Because to the best of my knowledge, any effort that has ever been made in history to "limit undesirable traits" in humanity has always failed, quite abysmally. Whether this is because of the politics involved or not is irrelevant to the point that no actual successfully completed studies have occurred in recorded history to verify the notion.
Constantly. This is slashdot, after all. Further, any time historically hat anyone has ever attempted any kind of eugenics procedure on mankind, it inevitably fails to produce the desired result. Say that you killed every believer in god, for example... Or tried to wipe out homosexuality by killing everyone who was gay.
Religion is not a belief *IN* the supernatural, it is a subscription to a belief system that in some way revolves around the supernatural. Atheism is still a belief system about the supernatural (even though it is a subscription to the belief that the supernatural does not exist) which makes it thus technically still qualify as a religion. Agnosticism is far closer to the opposite of a religious belief than Atheism could hope to be.
If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact. Just because you don't like the political act of mass murder, doesn't make it scientifically invalid.
Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?
My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them). To be fair, however, I have seen a disturbing number of cyclists completely disregard the rules of the road... going right through stop signs where pedestrians are crossing without even slowing down, for instance..
No...not infinite. nor did I mean to ever imply that it should be... only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice. It's not impossible, but still implausible. In my experience, one would spend less time waiting at the far end of the intersection for the light to change in the other direction than they would waiting for an opening to move safely from the far right bicycle lane to the leftmost turning lane.
Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how?
Ad hominem. Yes I do... I used to do so daily during the warmer months, during rush hour... and I did this for about 5 years.
There are large accordian spots in traffic.
Sure... they can happen... they can also not happen. My experience is that it is more expedient, not to mention safer, to simply cycle through the intersection and wait at the far corner for the light to change in the other direction than it is to wait, or especially slow down and wait, for such an opportunity to get into the leftmost lane... particularly if it is a multilane road (which is usually the case if there is a special bike lane, and going into the left turning lane from the right hand bicycle lane would require changing lanes *TWICE*, not just once).
Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.
Of course a bike can change lanes... as long as there is enough space to do so. The problem is that when the lane you are merging into is moving slower than you... and it does not matter whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle in this matter, the amount of space you are going to require is actually going to be larger than what a vehicle moving at the same speed would need, and in the kind of city driving that I see almost every day, people often tend to drive almost as close together as they can... while still leaving sufficient distance that they could still safely come to a stop if the vehicle in front of them had to stop unexpectedly, often barely leaving enough space for a car that is moving exactly the same speed as them to merge into safely, let alone a cyclist that may not even be able to get up to half of that speed. Simply put, motorists do not typically drive in a way that accommodates cyclists from being able to move in traffic exactly the same way that cars do. Whether they are legally entitled to do so or not is irrelevant. And if a car speeds up and hits you just after you finished changing lanes, then you're going to need witnesses and some pretty objective proof to substantiate that claim because every experience I've had says that the insurance company will rule against you in those circumstances.
I'm saying that "adequate spacing" needs to be greater than what is typical (would allow a vehicle moving at the same speed to safely merge) when merging with traffic that is moving faster... and that such larger spacing is not particularly common on main throughfare roads.
You are wrong. If the traffic is that heavy, then it is slow.
It doesn't have to be bumper to bumper... traffic can be flowing completely smoothly, but if there's still only enough space for a car moving at the same speed as traffic to safely merge in between two cars without causing an accident, that's not going to be anywhere close to enough distance to allow a bike, which is moving much more slowly, to complete a merge. A bike would be considered to be cutting off traffic (or any vehicle would, for that matter, if it were moving more slowly than the traffic in that lane), and thus would be found at fault for any accident. I know this because I've seen this exact thing happen. Lots of times, in fact. And almost every single time, the insurance company determines that the fault of the accident belongs to the person who was changing lanes... even if they had actually completed the lane change before they were hit. The *ONLY* exceptions to this are when objective witnesses to the accident can testify to the insurance company that the driver of the rear vehicle was behaving in a fashion that would not be commensurate with being an attentive driver. This isn't impossible, but it's rare.
Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge. Even during periods of entirely typical traffic levels, where the traffic is slightly heavy, but far from stop-and-go, it can be all but impossible for a cyclist to find such spacing into which they can merge. Unless the cyclist doesn't bother riding in the bike lane in the first place, and anticipating a left turn some distance up ahead, regardless of how far, gets into the left lane as soon as they are able to do so, just as a regular vehicle would likely do. But then, the original question was how do they make a left turn from a bike lane, not how do they make a left turn in general.
