Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
What, are you kidding me? Sure, they might feel more responsible, and have a gradient level of training/awareness to perform the respective driving task effectively/safely, but they are by no means more responsible - morally or...
What I was trying to tell you is that they are using an increasingly dangerous tool in public and are therefore, in my opinion, morally obligated to ensure it is done in a safe way. You might say that it was the child who ran into the road chasing a ball and was run over by the truck, who was at fault. I'm saying that if the trucker decided to drive at the full speed allowed by law down a suburban street where there are children playing on the sidewalk, then he has not shown the amount of responsibility he morally should.
legally.
Secondly a little service announcement: About 95% of the world does not live in the USA. So it is possible for us to have laws that gives this responsibility, as in fact I stated we had.
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Right, I'll remember that the next time I'm on a 40mph hilly county road and come across a poorly flagged (few reflectors, no lamps, black clothes) cyclist on a 2-way, 1 lane road with a large truck behind me. When faced with: a) swerve erratically/off the road and endanger/harm myself b) brake suddenly and get run over c) hit the biker and stop 100 yards down the road
I know which option I'll pick. Because that's the kind of situation many cyclists put people in.
And what I'm saying is that then you are responsible for not adjusting your driving to the conditions and ultimately it is of course the truckers moral and legal(in DK) responsibility. He is the one driving with too little distance to allow a safe breaking. The problem in your scenario stems from having a truck behind you. If it was a pedestrian tailgating you would not have been afraid of braking. It is exactly therefore trucks should be held to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.
I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection.
That's because, unlike the cars which actually STOPPED at the red light, you likely ran it, based on my experiences.
Then I wouldn't be accelerating, would I?
But just so you know I hate those red light running bastards just as much as you. I just overtook them on the straight and then they squeeze past me and are in the way when it turns green. Or, my favourite, just as the lights change and i accelerate , because they were planning on running the red light, they overtake me and turn right without signaling or looking, so I'll have to take a right turn so I don't bike right into them.
It is a law in Denmark. The first substantial(the others are definition of terms) and primary paragraph of the traffic law here states(loosely translated): People in traffic must behave considerately and show vigilance, so as to prevent danger, damage or discomfort, and so that traffic is not unnecessarily hindered or disturbed. Consideration must also be shown to those who live or stay by the road. Special consideration must be shown to children, the elderly and those who are at a disadvantage in traffic.(i.e. blind/deaf/handicapped)
It's the don't be a douchebag paragraph.
It's not always feasible to get out of the way when you are on a bike. The traffic might be so heavy that you wouldn't be doing anything but standing at the side of the road. But that is mostly in heavily built up areas.
I've biked a lot on tiny country roads and most places drivers are really good giving bikers plenty of room when overtaking and only doing so when it's safe. When I meet that wine truck coming up a tiny mountain road in the alps I'll be happy to stop and get off the road if he let's me know he's there, but i don't have eyes in the back of my head.
Basically we just have to check the ego at the door when moving in traffic. You have to realize there is nothing you have to win. You have no "rights" to any kind of behaviour. It should be a collective effort to get everyone where they need to go as safely as possible.
Might that be some sarcasm I detect there? My crank is 20 cm, so as you can probably calculate I'm not the smallest hippo in the river.
I've been biking to and from work/school/university for the last 20 years. Sadly, I'm not losing any weight by biking, but maybe it's keeping me from turning into a blimp.
sure I can. A quick search brought up the fact that only ninety percent of the roads are paid for through petrol taxes and excises. The rest is paid for thought ordinary taxes. Secondly the roads are placed on public land which should belong to everybody, but the roads are not paying rent or property taxes to the state. Because they are very reasonable seen to provide a public good.
So according to your financial argument more than ten percent of the road is paid for by other means than car taxes and should therefore be reserved for other uses. Now I'm sure that less than 10% of the traffic is bikes in the US.
My point was that it's not really the bike that is making it dangerous. It's the drivers who are driving faster than the conditions allows. If you are on a winding mountain road where you can't see around the corner you should adjust your speed anyway. Now motorways should of course be strictly off limits for bikes.
