And mispronunciation is common for young people who read a lot.
Random example from childhood: infrared. If it was spelled infra-red, I knew how to say it and what it was; otherwise, I'd be saying "in-frared" (like a rare steak with f in front). There were many others that persisted until I finally heard someone say each one correctly!
But metrosexual is specifically talking about someone who, for all intents and purposes, is gay, but does not wish to be called gay.
For all intents and purposes? I think you may win most bizarre definition for 2004 and the year has only just begun. Leaving aside your, um... interesting social observations, clothing and manner do not make a person gay. The only "intents and purposes" that matter regard sexual preference. What, are you in junior high? lol
Terrorism would be fair topic fodder (and would have to be) if they had continued DS9 or made a movie of it (though easier to dodge the topic in 2 hours). Sure, the Cardassian-Bajoran thing was tiresome, but that series had more grit than any of them, and the potential to be way, way darker. Racism? "Far Beyond the Stars" is the best treatment I've seen.
Here's a question: is it fair to say that the romanticization of sci-fi, in its quest for more female audienceship, has castrated the genre? I see a lot of upper-class Victorian nonsense in modern Trek.
The Flapjack was tested near Area 51, the clandestine military base that's been an obsession of X-Filers for decades.
"It's what originated many people's belief in flying saucers," said Phil Scott, author of The Wrong Stuff: Attempts at Flight Before (and After) the Wright Brothers. "Anyone on a lot of drugs would think it was a flying saucer."
I know at least half a dozen people who wouldn't need drugs for this. It just tips the amusing/pathetic balance when they are.
I've always taken a few moments to shred my bank machine receipts when I get them. Since sorting for recycling takes time anyway, I've always gone through it and shredded anything remotely useful, long before the notion of "identity theft" became mainstream.
Honestly, if people would just be a bit more paranoid, and not worry about being casual with risk as a fashion statement, these guys would have a lot less to go on.
That's with regard to personal papers. Businesses should know better, and should get their asses sued for failing to protect sensitive information that was entrusted to them by their clients.
Death for everyone else? I thought we were discussing death in the form of accidents. As a pedestrian, that seldom concerns me except when crossing the street. Or shall we talk about death by pollutants. I understand that asthma cases are reaching unprecedented levels, and I know that a morning jog in Toronto is probably making me less healthy. But I digress, even from your digression.
I've taken buses just about everywhere, including to the supermarket (craziest trip yet -- 9 bags of groceries and a microwave, and that included at least 14 litres of liquids/frozen liquids). I also used to bus to school -- one hour one way on a good day; one and a half on not so good days. Later, I drove when I was able to, but I eventually went back to busing -- at least I could read on the bus, not to mention relax.
Yep, kids, ailments, these complicate things, but for most people, cars are not required for society to function, kids and grandparents notwithstanding. My nieces think that a three-block walk to school is too far (because my sister agrees and drives them everywhere).
We can make use of ways to make cars safer, yes. We could also do with less cars.
Are you serious? Think about the beginnings of TCAS (onboard collission avoidance system for aircraft) -- until they got them communicating, there was always a danger that they'd tell planes to do the same thing -- ie: dive, or one go right and the other left (opposite direction), and proper use of these means a hell of a lot of trust in the instruments, which is what IFR instruction is all about.
Now take your average motorist and see if he or she is going to listen to what a car-based version of TCAS is telling them to do. And if it comes with no instruction, merely: warning -- collision imminent -- then you've got the same original problem as the TCAS. Frantic swerving is a good way to cause an accident, especially if they haven't visually spotted the danger on their own by then. Honestly, there is no replacement for drivers paying attention.
Perhaps someday we'll get past the idea that we have a RIGHT to everything and things like driving will be a privilege with tests that are actually difficult to pass, and a driving age that isn't shrinking toward the preteen crowd.
finally -- technology comes through
on
Smart Billboards
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I been waiting for a sign that'll fix me up with a tuba-playin girl.
Hello, this is Harris. I'm in right now, so you can talk to me personally. Please start talking at the sound of the beep
I remember the dancing in the streets. First thought: where are the women? Where are the old people?
You can get a crowd of young men to dance in front of any western camera and smile and wave and cheer, people. (and that's not considering the stock-supplied crowds at most political events in the west -- of course, the army would never set up a press event that didn't reflect the whole truth.)
