Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Weirder yet, in reply to JacksonP,
Paris Hilton is starting a political party? There’s literally no hope for us.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to Russell Brown,
But I don’t think being 8km/h above the speed limit is actually the point of the ad.
If it's not the point, why show it? It's an easy and understandable conclusion to jump to that this would fit the prevailing contextual pattern of focussing on speed as the prime problem. And clearly that's a conclusion that quite a few people are jumping to.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to George Darroch,
’m utterly astounded by the comments of (seemingly intelligent and otherwise rational) people here that speed doesn’t matter.
Of course it matters. But focussing on speed to the absolute exclusion of all other factors that the driver can control is counter-productive. I can only recall one ad off the top of my head that didn't focus on speed* - 'drive to the conditions, when they change reduce your speed'. And I've never heard anyone spend time and effort trying to pick holes in that one, either.
*alcohol excepted, but that's a different story.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to BenWilson,
To be honest, watching it, when I see the other car from the perspective of the speeding guy, my own instinct is that he’d be able to stop in time, even at 108km/h. You don’t have to wait until the road is fully obstructed by the other car before you even begin slowing down. Indeed, personally, I begin slowing down automatically that I even see a car at all in that exact situation, just on the presumption that they might pull out for whatever reason. I have my eye pretty much fixed on that car as the most likely danger, and my foot is already on the brake. So inattention would have been a big factor in this accident.
Bingo. My first thought was 'why isn't the guy in the car covering the brake? He's got plenty of visibility, he can see the potential hazard. Why isn't he already checking his speed and possibly scrubbing some off from around 200m away?'.
The focus on speed as the risk in all of these campaigns seems to give rise to these really oddly illogical inconsistencies. There's been a series of campaigns that have all but come out and said that if you're going over 100, you're a death-dealing psycho, but under 100, you're sweet. It's an arbitrary line on the clock, not a blinkin' forcefield switch.
-
Cracker: The Colorado Experiment, in reply to Sue,
what i find amazing about Colorado is that nobody who grows or sells… can open a bank account, because it’s against federal law. So they all have these safes and run on a cash economy
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to ,
hat is ordinary bloke hood all about really?
This is my version: I hold an HT license with a forklift and dangerous goods endorsement.
I have a fabrication engineering certificate, ( Which means I can weld things)
I am construction sight savvy, a competent industrial fishing boat deckhand but I have never felled a large pine tree.
Now this is where I might come unstuck: I don’t drink and I don’t watch sport on TV. I don’t have a fire arms license, nor do I wish to get one. However, I hang out with people who watch sport on TV, I drink non alcoholic beer and I am willing to help irradiate pest animals, alongside a sensible licensed firearms owner.
And I have admiration for academics and geeks.
Well, Steven, unless you hold a class-2 endorsement for reducing people to two-dimensional easily-pigeonholed caricatures, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your mancard.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
“four wheels good…”
Two wheels better?
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Which is all very interesting but the reality is suggesting that personal morality has no role in law because of the professional code is both daft and something that lawyers insist is important.
I work in law, and on many occasions I have been in a position where there are multiple possible courses of action available to a client. I am obliged to inform my client of all of the options, but generally I will attempt to emphasise the course of action that I think is in their best interests. The English language being what it is, and basic human psychology being what it is, attempting to provide the options in a completely neutral and balanced manner would be next to impossible.
It would be disingenous to try to argue that it could be possible for the personally unscrupulous or unethical to emphasise a course of action that might financially benefit them more than another, but giving advice that is incorrect (knowingly or not), or omitting an option (even if with good intentions), can come back to bite you hard in the arse.
And as has already been pointed out, I can’t force a client to pick an option I prefer. If they bull-headedly want to pursue a particular course of action, I don’t have a choice but to carry out their instructions to the best of my ability.
However, there does seem to be an assumption here that the lawyers here are the responsible party - the ones in the driving seat. Given that there are many pieces of the jigsaw missing here, I think that's a somewhat hasty and not necessarily fair conclusion.
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
replicate the Milgram experiment
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to NBH,
If you conduct research with human subjects without obtaining human ethics committee approval, falsify data, or engage in plagiarism, then although there’s a good chance you haven’t broken any law you will be subject to professional sanctions up to and including effectively not being able to practise as a scientist ever again.
CoughAndrewWakefieldCough