They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation. Thus, to change lanes in bicycle, you require much more clearance than a car would... and in a multi-lane road that is busy enough that the city would think a special bike lane to the right of the vehicle lanes might be necessary in the first place, you're not likely to get this kind of clearance in either lane, let alone both (since to make a left turn, you must be in the left lane,. so if you start in the bike lane, you must change lanes twice) unless you happen to be riding your bike at peculiar times of the day. Much of my own cycling in traffic has been during rush hour, both in the morning and evening.. and the kind of spacing that I would require to safely change lanes in those busy roads, moving at speeds that much slower than other vehicles, is simply non-existent. I will ride to the far end of the intersection, and wait at the corner for the light to change so I can go forward from there and complete the left turn.
Sometimes the bike lane will have its own set of signals, and there is a traffic light phase where those in a bike lane are free to advance, while the lights are otherwise red in every direction. Bikes can advance forward, or make left turns freely during that phase directly from the bike lane... although in the city where I live, probably fewer than 5% of the intersections of roads that have bike lanes are equipped with such signal. Only a few years ago, however, none of them had such traffic signals, so I can easily imagine that the general rule that I would use of riding to the far side of the intersection and waiting for the light to turn green in the other direction so that I can safely proceed may eventually no longer be necessary, Until a majority of such intersections are so equipped, however, that's still going to be the safest way to roll.
The core of the problem is that if any vehicle, or bicycle, is performing a lane change, if it is moving slower than the traffic in the lane than it is merging into, it is considered to be "cutting off" the traffic behind the lane-changing vehicle or bicycle, and thus is considered at fault in a collision.
I don't hold bikes to a higher standard than cars... if you're in a car and you change lanes and get rear-ended immediatley afterwards, you're at fault then too..
You are wrong.
No, I am not... I am telling you what actually happens when you try to talk to the insurance company. I know this because I've seen it happen.
Then word it differently. "After traveling in the middle lane for quite some time, the guy behind me hit me."
That might work... but they would probably also ask you to qualify "quite some time", if you had recently completed a lane change, and if it was really only a few seconds, then you will most likely be considered to have stll been in the process of completing the merge, and if an accident occurs, you would still be considered at fault for the accident. Even if you think that the driver behind you had deliberately sped up, and even if you accuse (possibly accurately) the driver behind you of driving excessively fast (you would need objective proof to establish this... your sworn word is not sufficient... not even in court).
Again, I know this, because I have seen it happen... Probably between fifty to a hundred times in my lifetime, easily*
*No... that's not because I'm accident prone, it's because I used to work for a company that handled vehicular accident claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Because to the best of my knowledge, any effort that has ever been made in history to "limit undesirable traits" in humanity has always failed, quite abysmally. Whether this is because of the politics involved or not is irrelevant to the point that no actual successfully completed studies have occurred in recorded history to verify the notion.
Are you suggesting that they'd get a billion different people ordering one from a single country?
Wouldn't that make trying to scalp them prohibitively inconvenient?
Constantly. This is slashdot, after all. Further, any time historically hat anyone has ever attempted any kind of eugenics procedure on mankind, it inevitably fails to produce the desired result. Say that you killed every believer in god, for example... Or tried to wipe out homosexuality by killing everyone who was gay.
I was unaware that foxes constituted "people". The claim was about people, not animals in general.
What...like they would supposedly go and tell them to vote for someone else?
Religion is not a belief *IN* the supernatural, it is a subscription to a belief system that in some way revolves around the supernatural. Atheism is still a belief system about the supernatural (even though it is a subscription to the belief that the supernatural does not exist) which makes it thus technically still qualify as a religion. Agnosticism is far closer to the opposite of a religious belief than Atheism could hope to be.
Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?
Only if the guy behind him isn't just as much of a jackass. If he is, he'll accelerate too.
My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them). To be fair, however, I have seen a disturbing number of cyclists completely disregard the rules of the road... going right through stop signs where pedestrians are crossing without even slowing down, for instance..
No...not infinite. nor did I mean to ever imply that it should be... only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice. It's not impossible, but still implausible. In my experience, one would spend less time waiting at the far end of the intersection for the light to change in the other direction than they would waiting for an opening to move safely from the far right bicycle lane to the leftmost turning lane.
Ahem:
Of course... but that's still not most of them.
Ad hominem. Yes I do... I used to do so daily during the warmer months, during rush hour... and I did this for about 5 years.
Sure... they can happen... they can also not happen. My experience is that it is more expedient, not to mention safer, to simply cycle through the intersection and wait at the far corner for the light to change in the other direction than it is to wait, or especially slow down and wait, for such an opportunity to get into the leftmost lane... particularly if it is a multilane road (which is usually the case if there is a special bike lane, and going into the left turning lane from the right hand bicycle lane would require changing lanes *TWICE*, not just once).