Seriously, you think what you see on CNN is what is going on? Why is this the first war with no bodies? (do you remember seeing any? so clean!) After 9/11, why weren't Bin Laden's tapes, where he talks about Palestine, not aired? (don't want to think 9/11 could be retribution for anything. He's just a madman!)
So what do we get from Iraq? Young men dancing in the street. And yes, later, interviews with old people, women. Selected, can there be any doubt? You know, you've seen, the degree to which dissent has been tolerated by this administration. So WHY do you persist in thinking that you're getting the whole picture from army-cleared reports thousands of miles away???
The only thing worse are these recent "anti-war" protests that aren't anti-war protests at all. They are "Americans are dying" protests. They are half the reason why Bush and co. would rather bomb villages into the ground before sending troops in -- even if it means far more deaths -- but not American deaths, oh no. And this is what I'd like the administration to admit, since it is so obvious in its every decision (and in the arguments of many Americans, too):
We know you don't value an American life as equal to a foreign one, military, civilian, woman, man or child. Make a good master's thesis -- based on decisions where there's a tremendous net loss of (non-American) life, what is the ratio?
10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?
Does it matter if they look like us, sound like us, have a similar religion?
The rules of war governing the protection of civilians can't mean much to a country that views foreign civilians as little more than ants. "Collateral damage" -- what can those words mean to someone who's own territory has not suffered an invasion?
America: you are right to be paranoid. The rest of the world does want your ass, but you're not making it better.
My old high school now has a cop on duty everyday during school hours. I hate to see it. I don't know if it's necessary. But as for this alternative, it seems to me that every machine has its limits, either in tech or programming. Once you learn what the thing does and how it does it (what's being monitored, where), you can find a way around it.
Humans adapt on the fly, and can also make good (of course, also bad) judgment calls. If I had to choose one, I'd rather have the human.
Whoops, I replied a little too fast. 2 other things to take issue with.
First, I can show you research that proves nearly any point. It's the reason why the expert witness is such a useless endeavour in court, unless of course the other side has one, in which case you'll need one to look just as smart. Added to which, think you can find me some disinterested researchers on this point? It there any topic more hot-button? And we're all savvy enough to know that outlook influences findings, even in science, right?
Two. You said that parents have a right to know about persons moving into the neighbourhood with a criminal history. I don't know if you mispoke. Any criminal history? So we're back with the petty thieves who can't find work, who can only feed themselves by going back to stealing? Or should we take a lesson from Draco and have life sentences (or death) for everything?
That's a valid point of view. I don't agree with it, but I don't think that what you're saying is nonsense. If the person is to get a second chance, and persons they are (we consider alcoholics as sufferers of a "disease" most of the time these days, but sex offenders are more culpable... because the results are so much worse?) then to release them from custody and then destroy any/all chances of leading a normal life is a farce and serves no just or societal cause.
We get to decide what norms/values inform the law. After that all the courts ask is that we be consistent.
Too dangerous? Don't release them; have longer sentences -- whatever can be justified, but justified it must be.
Possibly dangerous? If we don't believe in throwing away the key, we take steps to minimize the risk, and remember that the sensationalistic cases (where things go wrong) will, especially in these cases, capture 99.999% of the attention.
I'm not saying it should be one or the other. But justice depends on the rule of law, and that means consistency, not just between offenders, but mechanisms to objectives. Putting a possibly troubled person into society and then placing restrictions on them that will inevitably cause them to flip out serves no purpose whatsoever. Not safety, not society, not justice. Nothing. It's conflicted because we're conflicted. We want to believe in the second chance but we're afraid and we're suspicious. I'm not blaming that point of view.
Probation conditions often include a "no-go". For thieves/vandals, it's often the area around a store they've targeted, so as to prevent either striking again or hassling (or threatening) those storeworkers who testified against him/her.
For sex offenders, a no-go for schools, daycares and the like is not at all uncommon.
No-go's can be an infringement of rights if they are overbroad and interfere with a place the individual needs to go. I've seen a no-go that covered several blocks and included the pro-b's workplace -- obviously he had to violate it, challenge it, or lose his job (and guess what -- if a parolee instead, often he/she is under a condition to maintain employment).
