Being more positive on CF

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

When I drove in Europe it was standard practice on autobahns and motorways for faster cars to flash their high beams to ask you to clear the fast lane. They'd do this from a good couple of km back to give you plenty of time.

Yes I know and the German cars were the first to have a momentary high beam too, a flash to pass function. However when we were there in 94 to 97 I guess it was we were told that flashing the high beams was now Verboten, cause it was considered rude, pushy etc. They didn’t do it when I was there and I was often among the faster cars on the Autobahn, and almost never had to slow down to pass someone, usually when I did it was a truck that just couldn’t get out of your way. But as soon as they could they would move right.
I was told the Germans had a slogan if you will of “drive right” it meant drive correctly, but also meant that you should always be in a right lane, left lane was for passing only, complete your pass and move over.

When I was there since they couldn’t flash to pass, they had taken to using the left turn signal.

[Island Time O25]

Speaking of speed limits.

I remember years ago reading about "natural speed limit" i.e. the traffic flow for which the road was designed or which occurs naturally even if the speed limit signs are not posted. There were studies which tracked various stretches of speed limit unposted roads and found that the flow of traffic did not correlate to the previously or subsequently posted speeds. It could be higher or lower depending on the road conditions, curves, etc.

"So, the key to safer roads? Quite simple, actually — make the speed limit closer to the ‘natural’ speed of the road, closer to the speed at which the road was designed to be driven upon, so that more people are driving closer to the same speed and there are fewer people to run into."
https://www.wheels.ca/news/new-resea...-speed-limits/

and this

"Prevailing speed: The speed at which most drivers feel comfortable traveling on a set stretch of road, regardless of the speed limit. In experiments by the Michigan researchers, prevailing speed did not appreciably change even when the posted speed limit did. In one case where the limit was raised from 55 mph to 70 mph, the prevailing speed actually dropped from 73 mph to 72 mph."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybu.../#6109af642895

Personally I believe that speed limits other than the ones occuring "naturally" are just money grubbing ploys by the gubmint.

And that's my grump of the day.

[a64pilot]

I believe if you look that traffic Engineers if that is what they are called do actually survey speed driven and compare it to the limit and consider the limit to be correct when 85% of the vehicles are driven at the posted limit.

Four or five paragraphs down discussed the 85th percentile speed.
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/new...e77315867.html

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I believe if you look that traffic Engineers if that is what they are called do actually survey speed driven and compare it to the limit and consider the limit to be correct when 85% of the vehicles are driven at the posted limit.

Four or five paragraphs down discussed the 85th percentile speed.
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/new...e77315867.html

But it seems to me to be a circular argument - posting the speed limit and then studying the 85% who are obeying it. I'd like to see the studies of speeds on UNPOSTED roads and then compare the results to the speeds on the same roads but with the speed limit signs.

[jmh2002]

This thread appears to have been hijacked by road safety zealots ...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Yeah, each of us is positive of being RIGHT!

Indeed.
I’ve regularly had my opinions challenged, often legitimately so. When justified by new information, I tend to change my (previously wrong) opinion.
However, though my opinion may have changed, it doesn’t change the fact that, I am still right.

[barnakiel]

There are many ways to measure 'development', or in other words, development can be measured in many areas.


The most common meaning being of economical well-being = development. As such, this is a very poor measure of overall development. Look and see how great many of the developed countries are where ineqalities are greatest and you will have people with guns running on the streets.


So, to me, the common idea of 'developed country' should only be seen in the very narrow context of what kind of development has been measured.


It is easy to be positive if you were born in an imperialist developed states and within a rich family. Less so if you belong to one of many underprivileged groups in the same 'developed' countries.



I think it was Marx who explained this very swiftly. Except that this author is banned as a commie by many minds in the 'most developed' countries. Which is a shame, because even an idiot commie may come to the table with some very insightful social observations.


Cheers,
b.

