[...] It is clear that a significant minority of British drivers put their time and their 'needs' above the safety of other road users and pedestrians. In a few decades, the driverless car will be perfected and the driven car must be made obsolete, preferably by law.
Until then the Government and the insurance industry should take radical steps to help residents of rural and urban communities reclaim their neighbourhoods from the lorries, the lunatics - and those Great British Motorists who like toddlers think they can do what they like, and explode with rage and indignation when questioned about it.
Black boxes compulsory in every vehicle, with improved technology that detects speed limit breaking and careless or aggressive driving.
Insurance companies encouraged to hike premiums immediately and punitively as bad driving is revealed.
Insurance companies obliged to hand over to DVLA and / or police all data that reveals traffic offences and dangerous driving.
Legal framework to allow prosecution and driving bans relating to offences revealed by black boxes.
Legal changes to encourage use of dashcam / helmet-cam / CCTV evidence to prosecute motorists.
Comprehensive review of 30mph speed limits, with local consultations on which should be lowered to 20mph.
Limit revs to 3,000rpm on all vehicles - as condition of passing MOT - to cut noise and dangerous acceleration.
Funding for technology that will limit all vehicles automatically to the local speed limit (and in the case of national speed limits, a safe speed for the road conditions); and will prevent heavy goods vehicles from using inappropriate rural and urban roads.
Source: This is Money
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:14PM
Sounds like everyone's privacy needs to be violated in order to satisfy these communistic desires to monitor people.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:27PM
But but... Monitoring is good. Because we're at war against terruh!
So, one stone, two birds: we fight terruh and bad drivers. Genius!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:22PM
Because we're at war against terruh!
We've always been at war with Eastterruh!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:38PM
At least since 1986 in Europe busses and trucks already carry a mandatory paper tachograph [wikipedia.org] recorder, including UK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:24PM
Cars in the US have had some sort of recording of driving history for a while but it is only reviewed in case of accidents. But there are US insurance companies that allow new customers to attach recording devices and submit their driving habits in order to get reduced rates, but it is completely voluntary.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 22 2016, @04:22PM
> submit their driving habits in order to get reduced rates, but it is completely voluntary.
Before this decade is over, not having one of those will mean paying at least 4x if not 10x premiums. But hey, you've got to have insurance, right?
Insurance companies will give themselves the right to resell all your travel information to whoever gives them the right amount of cash, and of course the authorities will have full access. Those databases tracking all your habits will obviously be insufficiently protected and hacked to allow break-ins and robberies (of high-value targets).
If the bosses of the Stasi had known the future of the US...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @08:58PM
When Socialism has reached its ultimate condition (no more poverty; everyone's needs are filled because there is no hogging of resources by an Overlord class), government is then no longer necessary.
Marx called that condition "Communism".
Some Authoritarian regimes have hijacked the words "socialist" and "communist" and used those terms to name themselves dishonestly.
Only ignorant, uneducated people repeat the propaganda without using quote marks around the terms or some other indication of the irony.
Here's where we typically refer to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:38PM
I don't find your views intersting and I want to use your newsletter to line the cage of my canary. That reminds me, I need to get a canary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:47AM
Beyond being my views, they are facts.
They can be found in academic works (AKA books).
You might try to read one of those someday.
It appears you are trying to provoke me.
Why would your willingness to remain ignorant and to show the world that you are ignorant bother me?
Fox News Watchers are such a hoot.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:54AM
I always, always see the argument, "That country is socialist because its in the name/because they say so!" but I've never seen it used to claim that, for example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a perfect example of democracy. Gee, I wonder if it could be because they know their "argument" is fallicious and that countries aren't socialist just because they say they are? Could it be that words have actual definitions, and there is absolutely nothing defined as "Anyone or anything that calls itself this"?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:01PM
The author of TFA sounds like a bicyclist. Yeah, it must be tough being a bicyclist riding on the highway and city streets sometimes, which is why I never do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:36AM
Orange County has the OC Loop. [google.com]
Mostly, it's on the edge of the Santa Ana River and San Gabriel River (big concrete ditches).
It will get you out of traffic for much of the distance around the county.
There's also ocbike.org [google.com] to help you figure out stuff.
calbike.org [calbike.org] is an advocacy group (e.g. for more bikeways).
I've also heard some rumblings about a proposed Bike Riders Union in Los Angeles County.
Do you have anything like any of that where you are?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:38AM
England has many bike &/or walking paths. One group that supports them and lobbies for more is called Sustrans. But the paths don't always go where you want and most English roads that I've ridden on have minimal space for bicycles.
Compare to here in upstate New York, (outside New York City--that's another world). For the last 20 years every time a state road is rebuilt, a 4-6 foot paved shoulder is added on both sides as a walk/bicycle path. By now we have great bike access across most of the state.
Note that State Roads do not include roads maintained by counties/cities/towns, they can still be a problem. But in the highest traffic areas there are usually sidewalks that can be used (technically illegal for bikes, but no one cares outside NY City).
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @06:11AM
You know how you are scared of heavy, fast-moving vehicles passing within inches?
That is how pedestrians feel when a cyclist uses the side-walk.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday August 22 2016, @10:34AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @01:58PM
We've had pedestrians killed by cyclists around here when they collided. And because cyclists don't have plates, it can be challenging to figure out whom it was if they don't stop.
What's more, bikes are quite quiet and move rather quickly. I personally was almost run over by one one evening when the bike came out of nowhere with no lighting on it at all and zipped by a foot or so in front of me. I could easily have gotten spooked and moved.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 22 2016, @04:28PM
> We've had pedestrians killed by cyclists around here when they collided. And because cyclists don't have plates,
> it can be challenging to figure out whom it was if they don't stop.
Citation needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:17PM
Nope, no citation needed. Here's an example from NYC, but it's pretty similar to what happens here. Ride too fast, knock somebody over and they die of a head injury. http://nypost.com/2014/09/18/cyclist-slams-into-pedestrian-in-central-park/ [nypost.com]
Bottom line is just because you choose to pretend like cyclists aren't dangerous to pedestrians when they aren't being careful, doesn't make it safe. And if they do choose to run, it's unlikely that anybody is going to catch them as there's no plates and you can do your own repairs at home. Most bike crashes don't even get reported because there's no law saying they have to.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 22 2016, @08:43PM
I missed the part where the name of the culprit wasn't over half a dozen times in the article.
