It was never my intent to, in general, equate "belief" with "superficial belief".
See posts 308, 312, 318.
I suspect that your intent is only superficial, since, according to you, a deep belief is reflected by behavior.
In your behavior, you used "agree" interchangeably with "belief", and then defined agree as superficial belief.

See posts 308, 312, 318.
I suspect that your intent is only superficial, since, according to you, a deep belief is reflected by behavior.
In your behavior, you used "agree" interchangeably with "belief", and then defined agree as superficial belief.
If you want to have a serious discussion, please continue.
If you're "just having fun", go play with someone else.

If you want to have a serious discussion, please continue.
If you're "just having fun", go play with someone else.
I'm just holding you to the same scrutiny to which you hold others (see quotes below). Do you have a problem with that?

My point is that whether one's belief is superficial or deep affects his attitude and how that belief reflects in his behavior.
Almost every post he has made in this thread is an excellent example of how not having that attitude is manifested in a form of denial with regard to taking full responsibility for one's safety.

My point is that whether one's belief is superficial or deep affects his attitude and how that belief reflects in his behavior. Do you agree or disagree?
To answer your question: Not even psychologists or philosophers can agree to the idea whether or not "depth" of belief can influence behavior, or how so. They can't even agree whether belief causes behavior or vice versa. But I bet you know, because you read a liberating self-help book once.

For example, there has never been any correlation shown between "belief" and "marriage fidelity". Show me one study that shows any difference between the fidelity levels of Atheists, nominal-Christians, and "devout"-Christians.

Or, you can resort to circular reasoning, and say something along the lines of "People who really believe deeply are the only ones who will behave in a manner consistent with it.

I've already taken HH's insurance quiz.

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3804905#post3804905

To his credit, he didn't claim it was my responsibility when someone backed into my car while it was legally parked, however, apparently, the jury is still out on why I failed to avoid that guy who plowed in the back of me at speed while I was stopped in a traffic jam...

Because you did not leave enough space in front of you to allow you to escape when you saw him coming up behind you in your mirror which you were monitoring while stopped in traffic.....


You asked:)

I'm just holding you to the same scrutiny to which you hold others (see quotes below). Do you have a problem with that?

Well you have learned, young curbhopper.

http://www.elguaitador.com/starwars/yoda.JPG

To answer your question: Not even psychologists or philosophers can agree to the idea whether or not "depth" of belief can influence behavior, or how so. They can't even agree whether belief causes behavior or vice versa. But I bet you know, because you read a liberating self-help book once.
My (Mac) dictionary defines attitude to mean a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior. That how one thinks about something is reflected in his behavior is implied by this.

I did assume it was obvious that the depth of one's belief in something positively correlated with how much that belief is reflected in his behavior. The placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo) is one scientifically proven (at least in terms of controlling pain) example of this, don't you think? Anyway, the broadly accepted effectivity of "positive thinking" (which redirects to "attitude (psychology)" in Wikipedia, by the way) and having a "positive attitude" are all based on this premise too.


The link between attitude and behavior exists but depends on human behavior, some of which is irrational. For example, a person who is for blood transfusion may not donate blood. This makes sense if the person does not like the sight of blood, which explains this irrationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_%28psychology%29



For example, there has never been any correlation shown between "belief" and "marriage fidelity". Show me one study that shows any difference between the fidelity levels of Atheists, nominal-Christians, and "devout"-Christians.
The lack of such a correlation only shows that the distribution of depth of moral beliefs with respect to marriage fidelity does not vary significantly among Atheists, nominal-Christians, and "devout"-Christians, which is what I would expect.


Or, you can resort to circular reasoning, and say something along the lines of "People who really believe deeply are the only ones who will behave in a manner consistent with it.
Actually, "when one believes deeply in something that belief is likely to reflected in his behavior" is nearly a tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29), which is why I'm surprised you're challenging it.

Quick one for the mods here: I stopped reading the drivel and personal attacks several pages ago. Whatever happened to personal attacks being a no no? Some people on this thread started off reasonably enough, but degenerated their posts to nothing but a flame war. While amusing, isnt that kind of garbage what prompted the creation of the VC sub forum so people could refight those battles over there?


