You are the one who reckons it isn’t there.

no i haven’t. don’t lie. now go and back up your claim. but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.

I know it is there and the fact that it is is about as necessary to the survival of humans on this planet as to the survival of all the lower orders, ptoves there is probably far more relevant stuff for you to argue with me about.

nah, got nothing better to do atm. now toddle off and get that reference.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

no i haven’t. don’t lie. now go and back up your claim. but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.

I know it is there and the fact that it is is about as necessary to the survival of humans on this planet as to the survival of all the lower orders, ptoves there is probably far more relevant stuff for you to argue with me about.

nah, got nothing better to do atm. now toddle off and get that reference.

See.. Bully.

I am not giving you my lolly just because you told me.

You have to earn it.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

I’m only guessing what the reporter was thinking. You go and prove I am incapable of remembering a single word in a single headline. Off you go.

it isn’t up to me. you made the claim. you back it up.

Go back and look. Was it a claim?
WTF is your nurse doing with your medication?

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

“but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.”

prophetic.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Go back and look. Was it a claim?
WTF is your nurse doing with your medication?

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

If you can find it. Trove is pretty good at replicating exactness.

but you’d probably need Virginia Trioli to find it for you..

ChrispenEvan said:

“but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.”

prophetic.

You are correct in one thing that I mentioned earlier. Why would I bother?

I mean why does it matter so much to you? I did see it described as a barge. I don’t recall which paper or I’d have brought it up for you to view. Here’s you who shits on what reporters say in current news when what they said in retro is of little worth unless it actually made a difference.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

“but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.”

prophetic.

You are correct in one thing that I mentioned earlier. Why would I bother?

I mean why does it matter so much to you? I did see it described as a barge. I don’t recall which paper or I’d have brought it up for you to view. Here’s you who shits on what reporters say in current news when what they said in retro is of little worth unless it actually made a difference.

I never shit on reporters unless they are of the ilk of the devines and bolts. i have worked with reporters. so once again you are lying about me. if you have to win by lying then you are a person of little character.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Go back and look. Was it a claim?
WTF is your nurse doing with your medication?

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870897?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110643294?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110933703?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110631923?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116337026?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110634128?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870604?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

“but you wont will you? you’ll argue the toss but not actually do anything. like you always do.”

prophetic.

You are correct in one thing that I mentioned earlier. Why would I bother?

I mean why does it matter so much to you? I did see it described as a barge. I don’t recall which paper or I’d have brought it up for you to view. Here’s you who shits on what reporters say in current news when what they said in retro is of little worth unless it actually made a difference.

I never shit on reporters unless they are of the ilk of the devines and bolts. i have worked with reporters. so once again you are lying about me. if you have to win by lying then you are a person of little character.

a liar is one who twists things to suit themselves.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

why would you leave that distance? the car in front is moving to.

Right but as mentioned before, a collision between two cars or between the car and a barrier can make the cars stop much much faster than a car can stop by braking.

Yes. but surely you are actually watching the road and what is happening beyond your bonnet? can we get a little realism into this discussion?

?

That’s the realistic case we are discussing.

You’re driving nicely, and up ahead, a car veers into another lane, causing a multicar collision that blocks both lanes. You now need to come to a stop, using only your brakes, before you reach the pileup.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870897?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110643294?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110933703?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110631923?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116337026?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110634128?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870604?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Right but as mentioned before, a collision between two cars or between the car and a barrier can make the cars stop much much faster than a car can stop by braking.

Yes. but surely you are actually watching the road and what is happening beyond your bonnet? can we get a little realism into this discussion?

?

That’s the realistic case we are discussing.

You’re driving nicely, and up ahead, a car veers into another lane, causing a multicar collision that blocks both lanes. You now need to come to a stop, using only your brakes, before you reach the pileup.

in the meantime a car or cars approach from side roads in the same or similar position as you and a kangaroo suddenly offers you a new angle of approach.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870897?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110643294?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110933703?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110631923?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116337026?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110634128?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870604?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870897?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110643294?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110933703?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110631923?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116337026?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110634128?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110870604?searchTerm=derwent%20bridge%20AND%20%22lake%20illawarra%22&searchLimits=exactPhrase=lake+illawarra|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

well, probably not the same reason.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

I’m also carrying a video in my head of Bob Trimbole and Detectives Ellis and Borthwick, loading Marijuana into boot of car while burning peach tree prunings for the camera. To this day i cannot for the life of me find the footage but I know it was broadcast as so too do many others of my age group. Some of us even wrote a song about it.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

It will take a while to read all of that. What then was the synopsis?

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

appearances are not in anyway what you perceive.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

well, probably not the same reason.

Why waste probabilities?

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

appearances are not in anyway what you perceive.

reality is not in anyway what you perceive.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
freighter
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

I didn’t claim anything other than that a headline said something. If you look at any headline today, you’ll probably notice thta it is continually edited after publicatiuon.

I really think you cunts are pure bullies who want to make a point more than go and have a shit.

ChrispenEvan said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

don’t need to..

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “barge” “derwent” “bridge”

no results

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “derwent” “bridge”

438 results

ChrispenEvan said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

I’m not going to have to. His searches are surely never going to find it without knowing the actual publication date.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

same reason you appear to need to bolster PF against me.

appearances are not in anyway what you perceive.

reality is not in anyway what you perceive.

The interbet is a far cry.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

I didn’t claim anything other than that a headline said something. If you look at any headline today, you’ll probably notice thta it is continually edited after publicatiuon.

the references are actual newspaper scans. bit hard to change the headline. plus we are talking 1975.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

don’t need to..

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “barge” “derwent” “bridge”

no results

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “derwent” “bridge”

438 results

i was joking, and channelling roughie.

:-)

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

and why do you feel the need to bolster Boris?

anyway, keep looking.

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

I didn’t claim anything other than that a headline said something. If you look at any headline today, you’ll probably notice thta it is continually edited after publicatiuon.

I really think you cunts are pure bullies who want to make a point more than go and have a shit.

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

I’ve just searched Trove, like you suggested and it is not..

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

I’m not going to have to. His searches are surely never going to find it without knowing the actual publication date.

LOL, don’t do much searching do you roughie?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

didn’t, was interested in your claim. I’ve only ever heard of it refered to as a bulk ore carrier.
the plaques at the site say that too, trove finds nothing when you search for lake illawarra barge derwent bridge, but lake illawarra derwent bridge brings up hundreds of bulk carrier/freighter articles

I didn’t claim anything other than that a headline said something. If you look at any headline today, you’ll probably notice thta it is continually edited after publicatiuon.

the references are actual newspaper scans. bit hard to change the headline. plus we are talking 1975.

Yes but you still haven’t used the words I mentioned as search phrases. I really don’t care if my memory is correct or not over such a span of time. Over such an unimportant issue. I could be adamant that such terminology was usedf until the cows come home but eventually you will find mention of the word. If not then my copy of that newspaper is worth millions.

ChrispenEvan said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

don’t need to..

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “barge” “derwent” “bridge”

no results

Search for exact phrase “lake illawarra”
search for all of these words “derwent” “bridge”

438 results

i was joking, and channelling roughie.

:-)

You big bully you. ;)

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

I didn’t claim anything other than that a headline said something. If you look at any headline today, you’ll probably notice thta it is continually edited after publicatiuon.

I really think you cunts are pure bullies who want to make a point more than go and have a shit.

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

I’ve just searched Trove, like you suggested and it is not..

No you didn’t. You searched it like you suggested.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you have to go through everyone of those articles stumpy. and when none say barge roughie will come back with some excuse,

I’m not going to have to. His searches are surely never going to find it without knowing the actual publication date.

LOL, don’t do much searching do you roughie?

Ha ha.

I actually love playing this game but don’t tell anyone.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but if you can find it on Trove, it was published as a barge, originally.

I’ve just searched Trove, like you suggested and it is not..

