The Great Xmas Blizzard of 2022?

[Elijin]

Aside from you being shit at reading your own links, you're shit at googling. You googled "how to correct a slide" to get the answer to the question "what should I do if I slide on ice".

I'm not shocked.

 

[Gordon_4]

He's wrong in the sense that "speeding" is a legal term that means anything above the posted limit, but he's not wrong in that people thinking "speeding" means driving recklessly fast.
I can technicallly be speeding but still be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions.

The posted limit, or the speed of traffic: the eternal battle between motorists and law enforcement, especially with static cameras and the like.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If you’re ever driving in Australia, I would advise not to use that line of argument with the Police, especially if you drive through an active school zone.

Or Utah, where speeding is a misdemeanor offense even in the 1-10 MPH over limit range.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It is completely normal to regularly experience once in a lifetime weather events. There are so many metrics you can measure by to consider the extremes: hottest day, coldest night, windiest storm, highest flood, deepest snow, longest drought... it's not a contradiction to experience a once-in-a-lifetime weather event every year when there are so many metrics to judge that by, often being compared only within seasons or even months, and being measured locally all over the world.

Yes, because breaking records for both hottest and coldest weather in the same year isn't the definition of "extreme weather" right?

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, because breaking records for both hottest and coldest weather in the same year isn't the definition of "extreme weather" right?

It depends on what the records are. If it were all-time records for the whole earth, absolutely, that would be an extreme year, but that's not happening. All-time records for a local area would be noteworthy, but not necessarily extreme. Seasonal records for a local area is not terribly exciting. And then you get the weather reports on the news being and granular as "this is the hottest 4th of July this city has even had", and you have to start to think, even if we only consider temperature records, there's record high and record low for 365 days a year, that's 730 record setting opportunities a year competing against only like the last century of temperature data. It would be downright weird to have a year without a half-dozen record-setting days.

 

[Silvanus]

It depends on what the records are. If it were all-time records for the whole earth, absolutely, that would be an extreme year, but that's not happening. All-time records for a local area would be noteworthy, but not necessarily extreme. Seasonal records for a local area is not terribly exciting. And then you get the weather reports on the news being and granular as "this is the hottest 4th of July this city has even had", and you have to start to think, even if we only consider temperature records, there's record high and record low for 365 days a year, that's 730 record setting opportunities a year competing against only like the last century of temperature data. It would be downright weird to have a year without a half-dozen record-setting days.

No, think about it. If the year-by-year trend were broadly stable, then the number of broken records would be expected to decline yearly (on average).

Because that stable range would have an upper and lower threshold. And each broken record would be closer to it-- making it harder to break in subsequent years.

The only way you get increasing numbers of broken records is if the year-by-year trend is not stable.

 

[tstorm823]

No, think about it. If the year-by-year trend were broadly stable, then the number of broken records would be expected to decline yearly (on average).

Because that stable range would have an upper and lower threshold. And each broken record would be closer to it-- making it harder to break in subsequent years.

The only way you get increasing numbers of broken records is if the year-by-year trend is not stable.

You're not wrong, but it would take thousands of years of data to clearly see that decline.

 

[Silvanus]

You're not wrong, but it would take thousands of years of data to clearly see that decline.

Why? The same broad principle applies across any sufficiently large dataset. As you said yourself, on temperature alone, a single year provides 730 datapoints. So that's 73,000 over 100 years. Then thousands and thousands more if we're looking at weather phenomena intensity and frequency-- into the high hundreds of thousands of data points.

Certainly more than enough for it to be notable if the rate of record-breaking increases rather than decreases.

 

[Buyetyen]

Why? The same broad principle applies across any sufficiently large dataset. As you said yourself, on temperature alone, a single year provides 730 datapoints. So that's 73,000 over 100 years. Then thousands and thousands more if we're looking at weather phenomena intensity and frequency-- into the high hundreds of thousands of data points.

Certainly more than enough for it to be notable if the rate of record-breaking increases rather than decreases.

Add onto that, the fact that we have multiple methods of measuring climate variation in the past, including geology and dendrology.

 

[Kwak]

It is completely normal to regularly experience once in a lifetime weather events. There are so many metrics you can measure by to consider the extremes: hottest day, coldest night, windiest storm, highest flood, deepest snow, longest drought... it's not a contradiction to experience a once-in-a-lifetime weather event every year when there are so many metrics to judge that by, often being compared only within seasons or even months, and being measured locally all over the world.

So as long as it's just singular records in different categories over a few decades, it's not noteworthy?
So what if it's the same category, such as heat, repeated several times, and corresponding to scientific prediction of climate models?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Why? The same broad principle applies across any sufficiently large dataset. As you said yourself, on temperature alone, a single year provides 730 datapoints. So that's 73,000 over 100 years. Then thousands and thousands more if we're looking at weather phenomena intensity and frequency-- into the high hundreds of thousands of data points.

