And I would. I got way more value out of Elite than it cost. My copy of Frontier was an illegal copy, and I think I borrowed First Encounters. So I still owe him money.
Why? As far as I know, Ian Bell hasn't been involved in software development in decades. Last thing I heard was that he was doing something with glow-in-the-dark body paint. And Braben still mentions him regularly. It's not like he's trying to claim that glory all for himself.
I disagree. I thought the Newtonian mechanics in Frontier were awesome. I spent ages simply orbiting planets at max speed. I'm sad to hear that that aspect isn't going to be in the new Elite.
Newtonian physics also made fights a lot more challenging (at least in First Encounters, where speeds weren't homogenized at the start of the battle), but with how easy combat was in Elite, I consider that a good thing.
But this is David Braben. He's the undisputed master of making huge things small. Original Elite put thousands of unique planets in 32K. Frontier put the entire galaxy on a floppy disk. The Raspberry Pi gave us a USB-stick sized general purpose computer for $35. If anyone can make something huge manageable, it's him.
So they'll be using a different paint. From a maintenance point of view it's nothing new. Assuming the paint does what it's supposed to do and is good enough to use on the road.
Whenever I read about the possibility of obesity, I wonder if I should let my son do those things. He's terribly skinny, and all attempts to fatten him up a bit have failed so far. Though I admit we've so far resisted the option of raising him on a diet of candy.
For me, the ANWB crash course (there seems to be no good word for this without car-related associations) cost €2350. And it's only useful if you're a natural talent. Their actual training sucks. I finally started learning once I got an independent instructor.
Bold is fine. I think the bold text is very important. Many people do become more sloppy over time, and when their driving doesn't meet the standard anymore, they should lose their license.
There are intersections where it's legal for bikes to turn right on red, but there's always a sign pointing that out. When the sign is not there, it's not legal to turn right on red.
In Netherland, kids learn the traffic laws in primary school. I still remember a picture in a book that showed you're not allowed to hold hands while riding a bike, for example. (No idea why I remember that particular image. Perhaps because it was the only one I didn't already know.)
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, bikes are traffic. Except for motorways, a bike can go anywhere a car can. The highway code explicitly says it's OK to ride bicycles two-abreast. If you're a car behind them, then you should stay behind them until there's room to overtake, just as if they were a slow car.
Same thing in Netherland, although generally, when there's no room for the car to overtake, the cyclists will ride in single file to give the car more room.
I know lots of people that don't ride motorcycles because they don't want to deal with the hassle of putting on extra gear. It is an enormous advantage to simply get in your car or on your bike without requiring any special gear. It may be a tiny hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless.
2. You are going shopping, and need more storage space than a backpack or basket
I've got the perfect bike for that: it's a small, two-wheeled cargo bike ("filibus"). It's as nimble and quick as a regular bike, but it has a crate the size of the boot of a really small car. Not quite as good for transport as a car, but immensely useful anyway. (And most supermarkets in my area don't have dedicated parking space.)
I've worked (and previously lived) in a university town that bills itself as the "bike capital of the world", apparently never having heard of Amsterdam.
Funny. Which town is that?
In a given day, I will pass around a dozen bicyclists while driving to work. More than half don't wear helmets. The thing I've noticed is that the people who don't wear helmets are precisely the ones that should, as they tend to act like blithering idiots.
Could be understandable if you compare it to motorcyclists. The ones that wear proper protective gear tend to be the responsible ones, while the ones with just a helmet, shorts and a pair of flip-flops tends to be the idiots that turn into a big smear on the road. But I don't think requiring helmets will make anyone less of an idiot. Instead of encouraging helmets, encourage them to watch out and obey the rules. Enforce traffic violations and fine them for running red lights, not having proper lighting, etc. All of those violations will remain dangerous even with a helmet.
For myself, I wear a helmet simply because I don't see a reason not to. It's like seat belts in cars. I'd rather wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.
I don't wear a helmet on my bike for the same reason I don't wear a helmet in my car: I don't see the need, and I don't have one. I'll probably buy my son a bike helmet when he's 4 or 5, though.
Since a bicycle is largely for recreational exercise, and not a serious mode of transportation for most people and most peoples' lifestyles in the US in this day in age...we need to reconsider allowing non-motorized traffic on main thoroughfares.
A bicycle isn't inherently for recreational exercise. It is in the US because the US is an anti-bike country, but in Netherland, far more people use bikes for transport than for recreation. And everybody has a bike here.