If I am right, and you don't have any sort of legal entitlement to be there (for the sake of argument), are you not unfairly putting others at risk with your actions? I understand the logic in you doing so, since it greatly increases your safety, but my arguments are about your RIGHTS to do so.
That is correct I am not supposed to be there, but my point is that while driving where I'm supposed to be I've been involved in 50+ near misses and run over about 5 times. While I have never been in an accident while driving in the middle of the road. I think you are confusing a perceived increase in risk from a car's perspective with the real risks, because you only notice the bike when it's annoying you. And that is exactly the reason for driving in the middle of the road. There are many more drivers who are inattentive, talking on their mobile phone etc. than there are drivers who would willingly run over a biker(though many are probably fantasying about it). Also bear in mind I only do this if there is no bike lane.
Now I'm sure the rules might be different where you live, but here (I live in Copenhagen) roads predates the car by thousands of years. So cars do not belong on the roads anymore than all other forms of transport. Btw. here is a little clip from my home town http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46jQR3oow8U. About 37% of people in copenhagen commute by bike.
But, isn't that because you are basically hitting people with it? I'm a sabre fencer and we are taught to do the explosive lunges from the heel. Exactly so you don't tear your calf muscles and achilles tendon.
Bikes do not suck at acceleration. They generally suck at top speed. I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection. I can deliver a maximum of ~250 NM of torque(comparable to a cars output), and the bike and me weigh less than a tenth of a car. The problem is that I have trouble delivering more than a single horsepower sustained. So when I reach 30 km/h I'm out of steam.
You are not forced to overtake in the opposite lane ON A BLIND CURVE. Neither are you forced to CLOSE YOUR EYES, or LET GO OFF THE STEERING WHEEL. Instead you are supposed to stay behind the bike until you can overtake safely. Doesn't matter if its a bike, another car, or a horse drawn buggy. The road belongs to all of us and remember it's a speed limit not a speed requirement. It's only a few types of roads that have speed requirements, like motorways. But, I never see bikes there.
Where I live we have a very sensible rule called objective responsibility. It basically disassociates the responsibility from the culpability. So even if the it was the bike riders fault, the car driver will be held responsible, because they are using a two ton murder machine of steel. Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it. Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian. That is the price you pay for being allowed the use of increasingly dangerous tools in public.
Now I am a very law abiding biker, and I always use the bike lanes, stop for red etc. Sometimes, however, there are no bike lanes and I confess I will drive in the middle of a car lane. This is because of a little something called experience. I have biked in many countries in Europe, and I have never been hit by a car if I drive in the middle, because I'm easy to spot. When I drive as far right as possible I've been run into plenty of times. I've learned how to not die and that is unfortunately to be a nuisance to the car drivers.
In the big scheme of things what is more important: a 2 minute delay or a life? Would you like to have the death penalty if you ever inadvertently delayed someone for two minutes? Do you think that is reasonable?
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Freedom of speech is not a "perceived right", it's a constitutionally guaranteed one. And I have been consistent about valuing my rights more than my safety. Living in a free society has serious risks in that other people can harm you and me and even get away with it fairly easily. If you can't live with that, you can't live in a democracy. I still prefer those risks to living in a totalitarian state.
I totally agree, it was horrible when the NYT/Wikipedia/government crack squads carted you of to a work camp for talking about the kidnapping in your own newsletter.
On a related note, you now have to write "I'm an asshat" on your homepage or you will be breaking my constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The test is whether the speech constitutes a "clear and present danger". This doesn't pass that test.
And it wasn't clear and present because you stuck fingers in your ears, closed your eyes and screamed at the top of your lungs?
they have already decided that doing so does not constitute a "clear and present danger" in general, and therefore it doesn't constitute one here.
Because no one needs an operation to remove a bullet in general, and therefore no one needs one? Including this gunshot victim?
