Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter what
kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?

You said that collisions above 40MPH were, basically unsurvivable. That's
incorrect.


Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that
went into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in
performance driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I
know that most training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But
the number of safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet,
we're taught and reminded that, without rote procedures, things can
quickly get out of hand. The skill of being able to maintain grace under
pressure and follow a checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have
written for you to follow, is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting
has little in common with race or performance driving. Or great pitching
or goaltending. And a great deal depends on the equipment. Planes use
technology that was old, I remember, in the sixties. But one tends to
listen to the AME's opinion with a bit more respect than the race
mechanic. So, you may think that your skill trumps bad luck and the
safeguards available to counter it. But, you're likely dreaming.

AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?

Canadian thing. "Authorized Maintenance Engineer"

Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were clearly
avoidable.

By "all the time", I meant "many, every day" But, go with less than 50%
unavoidable. (Where did that come from?) Admitting that makes your
previous stance look a bit odd.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather
focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability, than to
accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.


You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents
involve people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can?
Almost nobody who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving,
F1 races would be done in Hummers.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes very
little to put you over the edge.

Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of driving.
And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race speeds.

I'm a pilot and mechanical failure isn't a big concern at all with most
pilots. Less than 15% of all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical
failure.

A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

You are saying you would rather have more accidents, but have them in a
more crashworthy vehicle.


Idiot.

I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
self-awareness.

It's usenet, darling. You misrepresented my position by claiming I take an
idiotic position. I'm just returning the favour using more concise
language.


There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.


Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc
by their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation
would require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and
Euclidean Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep
your foot over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).

And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to get
the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or using
your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You drive a
bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety measure?

Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared
your driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than
your own self-revering speculation.

I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I was
17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but my
insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a 29
year accident free record. What is your record?

I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.

Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times, somebody
made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is about
average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people who are
apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical reality and
believeing too much in your own prowess.

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where
to look.

Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

Rethink my beliefs because you are too lazy to do some research? I think
not.

I was thinking that you should rethink your beliefs because they're wrong.

http://www.central-insurance.com/doc...cid.htm#Bigger

moo