Who has time for roundabouts

source: imgur
  • What I imagine is happening, when you guys complain about the roundabouts on Floyd
  • Clever way to approach a traffic circle in Edmonton without using your signals
  • When you're driving and I'll Fly Away comes on
  • "At the roundabout, take the second exit."
  • Who has time for roundabouts
  • He's the unknown stunt man
  • How to use a roundabout
  • I'll be the roundabout
  • Stunt jump complete
  • Roundabout flyover
  • Eastbound and Down
  • Multi Curb Jumping
  • The Ramping Effect
  • me in roundabouts
  • The landing

Share this post

Leave a comment

Comments (51)

  • Tavares Brown Reply

    **AFTER seven seasons, four world titles, dozens of wins and a shed load of dislike, distrust and mindgames, Valentino Rossi and Jorge Lorenzo will race out of the same garage for the last time.** This weekend’s Grand Prix of Valencia will mark the 119th and final time the two MotoGP greats race for the factory Yamaha squad as ‘teammates’, one last chance for each to beat the other while in Yamaha blue before Lorenzo dons Ducati red next season. The head-to-head battles between them are the stuff of legend — for fans, anyway. Yamaha’s management have no doubt aged prematurely after dealing with turmoil between the pair; ‘the wall’ of 2010, the Sepang accusations of 2015, and even the post-Misano verbal sparring earlier this year. The drawing of the curtains on one of MotoGP’s most tempestuous yet triumphant partnerships does beg one inevitable question. Who did better in their years together: Rossi or Lorenzo? It’s a debate that will rage well into the future as fans of both subjectively argue their position, but the raw numbers paint a picture that is hardly black and white. Here is our ultimate stats breakdown of their seven years at Yamaha, from 2008-10 and 2013-16. **QUALIFYING** Here, at least, there is a clear winner. Lorenzo easily headed Rossi on Saturdays across their years at Yamaha. Lorenzo beats Rossi in every major metric. He has 29 pole positions to Rossi’s 15; 88 front row starts to Rossi’s 50. He set the tone of their relationship with three straight pole positions in the first three races of his MotoGP career in 2008, before crashing to earth. Literally. His massive highside crash in practice at Round 4 in China blunted the rest of his rookie season, but he started to gain the ascendancy in the following years. The arrival of the quickfire Q1-Q2 format in 2013 increased Lorenzo’s advantage, suiting the Spaniard’s ability to push hard on a cold tyre while Rossi initially needed a couple of laps to find his ultimate pace. The Doctor learnt quickly on the Michelin rubber, though. So far in 2016 he has been more than a match for Lorenzo in qualifying. Through to Valencia, they have three poles and 11 front row starts apiece, but Rossi has been the first Yamaha on the grid nine times to Lorenzo’s eight. **Pole positions** Rossi: 15 Lorenzo: 29 *Rossi ahead in 09, Lorenzo ahead in 08, 10, 13, 15. Tied in 2014 (1-all), 2016 (3-all ahead of Valencia).* **Front row starts** Rossi: 50 Lorenzo: 88 *Rossi ahead in 08, Lorenzo ahead in 09, 10, 13, 14, 15. Tied so far in 16 (11-all so far).* **First factory Yamaha on the grid** Rossi: 40 Lorenzo: 78 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 16, Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 14, 15.* **RACING** This is where the line between them starts to blur. On 59 occasions, Lorenzo has been the first factory Yamaha home; on 58 occasions, Rossi has been the first factory Yamaha past the flag. Such a narrow margin demonstrates how the swings and roundabouts of form that each has rode have balanced out over such a long period of time. While ‘The Doctor’ racked up the results in Lorenzo’s rookie season, the Spaniard surged ahead during Rossi’s injury-hit year of 2010 and again in 2013 when the Italian lagged behind in his return to Yamaha. With no intentions of slowing down, Rossi split with long time chief mechanic Jeremy Burgess at the end of the 2013 season. His new partnership with Silvano Galbusera turned his form around, and it shows in the numbers. Since 2014 he has been nearly a match for Lorenzo. That season, they tied on two wins apiece while Rossi pipped him for second in the standings. A year later they fought over the title all the way to the final round, Lorenzo getting the nod, while this year has been much like 2014. Interestingly, Rossi has posted the fastest lap of the race more times than Lorenzo, 21-19 including a 2-1 lead this year. But at the end of seven years, it is again Lorenzo who is ahead where it ultimately counts: in race wins. **Race wins** Rossi: 26 Lorenzo: 34 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 15, 16 (3-2 so far). Tied in 14 (2-all).* **Podiums** Rossi: 83 Lorenzo: 80 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 14, 15, 16 (10-9 to Valencia), Lorenzo ahead 10, 13.* **Top Fives** Rossi: 105 Lorenzo: 94 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 14, 15, 16 (12-9 so far), Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13.* **Top 10s** Rossi: 110 Lorenzo: 105 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 14, 15, 16 (13-12 so far), Lorenzo ahead 10, 13.* **DNFs** Rossi: 7 Lorenzo: 14 * Rossi ahead 08, 09, 14, 15, Lorenzo ahead 13, 16 (3-4 so far). Tied in 10 (nil-all, although he missed four races through injury Rossi finished every race he started).* **Fastest laps** Rossi: 21 Lorenzo: 19 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 16 (2-1), Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 15. Tied in 14 (1-all).* **Laps led** Rossi: 582 Lorenzo: 982 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 16 (78-75), Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 14, 15.* **First factory Yamaha across the line on any lap both completed** Rossi: 1236 Lorenzo: 1368 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 14, 16 (198-113 so far), Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 15.* **First factory Yamaha at the finish** Rossi: 58 Lorenzo: 59 *Rossi ahead in 08, 09, 14, 16 (9-7 so far), Lorenzo ahead in 10, 13, 15.* **CHAMPIONSHIP** While Lorenzo’s pace has carried him to more victories across each season, Rossi’s sheer consistency in his second Yamaha spell gives him the edge at year’s end. Both men earnt two world championships while paired with the other, but Rossi is on top on total points accrued, as well as being the first factory Yamaha man in the final standings four times to Lorenzo’s three. **First factory Yamaha in final rankings** Rossi: 4 Lorenzo: 3 *Rossi ahead 08, 09, 14, 16, Lorenzo ahead 10, 13, 15.* **Championship wins** Rossi: 2 (08, 09) Lorenzo: 2 (10, 15) **Points scored** Rossi: 2005 Lorenzo: 1965 **ULTIMATE STATS BREAKDOWN — YEAR BY YEAR** **2008** Poles: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 4** Front row: **Rossi 10**, Lorenzo 8 Wins: **Rossi 9**, Lorenzo 1 Podiums: **Rossi 16**, Lorenzo 6 Ranking: **Rossi 1**, Lorenzo 4 **2009** Poles: **Rossi 7**, Lorenzo 5 Front row: Rossi 13, **Lorenzo 16** Wins: **Rossi 6**, Lorenzo 4 Podiums: **Rossi 13**, Lorenzo 12 Ranking: **Rossi 1**, Lorenzo 2 **2010** Poles: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 7** Front row: Rossi 4, **Lorenzo 17** Wins: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 9** Podiums: Rossi 10, **Lorenzo 16** Ranking: Rossi 3, **Lorenzo 1** **2011-2012, Rossi moves to Ducati while Lorenzo stays at Yamaha** **2013** Poles: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 4** Front row: Rossi 4, **Lorenzo 13** Wins: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 8** Podiums: Rossi 6, **Lorenzo 14** Ranking: Rossi 4, **Lorenzo 2** **2014** Poles: Tied 1-all Front row: Rossi 3, **Lorenzo 9** Wins: Tied 2-all Podiums: **Rossi 13**, Lorenzo 11 Ranking: **Rossi 2**, Lorenzo 3 **2015** Poles: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 5** Front row: Rossi 5, **Lorenzo 14** Wins: Rossi 4, **Lorenzo 7** Podiums: **Rossi 15**, Lorenzo 12 Ranking: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 1** **2016 (up to Valencia)** Poles: Tied 3-all Front row: Tied 11-all Wins: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 3** Podiums: **Rossi 10**, Lorenzo 9 Ranking: **Rossi 2**, Lorenzo 3 **ULTIMATE STATS BREAKDOWN — TRACK BY TRACK** MotoGP has visited 23 circuits across the seven seasons Rossi and Lorenzo have been at Yamaha. In qualifying, Lorenzo has outpaced Rossi at 16 circuits to six, while Rossi is better on race day at 13 circuits to seven, the pair tied at three others. Rossi actually turned the tables on Lorenzo at nine circuits, turning his qualifying deficit to a better result on race day, one of them his home circuit at Misano. Neither rider managed a clean sweep of qualifying or racing at any of the circuits visited in all seven years of their Yamaha relationship. Lorenzo came closest with a near sweep of qualifying at Jerez, up until Rossi took his first pole at the circuit in over a decade in April. **Termas de Rio Hondo, Argentina** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 2** Racing: **Rossi 2**, Lorenzo 1 **Phillip Island, Australia** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 6** Racing: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 3 **Red Bull Ring, Austria** Qualifying: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 1** Racing: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 1** **Shanghai, China** Qualifying: **Rossi 1**, Lorenzo nil Racing: **Rossi 1**, Lorenzo nil **Brno, Czech Republic** Qualifying: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 5** Racing: Rossi 3, **Lorenzo 4** **Le Mans, France** Qualifying: Rossi 3, **Lorenzo 4** Racing: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 5** **Sachsenring, Germany** Qualifying: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 4** Racing: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 2 **Donington, Great Britain** Qualifying: **Rossi 2**, Lorenzo nil Racing: **Rossi 2**, Lorenzo nil **Silverstone, Great Britain** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 3** Racing: Tied 2-all **Mugello, Italy** Qualifying: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 4** Racing: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 5** **Motegi, Japan** Qualifying: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 3 Racing: Tied 3-all **Sepang, Malaysia** Qualifying: **Rossi 5**, Lorenzo 2 Racing: **Rossi 5**, Lorenzo 2 **Assen, The Netherlands** Qualifying: **Rossi 5**, Lorenzo 1 Racing: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 2 **Estoril, Portugal** Qualifying: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 3** Racing: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 3** **Losail, Qatar** Qualifying: Rossi 2, **Lorenzo 5** Racing: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 3 **Circuit de Catalunya, Spain** Qualifying: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 5** Racing: **Rossi 3**, Lorenzo 2 **Jerez, Spain** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 6** Racing: **Rossi 4**, Lorenzo 3 **Motorland Aragon, Spain** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 4** Racing: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 5** **Valencia, Spain** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 5** Racing: Tied 3-all **Circuit of The Americas, United States** Qualifying: Rossi nil, **Lorenzo 4** Racing: Tied 2-all **Indianapolis, United States** Qualifying: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 5** Racing: Rossi 1, **Lorenzo 5** **Laguna Seca, United States** Qualifying: Tied 2-all Racing: **Rossi 3**, Lorenzo 1