@HH: speaking from years of experience teaching people how to drive and not kill themselves or others, you are pretty much right on regarding defensive driving practices.

you can resort to circular reasoning
The lack of such a correlation only shows that the distribution of depth of moral beliefs with respect to marriage fidelity does not vary significantly among Atheists, nominal-Christians, and "devout"-Christians, which is what I would expect.
Why am I not surprised..... sigh. I asked for it, after all...

Actually, "when one believes deeply in something that belief is likely to reflected in his behavior" is nearly a tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29), which is why I'm surprised you're challenging it.
I'm not challenging a tautology.

Logic is bubblegum to you.

You found a definition in which attitude "typically affects behavior" and a Wikipedia article in which someone asserted there is a link (correlation, not causation).

<STRETTTTTCH>

Deep belief in something = acting consistently with deep belief. (EDIT: I mean to imply that this is your reasoning, not that I agree with this logically false statement)

You wish you even had a tautology.

Did you even read your own Wikipedia article? In the past, you commonly quote stuff and endorse it, only to retract later because you didn't really read it all the way through.

A couple paragraphs into the article, are links to a dozen different theories and models about the formation and employment of attitudes. Many of these theories and models are currently believed by very well educated Psychologists. Many of them contradict other models. There is no consensus. Please don't tell me that you figured out the whole system by looking on your Mac dictionary and searching Wiki for a few minutes. You should send out an email. They'll be glad to know that you've figured it out.

The placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)is one scientifically proven (at least in terms of controlling pain) example of this, don't you think?
Well, according to your Wikipedia article, the causes are not fully understood, and recent data shows that it may not exist at all. IF it exists in the way you suggest, it's a very weak effect. We're talking single-digits here....

Huh? You're kidding right? This isn't about cops writing bad tickets or running speed traps. It's about people using slick lawyers to reduce fines,keep from getting points,and getting out of DUI's.
If the cops do their jobs right, what good is a "slick lawyer"? Cops who follow the rules should fear "slick lawyers" as much as motorists (and cyclists) who follow the rules should fear overly aggressive cops.

Quick one for the mods here: I stopped reading the drivel and personal attacks several pages ago. Whatever happened to personal attacks being a no no? Some people on this thread started off reasonably enough, but degenerated their posts to nothing but a flame war. While amusing, isnt that kind of garbage what prompted the creation of the VC sub forum so people could refight those battles over there?


@HH: speaking from years of experience teaching people how to drive and not kill themselves or others, you are pretty much right on regarding defensive driving practices.
I read the first two pages and skipped the last twelve. It doesn't sound like I missed much.

p.s. "when one believes deeply in something that belief is likely to reflected in his behavior" vs. Catholic priest pedophile crisis?
They must not believe deeply enough. According to this logic... Cognitive Dissonance is an impossibility.

If the cops do their jobs right, what good is a "slick lawyer"? Cops who follow the rules should fear "slick lawyers" as much as motorists (and cyclists) who follow the rules should fear overly aggressive cops.

Cops don't fear slick lawyers, prosecuting attorneys do. Cops fear bumbling, overworked prosecuters who can make even the perfect bust...go bust. ;)

Let's cut to the chase and get back to the initial point:


Please keep in mind that this entire argument started when someone question your assertion that "with rare exception" all drivers were "complicit" in an accident.

We've established that my initial point could have been worded better. Fine. Let's assume I worded it in a way that conveys more accurately what I originally intended. Would you agree with it or not? If not, why not?

I've actually started a new thread on this fundamental point where I reworded my initial point as follows:


Do you agree with the following statement?
With rare exceptions, in all crashes even the driver involved who clearly did nothing blatantly wrong could have avoided the crash had he or she been following the rules of the road and defensive driving best practices such as Road Trip America's 70 Rules to Live By (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Drive-Safe-With-Uncle-Bob.htm) and those taught in the CA DMV curriculum (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/ol/drvedcur.htm).Clarifying definitions:rare exceptions: You believe fewer than one in 100 drivers will encounter such an exception in their lifetimes.

blatantly wrong: doing something like running a red light or stop sign, swerving into oncoming traffic, slamming into the back of traffic stopped at a red light, opening a car door without looking first, etc.

If you want to seriously discuss this point, please vote/discuss there: Poll: Defensive Driving principle - do you agree? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=282651)

I'm done with this thread and all the semantic b.s.

I'm done with this thread and all the semantic b.s.

Now you have an understanding of what it's like to try to engage in a discussion with you.

