Norman Wells wrote:
> No, it doesn't make sense even then.
>
> You now justify to me how 'the safe rule' of never getting closer than
> the overall stopping distance is reconcilable with the 'two second rule'
> when, at 70mph, the overall stopping distance is 315ft, but at two
> seconds you will be just 205ft behind.
But after the two seconds has elapsed the car in front will ALSO be 205
feet further forward (unless it comes to an instantaneous standstill -
but that would take a brick wall!) so you won't ever reach it.
>>
>> So it is not *I* who is interpreting the HC the way I want to, but it
>> is yourself who is twisting the meaning in an attempt to support an
>> argumenty that you surely must have realised days ago to be untenable.
>>
> Not so at all.
> |