If the pro-b has a kid, then things get complicated. Is there someone else who can pick junior up from school, meet with the teacher if need be, etc? If not, then conditions need to be worked out, like having to call the school first to announce he/she is coming down.
I know this will strike many as being contrary to the idea of justice being served, but this is what probation and parole are all about -- we consider the person rehabilitated and/or a minimal risk to society, provided that certain rules are observed -- if we allowed for no risk, we'd be keeping people in prison that may present no danger -- if we allowed for more risk, we'd see more paroles and pro-b's re-offending (often in exactly the same manner as their previous crime) and there'd be hell to pay, as there is when such things happen. We can't know what's in a particular person's mind, so we draw the line at some hopefully non-arbitrary point and call it fair enough.
I would add that if this seems unfair, consider the position of the sex offender who gets their name, address, and face plastered all over every neighbourhood they move to. This strikes me as completely contrary to justice, in that it:
a) invites vigilantism, b) denies any realistic second chance (if their compulsions are a way of dealing with things, how will this contribute to straightening out?), c) completely contravenes our ideas of having served time for the original crime and having been rehabilitated.
In the school example, the courts are trying to minimize risk without keeping people locked up indefinitely. In the post-your-face example, it's denying the person the second chance they're supposed to get, and certainly not contributing to the pro-b turning over a new leaf.
Imagine if we did that to convicted thieves? (of course, much less stigma, but imagine) If no one was willing to employ them, what options would they be left with? Yep. Way to straightjacket the situation. Great if you're looking for an excuse to just toss them back in.
I only have a passing familiarity with Sweden, but given the large number of bikes I saw out there, and not to rely too heavily on stereotype, the generally considerate/thoughtful nature of the people, I'd have to wonder if there isn't greater respect for bikes on the road.
Good stats from, say, Winnipeg or Toronto versus Vancouver would bare out very different attitudes toward bicycle riders, for example, with more aggressive car drivers being a decisive factor, I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if bikes were safer in, say, Thailand, even though there are some really nutty drivers out there, because there are bikes everywhere and people are just used to watching out for them.
As for safety, let's not forget the (in)visibility factor. Ever find yourself riding with your own shadow in front of you? Yep. Like a Japanese zero flying in out of the sunset. And that's not considering the -- perhaps psychological -- problem of car drivers keeping bikes in mind and view at the best of times rather than worst. I've had people (and have heard this in many accident stories) look right at me and then try to turn into/across my lane. There's a certain (high) level of automatic thinking in driving after awhile. Maybe what isn't large and boxy or on two legs isn't perceived as something to be watchful of on the road.
My instructor -- very careful rider, showed up to my road test in a neck brace and a back brace. Could it have happened in a car? Sure. Would it likely have happened being rear-ended at a stop-light from a little old lady from Portage la Prairie? Only if she was going a hell of a lot faster than she was.
Two autumns later he dove off his bike to avoid being crushed by a half-ton when he heard it's brakes lock on a bridge downtown. The man is super-experienced on a bike, and he's dangling for dear life on a friggin guard rail.
Yeah, motorcycles are dangerous if you do stupid things on them. Motorcycles are dangerous if you are Mr. Safety, too, because there's always the other half of the equation -- the idiot who comes out of nowhere.
Saying that, I still ride, but I don't pretend there's no danger.
Though I love my cruiser dearly, it's got a completely awful turning radius, and it's top-heavy as a sonofabitch.
Having ridden a crotch rocket a grand total of two times, I found the performance impressive, but as per cliche, couldn't imagine taking it on road trips due to comfort considerations. And I'm on a 650, not a Goldwing (though I had one, and that was indeed leisure cruising).
Important note re: centre of gravity -- though probably not the kind of differences you were thinking of -- the Goldwing weighed over 1000 pounds and I could lift it from the pavement easily if need be (no -- don't ask -- was barely moving at the time). In contrast, the 650, all 550 pounds of it, I have to get under on one side and give it all I've got to right the sucker. Not the kind of thing that should happen much if ever, but that kind of top-heaviness shows in motion, too.
There's probably loads that thrilled me when I started out that I only barely remember now.