Can I get a cite on a fatal bicycle hit-and-run? How about stats proving it's more common than bungee jumping accidents?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:53PM
Found an example where an elderly woman was seriously injured. Broken hips often kill elderly people within a year.
84-year-old in hospital after being hit by cyclist on pedestrian path [globalnews.ca]
Morning Links: LAPD still looking for hit-and-run cyclist, and a bike rider critically injured in SoLA hit-and-run [bikinginla.com]
Cyclist who fractured pedestrian’s rib after crashing into her on city footpath hands himself in [adelaidenow.com.au]
Were you under the impression that cyclists have better morals and are less likely to flee the scene?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:19PM
No, but I know it's not that easy to kill someone and still have a flee-capable bike/rider. Humans are not hard to injure, but they are hard to kill.
The lack of fatal hit-and-run results from your search does prove the point. We might have found something with an even lower risk than terrorism.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:24PM
To kill somebody, they just need to hit their head wrong after falling over. I was focussing on Hit-and-run by cyclists, not death by cyclist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:28PM
Yes, of course.
How else would you satisfy these communistic desires to monitor people? *Without* violating their privacy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:56PM
If monitoring people is communistic, Britain is more communist than Cuba.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:35PM
Only because Cuba doesn't have the technology or infrastructure.
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Monday August 22 2016, @02:59AM
I'm all for privacy, but come on. If you really value your privacy, you're not going to be driving around in a car that has registration plates that are used to identify and track you.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:23PM
He wants you to stop ripping off his book.
I think driverless cars should be mandatory, but no monitored Orwellian dystopia, please.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:34PM
I think driverless cars should be mandatory, but no monitored Orwellian dystopia, please.
Oh yeah?
Orwell got one thing wrong: his vision of the future is being implemented, but by the private sector, not the state. Somehow the thought of Google driving my car for me doesn't exactly make me warm and fuzzy...
If I have to choose between driving a car that's monitored by state agencies and insurance companies, and letting Google drive the car for me and monitor it too, I'll keep riding my bicycle thank you very much.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:53PM
You realize that your bicycle will soon be banned from roads that carry driverless cars, for your own safety, of course.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:49PM
I think driverless cars should be mandatory
You do realize that you'd be mandating proprietary software for everyone who wants to drive a car, right? Unless the cars run on 100% free software, of course, which we all know they won't. And they will also likely have digital restrictions management and spying 'features'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:18PM
I think driverless cars should be mandatory, but no monitored Orwellian dystopia, please.
Translation: Other people's rights should be trampled to make my life easier, but touch something I care about then you're a dictator.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Monday August 22 2016, @04:10PM
That logic doesn't add up. I want driverless cars for the sake of safety. Driverless cars eliminate much of the need for spying. It's not optimal, but it's preferable to spying.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 22 2016, @05:56PM
You underestimate how many reasons they can come up with for spying.
Hey, you know what would be even safer than driverless cars? Banning cars entirely!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:55AM
As a software developer, I find the concept of a driverless car is extremely scary.
Bugs happen all the time, that's why we have backups. Until you can restore your grandma from backup, when she gets hit by a bug (pun intended), don't wish for software bugs driving cars.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:23PM
Dunno what the political agenda here is, but...what an idiot. Being a geezer, I am a pretty conservative driver anymore. Get off my lawn, and all that. Even so:
1. Black boxes compulsory in every vehicle, with improved technology that detects speed limit breaking and careless or aggressive driving.
A black box ought to only be useful in case of an accident. But there are already insurance companies putting these in cars, and accessing the data on a regular basis. A privacy nightmare. Oh, and who gets to define what counts as careless or aggressive?
2. Insurance companies encouraged to hike premiums immediately and punitively as bad driving is revealed.
Ah, see, here we go. Bend over and kiss your privacy goodbye. I mean, they would *never* sell your information to advertisers or anything.
3. Insurance companies obliged to hand over to DVLA and / or police all data that reveals traffic offences and dangerous driving.
Real time traffic tickets? I read a dystopian novel a long time ago, where the premise was perfect surveillance: no crime, because crime was automatically detected in real time. Minority Report also goes in this direction. What a horrible world...
4. Legal framework to allow prosecution and driving bans relating to offences revealed by black boxes.
Right, see number 3.
5. Legal changes to encourage use of dashcam / helmet-cam / CCTV evidence to prosecute motorists.
Right, see number 3 again.
6. Comprehensive review of 30mph speed limits, with local consultations on which should be lowered to 20mph.
Pretty over-specific. I assume this refers to his particular country. That said, reviewing speed limits is always a good thing, so this may be his only halfway reasonable point.
7. Limit revs to 3,000rpm on all vehicles - as condition of passing MOT - to cut noise and dangerous acceleration.
Somebody is showing their ignorance. 3000rpm is a meaningless figure, because it all depends on the engine. A good old American muscle car will lay rubber at less than that. My old VW bug might not even move.
8. Funding for technology that will limit all vehicles automatically to the local speed limit (and in the case of national speed limits, a safe speed for the road conditions); and will prevent heavy goods vehicles from using inappropriate rural and urban roads.
Great. Real world anecdote: My uncle was having a heart attack. His son tossed him in the car and raced to the hospital. Local speed limits were not his first priority, nor should they have been. Had he be stopped by the police, I would like to hope they would have led the way with their lights flashing. Also, see number 3 above, regarding continual surveillance.
Idiot.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:36PM
Somebody is showing their ignorance. 3000rpm is a meaningless figure, because it all depends on the engine.
Yeah but it probably means something in either his, his parent's, or that car he saw on 5th Gear some time. The author exudes ignorance all over the place.
Talk about not being able to see past your own bumper. What a moron-douche.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:38PM
What bugs me most about 7 and 8 is that, in addition to it being arbitrary, they're also arguably MORE dangerous at times. Onramps (at least here in the states) are often not long enough to have a leisurely increase in speed up to the speed limit of the actual interstate (nevermind what speed everyone on the interstate FEELS like going).
This kind of feels like idle do-gooding for it's own sake.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:06PM
Twenty is plenty!
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:57PM
I actually try to avoid WOT (Wide open trottle) while merging.
If you are running at your power limit, you have no room to speed up a little it you need to.
Merge lanes are often on ramps to help you accelerate.