  • Mathilde Rice Reply

    > I think you might be one of those people who doesn't learn the rules of a country's roads before entering them. > Overtaking is only allowed on the right. My daily experience on the M11 tells me otherwise. > (If anyone is passing you on the left, move fuck over you're in the wrong lane, and it is an offence to sit in the lane you are in if its possible for someone to pass you on the left) Too bad it's pretty much impossible to do so because the leftmost lane has the incredibly frequent habit of becoming a sliproad at the last possible moment, when you have to quickly find a way of getting to central lane to escape your destiny outside of the motorway. > Cyclists are not allowed on motorways, and I have never seen one. I have seen plenty. A428 and M11. > Our roads fit our cars perfectly well. I don't know which part of the country you live in, but in Bedforshire/Cambridgeshire you have roads that would be pretty much illegal anywhere else in Europe, when it comes to lane size. > If you're on a narrow road, you drive slower, which is inherently safer anyway. Oh ok, so you increase safety through shitty roads. > Choke points are there to slow you down, they make the roads safer. Choke points are there to find them in the middle of the road at the last moment and break your axle. Also, to increase congestion. > No highway has a raised pavement, unless installed as a safety feature. Ah ok, so having a 10cm raised, grey pavement 5 mm from your spinning wheel is safety? What happens if an idiot cuts the curve and I need that extra space to get out of the way? > We have absolutely NO confusing traffic lights. All our lights are standard size and shape, always Red, Amber, Green. They all follow a standardised pattern. Yes you do. [This shit makes no sense](https:[email protected],0.1498948,3a,44.3y,55.65h,79.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH1bbrNqJ6PvxMHjsC5MqgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) You have traffic lights inside roundabouts, which makes no fucking sense. The point of a roundabout is that when I'm in the roundabout I have right of way. In a narrow roundabout as I am turning I don't expect a fucking traffic light but it's red only if I am in the inner circle, and green if I am in the outer one. You also have traffic lights with sun shields that make it impossible to see the traffic light when you are at the very front. > Vegetation is regularly monitored, of course sometimes things will grow between cutting, but every country in the world has that. > Your argument about newer cars, educated population, traffic density, left hand driving... no. Here's why. Germany 4.3, France 5.1, Japan 4.7, Italy 6.1. All comparable in those respects. None of those countries drive on the left. Germany has very educated drivers. Italy has an impervious territory, senior citizens, uneducated drivers and older cars. > There is actually an organisation that gives roads a star rating for safety based on the things you mentioned, bushes, lines, signs, trees, width etc, and it's true, we do have some less than safe country roads (as every country does, so drive slowly on them). But our motorways and dual carriageways, which this speed limit is relevant too are all top rated roads. Shit like those A1 spots would be illegal in my country and the town would be sued to the moon the first time an accident happens. > There is simply no argument, based on the facts, that the UK is not the second least likely place to die in a car accident, after Sweden. I am from Italy, I have never been scared of driving in Italy. I am scared as hell every time I put my nose on the M11.

  • Maxie Abshire Reply

    [Who has time for roundabouts?](http://i.imgur.com/y8YmwGb.gifv)

  • Joesph Schulist Reply

    Try "An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth". It's [Chris Hadfield's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo) autobiography. He's someone who has to function flawlessly for a living and in this book he describes how he did it - meaning: how he approach problems, dealt with loss and problems in a positive way and how he prepared. There's also a lot of interesting trivia in there. For example before his first spacewalk they played Stan Roger's [Northwest Passage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVY8LoM47xI) for him. He also answers questions such as: What do astronauts do when they aren't in space. Of course he's bragging a little bit here and there, but overall it's a very down-to-earth book and I took a few things with me for my own life. On a personal note: I'm also at a point in my life where I'm throwing everything away and start over completely new and it wasn't easy and there was some failure but it mattered not. What slowly started to change my attitude towards failure was the realization that failure shaped some aspects of my character I'm happy I have or had failures that did hurt but have become a point of pride over time. Success or failure is all swings and roundabouts, odds are it'll enrich you, even if at first some things may hurt for a while, but you'll be enriched and hopefully a little better at the end.

  • Hannah Steuber Reply

    > That on average men earn more than women. > Do you agree with her position? I don't really have a particularly strong opinion on it. I agree with what people are saying about it being a lifestyle choice to a certain extent. Its swings and roundabouts really. I work in a company that has a pretty equal 50:50 gender split, and salaries are high. Differences in pay for the same position (where they exist) seem to be down to the willingness of the higher wage earner to threaten to leave. Which is a matter of assertiveness, which has a loose correlation with gender. Though in the company I work for the women seem to do just fine. So its not a really important issue to me. I think there are generally more women that do precarious part time work where they have less rights than full time employees due to child care commitments. Again, I think this is partly down to lifestyle choice and societal norms. The law already ensures equal pay for equal work, so there isn't much to be done there. But I think the government can do more to help people (of both genders) who want to do part-time work *and* raise a family. Specifically I'd like to see the government do two things: 1. Reverse the trend away from replacing employees with "contractors" on casual employment terms. This is very quickly becoming the norm in this country for people on low income, and I think its bad for families. 1. I'd like to see far more done to reduce the financial burden of early years child care so that it is far easier for both parents to choose to work if they wish to. 1. And along with 2. I'd like to drastically increase the normal amount of paid paternity leave that men take. Having more paternal involvement in early stage child care makes it easier for women to go back to work, and just as importantly, improves the bond between fathers and their children. I think its a travesty that fathers around the country are forced to choose between bonding with their children, and providing a stable income for their family. I suppose the short answer to your question is that I don't really agree with her position because its too simple and obfuscates from the more important issues that I've just mentioned above.

  • Edmund Marquardt Reply

    I'm a fan of futuristic stuff, but I also find bad solutions annoying. This solution looks genuinely far worse than a pair of roundabouts (dumbell) or a dog-bone (see [Diamond Interchange on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_interchange)). Initial cost: My god that DDI looks like a lot of building. Lots of big signs to make sure everyone goes the right way, lots of painting the road, two sets of traffic signals. A pair of roundabouts requires making some round islands and getting the camber right. DDI looks like a science project. Ongoing costs: DDI still needs 2 sets of traffic lights, and they must be maintained very well because without them the entire junction with grind to a halt. A roundabout has zero traffic lights, zero things to break besides streetlighting, which is easy to temporarily supplement. If a DDI breaks, I would put a team of traffic officers to work on it. Flow characteristics: The crossing (local) road is not free flowing, even if you were the only car crossing the junction. The inversion of lanes requires that one or both directions is stopped at all times. A roundabout-based option flows freely when there is little traffic. Wrong junction problem: If you exit the motorway (highway) and then change your mind or realise it was the wrong junction, you cannot get back on in the same direction through the junction. You have to go down one of the local roads and turn around. Ironically by adding to the punishment for making a mistake, it would make mistakes more likely. On a double-roundabout or dog-bone roundabout you just continue through the roundabout and rejoin the motorway. Both junction types are easy to use to turn and go back down the motorway. Complexity: It is hard for drivers to make good decisions if they do not understand the junction. I would argue the DDI is sufficiently complex that the driver is forced to just follow the signs and hope they come out in the right place. When signs are imperfect, or local place names are confusing (do I want Yipford West or South? I'm going to Yipford!) that can be much harder for the driver to do correctly. Roundabouts, once you are familiar with them, are very simple to think about. They are also easy to augment - I have been through intersections with 5-way roundabouts, 3-way roundabouts, and they are just as simple as the 'normal' case. The circular argument: Sometimes the signs do not say any of the things you were expecting, and you find yourself entering an intersection in a state of confusion while you have a tense argument with your spouse about who decided on the route. On a roundabout, this is ok - you just go around the roundabout a few times, maybe head over to the other roundabout for a bit. You can keep going past all the signs until you've read them all and decided which Yipford is the best bet. On a DDI or any traffic-light based thing, you have to stop (and anger everyone) or find a way out of the junction to stop. I doubt confusion and circular driving were an intended feature of roundabouts, but it's one I've used many times when I don't see the thing I'm expecting and I want to avoid making a costly mistake. DDI seems like an interesting idea, but given that the central inverted section *is* a roundabout-like structure in many ways, I think it would be vastly improved by replacing it with a roundabout. The only downside to roundabouts is seizing up in congestion, but part-time traffic signals can be added if needed to cope with congestion - this has the significant benefit of only minimally affecting the junction itself. For the DDI, the signals are essential in all circumstances.