The fact that bikes in the US are recreation-only is the problem that the article addresses. If you want people to use bikes for transport, don't require helmets. That's the real short summary of it.
If those kind of accidents are so common in the US, maybe you should fix your traffic. A bike helmet won't protect your bones when you're run over.
I live in Amsterdam, traffic here can be quite nasty, traffic rules seem to be completely optional in some places, and yet everybody rides bikes without a helmet. I've never had any accidents, and I know of very few people who have, despite the fact that almost everybody I know rides a bike at least occasionally. There are only two accidents I know of: My brother-in-law got hit by a car coming from a side street. He was saved by his aikido skills: made a perfect roll over the windscreen of the car and landed on his feet next to it. The second was one I witnessed: a girl paying more attention to her phone turned left without looking if there was a cyclist coming the other way. There was, and because she was leaning into the corner, she hit her head directly against the oncoming cyclist's head before their bikes touched. The girl probably had a concussion, and a helmet might have prevented it. But the other cyclist was hit below her eye, and a helmet wouldn't have prevented that; in fact, I can imagine it might have made it worse. I know a third actually: as a kid, my brother hit a pothole, summersaulted and hit his head. Had a concussion that would have been prevented by a helmet (most kids do wear a helmet nowadays), but it had no long-term effect. His academic achievements are excellent.
Nothing lethal. No brains splattered over the pavement. No cars driving over anyone's skull. In fact, only one even involved a car at all. Most drivers pay attention here, and so do most cyclists (when they're not on the phone). Banning mobile phones would probably have much more effect than requiring helmets. Well, requiring helmets might lead to a lot of people not using the bike anymore, which would really cut down on bike accidents, but also on their exercise, and lead to more congestion. If would be terribly counter productive, and the party to propose it would never get elected ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
And I would. I got way more value out of Elite than it cost. My copy of Frontier was an illegal copy, and I think I borrowed First Encounters. So I still owe him money.
Why? As far as I know, Ian Bell hasn't been involved in software development in decades. Last thing I heard was that he was doing something with glow-in-the-dark body paint. And Braben still mentions him regularly. It's not like he's trying to claim that glory all for himself.
I disagree. I thought the Newtonian mechanics in Frontier were awesome. I spent ages simply orbiting planets at max speed. I'm sad to hear that that aspect isn't going to be in the new Elite.
Newtonian physics also made fights a lot more challenging (at least in First Encounters, where speeds weren't homogenized at the start of the battle), but with how easy combat was in Elite, I consider that a good thing.
A modern project like that is a HUGE undertaking.
But this is David Braben. He's the undisputed master of making huge things small. Original Elite put thousands of unique planets in 32K. Frontier put the entire galaxy on a floppy disk. The Raspberry Pi gave us a USB-stick sized general purpose computer for $35. If anyone can make something huge manageable, it's him.
So they'll be using a different paint. From a maintenance point of view it's nothing new. Assuming the paint does what it's supposed to do and is good enough to use on the road.
We already have painted markings on our roads (lines mostly, but also the occasional arrow or speed limit), so that aspect isn't really anything new.
Do you not have lines on your roads at all?
But every one of those pages is interesting and exciting, unlike his other books, which tend to lose pace and focus after a brilliant start.
Whenever I read about the possibility of obesity, I wonder if I should let my son do those things. He's terribly skinny, and all attempts to fatten him up a bit have failed so far. Though I admit we've so far resisted the option of raising him on a diet of candy.
As long as they actually get off their bike while pretending to be pedestrians, there's nothing wrong with that.
What happens if a cyclist rides into a stationary car?
I did that once when I fell asleep on my bike. It was a very gentle bump.
If I had worn a helmet I would probably have claimed it had saved my life....
I think this wins the thread.
But when dealing with motorists?
For me, the ANWB crash course (there seems to be no good word for this without car-related associations) cost €2350. And it's only useful if you're a natural talent. Their actual training sucks. I finally started learning once I got an independent instructor.
Bold is fine. I think the bold text is very important. Many people do become more sloppy over time, and when their driving doesn't meet the standard anymore, they should lose their license.
I remember seeing an American expensive Ford sports car on Top Gear that had Amish-approved suspension. It boggles the mind.
Also, put sewer gratings perpendicular to the direction of traffic.
There are intersections where it's legal for bikes to turn right on red, but there's always a sign pointing that out. When the sign is not there, it's not legal to turn right on red.
