@ChestertonsMeme's banner p

ChestertonsMeme

blocking the federal fist

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 06:20:52 UTC

				

User ID: 1098

ChestertonsMeme

blocking the federal fist

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 06:20:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1098

Cars should abide by the "Gentleman's Agreement" to stick around 300hp, and anything larger than that should be heavily taxed. 300hp is plenty to have a quick mid size sedan, a very fast small car, or a reasonably drivable large SUV/pickup truck. Capping horsepower on most cars would encourage people who want to drive fast sporty cars to buy small cars, and discourage people from driving giant SUVs and pickup trucks they can't handle too fast.

This is a great idea. Another idea along these lines is to have a momentum limit so that any individual vehicle is limited in how much damage it can do to another. Lighter vehicles could go faster and heavier vehicles would be limited to a lower speed. Speed limits could be raised in many cases if there was a momentum limit.

Scaling liability with momentum would help too, by increasing insurance premiums for large dangerous vehicles.

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. No, mainly because speed limits are inappropriately low in most cases.
  4. Left lane is for passing only, but cutting drivers off and tailgating are wrong too.
  5. No, it's not okay to break the law. However, see 7.
  6. No, everyone follows the same rules.
  7. There should be a new law on merging: if another vehicle ahead is signaling to change into your lane, you must slow down to let them in. This would encourage drivers to use the whole roadway instead of lining up a mile back to get into a specific lane. In most cases this would lead to more efficient use of road space, and it would make driving a lot less stressful for people who are not assertive. It's painful to ride with a driver who has no guts and can't assertively merge.

The "can't remember the name of their medication" test is a frustratingly close mirror to the Obama administration's 'fiduciary' test, which was quite broadly applied to people whose sole sin was having difficultly dealing with a checkbook.

Could you give some more context on what this is, for those unfamiliar? All I can find is a rule about financial professionals having to act in their clients' best interests.