Imagine gently throttling away from a stop, looking down as you lift your foot from the pavement and seeing that pavement sweep by in an ever increasing speed till it's a blur (ok, talk about not watching ahead!), and realizing that it was seamless -- and there is the road, just beneath you.
Only had the wind through my hair once, trying a gentle ride through the park without a helmet just to see what all the fuss was about. Good recipe for a bug in the face at 60kph. As it was, I was squinting, tears welling in the corners of my eyes (despite shades), and a general feeling of terrible vulnerability. Not what I call a good time. But then I started out wearing helmets, unlike some veteran hard-a**es, so for me, it's like wearing a seatbelt in a car for ten years and then not wearing one.
I certainly feel connected to the bike in a way I can't imagine with a car (I'm not a mech-nut). It's responsive to you in a way that a car is not, and you in turn have to be very responsive about what it's telling you in regards to the road, angular momentum, etc. Make it through a few scrapes. See some awesome scenery with nothing in the way. And did I mention that they're kick-a** cool?
Seriously. Go see an action movie -- something good. At night. Walk out to your bike. Strap up your leathers and pull on your helmet and ride. Then tell me what isn't great about motorcycling.
My only regret, rule-wise, is that headphone-music could be awesome on the machine, but talk about distracting, as well as detracting from an important road-survival sense, not to mention contributing to a dreamy, space-out frame of mind that while pleasant, better be accompanied by no surprises whatsoever.
Oh yeah. Almost forgot. Chick magnet. Needed to be said.
Very true. My initial impression is that any kind of shadowing would be distracting when things are moving fast and I have to be able to identify whether a flicker in the corner of my eye is on the road or on my visor...
But I'd certainly be willing to try it out for a day. In light traffic, anyway. And I am not totally immune to the cool factor.:)
Slashdot Mirror
*tips hat* (ah... manfully)
And mispronunciation is common for young people who read a lot.
Random example from childhood: infrared. If it was spelled infra-red, I knew how to say it and what it was; otherwise, I'd be saying "in-frared" (like a rare steak with f in front). There were many others that persisted until I finally heard someone say each one correctly!
But metrosexual is specifically talking about someone who, for all intents and purposes, is gay, but does not wish to be called gay.
For all intents and purposes? I think you may win most bizarre definition for 2004 and the year has only just begun. Leaving aside your, um... interesting social observations, clothing and manner do not make a person gay. The only "intents and purposes" that matter regard sexual preference. What, are you in junior high?
lol
"All this excellent music and yet low sales? You must be downloading it. Raise that levy!"
Terrorism would be fair topic fodder (and would have to be) if they had continued DS9 or made a movie of it (though easier to dodge the topic in 2 hours). Sure, the Cardassian-Bajoran thing was tiresome, but that series had more grit than any of them, and the potential to be way, way darker.
Racism? "Far Beyond the Stars" is the best treatment I've seen.
Here's a question: is it fair to say that the romanticization of sci-fi, in its quest for more female audienceship, has castrated the genre? I see a lot of upper-class Victorian nonsense in modern Trek.
Energy production is basically a game of choosing an evil. There is no truly "clean" energy source
What about solar power, or is intermittent usability an "evil"?
The Flapjack was tested near Area 51, the clandestine military base that's been an obsession of X-Filers for decades.
"It's what originated many people's belief in flying saucers," said Phil Scott, author of The Wrong Stuff: Attempts at Flight Before (and After) the Wright Brothers. "Anyone on a lot of drugs would think it was a flying saucer."
I know at least half a dozen people who wouldn't need drugs for this.
It just tips the amusing/pathetic balance when they are.
I hear this all the time. Every act of theft or vandalism is an act against "The Man".
Nice political-identity theft.
I love futility mired in irony.
"But it's my card!"
"I'm sorry miss, but it's obviously not your card as this account belongs to a male; now can we speak to him?"
I've always taken a few moments to shred my bank machine receipts when I get them. Since sorting for recycling takes time anyway, I've always gone through it and shredded anything remotely useful, long before the notion of "identity theft" became mainstream.
Honestly, if people would just be a bit more paranoid, and not worry about being casual with risk as a fashion statement, these guys would have a lot less to go on.
That's with regard to personal papers. Businesses should know better, and should get their asses sued for failing to protect sensitive information that was entrusted to them by their clients.
