If the driver was responsible for injuries, I think this might have a small but noticeable effect on bicycle safety. Of course when I say driver, I mean driver's insurance. After all, that's precisely what the insurance is for. People still don't want to get into accidents because their rates go up. It's a weak solution for reasons you mentioned. I don't think a single solution is adequate. Divided streets would make things quite a bit safer, I think, but these aren't mutually exclusive, and people are likely to block the latter implementation.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? Of course I know not everybody drives with insurance, but it is a legal requirement. Yes, some people drive illegally. That does not contradict my previous post. Maybe you need to read before you react.
Riding in the shoulder is very dangerous and not correct practice. Riding in the road is correct, and two bikes riding side-by-side is allowed in many areas.
So, instead of being an infinitesimal speck living on a microscopic pale blue dot orbiting a typical star among zillions in the infinite cosmos, we are an infinitesimal speck living on a microscopic pale blue dot orbiting a typical star among zillions in the infinite cosmos which are just a blob of entangled probability in the infinite possibilities of the timeless everything, which looks like any possible timeline, depending on which clump of probability you look at.
If I really understood that, I think I'd go insane.
Actually, entropy is a fundamentally subjective concept. For human practical purposes, it is objective and measurable and always increases, but for an omniscient god, entropy is zero and does not increase.
Recall that entropy is log(the number of microstates in a macrostate). A macrostate is generally chosen to be a group of states which we can't tell apart with our limited experimental capabilities, or a group of states which are free to mix together in an experiment in an uncontrolled manner. For God, a macrostate is a microstate, and everything is controlled.
But the terrorists will have self driving cars too. And that means self-driving car bombs. So you can expect that the TSA will be concerned. After all, your safety is at sake. You can expect them to start anally probing anyone entering a car.
You really think that's a good idea? The private prison corporations will take 99% of the money, paying the slaves^H prisoners 15 cents an hour. You still have to collect taxes to pay the private prisons.
Slashdot Mirror
When 92 years old you are, less senile you will be not.
My options were Time Warner and Time Warner. Guess which one I picked?
Sounds like an unreasonable search and seizure to me, but what do I know about what's reasonable?
If the driver was responsible for injuries, I think this might have a small but noticeable effect on bicycle safety. Of course when I say driver, I mean driver's insurance. After all, that's precisely what the insurance is for. People still don't want to get into accidents because their rates go up. It's a weak solution for reasons you mentioned. I don't think a single solution is adequate. Divided streets would make things quite a bit safer, I think, but these aren't mutually exclusive, and people are likely to block the latter implementation.
Are you just trying to be argumentative? Of course I know not everybody drives with insurance, but it is a legal requirement. Yes, some people drive illegally. That does not contradict my previous post. Maybe you need to read before you react.
You said a 40mph road, so I figured you meant a city street. Bicycles generally shouldn't be on freeways, except outside of cities.
How many bike lockers fit in the space of 12 car parking spaces?
Riding in the shoulder is very dangerous and not correct practice. Riding in the road is correct, and two bikes riding side-by-side is allowed in many areas.
not having a driver's license is practically being indigent in the USA.
Poor people are supposed to have insurance as a requirement for driving.
The evidence shows the opposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
So, instead of being an infinitesimal speck living on a microscopic pale blue dot orbiting a typical star among zillions in the infinite cosmos, we are an infinitesimal speck living on a microscopic pale blue dot orbiting a typical star among zillions in the infinite cosmos which are just a blob of entangled probability in the infinite possibilities of the timeless everything, which looks like any possible timeline, depending on which clump of probability you look at.
If I really understood that, I think I'd go insane.
Actually, entropy is a fundamentally subjective concept. For human practical purposes, it is objective and measurable and always increases, but for an omniscient god, entropy is zero and does not increase.
Recall that entropy is log(the number of microstates in a macrostate). A macrostate is generally chosen to be a group of states which we can't tell apart with our limited experimental capabilities, or a group of states which are free to mix together in an experiment in an uncontrolled manner. For God, a macrostate is a microstate, and everything is controlled.
There's a difference between the Libertarian Party and Tea Party?
But the terrorists will have self driving cars too. And that means self-driving car bombs. So you can expect that the TSA will be concerned. After all, your safety is at sake. You can expect them to start anally probing anyone entering a car.
As people drive less, buses drive more.
wear is a quartic function of weight, not exponential.
You still have the problem that some vehicles avoid paying for road damage.
You really think that's a good idea? The private prison corporations will take 99% of the money, paying the slaves^H prisoners 15 cents an hour. You still have to collect taxes to pay the private prisons.
No, it is quartic in weight.
You really want to live in a network of toll roads?
I thought cars were a pretty substantial part of the problem (like 1/5 of CO2 emissions) (a lot).
Perhaps people who live in France care? Not everyone is as self-centered as thou.
It's called an annuity.
How do you get a patent out of reproducing a result? Or for debunking a result? Isn't $$ the point of science?