More speed estimation trolling

Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
on a regular basis. Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. Such
consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
become very good at it.

The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.

Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
same road.

Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
than 5 km/h.

Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
km/h.
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> on a regular basis. Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. Such
> consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
> become very good at it.
>
> The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
>
> Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> same road.


As has been said over and over:

Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed. As can
clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
halve a known speed, the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.

" The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies. Denton [1966]
instructed drivers of cars with obscured speedometers to double or halve
an initial speed of magnitude, unknown to the subject, set by following
experimenter instructions. The subjects' attempts to decelerate or
accelerate to halve or double these speeds were biased by large amounts
in the direction of the initial speed. For example, the goal of
doubling an initial speed of 30 mph produced an average speed of 44 mph,
rather than the nominally correct 60 mph. The goal of halving 60 mph
produced, on average, 38 mph. "

If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.

>
> Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> than 5 km/h.

So three times more than what you claim, and we don't even know for
certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
to draw.

>
> Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> km/h.
> http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm

That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice. That
too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jul 12, 7:23*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > on a regular basis. *Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> > comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. *Such
> > consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> > limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
> > become very good at it.
>
> > The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> > speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
>
> > Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> > maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> > drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> > to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> > same road.
>
> As has been said over and over:
>
> Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed. As can
> clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
> halve a known speed, the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
> drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.
>
> " The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies. *Denton [1966]
> instructed drivers of cars with obscured speedometers to double or halve
> an initial speed of magnitude, unknown to the subject, set by following
> experimenter instructions. *The subjects' attempts to decelerate or
> accelerate to halve or double these speeds were biased by large amounts
> in the direction of the initial speed. *For example, the goal of
> doubling an initial speed of 30 mph produced an average speed of 44 mph,
> rather than the nominally correct 60 mph. *The goal of halving 60 mph
> produced, on average, 38 mph. "
>
> If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
> should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.
>
>
>
> > Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> > without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> > estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> > errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> > than 5 km/h.
>
> So three times more than what you claim, and we don't even know for
> certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
> study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
> to draw.
>
>
>
> > Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> > closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> > consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> > speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> > km/h.
> >http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
>
> That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice. That
> too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Don't forget that you are talking to the superman of driving. He can
do
things undreamt of by mere mortals.

Harry K

On Jul 12, 10:23*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > on a regular basis. *Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> > comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. *Such
> > consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> > limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
> > become very good at it.
>
> > The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> > speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
>
> > Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> > maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> > drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> > to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> > same road.
>
> As has been said over and over:

Lol. You're going to begin with proof by ***** your ***** repeated
assertions...?!

Good one!

> Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed.

Thanks, Cap'n!

> As can
> clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
> halve a known speed,

Except in that experiment the speed was unknown to the subjects, to
wit:

> Denton [1966]
> instructed drivers of cars with ***** obscured ***** speedometers to double or halve
> an initial speed of magnitude, ***** unknown to the subject *****, set by following
> experimenter instructions.

> the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
> drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.

Nope.

> If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
> should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.

Because all motorists are created equal?

Perhaps we should consider your demonstrated inability to understand
written English.

> > Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> > without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> > estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> > errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> > than 5 km/h.
>
> So three times more than what you claim,

You can't read: "errors <> **** are typically less **** than 5 kph
*****"

5kph = 3.10686 mph.

> and we don't even know for
> certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
> study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
> to draw.

Yes, well, you've managed to become and remain absolutely certain
based on evidence to the contrary, your functional illiteracy and your
refusal to examine your own abilities when nothing could be more
expedient.

Your belief system is obviously based on nothing but your faith that
you could not be wrong.

> > Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> > closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> > consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> > speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> > km/h.
> >http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
>
> That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice.

Obviously. "Roads" is, of course, the singular of "road", and
motorists rarely drive the same roads twice.

> That
> too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.

Straw man.

Yer ****ting up another of my threads with your lack of interest.
Again.

From: Alan Baker >
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in
terms of justice
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:00:24 -0700

"The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have
no
interest in how well anyone can answer that question."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...n&dmode=source

You have no interest in the speed at which you might be traveling
because speed is never relevant! Good one!
-----

- gpsman

On Jul 12, 10:11*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> on a regular basis.

