How much the gods will protect you in an accident?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:14:24 AM UTC-5, gamo wrote:
> El 19/11/14 a las 06:50, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
> escribió:
> > OK, let's assume that you are smart and buy a Smart car, the smallest two-seater on the road.
>
> You are smart because you save gas and have fun in the sun with the
> open roof. Then an idiot
>
> comes out of nowhere in an SUV and crushes you while he survives...
> >
> > That's what I mean.
>
> ---
>
> Standard law applies (common law, civil law) forcing those who
> cause the damage to pay for the damage they caused.
>
> The same rule that protects the SUV users from a colision with
> a bus.
>
> --
> http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/

If you are on a bicycle/scooter/motorcycle, the law may not matter as your first accident may be your last. You may be dead wrong or right and dead. What matters --and this is the first law of the revolution-- is PREVENTION.

By the way, my GF's Lexus was broadsided yesterday --totaled-- but the gods smiled on us and she's only hurting. Now we will feed some of the greatest industries in America: the accident industry. Do you think anyone is trying to prevent accidents seriously in America? How would the lawyers get rich?

How would the revolution approach prevention? Some rules and regulation are just common sense.

(TO BE CONTINUED)


------------------------------------------------

"The jungle has never been this much fun!"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:49:57 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:22:17 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <6655c1af-4836-4bd4...@googlegroups.com>,

> > Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

> > <thetibet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:38:58 AM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> > > > In article <986bfd75-591d-477b...@googlegroups.com>,

> > > > Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

> > > > <thetibet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:37:13 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > with the open roof. Then an idiot comes out of nowhere in an SUV and
> > > > > > > crushes you while he survives...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's what I mean.
> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then you'd be thankful to the SUV driver for putting you out of your
> > > > > > misery and disappointment at having paid a lot of good money for a
> > > > > > silly "Smart" car.
> > > > >
> > > > > Smart cars are cute and open with the top down. Not a box for a change.
> > > >
> > > > And when it rains it only takes twenty minutes and a engineering degree
> > > > to put the top back on (as the Top Gear guys found out), and carrying
> > > > all the bits leaves no room for any luggage / shopping. I seem to
> > > > vaguely remember reading that they were going to stop making the silly
> > > > 2-seater Smart car, and only make the bigger one.
> > > >
> > > > You want "cute" and "open", try a Mazda MX5, or a VW Beetle or Mini
> > > > convertible / cabriolet ... of course they're all "girl's cars". :-)
> > >
> > > The new Beetle is far more manly. More squarish.
> >
> > Yep, more "manly" ... they removed the on-dash flower vase. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > This car is a blast to drive in turbo version:
> > >
> > > http://www.auto-power-girl.com/wallpapers/highresolution/chevrolet_sonic_rs_tu
> > > rbo/73933
> > >
> > > Again, trying to drive aggressive here is a "no no." Driving reckless is OK. ;)
> >
> > Buy a real car - the Toyota 86 / Subaru BRZ (cabriolet versions
> > reportedly coming soon), or if you want something two-seater there's
> > the Nissan 370z or with more money the Jaguar F-type.
> >
> > As for driving these cars "fully", there are Track Days you can go to,
> > but you'll quickly eat through tyres, fuel, and money that way (and
> > probably repairs unless you've learnt how to drive properly).
>
> A well balanced small car allows you to have fun without breaking the bank. Not even breaking the law. You can have fun under 70mph.
>
> I enjoyed test driving this car:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Chevrolet_Spark_LS%2B_1.2_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_26._Juni_2011,_Mettmann.jpg
>
> A more powerful car may get me in trouble with the law.

By the way, the SUV I drive now has three times the power of the above car but it's not fun the way a small car can be. It's well balanced on the road, and the automatic helps it be a relaxed experience. Not many cars/SUVs push me around.

Enough qualities to survive in the jungle.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:43:37 AM UTC-5, Love wrote:
> In article <HuWdnRLaQrcfZPDJ...@supernews.com>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

> >On 11/20/2014 4:59 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> >> If you are on a bicycle/scooter/motorcycle, the law may not matter as your
> >> first accident may be your last. You may be dead wrong or right and dead. What
> >> matters --and this is the first law of the revolution-- is PREVENTION.
> >>
> >> By the way, my GF's Lexus was broadsided yesterday --totaled-- but the gods
> >> smiled on us and she's only hurting. Now we will feed some of the greatest
> >> industries in America: the accident industry. Do you think anyone is trying to
> >> prevent accidents seriously in America? How would the lawyers get rich?
> >>
> >> How would the revolution approach prevention? Some rules and regulation are
> >> just common sense.
> >

> >Clearly we need the guiding hand of our Great Father in Washington to
> >tell us what to do.
>
> Or to facillitate the massive amount of negotiation
> required of any set of wide-ranging public standards
> like road regulations entails.

Some don't even require regulation, just enforcing. The passing lane (aka "fast lane") is vaguely understood but never enforced.

