https://nitter.net/gt2andy/status/1718990362545463556
Me, passing dozens of cars trapped in traffic while coasting on my bike - I am the embodiment of excellence. Pure ambition. Completely free.
There is perhaps no greater feeling of power so readily accessible to the common folk.
I used to ride a mountain bike to a job. Flipping on the shocks and riding over gravel mounds while the obscene level of construction kept drivers glued in one place for minutes.
You joke but you get one out of 100.000 libertarians who arrives at exactly this conclusion and they make up the weirdest macho bike subculture imageinable
I am willing to kill us all in a fireball if that's what it takes for me to drive more dangerously and shave 15 seconds off of my trip. You want to kill excellence
The good news is that if they ride a motorcycle like their pfp suggests and they think like this, they probably also refuse to wear a real motorcycle helmet
Yeah I saw that pfp and attitude and immediately thought "Yep that's a future organ donor"
I think this guy simply wouldn't donate any organs because he thinks people with lazy slacker organs don't deserve handouts.
Not his liver, lungs, or heart, but maybe his kidneys or something.
According to the nurse operating the dialysis machine when my partner had acute renal failure, hospital staff calls them "donor cycles".
Aprilia riders are always either ATGATT or the Squiddiest Squids.
I find his tweets kind of sad tbh, he goes on to talk about non-speeding drivers being grey people in grey cars with grey lives. The dude clearly sees how empty our lives are in the capitalist system and is terrified of being one of the 99%, so desperate to be special that he sees something as mundane as speeding as an escape from his fate. But in the end he's just another jackass who can't drive. There is no individualism for the people under capitalism.
Driving a car is actually much more dangerous than people realize. You know driving isn't even my job? And it's not working with cars either, which is a very common misconception. Actually my identity is just...car.
The Cult of the Automobile has been an unmitigated disaster for the entire planet
Between that and industrialized meat farming, the planet's burning down for staggeringly stupid macho shit.
the staggering stupidity of the system is hard to even comprehend. Take for example the monarchy which is an objectively silly system
Being told to slow down slightly when driving and writing Atlas Shrugged as a response.
Atlas Shrugged was originally written as a seething decades-prepared tantrum because the commies took away a rich faildaughter's parents' mansion.
We must cap all American vehicles at 100 mph, make them automatically print you a speeding ticket at 90, and make every lifted truck blow up fatally when the owner gets inside.
make them automatically print you a speeding ticket at 90
what is the point if you're already limiting cars
I actually like the idea of hard limiting the car above the speed limit, and also ticketing above the limit at a lower margin. It gives a behaviourally corrective ticket for infringements of the limit, but still allows for speeding for some hypothetical evasive manoeuvre (the associated speeding ticket for which could be appealed at a later date).
If you're already limiting cars what's the point of the "get ticketed" mode? Instead of corrective behaviour you could just not have them do that. I keep hearing the thing about hypothetical evasive manouevres here but it I gotta say it seems pretty damn hypothetical in a world where cars are speed limited
An example of an evasive manoeuvre: Say you’re passing through a junction at the speed limit, as you should be. A car approaching the junction crossing your path fails to stop and is pulling out of the junction and will t-bone you. If you slow down or apply brakes the crash happens, if you continue as presently at the limit the crash happens, if you accelerate over the speed limit, you clear the junction and hence the other car before it reaches you, and then you can reduce speed and continue driving back at the limit without incident.
The ticket provides a soft punishment for speeding without limiting mechanical potential for a lifesaving evasive use of speed and the hard limiter prevents all excessive speeding above what may be necessary for safety.
This example doesn't make sense. If the vectors intersect at the same time at constant speed, they can't also intersect at that same point when you slow one of them down (or speed up, for that matter).
Either the crash happens at a constant speed or one that's not constant speed, but then braking would get you out of it just as well as accelerating, considering a lot of cars brake a lot better than they accelerate
Get outa here, don’t talk as if these are infinitesimally small point objects from an idealised maths problem. Cars in the real world have 3 dimensions of space. Surely you can imagine a situation in which if travelling at the speed limit the rear of the car gets hit, and breaking to slow down would just cause the front of the car to be hit instead?
I’m not saying most evasive manoeuvres require speeding, speed should be the last choice, most problems are solved by slowing, however there are situations where speed is the only choice for avoiding accident.
Two cars (you may model them as point particles) travelling at 0.999c are about to collide at an angle of 90⁰. Car #1 swerves, calculate the bremsstrahlung
Cars can slow down much, much faster than they can speed up. Look at any 0-60 and 60-0 times in car reviews.
If there is any situation when you can see a potential accident and speeding up "saves you", then you also have sufficient time to slow down and let the other vehicle pass in front of you.