No you didn’t. You searched it like you suggested.

told you stumpy.

:-)

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

I’m not going to have to. His searches are surely never going to find it without knowing the actual publication date.

LOL, don’t do much searching do you roughie?

Ha ha.

I actually love playing this game but don’t tell anyone.

that’s because you’ve fried your brain with years of drug abuse.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

I’ve just searched Trove, like you suggested and it is not..

No you didn’t. You searched it like you suggested.

told you stumpy.

:-)

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

No you didn’t. You searched it like you suggested.

told you stumpy.

:-)

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

losers always say that.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

No you didn’t. You searched it like you suggested.

told you stumpy.

:-)

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

what? the car wash?…

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, don’t do much searching do you roughie?

Ha ha.

I actually love playing this game but don’t tell anyone.

that’s because you’ve fried your brain with years of drug abuse.

Whilst possibilites and probabilities may exist. This doesn’t take anything from my bullying accusations in any way.
You only assume that I may be telling the truth about everything, which actually goes against everything else you protest.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

told you stumpy.

:-)

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

losers always say that.

I forget his name.. what was it again?

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

told you stumpy.

:-)

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

what? the car wash?…

Julian Assange?

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Seeing we know this game backwards..

Can we perhaps try a new one?

I’m getting sick of the washing facilities in this embassy.

what? the car wash?…

Julian Assange?

At this point you may see how far we have travelled from magnets.

If safe distance was simply a question of physics, consider the following physics question.

Q: Two cars are travelling down the freeway at a steady 100 km/hr. The car behind is initially only one foot behind the car in front. Both cars have the same braking performance and the reaction time for both drivers is 0.45 seconds. The car in front slams on its brakes and comes to a complete stop. But there is no collision. How is this possible?

A: The car behind reacts to the same event that caused the car in front to brake.

I can read the propaganda as well as you can. I’m asking what you actually do, not what you have been told you ought to do.

I should have thought of this earlier. I can get approximate safe driving distances from Google Earth.

But I have to assume speed there, so I had the idea of taping masking tape to the inside of my windscreen to record how close I drive drive to the car ahead at the entire range of road speeds. The angle subtended by the rear of the car ahead gives the distance by similar triangles.

mollwollfumble said:

I should have thought of this earlier. I can get approximate safe driving distances from Google Earth.

But I have to assume speed there, so I had the idea of taping masking tape to the inside of my windscreen to record how close I drive drive to the car ahead at the entire range of road speeds. The angle subtended by the rear of the car ahead gives the distance by similar triangles.

glad I’m not driving on the same roads as you if you’re concentrating on tape on your windscreen instead of concentratingg on the road..

mollwollfumble said:

I should have thought of this earlier. I can get approximate safe driving distances from Google Earth.

But I have to assume speed there, so I had the idea of taping masking tape to the inside of my windscreen to record how close I drive drive to the car ahead at the entire range of road speeds. The angle subtended by the rear of the car ahead gives the distance by similar triangles.

if you looked at many google images could an average car distance be worked out?

highway driving, of establishing a safe trailing distance, this also announces your presence to the vehicle ahead in the same lane, and people do check in their rear view mirrors for this, as too the guy does that is about to pull out to overtake.

part of announcing you’re behind, is to let the guy ahead know so he might think of you if he has to brake heavy, or turn right, or slow to turn left even.

I like it when a semi sits two car lengths back behind you, you know his stopping distance is about 200+ metres straight over the top of you.

no math required, usually I mutter something like you fucken dickhead, accelerate away from him, then often pull over down the road somewhere let him go past.

transition said:

I like it when a semi sits two car lengths back behind you, you know his stopping distance is about 200+ metres straight over the top of you.

no math required, usually I mutter something like you fucken dickhead, accelerate away from him, then often pull over down the road somewhere let him go past.

I was particularly fond of the one that sat so close to me through the stones – wallaby territory – some years ago at dusk. I could only really see the grill. And it was a drizzly night I think. I pretty much decided that if a wallaby hopped out, I was dead either way.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stopping distance is irrelevant unless a chasm in the road opens up in front of you without warning.

which is what seems to happen to so many while the road surface is clear of chasms.

Do the two of you really leave 27 car lengths between you and the car in front when driving on freeways?

Have you ever measured it?

I don’t measure (or estimate) car lengths.

I measure (estimate) the distance in time. Method: vehicle in front passes a stationary object (sign, guidepost or similar). I count “one and two and three and four and”. I should pass the stationary object at the end of the final “and”. I do this fairly frequently.

truth is it requires experience with whatever example vehicle, differing conditions and weights(trailer attached etc), but particularly of hard braking most people know SFA. I mean the experience you need is exactly what you don’t do on the road, of regular driving, mostly, it’s illegal for a start, other than emergencies.

and the weakness, inexperience, it’s a trap, can be.

mostly my judgement is from try and test.

Michael V said:

I use a four-second rule on the highway/freeway (four seconds between me and the car in front). Most mining companies mandate a three-second rule for highways/freeways in their SOPs.

Remember that reaction time is generally 0.4 sec or more.

Qld Gov recommends 2 seconds (in ideal conditions).

mollwollfumble said:

…./cut/…..

Everybody closes up when overtaking.

lots of people seem to neglect to distinguish the different ways of overtaking, or the details regarding.

there’s the more typical way involving establishing a (safe, one’d hope) trailing distance, and then there’s conserving the momentum (there are slight variations on this, but you get the idea).

it’s nice to have some power, ready, and you want to feel it, which involves a test. In a manual you find the right gear, get the RPM up, and of an auto it’s doing more of it for you, but similar applies.

so if your vehicle’s low power (poor acceleration) you might compensate with speed, or maintaining speed, or longer runup.

I guess people close the gap, getting the speed up, pull out to the right late often, have a late look what’s oncoming before. Something of this more generally is about reducing the time on the right-hand side the road (of two lanes, one oncoming, going into it), and there’s a psychology in this. Part of it is the driver of the car you are going to overtake is probably watching you, and he does because if there’s an emergency involving oncoming traffic there is always the possibility he may have to slow/pull over in a hurry. That person will also try to drive a straight line for you, perhaps even slightly to the left. Also the driver will be wanting you to have enough space when you’re pulling back right ahead. So in terms of proximity, presence, the risks, you’re on their radar, a liability.

establishing a safe distance announces your presence, and possible intentions, so a mutual attention rejig happens.

gravel and stones flicked up from the side of the road can be a mongrel too. And of dirt roads there’s dust.

i’m thinking with people being hurried, instead of wasting time trailing someone quite a distance back, announcing presence, there might rather be a tendency to go right up behind. Hello

there are some other subtleties also, regards overtaking, and to do with the tendency to speed. Like cruising ~110km/h the vehicles in a gear with an RPM range that gives you economy, it’s not powered up for high torque. The thing is though, of say the highest gear, increasing your speed does take you into a better power range. To go back a gear or not?, applies to speeds somewhat lower, and perhaps more so.

Also the driver will be wanting you to have enough space when you’re pulling back right ahead

should read

……pulling back left ahead

5.29e-11 m

SCIENCE said:

5.29e-11 m

I think you mean 5.29E-11 m

Seems short.

I just had a pleasant drive between Coleraine and Hamilton, with a nice polite little group of around 6 cars, all travelling nicely at just under the 100km/hr with nice safe spacing in between. Then when I got this side of Hamilton, I came up behind someone doing 50 in the 100 zone, and in the 80 zone through Tarrington and the 60 zone in Tarrington, and the 80 zone this side of Tarrington. Solid lines and two cars coming the other way in unfortunate places had me stuck behind her for about 3km. I don’t want to speed, but I do want to do more than 50 in the hundred zones.

sibeen said:

SCIENCE said:

5.29e-11 m

I think you mean 5.29E-11 m

sorry that was a bit insensitive of me

buffy said:

I just had a pleasant drive between Coleraine and Hamilton, with a nice polite little group of around 6 cars, all travelling nicely at just under the 100km/hr with nice safe spacing in between. Then when I got this side of Hamilton, I came up behind someone doing 50 in the 100 zone, and in the 80 zone through Tarrington and the 60 zone in Tarrington, and the 80 zone this side of Tarrington. Solid lines and two cars coming the other way in unfortunate places had me stuck behind her for about 3km. I don’t want to speed, but I do want to do more than 50 in the hundred zones.