Of course, all bets are off if you rev limiter is set at 3000rpm :P
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday August 22 2016, @01:46PM
>>> Merge lanes are often on ramps to help you accelerate.
But unfortunately, sometimes due to the age of the roads and sometimes due to construction or additional guardrails or the speed of traffic or other changes from the original design, many such ramps are nowhere near long enough to accelerate unless you floor it. There is a particular entrance to a 55 mph restricted-access highway that I use on a regular basis which requires very quick merging. Due to the history of Northern NJ, there are multiple divided highways with driveways opening directly onto the road at right angles. Even some major shopping centers have short deceleration/acceleration areas.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday August 21 2016, @08:48PM
I would imagine that your cousin could have (before the police started pulling him over, or in response to the lights behind him) called 911 and gotten through to dispatch. Preventing that 5-10 minute delay as the cop runs your plates, etc. before coming to the window.
I've never done that, but I've heard of people (esp. single women) call 911 so they can relay to the officer they were looking for a "safe spot" to pull over. One lit or public or similar.
No idea if that's true or not.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:28PM
DVLA == Driver and Vehicle Licensing[1] Agency
This side of the pond, we typically call that "DMV" (Division|Department of Motor[2] Vehicles).
[1] Sometimes spelled with a C instead of an S.
[2] It bugs me when an internal combustion engine is called a "motor".
I'm assuming "MOT" is Ministry of Transportation.
.
3000rpm is a meaningless figure, because it all depends on the engine
Gearing is also significant.
Back in the days when drag strips intrigued me, there were some guys with a 6.88:1 rear end ratio.
At the far extreme, Pontiac offered a 2.56:1 differential.
Heh. I once owned a '68 Camaro with a 250CID 6-cylinder and 4.11 gears.
The single-leaf springs had trouble keeping the tires in contact with the road when I really got on it.
Besides rear end ratios, the Muncie "Rock Crusher" close-ratio 4-speed transmission had a first gear ratio of 2.20:1.
Your typical street machine has a significantly larger spread.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 22 2016, @01:44AM
6. Comprehensive review of 30mph speed limits, with local consultations on which should be lowered to 20mph.
Pretty over-specific. I assume this refers to his particular country. That said, reviewing speed limits is always a good thing, so this may be his only halfway reasonable point.
He loses for suggesting the 20 mph speed limits, though. 20 mph speed limits are almost always insanely too low unless there's a school zone involved or similar.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:25PM
Limit revs to 3,000rpm on all vehicles - as condition of passing MOT - to cut noise and dangerous acceleration.
I in the..... what the fucking........ does this person even....... *head explodes* All vehicles? Including motorcycles where 3k RPM has ultimate shit for torque? Or the Honda S2000 where again there is shit for torque.
I have a feeling this guy can't drive well and assumes no one else can either. Pro tip: some times the best thing to do is remove the vehicle and passengers from the situation instead of just being a slave to gravity, momentum, and time. Torque and power help a lot with that.
If you cared to learn how to drive that is.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:29PM
I was thinking along the same lines. My motorcycle revs at about 3000 rpm at 60 mph. 4000 rpm at 70 mph.
Such a restriction would prevent the small 4-banger engines in the cheaper vehicles from going to fast while allowing those driving big, hulking 6L V-8's all the room they need to zoom along.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:40PM
Honda's GL and CX line share the same engine. They rev fast, until the 1983 model, which is the last model. In '83 they put an 18" wheel on it to help bring the revs down. In 5th gear, you don't need a speedometer. 4,000 RPM is 40 mph, 5,000 is 50 mph, etc. Top speed is 100 mph, limited by the CDI igniters. So, yeah, you're right on target. At 3000 RPM I could never get above 30 MPH.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:30PM
At 3000 RPM I could never get above 30 MPH.
Not to worry because #6 will eliminate your 30MPH speed demon driving!
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:20PM
I recently learned severe rev-limiting is just dangerous.
How to Handle a Tire Blowout in Your RV [youtube.com]
TL;DW: When your vehicle start pulling to the side, the initial corrective action is to apply the gas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @04:14AM
Or the Honda S2000
I don't think there's room for performance vehicles in posters' myopic little world.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:34PM
If you are found guilty of a driving crime, mandatory community service in either (a) accident/emergency or (b) truck rest stop. Not as punishment but to try and take the "glamor" out of driving for those who get their self-worth from driving dangerously... I mean, like a badass.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:35PM
Define "aggressive" for us.
Got any motorcyclists here? Bicyclists feel free to chime in, although your situation is quite different from a motor-cycle.
There are many situations in which aggressiveness is the ONLY option. For starters, who has ever wondered why a motorcycle often "hogs" the entire lane? We were taught long ago to divide our lane into three parts. Popular wisdom has changed somewhat over the years, but I was taught to ride in the left 1/3 of my lane, to actively DISCOURAGE automobiles from infringing on my space. The squid who rides in the right 1/3 finds cars infringing on his space, and the squid who rides in the middle 1/3 finds all the oily slick spots left by autos and trucks.
While it is true that one can be overly aggressive, a sensible driver most definitely asserts himself on the road.
Waiting at a stop sign? Doesn't much matter whether it's a 2-way, 3-way, 4-or-more-way. When it's your turn, TAKE IT. If you are timid, you lose half a day, not to mention you're pissing off everyone behind you. Don't know when it's your turn? THEN GET OFF THE ROAD!!! You don't belong out here! Yeah, someone will call be a troll, but FFS, if you don't know the rules of the road, GET OFF THE DAMNED ROAD!
You travel below the speed limit? One or two MPH is alright, but you like to travel ten MPH below? Again, get off the road. If your eyes are that bad, your reaction time so slow that you are afraid to keep up with traffic, then you are a hazard out here.
Oh yeah - you people who don't know the rules of the road? IT IS YOU who induces a lot of the road rage. You who are driving 40 MPH in a 60 MPH zone also cause a lot of road rage.
People who have places to go, things to see, and people to do simply do NOT want to dawdle along behind you. Worse, you cause the very worst kinds of rage if you travel 15 or more MPH below the speed limit through the curves and hills, then speed up to prevent anyone passing you in the straightaway.
Aggressive drivers, banned? The world would be a safer place if the timid and the incompetent were banned instead.
