Jury Duty

[DGuller]

Except that we know that he tried to use the brakes, and they didn't stop that particular vehicle.

No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand.

Your logic goes something like this.  If the engine is too powerful, then the brakes won't stop the car.  The car didn't stop.  Therefore the engine was too powerful.

I made no general statement about cars, because (unlike you) I recognize that known specific incidents are more persuasive than general rules, even ones that you claim make the known facts "nonsense."

The fact was that the car didn't stop.  Claiming that this fact happened because the engine was too powerful is a theory, and that's what is nonsense.  I'm sure you are aware that there is a difference between facts, and theories that attempt to explains the facts.

[Barrister]

Good grief.

[DGuller]

Good grief.

You were the one who opened the door to this, by trying the whole disproof by meme argument, when I introduced the statements of the actual cops into this discussion.

[grumbler]

No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand. 

This is merely an assumption.  The fact is that the brakes were applied, and didn't stop the car.  It kept going.  You can argue that it wasn't the engine making it go.  Knock yourself out.

[Admiral Yi]

What part of phyics says an engine can't overpower the brakes?  Seems to me if I mount a tank engine in a car that has clothes pins for brakes that engine is going to power right the fuck through.

[DGuller]

What part of phyics says an engine can't overpower the brakes?  Seems to me if I mount a tank engine in a car that has clothes pins for brakes that engine is going to power right the fuck through.

The parameters of a typical passenger car, of course.  Obviously a top fuel car with 5000 HP engine and Yugo brakes is a different beast.  In a typical passenger car, the engine will never be more powerful than the brakes.  It won't even be close.

As I said in the previous thread, all you have to do is compare the 0-60 and 60-0 times.  It usually takes more than 7 seconds to go from 0 to 60.  It takes about 180 feet, or about 4 seconds, to go from 60 to 0.  That should give you the indication of the relative power of the two right there.

Of course, people have gone beyond theory, and actually tested cars.  Every single passenger car that was tested came to a full stop when both the throttle and the brakes were applied fully and continuously.

[DGuller]

No, they didn't stop it, but it wasn't because they engine was too powerful.  The reason the car didn't stop is because the brakes failed due to not being applied properly for the situation at hand. 

This is merely an assumption.  The fact is that the brakes were applied, and didn't stop the car.  It kept going.  You can argue that it wasn't the engine making it go.  Knock yourself out.

Of course the engine was making it go.  Any engine, powerful or not, makes the car go.  The fatal factor in that accident, however, wasn't that the engine was too good at making the car go, which is what you claimed, but rather that the brakes were made too bad to make the car stop. 

If the engine was half as powerful, it would still propel the car forward once the brakes were gone.  If the brakes remained operable, the engine with all its might wouldn't be able to keep the car from stopping with the brakes full applied.  The brakes were rendered inoperable because they were ridden for too long before, if ever, being applied fully and continuously.

[grumbler]

  The brakes were rendered inoperable because they were ridden for too long before, if ever, being applied fully and continuously.

This is what is called "an assumption."  I have seen no basis for it in any of the reports.

You are conceding that my point was true (the brakes were applied, but they didn't overcome the engine) and also calling that truth "ridiculous."  It is teh funnay.

Why the brakes didn't stop the car isn't known.  Your assumption that someone far, far more knowledgeable than you about driving at high speeds (a professional at it, in fact, as he was a California Highway Patrol patrol officer, not someone who became an instant armchair expert by joining a college club and reading some internet postings) didn't know what you know about braking is what is "ridiculous."

[DGuller]

You are conceding that my point was true (the brakes were applied, but they didn't overcome the engine) and also calling that truth "ridiculous."  It is teh funnay.

Actually, no, I'm not conceding your point.  To concede your point, I would have to agree that the brakes were applied fully, but even at full power they couldn't overcome the power of the engine.  Since I know that to be a physical impossibility for that Lexus, I would not be agreeing with that any time soon.

I don't know for sure who shot JFK.  It could be Oswald, it could be the guy in the grassy knoll, or it could be someone else entirely.  I am pretty sure, however, that it wasn't someone who was in Austin at that time.  Why?  Because I'm aware of the physical reality that it's impossible to shoot someone in Dallas from Austin.  For the same reason I can rule out the theory that the engine was too powerful to overcome the brakes, due to knowing that physics wouldn't allow that Lexus engine to overpower fully-functioning, fully-applied Lexus brakes.

[ulmont]

Why the brakes didn't stop the car isn't known.  Your assumption that someone far, far more knowledgeable than you about driving at high speeds (a professional at it, in fact, as he was a California Highway Patrol patrol officer, not someone who became an instant armchair expert by joining a college club and reading some internet postings) didn't know what you know about braking is what is "ridiculous."

If Car and Driver can stop a 540hp Roush Mustang at full acceleration simply by stomping on the brakes, I'm thinking your run of the mill Toyota should stop, CHIP or no.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

[Razgovory]

Good grief.

I can't figure out which is worse.  This car-brake argument or the inherent authoritarianism of fire safety week.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Good grief.

I can't figure out which is worse.  This car-brake argument or the inherent authoritarianism of fire safety week.

God help us come car brake safety week.

[Eddie Teach]

On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

Insurance companies pay their lawyers hourly rates, the people suing them pay on contingency. Therefore, I have to root for the insurance companies. 

But BB is right, insurance companies' stockholders are people too.

[DGuller]

On Topic:  I got nothing regarding a civil trial, except to note that Barrister's "screw the little guy" tendencies seem to be at play both in reference to criminal and civil trials.

Insurance companies pay their lawyers hourly rates, the people suing them pay on contingency. Therefore, I have to root for the insurance companies. 

But BB is right, insurance companies' stockholders are people too.

And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

[jimmy olsen]

I meant people who get their opinions of police from the real world, not from television and movies.

The times I've dealt with cops they've been obnoxious, stupid, and/or humorless.

Most of the cops I've dealt with, even ones who've pulled me over were quite professional. One was a complete dick about it though. I can see how that kind of experience can sour a person on cops if it happens in a more serious situation than the one I happened to be in.