Probably an engineer applying a safety factor of 2 to all limits of 100 or greater.

SCIENCE said:

5.29e-11 m

Surely that only applies if both vehicles are made of hydrogen though?

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I just had a pleasant drive between Coleraine and Hamilton, with a nice polite little group of around 6 cars, all travelling nicely at just under the 100km/hr with nice safe spacing in between. Then when I got this side of Hamilton, I came up behind someone doing 50 in the 100 zone, and in the 80 zone through Tarrington and the 60 zone in Tarrington, and the 80 zone this side of Tarrington. Solid lines and two cars coming the other way in unfortunate places had me stuck behind her for about 3km. I don’t want to speed, but I do want to do more than 50 in the hundred zones.

Probably an engineer applying a safety factor of 2 to all limits of 100 or greater.

If so, she was probably the only female in her intake. I reckon she was into her eighties.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I just had a pleasant drive between Coleraine and Hamilton, with a nice polite little group of around 6 cars, all travelling nicely at just under the 100km/hr with nice safe spacing in between. Then when I got this side of Hamilton, I came up behind someone doing 50 in the 100 zone, and in the 80 zone through Tarrington and the 60 zone in Tarrington, and the 80 zone this side of Tarrington. Solid lines and two cars coming the other way in unfortunate places had me stuck behind her for about 3km. I don’t want to speed, but I do want to do more than 50 in the hundred zones.

Probably an engineer applying a safety factor of 2 to all limits of 100 or greater.

If so, she was probably the only female in her intake. I reckon she was into her eighties.

I didn’t notice she was a she.

I shall refrain from making any generalisations.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

5.29e-11 m

Surely that only applies if both vehicles are made of hydrogen though?

Keeps it Bohring.

Was on the freeway the other day, just driving casual like, nothing suspicious, so I decided to work out what distance I was actually automatically leaving between me and the car in front.

It was closer to a 3 second gap than a 4 second, probably 3.3 or so, ie about 92 metres.

dv said:

Was on the freeway the other day, just driving casual like, nothing suspicious, so I decided to work out what distance I was actually automatically leaving between me and the car in front.

It was closer to a 3 second gap than a 4 second, probably 3.3 or so, ie about 92 metres.

Or 100 yards, give or take.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Was on the freeway the other day, just driving casual like, nothing suspicious, so I decided to work out what distance I was actually automatically leaving between me and the car in front.

It was closer to a 3 second gap than a 4 second, probably 3.3 or so, ie about 92 metres.

Or 100 yards, give or take.

Or if you were travelling at 110 km/h, about 100 metres, give or take.

Anyway, a useful rule of thumb seems to be 1 yard/km/hour.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Was on the freeway the other day, just driving casual like, nothing suspicious, so I decided to work out what distance I was actually automatically leaving between me and the car in front.

It was closer to a 3 second gap than a 4 second, probably 3.3 or so, ie about 92 metres.

Or 100 yards, give or take.

Or if you were travelling at 110 km/h, about 100 metres, give or take.

Anyway, a useful rule of thumb seems to be 1 yard/km/hour.

For those of you who are unsure of what the Rev is on about, it’s around 36 smoot/furlong/fortnight.

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or 100 yards, give or take.

Or if you were travelling at 110 km/h, about 100 metres, give or take.

Anyway, a useful rule of thumb seems to be 1 yard/km/hour.

For those of you who are unsure of what the Rev is on about, it’s around 36 smoot/furlong/fortnight.

Both Google and I agree with your numbers.

1 yard/km/hour is indeed pretty close to 36 smoots/furlong/fortnight

A coincidence?

I think not.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or if you were travelling at 110 km/h, about 100 metres, give or take.

Anyway, a useful rule of thumb seems to be 1 yard/km/hour.

For those of you who are unsure of what the Rev is on about, it’s around 36 smoot/furlong/fortnight.

Both Google and I agree with your numbers.

1 yard/km/hour is indeed pretty close to 36 smoots/furlong/fortnight

A coincidence?

I think not.

online calculators are a godsend.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

For those of you who are unsure of what the Rev is on about, it’s around 36 smoot/furlong/fortnight.

Both Google and I agree with your numbers.

1 yard/km/hour is indeed pretty close to 36 smoots/furlong/fortnight

A coincidence?

I think not.

online calculators are a godsend.

I’m sorry to say that Bing failed this test dismally.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

For those of you who are unsure of what the Rev is on about, it’s around 36 smoot/furlong/fortnight.

Both Google and I agree with your numbers.

1 yard/km/hour is indeed pretty close to 36 smoots/furlong/fortnight

A coincidence?

I think not.

online calculators are a godsend.

You have to watch them though.

(1 yard/km)/hour may be 36 (smoots/furlong)/fortnight

but 1yard/(km/hour) = 0.000321697228 smoots / (furlong / fortnight)

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Both Google and I agree with your numbers.

1 yard/km/hour is indeed pretty close to 36 smoots/furlong/fortnight

A coincidence?

I think not.

online calculators are a godsend.

You have to watch them though.

(1 yard/km)/hour may be 36 (smoots/furlong)/fortnight

but 1yard/(km/hour) = 0.000321697228 smoots / (furlong / fortnight)

sibeen probably has access to online engineering calculators that have their accuracy down to 2 orders of magnitude.

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

I reckon there’s a psychology in avoiding appearing like an obstruction on the road, and this contributes to traffic conformity, including traffic compression, which also results in some space equalization between vehicles. Tends drivers up toward the posted speed limit too.

i’m trying to think what the dumbest most common activities would be that indicate strongly something of a feel for that exponentiation (V^2) of the relationship .5M(V^2) = Kinetic Energy, if there’s anything at all from which something like it is regularly intuited.

certainly important of safe trailing distances.

it’s interesting to ponder for a moment what effect having no brake lights on vehicles would have. Maybe some people feel/sense that if they are closer to the vehicle ahead they will see the brake lights come on sooner. Ignoring the speed of light, the idea’s not entirely daft, because the lights will be brighter, and larger. I think brake lights more contribute to stay back/keep your distance, to a point.

transition said:

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

I reckon there’s a psychology in avoiding appearing like an obstruction on the road, and this contributes to traffic conformity, including traffic compression, which also results in some space equalization between vehicles. Tends drivers up toward the posted speed limit too.

i’m trying to think what the dumbest most common activities would be that indicate strongly something of a feel for that exponentiation (V^2) of the relationship .5M(V^2) = Kinetic Energy, if there’s anything at all from which something like it is regularly intuited.

certainly important of safe trailing distances.

it’s interesting to ponder for a moment what effect having no brake lights on vehicles would have. Maybe some people feel/sense that if they are closer to the vehicle ahead they will see the brake lights come on sooner. Ignoring the speed of light, the idea’s not entirely daft, because the lights will be brighter, and larger. I think brake lights more contribute to stay back/keep your distance, to a point.

Have completed measurements of my own driving psychology.

In moderate and heavy traffic over the entire speed range of 55 to 95 km/hr I am comfortable with a gap of 1.0 seconds. During overtaking (both cases) that can close up to about 0.5 seconds. In light traffic at 100 km/hr and above I stay back about 2 seconds. Missy and mrs m are both more comfortable than I am with smaller gaps at 100 km/hr and above.