Think about it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:52PM
I assume you don't travel very often with a person in a wheelchair in the back of your vehicle. It is very uncomfortable for them as, although the chair is securely fastened to the vehicle, and they are securely fastened to the chair, they are much higher up in the vehicle than normal seat height. Reducing the vehicle speed is recommended by the hospitals and specialists who treat such people. Similarly, if you have a fragile load in the back of your vehicle (e.g. a baby), you are much less likely to have an accident if you reduce your speed - except for the idiots who insist that the speed limit is a minimum as well as maximum speed, and we have a separate sign for that in Europe.
If you are in such a rush - you should have sorted your own life out and left in good time. Don't blame every other driver because you haven't got an empty lane. Secondly, learn to overtake safely and it doesn't matter what speed the other driver wishes to travel at.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:22PM
Person in a wheelchair? Then, your vehicle has a handicapped sticker, plate, sign, or whatever, right? Only the most unreasonable people won't give you a pass for a handicap, especially if they can look in your windows and SEE the person in the wheelchair.
As for the hazards created by people who don't keep up with traffic, I suggest some reading. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04156/ [dot.gov]
There have been numerous studies, with different results. Laws are passed sometimes with safety being the primary consideration, while other laws are passed out of fear and ignorance, while yet other laws are passed to generate revenue.
Ideally, we want EVERYONE traveling at about the same speed on the roads. If the fastest person is traveling 3 mile over, and the slowest person is traveling 3 mile under the speed limit, you have very few passing maneuvers being made. That is important, because MOST ACCIDENTS HAPPEN DURING A PASSING MANEUVER! Even on two lane roads, a majority of accidents happen when someone is passing.
Safety. You'll find the 85th percentile mentioned in that link. That is the safest speed limit. The speed at which the vast majority of drivers are comfortable is the safest speed. If half or more of the motoring public is exceeding the posted speed limit, then the speed limit was NOT set for safety reasons - it was set to generate revenue.
You need to be aware that if you are traveling more than ten mile below the posted speed limit, then you are a hazard. The handicapped passenger justifies that hazard. Fragile cargo does NOT justify the hazard. If you insist on calling your children fragile cargo, then you are still off-target - you are creating a hazard, and putting those kids at the center of that hazard zone.
Let me put that into the same terms you used: You are MORE likely to have an accident if you don't conform to either the posted speed limit, OR the speed of traffic, whichever is more applicable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @12:20AM
In my other response to you, I was assuming 85 percentile limits.
By definition, 85% of the drivers are going to be travelling below such limits.
But yes, I agree that limits should not be artificially lowered for ticket revenue. It hurts respect for the limit when there is actually a reason for it. Sometimes the limits is lowered artificially if there are non-obvious hazards such as schools and cross-walks (blind corners even if the road looks designed for a higher limit).
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 22 2016, @01:51AM
Safety. You'll find the 85th percentile mentioned in that link. That is the safest speed limit. The speed at which the vast majority of drivers are comfortable is the safest speed. If half or more of the motoring public is exceeding the posted speed limit, then the speed limit was NOT set for safety reasons - it was set to generate revenue.
That's very true, and I agree with you completely, but justifying road rage against people going slower than you prefer doesn't help the situation. It's not as if any of us individually can convince the revenue suckers to raise the limits to something sane, and I for one am tired of being stopped unjustifiably for speeding (once going 33 in what should have been a 30 but was actually a 20, once going 40 on a freeway service road that was marked 30 for no reason, etc), that I am no longer willing to take the risk of being their target.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 22 2016, @02:59PM
I can display a handicapped sticker if I so choose, but there is no legal obligation to do so.
Older people are encouraged to drive within their reaction times in Europe; we do not have the view that if you cannot maintain the speed of the fastest vehicle you are no longer a worthwhile member of society and should immediately confine yourself to your home until you die. Drive within your own personal limitations and you are not considered a hazard. The young people who are fortunate not to kill themselves, and possibly others, will learn soon enough that old age has its drawbacks, but everyone should be more considerate to all other road users.
"Driving without due consideration to other road users" is an offence in the UK, with similar laws throughout most of Europe. The level to which they are enforced does vary considerably however.
How on earth do you cope with agricultural vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, tracked vehicles, exceptional loads etc? Americans must be dying in their thousands each day because they didn't realise that the accelerator is not a binary on/off device, but will permit intermediate settings without any problems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:15PM
Agricultural vehicles are rather restricted to - believe it or not - rural roads. Heavy vehicles keep up with traffic for the most part - I've exceeded 100 mph in an 18-wheeler. That was a class 8 "road truck", not a local delivery vehicle. Local delivery vehicles operate locally, generally not venturing out onto the high speed highways. Someone, maybe you, mentioned that some of the highways in Europe actually have minimum speed limits posted, and so do ours. If a vehicle can't maintain that minimum, the cops will see it soon enough, and remove it from the highway.
The individual who fears driving highway speeds should take the back country roads, and stay off of the multi-lane highways. He is obstructing traffic.
I've done it. I've just gotten sick of spending day after day out there on the interstate highway, and re-routed myself cross country. The scenery is all scenic-like, you find better restaurants, you meet people who aren't in such a hurry, and the drive is generally more relaxed.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 22 2016, @04:53PM
TFS isn't about highways - it is about all roads.
HGV's unable to travel at the permitted maximum speed limit for our motorways/autobahns etc do so all the time. Such roads do not have a minimum speed limit, in fact such limits are rare. So you have to be prepared to overtake vehicles moving more slowly than yourself.
This is nothing about 'fear' - there is no requirement for anyone to travel at any speed faster than they feel comfortable driving at and are able to maintain control of their vehicle. It seems that attitudes are different here in Europe. We actually acknowledge that newly qualified drivers have to learn to travel on high speed highways at some point - they are not expected to travel at the maximum permissible speed just because it might delay someone else. There are lanes for overtaking. When you have finished overtaking pull back into the lane which matches your speed. If all the lanes are travelling too slowly for your liking - then tough shit. It isn't your own personal highway.
HGV's are forbidden from using the fastest lane of a motorway/highway (except for a few special exceptions) regardless of whether they can meet the speed of other traffic travelling in that lane. If there is a lane travelling more slowly than you wish to travel, you either overtake and regain that lane, or you change to a faster lane.