  • Effie Cronin Reply

    Maybe I'm a pessimist but a lot of this rings true for me as someone who's lived in London and NYC (as well as other major cities around the world). NYC is significantly more dirty and noisy than London, largely due to traffic; their proposal for a congestion charge was defeated years ago. There are almost no roundabouts in NYC, so every corner has a traffic light and they are not timed well. Drivers repeatedly block the box without getting fines and you'll hear drivers frequently beeping their horns, or holding down the horn if the light is green but traffic is not moving. Take a look in google maps at the 1 mile view of London and Manhattan. There are very few entry points to the island of Manhattan and if you live near any of the congested areas near bridges or tunnels you'll near honking day and night unless your building is newer and has very good soundproofing. Road and building work happens on a near constant basis so that adds to the noise pollution. Therefore you'll likely want to live in a quieter area, and those areas with newer buildings are significantly more expensive. Many people live outside of Manhattan and commute in from New Jersey, Brooklyn, Queens or Connecticut. The trains are hit and miss, especially on the weekend where many lines don't run or have frequent maintenance so you'll find it difficult to use public transport to get into Manhattan. It takes ages to get anywhere by bus because of the traffic congestion. In terms of value for money, if you live in NYC, 50% of your payslip will go to tax and you'll find you get very little in return. I hadn't quite understood the American mistrust of government and taxes, but since living here it makes more sense because you wonder exactly where the money is going. The large central park is much more crowded than the parks in London - think of the numbers of people in a park on a sunny summers day in London, and that's your normal Saturday in central park. Aside from central park, there is very little greenery elsewhere in the city. It's always nice to get out of the city to another town where the air feels fresher. If you have kids, the school situation is so very different to the UK. It's not just a matter of enrolling your child in the local comprehensive and trusting that they'll get a pretty good education. The quality of public schools varies wildly based on the area, with the worst schools having drug and gun problems. So while you mightn't have considered private schooling at all in the UK, it becomes a option you seriously consider in the US, along with the associated costs. Many professionals choose to live way out of NYC, or in a different state so that they can live in a good public school catchment area. This leaves them with an hour's commute into and out of the city every day. The options for food shopping are much more limited, with Whole Foods, Trader Joes and maybe Morton Williams being the closest to British supermarkets. You will miss the variety of supermarket and food options you have in the UK. Healthcare is a total pain in the arse. Even with your monthly insurance payment you still have deductibles and out of pocket maximums. So your insurance won't really kick in until you've paid $500-$700 deductible in a year on top of what's deducted from your payslip (and that deductible resets every year). And yes while you can go to any doctor, some won't be "in network" with your insurance, which means your insurance will only pay for say 60% (instead of 80% for in network) treatment. Even if you hit your deductible for the year, you'll have to pay the rest of that 20-40% out of your out of pocket maximum, which is more like $1500-$2000 a year. So, say if you have a baby, even with great insurance you'll still have a few grand to pay in bills. So try to time your pregnancy within one calendar year! It really is that ridiculous. It gets even more complex with dependents. The IRS is also a totally different beast to deal with as you'll need to report all your foreign earned income and there are many tax traps as a foreigner. That is a totally different post of its own. Immigration is difficult unless you're married to an American. If work's sponsoring you, consider that it won't be easy to move jobs unless you have a green card. So if you want to stay, make sure that green card clause is in your contract. Otherwise, even though your starting salary might be good, after a few years it'll get worse as the company doesn't really need to give you a pay rise or bonus since you're a H1B or L1 slave. So in short, yes X2 salary does sound right, and there are a lot of hidden costs.

  • Jazmyn Shields Reply

    > What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance Yup - when was the last time any ruler honestly felt threatened by a firearm. In the 50 years since JFK, surveillance, protection, security, and a million other factors have ensured that your president is one of the most protected individuals on the planet. Hell, the secret service removes goddamn roundabouts in foreign countries when he comes to visit, you think that Lee Oswald Junior is really a concern to them at this stage? The scariest thing that's been within 100 meters of one of your presidents since JFK was a shoe for crying out loud. > The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man Just because some old-guy said it, doesn't make it true. There are numerous examples of this around the world, and I never said you should ban all guns, which is what every gun debate in the US comes down to. "Hey, maybe we should control who has them, to people who DON'T have a criminal record" You can talk all you want about the laws you do have, the fact is, numerous states DON'T require a permit to purchase a weapon, so there's no method, nor incentive for a seller, to ensure that a buyer isn't about to go on a homicidal rampage. Is it REALLY that bad to ask that you check that someone isn't a criminal before selling them a handgun? Want to buy a gun, without a permit? [Head to any state that starts with an A, G, K, L, O, P, S, T, U, V or W](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state) If I have a history of domestic abuse, and/or physical violence; why can I purchase those guns. Sure, I may not be allowed to OWN them, but who cares. That's like selling booze and cigarettes to teenagers, then expecting them not to USE them - aka STUPID.

  • Wallace Kessler Reply

    So, I live in a town that has a really really low crime rate. Typical upper middle class WASPville. Anyways, about a year ago I got a job at a local grocery store. I mostly got along with my coworkers but there were three pretty creepy ones. We'll call them M, B, and J. B was mid-late forties, chubby, not exactly a looker, and was apparently known for being really... Off towards female coworkers. M was a 29 year old who was actually decently funny, but was still a virgin and it was pretty easy to see why honestly. J was around 19 or so, and stunk to high heaven. I mean being within 4 feet of him made you want to physically gag. The thing is, the guy actually would have been pretty attractive if he didn't smell like a middle school guys' locker room condensed into one human being. I was a 16 year old who thought I was invincible as a result of living in a sheltered enviorment. I had red hair, which a lot of guys tend to fetishize and I wouldn't really say I'm anything more than average, really. Anyways, B was the one who was initially the creepiest. I get pretty handsy with my friends, but only if I actually know them and know it's okay with them. This guy, however just touched any woman without any warning or real reason. My third day on the job, I was just bagging for my cashier and interacting with the customer who was this lovely old lady who I would later learn was a regular. She was smiling and talking with me about recipes she was planning to make and she just turns poker faced, and I'm trying to figure out if I said something wrong so I'm getting nervous in addition to what I thought was also just new job stress. She whispers to me that the old guy the next register over kept staring at my butt and that I should tell my manager. Being the dumbass teenager I am I figured it was fine. Guys had stared at my ass before, ranging from tweenies to like 80 year old men. I didn't really think it was anything to be concerned about so I left it. Then he just kept gradually touching me more and demanding my attention more to which I'd just shoot a glare at him and tell him to lay off. He'd always shoot back some dumbass phrase about me being a fiery redhead but like, no dude. You're just fucking creepy. Every time I'd always get some sweet older lady asking me if my hair was natural, and complimenting it he'd always feel some need to chime in. After I grew out of the phase at around 13 where I stopped hating my red hair/fair skin complexion I loved getting the compliments from people because I don't know. I had been bullied as a child for it incessently but I was growing out of the awkward chubby kid me and got a major hourglass shape. For once I felt pretty secure in my body, give or take 15 lbs. I'm pretty sure he preyed off of that and aimed to try and make me like him back but ultimately it just creeped me out more. It got majorly worse around winter when one day he decided to tuck the tag in on my safety vest then just kinda carress down my back closer to my ass for like 10 seconds. I was walking into the store and just kinda froze for that time with I guess a look of digust on my face. There was this middle aged guy there who told him he was being creepy and reported it to the store management (Thank you kind stranger) and even though he got reprimanded, union rules made it difficult to fire him. Even if he kept getting complaints for touching and hitting on underage girls. I thought he couldn't get any creepier, until he started commenting on how good I'd look pregnant. Then I thought it couldn't get creepier until he started following my home. My apartment complex was about a 4 minute walk from the store so I'd just walk home after every shift. Once I noticed him trying to follow me I took different directions home and made a ton of roundabouts and stuff so he wouldn't know where I lived. I'd call my brother while I was walking home because aside from being an EMT with a lot of cop friends, he was also a pretty big and intimidating dude. Even if he lived abut 20 minutes away. I was continuing my don't walk directly home routine and it was cold and I was hungry so I stopped off at this little BBQ place close to the store and got a bite to eat. One of my neighbors was there, and he had a thing for me and had asked me out twice but he had to be at least 21 and I was 16 and I knew some things despite my major dumbassery. We were talking, and the creeper stalkery coworker topic comes up so he offered to walk me home once my shifts were over. This guy was like a 6'5 black guy, and broad too so not really one to mess with. Really nice guy, and if there wasn't such an age difference I probably would date him. But while B was still creepy as fuck, I could hold off the comments and touching until I quite after 10 or so months there. I'll continue the other stories in the comments under this because I didn't think this would be so long. Tl;dr really creepy late forties coworker kept touching/making creepy comments towards me. Starts following me home. Fucking terrified. Good guy neighbor steps up and walks me home after my shifts so creepy coworker leaves me alone.

  • Otto Hyatt Reply

    I had a similar thing recently, I was driving my 380, which is a similar car to the US Mitsubishi Galant through a backroad which has 3 roundabouts and 3 speed bumps. You can do all of them at 50km/h, as the speed bumps are designed that way, and I tend to cruise through it at that speed. I had this car who was dropping back at every obstacle, and then accelerating hard to catch up, not tailgating but getting very close to me. When I got to the main road, I waited until just before a car was coming and turned right so that the car behind me would have to wait and give way to create a safety gap and a nice little fuck you for his aggressive driving. I hit the 80km/h limit and cruised. The car came belting up behind me only a few seconds after I hit the speed limit. I would be confident in saying he did well over 100 to catch me, tailgates me for a while and the disco lights go on aaaand it's a Police car. They started by asking me how fast I was going, I advised them I was going the speed limit. They checked the ride height of the car, the tyres, ran through the car with a flashlight, told me to watch my speed and left. We have the same law it turns out, "excessive acceleration". Now I would think that the words excessive acceleration would be some kind of physics law that stops you from breaking space and time, but apparently it is up to the Police's discretion. When you talk to this about people they say, "Oh, don't worry they only charge hoons and drag racers with that" but I like a clear definition of the law. I don't like being at risk of meeting an Officer who is having a bad day and being subject to his discretion. It made me realise that *everyone* needs a dash cam.