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

2. If your brakes are at least as good as the vehicle ahead then the minimum safe distance is your reaction time.

3. If your brakes are poor (such as a logging truck) then the minimum safe distance is the reaction time plus the difference in braking distances.

mollwollfumble said:

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird fying into windscreen, driver health issue

I usually sit back at least 3 seconds, but then I spent a lot more time in trucks than cars and tend to stay at ‘truck’ distances even in the car

If you are on an isolated back road which is also a truck route. Your car breaks down, you have a boot lid which when lifted displays a red triangle. You should stay with the car.
An instance I know of on the Cobb Highway was as above but he left the car and when truck came along he stepped out to wave it down. To the truckie, just another kangaroo.

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird fying into windscreen, driver health issue

I usually sit back at least 3 seconds, but then I spent a lot more time in trucks than cars and tend to stay at ‘truck’ distances even in the car

Makes sense.
However not all truckies do that, it’s a bit disconcerting to look in the rear mirror only to see it full of Kenilworth.

Peak Warming Man said:

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird fying into windscreen, driver health issue

I usually sit back at least 3 seconds, but then I spent a lot more time in trucks than cars and tend to stay at ‘truck’ distances even in the car

Makes sense.
However not all truckies do that, it’s a bit disconcerting to look in the rear mirror only to see it full of Kenilworth.

Cheese? I like several of their cheeses.

Peak Warming Man said:

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird fying into windscreen, driver health issue

I usually sit back at least 3 seconds, but then I spent a lot more time in trucks than cars and tend to stay at ‘truck’ distances even in the car

Makes sense.
However not all truckies do that, it’s a bit disconcerting to look in the rear mirror only to see it full of Kenilworth.

I really hate that..

I usually keep driving right on the speed limit until there is a dip in the road, then when it starts uphill instead of accelerating I let my speed drop by about 5kph.. truck may no longer be in torque sweet spot, may even have to change down.. They usually back off.

Kenworth.

Kenilworth is where the yummy cheeses are made.

Michael V said:

Kenworth.

Kenilworth is where the yummy cheeses are made.

I’m sorry and I take full responsibility for Kenworth tampering.

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

Kenworth.

Kenilworth is where the yummy cheeses are made.

I’m sorry and I take full responsibility for Kenworth tampering.

Bugger. I was hoping to get a laugh. Like earlier, with the song reference. Fail. Twice.

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird flying into windscreen, driver health issue

I’ve been thinking about these and almost all would require mild rather than full emergency braking. The only exceptions that immediately come to mind are emergency braking to avoid a koala (but swerving is easier) or an out of control fire. If, for instance I was suddenly struck blind while driving then I would tend to brake at about 5 m/s^2 rather than risk a skid.

mollwollfumble said:

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only way anyone would be confident of that is if they didn’t think about all the potential reasons the vehicle ahead might emergency brake without a cause that was immediately visible to you.

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird flying into windscreen, driver health issue

I’ve been thinking about these and almost all would require mild rather than full emergency braking. The only exceptions that immediately come to mind are emergency braking to avoid a koala (but swerving is easier) or an out of control fire. If, for instance I was suddenly struck blind while driving then I would tend to brake at about 5 m/s^2 rather than risk a skid.

Like a page of newspaper landing on windscreen… happened to me. So you should leave a 2 or 3 secon gap.

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

Kenworth.

Kenilworth is where the yummy cheeses are made.

I’m sorry and I take full responsibility for Kenworth tampering.

Seen on a window sticker.. Farkenworthit.

Ian said:

mollwollfumble said:

boppa said:

True, any number of things could cause an unusual emergency braking- mechanical issues, bird flying into windscreen, driver health issue

I’ve been thinking about these and almost all would require mild rather than full emergency braking. The only exceptions that immediately come to mind are emergency braking to avoid a koala (but swerving is easier) or an out of control fire. If, for instance I was suddenly struck blind while driving then I would tend to brake at about 5 m/s^2 rather than risk a skid.

Like a page of newspaper landing on windscreen… happened to me. So you should leave a 2 or 3 secon gap.

If you sit back and watch a 2 second gap, you know they were only lucky that nothing else went wrong. If they were actually lucky, that is.

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been thinking about these and almost all would require mild rather than full emergency braking. The only exceptions that immediately come to mind are emergency braking to avoid a koala (but swerving is easier) or an out of control fire. If, for instance I was suddenly struck blind while driving then I would tend to brake at about 5 m/s^2 rather than risk a skid.

Like a page of newspaper landing on windscreen… happened to me. So you should leave a 2 or 3 secon gap.

If you sit back and watch a 2 second gap, you know they were only lucky that nothing else went wrong. If they were actually lucky, that is.

It took about three seconds for me to drive through a carwash, over a fence and into somebody’s garden. Maybe it took more than that but I can only account for about three seconds of it.
If I’d veered left I would have head-onned with a tree. I was lucky there were no road trains passing the bit of their road I travelled through.

You never know when someone may brake heavily for a non apparent reason, I saw a car that the bonnet flipped open while driving, it bent back over the roof, totally obscuring the windscreen. Shouldnt have happened, but did. Driver obviously paniced and braked heavily, anyone too close would have run up the back if too close
Absolutely no warning, just suddenly car under full brakes in the middle of the freeway

boppa said:

You never know when someone may brake heavily for a non apparent reason, I saw a car that the bonnet flipped open while driving, it bent back over the roof, totally obscuring the windscreen. Shouldnt have happened, but did. Driver obviously paniced and braked heavily, anyone too close would have run up the back if too close
Absolutely no warning, just suddenly car under full brakes in the middle of the freeway

My father-in-law verbatim told me the story of the spare tyre coming off the roof of the car in front(on the nullabor) and watching his wife drive straight into it, ruining the radiator.

roughbarked said:

boppa said:

You never know when someone may brake heavily for a non apparent reason, I saw a car that the bonnet flipped open while driving, it bent back over the roof, totally obscuring the windscreen. Shouldnt have happened, but did. Driver obviously paniced and braked heavily, anyone too close would have run up the back if too close
Absolutely no warning, just suddenly car under full brakes in the middle of the freeway

My father-in-law verbatim told me the story of the spare tyre coming off the roof of the car in front(on the nullabor) and watching his wife drive straight into it, ruining the radiator.

The time when I was akin to a grasshopper, I asked my father, “whose wheel is thta passing us?” He replied while hanging on to the steering, “ours”.

boppa said:

You never know when someone may brake heavily for a non apparent reason, I saw a car that the bonnet flipped open while driving, it bent back over the roof, totally obscuring the windscreen. Shouldnt have happened, but did. Driver obviously paniced and braked heavily, anyone too close would have run up the back if too close
Absolutely no warning, just suddenly car under full brakes in the middle of the freeway

We had a windscreen smash in the right lane of a busy freeway. It was not laminated glass, but the old safety glass which shattered into thousands of pieces, instantly obscuring the view. Mr Speedy very slowly pulled over into the right lane/grassy area.

Being teenagers at the time, we removed the broken glass and drove the rest of the way home without a windscreen.

Speedy said:

boppa said:

You never know when someone may brake heavily for a non apparent reason, I saw a car that the bonnet flipped open while driving, it bent back over the roof, totally obscuring the windscreen. Shouldnt have happened, but did. Driver obviously paniced and braked heavily, anyone too close would have run up the back if too close
Absolutely no warning, just suddenly car under full brakes in the middle of the freeway

We had a windscreen smash in the right lane of a busy freeway. It was not laminated glass, but the old safety glass which shattered into thousands of pieces, instantly obscuring the view. Mr Speedy very slowly pulled over into the right lane/grassy area.

Being teenagers at the time, we removed the broken glass and drove the rest of the way home without a windscreen.