In Netherland, kids learn the traffic laws in primary school. I still remember a picture in a book that showed you're not allowed to hold hands while riding a bike, for example. (No idea why I remember that particular image. Perhaps because it was the only one I didn't already know.)
smashed someone's face in.
But I thought they were supposed to prevent that?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, bikes are traffic. Except for motorways, a bike can go anywhere a car can. The highway code explicitly says it's OK to ride bicycles two-abreast. If you're a car behind them, then you should stay behind them until there's room to overtake, just as if they were a slow car.
Same thing in Netherland, although generally, when there's no room for the car to overtake, the cyclists will ride in single file to give the car more room.
I know lots of people that don't ride motorcycles because they don't want to deal with the hassle of putting on extra gear. It is an enormous advantage to simply get in your car or on your bike without requiring any special gear. It may be a tiny hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless.
That's crazy indeed. Kids need to play outside. Those cops need to be arrested for forcing people to turn their children into couch potatoes.
2. You are going shopping, and need more storage space than a backpack or basket
I've got the perfect bike for that: it's a small, two-wheeled cargo bike ("filibus"). It's as nimble and quick as a regular bike, but it has a crate the size of the boot of a really small car. Not quite as good for transport as a car, but immensely useful anyway. (And most supermarkets in my area don't have dedicated parking space.)
I've worked (and previously lived) in a university town that bills itself as the "bike capital of the world", apparently never having heard of Amsterdam.
Funny. Which town is that?
In a given day, I will pass around a dozen bicyclists while driving to work. More than half don't wear helmets. The thing I've noticed is that the people who don't wear helmets are precisely the ones that should, as they tend to act like blithering idiots.
Could be understandable if you compare it to motorcyclists. The ones that wear proper protective gear tend to be the responsible ones, while the ones with just a helmet, shorts and a pair of flip-flops tends to be the idiots that turn into a big smear on the road. But I don't think requiring helmets will make anyone less of an idiot. Instead of encouraging helmets, encourage them to watch out and obey the rules. Enforce traffic violations and fine them for running red lights, not having proper lighting, etc. All of those violations will remain dangerous even with a helmet.
For myself, I wear a helmet simply because I don't see a reason not to. It's like seat belts in cars. I'd rather wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.
I don't wear a helmet on my bike for the same reason I don't wear a helmet in my car: I don't see the need, and I don't have one. I'll probably buy my son a bike helmet when he's 4 or 5, though.
Since a bicycle is largely for recreational exercise, and not a serious mode of transportation for most people and most peoples' lifestyles in the US in this day in age...we need to reconsider allowing non-motorized traffic on main thoroughfares.
A bicycle isn't inherently for recreational exercise. It is in the US because the US is an anti-bike country, but in Netherland, far more people use bikes for transport than for recreation. And everybody has a bike here.
The fact that bikes in the US are recreation-only is the problem that the article addresses. If you want people to use bikes for transport, don't require helmets. That's the real short summary of it.
If those kind of accidents are so common in the US, maybe you should fix your traffic. A bike helmet won't protect your bones when you're run over.
I live in Amsterdam, traffic here can be quite nasty, traffic rules seem to be completely optional in some places, and yet everybody rides bikes without a helmet. I've never had any accidents, and I know of very few people who have, despite the fact that almost everybody I know rides a bike at least occasionally. There are only two accidents I know of: My brother-in-law got hit by a car coming from a side street. He was saved by his aikido skills: made a perfect roll over the windscreen of the car and landed on his feet next to it. The second was one I witnessed: a girl paying more attention to her phone turned left without looking if there was a cyclist coming the other way. There was, and because she was leaning into the corner, she hit her head directly against the oncoming cyclist's head before their bikes touched. The girl probably had a concussion, and a helmet might have prevented it. But the other cyclist was hit below her eye, and a helmet wouldn't have prevented that; in fact, I can imagine it might have made it worse. I know a third actually: as a kid, my brother hit a pothole, summersaulted and hit his head. Had a concussion that would have been prevented by a helmet (most kids do wear a helmet nowadays), but it had no long-term effect. His academic achievements are excellent.
Nothing lethal. No brains splattered over the pavement. No cars driving over anyone's skull. In fact, only one even involved a car at all. Most drivers pay attention here, and so do most cyclists (when they're not on the phone). Banning mobile phones would probably have much more effect than requiring helmets. Well, requiring helmets might lead to a lot of people not using the bike anymore, which would really cut down on bike accidents, but also on their exercise, and lead to more congestion. If would be terribly counter productive, and the party to propose it would never get elected ever again.