Death for everyone else? I thought we were discussing death in the form of accidents. As a pedestrian, that seldom concerns me except when crossing the street. Or shall we talk about death by pollutants. I understand that asthma cases are reaching unprecedented levels, and I know that a morning jog in Toronto is probably making me less healthy. But I digress, even from your digression.
I've taken buses just about everywhere, including to the supermarket (craziest trip yet -- 9 bags of groceries and a microwave, and that included at least 14 litres of liquids/frozen liquids). I also used to bus to school -- one hour one way on a good day; one and a half on not so good days. Later, I drove when I was able to, but I eventually went back to busing -- at least I could read on the bus, not to mention relax.
Yep, kids, ailments, these complicate things, but for most people, cars are not required for society to function, kids and grandparents notwithstanding. My nieces think that a three-block walk to school is too far (because my sister agrees and drives them everywhere).
We can make use of ways to make cars safer, yes.
We could also do with less cars.
Are you serious? Think about the beginnings of TCAS (onboard collission avoidance system for aircraft) -- until they got them communicating, there was always a danger that they'd tell planes to do the same thing -- ie: dive, or one go right and the other left (opposite direction), and proper use of these means a hell of a lot of trust in the instruments, which is what IFR instruction is all about.
Now take your average motorist and see if he or she is going to listen to what a car-based version of TCAS is telling them to do. And if it comes with no instruction, merely: warning -- collision imminent -- then you've got the same original problem as the TCAS. Frantic swerving is a good way to cause an accident, especially if they haven't visually spotted the danger on their own by then. Honestly, there is no replacement for drivers paying attention.
Perhaps someday we'll get past the idea that we have a RIGHT to everything and things like driving will be a privilege with tests that are actually difficult to pass, and a driving age that isn't shrinking toward the preteen crowd.
I been waiting for a sign that'll fix me up with a tuba-playin girl.
Hello, this is Harris. I'm in right now, so you can talk to me personally. Please start talking at the sound of the beep
That's what I thought.
Great use of bold, caps, and italics to make the point you couldn't, however.
I remember the dancing in the streets. First thought: where are the women? Where are the old people?
You can get a crowd of young men to dance in front of any western camera and smile and wave and cheer, people. (and that's not considering the stock-supplied crowds at most political events in the west -- of course, the army would never set up a press event that didn't reflect the whole truth.)
Seriously, you think what you see on CNN is what is going on? Why is this the first war with no bodies? (do you remember seeing any? so clean!) After 9/11, why weren't Bin Laden's tapes, where he talks about Palestine, not aired? (don't want to think 9/11 could be retribution for anything. He's just a madman!)
So what do we get from Iraq? Young men dancing in the street. And yes, later, interviews with old people, women. Selected, can there be any doubt? You know, you've seen, the degree to which dissent has been tolerated by this administration. So WHY do you persist in thinking that you're getting the whole picture from army-cleared reports thousands of miles away???
The only thing worse are these recent "anti-war" protests that aren't anti-war protests at all. They are "Americans are dying" protests. They are half the reason why Bush and co. would rather bomb villages into the ground before sending troops in -- even if it means far more deaths -- but not American deaths, oh no. And this is what I'd like the administration to admit, since it is so obvious in its every decision (and in the arguments of many Americans, too):
We know you don't value an American life as equal to a foreign one, military, civilian, woman, man or child. Make a good master's thesis -- based on decisions where there's a tremendous net loss of (non-American) life, what is the ratio?
10 to 1?
100 to 1?
1000 to 1?
Does it matter if they look like us, sound like us, have a similar religion?
The rules of war governing the protection of civilians can't mean much to a country that views foreign civilians as little more than ants. "Collateral damage" -- what can those words mean to someone who's own territory has not suffered an invasion?
America: you are right to be paranoid. The rest of the world does want your ass, but you're not making it better.
My old high school now has a cop on duty everyday during school hours. I hate to see it. I don't know if it's necessary. But as for this alternative, it seems to me that every machine has its limits, either in tech or programming. Once you learn what the thing does and how it does it (what's being monitored, where), you can find a way around it.
Humans adapt on the fly, and can also make good (of course, also bad) judgment calls. If I had to choose one, I'd rather have the human.
