The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you're doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you're always going to have dumbasses.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 512
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 512
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
((yeah it seems like there's a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))
I'm not sure what I said to make you reply about traffic jams? Want to elaborate?
Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.
I'd be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you're likely to only injure yourself.
Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn't for another.
Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you're just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can't use the area but bikes can.
And as long as the penalty is fines, it's literally "pay the toll to go fast". At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can't just say "ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail." That'll do way more harm than good.
I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they're implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can't be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren't revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.
I think in an ideal world, I'd set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It's HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it's subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.
From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.
Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that's going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it's something.
I don't disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.
The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren't able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying "hey! Slow down or pay the toll!"
I would love to see a more recent study. Safety tends to be a weird subject, particularly the treadmill of introducing safety features, which means more drivers drive unsafely because safety features give an appearance of safety.
Overall, I still stand by what I said outside of maybe the very first sentence. Even if they DO slow traffic, there are vastly better ways that don't have a disproportionate impact.
My city started putting in speed cushions at roads that were constantly over-traveled. Neighborhoods that would see increased traffic during rush hour, for instance. They're aggressive, you have to go BELOW the speed limit to safely drive the route. Those roads see SIGNIFICANTLY less traffic, and the traffic that is there is slower.
Fines just don't work to deter your average driver, or at least not as much as physics does.
If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at... Realistically, people are going to drive the speed that feels safe for that road, and a speed camera is just going to disproportionately punish people without the money to pay the fines.
Make roads that are designed for the speed you want people to drive at, not wide open expanses that give no actual reason to slow down.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- Glocks have a half cocked striker once you rack the slide, and this gives a factory glock a trigger pull weight that is directly in between a cocked single-action trigger and an uncocked double-action trigger.
I can see your interpretation of this passage, now that I re-read it. My interpretation of the passage was that, upon racking the slide, you'd have a trigger pull weight between the two. Glad we could clarify hahah.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
From what others are saying, the trigger pull is always the same. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Glocks specifically, but this seems to match with my experience as well.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Awwww I wanted to read the delicious conclusion. Will Hercules finally behead the vile hydra?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don't have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Glocks are, and were already, very popular guns. This means that accessories manufacturers will target their devices at these guns, so they target as large of a market as possible. Thus, more manufacturers are wanting to produce automatic adapting devices for Glocks than other guns.
Bit of a chicken and egg situation, tbh.
I mean, movies have existed without sound at all, so yes, I'd classify music as typically not essential, unless the movie is about music. Same with the movies you listed, they're about the character growth and development, not a bigger plotline (I assume,I actually haven't seen them).
In order to tell an effective narrative, certain pieces MUST be there. These are the story. Anything else is fluff, filler, not essential. You can play around with all of that, get something that looks and feels different, but is the same basic story. Remakes and AU style things do that all the time.
As far as the blond, blue eyed thing - I didn't say it was describing the default human. It's describing the default within American pop culture. The default movie hero is, and I'm spitballing here, a 30s-40s straight white dude. And, like or not, American pop culture is world pop culture. America largely defines the trends in pop culture worldwide. I don't think this is a good thing, for the record, but it's also not a crazy statement.
Eh, I think we just have different perspectives on things being short horned. In my view, anything that isn't critical information to the story, it's shoehorned in. If you tell me the main characters favorite food is pasta, and then don't do anything with it, it's shoe horned in. If you tell me a character is gay, and then don't do anything they couldn't have done the same with a straight character, changing a couple of pronouns, it's shoehorned in.
To be clear though, I don't think this is a bad thing. A story with only critical information will... Well, it'll work, but it'll be bland. Same if you make all of your characters blond, blue eyed, straight white men. Adding these details tends to be what makes us remember and identify with a character. That doesn't make it any more strictly relevant to the story. Most characters people would view as "diverse" - even the ones people like - fall into this category, i think.
I think a better argument is, if these traits ARE shoehorned in, their alternative "normal" traits would be as well. If you go out of your way to state a character is straight, it's just as shoehorned if everything else is equivalent. Do THOSE characters inspire the same ire? If not, we should examine the why of that specifically.
It's kinda weird to try to include representation without it feeling shoe horned. The world of TES (of any fictional world) is entirely hand-created. There are no accidents, all of it is intentional.
This means that, no matter how it's done, any character deviating from the "norm" was consciously chosen to be so. These things that need representation (disabilities, gender identity, sexuality, race, etc) are all things people don't get to choose, so there's an inherent disconnect between the hand crafted world choosing to include diversity, and the real world necessarily having diversity because of chaos.
Following this thread, there's never been a case of inclusivity, or exclusivity, that isn't shoehorned in. It's always been entirely the will of the author to include or exclude these representations. With that in mind, I think it's only a good thing to see more diverse authors bringing more diverse worlds and characters into existence.
I've heard this a few times, but what does it ultimately mean? Doesn't it mean that, if they desired, they could still operate and just not sell in Japan? Granted, obviously, if the dev is Japanese (I have no idea in this case and don't feel like looking) then they'd have some issues, but for a western developer, it'd still be bad, losing all Japanese sales, but overall manageable.
There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you're less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it's more likely to be fatal?
Overall, like I said, I don't really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don't really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.