As you would.

hey as a teenager I drove a car home from qld to Sydney with no accelerator- the cable broke and at the time, getting one on a sunday morning just wasnt going to happen, I had work on monday…
A piece of fencing wire round the throttle linkage, out the rear of the bonnet and through the quarter window, with a bit of stick as a handle
Drove the whole way home like that- pull to go faster, let go to slow down…
Took a bit of getting used to for gear changes too

boppa said:

hey as a teenager I drove a car home from qld to Sydney with no accelerator- the cable broke and at the time, getting one on a sunday morning just wasnt going to happen, I had work on monday…
A piece of fencing wire round the throttle linkage, out the rear of the bonnet and through the quarter window, with a bit of stick as a handle
Drove the whole way home like that- pull to go faster, let go to slow down…
Took a bit of getting used to for gear changes too

Looxury…

Had something go wrong with fuel system on girlfriend’s VW bug (can’t remember the specifics).
Decided to take it down the F3 to Sydeney to gf’s mech dad to repair. We put a 4 gallon drum of petrol on top of a pile of newspaper in the back seat and ran a piece of plastic tubing out the window and into the carby. Worked really well… until we noticed flames leaping out of the engine when we were about half way there. Ripping the tubing away caused the fire to extinguish itself luckily.

Yeah, the weird things we do as teenagers, hey. I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch, because I couldn’t afford a master cylinder, and learnt to push start the same car (without clutch) on level ground, because the battery failed at the same time. And another car: I couldn’t afford tyres, so had four bald tyres. Brilliant for a wet summer in Sydney. Learn to drive the slide? Yep, no wukkas. Served me well for riding speedway, later. And then a later car: brakes failed, and I had to get parts from England. Drive with hand-brake only? No problems…

And then a motorbike. A friend’s. Held the A-Street record at the time. Seriously powerful for 1972. I kept it tuned. (I rode a lovely little Ducati.) Rain, damp road. Full throttle top gear. Showing 135 mph on speedo. Both feet up, full lock slide, in Sydney. Just for fun.

Learnt my lesson though, with my first Grand Prix bike (Yamaha TD1-C, ex Ron Tombs). Balmain (inner city Sydney). Showing off to neighbour. Shorts, t-shirt, thongs. No helmet, no boots, no leathers, no glove, no problems; invincible. Popped it into 4th gear at 110 mph, and went sideways. Not much lock (road-race bike). Was definitely going, uninvited-like, into the pub on the other side of the road. Foot on ground to right it. Ground is right. Ground the top off two toes. But the manoeuvre did right the bike, so I got home alive. Not much fun getting the gravel out of the toes with a scrubbing brush under very hot water. But the toes survive.

Ah, memory lane…

Ian said:

boppa said:

hey as a teenager I drove a car home from qld to Sydney with no accelerator- the cable broke and at the time, getting one on a sunday morning just wasnt going to happen, I had work on monday…
A piece of fencing wire round the throttle linkage, out the rear of the bonnet and through the quarter window, with a bit of stick as a handle
Drove the whole way home like that- pull to go faster, let go to slow down…
Took a bit of getting used to for gear changes too

Looxury…

Had something go wrong with fuel system on girlfriend’s VW bug (can’t remember the specifics).
Decided to take it down the F3 to Sydeney to gf’s mech dad to repair. We put a 4 gallon drum of petrol on top of a pile of newspaper in the back seat and ran a piece of plastic tubing out the window and into the carby. Worked really well… until we noticed flames leaping out of the engine when we were about half way there. Ripping the tubing away caused the fire to extinguish itself luckily.

LOL!

(See next post.)

Michael V said:

Yeah, the weird things we do as teenagers, hey. I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch, because I couldn’t afford a master cylinder, and learnt to push start the same car (without clutch) on level ground, because the battery failed at the same time. And another car: I couldn’t afford tyres, so had four bald tyres. Brilliant for a wet summer in Sydney. Learn to drive the slide? Yep, no wukkas. Served me well for riding speedway, later. And then a later car: brakes failed, and I had to get parts from England. Drive with hand-brake only? No problems…

And then a motorbike. A friend’s. Held the A-Street record at the time. Seriously powerful for 1972. I kept it tuned. (I rode a lovely little Ducati.) Rain, damp road. Full throttle top gear. Showing 135 mph on speedo. Both feet up, full lock slide, in Sydney. Just for fun.

Learnt my lesson though, with my first Grand Prix bike (Yamaha TD1-C, ex Ron Tombs). Balmain (inner city Sydney). Showing off to neighbour. Shorts, t-shirt, thongs. No helmet, no boots, no leathers, no glove, no problems; invincible. Popped it into 4th gear at 110 mph, and went sideways. Not much lock (road-race bike). Was definitely going, uninvited-like, into the pub on the other side of the road. Foot on ground to right it. Ground is right. Ground the top off two toes. But the manoeuvre did right the bike, so I got home alive. Not much fun getting the gravel out of the toes with a scrubbing brush under very hot water. But the toes survive.

Ah, memory lane…

Roffles.. at least you came to rest in the pub :)

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Yeah, the weird things we do as teenagers, hey. I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch, because I couldn’t afford a master cylinder, and learnt to push start the same car (without clutch) on level ground, because the battery failed at the same time. And another car: I couldn’t afford tyres, so had four bald tyres. Brilliant for a wet summer in Sydney. Learn to drive the slide? Yep, no wukkas. Served me well for riding speedway, later. And then a later car: brakes failed, and I had to get parts from England. Drive with hand-brake only? No problems…

And then a motorbike. A friend’s. Held the A-Street record at the time. Seriously powerful for 1972. I kept it tuned. (I rode a lovely little Ducati.) Rain, damp road. Full throttle top gear. Showing 135 mph on speedo. Both feet up, full lock slide, in Sydney. Just for fun.

Learnt my lesson though, with my first Grand Prix bike (Yamaha TD1-C, ex Ron Tombs). Balmain (inner city Sydney). Showing off to neighbour. Shorts, t-shirt, thongs. No helmet, no boots, no leathers, no glove, no problems; invincible. Popped it into 4th gear at 110 mph, and went sideways. Not much lock (road-race bike). Was definitely going, uninvited-like, into the pub on the other side of the road. Foot on ground to right it. Ground is right. Ground the top off two toes. But the manoeuvre did right the bike, so I got home alive. Not much fun getting the gravel out of the toes with a scrubbing brush under very hot water. But the toes survive.

Ah, memory lane…

Roffles.. at least you came to rest in the pub :)

priorities.

I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch

—-

School bus driver told how he broke a clutch cable but still managed to do his run.
I don’t know quite how.. maybe the bus was capable of starting while in gear. Timing the gear changes would have been relatively easy I imagine.

VW’s, eh. I used to do up VW’s for money once. With another bloke in Sydney. Illegal shonky motor dealers, we were. Lots of stories there…

Anyway, Hughie had a J&S buggy. Lighweight VW-powered fibreglass beach buggy with 14” removed from the floor-pan, and therefore wheelbase. It had a 36 hp VW motor. Fantastic for the sand. Couldn’t bog it with the wide wheels it had. Not enough power. Actually couldn’t spin the wheels on the Kurnell dunes. Not enough power…

Swapped it out for a 40 hp (blew up), then a 1500 (blew up), then a 1600 (blew up), then an 1800. Still not enough power. Hughie got hold of a 300 hp Chevy Corvair Turbo motor (flat six, like a Porsche.) We shoe-horned that in. First run: uncontrollable high wheel-stand, instant right turn (no locked diff) and through next door’s butcher’s shop window.

Fix up butcher for the loss. 36 hp back in the J&S. That day. Corvair was plonked into a 1970 Kombi. Quite a beast. I wanted to put it into a BMW motorbike.

Ah, those were the days. Memory lane, eh…

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Yeah, the weird things we do as teenagers, hey. I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch, because I couldn’t afford a master cylinder, and learnt to push start the same car (without clutch) on level ground, because the battery failed at the same time. And another car: I couldn’t afford tyres, so had four bald tyres. Brilliant for a wet summer in Sydney. Learn to drive the slide? Yep, no wukkas. Served me well for riding speedway, later. And then a later car: brakes failed, and I had to get parts from England. Drive with hand-brake only? No problems…

And then a motorbike. A friend’s. Held the A-Street record at the time. Seriously powerful for 1972. I kept it tuned. (I rode a lovely little Ducati.) Rain, damp road. Full throttle top gear. Showing 135 mph on speedo. Both feet up, full lock slide, in Sydney. Just for fun.