  • Marjolaine Maggio Reply

    To me, I am fine with the idea of speedsofting, play how you want man, go ahead and rock that HPA Hi-Cappa and shit. BUT, the main problem I have with speedsofters is that they are usually arrogant, spoiled, assholes. Even the one good speedsofter I know is a bit of an ass. He acts like every time he presses the trigger, he gets a dollar, it's insane. The rest of the speedsofters, ohgodno. I know one kid who had his own team and all of them overshot the shit out of everyone and everyone who faced them HATED them. Plus, they seem to like shooting people in the head, which, for me, is not very nice due to my face pro (MCU-2a/p gas mask, no head protection at all, but doesn't fog and I feel like a badass so, ehh, swings some roundabouts). The main kid was the worst too. First time I saw him, yeah, insta asshole. He was talking to one of the refs about how he has SOOOOO MANYYYYYY Instagram followers, and she said that he should use that to send positive messages. He pretty much went "PFfff, screw that!" and then talked to one of the other refs, bragging about all the gear he has and also made of the strangest insults, that was something like "Pfff, you probably live in an apartment" and the ref was completely confused by what he said as well. Oh, and he wore an intentionally baggy jacket too, probably to avoid hits. Sorry for the vent, I thought it might explain why I hate speedsofters.

  • Terry Harber Reply

    - TV channels without adverts - TV with more actual shows than time spent on adverts - TV where adverts are products that a consumer should care about, by this I mean the incessant get your doctor to prescribe X medication ads. - What air conditioner, it's hardly ever hot enough here to justify the cost of one - Thinking that 20-30MPG is acceptable from a car. - Feeling that unless there's a V8 engine that the car just wont work. Yes a V8 can be cool and all but a Toyota Camry was never cool in the first place and a big engine wont change that. - Not everything has to be coated in chrome to make it a premium car - Bags for life - Shopping trolleys (Shopping carts) being made of metal and with 4 independently rotating wheels. Seriously why do you accept 2 fixed wheels. - Roundabouts, seriously one of the best ideas to get traffic moving in many cases - A general lack of 'muh national pride', many people are proud of where they are from, just don't want to shout about it to anyone that will or wont listen. I'm proud of where I'm from, I feel it has many beautiful places, lots of diverse communities to explore and activities to experience. I'll suggest ideas to people who want to go, but I don't feel a need to ram it down the throats of people in irrelevant settings. - Simple meals, Mac and Cheese is about the only one you hear about (I'm sure there are many more but film and TV suggest otherwise) but we have staples like baked beans on toast, Sausage sarnie, fishfinger sandwich and so on. - Not everything goes down the sink. Waste food here gets wrapped in some paper and put into a food recycling bin. - Elections, seriously why are we still listening to this crap. It feels like since the last one you had that the campaigning has been going solidly in preparation for the next one. I can't recall the last election or major public vote here that wasn't a few weeks of campaigning then vote, wait on results, done. - Humour, watch an American comedian and there is always a cringe fest section with a crowd going nuts and doing so for ages over a 'greatest place in the world' type comment made by the person on stage (this I really don't get). The humour is what I would characterise as Dad Joke 'esque for an entire performance. There are exceptions like George Carlin and so on but when you compare to other places, Irish and Australian comics often have a range of jokes that range from being those aforementioned Dad jokes, right through to complex jokes that often can be started to be told at the start of a session and don't finish getting told until the end. P.S. A few of these are/may be stereotypes but when those few idiots pipe on about it daily on places like Reddit it starts to make the rest of the world feel that these idiots are the norm for you. Luckily I'm aware that there is a thankfully sane silent majority, I just wish you lot would take away the access to the internet for those idiots.

  • Meaghan Prosacco Reply

    Well TBH I'm wary of a so-called 'proper separated space for cycling' Mostly because (a) Nearly as many pedestrians get killed or seriously injured as cyclists and they've had these separated spaces forever and a day. Indeed, I think places like Milton Keynes, where they have a complete 'redway' that's supposed to achieve this, has actually created a network of next to useless paths for cycling, and roads and roundabouts that feel more dangerous for cycling than any of the surrounding towns which don't have these special paths. The problem when you move pedestrians, crossings, shops etc away from roadsides is that cars just travel faster and become even more of the mindset that people shouldn't be there. They start driving everywhere like they are on a motorway. Visit MK and see. There's a bike fitter in Newport Pagnell who basically says "If you cycle here, don't go through Milton Keynes" - i.e the very thing that you are advocating for has created a situation where to get to somewhere in MK you're better off cycling about 30km extra and going on the B-roads and villages around the place. Admittedly you could say "But, it's the paths themselves that are flawed in MK case" and to an extent you'd be right. Especially for people on road bikes. But, let's go onto b to see the danger... (b) It's a small step from having these paths to the point where you're forced onto these spaces. Clearly car drivers would vote for that and many are already abusive to cyclists who don't use them. I think these spaces will fill with people that are every bit as selfish, impatient and willing to ignore rules if its suits them as the roads are. There's little evidence in London that cyclists have a better attitude towards rules than car drivers. Many just seem to think that bikes can't kill people so it doesn't matter too. Filling paths with a bunch of impatient cyclists and bunch of slow, casual cyclists, perhaps with a lot of kids thrown into the mix, will be a recipe for disaster. Fine if these paths are optional, but not if one day someone decides that cyclists have got their paths so it's time for them to get off the road. Now you've not made cycling better, you've done what car drivers wanted you to do you've pushed cyclists off "their" roads. Now cycling is about sharing a path with wobbly Wendy and Philip FourAbreast and his family. And you've got Peter Pissquick weaving in and out of all these casual cyclists because, unlike you, he isn't willing to be patient with them. (c) The Dutch mostly cycle short distances. Very short. The kind of distances I would just walk. They drive just as much as we do. i.e they haven't really replaced cars with bikes so much as walking with bikes. I would argue that anyone who will tell you that they'd cycle if these paths existed should be walking now. Are the people bemoaning that kids can't cycle to school because it's too dangerous walking their kids there? If not, I'd suggest they are just using the supposed danger as an excuse. (d) It's not 1970 any more. Clearly even if the Dutch had 'cycle paths' as the best option for them back in the 70s, we have to consider whether we have better options now after 4 decades of improving technology. I think we do. Self-driving cars seem a better choice today, imo. Not the least because the vast majority of my cycling is done on B-roads where there isn't usually a pavement, let alone ever going to be a cycle path. You can build all the cycle paths and magic roundabouts you like in London and it won't improve things anywhere else - assuming it improves them there. Whereas self-driving cars will improve things everywhere. And the thing is, it's pretty clear now that self-driving cars are going to happen. Whereas the idyllic cycle paths people have been going on about for decades probably never will. One thing I notice about all cycling infrastructure is, it never creates happy cyclists. A few years ago these people that are supposedly advocating safe cycling, like the (then) CTC and Chris Boardman and so on were writing documents that didn't even mention self-driving cars. It's like they were so out of it they hadn't even heard of SDC technology. Then if you posted here saying "SDC will fix it before paths" advocates would say things like "It'll take decades" - as though paths magically spring up in a week or two or something. But I think the intelligent will see that SDC will win this race. Some will deny it, of course, and resist the idea that people won't be driving for much longer, until they can't deny it any longer. There might be a bit of infrastructure in the biggest UK cities before, but we won't have a network of decent cycle paths up and down the UK before we have a road network that is populated by a significant and growing number of self-driving vehicles. (e) If the pipe dreams of cycling advocates where nigh on everyone cycles to work instead of driving is going to happen then you wouldn't need cycle paths anyway. Really if this "I would cycle if it were safer" brigade actually existed, and just cycled, then the roads would be full of cyclists instead of cars wouldn't they? So what do you need paths for? Clearly the logic behind having paths is because you expect just as many cars as you have now - if not more. That's not solving a cities air pollution and climate change issues is it? You'd be better closing these roads to traffic rather than building paths next to them if your goal is reducing cars. I wouldn't entirely disagree with the notion that the very busiest of cities may have some need for separate infrastructure though. I'm perfectly happy too with the notion that there are some roads where cyclists, pedestrians et al shouldn't exist. Motorways. For me I'd include the busier A-roads too - although I know some cyclists like to use them and do TT on them and things like that. But I think, in general, it's really not necessary to separate them. It's not the infrastructure that's wrong, it's simply selfish and impatient road users (with 2 or 4 wheels) In that sense, getting rid of the drivers seems a better solution to me than changing the roads. Which are, in general, very good for cycling on ime - I wouldn't be cycling if I didn't think that. Albeit repairs can be an issue at times.

