theplanlessman @ theplanlessman @feddit.uk

Posts

0

Comments

41

Joined

2 yr. ago

My point being that they won't generate any revenue if people actually follow the rules of the road. Revenue only when people break the law is not how taxes work.

From the Welsh government's FAQ again: "The evidence from around the world is very clear – reducing speed limits reduces collisions and saves lives." The intended benefit is to reduc the risk of collisions and to reduce injuries in the case of collisions. Lowering the speed limit will result in both of those things, and so we will be seeing the intended benefit.

Surely it only generates revenue if people decide to break the law?

The FAQ in OP's link tells you that it is not all 30mph roads, but rather all restricted roads, with a link to a map of all 30mph roads that are staying 30mph as well as the option to see which restricted roads will change to 20mph. "Restricted Roads" is a classification of roads in law that is defined by the lamppost density, so this change won't affect larger and more rural roads where lampposts are more sparse.

Modern petitions seem pointless at the best of times, but petitioning a private company seems particularly futile. They have zero obligation to even recognise the petition, let alone act on it.

An incredibly tone-deaf choice of words just one day after her hot mic "sitting on their arses" comment.

Fun fact, most car advertising uses a computer generated car. Photoreal cars bave been achievable for years now and it just makes sense for them to do it as they can keep it looking flawless throughout the ad. There's even a "mocap" car with an adjustable body to match the length/width etc. of the car it's supposed to be that they can just pin the model to.

I don't think it would be up to us to decide if it is acceptable or not. We don't ask the cow if they think it's okay that we take their milk, their skin, their meat. Likewise, I doubt a more advanced alien species would bother asking for our permission if they decided they had a use for us.

On a more philosophical point though, there's also the matter of sentience. As far as we're aware the animals we use for food, labour, etc. don't have the mental capacity to really understand the situation they find themselves in. They can't process and understand the fact that they are being used. As we are a species that can, the chances that we'd let another species, even one more advanced than us, exploit us without resisting are probably pretty low.

I know we're dealing with human aliens, but there is actually a thing called takotsubo cardiomyopathy, also known as "broken heart syndrome", where your heart weakens as a result of emotional trauma.

It is rarely fatal, but deaths have occurred as a result of it.

One of those things is illegal, the other is not. One puts others at risk of injury and death, the other does not.

I read it as being a riff off of "speed" cameras, which are obviously cameras triggered by speed and not cameras that capture the concept of speed on film.

Just went down the legislation.gov rabbit hole, and it seems there are regulations on headlight height and angle that have been in place since 1989, but unfortunately no maximum power or brightness restrictions.

Which means that although a driver could be fined for using excessively bright headlights, the manufacturer of the car could not be fined for making the car like that in the first place.

Perhaps if things like these noise cameras gain in popularity it will encourage the lawmakers to look at other issues like this one.

There is already the regulation in the Highway Code:

114: "You MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users"

The "MUST NOT" indicates that this is a legal requirement and so it is a criminal offense to disobey it. Now if we could get the police to actually ENFORCE the legal requirements in the Highway Code, then maybe things might improve on the roads.

You think losing thousands of highly trained doctors will improve the NHS?

I can't find any more info on the Saudi law, but I believe the EU law at least has provisions for moving to a new standard in the future if a better alternative comes along. So when USB-D arrives, if it is seen to be a better standard, the EU can mandate that it becomes the new charging standard.

You need headphones with multipoint functionality. If your current pair can't connect to multiple sources at once already then you may need to buy new ones that can.

An intriguing idea, but they seem a little vague about where they're actually getting their traffic data from, just a "third party". For crowd-sourced traffic data to be at all useful it needs to be coming from software that a lot of drivers happen to have on their phones, so I wouldn't be surprised if Google or Apple aren't to be found somewhere in the pipeline.

You're looking at mountain bikes or the sturdier gravel bikes to fit 2" tyres. Your average commuter bike likely won't have rhe clearance. And yes, even tiny 23mm road racer tyres can cross tramlines with the right technique, but the requirement of a proper technique is still a barrier to entry.

We've been calling for those rubber inserts, but so far to no avail.

Yes, technically a tram at that point, though the system has sections of dedicated rights of way too, and has recently been expanded onto some old traditional rail lines in a tram/train hybrid system.

Sheffield. Though I imagine most modern UK tram systems are in a similar situation.