Whoops, I replied a little too fast. 2 other things to take issue with.
First, I can show you research that proves nearly any point. It's the reason why the expert witness is such a useless endeavour in court, unless of course the other side has one, in which case you'll need one to look just as smart. Added to which, think you can find me some disinterested researchers on this point? It there any topic more hot-button? And we're all savvy enough to know that outlook influences findings, even in science, right?
Two. You said that parents have a right to know about persons moving into the neighbourhood with a criminal history. I don't know if you mispoke. Any criminal history? So we're back with the petty thieves who can't find work, who can only feed themselves by going back to stealing? Or should we take a lesson from Draco and have life sentences (or death) for everything?
That's a valid point of view. I don't agree with it, but I don't think that what you're saying is nonsense. If the person is to get a second chance, and persons they are (we consider alcoholics as sufferers of a "disease" most of the time these days, but sex offenders are more culpable... because the results are so much worse?) then to release them from custody and then destroy any/all chances of leading a normal life is a farce and serves no just or societal cause.
We get to decide what norms/values inform the law. After that all the courts ask is that we be consistent.
Too dangerous? Don't release them; have longer sentences -- whatever can be justified, but justified it must be.
Possibly dangerous? If we don't believe in throwing away the key, we take steps to minimize the risk, and remember that the sensationalistic cases (where things go wrong) will, especially in these cases, capture 99.999% of the attention.
I'm not saying it should be one or the other. But justice depends on the rule of law, and that means consistency, not just between offenders, but mechanisms to objectives. Putting a possibly troubled person into society and then placing restrictions on them that will inevitably cause them to flip out serves no purpose whatsoever. Not safety, not society, not justice. Nothing. It's conflicted because we're conflicted. We want to believe in the second chance but we're afraid and we're suspicious. I'm not blaming that point of view.
so I'll just reply here.
Probation conditions often include a "no-go". For thieves/vandals, it's often the area around a store they've targeted, so as to prevent either striking again or hassling (or threatening) those storeworkers who testified against him/her.
For sex offenders, a no-go for schools, daycares and the like is not at all uncommon.
No-go's can be an infringement of rights if they are overbroad and interfere with a place the individual needs to go. I've seen a no-go that covered several blocks and included the pro-b's workplace -- obviously he had to violate it, challenge it, or lose his job (and guess what -- if a parolee instead, often he/she is under a condition to maintain employment).
If the pro-b has a kid, then things get complicated. Is there someone else who can pick junior up from school, meet with the teacher if need be, etc? If not, then conditions need to be worked out, like having to call the school first to announce he/she is coming down.
I know this will strike many as being contrary to the idea of justice being served, but this is what probation and parole are all about -- we consider the person rehabilitated and/or a minimal risk to society, provided that certain rules are observed -- if we allowed for no risk, we'd be keeping people in prison that may present no danger -- if we allowed for more risk, we'd see more paroles and pro-b's re-offending (often in exactly the same manner as their previous crime) and there'd be hell to pay, as there is when such things happen. We can't know what's in a particular person's mind, so we draw the line at some hopefully non-arbitrary point and call it fair enough.
I would add that if this seems unfair, consider the position of the sex offender who gets their name, address, and face plastered all over every neighbourhood they move to. This strikes me as completely contrary to justice, in that it:
a) invites vigilantism,
b) denies any realistic second chance (if their compulsions are a way of dealing with things, how will this contribute to straightening out?),
c) completely contravenes our ideas of having served time for the original crime and having been rehabilitated.
In the school example, the courts are trying to minimize risk without keeping people locked up indefinitely. In the post-your-face example, it's denying the person the second chance they're supposed to get, and certainly not contributing to the pro-b turning over a new leaf.
Imagine if we did that to convicted thieves? (of course, much less stigma, but imagine) If no one was willing to employ them, what options would they be left with? Yep. Way to straightjacket the situation. Great if you're looking for an excuse to just toss them back in.
I only have a passing familiarity with Sweden, but given the large number of bikes I saw out there, and not to rely too heavily on stereotype, the generally considerate/thoughtful nature of the people, I'd have to wonder if there isn't greater respect for bikes on the road.