History also points to the results of fascism being the development of international law, technological revolution and the non aggressive cooperation of countries that were formerly mortal enemies. So why not err on the side of fascism.
But talking of Jesus, I have heard sources crediting him with amazing powers, even godlike. But, I also heard that Nietzsche killed god. So he's not tougher than Jack Bauer. Jack wouldn't take shit from a wimpy philosopher.
But we can get people out of comas. You don't really believe that with the lack of understanding of medicine back then, that they would have the same rigorous definition of death as measured by brain activity do you?
That's a bit of atlas shrugged I've never understood. Why gold? It has very little intrinsic value. It's industrial uses are very limited. An odd choice when the Galtians profess to value production and progress above all else.
Gold only has value as an abstract of value. It has value because we all agree it does. It's main purpose is to facilitate trade. It's the oil on the wheel of commerce to paraphrase Adam Smith.
Another benefit of formal education is contacts. You are going to make a lot of talented friends and if you are lucky they'll remember that you are that guy who is really good at databases/web design/etc.
All the jobs I've had since graduating I have gotten through my university contacts. Not that I haven't been offered positions when scouring the general job market, but every time something more interesting has popped up through university contacts.
The reason Gandhi chose anti-violence was an effect of the specific condition of British rule in India. The public sentiment in Britain was that the colonial rule was for the best. Britain was the parent "educating" the savage child. That was the justification in the public's eye. A justification that would be very hard to believe in if your military had just mowed down thousands of peacefully protesting Indians.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
What, are you kidding me? Sure, they might feel more responsible, and have a gradient level of training/awareness to perform the respective driving task effectively/safely, but they are by no means more responsible - morally or ...
What I was trying to tell you is that they are using an increasingly dangerous tool in public and are therefore, in my opinion, morally obligated to ensure it is done in a safe way. You might say that it was the child who ran into the road chasing a ball and was run over by the truck, who was at fault. I'm saying that if the trucker decided to drive at the full speed allowed by law down a suburban street where there are children playing on the sidewalk, then he has not shown the amount of responsibility he morally should.
legally.
Secondly a little service announcement: About
95% of the world does not live in the USA. So it is possible for us to have laws that gives this responsibility, as in fact I stated we had.
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Right, I'll remember that the next time I'm on a 40mph hilly county road and come across a poorly flagged (few reflectors, no lamps, black clothes) cyclist on a 2-way, 1 lane road with a large truck behind me. When faced with:
a) swerve erratically/off the road and endanger/harm myself
b) brake suddenly and get run over
c) hit the biker and stop 100 yards down the road
I know which option I'll pick. Because that's the kind of situation many cyclists put people in.
And what I'm saying is that then you are responsible for not adjusting your driving to the conditions and ultimately it is of course the truckers moral and legal(in DK) responsibility. He is the one driving with too little distance to allow a safe breaking. The problem in your scenario stems from having a truck behind you. If it was a pedestrian tailgating you would not have been afraid of braking. It is exactly therefore trucks should be held to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.
I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection.
That's because, unlike the cars which actually STOPPED at the red light, you likely ran it, based on my experiences.
Then I wouldn't be accelerating, would I?
But just so you know I hate those red light running bastards just as much as you. I just overtook them on the straight and then they squeeze past me and are in the way when it turns green. Or, my favourite, just as the lights change and i accelerate , because they were planning on running the red light, they overtake me and turn right without signaling or looking, so I'll have to take a right turn so I don't bike right into them.
It is a law in Denmark. The first substantial(the others are definition of terms) and primary paragraph of the traffic law here states(loosely translated):
People in traffic must behave considerately and show vigilance, so as to prevent danger, damage or discomfort, and so that traffic is not unnecessarily hindered or disturbed. Consideration must also be shown to those who live or stay by the road.
Special consideration must be shown to children, the elderly and those who are at a disadvantage in traffic.(i.e. blind/deaf/handicapped)
It's the don't be a douchebag paragraph.
It's not always feasible to get out of the way when you are on a bike. The traffic might be so heavy that you wouldn't be doing anything but standing at the side of the road. But that is mostly in heavily built up areas.