  • Audrey Boehm Reply

    It may be the nature of the beast, but economic anniversaries tend to be unhappy ones. Forty years ago, Britain was in the middle of one of the most humiliating episodes of the postwar era, the bailout by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF rescue, which came only three decades after Britain was instrumental in the creation of the organisation, is the stuff of legend. Denis Healey, the chancellor, had tried to spend his way out of recession. On his way to a finance ministers’ meeting in Hong Kong on September 28, 1976, he was forced to turn back at Heathrow to formally apply for the IMF loan. It was an important time for economic policy in Britain. Three years before Margaret Thatcher came to power, the Labour prime minister James Callaghan signalled a shift away from the Keynesian consensus of the postwar era, telling his party conference that you can’t spend your way out of recession. That did not mean Labour was grateful for the IMF’s intervention. Healey, one of the great characters of British politics, looked forward to what he described as IMF “sod-off day”. He went to his grave last year believing the $3.9bn rescue was unnecessary. That is not how it looked at the time but the numbers now suggest that the picture, while bad, was not as dramatically bad as we have experienced recently. In terms of the twin deficits — the budget deficit and the current account of the balance of payments — the situation in 1976 was that the budget deficit peaked at 6.4% of gross domestic product in 1975-6, while the current account was in the red by 0.9% of GDP, having peaked at 3.8% in 1974. The recent peak in the budget deficit — public sector net borrowing — was much higher than during the IMF crisis, at 10.1% in 2009-10. The latest annual reading for the current account deficit, 5.4%, also exceeds anything in the 1970s. In the second quarter of this year it was 5.9% of GDP. Those who ignore the errors of history are condemned to repeat them. I am not suggesting Britain is about to turn to the IMF for another bailout — it has other things on its plate — but if Labour has anything to do with it, we might take a trip down that particular memory lane. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell managed in his party conference speech to both criticise the level of government debt, £1.6 trillion, and promise to add at least £250bn more to it than implied under government plans. After the mild tax and spend of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls in last year’s general election, we now have the full-blooded socialist version. Fortunately, rather than being the “government in waiting” that McDonnell claimed his party was, Labour looks to be destined for opposition for many years to come. That, however, does not necessarily eliminate the risk. Political parties compete. McDonnell’s pledge of a £10 an hour national living wage was a ratcheting up of George Osborne’s policy, which implies a rate of just over £9 by 2020. When it comes to fiscal policy, there is also the possibility of competition. Though chancellor Philip Hammond will not take many of McDonnell’s ideas and run with them, an expectation is growing that his “reset” of fiscal policy will imply something significantly looser than his predecessor’s. I say expectation, because we are still pretty much in the dark on this, as we are about quite a lot from this government. There is talk of an end to austerity, as part of Theresa May’s attempt to reach the parts of society the recovery left behind. There is talk, more plausibly, of a new infrastructure drive, aimed particularly at the regions. With the government able to borrow over 10 years at a rate of 0.7%, what could be more sensible? Let’s be clear. If the government could ring-fence a set of infrastructure projects and fund them at the current very low borrowing rates, it would make a lot of sense. Britain needs more and better infrastructure, and the economy will need the boost that it could bring. Real life is, however, a bit more complicated than that. Infrastructure projects are prone to delays and big cost overruns. The burden of those — and the risks — would stay with taxpayers and add to government debt. This is why, so far at least, we have had a lot of talk of infrastructure bonds but very little action. The assumptions of economic models, that infrastructure projects pay for themselves because of the boost they provide, can be elusive in practice. The wider point, when it comes to both austerity and infrastructure, is that the public finances are a long way from being fixed. Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, won last week’s pot-kettle-black award when he said on BBC radio that Osborne had been a “particularly inept” chancellor. But Britain has added a lot of public sector debt in recent years — it has more than tripled from just over £500bn in April 2007 — and the deficit has been more stubborn than hoped. At 4.1% of GDP in 2015-16 it is smaller than it was when Britain had to turn to the IMF, but not that much smaller. Meanwhile, the Office for Budget Responsibility will surely confirm in the autumn statement on November 23 what bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies have already told us. This is that while there are swings and roundabouts, including the help that lower debt interest will provide, the net effect of Brexit will be to make the public finances worse. What about those low interest rates? Surely any government would be foolish not to borrow when it is so cheap to do so? Again, it is not as simple as that. Governments are not households, but sometimes the standard advice for households is useful. Do not assume interest rates will be this low for ever. Debt has to be rolled over, and in time it will be rolled over at higher rates than now. All of which should mean that Hammond, whose instincts appear to be fiscally conservative, will not take too much of a leaf out of his Labour opponent’s book. The aim, I judge, will be to keep the budget deficit on a downward track, while announcing some eye-catching but inexpensive initiatives. That will disappoint some, but it would demonstrate that at least one party has learnt the lessons of history. PS It seems a very long time ago now, but when, back in November last year, I did the first of my pre-referendum pieces, under the headline “Leave the EU and we will lose the single market”, many cried foul. What turned into one of the hoariest old chestnuts during the campaign — the Germans will always want to sell us cars, the French their wine and cheese — made its first appearance. The rest of Europe would bend over backwards to keep us in the single market, we were told, even if we voted to leave the EU. Now we are starting to find out that this was a fantasy, as I suggested then. We know it from EU politicians who have insisted that free movement of people is a non-negotiable condition of membership of the single market. And we know it from Markus Kerber, head of the BDI, Germany’s equivalent of the CBI, who says he favours a “hard” Brexit for Britain. What about the idea that German car manufacturers would force their government to bend over backwards to maintain single-market arrangements for this country? The German business calculation may be a little more subtle. First, after the Volkswagen scandal, the car industry’s leverage in Berlin is less than it was. Second, German car makers may take the view that British buyers are so addicted to their products that even a significant, tariff-related price rise will not greatly dampen demand here. And, third, German business may be hoping to gain from Britain’s exit from the EU and single market, in manufacturing but more particularly in services. It is always possible, of course, that current hardball attitudes in Europe to Britain will soften. It would be unwise, however, to rely on it.

  • Destinee Schultz Reply

    I'll field this one. The traditional (east-coast) tool handle wood is Spotted Gum, (*corymbia - or *eucalyptus*, if you want to start that debate - maculata*), although "traditional" might be stretching (there's a whole fascinating history behind that, which ties in a lot with the development of Australia's national psyche and identity, but that's for another time, if anyone's interested). Spotted gum is everywhere. It's one of our most commonly-used timbers, and if you've seen those mid-sized eucaltypts with the mottled cream, silver, and green blotches on its bark (hence the name) in parks and elsewhere, that's spotted gum. It grows reasonably slowly, but grows straight and true, in a wide variety of climates, and produces an excellent timber. Gets made into a lot of decking, fence posts, benchtops... ...and, of course, tool handles, especially *striking* tool handles. Like axes. Lotta farmers like it for shade trees and windbreaks, too. Compared to hickory, in terms of handles...eh. It's swings and roundabouts, for both of them. In terms of striking, there's no real difference, although hickory is marginally lighter - but it's not like you'd notice when you've got 2kg+ worth of steel in the axe head. Hickory is also much harder, and thus not as easy to shape to fit an eye as spotted gum is. Spotted gum is slightly softer to work...but the downside is that it's not as consistent, especially for tool handles, as the big, straight sections of timber are more valuable as beams and planks, and tool handles end up coming for the "secondary" billets - branches, crowns, butts. Depending on the piece of spotted gum you're working with, grain tear-out can be a real problem, and doubly so if you've got a piece that's got a lot of fiddleback in it. Gum veins are also a probably...again, hence the name. Select your handles well, and this isn't a problem. Looks? Well, depends on what you're after. Hickory - decent hickory - will be near-pure white. Spotted gum...well...it's runs a very wide range (and, look, I wouldn't be surprised if a few pieces of ironbark or bloodwood or redgum make their way onto the "spotted gum" handle lathes at the sawmills - not a bad thing, by the way). I've seen it from a dull grey-brown, to a richer mahogany-esque brown, to a light tan, to red...depends all on where it came from on the tree. I've done up a nice little Brades hammer on a Kruger spotted gum handle I selected specifically because the handled has has amazingly beautiful yellow-and-red tiger-striping and chatoyancy going on. I think the handle must've been cut from a burl - it's just so nice. Grain tear-out was a bitch, though. (Let me know if you want pics). As far as performance, there's no real difference between spotted gum and hickory. Both are excellent handles - same level of durability, shock absorptions, strength, etc. The differences are in getting the wood into the axe. Anyway, what you're looking for... **Handle suppliers/manufacturers in Australia** Probably the easiest one for your to find would be axe handles made by **Cyclone**, as they sell through Bunnings. Or at least they used to - my local Bunnings carries a lot SG adze, blocksplitter, and hammer handles, but now only seemed to sell Cyclone axe handles made from extreeeeemely dodgy Chinese wood (which feels like it's about as durable as packing pine. Still, check your Bunnings, you might get lucky. Make sure the handle has "Made In Australia" on it. The next biggest supplier would be **Krugers**: http://www.krugers.com.au/. These guys sell through Mitre 10 and True Value (which are now pretty much the same store). Krugers make a helluva wide range of hands, for hatchets to half- and 3/4-axes, all the way up to 900mm axe handles, and blocksplitters, hammers, adzes, mattocks...http://www.krugers.com.au/handles.html You'll also note that they do do some hickory handles in a limited range: http://www.krugers.com.au/hickory-handles.html. I've got one of those for my Hytest Forester. Unfortunately, hickory handles probably won't be kept in stock at your average Mitre 10 or True Value, so you probably won't be able to hand select one. They will order it in, however - that's how I got mine. It was slightly disappointing - purple streaks in it (the hell?) and it's profiled like flat ellipse rather than a tear drop. They're pretty good handles, but, unfortunately, Kruger's finishing tends not to be as good as... **Red Dog**: http://lawtools.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Lawtools_Red-Dog_2015-16.pdf. You'll have to check with Law Tools (http://lawtools.com.au/contact-us/) to find out if there are any distributors in your area. I've found them in the smaller, independent rural supplies stores. Red Dog handles, I find, tend to be a bit chunkier than Krugers, but much better shaped - and much, much better finished. Krugers' tends to be a bit hit or miss, but Red Dog's are all well-sanded. It also helps that Red Dog's handles all have the traditional red wax coating to seal them in the shop, which prevents the hands cracking and splintering on the shelf (you're meant to remove this with a light sanding before you finished them with oil). Basically, the handles looking nothing like they do on the cover of that PDF file up there. I can post a pic if you like. Finally, one other little guy worth mention is **Snedden's Rural Fencing**, who do up their own handles: http://www.ruralfencing.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=10&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=54. Their hatchet handles look weird, but are actually quite practical when you think about it. Whew! That was a marathon. Time for sleep.