[transmitterdan]

It’s impossible to be positive if you hold envy (i.e. inequality) in your heart. Marx derived his entire philosophy from envy thus he was naturally very negative. As were/are his adherents.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It’s impossible to be positive if you hold envy (i.e. inequality) in your heart. Marx derived his entire philosophy from envy thus he was naturally very negative. As were/are his adherents.

Envy is a state of mind — an emotion. Inequality is a measurable financial & resource fact (assuming “inequality” here refers to the financial kind). I suppose one requires inequality to have envy, but they are hardly the same thing.

And to state that "Marx derived his entire philosophy from envy,” is in the parlance of the day, Fake News.

[transmitterdan]

Inequality is in the eye of the beholder. Why should anyone care how much money someone else hoards/makes/gives away/etc.? What should matter is your own economic situation. If a person is unhappy with their situation go find a mirror (or therapist which is just a type of mirror) and figure out what to do about it. There is an infinite amount of wealth in this world for as long as there are people. It is only from other people that wealth is created or transferred.

Inequality is a divisive concept created IMO by truly evil people because it is designed to obtain power by preying on people’s worst emotions, mainly lust and envy. It’s what causes most of the unhappiness and negativity today from what I can tell. And if you read some of the negative posts here on CF you will usually find some envy buried behind the negative sentiment.

Think about all the posts we have seen saying “one who cannot navigate by sextant and paper chart should not leave their mooring”. What nonsense! Almost any boater with a well found boat and good electronics they paid $$ to have installed can navigate circles around a sextant/paper chart/engineless yacht. It’s foolish to claim otherwise.

No, my friends, negativity is not the problem, it is merely a symptom of a much worse disease.

[Mike OReilly]

I think you have a rather odd and distorted view of “inequality.” It’s not a hard concept or fact, nor is it particularly hard to measure. It’s not about envy or about personal outlook on life. It is a real, financial and resource reality.

The impacts of extreme financial inequality are also fairly easy to measure. There are stacks of research on the subject. I’m happy to link you to some if you like. The core point to realize is that it has a generally corrosive impact on all members of a society — not just the poor. Everyone is impacted.

Link to one posting that says: “one who cannot navigate by sextant and paper chart should not leave their mooring”. I’ve never heard anyone say this here, or in the real world. As with your Marx comment, I believe you’re just making things up.

[barnakiel]

Inequality is in the eye of the beholder.


(...)

No, it was beauty.


When I read Marx and Shakespeare, you read something else.



This kind of discussion we might have here. But it truly does not work when you see a cleaning person making EUR 5k in a company where the manager makes EUR 500k.


There is inequality and then there is inequality. From the manager's point, there is none because HE (and why is it nearly always a HE?) is so great, so smart and so unique! From the cleaner's perspective, well, she (and why is it nearly always a SHE) she really does not know, she is too tired from 8 or more hours of hard work to think about inequality, she just wants to get home and get some rest. And then there are the kids to take care of.



Let's not be stupid, let's read what the web has for it. Inequalities have been growing over last 25 years or so at a frustrating rate.

WHY SHOULD WE BE OVERLY POSITIVE IF WE SEE THAT THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE


I think you are asking for the happy go lucky thing. But that's just too much asking.



Beyond me. Marx Karl or Groucho.


Cheers,
b.

[El Pinguino]

Meanwhile back in Unzud.. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/112...wdling-drivers

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Meanwhile back in Unzud.. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/112...wdling-drivers

Typical Kiwi folk confusion, they are becoming more confused and confusing every day.

She would not have been issued with an infringement notice had she been driving in the slow lane. She was driving too slowly in the fast lane and preventing other folks from using it. Definitely an infringement of their rights of usage when she had the option of exercising her rights to slower driving in the lane provided for it.

Because Kiwi's drive on the left side of the highway as do Australians the infringement was more correctly a failure to keep left which is an infringement in Australian states.