Nice Truck! or the Where's Waldo of WTFs



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  I'm in favor of allowing anything that lets stupid people kill themselves faster.
    Which is why I replace the "Do not rock" signs on vending machines with ones that say "Shake for free candy!"



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @KenW said:

    No, it's a testament to the average intelligence of the politicians here. We normal New Yorkers think the politicians who support laws like this one (and the "no cell phone use while driving unless using a hands-free device" law, which is a $100 fine if caught but rarely enforced) are idiots.

    So you're the one in favor of drivers having their lights off when it is raining and talking on cellphones and the politicians are the idiots?

     

    No. I'm the one opposed to making laws to cover things that are common sense requirements. You know, like turning your lights on to make yourself more visible in inclement weather, or not talking on the cell phone while you're driving.

    I'm also in favor of large municipalities not starting large-scale construction projects in the downtown area all at the same time and therefore having them last for years and years, to the point that area residents name them things like "The Big Dig". Aren't you? 

    I think passing laws to mandate what is common sense is just a way for politicians to add new revenue streams. They serve no other purpose. 



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    The stupid thing is (at least in Texas) that it's legal for a passenger sitting in the backseat to not wear a seatbelt, which is one of the only instances in which they can be a danger to someone besides themselves: in the event of an accident they can potentially fly forward and strike the head of the person in front of them.

     

    An accident like that got a friend of mine a skull fracture and both legs broken, and he was lucky to only have an ugly scar and limp for live, as a result of this.
    Of course the idiot on the back only got a a few stitches....




  • @KenW said:

    No. I'm the one opposed to making laws to cover things that are common sense requirements. You know, like turning your lights on to make yourself more visible in inclement weather, or not talking on the cell phone while you're driving.

     

    Except that common sense isn't so common.  You might as well get rid of laws against murder, too, since only stupid or evil people would ever kill another human.  I'm opposed to laws that protect people from themselves, but definitely in favor of laws that protect me from other people.

     

    @KenW said:

    I'm also in favor of large municipalities not starting large-scale construction projects in the downtown area all at the same time and therefore having them last for years and years, to the point that area residents name them things like "The Big Dig". Aren't you?

    That's kind of out of right field..  The Big Dig was mostly just one big project, the construction of an underground highway throught he downtown area.  It didn't drag on because of multiple projects being poorly planned, but because it got a late start due to beauracracy and continued to face engineering and political problems like water leaks and corrupt contractors using sub-standard materials.  At the end of the day, it's definitely good it got built and some of the problems were unavoidable engineering ones, but it also would have been nice if billions hadn't been lost due to corruption and beauracracy. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    My '86 Fiero doesn't have daytime running lights.  In fact, it doesn't even have electric lights, you have to light an oil lamp by hand.  I suppose I could keep it lit during the day, but oil is expensive. 

     

    Please tell me your last name is Monserrat. That would make my day :D




  • @fatdog said:

    @durendal.mk3 said:

    The stupid thing is (at least in Texas) that it's legal for a passenger sitting in the backseat to not wear a seatbelt, which is one of the only instances in which they can be a danger to someone besides themselves: in the event of an accident they can potentially fly forward and strike the head of the person in front of them.

     

    An accident like that got a friend of mine a skull fracture and both legs broken, and he was lucky to only have an ugly scar and limp for live, as a result of this.
    Of course the idiot on the back only got a a few stitches....


     

     

    Here in the UK, there was a safety campaign because of exactly this not long after we introduced rear seatbelts. 

    United Kingdom PSA: "Belt Up In The Back" – 00:50
    — SimNation



  • @timbstoke said:

    Here in the UK, there was a safety campaign because of exactly this not long after we introduced rear seatbelts.

    To be fair, the UK would probably have to have a safety campaign after introducing pointy knives. 



  • Do you know how many people are killed or injured by pointy knives over here?



  • @trainbrain27 said:

    Do you know how many people are killed or injured by pointy knives over here?

    Far fewer than Darwin demands?



  • We don't need Darwin to help filll our pointy-knife-related death quota.

     

    We have chavs. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The seatbelt law only protects a stupid person from themself.
     

    Not true. The seatbelt law protects taxpayers from the financial cost when the country provides medical care for stupid people.