  • Emory Wintheiser Reply

    Firstly, my two comments were meant to be a joke, just like I'm sure /u/Dudeguy2121ICW was only joking when he took a dig back at me for my comment. He got upvoted, I didn't swings and roundabouts. Secondly, Why not carry on if I've been down voted? I'm not here proving anything, I'm just arsing about on the internet for kicks. I think a lot of people forget that reddit is meant to be some shit you read when you're bored, it's not the be all and end all if my comments go by unappreciated, I don't go home to my wife (I don't even have a wife) and say, 'honey, terrible news, I made a comment on reddit at lunch time and I got *downvoted*, I don't think our family will ever live down this shame''. I've make comments more offensive than this and got up votes, I've made polite articulate and well thought comments that go down voted. That doesn't change the way I'm operating though, because I'm not seeking to earn anything. Maybe if up votes were tangible and useful to me I'd be offering to suck your dick for your validation and up votes, but it's not, so I won't (will do so for heroin though if anyone has offers. mmm lovely tangible heroin). Thirdly, I didn't realise my comments were gonna cause a fuss. I made the comment because it amused *me*, more than anything. On this thread it's unfunny and I'm a rude jerk. In 10 minutes time I'll make a comment somewhere else and I'll get up voted purely because my name is a 30 rock character ( the *best* 30 rock Character) and people will think I'm funny again, or I'll post some info about something people are discussing and get up votes for being knowledgeable. To be honest, my personal opinion of the matter is that I was likely down voted by about a dozen or so people who read my comment while wearing one of these terrible fucking shirts, and took umbrage at the fact that I implied anyone that wears one smells like stale milk and faeces. And they'd be right to do so I guess.

  • Roselyn Kemmer Reply

    \#|Score|Deleted? (/r/undelete)|Post :--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1|+4740| |[me irl](http://i.imgur.com/kRDF9ez.jpg) (me_irl) [\[**151 comments**\]](/r/me_irl/comments/4kaz4s/me_irl/) 2|+6290| |[Who has time for roundabouts](http://i.imgur.com/y8YmwGb.gifv) (funny) [\[**833 comments**\]](/r/funny/comments/4kahl2/who_has_time_for_roundabouts/) 3|+4848| |[Sweet potato patch - primitive technology](https://youtu.be/TTcXhYHmOx8) (videos) [\[**836 comments**\]](/r/videos/comments/4kaptg/sweet_potato_patch_primitive_technology/) 4|+5749|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4kbtk6/457492787_you_dropped_something_rgifs/)** (1)|[You dropped something](http://i.imgur.com/JkMsIyM.gifv) (gifs) [\[**2787 comments**\]](/r/gifs/comments/4ka6mu/you_dropped_something/) 5|+5128|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4kbq6o/55128744_eye_contact_champion_rfunny/)** (1)|[Eye contact champion](http://i.imgur.com/uBSZ5yp.gifv) (funny) [\[**744 comments**\]](/r/funny/comments/4ka0xb/eye_contact_champion/) 6|+4247|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4kbdvb/54247298_the_mullet_was_probably_created_to_stop/)** (1)|[The mullet was probably created to stop red necks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4ka1hn/the_mullet_was_probably_created_to_stop_red_necks/) (Showerthoughts) [\[**298 comments**\]](/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4ka1hn/the_mullet_was_probably_created_to_stop_red_necks/) 7|+5707|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4k9c7u/757071005_so_i_made_a_dress_out_of_blood_rpics/)** (1)|[So I made a dress. Out of blood.](http://imgur.com/gallery/KZuOMgo) (pics) [\[**1005 comments**\]](/r/pics/comments/4k88yz/so_i_made_a_dress_out_of_blood/) 8|+3816| |[It's too late now.](https://imgur.com/M36lgPh) (BlackPeopleTwitter) [\[**98 comments**\]](/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/4kaxmw/its_too_late_now/) 9|+5609| |[Michael Keaton joins ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ as The Vulture](http://deadline.com/2016/05/jeff-goldblum-karl-urban-thor-ragnorak-michael-keaton-spider-man-homecoming-1201760365/) (movies) [\[**1406 comments**\]](/r/movies/comments/4ka9cf/michael_keaton_joins_spiderman_homecoming_as_the/) 10|+5628|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4k99hq/1056281317_this_the_division_review_rgaming/)** (1)|[This The Division review...](http://i.imgur.com/grbepey.png) (gaming) [\[**1317 comments**\]](/r/gaming/comments/4k7uoj/this_the_division_review/) 11|+4735| |[Um... where can I get this "printing press?" [NSFW]](https://gfycat.com/ThoughtfulShamelessChimpanzee) (WTF) [\[**578 comments**\]](/r/WTF/comments/4kaga5/um_where_can_i_get_this_printing_press_nsfw/) 12|+5723| |[HILLARY NO](http://i.imgur.com/bCkNfym.png) (CrappyDesign) [\[**390 comments**\]](/r/CrappyDesign/comments/4ka2qp/hillary_no/) 13|+5540| |[The woes of a two-party system.](https://i.imgflip.com/14i53v.jpg) (AdviceAnimals) [\[**3236 comments**\]](/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/4ka9tu/the_woes_of_a_twoparty_system/) 14|+2294|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4kbiuj/142294717_psa_please_secure_your_dogs_this_is/)** (1)|[PSA: Please secure your dogs. This is what I came home to today. She was the sweetest kitty and those aren't my dogs.](http://i.imgur.com/ySAeECT.jpg) (pics) [\[**717 comments**\]](/r/pics/comments/4kaqe7/psa_please_secure_your_dogs_this_is_what_i_came/) 15|+4792| |[I got a label maker.](http://imgur.com/NQQVXKK) (aww) [\[**173 comments**\]](/r/aww/comments/4ka97l/i_got_a_label_maker/) 16|+2338| |[Facebook will now ban you for posting about people getting banned by Facebook](https://i.sli.mg/qHOadM.jpg) (The_Donald) [\[**195 comments**\]](/r/The_Donald/comments/4kba7m/facebook_will_now_ban_you_for_posting_about/) 17|+3403|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4k91fb/173403153_pocket_full_of_aww_raww/)** (1)|[Pocket full of aww](http://i.imgur.com/iEnedzf.gifv) (aww) [\[**153 comments**\]](/r/aww/comments/4k7raq/pocket_full_of_aww/) 18|+3474| |[Sanders outpaces Clinton in fundraising for fourth straight month](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/20/sanders-tops-clinton-fundraising-fourth-month-row/) (politics) [\[**581 comments**\]](/r/politics/comments/4kan9a/sanders_outpaces_clinton_in_fundraising_for/) 19|+4546| |[‘Fargo’: Ewan McGregor To Star In Dual Role As Stussy Brothers In Season 3](http://deadline.com/2016/05/ewan-mcgregor-cast-lead-fargo-fx-1201760430/) (television) [\[**421 comments**\]](/r/television/comments/4ka3g8/fargo_ewan_mcgregor_to_star_in_dual_role_as/) 20|+4877| |[An emotional roller coaster.](http://imgur.com/a/3YUjg) (Tinder) [\[**609 comments**\]](/r/Tinder/comments/4k9wy1/an_emotional_roller_coaster/) 21|+4532| |[My friend's daughter had "crazy hair day" at school today.](http://i.imgur.com/CD8kAEq.jpg) (funny) [\[**672 comments**\]](/r/funny/comments/4ka8f9/my_friends_daughter_had_crazy_hair_day_at_school/) 22|+2144|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4k90oy/222144248_a_picture_of_me_holding_a_picture_of/)** (1)|[A picture of me, holding a picture of myself, holding the textbook I'm on the cover of](http://i.imgur.com/VvbFgsK.jpg) (funny) [\[**248 comments**\]](/r/funny/comments/4k80du/a_picture_of_me_holding_a_picture_of_myself/) 23|+3961| |[PsBattle: Old Lady Riding a Fake Surfboard](http://i.imgur.com/ye8iai3.jpg) (photoshopbattles) [\[**297 comments**\]](/r/photoshopbattles/comments/4ka6eu/psbattle_old_lady_riding_a_fake_surfboard/) 24|+4578| |[White House on lockdown after reported shooting on West Executive Drive](http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/dc/white-house-on-lockdown-after-reported-shooting/207202927) (news) [\[**981 comments**\]](/r/news/comments/4k9xk7/white_house_on_lockdown_after_reported_shooting/) 25|+4436| |[Banned by the Bible [OC]](http://imgur.com/8LIdys6) (atheism) [\[**647 comments**\]](/r/atheism/comments/4k9yub/banned_by_the_bible_oc/) 26|+2897| |[[WP] You're a 12 year-old in a world domintated by magic. A small, feeble man appears on your doorstep claiming: "You're a scientist, Henry"](https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/comments/4kakxx/wp_youre_a_12_yearold_in_a_world_domintated_by/) (WritingPrompts) [\[**160 comments**\]](/r/WritingPrompts/comments/4kakxx/wp_youre_a_12_yearold_in_a_world_domintated_by/) 27|+5905| |[I recently discovered that my carpet has a tiny snowman head sewn into it.](http://imgur.com/a/I84Jn) (mildlyinteresting) [\[**477 comments**\]](/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/4k9cwn/i_recently_discovered_that_my_carpet_has_a_tiny/) 28|+2032|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4ka8m5/282032136_bill_gates_should_change_his_name_to/)** (1)|[Bill Gates should change his name to Trill Gates if he becomes a trillionaire.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4k9a3x/bill_gates_should_change_his_name_to_trill_gates/) (Showerthoughts) [\[**136 comments**\]](/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4k9a3x/bill_gates_should_change_his_name_to_trill_gates/) 29|+2963|**[YES](/r/undelete/comments/4k99i4/29296338_this_could_really_help_many_of_you/)** (1)|[This could really help many of you](http://imgur.com/8yAJChK) (ImGoingToHellForThis) [\[**38 comments**\]](/r/ImGoingToHellForThis/comments/4k7vuw/this_could_really_help_many_of_you/)

