Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OO
Posts
0
Comments
367
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • hah, no bother.
    Take any excuse to vent.

    Fortunately for me I don't live in USA so these things are still a bit of a rarity, and are quite impractical in my town's, compact and heavily pedestrianised town centre.

    Sounds like yoy've a plague of them over there.

  • More boringly , maybe its selection on the circumstances too. For example maybe ev's tend to drive more in urban environments, more urban may mean more collision opprtunities per time spent driving.

    Of course ram is a farmers vehicle is desgned for rural use, so must rarely be seen in built up areas. /s

    edit: having glanced at the cited article - theres no obvious mention of any risk adjustment, the measures seem to be simple ratio of crashes per driver. No obvious control for whether the sub-population spend more or less time driving.
    Rate per - place-specific-risk adjusted person-hour would work better.

    As often with things like risk, it really helps to be able to do a multidimensional analysis. See if vehicle type/brand is significant after controlling for as many circumstantial factors and exposure related factors as you can reliably observe.

  • Words literally change their meaning over time and social context.

    I think "guy" used to mean just "a rope" until some fellow named Guy tried to blow up some nobs in London.

    I think both "guy (rope/guideline)" and the name "Guy (Guido)" might origiate from the same basic word "guide" .

    I don't think it's always clear why changes happen, people just use it differently and if a new usage spreads widely and becomes common, then the new usage may get added into some dictionaries.

    I quite like "RobWords" on youtube - 'tho I'm not sure if he has covered this one specficaly.

  • The video makes good points, but unfortunately loads of the arguments made in this video could be fuel for these nutjobs to start arguing that cars are over-regulated.

    There are already people who seem happy with low levels of regulation on firearms, I don't see how they'll accept the safety argument for car licensing.

    I mean I know the raw stats are fairly easy to show that cars are one of the most dangerous things in the world (ranked up there with thinks like malaria) - but do those people care?

  • How did this video stretch out to 18 mins?
    I remember a mindyourdecisions yt video about this from several years ago that showed it in a couple of minutes and why it is n+1.
    sorry i don't remember the url though.

  • Yes, I think to work well the Land zoning and transport planning need to be hand in hand.
    (and ideally serve people rather than car companies).

    A local bus service is more efficient the denser the population it serves.

    Rural densities will struggle to support/ warrant frequent bus services.

    Really dense areas will more easily support more frequent bus services / netwoks and even trains / grade separated or exclusive land use for public transport.

    It's no suprise that super dense places like Japan, Singapore, and desely populated European , Chinese regions have more public transport.

    Add New York City to that list for that matter. Presumably NYC benefited from achieving it's density before cars became too powerful politically..