Good stats from, say, Winnipeg or Toronto versus Vancouver would bare out very different attitudes toward bicycle riders, for example, with more aggressive car drivers being a decisive factor, I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if bikes were safer in, say, Thailand, even though there are some really nutty drivers out there, because there are bikes everywhere and people are just used to watching out for them.
As for safety, let's not forget the (in)visibility factor. Ever find yourself riding with your own shadow in front of you? Yep. Like a Japanese zero flying in out of the sunset. And that's not considering the -- perhaps psychological -- problem of car drivers keeping bikes in mind and view at the best of times rather than worst. I've had people (and have heard this in many accident stories) look right at me and then try to turn into/across my lane. There's a certain (high) level of automatic thinking in driving after awhile. Maybe what isn't large and boxy or on two legs isn't perceived as something to be watchful of on the road.
Way off thread, but no -- just the idea that anyone would do any more damage to the environment because they had already "paid for it".
My instructor -- very careful rider, showed up to my road test in a neck brace and a back brace. Could it have happened in a car? Sure. Would it likely have happened being rear-ended at a stop-light from a little old lady from Portage la Prairie? Only if she was going a hell of a lot faster than she was.
Two autumns later he dove off his bike to avoid being crushed by a half-ton when he heard it's brakes lock on a bridge downtown. The man is super-experienced on a bike, and he's dangling for dear life on a friggin guard rail.
Yeah, motorcycles are dangerous if you do stupid things on them. Motorcycles are dangerous if you are Mr. Safety, too, because there's always the other half of the equation -- the idiot who comes out of nowhere.
Saying that, I still ride, but I don't pretend there's no danger.
re: that last.
Though I love my cruiser dearly, it's got a completely awful turning radius, and it's top-heavy as a sonofabitch.
Having ridden a crotch rocket a grand total of two times, I found the performance impressive, but as per cliche, couldn't imagine taking it on road trips due to comfort considerations. And I'm on a 650, not a Goldwing (though I had one, and that was indeed leisure cruising).
Important note re: centre of gravity -- though probably not the kind of differences you were thinking of -- the Goldwing weighed over 1000 pounds and I could lift it from the pavement easily if need be (no -- don't ask -- was barely moving at the time). In contrast, the 650, all 550 pounds of it, I have to get under on one side and give it all I've got to right the sucker. Not the kind of thing that should happen much if ever, but that kind of top-heaviness shows in motion, too.
There's probably loads that thrilled me when I started out that I only barely remember now.
Imagine gently throttling away from a stop, looking down as you lift your foot from the pavement and seeing that pavement sweep by in an ever increasing speed till it's a blur (ok, talk about not watching ahead!), and realizing that it was seamless -- and there is the road, just beneath you.
Only had the wind through my hair once, trying a gentle ride through the park without a helmet just to see what all the fuss was about. Good recipe for a bug in the face at 60kph. As it was, I was squinting, tears welling in the corners of my eyes (despite shades), and a general feeling of terrible vulnerability. Not what I call a good time. But then I started out wearing helmets, unlike some veteran hard-a**es, so for me, it's like wearing a seatbelt in a car for ten years and then not wearing one.
I certainly feel connected to the bike in a way I can't imagine with a car (I'm not a mech-nut). It's responsive to you in a way that a car is not, and you in turn have to be very responsive about what it's telling you in regards to the road, angular momentum, etc. Make it through a few scrapes. See some awesome scenery with nothing in the way. And did I mention that they're kick-a** cool?
Seriously. Go see an action movie -- something good. At night. Walk out to your bike. Strap up your leathers and pull on your helmet and ride. Then tell me what isn't great about motorcycling.
My only regret, rule-wise, is that headphone-music could be awesome on the machine, but talk about distracting, as well as detracting from an important road-survival sense, not to mention contributing to a dreamy, space-out frame of mind that while pleasant, better be accompanied by no surprises whatsoever.
Oh yeah. Almost forgot. Chick magnet.
Needed to be said.
Very true. My initial impression is that any kind of shadowing would be distracting when things are moving fast and I have to be able to identify whether a flicker in the corner of my eye is on the road or on my visor...
:)
But I'd certainly be willing to try it out for a day. In light traffic, anyway. And I am not totally immune to the cool factor.