Others require regulation like the daylight running lights, already standard in the civilized world (Canada & Europe). My vehicle has a different light setup for Canada, better I would say. Kind of common sense.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, Sharx35 wrote:
> "Your Name" wrote in message
> news:231120141017227720%Your...@YourISP.com...
>
> In article <m4qi2e$7m2$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Strickland
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:2bb1c04d-1d41-4ea5...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47:54 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

> > Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights:
>
> They wear out the battery quicker (especially problematic on those
> electric cars which use the same batteries for both moving and
> electronic gizmos).
>
> *****Give me a fucking break! You never heard of ALTERNATORS which are
> continually CHARGING the battery?
>
>
> Due to differing vehicle heights, they can be dazzling for some
> on-coming drivers in the opposite lane.
>
> *****NOT a problem during daylight hours. It's at night when
> glare can be a problem especially if the vehicles headlights aren't aimed
> properly--time
> for the police to start ticketing vehicles with misaligned headlights!!!

Here's when it gets confusing: My Honda Pilot manual says that vehicles made for Canada operate on "reduced high beam" in daylight. However I can choose to leave the lights "on" all the time and they go off and then come back on when I open the vehicle. It would seem like I don't have a problem at all.
My question is if I do any damage to the vehicle by starting with the lights on.

Why didn't they make it simple and go in line with Europe and Canada? It seems like the same problem we have with the metric system. We like things complicated. At this rate Ukraine will be more advanced than us in 5 years.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 7:02:56 AM UTC-5, Love wrote:
> In article <d8ffdd2c-ed5d-4375...@googlegroups.com>, thetibet...@gmail.com
> says...

> >Advantages
> >
> > Automobile manufacturers and proponents of daytime running lights claim that
> > having the headlamps illuminated at all times increases the vehicle's
> > visibility to other drivers. With increased visibility, automobile accidents
> > are less likely to occur as drivers will be more alert and aware of other
> > vehicles on the roadway.
> >
> >Disadvantages
> >
> > Opponents of daytime running lights claim that the lights make for a more
> > cluttered and distracting roadway. Drivers are more likely to be distracted
> > by the illuminated headlamps of oncoming vehicles. Also, when the majority
> > of cars in a dense traffic situation are utilizing daytime running lights,
> > glare from the lights can create driver visibility issues, especially on a
> > sunny day.
> >
> >Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_daytime-running-lights.html
> >
> >***
> >
> >That's silly, isn't it? The lights PREVENT accidents. Period. "Distraction,"
> >"glare," "visibility issues"... What issues? It must have been thought by a
> >lawyer.
>
> Actually, stats on their efficacy fell in the years after their
> introduction. Now that everyone has lights on all the time,
> noticeability is much less enhanced. An initial large safety
> improvement became a small one, and as a motorcycle rider I
> think actually reduced safety for me.

It couldn't possibly reduce your safety, unless someone is looking to kill motorcyclists on sight. ;)

I don't think your subconscious registers a vehicle as insignificant, unless you are a pathological killer. Without the lights a vehicle is blended in into the surroundings, so it becomes invisible. Same idea as camouflage in nature. You don't want to be invisible when nobody is intentionally trying to eat you.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:50:07 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> In article <xn0j9x6q...@reader.albasani.net>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> >
> > >In article <56c57fed-0bf8-40d5...@googlegroups.com>,

> > > "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"

> > > <thetibet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > If you want something to be visible, simply psychology says that
> > >> > to maximize a person seeing it you should change its state.
> > >> > That is, the human mind will do much better at noticing a
> > >> > blinking light, for example, than a steady light. We respond to
> > >> > changes of state, not "oh, look, they're all on".
> > >>
> > >> I don't follow your logic. You want some vehicles more visible
> > >> than others?
> > >
> > >Nope. You want them all to be visible.
> > >
> > >All of them having steady state lighting puts them all back to square
> > >1. The human mind doesn't see anything unique happening.
> > >
> > >Make them all flash their lights like cops. You'll see every car no
> > >matter what.
> >
> > While we're in the business of forcing people to use their lights
> > properly, I would prefer someone invent something to dim the high beams
> > of those assholes who refuse to turn their lights down.
>
> That's already been done and is available on cars from various
> manufacturers.
> <http://www.toyota.com.au/camry/features/safety/auto-high-beam>
> <http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles
> /autobeam.html%3Fsource%3Dcategories%26article%3Dautobeam>
> <http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/technology/visibility-and-security/light-sy
> stems>
>
> As with many other things, it will probably trickle down to being
> standard equipment on the average cheapo Kia and Hyundai eventually.
>
> OR, you could always make your own:
> <http://homemadecircuitsandschematics.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/how-to-make-
> automatic-vehicle-headlight.html>
> although going around installing them on other people's cars without
> their consent is probably illegal. :-)

Big Brother should worry more about PREVENTION and less about protection after the accident. That's how they have created a culture of "even an idiot can drive" and "it's OK to have an accident."

DRL's is the first step, then enforcing PASSING LANES and BANNING CELL PHONES. Oh yes, implement SPEED CAMERAS and REMOVE OR REDUCE THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS. They are only milking the cow without preventing the slaughterhouse.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:26:07 PM UTC-5, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dave Head: Sounds like pure anarchy to me - even if on the books in your's and other states.
>
> I'll continue to stay to the right and pass only on the left, and f%^k any A-hole who tailgates and flicks their high beams at me for going too slow in the right-most lane when I'm already at or just above the speed limit!

That's exactly what we've got on the roads: PURE ANARCHY. Everybody trying to get ahead of everybody, anything goes, the mighty rule...

It shows how impossible that system is.