Holy shit that bit about the ISIS Toyota dealer and "Deals so good you'll think they're haram!" is fucking gold.
He did a couple of times recommend this guy who in two TED talks had segments about overpopulation which were as bad as you can imagine
Good to see that gun control discourse hasn't evolved since 2013.
Good to see that
gun controldiscourse hasn’t evolved since20131949.
Unironically that belongs on the race track and not on the road, and all vehicles should be limited to like 120mph when not at a race track.
dude 200 km/h is already too much. Vehicles that don't follow tracks and are conducted by random idiots shouldn't go faster than 120 km /h
I was being lenient but yeah. Here the speed limit on highways is 120km/h/75mph, in some areas of the world 130kph/81mph, so the limit can't be that low otherwise there would be no overtaking and it would make highway travel dangerous.
Also 120mph is 192km/h, not 200. I know the limiter in Japan for all road cars is 180kph/112mph. So around there or less is more realistic. Personally I think a limit at 160kph/100mph should still allow for pretty much all overtakes to be completed safely on the highway.
It's generally legal to exceed the limit briefly for the purpose of overtaking, so long as it's not sustained
Yeah that's why you can't have cars mechanically limited to the speed limit, it would make overtaking impossible/dangerous.
You are not supposed to exceed the speed limit on the highway when overtaking. If the speed limit is 130 km/h and you're already driving that you have no use for overtaking.
I mean unless you want the overtake to take a long period of time (which can be dangerous when you're on a one lane road and have to go into the oncoming lane to overtake), it's better to exceed the speed limit briefly during the overtake and spend less time in the oncoming lane. Obviously don't blast past trucks/trailers at 160km/h/100mph+, but briefly going 5 or 10 over during an overtake of a long truck/trailer is fine, and better than spending more time in the oncoming lane.
If you are not sure you can overtake someone safely within safe speeds you shouldn't overtake them in the first place. And yes, that means sometimes you'll be driving 75 km/h on a 80 km/h road. That won't kill you and won't affect your life negatively, we're talking about five extra minutes of travel time on a 100 km stretch.
But it's not driving 75km on an 80km zone. It's being stuck behind a 40 meter/ 120ft long truck going 80-90km/h in a 120km/h road. Obviously only perform an overtake when it is safe to do so, on a straight section of road with good visibility, no blind turns, crests, fog or mist. Rarther spend time behind the truck or slow vehicle, it's much better than risking your life for an overtake. But it's still preferable to spend as little time in the oncoming lane as possible, especially when overtaking such long truck/trailers with 30+ wheels. South Africa has a 10km/h speed limit tolerance both for this and other reasons (speedometer inaccuracies, etc).
force = mass * acceleration
so if we want less people to die on roads, we should limit speed based upon mass of the vehicle
if you want to drive around in a metal cage that weighs more than a ton, then your speed limit is gonna be much lower than less massive vehicles
I like the spirit of it, but accidents happen because people have different velocities
Imagine getting stuck behind 2 buses trying to pass while going 6 and 6.2 mph on a 80 mph highway.
An extremely well functioning ambulance service, even in rural areas, is a prerequisite for this. So, not gonna happen lol :doomer:
Yeh nobody is trying to ban ambulances, nor firefighters trucks, nor disabled people's cars, nor utilitary vehicles, nor rural areas cars, those are at most a 5% of all vehicles anyways.
No, my point is, if you're rural enough, your best chance is NOT to wait for an ambulance; it's to have someone else in the household haul ass to the hospital with you as a passenger.
Does anyone remember the huge hullabaloo about how "assault rifle" isn't a real term? What was that even about?
People thinking that semantic arguments have ever convinced anyone.
Their thinking was that if you didn't know the names of guns then you couldn't really argue against them because of your lack of knowledge. This obviously doesn't apply to vaccinations, immigration, or universal healthcare
Damn, I wonder what term could specifically refer to a rifle with an intermediate cartridge and controllable automatic firing/suppression? Guess we’ll never know.
Libs wanted to ban "assault weapons" (assault rifles are already illegal), which is a certain aesthetic guns can have, and banning it is really dumb.
The right rightfully pointed out that it was dumb.
There more substantial argument where libs have a little more ground is on the issue of background checks
Was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban about gun aesthetics? I thought that its repeal had a real effect on the Mexican drug war.
The 5th gen Civic weighs like so much less and would fly with the stock 140hp engines they have today, and probably use so much less fuel
Especially SUVs. Wasteful death machines that also honestly look like shit.
So you mean "ban 470+ mph cars"? I can get behind that
No, ban all cars.
:biden-harbinger:
I was about to get mad until I saw that "satire" flair, well played my good sir 🤣
Love a world where cars can go at an appreciable fraction of the Speed of Sound but a 300w ebike is illegal, riding on a sidewalk is illegal, and designated "Bike-friendly" roads are 6 lane highways without bike lanes or shoulders