Anyway, going the speed limit is truly out of the question. Unless I'm pedaling downhill, no headwind.

Because you did not leave enough space in front of you to allow you to escape when you saw him coming up behind you in your mirror which you were monitoring while stopped in traffic.....


You asked:)

Please explain how much room I'd need to leave in front of me to escape a car hitting me from behind at 35 mph with cars on both sides. One, two, or three car lengths would be insufficient.

You're right, neither was a "blind spot" situation, but they were side-by-side situations that you're supposed to avoid according to defensive driving best practices. See 6d here (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/ol/drvedcur.htm):


6. Vehicle position
a. Keep up with traffic speed while remaining within legal limits
b. Avoid other drivers’ blind spots
c. Avoid letting another driver drive in your blind spot
d. Avoid side-by-side driving
e. Avoid driving in bunches or packs
Note that Pete wrote: "We had just left a stop sign where we had been side-by-side. How do you imagine traffic to flow on streets if a driver should never occupy another driver's blind spot?" The side-by-side situation was something that should have been avoided (by speeding up or slowing down relative to the guy next to him) in both cases. At the stop, if they both left at the same moment, he should have slowed to let him go ahead where he could watch him, of, if safe, accelerate to be ahead of him. There is no excuse to still be side-by-side more than a couple car lengths after the stop.

".

Now that you've slowed down to just behind the guy, another car is to your side. Yes, they often drive that close. If you speed up to get ahead of someone, you must exceed the speed limit constantly to stay ahead of them. Have the people that write these recommendations ever driven on the streets?

You find yourself arguing semantics a great deal. Did you ever stop to think that the root cause is your proven ability to mangle the english language and then get all fussy when people interpret your posts based upon english, rather than Headspeak™?

Somehow, I'm always able to understand what HH is posting, even though I don't always agree with him. As far as arguing semantics, you do a pretty good job of mirroring HH yourself, as Chip pointed out. You two might have more in common than you realize.

Now that you've slowed down to just behind the guy, another car is to your side. Yes, they often drive that close. If you speed up to get ahead of someone, you must exceed the speed limit constantly to stay ahead of them. Have the people that write these recommendations ever driven on the streets? (since this is from Dchief and not addressing an issue of semantics, I will respond)

For that to be true, the following distance would have to be less than a car length, or less than about 16 feet. At 25 mph, you're moving 36 feet per second, so even 16 feet is a following distance of less than half a second.

Traffic often seems denser than it actually is.

The other thing is if you slow down to, say, 5 mph slower than the adjacent lane, then they're moving 7 feet per second faster than you, so every car in the adjacent will be side-side, but moving and passing you for only about 2 seconds. That too is avoiding "side-by-side driving" (where you drive next to another car at the same speed for an extended period).

Once you accept that side-by-side driving should be avoided, it's really pretty easy to do. For me, driving side-by-side is as offensive is getting up out of bed and not brushing my teeth. Yuk!

(since this is from Dchief and not addressing an issue of semantics, I will respond)

For that to be true, the following distance would have to be less than a car length, or less than about 16 feet. At 25 mph, you're moving 36 feet per second, so even 16 feet is a following distance of less than half a second.

Traffic often seems denser than it actually is.

The other thing is if you slow down to, say, 5 mph slower than the adjacent lane, then they're moving 7 feet per second faster than you, so every car in the adjacent will be side-side, but moving and passing you for only about 2 seconds. That too is avoiding "side-by-side driving" (where you drive next to another car at the same speed for an extended period).

Once you accept that side-by-side driving should be avoided, it's really pretty easy to do. For me, driving side-by-side is as offensive is getting up out of bed and not brushing my teeth. Yuk!

They drive pretty close here, I'll try that, but I would tend to leave maybe half a car length between my front and the other car's rear. Do you know the answer to the other question I asked SGtsmile? If we're at a light, and rear ended from behind, how in the world are we supposed to be able to avoid that, even if we leave a couple of car lengths there? If we move up before the collision to less than the one car length from the car in front of us, then we're now at fault for that collision when we're pushed into them.