Learnt my lesson though, with my first Grand Prix bike (Yamaha TD1-C, ex Ron Tombs). Balmain (inner city Sydney). Showing off to neighbour. Shorts, t-shirt, thongs. No helmet, no boots, no leathers, no glove, no problems; invincible. Popped it into 4th gear at 110 mph, and went sideways. Not much lock (road-race bike). Was definitely going, uninvited-like, into the pub on the other side of the road. Foot on ground to right it. Ground is right. Ground the top off two toes. But the manoeuvre did right the bike, so I got home alive. Not much fun getting the gravel out of the toes with a scrubbing brush under very hot water. But the toes survive.

Ah, memory lane…

Roffles.. at least you came to rest in the pub :)

Beetles unfortunately had 3 separate ways to catch fire, and commonly did if proper care wasnt taken
Most common was fitting the wrong battery, then having a heavy person sit on the back seat…. (exposed battery terminals on a too high battery and metal spring wires under the cushion of the seat…)
main + battery wire went through a wire grommet in firewall- not refitting the holding clips after removing tinwear for servicing and smoke, smoke, melt,melt
and what happened to this one, where fuel line goes into carby, people fit an extra fuel filter, but the brass pipe into the carby is just a frictiojn fit, add extra weight of fuel filter and pipe comes out of carby…

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Yeah, the weird things we do as teenagers, hey. I learnt to drive manual cars without using a clutch, because I couldn’t afford a master cylinder, and learnt to push start the same car (without clutch) on level ground, because the battery failed at the same time. And another car: I couldn’t afford tyres, so had four bald tyres. Brilliant for a wet summer in Sydney. Learn to drive the slide? Yep, no wukkas. Served me well for riding speedway, later. And then a later car: brakes failed, and I had to get parts from England. Drive with hand-brake only? No problems…

And then a motorbike. A friend’s. Held the A-Street record at the time. Seriously powerful for 1972. I kept it tuned. (I rode a lovely little Ducati.) Rain, damp road. Full throttle top gear. Showing 135 mph on speedo. Both feet up, full lock slide, in Sydney. Just for fun.

Learnt my lesson though, with my first Grand Prix bike (Yamaha TD1-C, ex Ron Tombs). Balmain (inner city Sydney). Showing off to neighbour. Shorts, t-shirt, thongs. No helmet, no boots, no leathers, no glove, no problems; invincible. Popped it into 4th gear at 110 mph, and went sideways. Not much lock (road-race bike). Was definitely going, uninvited-like, into the pub on the other side of the road. Foot on ground to right it. Ground is right. Ground the top off two toes. But the manoeuvre did right the bike, so I got home alive. Not much fun getting the gravel out of the toes with a scrubbing brush under very hot water. But the toes survive.

Ah, memory lane…

Roffles.. at least you came to rest in the pub :)

priorities.

Interestingly, I was a teetotaller back then. (Mind, I didn’t mind a joint, though.) Oh, how I’ve made up for that non-drinking period.

Michael V said:

VW’s, eh. I used to do up VW’s for money once. With another bloke in Sydney. Illegal shonky motor dealers, we were. Lots of stories there…

Anyway, Hughie had a J&S buggy. Lighweight VW-powered fibreglass beach buggy with 14” removed from the floor-pan, and therefore wheelbase. It had a 36 hp VW motor. Fantastic for the sand. Couldn’t bog it with the wide wheels it had. Not enough power. Actually couldn’t spin the wheels on the Kurnell dunes. Not enough power…

Swapped it out for a 40 hp (blew up), then a 1500 (blew up), then a 1600 (blew up), then an 1800. Still not enough power. Hughie got hold of a 300 hp Chevy Corvair Turbo motor (flat six, like a Porsche.) We shoe-horned that in. First run: uncontrollable high wheel-stand, instant right turn (no locked diff) and through next door’s butcher’s shop window.

Fix up butcher for the loss. 36 hp back in the J&S. That day. Corvair was plonked into a 1970 Kombi. Quite a beast. I wanted to put it into a BMW motorbike.

Ah, those were the days. Memory lane, eh…

:)

What could possibly go wrong?

I learned to drive a nonsccro box as a p plater, and could drive a car totally without a clutch- very handy, as I had friends call me if their car wouldnt change gears without grinding, I’d just chuck em the keys to my old beast and drive theirs home for them- it really was quite easy and put me in good stead for driving trucks
Just put into first and crank until it fires, then slip through the gears as needed, I found the ‘fingertip’ method best, rev out in first, pull into neutral and let engine revs drop, then fingertip pressure on the gearstick as you build the revs slowly and it will ‘slip’ straight in, no grinding at all

Ian said:

Michael V said:

VW’s, eh. I used to do up VW’s for money once. With another bloke in Sydney. Illegal shonky motor dealers, we were. Lots of stories there…

Anyway, Hughie had a J&S buggy. Lighweight VW-powered fibreglass beach buggy with 14” removed from the floor-pan, and therefore wheelbase. It had a 36 hp VW motor. Fantastic for the sand. Couldn’t bog it with the wide wheels it had. Not enough power. Actually couldn’t spin the wheels on the Kurnell dunes. Not enough power…

Swapped it out for a 40 hp (blew up), then a 1500 (blew up), then a 1600 (blew up), then an 1800. Still not enough power. Hughie got hold of a 300 hp Chevy Corvair Turbo motor (flat six, like a Porsche.) We shoe-horned that in. First run: uncontrollable high wheel-stand, instant right turn (no locked diff) and through next door’s butcher’s shop window.

Fix up butcher for the loss. 36 hp back in the J&S. That day. Corvair was plonked into a 1970 Kombi. Quite a beast. I wanted to put it into a BMW motorbike.

Ah, those were the days. Memory lane, eh…

:)

What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah the old ‘shorty’ buggies, great fun
A mate had a full sized manx, started with a 1500, went to 1600 bridgeport, then a stroker scat 2.3l, then a brazialian efi 2l- that was good for 170hp…
was ridiculous, it would pop a wheelie in any gear, he used to love overtaking someone at 100 with the front wheels a foot off the ground

Was a bitch in the wet though, 9” fronts and 12” rears, in a car that four people could pick up and carry… you drove it more like a boat in the wet, put on heaps of lock and let the front gradually plow into the corner… or not…

Ian said:

Michael V said:

VW’s, eh. I used to do up VW’s for money once. With another bloke in Sydney. Illegal shonky motor dealers, we were. Lots of stories there…

Anyway, Hughie had a J&S buggy. Lighweight VW-powered fibreglass beach buggy with 14” removed from the floor-pan, and therefore wheelbase. It had a 36 hp VW motor. Fantastic for the sand. Couldn’t bog it with the wide wheels it had. Not enough power. Actually couldn’t spin the wheels on the Kurnell dunes. Not enough power…

Swapped it out for a 40 hp (blew up), then a 1500 (blew up), then a 1600 (blew up), then an 1800. Still not enough power. Hughie got hold of a 300 hp Chevy Corvair Turbo motor (flat six, like a Porsche.) We shoe-horned that in. First run: uncontrollable high wheel-stand, instant right turn (no locked diff) and through next door’s butcher’s shop window.

Fix up butcher for the loss. 36 hp back in the J&S. That day. Corvair was plonked into a 1970 Kombi. Quite a beast. I wanted to put it into a BMW motorbike.

Ah, those were the days. Memory lane, eh…

:)

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, I don’t know. Young, invincible. Nothing could possibly go wrong, really.