I've biked a lot on tiny country roads and most places drivers are really good giving bikers plenty of room when overtaking and only doing so when it's safe. When I meet that wine truck coming up a tiny mountain road in the alps I'll be happy to stop and get off the road if he let's me know he's there, but i don't have eyes in the back of my head.
Basically we just have to check the ego at the door when moving in traffic. You have to realize there is nothing you have to win. You have no "rights" to any kind of behaviour. It should be a collective effort to get everyone where they need to go as safely as possible.
Might that be some sarcasm I detect there?
My crank is 20 cm, so as you can probably calculate I'm not the smallest hippo in the river.
I've been biking to and from work/school/university for the last 20 years. Sadly, I'm not losing any weight by biking, but maybe it's keeping me from turning into a blimp.
sure I can. A quick search brought up the fact that only ninety percent of the roads are paid for through petrol taxes and excises. The rest is paid for thought ordinary taxes. Secondly the roads are placed on public land which should belong to everybody, but the roads are not paying rent or property taxes to the state. Because they are very reasonable seen to provide a public good.
So according to your financial argument more than ten percent of the road is paid for by other means than car taxes and should therefore be reserved for other uses. Now I'm sure that less than 10% of the traffic is bikes in the US.
My point was that it's not really the bike that is making it dangerous. It's the drivers who are driving faster than the conditions allows. If you are on a winding mountain road where you can't see around the corner you should adjust your speed anyway. Now motorways should of course be strictly off limits for bikes.
If I am right, and you don't have any sort of legal entitlement to be there (for the sake of argument), are you not unfairly putting others at risk with your actions? I understand the logic in you doing so, since it greatly increases your safety, but my arguments are about your RIGHTS to do so.
That is correct I am not supposed to be there, but my point is that while driving where I'm supposed to be I've been involved in 50+ near misses and run over about 5 times. While I have never been in an accident while driving in the middle of the road. I think you are confusing a perceived increase in risk from a car's perspective with the real risks, because you only notice the bike when it's annoying you. And that is exactly the reason for driving in the middle of the road. There are many more drivers who are inattentive, talking on their mobile phone etc. than there are drivers who would willingly run over a biker(though many are probably fantasying about it). Also bear in mind I only do this if there is no bike lane.
Now I'm sure the rules might be different where you live, but here (I live in Copenhagen) roads predates the car by thousands of years. So cars do not belong on the roads anymore than all other forms of transport. Btw. here is a little clip from my home town http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46jQR3oow8U. About 37% of people in copenhagen commute by bike.
But, isn't that because you are basically hitting people with it? I'm a sabre fencer and we are taught to do the explosive lunges from the heel. Exactly so you don't tear your calf muscles and achilles tendon.
Bikes do not suck at acceleration. They generally suck at top speed. I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection. I can deliver a maximum of ~250 NM of torque(comparable to a cars output), and the bike and me weigh less than a tenth of a car. The problem is that I have trouble delivering more than a single horsepower sustained. So when I reach 30 km/h I'm out of steam.
You are not forced to overtake in the opposite lane ON A BLIND CURVE. Neither are you forced to CLOSE YOUR EYES, or LET GO OFF THE STEERING WHEEL. Instead you are supposed to stay behind the bike until you can overtake safely. Doesn't matter if its a bike, another car, or a horse drawn buggy. The road belongs to all of us and remember it's a speed limit not a speed requirement. It's only a few types of roads that have speed requirements, like motorways. But, I never see bikes there.
Where I live we have a very sensible rule called objective responsibility. It basically disassociates the responsibility from the culpability. So even if the it was the bike riders fault, the car driver will be held responsible, because they are using a two ton murder machine of steel. Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it. Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian. That is the price you pay for being allowed the use of increasingly dangerous tools in public.