Of course a bike can change lanes... as long as there is enough space to do so. The problem is that when the lane you are merging into is moving slower than you... and it does not matter whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle in this matter, the amount of space you are going to require is actually going to be larger than what a vehicle moving at the same speed would need, and in the kind of city driving that I see almost every day, people often tend to drive almost as close together as they can... while still leaving sufficient distance that they could still safely come to a stop if the vehicle in front of them had to stop unexpectedly, often barely leaving enough space for a car that is moving exactly the same speed as them to merge into safely, let alone a cyclist that may not even be able to get up to half of that speed. Simply put, motorists do not typically drive in a way that accommodates cyclists from being able to move in traffic exactly the same way that cars do. Whether they are legally entitled to do so or not is irrelevant. And if a car speeds up and hits you just after you finished changing lanes, then you're going to need witnesses and some pretty objective proof to substantiate that claim because every experience I've had says that the insurance company will rule against you in those circumstances.
I'm saying that "adequate spacing" needs to be greater than what is typical (would allow a vehicle moving at the same speed to safely merge) when merging with traffic that is moving faster... and that such larger spacing is not particularly common on main throughfare roads.
Not all are, obviously... but most are.. And even if "most" included only just more than half, that would still be a lot.
If you consider people who specifically write software for Apple hardware "hardly anyone", then yes.
It doesn't have to be bumper to bumper... traffic can be flowing completely smoothly, but if there's still only enough space for a car moving at the same speed as traffic to safely merge in between two cars without causing an accident, that's not going to be anywhere close to enough distance to allow a bike, which is moving much more slowly, to complete a merge. A bike would be considered to be cutting off traffic (or any vehicle would, for that matter, if it were moving more slowly than the traffic in that lane), and thus would be found at fault for any accident. I know this because I've seen this exact thing happen. Lots of times, in fact. And almost every single time, the insurance company determines that the fault of the accident belongs to the person who was changing lanes... even if they had actually completed the lane change before they were hit. The *ONLY* exceptions to this are when objective witnesses to the accident can testify to the insurance company that the driver of the rear vehicle was behaving in a fashion that would not be commensurate with being an attentive driver. This isn't impossible, but it's rare.
Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge. Even during periods of entirely typical traffic levels, where the traffic is slightly heavy, but far from stop-and-go, it can be all but impossible for a cyclist to find such spacing into which they can merge. Unless the cyclist doesn't bother riding in the bike lane in the first place, and anticipating a left turn some distance up ahead, regardless of how far, gets into the left lane as soon as they are able to do so, just as a regular vehicle would likely do. But then, the original question was how do they make a left turn from a bike lane, not how do they make a left turn in general.
They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation. Thus, to change lanes in bicycle, you require much more clearance than a car would... and in a multi-lane road that is busy enough that the city would think a special bike lane to the right of the vehicle lanes might be necessary in the first place, you're not likely to get this kind of clearance in either lane, let alone both (since to make a left turn, you must be in the left lane,. so if you start in the bike lane, you must change lanes twice) unless you happen to be riding your bike at peculiar times of the day. Much of my own cycling in traffic has been during rush hour, both in the morning and evening.. and the kind of spacing that I would require to safely change lanes in those busy roads, moving at speeds that much slower than other vehicles, is simply non-existent. I will ride to the far end of the intersection, and wait at the corner for the light to change so I can go forward from there and complete the left turn.
Sometimes the bike lane will have its own set of signals, and there is a traffic light phase where those in a bike lane are free to advance, while the lights are otherwise red in every direction. Bikes can advance forward, or make left turns freely during that phase directly from the bike lane... although in the city where I live, probably fewer than 5% of the intersections of roads that have bike lanes are equipped with such signal. Only a few years ago, however, none of them had such traffic signals, so I can easily imagine that the general rule that I would use of riding to the far side of the intersection and waiting for the light to turn green in the other direction so that I can safely proceed may eventually no longer be necessary, Until a majority of such intersections are so equipped, however, that's still going to be the safest way to roll.
The core of the problem is that if any vehicle, or bicycle, is performing a lane change, if it is moving slower than the traffic in the lane than it is merging into, it is considered to be "cutting off" the traffic behind the lane-changing vehicle or bicycle, and thus is considered at fault in a collision.
Do I really need to do the research for you?
I don't hold bikes to a higher standard than cars... if you're in a car and you change lanes and get rear-ended immediatley afterwards, you're at fault then too..
No, I am not... I am telling you what actually happens when you try to talk to the insurance company. I know this because I've seen it happen.
That might work... but they would probably also ask you to qualify "quite some time", if you had recently completed a lane change, and if it was really only a few seconds, then you will most likely be considered to have stll been in the process of completing the merge, and if an accident occurs, you would still be considered at fault for the accident. Even if you think that the driver behind you had deliberately sped up, and even if you accuse (possibly accurately) the driver behind you of driving excessively fast (you would need objective proof to establish this... your sworn word is not sufficient... not even in court).
Again, I know this, because I have seen it happen... Probably between fifty to a hundred times in my lifetime, easily*
*No... that's not because I'm accident prone, it's because I used to work for a company that handled vehicular accident claims.
But the stuff in pencils still ins't graphene.
While cheap and easy, that's not overly suited for mass production.
That would be graphITE