The quasi Official Stupid Ideas that have actually been done thread
-
Isn't that counteracted by the increased chance your KE will go smashing into someone else's simply because neither you nor they can see which half of the road they're on?
Just saying.
-
Why are children standing in the middle of roads?
-
Isn't that counteracted by the increased chance your KE will go smashing into someone else's simply because neither you nor they can see which half of the road they're on?
Just saying.
I'd expect probably so, but that apparently hasn't occurred to some people.
-
Isn't that counteracted by the increased chance your KE will go smashing into someone else's simply because neither you nor they can see which half of the road they're on?
Just saying.
Blind people usually don't receive driver's licences.
-
-
I don't think I've ever heard that particular joke before. TIL.
-
Why are children standing in the middle of roads?
Because until trained not to they don't have the presense of mind to stay out of them.
Theoretically it also helps drivers not lose control on unexpected corners and the like.
-
Blind people usually don't receive driver's licences.
TIL @Rhywden's not familiar with the way people drive on winding country roads: in the center.
INB4 pendantry: I'm not saying that's the smartest way to drive, but lots of people do it.
-
-
I saw that ninja edit.
-
You obviously have a driver's license, then.
-
You obviously have a driver's license, then.
Actually from what I've said in this thread today you wouldn't be able to discern that. I could be driving without a license and just not caught yet because I'm so law-abiding.
-
Again.
-
And yes I did speed up
You've told us it was too dark/raining/foggy to see where you're going, but then when you can see a white line you go faster? I understand that now you know where the road goes so you may have more warning of junctions and turns, but what about all the other things you still can't see?
-
Ah. "Let's 'increase safety' by
making it harder for the driversremoving the false sense of security". Seems legit.Using a painted white line to separate two cars moving towards each other in opposite directions at 100km/h+ each is a pretty terrible idea. Making drivers think they're safe because the paint will protect them isn't great either.
-
Making drivers think they're safe because the paint will protect them isn't great either.
I live in an area of Essex with a large number of older drivers, and lots of country lanes with no lines. I do NOT want to see no lines adopted as a nationwide policy. Too many people take the view of
I need at least 3 feet between my car and the edge of the road at all times
This obviously puts them on your side of the road, where they are very reluctant to move from. It is worse at night, when you can't easily tell where they are in relation to the edge of the road because *they have't dipped their headlamps*. Removing lines nationwide is a recipe for chaos as they will have nothing to recalibrate their idea of where they should be in relation to everybody else. Road rage incidents will increase. Cats and dogs will live together and the world will end.
-
I do NOT want to see no lines adopted as a nationwide policy.
No, that would be a terrible idea too. Road lines do serve an important purpose in providing a common reference for drivers to use to position themselves on the road. In particular, any road with multiple lanes in one direction would be chaos without a dividing line. I'm sure there are many other situations, maybe even most, where a dividing line is better than not.
I was mostly objecting to people immediately dismissing the idea as stupid without consideration. I don't think it belongs in this thread.
-
Using a painted white line to separate two cars moving towards each other in opposite directions at 100km/h+ each is a pretty terrible idea.
And yet somehow, billions of cars pass each other every single day, the vast majority of which do it without incident.
-
without consideration.
It's interesting that you think that's the case. I assure you, as someone with tens of thousands of miles of driving experience on winding country lanes, I did not dismiss the idea without consideration.
-
And yet somehow, billions of cars pass each other every single day, the vast majority of which do it without incident.
I don't know if "billions" is correct given that most roads carrying a large amount of traffic at high speed are dual carriageways or otherwise physically separated.
Anyway, the cost of failing to pass each other without incident is usually a head-on collision. This is bad for the occupants of both cars involved, the occupants of all the cars involved in secondary collisions and all the people that get stuck in the resulting traffic jam. Plus the rescue crews who get to collect body parts and clean up the blood. And that's not even considering the economic costs from repair or replacement of vehicles and road furniture, lost productivity, etc.
So even if only one in a million passes is unsuccessful, the cost is so high that it's a pretty big deal.
-
I don't know if "billions" is correct given that most roads carrying a large amount of traffic at high speed are dual carriageways or otherwise physically separated.
It's a big planet. I probably passed 50 cars today on undivided-except-for-a-line roads, and I wasn't on them more than 20 minutes.
-
as someone with tens of thousands of miles of driving experience on winding country lanes
From your previous posts on tyres, stalling cars, (not) covering brakes, lap-sash seat belts as a retaining device, etc, I can confidently tell you that all your experience means exactly nothing. Your opinions on driving are without basis in fact and are not shared by the majority of experts.
-
previous posts on tyres
Here we go again. Fuck you, you idiot, there was nothing wrong with what I did.
I have driven at least a third of a million miles with no accidents worse than clipping the mirror of another car my first year behind the wheel.
-
Fuck you, you idiot, there was nothing wrong with what I did.
Your arguments are compelling but unfortunately you have not swayed my opinion of your opinion.