People who do not know a particular part of the road might be looking for road signs indicating which lane is to be used for specific destinations. It is reasonable to expect such people to drive more slowly so that they have time to read the signs and make the necessary manoeuvre to change safely to the appropriate lane.
Basically, the road system is for the benefit of all traffic, not just those who are late for work or want to go at the maximum permitted speed. Insisting that you should have the right to dictate what speed other drivers should travel at on European roads will quickly end up with you getting the ticket - not the person who was driving more slowly than you thought was acceptable. Tail-gating or trying to intimidate someone into driving faster is illegal. Life is for enjoying - if people want to travel more slowly in the appropriate lane and enjoy the view then they are perfectly entitled so to do.
If all the lanes in your highway system are full then blame your highway system.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pherenikos on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:20PM
As an avid bicyclist, I strongly agree, the safest action is to assert yourself in traffic and claim the space you need to be safe. Sometimes this means taking a full lane of traffic, and other times it just means taking sufficient space from the parked cars. Those who do not do this will have an unsafe experience, and may very well end up dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:20PM
who can't pedal 3000RPM, and who would greatly enjoy pedalling past all those stalled vehicles that can't move efficiently on 3000RPM or less, I am all for *JUST THAT ITEM* in the wish list. Now mind you Tesla and the electric car companies can easily work around that, as can Turbodiesels and any large displacement car engines (as mentioned elsewhere.)
That said, I would find gleeful joy in watching all those drivers try and work around it, burn up their automatic transmissions from running them too hot (g/l getting overdrive engaged at those low rpms/torque), stall their cars if manual from trying to drive them below stall engine power, etc.
Agree with the rest, this sounds like a dystopian nightmare though. How did this get posted to SN? Is someone lobbying for this at the government level?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:39PM
I assume it was for most of us to point and laugh at, and possibly as a warning for UK readers to find the idiot responsible and give him a swift ejection from whatever seat said idiot squats over.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @12:28AM
At over 120RPM, you burn far too much sugar/energy to last any length of time (too much like sprinting). I learned this the hard way after learning that below 60RPM (too much like rock climbing) is also bad.
Effective Cycling [soylentnews.org] by John Forester has a chapter on choosing your pedal rate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:43PM
Holy cow! Doing 40 mph in a 60 zone causes you rage?! You should see a doctor or take a pill or something. Or maybe your life has absolutely no other problems/challenges/happiness that this is a *major* downer for you? Again, sacred bovine!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:47PM
They generally still teach thirds for the positions, but some folks use 5 or even 7.
I'm an advanced rider and I'll literally hang off the side of my bike going around some turns because I have to be able to get up to speed in my sight distance. It looks sketchy, but it's the safest way of handling it. Ideally they'd ticket the crap out of people parking too close to intersections.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:52PM
I was going to mod you up until I got to the part where you say people driving below the limit should stay off the road.
The limit is for ideal conditions. In heavy traffic, rain, snow, ice, fog, dust, darkness you should be driving slower.
I am one of the cyclists with no motor. I have a hard time matching the limit while my bike is in good condition (I have been past by a construction tracker). I am currently limited to about 25kph (17MPH) because I need to re-install my front dérailleur (was about 30kph before installing a smaller chain-ring).
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @02:15AM
The safest speed on any given road is dependent primarily upon your vision and the speed of other traffic. If you're going more than 10 mph above or below the speed limit you are a significant risk. Same goes for stopping and starting and tentatively going for it and then not.
Aggressive drivers are also dangerous, but really anybody who falls much beyond what's normal and expected is dangerous.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @05:58AM
In summary: be predicable.
Cyclists may be a special case here. If I am travelling closer to the expected speed of traffic, people sometimes under-estimate my speed.
The people turning left in front of me may not see me, but the people who race me to the corner to turn right (forcing me to brake) certainly do. Just pedalling while coasting can be used to hint at how fast you are moving. The other day I almost got T-boned coasting at 35-40kph (tail-wind -- could not keep up 140RPM -- luckily my brakes squeal a little bit).
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @02:06PM
Basically, you want to be predictable in the street, look as far forward at possible risks as practical and be as defensive as practical for other people's nutty behavior. It's obviously not going to completely prevent the possibility of being in a collision, but it does cut the risk significantly.
Any 2 wheeled vehicle is going to be harder to gauge than a car will. 2 wheeled vehicles have at most one headlight, which makes it hard to gauge. Bikes are probably easier to gauge for distance than motorcycles are because they're all roughly the same size. There's a pretty huge variance in sizes among motorcycles.
Situations like that are why you want to be looking 12 seconds ahead of you at pretty much any time and you want to be especially paranoid of people that appear to be looking to turn across your path of travel. Especially on a bike, the default is to slam on the brakes as hard as you can without going over the handle bars.
Unfortunately, since there is no test to ride a bicycle, I don't think most cyclists actually know how to apply their brakes properly. Which is a potentially fatal error if you're going 20 or 30 mph.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:31PM
Because I was planning to opt out of a drivers' license for a while, I took an adult cycling course instead.
CAN-BIKE 2 [canbikecanada.ca]
I decided to get my license after learning that a motor vehicle is essentially required for any job doing on-site servicing. (1 hour on highway is like 5 hours by bicycle.)
For left-turning cars, braking can sometimes be avoided by steering towards them. They either see you and stop, or you go behind them as they pass.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @08:21PM
That's cool, I wish we had something like that here. Unfortunately, without insurance and licensing requirements, the only folks that would sign up for those classes are the ones that weren't a problem in the first place. Which would still be a net gain, considering that a lot of cyclists are unaware of the fact that they can kill pedestrians if they hit them, I think a class would be a great step in the right direction.
One of the things I make a point of doing is being predictably unpredictable. If folks see that I"m using the entire lane at various points along the way, they're more likely to see me and less likely to think that they can encroach into my lane. It also means that they see more of the side of my bike than they would otherwise see.
One of my favorite tricks is to deliberately move towards the side of the road I can't see coming up to a blind intersection and then purposefully cross across the lane to the other side. It's not something that the drivers expect to see, but it makes me look a lot bigger as they see more of my side.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @09:05PM
The most common reason for taking the class is cycling for work. Be it courier or police work.
The class I took is aimed at mature cyclist who learned a few of the lessons the hard way already. You can learn in a month what trial-and-error will teach you in 20-30 years.