  • Mabelle Kris Reply

    I was here for a bit over a month from late August to early October, 2015. Money: ATMs might start working soon, but for now you need to bring in cash. USD or Euros are best. Visas: Some Europeans don't get a free visa on arrival for 15 days, which can be extended in country for a small fee. Most others need one. Then there's Americans, Brits and Canadians who need a guided tour (private or group) to get their visa. Of course, you can always get around that fact (at least for Brits and Canadians) if you find the right agent... Once you're in country, no one really knows that you require a guide. I even extended my visa in country, and the police didn't ask anything about where my guide was. Food: Kebab, kebab, and kebab! Usually comes with rice (chelo kebab) or bread. Minced meat (kubide) is probably the most common, but chicken (juje) and a couple other varieties should also be available. Ash are thick soups with vegetables and sometimes noodles (?). Fast food sandwich places are everywhere and usually have a variety of stuff, like sausages, hamburgers, falafel, chicken. Alright if you want something quick and filling. Ghorme sabzi is a stew of chopped, mixed greens with meat and beans served over rice. Quite cheap and delicious, it ended up being one of my mainstays while I was in Iran. Doogh is a drink of thinned, salted yogurt with (usually) mint), similar to Turkish ayran. For dessert, icecream (bastani)is common, usually saffron flavoured. Faludeh is icecream (saffron usually) with rosewater-flavoured noodles. Gaz is a type of nougat candy. Chay is usually drunk throughout the day. Non-alcoholic flabvoured beer is available, instead of real alcohol. Alcohol is banned officially, though if you meet the right people, it's quite easy to get drunk. Hitchhiking: Buses are pretty cheap, but note that I never took them. I hitchhiked the entire country, which was quite easy. People invited me into their homes a few times and were generaly very happy to talk to me (even if they couldn't speak much English). But a few notes: 1) Don't use your thumb, it's the equivelent of using your middle finger in Iran. 2) Ask at the beginning if it's free, as there's lots of unofficial taxis in Iran. 3) REALLY make sure it's free, because of this little thing called 'Tarof'. Some phrases that might be useful: Puul nadari? - no money? Tarof nist? - It' not Tarof? Salavaati - 'for good prayer' (if you resort to using this, you're basically emotionally blackmailing them into taking you) Sleeping: Couchsurfing is extremely popular in Iran. But note, that it is illegal, so don't go making blog posts and using your hosts picture and real name... Other than that, you'll be fine. Hostels (or places that have dorm rooms) are mostly prevelant in more popular cities (Shiraz, Yazd, Esfahan), though quality differs. Camping is also really common, especially in the summer and during No Ruz (New Years). Iranians love picnicing (they are the King of Picnics, in my opinion), and will break out a tent, chay and things to eat pretty much anywhere (in Shiraz, even in the middle of roundabouts or the grass dividers between lanes!). Many parks have designated camping spots (on concrete), as do many road side rest stops. While sometimes you can sleep on the grass, it really depends on the park attendant. Either way, you'll have to pack up around sunrise when the groundskeeper starts working. Places to visit: Also note that it's common for places to keep your passport until you check out. Tabriz - The Azeri population capital. If you speak some Azeri (or Turkish), you could interact here more than most if you don't speak any Farsi, though they do tend to use Farsi terms. I didn't think too much of city. The Azerbaijan Museum was cool to check out. There's a bunch of mosques and to see. Pretty 'meh' in my opinion. Tehran - A big city, with lots of traffic and smog. I don't really recommend staying at the Mashhad hotel (hostel), as though it is basically the only option for a dorm, the staff are REALLY unfriendly there, probably the least friendliest people in Iran I met. The metro system is quite modern and easy to use. Just buy a card and fill it up! There's two parks a bit north of the centre that are also pretty cool. The one park is the 'fire and water' park, which has fire pillars which go off periodically, water foyntwins which kids run through, artificial lakes and other marine themed monuments. There's even a skatepark and planetarium. The other side of the park is a more 'traditional' park where lots of people run in the early evenings, including women in who wear pants, full length shirts and headscarves! Then there's the bridge that connects them. The Tabiat bridge was designed by a women in her mid 20s who made it to not as just a bridge to cross, but to promote social spaces in Tehran. Its a wavy/S shaped bridge instead of a straight one because of that. Other than the park, there's all the usual palaces, museums, parks and bazaar. I never got around to hiking up to the mountains to the north of town. Don't forget to visit the US Den of Espionage, located in the former US Embassy. Kashan - A decent stopover for a night. The bazaar is nice to check out, and then there's the traditional houses of the wealthy to see. Fin Garden, which is a bit on the outskirts of town, is also quite beautiful. Esfahan - Probably the most famous city to visit in Iran. The Amir Kabir hostel is OK, but if you're in the dorm, it's a dank, underground affair. The breakfast was alright. The many arched bridges (though the river was dry when I was there), the main squares, and the museums, Esfahan is incredibly beautiful. The best mosque to visit, in my opinion, is the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque, which is the cover of the last Lonely Planet. It's in Naqsh-e Jahan Square, which is also great to experience at night time, where many Irani will come up to you to practice their English. Chehel Sotoun Palace is also worth a visit, if not just for all the elaborate paintings on the walls. Also don't forget to take a few night stroll while in Esfahan, as all the bridges are lit up at night very beautifully, not to mention the buzz of all the people wandering around, talking and such. Under Khaju bridge, people even sing and play music, and sometimes even (gasp) dance! There's also a really nice tea house with a cool atmosphere not too far from Naqsh-e Jahan square (I can't remember the name off hand), but it's quite expensive, even if you're just getting tea. Still worth a visit though. Shiraz - Shirazi are known amongst Iranians as being very chilled (ie lazy). They also picnic a lot, even more so compared to other Iranians. I stayed at the Niayesh Boutique Hotel for $10 in the dorm. It also had a breakfast buffet, which was really good. Lots to see in Shiraz, from Eram Garden, the tombs of Hafez and Sa'di (famous Persian poets), the Naranjastan Garden, the so called 'Pink Mosque' with it's stained glassed windows, the Ahmadi shrine and much, much more. A bit outside of Shiraz is Persopolis, the old capital of the Achaemenid Empire. It pays to get there early (or if you can, camp in the parking lot and go in when it first opens), as it does get quite busy. Around 10km from Persopolis are the rock-hewn tombs of some old kings, Darius I and Xerxes among them. Kerman - There's not much here. Could be used as a tepping stone to go further afield into the desert or to Bam. I tried going to the Museum of the Holy Defence (on the Iran-Iraq war), but it was closed. There's the usual mosques, bazaars and such around town. Yazd - For the $10 dorm, the Silk Road hotel was great value. The buffet breakfast was really good, too. Yazd's maindraw is it's old town. Quite nicely preserved, it's nice just wandering around (and hope you don't get lost). There's the obligitory mosques, a couple of Zoroastrian sites (a tower and a temple with an eternal flame), and all the badgirs (windtowers to cool off homes). You can also go watch some wrestlers go workout, but I didn't think it was worth the money. Nearby Yazd is Kharanaq, an old village made mostly out of mud bricks. Quite cool, it's mostly empty (there's a newer village around it) and not so visited (I was basically the only one there). Just watch your step, it's really coming apart in places. Mashhad - You're either here to see the Imam Reza shrine (I believe it's the 3rd holiest shrine in Islam, and the most for Shia Islam) or you're on you're way to/come from Turkmenistan. Even if it's the 2nd city of Iran, I didn't think it was that interesting. There's a metro system that may be of use to you. Vali's non-smoking has a dorm. About $10 for a dark, dank basement room. If you're wandering around on the streets in the centre, there's a good chance Vali will find you. He's also a carpet salesmen, so be careful of what he tells you, as he speaks very good English and has a bit of a silver tongue. If you're denied a visa for Turkmenistan and looking for a visa for Afghanistan, they'll probably tell you to go to Tehran to get it. Otherwise, a flight from one of the agents to Uzbekistan costs around $220 USD, and flies once a week on Fridays at about 4am from Tehran. Nearby Mashhad is Kang, a stepped village. There's some buses that go out here. I walked out here since I had time to kill, but it wasn't that interesting of a walk. There's a bit of a loop, with a short mountain/hill pass you can go up north of the village. On either side of the roads are small streams with lots and lots of restaurants/teahouses. A bit further afield from Mashhad is Neishabur, which is home to the tomb of Khayyam a famous Persian poet.