    B



  • @havokk said:

    Not true. The seatbelt law protects taxpayers from the financial cost when the country provides medical care for stupid people.
     

    Why would the country foot the bill if you crash with no seatbelt on?



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Why would the country foot the bill if you crash with no seatbelt on?

    Remember that we Euretards actually need to cover the costs of the healthcare of all diving-without-seatbelt, mountain-climbing etc. idiots from our taxes because they deserve it.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @havokk said:

    Not true. The seatbelt law protects taxpayers from the financial cost when the country provides medical care for stupid people.
     

    Why would the country foot the bill if you crash with no seatbelt on?

    Because in the UK the majority of people don't have private medical insurance and rely on the National Health Service, paid for by the taxpayer.  Unfortunately said service is (largely) indiscriminate as regards the stupidity of the cause of injury. I say largely because there have been various moves to withhold certain treatment(s) from people who voluntarily poison themselves with tobacco, alcohol etc.



  • @DrJokepu said:

     @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Why would the country foot the bill if you crash with no seatbelt on?

    Remember that we Euretards actually need to cover the costs of the healthcare of all diving-without-seatbelt, mountain-climbing etc. idiots from our taxes because they deserve it.

     

    Um. Read the thread. No one was talking about Europe. The discussion was about the US.



  • @Zagyg said:

    I say largely because there have been various moves to withhold certain treatment(s) from people who voluntarily poison themselves with tobacco, alcohol etc.

    As a heavy smoker and drinker I find it delightful that the UK government could steal money from me and then refuse me healthcare based on my own personal choices.  Too bad I live in the Bad 'Ol USA where I pay for my own healthcare and don't have a bunch of pencildicks telling me they won't cover illnesses when I've paid for the insurance myself.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Um. Read the thread. No one was talking about Europe. The discussion was about the US.
     

    Um. Read the thread. There was also discussion of pointy-knives (originally started by morbius) and the UK, and FYI the UK isn't in the US. (They were once, but we kicked their butts out a couple hundred years ago.) 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @DogmaBites said:

    About 10 years ago when I lived in Framingham, MA I saw this guy on the side of the road near a car dealership.  He was about 60 and he was holding a sign.  One side said "Boycott daytime running lights" and the other said "Daytime running lights are dangerous".

    I have no idea what caused him to conclude that DRLs were dangerous.   I haven't come up with a scenario where having your lights on would be more dangerous than off (outside of covert operations).

     

    I agree with him. They are fucking stupid and dangerous.

    You end up with a ton of people who think it is ok to just use DRLs in fog, rain or other low visibility weather. Thing is, they don't do anything to illuminate the back of your car like having your head lights on would do.

     I see it all the time around here. It would be much better if headlights were just wired to always be on, there is really no reason for them not to be.

     

    Some think you use slightly more gas when your electrical system is under load.  Why a simple scientific test of this on two identical cars has not been performed, I don't know.  Sounds like even a Mythbusters episode would help.

     

    The always-on lights would also end up stranding a lot of people with weak batteries or charging systems who would otherwise been able to make it home or to the shop.



  • @operagost said:

    Some think you use slightly more gas when your electrical system is under load. 
     

    Perhaps, but those people are idiots. 

    @operagost said:

    The always-on lights would also end up stranding a lot of people with weak batteries or charging systems who would otherwise been able to make it home or to the shop.

    Oh well. Learn to maintain your vehicle then.



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @operagost said:
    Some think you use slightly more gas when your electrical system is under load. 
    Perhaps, but those people are idiots.


    No, you are the idiot. Electrical systems significantly increase fuel consumption, as the energy to power these devices causes increased load on the alternator. Since alternators are commonly only 40-60% efficient, the added load from electronics on the engine can be as high as 3 horsepower at any speed including idle. In the FTP 75 cycle test, a 200 watt load on the alternator reduces fuel efficiency by 1.7 mpg. Headlights, for example, consume 110 watts on low and up to 240 watts on high



  • @JvdL said:

    No, you are the idiot. Electrical systems significantly increase fuel consumption, as the energy to power these devices causes increased load on the alternator. Since alternators are commonly only 40-60% efficient, the added load from electronics on the engine can be as high as 3 horsepower at any speed including idle. In the FTP 75 cycle test, a 200 watt load on the alternator reduces fuel efficiency by 1.7 mpg. Headlights, for example, consume 110 watts on low and up to 240 watts on high
     

    If this is a serious justification for you not using your headlights then I am afraid you really are an idiot. But whatever.

