Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
a cyclist, or a driver, pushing a barrow.
Driving. Cycling. You're doing it wrong.
-
The NZ test does include hazard recognition, but when I did it for my motorbike licence, the test official was behind me in a car, and it seemed to be enough to sort of point vaguely at stuff that might possibly be a hazard.
I was talking to a Norwegian motorcyclist a few years ago, and thier bike training and test is, comparitively, very difficult. For example, it includes a half-day of training on how to ride on ice.
The wiki article has a few interesting cherries to pick:
Before one is allowed to practice for any driver's licence, one must first complete a four-day class called "trafikalt grunnkurs" (elementary traffic class) which covers the basic rules of the road, some general advice, and what to do when involved in (or present at the scene of) an accident—including how to communicate effectively with [emergency services] and basic first aid skills
In Norway it is not unusual to end up paying in excess of 4,000USD for driving lessons before finally taking the test.
It is also notoriously hard to pass the Japanese test, so students invest heavily in training before taking it.
Compare and contrast...
-
it was the way she read the road and anticpiated what other vehicles might do.
It back up my own experience. One of the things they emphasise in defensive driving - well, they did back in the '80s, when that grumpy Judge made me do a course - is reading the road ahead. And although I got the idea in principle I never fully understood its value until I got into cycling some years later. You tend to watch the next couple of cars ahead as well as the one directly in front, and also whether any parked cars have anyone in the driver's seat. It becomes automatic, after a while.
Yes, because while a dent in your front bumper is inconvenient, a trip down the road on your arse is painful. Most two-wheelers learn that lesson plenty quick.
-
I got my motorcycle license. It was not a practical choice, but one based purely on the love of seizing one of the most joyous forms of transport every invented between my legs, and letting rip.
Snap.
Good to see so many bikers coming out of the woodwork. What's everyone riding?
I did my bike licence here from learners, through restricted, through full. My wife got knocked up and decided she needed a car licence for just making everyday chores and socialising that bit easier.
One of my bugbears is how easy it is to get a licence to drive or ride something so potentially lethal here.
The hardest thing was that neither of us liked Weetbix all that much, which made collecting the necessary tokens a bit difficult (badoom tish here all week etc).
I'd be more than happy to see a much harder set of restrictions in place before you're considered 'road-legal'. I reckon it'd just be safer for all road users - pedestrians, cyclists, scoots, etc. But I won't hold my breath. I'll just keep riding like I'm invisible and their all out to get me.
Oh, and the 'sorry, mate I didn't see you' phrase is so common it's become it's own acronym. Try googling 'SMIDSY' sometime.
-
I mean, you're calling for different treatment of the two situations. I'm asking, what is the basis for the difference? (Don't just say "different context"; I mean the actual basis).
I don't think I can answer that.
In my opinion, different circumstances call for a different approach. How differnet the approach is depends on how different the circumstances are. The same approach may work well for a number of different circumstances.
But that's just an arbitrary opinion, it's not an empirical difference.
-
No, but aren't you then saying that if my opinion being contrary to the consensus means nothing, then so does everyone else's opinion mean nothing, therefore even consensus (the balance of a group of opinions) also means "nothing"?
Yes and no. Things only have the meaning we ascribe to them.
A few hundred years ago, if you were the king, then even if everyone else in the group held a different opinion, your opinon being contrary to the consensus would make everyone else's consensus opinions worthless. Yours would be the only one that counted.
Nowadays, your opinion has the same value as anyone elses. Dependent on circumstances society circumscribes it with, which are more or less arbitrary.
-
It's like a thread taken over by a PHIL 101 tutorial group out of control.
Stand still and put your hands in the air! This is a threadjacking! We're taking this thread to CUBA! Erm, I mean, ENLIGHTENMENT!
Anyway, I'm only here for the argument.
-
(If so, why? / If not, why not?).
By asking the question, you have provided the answer.
-
there seems a relatively short route between "Well... who's to say what's 'right' and 'wrong' in this modern world?" and - sorry - fascism.
Although perhaps the key difference is that the fascists wouldn't allow the debate to take place.
-
Should you give equal weight to an uninformed or misinformed opinion as you would to an informed one? (If so, why? / If not, why not?).
Depends on the context. In an election, yes. When attempting ascertain what the mysterious growing lump in your armpit is, no.
if I'm a member of that subset and disagree with the consensus, what does that entail?
Nothing. It's a free world.
Or have I misunderstood the question?