Though I don't think I would have figured out counter-steering myself.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:12AM
People who have places to go, things to see, and people to do simply do NOT want to dawdle along behind you.
You need to leave earlier so you're not in so much of a rush. To be honest it frustrates me too, but that's life, no need to get worked up over it, just take a deep breath and accept it may take you a few minutes more, because if it's not one person blocking your way, it'll be another and a few minutes is the most you'd save if that one slow person wasn't in your way
Worse, you cause the very worst kinds of rage if you travel 15 or more MPH below the speed limit through the curves and hills, then speed up to prevent anyone passing you in the straightaway.
To drive safely you need to consider the limit of your vision, and the fact there may be something just beyond it forcing you to stop, so go slow enough that you can stop should there be an unexpected obstruction round the corner, if that means you go 15mph under the limit round bends and over hills, so be it. Doing otherwise makes you a bad driver.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 22 2016, @01:48AM
IT IS YOU who induces a lot of the road rage.
My anger management therapist said that the first step in learning to control anger is to recognize that nobody can make me angry, that that is a decision I make for myself.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:05AM
And if you insist on driving below the speed limit on the motorway, get behind a lorry (tractor trailer for you Americans), and drive the same speed as it does.
Don't spend several minutes passing it with a speed difference of a couple of MPH.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @10:45AM
Oh, that's a good one. We've all seen it - old dude is driving 54 mph, comes up behind a truck doing 53, and it takes him about 5 minutes to "safely" pass the truck. And, meanwhile, 300 cars behind him are compacted closely together. By this time there is five miles of open road ahead of him, and everyone wonders WTF happend to cause this packing. It only takes one idiot to totally screw things up. Assuming that all that traffic travels at the same speeds without stopping for that long, it's going to take a half hour for that huge pack to untangle itself, because MORE cars are coming up behind, adding to the mess.
https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/11/12/traffic-waves/ [kqed.org]
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:57PM
It takes only one person driving slightly below the limit to break that up.
The slow driver forms an open space ahead of them. As the slow driver approaches the blockage, stuck drivers can change lanes as needed.
Traffic Waves [youtube.com]
Text version [trafficwaves.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:37PM
The second something like this stops being laughable and even has a remote chance of being debated in congress, is the second that the American Automobile Association becomes a more vocal and more powerful lobbying group than the NRA.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:54PM
The right to bear arms is in the U.S. constitution. There is no equivalent right to drive. Consequently there is nothing stopping like-minded communities, states, and even the federal government from banning humans from driving in public spaces.
Don't like it? Amend the constitution.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:12PM
There is no right to breath in the constitution either. Nor the right to take a shit.
Amended the constitution there as well?
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:29PM
you are right, there is no constitutional right to drive in the US... but that is not a reason not to lobby to let people drive.
Americans have a love affair with cars... Many people equate an open road with the freedom to go anywhere.
If this ever come close to happening, there will be more people screaming about it then there are people with guns in this country... far more.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 3, Informative) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:25PM
Americans are trapped in an abusive relationship with their cars. People don't own their cars, their cars own them. Want to leave your car? Not possible because oil and car companies either dismantled or strangled mass transit alternatives and encouraged housing and city development that REQUIRES a car to function.
As far as equating driving a car with freedom, you freedom ends where public safety begins. Vehicle related fatalities are the leading cause of preventable deaths. So it will probably go down something like smoking. You are free to smoke in your home, but you have no constitutional right to smoke in public and the number of public spaces where you can smoke are gradually decreasing to zero. Municipalities will follow a similar pattern with driverless cars.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:42PM
That's why I ride a motorcycle. We rarely get snow or ice here, but the hills make biking unrealistic. Excluding maintenance it's roughly $500 a year. Which is about half of the cost of tidying the bus.
Plus, I can come and go on my schedule without having to waste a lot of time waiting for transfers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:33AM
you freedom ends where public safety begins.
No, it doesn't. That's the same logic that is used to justify mass surveillance. Oftentimes freedom is more important than safety, and requiring everyone who wants to drive a car use cars filled with freedom-denying software and/or submit to surveillance is simply intolerable.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday August 22 2016, @01:05AM
Don't need to. If you drive "badly" enough then you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon to whit, a motor car. So a car is "arms". (Joke, Joyce)
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 22 2016, @04:29AM
Well besides those pesky 9th and 10th amendments, a car or better, a truck is an ideal arm. Load it up with the right type of fertilizer and diesel and you're armed with a car bomb. And as all people have the right to bear arms, everyone has the right to drive.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday August 22 2016, @04:48AM
If driverless cars are ubiquitous, prohibiting the public at large from driving cars no more inhibits freedom of movement than does prohibiting the public at large from piloting jumbo jets.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:33AM
That's a pretty big if. Currently most any member of the public are free to get a pilots license, buy a jumbo jet and pilot it. Not much different then cars besides the licensing being more vigorous and the expanse of buying and operating a jumbo jet.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 22 2016, @06:08PM
I've seen enough movies to know that ANY car can blow up 20 feet in the air just from its own gas tank. Save the fertilizer.
Electric car batteries also have impressive energy densities. It's a testament to good engineering that Teslas burn, rather than blow.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:44PM
AAA is in bed with and a tool of the insurance companies who would love to put Big Brother in your car.
In fact, they ARE an insurance company.
(Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:41PM
Sure, as long as you can satisfactorily answer the following concerns:
I've never heard of this publication before - and I will be quite content never to hear of it again. On the other hand, a regular supply of whatever it is that they are smoking would be appreciated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:53PM
I am seeing lots of opportunities for for-profit hackers creating mods that wipe the memory just as soon as the engine has the data it needs to go the next 10 seconds.
breaking quickly
I hope that's "braking".
the rule that all motor vehicles must be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag
That's still on the books in some places.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @04:23AM
insurance rates go down? when have they EVER gone down after any act of legislation has been passed?
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:47PM
please subscribe, leave a review, and recommend the "Get Off My Lawn" podcast to your friends. Tune in next week for my list of behavioral constraints for pet owners.
(Actually, I agree that driverless cars should be mandatory in public spaces. Fortunately there is no right to drive in the U.S. constitution.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:03PM
Actually, I agree that driverless cars should be mandatory in public spaces.
Do you also think that the companies that produce these mandatory driverless cars should be required to have the cars run using 100% freedom-respecting software?