Certainly more than enough for it to be notable if the rate of record-breaking increases rather than decreases.

Yes, but if we wait for thousands of years, then tstorm will be safely dead and in the ground. And then who cares what happens?

 

[tstorm823]

Why? The same broad principle applies across any sufficiently large dataset. As you said yourself, on temperature alone, a single year provides 730 datapoints. So that's 73,000 over 100 years. Then thousands and thousands more if we're looking at weather phenomena intensity and frequency-- into the high hundreds of thousands of data points.

Certainly more than enough for it to be notable if the rate of record-breaking increases rather than decreases.

That's just not how math works in multiple ways. 730 was potential for either high or low records, but a single day isn't going to have both, so multiplying by two doesn't make sense. If you are counting all 365 days a year as comparable data points against one another, the vast majority never have any chance at relevance because that's how seasons work. So on and so forth...

So as long as it's just singular records in different categories over a few decades, it's not noteworthy?
So what if it's the same category, such as heat, repeated several times, and corresponding to scientific prediction of climate models?

If that's what we're talking about, sure. This thread isn't about repeated heat records though, it's about the coldest Christmas in many places in the last 30-40 years. Which is both likely a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many people and statistically not terribly significant. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Silvanus]

That's just not how math works in multiple ways. 730 was potential for either high or low records, but a single day isn't going to have both, so multiplying by two doesn't make sense. If you are counting all 365 days a year as comparable data points against one another, the vast majority never have any chance at relevance because that's how seasons work.

...A limitation which applies exactly as much to your own argument about how records will inevitably be broken because of the sheer number of opportunities. You were happy to multiply by two then!

Look, I just took your own rationale for the numbers. The calculation doesn't really matter. The principle of declining broken records over time for any sufficiently large dataset, if it is stable, holds true for this. And we certainly have more than enough datapoints: highs and lows of temperature, fluctuation/time, disaster frequency and intensity, and then split it over different areas.

Climatologists agree we have more than enough. They point to the fact we're having higher highs and lower lows, at greater frequency, as a warning sign. And they know what they're talking about.

it's about the coldest Christmas in many places in the last 30-40 years. Which is both likely a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many people

You sure about that?

Here in the UK, the top 10 coldest winters in the UK from 1910 to 2012.... 2 were in the 70s. 1 in the 80s. 3 in the 90s. 6 in the 2000s. None were in the first 62 years of records. Anyone older than 50 will have had the record broken three times, and anyone older than 40 will have had the record broken twice.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It literally is.



See previous sentence.

Going with traffic isn't "risky". It's more dangerous to be going 30 when everyone is trying to go 40. Also, my results speak for themselves.

Depending on the car, engine breaking when removing all accelerator input could shift the weight the same as tapping the brake would, and braking is the basic panic response so that's probably why it's emphasised.

I'm assuming the first "engine" is supposed to be "even". I know why braking is emphasized, doesn't change the fact that just not touching the pedals at all is what you should do as it slows the car without the dangers of braking. The fact it's not really taught is a problem. I remember the first time answering the question about turning into the slide, I was actually kinda confused because in my head, I think of it as turning to counter the direction of the slide so the wording seems odd to me. And like I said if you have to actually think about what to do while sliding, you're basically fubar.

It's the literal definition of speeding, it's just that cop equipment isn't generally precise enough to bother trying to give you a ticket
That's because you do not actually have to take you foot off the pedals. Hell, you don't actually want to lose power most of the time, the important thing is to not lock your wheels.

CLICK ON THOSE FUCKING LINKS BEFORE YOU PRETEND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY

Or just fully read the one line on the auto trader link even. The main reason you tend to get the responses you do is that you swagger in being arrogantly, extremely wrong.

Yes, I know the technicality of it obviously, doesn't mean anyone actually considers doing 5 over speeding or dangerous. Here's a Chicago driving meme that is literally the truth. Speed limit on parts of 80/94 is 55 and if you ain't doing at least 80 in the left lane, you're the one causing the danger. Far right lane 55-65, right lane 65+, left lane 70+, far left lane 80+. Those are the real speed "limits".


There's a reason why 2 of the 3 people that answered my question got it wrong because it's not super easy to deduce on google.

It is. 5 over in a 30 significantly increases the chance of a death when a pedestrian is hit (https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving). Main extract for the hard of clicking:

Numbers seem quite a bit off. The 1st result of "speeds and chances of killing a pedestrian" is the following with at 50% chance at 42mph. Also, the point is not to hit anything or anyone by, you know, paying attention. Most people hardly pay attention, it's about doing the work, not acquiring some top 10% driving ability skills, no one is asking anyone to do a 180 turn using the handbrake. Simply cycling through your mirrors a few times every minute gives you a great idea of the cars around you so you know if the lane next to is free if something unexpected happens. I'm guessing well over 50% of drivers don't even have their side mirrors adjusted properly. I also bet over 50% of drivers don't know how to make a proper turn per the rules of the road (because no one does it). You guys act like driving competently is some boast, it's just doing the fucking basic and expected work of driving a 2 ton piece of machinery at such speeds and that's it.

Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

This study examines how vehicle speed influences the probability that a pedestrian struck by a vehicle will sustain severe injuries or die.

aaafoundation.org

If you’re ever driving in Australia, I would advise not to use that line of argument with the Police, especially if you drive through an active school zone.

I'm from Chicagoland and hence the meme in this post.

You're not gonna get away with that shit when you get into Michigan. Especially if you're in places like Redford, Dearborn, or Lansing. Have fun arguing with the cops on that one. They will charge you extra, and expect you to take an online driver's test., after studying the online course.

Drove through Michigan last Spring break for vacation from Chicagoland to Port Sanilac and back again (cutting across the middle of the state iirc) and not a single issue.

Driver's tests are joke easily, you don't even have to read half the questions.

Q: What happens if you're pulled over driving drunk...
A: All of the above

Aside from you being shit at reading your own links, you're shit at googling. You googled "how to correct a slide" to get the answer to the question "what should I do if I slide on ice".

I'm not shocked.

Not the question I asked. And what does it matter if it's snow, ice, rain when you correct a slide the same way regardless?

I'll ask the following question to everyone here. What is the very 1st thing you should do when your car starts sliding in the snow? Very simple question that I'm guessing most won't know the answer to.

 

[Silvanus]

Going with traffic isn't "risky". It's more dangerous to be going 30 when everyone is trying to go 40. Also, my results speak for themselves.

So you're seriously saying that everyone speeds where you drive, so it would be more dangerous to obey basic road safety laws?

 

[Kwak]

I'm assuming the first "engine" is supposed to be "even".

No "engine braking" (I mispelled it breaking) is when the engine creates its own deceleration when you remove accelerator input. It happens in automatics as well as manuals.
It will create an initial lurch forward, so may be something to avoid in slippery conditions, though it may be a neglible effect compared to braking. So yes removing your feet from the pedals is good advice though a gentle ease off may be preferable.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So you're seriously saying that everyone speeds where you drive, so it would be more dangerous to obey basic road safety laws?

The average person is going at least 5 over, I live in Chicagoland... Hell, in straight up actual heart of Chicago, you literally will have people going around you when you're coasting to a red light because they want to do 5-10 over until they absolutely have to start braking. The other day I was going down 41 in northwest Indiana and going with traffic at 60 and noticed the speed limit was 35. I know 41 basically turns into a full-on highway pretty soon after getting south of 30 and just assumed I got to that point as I don't drive that street much (in that exact area) to know when the actual speed changes to full-on highway speeds. Doing 35 when everyone else is doing 60 is pretty dangerous.

No "engine braking" (I mispelled it breaking) is when the engine creates its own deceleration when you remove accelerator input. It happens in automatics as well as manuals.
It will create an initial lurch forward, so may be something to avoid in slippery conditions, though it may be a neglible effect compared to braking. So yes removing your feet from the pedals is good advice though a gentle ease off may be preferable.

Ah, I never heard it called engine braking. I do know what you mean as my standard automatic Civic when I coast and it downshifts, there is a noticeable deceleration when dropping gears.

 

[tstorm823]

...A limitation which applies exactly as much to your own argument about how records will inevitably be broken because of the sheer number of opportunities. You were happy to multiply by two then!

Yes, because it made sense to multiply by two. Multiplying the number of prizes available doesn't multiply the number of competitors.

You sure about that?

Here in the UK, the top 10 coldest winters in the UK from 1910 to 2012.... 2 were in the 70s. 1 in the 80s. 3 in the 90s. 6 in the 2000s. None were in the first 62 years of records. Anyone older than 50 will have had the record broken three times, and anyone older than 40 will have had the record broken twice.

I'm not finding the list you're pulling from. Googling the answer keeps telling me 1947 and 1963 each had a super cold winter in the UK, with 1963 being repeatedly referred to as the coldest winter since 1740. Also, your numbers add to 12 of the top 10.

 

[Elijin]

I'll ask the following question to everyone here. What is the very 1st thing you should do when your car starts sliding in the snow? Very simple question that I'm guessing most won't know the answer to.

You're right, you said snow, not ice.
Of course you're right in a way where my google search was still 100 times more pertinent than yours.

I swear to god you regularly forget your words are here for us to go back to.
"Not the question I asked". Fucking clown.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You're right, you said snow, not ice.
Of course you're right in a way where my google search was still 100 times more pertinent than yours.

I swear to god you regularly forget your words are here for us to go back to.
"Not the question I asked". Fucking clown.

How was my google search "how to correct a slide" not getting the answer to my question? That was what you were b!tching about.