Laughable. I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.

nate

On Jul 13, 5:31*am, N8N > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 10:11*pm, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > on a regular basis.
>
> Laughable. *I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>
> nate

Please don't try to inject facts into his fantasies.

Harry K

On Jul 13, 8:31*am, N8N > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 10:11*pm, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > on a regular basis.
>
> Laughable.

If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
"pitiful".

> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.

Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".

Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.

Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
on a regular basis".

If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
"operating" temp.
-----

- gpsman

On Jul 13, 11:16*am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:31*am, N8N > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 10:11*pm, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > > on a regular basis.
>
> > Laughable.
>
> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
> "pitiful".
>
> > I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> > engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> > estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> > seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> > little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> > throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>
> Straw man. *The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>
> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.

Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)

> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
> on a regular basis".

Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
damped. Yes, even the factory ones. (well, except for F*rd, but
there are ways to fix that and I have done so.)

> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. *It's
> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
> "operating" temp.

Unsupported assertion. As usual.

nate

On Jul 13, 11:33*am, N8N > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 11:16*am, gpsman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 8:31*am, N8N > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 12, 10:11*pm, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > > > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > > > on a regular basis.
>
> > > Laughable.
>
> > If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
> > and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
> > "pitiful".
>
> > > I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> > > engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> > > estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> > > seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> > > little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> > > throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>
> > Straw man. *The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>
> > Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
> > other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
> > if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>
> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
> certainly do provide feedback. *E.g. if the water temp is too high,
> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
> first place.) *If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)

Lol. "Regularly"...?

> > Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
> > of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
> > on a regular basis".
>
> Really? *My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
> damped. *Yes, even the factory ones.

How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?

> > If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. *It's
> > not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
> > "operating" temp.
>
> Unsupported assertion. *As usual.

Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
bull****.

You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
your engine to reach operating temp.
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 12, 10:23*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > > on a regular basis. *Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> > > comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. *Such
> > > consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> > > limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
> > > become very good at it.
> >
> > > The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> > > speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
> >
> > > Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> > > maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> > > drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> > > to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> > > same road.
> >
> > As has been said over and over:
>
> Lol. You're going to begin with proof by ***** your ***** repeated
> assertions...?!
>
> Good one!
>
> > Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed.
>
> Thanks, Cap'n!

I'll keep reminding you until there is some evidence that you get it.

>
> > As can
> > clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
> > halve a known speed,
>
> Except in that experiment the speed was unknown to the subjects, to
> wit:
>
> > Denton [1966]
> > instructed drivers of cars with ***** obscured ***** speedometers to double
> > or halve
> > an initial speed of magnitude, ***** unknown to the subject *****, set by
> > following
> > experimenter instructions.

Which doesn't change anything. In order to arrive at an estimated speed
of 2n, you must have already estimated n.

>
> > the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
> > drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.
>
> Nope.
>
> > If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
> > should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.
>
> Because all motorists are created equal?

Because you present that as the average error.

>
> Perhaps we should consider your demonstrated inability to understand
> written English.
>
> > > Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> > > without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> > > estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> > > errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> > > than 5 km/h.
> >
> > So three times more than what you claim,
>
> You can't read: "errors <> **** are typically less **** than 5 kph
> *****"
>
> 5kph = 3.10686 mph.

Right. So three times what you claimed. 4.99999kph is "less than 5 kph".

>
> > and we don't even know for
> > certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
> > study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
> > to draw.
>
> Yes, well, you've managed to become and remain absolutely certain
> based on evidence to the contrary, your functional illiteracy and your
> refusal to examine your own abilities when nothing could be more
> expedient.
>
> Your belief system is obviously based on nothing but your faith that
> you could not be wrong.
>
> > > Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> > > closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> > > consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> > > speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> > > km/h.
> > >http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
> >
> > That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice.
>
> Obviously. "Roads" is, of course, the singular of "road", and
> motorists rarely drive the same roads twice.
>
> > That
> > too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.
>
> Straw man.
>
> Yer ****ting up another of my threads with your lack of interest.
> Again.
>
> From: Alan Baker >
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
> Subject: This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in
> terms of justice
> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:00:24 -0700
>
> "The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
> represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have
> no
> interest in how well anyone can answer that question."
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e3c6f?hl=en&dm
> ode=source
>
> You have no interest in the speed at which you might be traveling
> because speed is never relevant! Good one!

The precise numerical value is never...


....NEVER...


....a relevant factor in safe driving.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."