Fortunately there is no right to drive in the U.S. constitution.
The federal government only has the powers given to it by the Constitution. The power to force people to use driverless cars does not exist in the Constitution, so it would have to be added via an amendment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by arcz on Sunday August 21 2016, @08:17PM
Actually there is a right to drive, it's called the "freedom of movement". It's in that 9th amendment thing. You know, all the rights we had before the constitution was created? Yup, it's old.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:35PM
People are "free to move" in driverless cars.
(Score: 1) by BeaverCleaver on Monday August 22 2016, @08:54AM
I got hassled by a cop for walking (on the very outside!) of I70 in Colorado one January evening. There is no way, as a pedestrian, to cross the river in winter, unless you walk across the freeway. The snow is neck-deep, and the river doesn't freeze over.
Now, I realise this is an edge case... but one could argue that NOT being a motorist meant that my right to move was infringed in this case.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday August 22 2016, @06:24PM
Not an edge case, this is very common. Not only is mass transit limited, roads are hostile to pedestrians. Roads without sidewalks or roads that squeeze pedestrians onto narrow ghetto like strips between high speed traffic and high cinder block walls of housing subdivisions or funnel pedestrians into chain link 'chutes' over noisy thoroughfares. And remember, "only a nobody walks in L.A." even though the average rush hour commute is slower than walking.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:38PM
Any local, state, or federal legislation mandating driverless cars could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. Unlike gun ownership, mandatory driverless cars would be determined by majority vote. (IANAL)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:36AM
Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to mandate driverless cars? At most, this would be a state/local matter.
Furthermore, given what I've said, why do you even think it's a good idea? Do you want to force people to use cars which run proprietary software, have DRM, and likely spy on them? Companies like Google are developing these cars, so it's going to be a privacy nightmare, especially if (and it almost certainly will be) the software is proprietary.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday August 22 2016, @03:57AM
This will be a question of public safety that localities will have full jurisdiction to regulate, similar to the local laws that prohibit smoking in most public spaces.
Because statistics show that primates en masse cannot be trusted to operate vehicles safely. As driverless vehicles become more prevalent, the number of fatalities per commuter mile for human vs machine driven cars will compel lawmakers.
Regarding privacy, congratulations on ripping every proprietary black box and binary blob out of your existing car. You should make a blog showing us how you did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:35PM
This will be a question of public safety that localities will have full jurisdiction to regulate, similar to the local laws that prohibit smoking in most public spaces.
That should be possible.
Because statistics show that primates en masse cannot be trusted to operate vehicles safely.
The amount of car accidents and deaths resulting from them is minuscule compared to the overall human population, and freedom is worth making sacrifices for. I am not convinced.
Regarding privacy, congratulations on ripping every proprietary black box and binary blob out of your existing car.
I use an extremely old car with no such components. There was also the possibility that I did not own a car at all. Thanks for making assumptions, however.
In addition, the fact that the situation is already bad does not mean it's justified to make it worse. Terrible logic on your part.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:47PM
More times than I can count I've had to break the traffic laws to avoid being wiped out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:02PM
...or would starting spewing black smoke and would quickly draw the attention of every cop in town.
Clearly, you haven't ever worked on a car that's less than 3 decades old.
Hint: The black box of modern cars is integral to the fuel and ignition systems.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:02PM
Fascism will return to Europe in the name of Safety.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:29PM
WTF?! Like how safety was/is the gateway of fascist left-wing states of the USA that want to ban things. E.g. abortion because of broom closet sizes, and unnecessary ultrasound scans...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:49PM
fascist left-wing
Those 2 terms are opposites.
If you mean "bully boys" or "Authoritarian" you should use those terms.
Fascism is where Capitalists are in complete control of the economy and the government.
Fascism is Authoritarian (in the extreme, that's jackboots, brown shirts, and clubs for beating people).
Charted, Fascism is at the top-Right of the political palate. [politicalcompass.org]
(Not coincidentally, that was where the Clown Car of Republican candidates were clustered in this year's presidential run; the chart has omitted people since the primaries ended.)
.
What Fascism is NOT is Socialism (anti-Capitalism; control by the workers; "The Left").
It's also not Libertarian (supporting civil liberties rather than overlords AKA a bottom-up system), which is the bottom half of the chart.
.
want to ban things. E.g. abortion because of broom closet sizes
You must be dyslexic.
What you described is Authoritarianism.[1]
It's as far from "Left" as you could possibly get.
The folks who are pulling that shit are Reactionaries AKA "The Far Right" AKA Fox Watchers (who are also Authoritarian).
If you want to connect "ban things" with not-Far-Right entities, you need to look to stuff like politically-incorrect speech or smoking.
[1] It's also Fundamentalist religiosity.
The Left also tends to be much less religious.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:52AM
Interesting revisionist approach to defining the political spectrum.
For example, I wonder where exactly Comrade Stalin would have fitted in to that view of things?
About as far away from "Right" as you can imagine ideologically. Yet implementing the exact same abominations, just by a different name.
Yes, two dimensions are better than one for representing the political spectrum. But that's still nowhere near a complete model.
Start by realising that (if you're not willing to recognise at least 3 of 4 dimensions in their own right), a 2d model must at least be *curved* -- all 4 corners of your flat model (i.e. the extremists of any creed) meet at the same point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @04:36AM
Stalin [...] as far away from "Right" as you can imagine
Nope. Lenin and Stalin like to put a veneer of "communism" on the system they had but what they had for government was Totalitarianism.
The "collectivism" they had was forced labor (and, after that, they stole ALL the harvest and tens of millions of those workers starved).
Their economy, as illustrated above, benefited only a few and everyone else was left with crumbs.
That's CAPITALISM--specifically, State Capitalism. [wikipedia.org]
Stop pretending you know anything about economics or government.
Those who fed you all that propaganda did a good job.
Your head is full of nonsense.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:15PM
Advanced driving courses weren't mentioned as a means to improve safety.