You should’ve seen the Mk 2 Milano, and the upping the antes with Holden 6’s. Hughie’s Milano was the one destroyed at Waneroo. (Check Milano GT@‘s out). At that time, it had recorded a top speed of 179 MPH with (guess what! – a Holden 179 motor). We dynoed that motor at 165 hp at the crank. We re-built the chassis and body. I built several motors. Final motor I built was a 207 ci red 6. 280 hp at rear wheels @ 7650 rpm. Would rev to 9000+ without valve float. Dry sump, separate oil tank – motorcycle style (then). I’d take weeks to describe what I did to the head, and it took about three months to do it. Cylinder heads are so important…

It remained an illicit-plated street car until I lost touch with Hugh around 1978, 79. I have no idea where he is or the car is now.

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

Here’s something else that is the norm in Melbourne

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-chaos-after-seven-carthree-truck-crash-on-monash-freeway-20171026-gz96ch.html

boppa said:

I learned to drive a non-synchro box as a p-plater, and could drive a car totally without a clutch – very handy, as I had friends call me if their car wouldn’t change gears without grinding, I’d just chuck em the keys to my old beast and drive theirs home for them- it really was quite easy and put me in good stead for driving trucks
Just put into first and crank until it fires, then slip through the gears as needed, I found the ‘fingertip’ method best, rev out in first, pull into neutral and let engine revs drop, then fingertip pressure on the gearstick as you build the revs slowly and it will ‘slip’ straight in, no grinding at all

:)

That’s the trick.

Different pressures for individual vehicles. Usually took a few miles (km these days) for me to get it right. I still reckon each road ranger is different.

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

Here’s something else that is the norm in Melbourne

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-chaos-after-seven-carthree-truck-crash-on-monash-freeway-20171026-gz96ch.html

There’s a new forum looking into that.

boppa said:

Ian said:

Michael V said:

VW’s, eh. I used to do up VW’s for money once. With another bloke in Sydney. Illegal shonky motor dealers, we were. Lots of stories there…

Anyway, Hughie had a J&S buggy. Lighweight VW-powered fibreglass beach buggy with 14” removed from the floor-pan, and therefore wheelbase. It had a 36 hp VW motor. Fantastic for the sand. Couldn’t bog it with the wide wheels it had. Not enough power. Actually couldn’t spin the wheels on the Kurnell dunes. Not enough power…

Swapped it out for a 40 hp (blew up), then a 1500 (blew up), then a 1600 (blew up), then an 1800. Still not enough power. Hughie got hold of a 300 hp Chevy Corvair Turbo motor (flat six, like a Porsche.) We shoe-horned that in. First run: uncontrollable high wheel-stand, instant right turn (no locked diff) and through next door’s butcher’s shop window.

Fix up butcher for the loss. 36 hp back in the J&S. That day. Corvair was plonked into a 1970 Kombi. Quite a beast. I wanted to put it into a BMW motorbike.

Ah, those were the days. Memory lane, eh…

:)

What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah the old ‘shorty’ buggies, great fun
A mate had a full sized manx, started with a 1500, went to 1600 bridgeport, then a stroker scat 2.3l, then a brazialian efi 2l- that was good for 170hp…
was ridiculous, it would pop a wheelie in any gear, he used to love overtaking someone at 100 with the front wheels a foot off the ground

Was a bitch in the wet though, 9” fronts and 12” rears, in a car that four people could pick up and carry… you drove it more like a boat in the wet, put on heaps of lock and let the front gradually plow into the corner… or not…

Ha!

Manx buggies had the full floor-pan. (Oh, sorry I see you said that.) They’re the only ones that can be registered now, unless one finds a J&S still carrying it’s rego…

We had a truck with the ‘reversed’ mid shift where 5th was back down next to 4th and 6th next to 3rd, was funny watching the guys that mostly drove the jap trucks get in it and take off- you would hear each change, then the next one it was lugging like hell, then you waited- did he remember the reversed shift or not…. half the time the next change ‘up’ and its doing compression lockups and the engine is redlining lol

Same with the old accos, half went 1,2,3,4 split, 5,6,7,8, the rest were 1, s1, 2, s2, 3,s3,4,s4

or leylands with their air preselector boxes, they were fun lol

Ian said:

That is so wrong, in so many ways, and on so many levels…

Ian said:

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

Here’s something else that is the norm in Melbourne

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-chaos-after-seven-carthree-truck-crash-on-monash-freeway-20171026-gz96ch.html

There’s a new forum looking into that.

PMSL!

Michael V said:

boppa said:

Ian said:

:)

What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah the old ‘shorty’ buggies, great fun
A mate had a full sized manx, started with a 1500, went to 1600 bridgeport, then a stroker scat 2.3l, then a brazialian efi 2l- that was good for 170hp…
was ridiculous, it would pop a wheelie in any gear, he used to love overtaking someone at 100 with the front wheels a foot off the ground

Was a bitch in the wet though, 9” fronts and 12” rears, in a car that four people could pick up and carry… you drove it more like a boat in the wet, put on heaps of lock and let the front gradually plow into the corner… or not…

Ha!

Manx buggies had the full floor-pan. (Oh, sorry I see you said that.) They’re the only ones that can be registered now, unless one finds a J&S still carrying it’s rego…

Yeah, its a shame, I know 2 J&S shorties I’d love to put back on the road, but regoing them is damn near impossible these days

>Just put into first and crank until it fires, then slip through the gears as needed

way back did that for a month in the old ute(diesel), has a good starter, used low 4×4 when parked facing up a hill in sand, but mostly didn’t need to. Do it for long enough and clutchlessness gets to be normal.

only thing I missed was the flat changes down gears(and up, less so), but you just stay in the lower gear, redline it more.

boppa said:

We had a truck with the ‘reversed’ mid shift where 5th was back down next to 4th and 6th next to 3rd, was funny watching the guys that mostly drove the jap trucks get in it and take off- you would hear each change, then the next one it was lugging like hell, then you waited- did he remember the reversed shift or not…. half the time the next change ‘up’ and its doing compression lockups and the engine is redlining lol

Same with the old accos, half went 1,2,3,4 split, 5,6,7,8, the rest were 1, s1, 2, s2, 3,s3,4,s4

or leylands with their air preselector boxes, they were fun lol

Now, let’s throw in a three-speed diff-set for fun. (After the Joey, of course.)

Good thing there are computers and air-shifted boxes and Joeys and diffs now.

boppa said:

Michael V said:

boppa said:

Yeah the old ‘shorty’ buggies, great fun
A mate had a full sized manx, started with a 1500, went to 1600 bridgeport, then a stroker scat 2.3l, then a brazialian efi 2l- that was good for 170hp…
was ridiculous, it would pop a wheelie in any gear, he used to love overtaking someone at 100 with the front wheels a foot off the ground

Was a bitch in the wet though, 9” fronts and 12” rears, in a car that four people could pick up and carry… you drove it more like a boat in the wet, put on heaps of lock and let the front gradually plow into the corner… or not…

Ha!

Manx buggies had the full floor-pan. (Oh, sorry I see you said that.) They’re the only ones that can be registered now, unless one finds a J&S still carrying it’s rego…

Yeah, its a shame, I know 2 J&S shorties I’d love to put back on the road, but regoing them is damn near impossible these days

Can you get me one (at the right price)?

I’d go the vintage-and-specialist route these days. Perfect for me here at Rainbow Beach.

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Dad had an old Akinson (remember the big A in a circle?)
That was fun- 4 speed box, 4 speed 2nd stage box, 2 speed joey and a 2 speed diff….

1234,1 to 2,1234,2 to 2,1234,3 to 4, keep going until you got through them all
Semi with 190hp… about the same as a modern 4 cyl buzzbox….

>oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time…

bastards, even the floor shifters could do that, as recall.

Michael V said:

Can you get me one (at the right price)?

I’d go the vintage-and-specialist route these days. Perfect for me here at Rainbow Beach.

