@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

  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.

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.

Those things are all bad in the same way that prostitution is, just less so. I'd add to the list: giving resources without even getting sex (simping), consumption of pornography, and divorce are all degenerate forms of relationships that in the ideal would be marriage.

It seems like you don't like cycling.

there's no need for this medium speed, low-safety, exhausting means of transport

How about

  1. Getting some default amount of exercise every day just from running errands and commuting. This is mainly a benefit to the cyclist, but in countries with more socialized medicine, it's a public good too.
  2. Saving money. For people who live in denser areas, much of the cost of a car is the capital expense and fixed maintenance.
  3. Saving time. For short trips in dense areas where it's hard to park, a bike beats driving.
  4. Combining all three. Even if cycling takes longer and doesn't save much money, the fact that it's combining exercise, travel, relaxation, and thrift makes it pretty good use of time for a lot of people.
  5. Reducing traffic. Where I live, due to traffic it takes about as long to commute 20 miles by bike as by car. Believe it or not most of the time a cyclist is on the road they are not in conflict with any cars; they're using shoulders or bike paths. A car on the freeway is taking up that much extra space the whole time.

This is all completely orthogonal to whether cyclists obey traffic laws. I'm all for ticketing cyclists and making their movements more legible to the law. I think this would go a long way towards cycling becoming more normalized so that people can have discussions based on tradeoffs rather than emotions.

I knew what video this was before I clicked on it. It's a classic.