Nothing I can think of would increase safety more than a day at the skidpad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:32PM
Drivers who do not make their intentions sufficiently clear or who try to "be nice" at stop signs and whatnot by waving the other person along even when they have right-of-way are the absolute worst people on the road. Aggressive driving that is not reckless is a great thing. If it is obvious that you are going to get over a lane no matter what and do so quickly, your maneuver slows down everyone behind you far less than the idiot who SLOWS DOWN on an entrance ramp because they start to run out of ramp and no one has given them a car length of free space in front and behind. "Nice" "defensive" drivers are traffic jamming morons. I can't count how many collisions I wasn't in because I sped up and got out of the way instead of hitting the brakes; likewise, I have been nearly hit by people who were signaling but not doing anything that suddenly decided to act on the signal well after it was turned on and they had had ample space and time to complete the lane change or turn.
If someone doesn't take their right-of-way quickly, I get "aggressive" and quickly and decisively steal it from them. If they wave me along to "be nice," I do so quickly because otherwise they're going to keep sitting there looking like they've massively farted in their own faces and can't disperse the poop gas fast enough until I take action. I do not worry about being hit because they can clearly see that I'm NOT dicking around and my intent is unquestionable.
Technically I am "an aggressive driver" by many standards, yet I never have wrecks and don't even come close to causing wrecks. I call it "assertive driving" because it is actually safer than "defensive driving" and "aggressive" implies "reckless" in the minds of many.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:50PM
Oh my - let us examine terminology here, for a moment.
""Nice" "defensive" drivers are traffic jamming morons."
Defensive driving is a very GOOD THING! A properly trained defensive driver can also be an assertive and/or an aggressive driver. The terms are not antonyms, after all.
I was taught a number of defensive driving skills. First, you always look for an "out", just in case the idiot behind/beside/ahead of you causes a situation that you don't like. Second, you always look for the "best" place to crash - that is, ANYTHING is better than a head on collision. If avoiding that head on means driving off the road, you CHOOSE what to hit. Undergrowth is better than a tree, a tree might be better than a bridge abutment, mud or sand is probably better than almost anything.
A defensive driver constandly checks his mirrors, never stops scanning the road. He looks as far down the road as possible, and watches the traffic flow for unusual situations.
A defensive driver develops a lot of the same skills that cyclists learn, just to stay alive.
I think we all know what you meant, but I think you chose the wrong word to convey what you meant. Defensive driving is a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:38PM
When driving I stand my ground and don't take shit. If anyone fucks with me, tap tap and I put them DOWN. It's defensive - I can't tell you the number of A-HOLES I've had to take out of the game. That's the only way you get R'SPECT by showing beta bitches I'm the alpha dog on the road. They grudgingly admit they like it when I run them off the road and put a bullet thru their window, then the bitches start crying and I'm like woah bitch and they're like mammi mammi and I'm like SHUT UP bitch. That's how you drive.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:45PM
My taxes pay your salary, you dumb cop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:39PM
Man, this Adrian Lowery is one fucked up dude. He needs to be committed.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:27PM
1) There's nothing in this boneheaded list that qualifies as "Communist", or even " Socialist." At least using non-USian definitions.
2) There's really also nothing "Orwellian", at least based on his actual writing.
Sometimes things are best described as just " really, really stupid". Or "Libertarian."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:16PM
It is high time to check into the Old age Home, and STAY THERE.
What we need (not only in Hinglund) is going after the 1% of morons and NOT punishing the 99% with restrictions, walking-speed limits, dozens of bumps, roundabouts and obstructions, etc, etc, etc. Bloody beigeists..
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:52PM
So how much free publicity are we giving this nitwit?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:41AM
but, as many have pointed out, this list is a bunch of fucking fascist bullshit!
Seriously, though, we don't need more laws to prevent bad driving--we have enough laws already. I'm in the U.S., in WA state; here's our state's 404-page title of motor vehicle statutes [wa.gov]. And these don't even include DUI or other criminal driving offenses which are in another title!
At least here, we have shitty driving because none of the laws are actually effectively enforced. The only traffic enforcement I've seen local police for the last several years is to sit on the side of the road with a radar gun; since everyone speeds, they usually just pull over every tenth car (or, more probably, cars that look like they're being driven by a minority) and write them a ticket. Occasionally state patrol will announce they're cracking down on left-lane cruising (which is a huge problem here), but I still see people doing it all the time regardless.
Heck, on the radio now I've heard enforcement warnings about texting and driving saying that, it's "dangerous, even at stop lights." Umm, how is it dangerous, exactly? If I'm waiting in a line of cars for two or three light cycles trying to get through an intersection (as will happen every rush hour here), are you really saying that reading something on my phone while I'm stopped is dangerous? Whatever, we all know the goal of this is to allow police to just chill by an intersection for their whole shift and write a ticket to the poor bastard who pulls his phone out in boredom.
Why are the police allowed to half-ass their jobs this much? I regularly see trains of cars tailgating each other at 60mph on the freeway, cars with either improperly adjusted headlights or that just have their high-beams on, grey cars driving with no lights on at all in the pouring rain, last-minute lane changes across multiple lanes of traffic, speeding up to block merging traffic, failure to yield to emergency vehicles, etc., and the police are nowhere to be found, probably too busy writing speeding tickets. Please, pull these people over and fine them harshly--you guys have dash cams which should make proving their actions easy, right?
If it were up to me, I'd seriously consider abolishing speed limits, since the police have shown they can't effectively prioritize enforcement of the actually dangerous offenses when they have easy offenses available to them.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 22 2016, @06:08PM
Unfortunately I'm out of mod points for the day :P
While this argument is particularly true for driving, it also applies to a number of other legal areas in the U.S.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:01AM
My only rule in traffic is: don't hinder other people, or bring them in harms way. If everybody did the same, most of current traffic rules could be tossed.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 22 2016, @12:35PM
My family and i finished an 8,000 mile summer roadtrip around America on Saturday, so i had a lot of time to reflect on this very subject. Mandated driverless cars would solve the problem of reckless driving on well-travelled roads, but would kill thousands more on those that are unusual because there are enormous gaps in the software. We wound up dependent on old-fashioned paper maps because google maps didn't even register the roads we were on and couldn't plot GPS because we were outside coverage 50% of the time.
In fact, eliminating cell/data coverage would dramatically improve safety on the roads because the erratic drivers we encountered were invariably gawking at their cell phones.
The only thing that is really required to keep roads tolerably safe is not to universally, totally invade privacy, but for the highway patrol to do their jobs. They do that in most places, with the notable exception of Tennessee, where yutzes in Ford F150's drive 90-95mph on roads rated for 65mph because no one patrols the roads.
Washington DC delenda est.