    Seriously, being a cheapskate and lowering safety is just stupid. Next you will tell me you also recommend over inflating your tires and tailgating trucks to save fuel economy.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @JvdL said:

    No, you are the idiot. Electrical systems significantly increase fuel consumption, as the energy to power these devices causes increased load on the alternator. Since alternators are commonly only 40-60% efficient, the added load from electronics on the engine can be as high as 3 horsepower at any speed including idle. In the FTP 75 cycle test, a 200 watt load on the alternator reduces fuel efficiency by 1.7 mpg. Headlights, for example, consume 110 watts on low and up to 240 watts on high
    If this is a serious justification for you not using your headlights then I am afraid you really are an idiot. But whatever. Seriously, being a cheapskate and lowering safety is just stupid. Next you will tell me you also recommend over inflating your tires and tailgating trucks to save fuel economy.

    Where did I justify or recommend those things? 



  • @JvdL said:

    Where did I justify or recommend those things? 
     

    It is implied in your reply.

    If you don't believe those things then there was no reason to reply.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @JvdL said:
    Where did I justify or recommend those things? 
    It is implied in your reply.

    Merely stating a fact doesn't imply anything.

    Here's another fact: driving consumes fuel. According to your twisted logic, anybody who
    knows that, that is, anybody who has ever filled up his car at a gas station,
    will never drive a car anymore?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If you don't believe those things then there was no reason to reply.

    Many times, you call idiot on people who claim falsehoods. That's good.

    This time you called idiot on people for merely stating a well-known, proven fact. That's a good reason to reply.



  • @JvdL said:

    Merely stating a fact doesn't imply anything.
     

    It does when you reply to a thread of thoughts about a certain topic.

    @JvdL said:

    Here's another fact: driving consumes fuel. According to your twisted logic, anybody who
    knows that, that is, anybody who has ever filled up his car at a gas station,
    will never drive a car anymore?

    WTF are you talking about? Did you even read this thread? I have been stating that people who don't use their lights while driving are stupid. That is all. Using the excuse that it consumes more fuel is even stupider.

    @JvdL said:

    Many times, you call idiot on people who claim falsehoods. That's good.

    You clearly need to sit down and read this thread.

    Read what I said above. I didn't call anyone an idiot for believing that fuel consumption is increased by headlights. I called them idiots for not using headlights because of that.

    @JvdL said:

    That's a good reason to reply.

    What would be a good reason to read the thread before replying?



  • @operagost said:

    Some think you use slightly more gas when your electrical system is under load.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Perhaps, but those people are idiots

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You clearly need to sit down and read this thread. Read
    what I said above. I didn't call anyone an idiot for believing that
    fuel consumption is increased by headlights. I called them idiots for
    not using headlights because of that.

    May I suggest
    statins?



  • @timbstoke said:

    We don't need Darwin to help filll our pointy-knife-related death quota.

     We have chavs. 

     

    I'm pretty sure in the UK they generally use pointed sticks, fresh fruit and a 16 ton weight...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Defence_Against_Fresh_Fruit



  • @JvdL said:

    May I suggest
    statins?
     

    You see, this is the same word twisting being employed by our newest, favorite mod.

    You have to read more in a thread than just two posts.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @JvdL said:

    No, you are the idiot. Electrical systems significantly increase fuel consumption, as the energy to power these devices causes increased load on the alternator. Since alternators are commonly only 40-60% efficient, the added load from electronics on the engine can be as high as 3 horsepower at any speed including idle. In the FTP 75 cycle test, a 200 watt load on the alternator reduces fuel efficiency by 1.7 mpg. Headlights, for example, consume 110 watts on low and up to 240 watts on high
     

    If this is a serious justification for you not using your headlights then I am afraid you really are an idiot. But whatever.

    Seriously, being a cheapskate and lowering safety is just stupid. Next you will tell me you also recommend over inflating your tires and tailgating trucks to save fuel economy.