Now I am a very law abiding biker, and I always use the bike lanes, stop for red etc. Sometimes, however, there are no bike lanes and I confess I will drive in the middle of a car lane. This is because of a little something called experience. I have biked in many countries in Europe, and I have never been hit by a car if I drive in the middle, because I'm easy to spot. When I drive as far right as possible I've been run into plenty of times. I've learned how to not die and that is unfortunately to be a nuisance to the car drivers.
In the big scheme of things what is more important: a 2 minute delay or a life? Would you like to have the death penalty if you ever inadvertently delayed someone for two minutes? Do you think that is reasonable?
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Freedom of speech is not a "perceived right", it's a constitutionally guaranteed one. And I have been consistent about valuing my rights more than my safety. Living in a free society has serious risks in that other people can harm you and me and even get away with it fairly easily. If you can't live with that, you can't live in a democracy. I still prefer those risks to living in a totalitarian state.
I totally agree, it was horrible when the NYT/Wikipedia/government crack squads carted you of to a work camp for talking about the kidnapping in your own newsletter.
On a related note, you now have to write "I'm an asshat" on your homepage or you will be breaking my constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The test is whether the speech constitutes a "clear and present danger". This doesn't pass that test.
And it wasn't clear and present because you stuck fingers in your ears, closed your eyes and screamed at the top of your lungs?
they have already decided that doing so does not constitute a "clear and present danger" in general, and therefore it doesn't constitute one here.
Because no one needs an operation to remove a bullet in general, and therefore no one needs one? Including this gunshot victim?
History also points to the results of fascism being the development of international law, technological revolution and the non aggressive cooperation of countries that were formerly mortal enemies.
So why not err on the side of fascism.
So what kinds of crimes and immoral deeds have you committed?
No, your feelings and wishes does NOT trump the publics right to know!
Could you please explain where this right originates?
Then why are the best high jumpers white (male or female)?
I would think that jumping high uses the front of the thigh more, while running uses the buttocks and
the back of the thigh more.
Actually, I think we were discussing Lazarus.
But talking of Jesus, I have heard sources crediting him with amazing powers, even godlike. But, I also heard that Nietzsche killed god. So he's not tougher than Jack Bauer. Jack wouldn't take shit from a wimpy philosopher.
Sweden managed to change the side of the road they drove on in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
It actually lowered the number of fatal accidents for a couple of years.
The lesson being we should all switch the side of the road we drive on every so often. :-)
If you want precision just use deciCelsius. BAM! Ten times the precision. Much more precise than Fahrenheit.
The countries that have converted to SI are the countries that were late to the industrial revolution party.
You mean countries like the USA? Where the industrial revolution spread after in Europe?
Where do I put my books starting with æ,ø,å. And, What about all the other alphabets?
That's: Me, You, and Them
But we can get people out of comas. You don't really believe that with the lack of understanding of medicine back then, that they would have the same rigorous definition of death as measured by brain activity do you?
That's a bit of atlas shrugged I've never understood. Why gold?
It has very little intrinsic value. It's industrial uses are very limited.
An odd choice when the Galtians profess to value production and progress
above all else.
Gold only has value as an abstract of value. It has value because we all agree it does.
It's main purpose is to facilitate trade. It's the oil on the wheel of commerce to paraphrase
Adam Smith.
Another benefit of formal education is contacts. You are going to make a lot of talented friends and if you are lucky they'll remember that you are that guy who is really good at databases/web design/etc.
All the jobs I've had since graduating I have gotten through my university contacts. Not that I haven't been offered positions when scouring the general job market, but every time something more interesting has popped up through university contacts.
The reason Gandhi chose anti-violence was an effect of the specific condition of British rule in India. The public sentiment in Britain was that the colonial rule was for the best. Britain was the parent "educating" the savage child. That was the justification in the public's eye. A justification that would be very hard to believe in if your military had just mowed down thousands of peacefully protesting Indians.
I think you will find that the luftwaffe was a strong contender for #1.
So is that "Disaster Area wioll onhaven be tuning up" or "Disaster Area weres beening tuning up"?
Join the fight against time-machines. Crush the time-traveling grammar nazis.