I would think they would keep at least 1 of each model/trim of vehicle for testing these things. This leads me to believe one of the following:
Epicurus had great instincts. He was pretty damn close to things modern science has discovered. As you mentioned, he was an atomist. He also said you can generally trust your senses, but they can be wrong and deceive you at times. His ethics of moderation and valuing relationships is spot on when it comes to life satisfaction.
It’s interesting you mentioned naturalism in the evolutionary sense. Have you read Darwin’s book? Darwin’s ideas aren’t entirely original, he himself pretty much says that, but his data collection and observations were something that hadn’t been done on that level yet.
Even laws of physics are bound by logic…logic supercedes even me…so a lot of my adjustments were to things like the gravitational constant and force magnitudes
The only reasonably justification would for God to say: “I don’t have the ability to meddle. I’m not omnipotent. I did create your part of the multiverse. I can only set the laws of physics and initial conditions. Here’s how that works…Let me explain why you are here…something something multi dimensions…some creatures brains evolved quantum something something…which is what is commonly thought of as a soul…”
Another American. Those are small SUVs. Compare those to a Suburban, Tahoe or the like.
Yank here. I use canyonero or monster truck depending on the type of vehicle.
I bet some people here would drive literal tanks if they could.
To me, the frustrating part about wanting to end car dependence is it doesn’t mean they will completely go away. Most of the things that help are better for drivers because they keep impaired and distracted people off the road and allow us to tighten up licensing requirements. So you get less traffic with better drivers. You can also go to a bar and not worry about getting yourself or your car home.
From the article:
“and a missing adapter for use at nearby chargers. The Tesla went dead as Liebau searched for a charging station,”
It sounds like they did try to charge it. It sounds like they couldn’t use the nearby charging locations without the adapter.
Just call it a stadium. The names will vary with being called a field, park, or stadium, but if you say stadium everyone will know what you mean.
E.g. Turn left by (the stadium/Wrigley Field/Fenway Park/Dodger Stadium)
ETA: Field is generally used for small ones, like you would see in a public park. So if you go to city park to play football/soccer/baseball/whatever, you would call it the $SPORT field if it is on grass. If it is on a hard surface like basketball or tennis, you would say court. Stadium is for large structures with several thousand+ of spectators, and again the proper names are inconsistent, but stadium as a general term works.
Hopefully this helps. American English is all sorts of ambiguous and inconsistent. One positive is it is nice not having gendered nouns and it is forgiving enough that even with grammar errors, a native speaker will know what you mean, like the plural of cow is sometimes cattle when you used as an adjective “cattle farm”. Nobody would be confused if you said “cows farm”, but along with the inevitable accent, it would be a tell that you aren’t a native speaker
Even if you are completely right about everything being as simple as you say, nobody wakes up and says “gee, I’m going to be stupid/self-destructive/neurodivergent today and cause myself a lot of pain.”
The answer is to use it as a case study to improve the design or perhaps provide a leaflet, QR code to a PDF, or a laminated card to assist renters with controls that are safety critical or unique to the vehicle
You are correct about suburbia. There are also typically no sidewalks and minimal shoulders, so even if you live within walking or biking distance of places, it is dangerous to not drive there.
In the US, some of this stems from racism. I don’t feel like getting into the history of it, but if you are interested, red lining, restrictive covenants, and using the cost of car dependency as a racial filter are good starters. Basically, the US suburb situation came about partially due to racism, and partially due to hostile takeover of transportation infrastructure and PR campaigns by corporations.
How about Elaborate on why you are against it? If you have a really good reason, you may even win some people over to your side.
Bike infrastructure needs physical separation. Bollards separating lanes at minimum. The average Joe would be financially WAY better off just renting trucks when they need one.
I don’t disagree with drivers paying damages, but I see laws like this as whack-a-mole with symptoms of the problem of car dependency. Bars and restaurants serving alcohol with car dependent design is just a bad idea. No amount of laws is going to prevent drunk drivers from killing people as long as they remain the only way to get to or from places people consume alcohol.
making a city efficient you want ways to get around without a car in the first place
I couldn’t agree more.
Well, that is how it already works today, and look at how safe the roads are. The lack of safety is a consequence of allowing shitty drivers to stay on the road.
The lack of safety is because we can’t get shitty drivers off the road because there is no other feasible way to get around much of NA. Even taking licenses away doesn’t do much because people will drive without them due to necessity.
We can’t get start imposing more barriers until we provide alternatives. I.e. usable transit, usable bike infrastructure, abolishing euclidean zoning. Until that is done, people all but have to drive to get around.
The point with impaired driving is that car dependent infrastructure is the problem. Plenty of drivers use Uber or cabs when impaired. When you have millions of drivers going through intersections like the one pictured with no feasible alternative, deadly crashes are going to happen.
they don’t have the right to operate a 2 ton weapon when impaired.
Unless we fix the mandatory car ownership prevalent in most of North America, it really should be treated as almost a right. How else are people going to realistically safely get where the need to go?
I think the real problem is the pedestrians don’t have any physical protection. It is a numbers game. Even if 99.9999% of drivers can navigate that intersection fine, it doesn’t take long for the 1/1,000,000 that is drunk, up all night with a sick infant, etc to plow into pedestrians. Probably every month or two based on that kind of road’s capacity. People need to start suing and make it too expensive to not put barriers around the pedestrian island.
Why not put bollards there to protect anyone on the island from being mowed down? Cheaper than the camera and safer. The families should sue the hell out of the city for not putting a protective barrier there after the first death.
Unless you REALLY need color, just buy a Brother BW laser printer. Toner doesn’t dry up. It is all but guaranteed to be the cheapest option. I bought the scanner BW laser printer combo like 8 years ago for $130.