951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it shows what happens when you don't have a strong military and try to invade a neighbor...
Since my point wasn't obvious, let me explain. Ukraine had a very weak military. If it was stronger, Putin would never have invaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turing didn’t need help out of depression. He needed to NOT be persecuted, tortured, and mutilated by the state, furthering the point that people in power should not interfere with the rights of free people to go about their lives as they see fit as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
I agree, I didnt question the reason behind the suicide, I just wanted to point out that not all suicidal people can be labeled as burdens to society. > Live as they see fit So in your opinion that includes killing oneself, even in cases that could be avoided if access to appropriate help could be provided? (Not enforced, provided as an alternative option to suicide)
Following that logic, should we lock everyone in a cell under 24/7 suicide watch because it would prevent some people from committing suicide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Two times our car got hit the driver ran and left no note. Its fucked because then we pay the $750 deductible. Cops dont even try to find who did it. Really frustrating.
> Yup. Two times our car got hit the driver ran and left no note. Its fucked because then we pay the $750 deductible. Cops dont even try to find who did it. Really frustrating. If you're complaining about the driver not leaving a note, that implies no one you know was there with your car to witness your crash. How do you expect the cops to even try to find out who did it? Go full CSI?
Never owned a car of my own until two years ago. Our car has been hit three times in the last two years. Once totaled on the high way (another drivers fault) and twice while parked. Roughly 50K in damages across the two cars and 3 months in the shop doing repairs. We spent 20K on a new car after the old one was totaled and insurance paid out a fraction of what a similar car would cost. We've paid close to 2K in deduc…
Move to Europe - we have good buses, trains and cycle lanes :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never owned or driven a car, yet they're around me every day, putting my life at risk (both short-term, that they may crash into me; and long-term, since I'm forced to breathe their emissions) Whilst pedestrians should avoid risky behaviour, we're still largely powerless; e.g. I recently had an encounter with a motorist reversing out of their driveway without looking, and I've twice had motorists drive down the…
At the same time, it's not possible to eliminate all risk from life. Even if all cars disappeared overnight, pedestrians are still getting killed by cyclists for example. And with cars gone there would be a huge increase in cycling, thus cycling-involved deaths. In such a world (where cars disappeared) would we be having this thread about a need to now ban all bicycles? To some extent there will always be some risk,…
As for a hypothetical bicycle ban in a counterfactual universe, I find the premise too uninteresting to form an opinion about.
I'm far more interested in this world; and don't much care for vacuous syllogisms like 'killing is bad; X kills; therefore X is bad', when there's more to be gleaned from measurement, comparison and statistics. For example, off the top of my head:
- How many are killed by cars compared to bicycles (say, per person-km)?
- How likely is a car crash to kill someone compare to a bicycle crash?
- What is the impact on life-expectancy from driving versus cycling (e.g. sedentary activity versus exercise)?
- How does the throughput of bicycles compare to that of cars?
- How does the infrastructure cost of bicycles compare to that of cars?
- How does the environmental impact of bicycles compare to that of cars?
- etc.
I find these to be far more interesting questions than trivial binaries like 'do cars kill?' (yes; so what?), or 'do bicycles kill?' (yes; so what?).
Similarly, the statistics above can inform a whole spectrum of decisions and interventions that can be made; again, off the top of my head:
- The setting of speed limits
- The setting of road-worthiness criteria
- The setting of test and license requirements
- The layout and features of infrastructure (sight-lines, speed bumps, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and their sequencing, etc.)
- The classification and permitted uses of roads (e.g. one-way systems, bus lanes, segregated or integrated cycle lanes, etc.)
- etc.
Again, these are seem far more interesting than strawman cliches like "should we ban X?" (which, as far as I can see, you're the one bringing up? I certainly never mentioned it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There must be security camera footage along the street before and after the car's location. It doesn't seem implausible to find the damaged car leaving that wasn't damaged coming. You could also look at the damaged vehicle to figure out the paint of the other car, I'm guessing something would be left behind. You could contact repair shops in the area looking for a match. I don't know - I'm not a cop but there are cer…
Sure if you have infinite resources to throw at a problem, you can do a lot. The actual question is: how much effort is all that, is it worth it, and what's the chance of success? Realistically, for a property damage case, you're not going to get ten cops scanning hours of grainy security camera footage (that may not exist) from different angles and running all over town for weeks checking every auto body shop in the…
Ignoring, and tacitly permitting, crime results in more crime which in turn results in greater demand for effort. Thoroughly investigating and resolving crime may be more expensive than ignoring crime in the short term, but long term it pays off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like the prudent way of handling your example T-intersection is to rebuild it so it is no longer a T-intersection, or to move it in a way that forces people to slow down (e.g. by turning it 30 degrees, with curves leading into it, or by setting up a roundabout, or by moving it into a position where you see the crossing road more easily).
Curves before intersections are evil for bicycles. They create unanticipated moving blind spots for drivers, blind spots than can hide a bicycle approaching on the cross street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in Europe, there is a very annoying beep if you don't wear the seatbelt. You can still drive, and there are ways to disable it, but most people just wear their seatbelt. I don't think it is mandatory, but it counts in the EuroNCAP score, and since it is one of the easiest safety feature to implement, they all have it.
It was fun when people were sitting on engaged seatbelts to prevent the beep :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which baffles the rest of the world as we see the aggregate number and are dumbfounded that nothing is done.
The question under dispute is what is to be done. Removing guns from law abiding citizens is preferred by one vocal faction, rather than imprisoning criminals who use them in committing crimes (and who usually don't possess their guns legally). The other faction says that removing guns from law abiding citizens actually increases crime[0]. [0] https://twitter.com/AnneMarieWTHR/status/1549484122497843200...