You are right for hard or emergency braking, but Hyundai’s regenerative braking at max is intended to be one pedal driving, and it easily stops you completely in a fairly short distance. I guess that isn’t the way others are doing it. I can get away with only using the brakes at the first stop sign near my house when I leave with a full charge, as the regenerative brakes don’t work when it can’t charge the battery. But I am sure I will still have to change the brake pads eventually anyway, which I would normally do myself during a seasonal tire changeover, so this news sucks.

For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don’t think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.

The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn’t take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.

And you’ll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That’s because it’s immaterial. I’m merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn’t big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can’t stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.

No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don’t understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.

I don’t think you understand the article or my point. The guy who is advocating the rule change says it is justified because there are only consequences for the rider. That is simply not true. That’s the point being made. That has nothing to do with how the rule works. I don’t understand what you don’t understand that.

My dude, I take your point, but you’re writing in properties for the mimic that aren’t in the rules, based on your real world perception of how things work. That isn’t applicable to the game mechanics. If you really have to have something to wrap your head around to explain the mimic both breathing and being imperceptible while impersonating an object, then model mimic breathing as some form of motionless skin breathing. Just realise that when you go digging for another reason to say why you can see it happening, its your model that is wrong, not the rules.

Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn’t relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.

That’s a very good point. Maybe you should read a fucking comment before you reply it. At what point did you see me say anything about the actual details of the rule? That isn’t relevant to my comment. We were talking about the faulty argument regarding the consequences of when people inevtiably get it wrong. If you have anything pertinent to add on that point, please comment.

Simply not true though. Someone who doesn’t want PTSD from turning a human being into a big red crayon is going to make panic maneuvers, which could very well cause a different fatal crash. There are lots of “good” arguments as to why we should be able to ignore traffic signs under certain circumstances, but they all require that humans consistently get it right. Take the extra seconds to stop and make the roads safer for everyone, or if that is so much of an imposition, please just take the bus.

Yep, can confirm. And in about six hours it will become an ableist slur against the hard of hearing.

It’s a faulty argument because it only considers the damage caused by the bike hitting something, not the consequences of other vehicles with the right of way making emergency maneuvers to avoid smearing the idiot who ran the stop. This guy has been sitting on his tenured ass and smelling his own farts for too long.

Remember, I’m pulling for you. We’re all in this together.

So I guess this becomes a user tax at the point of sale then, and we can expect to save three or four hundred bucks on our property taxes this year?

Caring, sharing, underwear that no one should be wearing

FFS, stop feeding me tennis balls!

It’s good to hear even a bigot is good with Adam and Yves. Steve is a shithead anyway.

Blue dress with a stain on it, I expect.

Now you see why AI everywhere is so important. Anyone could have made that video!

Goodnight, Springton! There will be no encore.

Yes, and these matchbooks went on to inspire both Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino and Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi as well. One day the four great artists were surprised to learn that the cardboard matches had been crafted by a great artist of the martial persuasion, who kept getting slivers from the wooden variety. Lovingly know to the four as Master Splinter, they went on to great adventures together in the sewers of New York.