Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Bickering about bicycles, now with occasional tips about motorised vehicles
bhtooefr:
The problem with that argument is that it both declares the wreck inevitable, and also makes it worse for everyone who accepts that risk (and therefore makes it less likely that people will accept that risk).
Keep in mind that I do ride this to work sometimes:
That thing versus your Geo Metro? You'd feel the crash, but I'd be at severe risk of dying. However, I'd be at much less risk than if you were in, say, a modern SUV.
So, I'm saying, for drivers that haven't proven themselves competent to the standards that other nations have, make lighter vehicles with rolled-back safety standards, so they can get to work still, but don't cause as much damage to whatever they run into, be it pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, or another motor vehicle. And, if it's clear that it's less safe, they may be more careful (the spike-instead-of-an-airbag effect), and have an incentive to learn to avoid accidents.
Essentially, what I'm saying is, I don't want to have to wrap myself in 2000+ pounds of steel and plastic and airbags (my current car's curb weight is 2790) to be safe, so I want everyone else who isn't held to a very high standard to not be in that SUV.
Dalillama:
The thing is, when you have enough people piloting massive high-speed hunks of metal around, be they never so skilled (and most of them never are very skilled at all), the crash is kind of inevitable; I don't think I've ever met any regular driver who hasn't been in some kind of crash, even if it's a relatively minor fender bender. That's why I principally favor alterations in the built environment though infrastructure construction and zoning laws. For instance, the idea (quite common in American zoning), that stores, residences, and office blocks should all be zoned independently of one another in separate blocs, thus requiring a car to drive the miles through the endless houses and then endless offices to get to work, often eliminating even the possibility of living, working, and shopping within walking distance of home. Installation of lightrail systems brings development to rail stations and hubs as a natural consequence, in a similar fashion to highways but at much less total expense; if said development is permitted/encouraged to be mixed-use, the benefits increase. A good deal of manufacturing can be incorporated into the urban fabric as well, assuming that rules about emissions are strictly enforced. The upshot, of course, is dramatically fewer people needing to drive, and thus much less incentive to bear the expense of a car.
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 11 Oct 2014, 08:20 ---
Smart cars are nice - if you live in a big city. If you live out in the middle of frakkin' nowhere, they're not much help - especially if you burn an entire tank of fuel/all of your battery power going one way to the next major city.
--- End quote ---
I advise not living in the middle of frakking nowhere, as over four in five of your fellow Americans do. Or, if you want to enjoy the privilege of living in the middle of nowhere and regularly commuting to the city, accept that such a lifestyle has costs associated with it. High-tech society and urbanization are inescapable partners, arable land is not infinite, and there's a whole, whole lot of people in the world. The idea that you can live on farmland and not use it at all, while you work at some urban job and leach off the urban infrastructure, is simply not a tenable one in the modern world.
jwhouk:
Do you KNOW why we live "out in the middle of fricken nowhere"?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT 2/3RDS OF THE COUNTRY IS.
GarandMarine:
Spoken like a city slicker up there who'd never left the environs of the same.
Grognard:
Ah kin put y'all up in dem mountins where bycicles lik that'un will getcha kilt on tha roads.
so fer back in th'holler that th'folks pipe in thar sunny-shine.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version