-
Your arguments are compelling but unfortunately you have not swayed my opinion of your opinion.
It's simple, even though you're too stubborn to admit it. 300,000+ miles, no significant accidents where I am at fault, even when I've done a few things that weren't safe enough for your bubble-wrapped ass, means I'm either the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet, or a good driver.
-
I'm either the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet, or a good driver.
Non-fatal accident statistics seem to be hard to come by with only ten seconds effort.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data says 185 crashes per 100 million miles. At 300,000 miles you should have had 0.6 or so crashes. So you haven't proven luck or skill yet.
http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/ says:
the average U.S. driver has one accident roughly every 165,000 miles
which is quite a bit more, 2 for you so far. But you said "where I am at fault" so maybe you've had others? The stats I found don't distinguish fault.
-
Why are children standing in the middle of roads?
Not enough people knocking them out ofitthem.
-
We're more civilized in Britain. We ask the victim if they'd mind terribly committing suicide when they have a minute to spare. Thanks old bean
I thought that was more of a Stalinesque technique.
-
Very fitting.
-
-
Nah, it's trolling that's the real crime here:
Each was convicted of sending malicious communications, after admitting they made the comments for shock value
-
Posting quotes.
A crime.
The story is really light. The bit that gets me is the ambiguity between:
...posting quotes online praising Islamic State in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.
...and...
Calderdale magistrates heard they claimed to support the terror attacks on the French capital and warned of a bogus future attack in Manchester.
Did the postings sound like they were planning an attack or something? That sounds like a legit thing to prosecute on.
Did they repost something they saw somewhere and represented it as their own speech? Then their defense would have been "posting quotes" even though it would look like their own speech to the casual reader.
Online details about the incident seem pretty light so I'm not sure at whom to direct my mockery.
-
There was a guy in Germany the other day you got big fines for having atheist bumper stickers. I didn't post the article here, but I Skyped Kuro to mock his country for being dumb. As you do.
-
hey @Lorne_Kates how much money/time did you spent to do that?
-
There was a guy in Germany the other day you got big fines for having atheist bumper stickers. I didn't post the article here, but I Skyped Kuro to mock his country for being dumb. As you do.
It's one of those stupid laws from way back. I also don't understand why it hasn't been struck down yet, particularly considering that it's been used very rarely, handled very unevenly and quite often the public prosecution department will decline to even take it to court in the first place.
I mean, in Berlin they declined to prosecute a blogger when he called the Catholic Church a "sect consisting of child fuckers".
I dare say that the next court will cashier the conviction.
-
I mean, in Berlin they declined to prosecute a blogger when he called the Catholic Church a "sect consisting of child fuckers".
Ahh - but he didn't say "sect entirely consisting of..." So he's technically correct. Unless they convict him of calling it a "sect".
-
Unless they convict him of calling it a "sect".
At least he didn't call them a “cult”. That would be really microaggressively offensive. ;)
-
@dcon said:
Unless they convict him of calling it a "sect".
At least he didn't call them a “cult”. That would be really microaggressively offensive. ;)
Call them a "cunt". That's macroaggressivly offensive.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Call them a "cunt". That's macroaggressivly offensive.
Only if you subscribe to the opinion that female genitalia are inherently offensive.
-
-
THE FASTEST MAN-MADE OBJECT EVER: A NUCLEAR-POWERED MANHOLE COVER
At 10:35pm on August 27, 1957 in Area U3d of the New Mexico Nuclear Test Site, the bomb was detonated. But instead of the expected small yield the bomb detonated with a yield approximately five orders of magnitude greater than expected (that’s about 100 000 times greater). The blast instantly vaporized the entire multi-ton concrete collimator and shot it up the tube as a multi-ton wave of vaporized matter at extremely high temperature, pressure, and velocity. The shaft had, in effect, become a enormous 500-foot long, four-foot wide gun barrel with the energy of billions of pounds of TNT released at one end and, at the other end, the now insignificantly small metal cap, about the equivalent of a bottle cap on the end of a naval gun.
More details at the link.
-
@boomzilla A funny story, but unfortunately not true: http://io9.gizmodo.com/no-a-nuclear-explosion-did-not-launch-a-manhole-cover-1715340946
-
@RaceProUK I can tell you didn't read the article.
-
@boomzilla I read the article; then I read the other article that debunked the first
-
@RaceProUK Except that it doesn't really. OK, the speed would have been a bit slower. How much? Doesn't say. The story is awesome whatever the actual numbers are.
-
@boomzilla What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen, nuclear powered manhole cover?
-
@Jaloopa New Mexican or South Pacific?
-
@Jaloopa said in The quasi Official Stupid Ideas that have actually been done thread:
Have these people ever seen a modern e-cigarette? It's more like an asthma inhaler than a cigarette.
Rather anti-inhaler. Rode a bus once with a jerk with an e-cig which made me almost asphyxiate. I never had asthma, but I now know how an attack feels.
-
I have bitten the bullet and imported a tuple library instead of writing them frequently.
-