If you are that close that rapidly slowing down doesn't help, your reaction time plus the relatively slow rate of acceleration means that speeding up won't help either.
(Disclaimer: this doesn't work with trains.)
Surely you can imagine a situation in which if travelling at the speed limit the rear of the car gets hit, and breaking to slow down would just cause the front of the car to be hit instead?
Yeah, and it's not one I'd base any type of legislation on. I mean what if the inverse is true and somebody speeds up instead of braking because they can, and then they get hit? Good argument for limiters, there. Or what if you both accelerate and you now turned this 45mph t-bone into a 55mph t-bone
I’m not saying most evasive manoeuvres require speeding, speed should be the last choice, most problems are solved by slowing, however there are situations where speed is the only choice for avoiding accident.
And it absolutely pales in comparison towards how many people you'd save by having hard limiters. At it's core this is a very car brained argument to make in the sense of that it presupposes some absolute edge case hypothetical scenario as how a single person might be saved by speeding and and completely disregards any other consequences of this choice. Sure, thousands may get injured and die, but it'll have all been worth it for that one time one guy speeds out of a t-bone successfully.
Hey, I don’t think we’re going to agree. Maybe I’m too car brained, I used to drive a heck of a lot for work. Maybe the damage is done!
I stand by my thoughts that I think a soft limit with punitive fines and a mechanical hard limit above the speed limit to allow for safety cases seems like best of both worlds. I think that the safety benefit of slowing down through cars automatically ticketing drivers would be realised pretty quickly as drivers see fines rack up, negating the need for the hard limiter in 99% of cases. But I get your argument that on balance a hard limit may be better overall. I dunno, I don’t think either of us can know which system would prove better without trialing both and some statistical analysis.
This literally happened to me. The car ended up crashing into the passenger door- if I hadn't sped up, it would have crashed into my door and injured me
I hate driving so much. My first instinct is always to concede to other people (even when I technically have right-of-way) because there's always the possibility that they'll just ignore all rules and common sense due to impatience (like this guy). But then that leads to the truck-driving chuds behind me blasting their horns and trying to overtake me unsafely. Like, I know there are situations where being too slow can also be dangerous, but it's hard to make decisions quickly when every option feels potentially unsafe.
My first instinct is always to concede to other people (even when I technically have right-of-way)
Imo, you should almost always take the right-of-way if you have it. Politeness be damned, the safety of yourself, your passengers, and the other people on the road ought to be the highest priority. And the safest thing you can do on the road is be predictable, which means taking the right-of-way when you have it.
Yeah, I know. It's just that every time I arrive at an intersection slightly before the other person I'm doubting whether I was really there first and/or if the other person recognizes that. That and a bunch of other situations where I'm trying to process things and it feels safer to just wait (even if it isn't actually).
my reaction time is such that I never feel safe driving. I should not be allowed to do it and it's crazy that I'm expected to
the power to kill everyone around me by fucking up is more responsibility than I would willingly take on
"Communism is when anti-drunk driving laws and mandatory speed limits" --Karl Mark (2 A.D. - 2 A.D.)
you know what I hate that he's right but that is part of communism
WHAT'S NEXT, A LICENSE TO MAKE TOAST IN YOUR OWN DAMN TOASTER?
I kinda love really tenuous connections between some mundane activity and grand societal aspirations. Like, there is a train of thought present, but it's definitely not how the speaker reached that conclusion, they're almost certainly thinking "I agree with these two things, therefore I must retroactively justify why one means the other".
One jumping off the top of my head is Ayn Rand saying she likes smoking because it signifies Man's mastery over fire and nature.
One jumping off the top of my head is Ayn Rand saying she likes smoking because it signifies Man's mastery over fire and nature.
The sheer fucking hubris of pretending all of that was somehow a thing while poisoning herself to a somewhat early grave with such pompous "mastery" was poetic, at least.
also tobacco had mastery over her when you become addicted you loose control and freedom over yourself
I feel like this is a condition brought on by conservatives hating all forms of art but then feeling left out when "artsy" folks to the left of center are able to ascribe meaning to things they might consider mundane otherwise. Because they can't bring themselves to find joy in the same things that the artsy libs do, they only have what's left, and those are often activities or habits which are straight up detrimental to your health. See also their association with red meat consumption and "healthy"/paleo diets, anti-mask-wearing and personal freedom, etc.
As George Carlin said, "Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac"
ambition and excellence is when you press a button to make a machine go fast
also anyone who thinks this about overtaking people in their car shouldn't be allowed to drive they clearly have some macho posturing element going on that has no place in operating heavy machinery at great speed
if I can't vroom vroom in my big boy car and go faster than all the LOSERS in their little poor people mobiles, then why would I strive for excellence working at my dad's car dealership?
you can't spell American Excellence without Acceleration!