I can ask, ones down south, but the other is literally right around the corner from me, he’s a bit of a hoarder when it comes to vws tho, he’s got about a dozen bugs and at least 4 splitties as well, I’ll ask him but wouldnt get me hopes up lol

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Hahahahahaha!

I remember the 1st-(2nd+reverse) selection. Bloody lock the wheels or what!

My solution was extra washers and bits of rubber tubing jammed between the washers and the linkage arms. Worked for me. But not for the (now) Mrs V. (She was a Miss… then.) She had a Peugeot 404 then. Beautiful crisp 4-speed column change. Don’t offer to change the clutch…

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

boppa said:

Dad had an old Akinson (remember the big A in a circle?)
That was fun- 4 speed box, 4 speed 2nd stage box, 2 speed joey and a 2 speed diff….

1234,1 to 2,1234,2 to 2,1234,3 to 4, keep going until you got through them all
Semi with 190hp… about the same as a modern 4 cyl buzzbox….

:)

boppa said:

Michael V said:

Can you get me one (at the right price)?

I’d go the vintage-and-specialist route these days. Perfect for me here at Rainbow Beach.

I can ask, ones down south, but the other is literally right around the corner from me, he’s a bit of a hoarder when it comes to vws tho, he’s got about a dozen bugs and at least 4 splitties as well, I’ll ask him but wouldnt get me hopes up lol

Cheers!

I’d appreciate that.

:)

sibeen said:

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

It was a mate’s ute, and we’d fucked those linkages up big time.

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

Ooops, sorry.

Oh, it’s Arts and everyone else we shouldn’t annoy too much.

Ummm. My comment still stands.

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

boppa said:

Yeah anyone who had the old kingswoods (esp the rod ones, the wire cable not so much) usually got pretty good at driving clutchless
oh and popping the bonnet to realign the linkages on the old 3 on the tree when you tried to shift too fast- otherwise it would lock the back tyres and stall the motor as the gbox tried to go into 2nd and reverse at the same time….
(even my mum, who struggled to change a tyre without instructions, knew that trick,she’d just reach down and ‘jiggle the bracketty bits’ until they were in line again lol)

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

LOL, my old eh got that bad it locked every gear change- an angle grinder and a couple of bits of 1” steel bar soon fixed it…
one did 1/n/r, the other did 2/n/3
I bet half the old holdens in the country ended up with that mod….

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

It was a mate’s ute, and we’d fucked those linkages up big time.

:)

boppa said:

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Drove from Adelaide to Toowoomba in second gear because of those ‘orrible bits of kit.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you have the temerity to call yourself an engineer?

LOL, my old eh got that bad it locked every gear change- an angle grinder and a couple of bits of 1” steel bar soon fixed it…
one did 1/n/r, the other did 2/n/3
I bet half the old holdens in the country ended up with that mod….

It was such a cheap-arsed solution that Holden had. Stuff like that is why the Japanese cars (and bikes) ended up selling so well. They kept going. They didn’t leak oil. etc. One didn’t need to be a repair-person to keep driving or riding.

I still contend that the minimum safe distance is four seconds. You need that distance from the former-me’s of this world. The teenage idiots. Some of whom don’t survive, because some-one didn’t keep a safe distance from them. (How would that person know anyway?) Also, the incompetents. Also the people who have little experience, or who learn little from their (and others) experiences. There’s many of them.

Just because you are the brightest, most well thought-through person, and have the best reaction time in the world. Consider the others. The ones who don’t get this particular exercise. The ones who just don’t get it. They’re the ones you need to be afraid of, to be clear of. By four seconds.

Michael V said:

Also, the incompetents. Also the people who have little experience, or who learn little from their (and others) experiences. There’s many of them.

Just because you are the brightest, most well thought-through person, and have the best reaction time in the world. Consider the others. The ones who don’t get this particular exercise. The ones who just don’t get it. They’re the ones you need to be afraid of, to be clear of. By four seconds.

This is well said, MV.

I can’t drive. Never wanted to…except for those years I walked past a metallic mauve fastback VW that lived up the road from me. I fell in love with that vehicle.

As a very experienced passenger I have been driven by many, many people. I watch. I compare. I also observe the driving skills of those around the vehicle I am in.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

Rule 303 said:

Trying to maintain a safe minimum distance behind cars on freeways around Melbourne means moving backward (wrt the traffic) very quickly. A couple of car lengths seems to be the norm at 100km/hr.

I reckon there’s a psychology in avoiding appearing like an obstruction on the road, and this contributes to traffic conformity, including traffic compression, which also results in some space equalization between vehicles. Tends drivers up toward the posted speed limit too.

i’m trying to think what the dumbest most common activities would be that indicate strongly something of a feel for that exponentiation (V^2) of the relationship .5M(V^2) = Kinetic Energy, if there’s anything at all from which something like it is regularly intuited.

certainly important of safe trailing distances.

it’s interesting to ponder for a moment what effect having no brake lights on vehicles would have. Maybe some people feel/sense that if they are closer to the vehicle ahead they will see the brake lights come on sooner. Ignoring the speed of light, the idea’s not entirely daft, because the lights will be brighter, and larger. I think brake lights more contribute to stay back/keep your distance, to a point.

Have completed measurements of my own driving psychology.

In moderate and heavy traffic over the entire speed range of 55 to 95 km/hr I am comfortable with a gap of 1.0 seconds. During overtaking (both cases) that can close up to about 0.5 seconds. In light traffic at 100 km/hr and above I stay back about 2 seconds. Missy and mrs m are both more comfortable than I am with smaller gaps at 100 km/hr and above.

Theory says:

1. If you’re confident that the vehicle ahead is not going to emergency brake without visible cause then there is no limit to how close you can travel, no matter how fast you travel. Which is why motor racing is possible. Eg. Even if the car ahead brakes at 5 m/s^2 then the safe distance is only one metre.

2. If your brakes are at least as good as the vehicle ahead then the minimum safe distance is your reaction time.

3. If your brakes are poor (such as a logging truck) then the minimum safe distance is the reaction time plus the difference in braking distances.

urgency of proximity drives attention too, stimulates it, + exhilaration,, which everyone enjoys having successfully escaped serious injury or death (of normal positive experience regards self, if others are involved it can be different).

the experience of exhilaration (and subforms that don’t qualify) and enjoyment of motion are near inseparable.

add dodging things, this further contributes to the enjoyment.

note of race car that does three flips, hits a wall, and bursts in flames, how you feel when the driver climbs out of it, and walks away without serious injury. Concern (readiness to help) turns to WOW!.

Michael V said:

I still contend that the minimum safe distance is four seconds. You need that distance from the former-me’s of this world. The teenage idiots. Some of whom don’t survive, because some-one didn’t keep a safe distance from them. (How would that person know anyway?) Also, the incompetents. Also the people who have little experience, or who learn little from their (and others) experiences. There’s many of them.

Just because you are the brightest, most well thought-through person, and have the best reaction time in the world. Consider the others. The ones who don’t get this particular exercise. The ones who just don’t get it. They’re the ones you need to be afraid of, to be clear of. By four seconds.

I’m with you MV. My old man always said, “It does matter how good a driver you are but tou are a better driver if you watch the others”.

There is so much stuff back there in this thread that I don’t understand. I understand as far as driving a manual car since 1979 allows, but the rest I leave to mechanics. I know eyes. They know motors.

I did know how to roll start, used to do it routinely at work when I was coming home so I kept the skill. But I’m led to believe later cars don’t like it, so I haven’t done it for some years.

:)

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

how close do people pul up behind the car in front at traffic lights/stop signs?

When I was taught, standard practice was 2 car lengths minimum

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

The message did eventually sink in.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

There are way more cars on the road now than when I was taught. The gridlock grows exponentially.

2 car lengths when at the back then close up when a car arrives behind, is what my daughter tells me. I have never seen anyone do that in practice though.

The message did eventually sink in.

:)

Bloody Android tablets are hopeless for typing on.