They drive pretty close here, I'll try that, but I would tend to leave maybe half a car length between my front and the other car's rear. Do you know the answer to the other question I asked SGtsmile? If we're at a light, and rear ended from behind, how in the world are we supposed to be able to avoid that, even if we leave a couple of car lengths there? If we move up before the collision to less than the one car length from the car in front of us, then we're now at fault for that collision when we're pushed into them.
Frankly, I don't know how you can avoid a rear-ender where you've been stopped for a while at a red light, then someone just rolls up and smashes into you. Nobody has ever even come close to doing that to me, and I've been driving for 30 years with probably close to half a million miles under my *****, maybe more. Leaving plenty of room in front of you can be helpful though, as you can use it to grab their attention by moving forward, even zig-zagging a bit, and stopping again when you see them approaching in your rear view mirror.

I've been leaving plenty of room in front of me since carjacking became all the rage in the early 90s or whenever it was, and I heard on the radio someone suggest that if you leave extra space, they can't pin you in, so you're unlikely to be a target.

Frankly, I don't know how you can avoid a rear-ender where you've been stopped for a while at a red light, then someone just rolls up and smashes into you.

One thing you can do is reduce the amount of instances that you end up in this position.

When approaching a red light start your slowing process much sooner by coasting. Any vehicle immediately behind you will be forced to gradually slow with you, or pass. Vehicles farther behind will catch up as you slow. By the time you are almost stopped, there is a better chance that the vehicle behind you is already there, and has slowed to your speed. By slowing down sooner, sometimes you won't even have to come to a complete stop before the light turns green. The less time you spend as a sitting duck (without a car safely stopped behind you) the less likely it is that you'll be rear ended.

One thing you can do is reduce the amount of instances that you end up in this position.

When approaching a red light start your slowing process much sooner by coasting. Any vehicle immediately behind you will be forced to gradually slow with you, or pass. Vehicles farther behind will catch up as you slow. By the time you are almost stopped, there is a better chance that the vehicle behind you is already there, and has slowed to your speed. By slowing down sooner, sometimes you won't even have to come to a complete stop before the light turns green. The less time you spend as a sitting duck (without a car safely stopped behind you) the less likely it is that you'll be rear ended.
Good point. There was a time when I used to race from light to light, but those days are long gone. I think I already pretty much do what you're talking about, but not for the reason of reducing my exposure to being rear-ended. I'll give it more attention from now. Thanks!

One thing you can do is reduce the amount of instances that you end up in this position.

When approaching a red light start your slowing process much sooner by coasting. Any vehicle immediately behind you will be forced to gradually slow with you, or pass. Vehicles farther behind will catch up as you slow. By the time you are almost stopped, there is a better chance that the vehicle behind you is already there, and has slowed to your speed. By slowing down sooner, sometimes you won't even have to come to a complete stop before the light turns green. The less time you spend as a sitting duck (without a car safely stopped behind you) the less likely it is that you'll be rear ended.

That works for vehicles close behind you, but does nothing for late arriving vehicles that drive right into you at full speed. I have had that happen and it was a complete shock and surprise. I never saw it coming as the angle of the hill behind me kept the motorist out of view until the last moment.

^^^This is true. You can't eliminate all chances of being rear ended. But I would add that by slowing sooner, you can reduce the amount of vehicles arriving behind you later, (after you're stopped) which will lessen your chance of being rear ended.

Going fast is never "safe". You may be okay at this instant, but 30 seconds from now ...

http://i8.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/95/93/307e_1.JPG

http://i7.ebayimg.com/03/i/000/95/93/30a7_1.JPG

Drive as fast as you want, just leave me out of it. I'll leave home 10 minutes early every day rather than spend 10 days in the hospital and earn a life time prescription for pain killers.

jw

John, Pete has a point. It is not "fast" that did that damage... it was the sudden stop. :rolleyes:

When referring to driving I define (for myself) "fast" as beein a speed which is unsafe for the given circumstances. Thus, fast is unsafe. ;)

When referring to driving I define (for myself) "fast" as beein a speed which is unsafe for the given circumstances. Thus, fast is unsafe. ;)
Who am I to argue with a tautology.:p

Like I said, drive as fast as you want, but don't expect me to leap out of your way, nor to stop to help you after you've wrapped yourself around that tree.

jw

Posting a picture of a crashed car as proof that "fast is never safe" is as silly as posting a picture of the same car, pre-crash as proof that "fast is safe."
You are right. Look how safe this fast car is around pedestrians!:)
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7982/nascarracecargirlshq7.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nascarracecargirlshq7.jpg)

That car also has rear end damage. Maybe it was at a stop light and pushed into another car.