     

    First of all, you need to cite an article or at least post some plausible statistics or statements to rebut, rather than using the good ol ah hominem method.  For example, you can point out that most alternators are not operating at full load (surprise-- I have actually attempted to research this issue).  You could also point out a European study that showed that injuries and fatalities were reduced up to 15% with DRL usage (curiously, it did not reduce total accidents).

    Second, your last sentence is a straw man.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @syntaxeater said:

    Goddamn I hate that this site disabled me from editting posts...

     TRWTF is that the van is driving with his parking lights on.

    Seriously, crackhead, WTF is up?  We've already been over the daytime running lights thing (read above). 

     

    In some states it's illegal to drive with only parking lights on (as opposed to headlights).  In NJ the rule is qualified by "when headlights are required", so the truck in the picture would be okay unless it got dark or started raining.  But it's conceivable that other states extend this to driving at any time of day. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    As a heavy smoker and drinker I find it delightful that the UK government could steal money from me and then refuse me healthcare based on my own personal choices. Too bad I live in the Bad 'Ol USA where I pay for my own healthcare and don't have a bunch of pencildicks telling me they won't cover illnesses when I've paid for the insurance myself.

    Actually it's not that bad (at least in the Netherlands, and in the UK it schould be the same). They will not refuse normal medical procedures. They will only refuse certain very specific treatments that will be affected by the drinking or smoking. Specifically, if you are a (heavy) smoker, you can be refused for a lung transplant. The reasoning is that transplant lungs are a very limited good, which are better used by someone not poisoning them. And actually, if you commit to quit smoking (they will require proof), you will still be elligible for the transplant.



  • @ShadowLord said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    As a heavy smoker and drinker I find it delightful that the UK government could steal money from me and then refuse me healthcare based on my own personal choices. Too bad I live in the Bad 'Ol USA where I pay for my own healthcare and don't have a bunch of pencildicks telling me they won't cover illnesses when I've paid for the insurance myself.

    Actually it's not that bad (at least in the Netherlands, and in the UK it schould be the same). They will not refuse normal medical procedures. They will only refuse certain very specific treatments that will be affected by the drinking or smoking. Specifically, if you are a (heavy) smoker, you can be refused for a lung transplant. The reasoning is that transplant lungs are a very limited good, which are better used by someone not poisoning them. And actually, if you commit to quit smoking (they will require proof), you will still be elligible for the transplant.

    I'm now putting The Netherlands on the list of countries I will try to scam a transplant lung from.  Thank you very much.

     

    Actually, come to think of it, I'll just find someone clean and young, abduct them and have an unscrupulous doctor harvest their organs for my use.  This guarantees I will live forever and it also prevents me from having to fill out a bunch of fucking transplant forms.  I hate forms so very much.  Besides, I don't think I want organs from someone who died in a car wreck.  Nature has selected their genes for elimination and I don't like to fuck with Nature's plan.  The benefit of choosing your own organ "donor" is that you can pick a sturdy model that will last many decades.



  • @ShadowLord said:

    Actually, come to think of it, I'll just find someone clean and young, abduct them and have an unscrupulous doctor harvest their organs for my use. This guarantees I will live forever and it also prevents me from having to fill out a bunch of fucking transplant forms. I hate forms so very much. Besides, I don't think I want organs from someone who died in a car wreck. Nature has selected their genes for elimination and I don't like to fuck with Nature's plan. The benefit of choosing your own organ "donor" is that you can pick a sturdy model that will last many decades.

    Just dont forget to bring your blood testing kit before abducting your donor. Would be a shame to have to abduct several people untill you get one with the right blood type. Way to much work and all that :)



  • @ShadowLord said:

    Just dont forget to bring your blood testing kit before abducting your donor. Would be a shame to have to abduct several people untill you get one with the right blood type. Way to much work and all that :)
     

    Yes, blood type, and Dutch people are druggies and whore fornicators... so be carefull there




  • @Zagyg said:

    @Zemm said:

    WTF is "AD BLUE"?

    Ad Blue (first hit for Google "Ad Blue")

     

    When I searched Google that didn't come up. There were other non-obvious items that didn't make sense with busses.

    This is the picture I wanted to post! If you can't read it, the sign says "Do Not Access Bus Through Window".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.