  • Emmet Runolfsdottir Reply

    Original Bostonian who moved to LA 3 years ago who has recently moved up to the South Bay area chiming it. Ther is a bunch of debates about who are the worst and best drivers. Boston gets the "Worst drivers ever" title a lot, but I've also heard of studies that were actually some of the best. My theory on this is that Boston drivers actually tend to be very alert and know their shit as far as the rules of the road because they have to be. Boston is a HORRID city to drive in (roundabouts, narrow roads, shared said narrow streets with subways and bus lines. A road system that in no way resembles a grid...). Bostonians know how to navigate this hell of city, BUT you also have a slew of college students/ tourist who don't and we DO NOT like putting up with them, which is where we get the "Boston drivers are so aggressive!" rep. We are and we WILL yell at anyone who fucks up the fucked up system we were forced to adapt to. Not fair I know, I moved there my senior year of high school and it was super intimidating. Even as a native I avoided driving into the city at all cost. Then I moved to LA and though I won't claim that I think LA is the worst city to drive in; it is pretty much the EXACT opposite of Boston as far as how roads are laid out and how people drive. Biggest differences: **Lanes -** In Boston, almost never do you run into a road with more than two lanes and highway only go up to like 3. In LA your highways are rarely less than 5 and you have ONE WAY STREETS with 4 lanes of traffic!? How is that even a thing! Can I turn left in the fourth lane of a one-way? If you have room for 4 lanes of traffic why the hell is it a one-way street, to begin with!? **Driving Style -** Bostonians are very deliberate. If we change lanes we signal, jump over one lane as quick as possible and get in position, drive, repeat to hop another lane. My driving instruction in Boston actually chastises me for floating past a lane when I was switching. Also, drivers around you know if someone turns on their signal on you back off because that person's gonna move quickly. In LA: "Other drivers? who cares about them! I'm just going to float through 5 lanes of traffic with no signal and assume everyone around me is going to stay in the same place / at the same speed while I weave around everyone like a finger on a freemium iPhone maze game!". You would think signaling would be super vital when dealing with 7 lanes of traffic...but nope! If someone is signaling it must mean they want me to speed up and pass them! **Looking for an Accident -** I haven't done much research on this but I swear LA driving laws must severely reward you for getting into fender benders (Apparently some people even try to set these up on purpose in like parking lots and stuff?) For example, in Boston if you pulling out onto a street and have to turn left with no light to stop traffic. It is perfectly acceptable to pull out into the right turn lane when is safe and wait until It's safe to pull into the left lane because if you wait for both lanes to be clear long enough at the same time you're never going anywhere. The drivers in the right lane will see you pull out ( given that you gave them plenty of warning) slow down, and stop if they have to until you go. Being that LA has roads that a 3 times wider then Boston roads you would think this would a necessity in LA when theirs no lights where the streets cross. NOPE! No one slows down EVER. I once pulled out while the upcoming car was waiting at a stop light and almost a full long block away from me. I sat and waited for the next lane to open up. the driver who would have been able to see me quite clearly at the light sped up to normal speed. Thankfully a space opened up and I was able to turn into the lane right before they passed me, but then they beeped at ME. It was basicly as if he rather T-bone me, get injured, and have me pay for the repairs on his nice car, then slow down for literally 3 seconds (assuming even with plenty of warning I'm at fault which I may very well be. I haven't been able to find the exact rules for this siuation. Assuming this isn't allowed I can't imagine how anyone expects anyone to make a left turn on a relatively busy street with no traffic light.) LA also has way more accidents on the daily then Boston.... like WOW. I was amazed at how many accidents you see on the regular. I won't even get started on how you guys can't handle the little rain you do get in the city (and yes I know the "oil seeps up onto the road" thing, but really just drive slower and be cautious about switching lanes to avoid hydro-plaining. There is no reason why a 20-minute semi-heavy rain should = 10 major traffic accidents on the main highways. So I hope that sheds some light on why us Northeasters tend to hate the driving here. And I can understand why people coming from areas like the midwest where you have wider roads would not be as bewildered by how Californians drive. but damn, it is literally the opposite of everything we are used to in the Northeast, like most things I guess. I'm currently in the South Bay and I tend to avoid driving to San Fran for the same reasons I avoided driving in Boston proper. but I am pretty happy that for once I'm in a city that doesn't have a massively bad driving reputation. My car insurance went down like 200 bucks...woo!

  • Arielle Hodkiewicz Reply

    >>If you are concerned about safety and pollution than the best solution is not to improve automotive technology but rather improve Civic design and infrastructure design so we reduce the driving population. >Why? Even if we cut the driving population down by 90 percent (which will never happen), we'd still kill over 3,000 people a year with cars in the US alone. If self-driving cars could cut that, say, in half (easily done), we could save thousands of lives in this country alone. Why do that? Because it's a better solution. It is a solution of rather than introducing New Technology and Manufacturing a new good we simply do without that new technology and no good. And we also do without the old technology that the problem was centered around. You are also ignoring my other points. The idea is to cut the driving population down and not make automobiles the center of consideration for civic design and infrastructure. We cut the driving population down by making cities more walkable and bikeable. But we also reshape the way you drive in a city. Slower traffic speed, roundabouts, and other infrastructure improvements. Will drop significantly not only because the population of driving has greatly decreased but the way we drive within a city has changed. All of this can be done without introducing new technology. >>One of our my concerns is the safety decisions in which the artificial intelligence of the car makes. I think for regular everyday driving assuming normal conditions it will most likely outperform a human driver. For those other circumstances I simply do not trust a computer. Harkening back to my example of learning how to control a car on black ice, while hydroplaning, and selecting safe places to pull over in emergencies is not instances in which I want to trust a computer. >Why would you accept that computers are superior to humans at this task under "normal" conditions, but think they are inherently inferior with black ice, or hydroplaning? Antilock brakes are ancient from a technological standpoint, and they're better than people in adverse conditions. Why would an advanced technology not be even more superior? The reason why I point out to regular everyday conditions is because the database in which the computer analysis will draw from is a lot more refined database with more data points and which it creates its analysis. Also under normal driving conditions there are a lot less factors to consider. Hydroplaning, black ice etc will have a significantly less developed database for analysis to be performed. It is a matter of data points in within the database. On any given day the network of databases in which autonomous cars will learn from will millions of entries how to improve normal driving conditions throughout the year. As opposed to hydroplaning, and black eyes the way that makes your car reactors are so different. The data it collects for a car hydroplaning with front-wheel drive, rear wheel drive, all-wheel drive and 4 wheel drive will all be different data points. Separate from each other. There's a significant difference between trying to control your car that's a front wheel drive car in the snow and a rear wheel drive car in the snow. These are not normal everyday driving skills. This is where all the Finesse and intuition of piloting a vehicle comes into play. This is a skill that I would say most people don't have and will likely never need. Which is why I say an autonomous car would be fantastic for normal everyday driving conditions. >>The fact of the matter is modern cars today can be taken over and controlled remotely. >Then you have nothing more to fear from a self-driving car, if modern cars already have this vulnerability. But even that fear is a little extreme; do you really think that if someone wanted to kill you so badly that they would break the security put in place by a major manufacturer who has a vested interest in keeping you safe, that they wouldn't find a way even if you had a conventional car? I agree with your assessment about not having anything different to fear about modern cars. I don't drive a modern car. The newest car I've ever owned was a 2003. I drive an 80s Toyota 22re, most of the time I bike and walk. If I were to get a sedan it would be a 5th gen Honda civic. I might get a motorcycle now that I have the truck. I really want a old diesel Toyota.

  • Murray Kovacek Reply

    >Why do that? Because it's a better solution. It is a solution of rather than introducing New Technology and Manufacturing a new good we simply do without that new technology and no good. And we also do without the old technology that the problem was centered around. You are also ignoring my other points. The idea is to cut the driving population down and not make automobiles the center of consideration for civic design and infrastructure. We cut the driving population down by making cities more walkable and bikeable. But we also reshape the way you drive in a city. Slower traffic speed, roundabouts, and other infrastructure improvements. Will drop significantly not only because the population of driving has greatly decreased but the way we drive within a city has changed. All of this can be done without introducing new technology. Better how? Aside from the fact that it isn't plausible, it would demand that we rebuild entire cities from the ground up, and it STILL wouldn't erase the demand for cars. I'm not ignoring your other points; I simply understand that they do not answer the question. Putting a market within walking distance of every home does nothing for those who cannot walk. Bikes are next to useless in new england in the winter. Driving slowly holds little appeal for people who are driving across states to visit their relatives. All the walking trails in the world do nothing for someone trying to get a new fridge home. >The reason why I point out to regular everyday conditions is because the database in which the computer analysis will draw from is a lot more refined database with more data points and which it creates its analysis. Also under normal driving conditions there are a lot less factors to consider. Hydroplaning, black ice etc will have a significantly less developed database for analysis to be performed. It is a matter of data points in within the database. On any given day the network of databases in which autonomous cars will learn from will millions of entries how to improve normal driving conditions throughout the year. As opposed to hydroplaning, and black eyes the way that makes your car reactors are so different. The data it collects for a car hydroplaning with front-wheel drive, rear wheel drive, all-wheel drive and 4 wheel drive will all be different data points. Separate from each other. There's a significant difference between trying to control your car that's a front wheel drive car in the snow and a rear wheel drive car in the snow. These are not normal everyday driving skills. This is where all the Finesse and intuition of piloting a vehicle comes into play. This is a skill that I would say most people don't have and will likely never need. Which is why I say an autonomous car would be fantastic for normal everyday driving conditions. There is PLENTY of data on adverse conditions, and more will be gathered with every inch such cars drive in such conditions, exactly the same as it is with "normal" conditions. And even assuming there are fewer factors to consider under adverse conditions, there is zero good reason to suppose that computers are not as superior to the task compared with humans as they are normally; even if they would perform more poorly under adverse conditions, so would humans. So the self-driving cars are still safer. >I agree with your assessment about not having anything different to fear about modern cars. I don't drive a modern car. The newest car I've ever owned was a 2003. I drive an 80s Toyota 22re, most of the time I bike and walk. If I were to get a sedan it would be a 5th gen Honda civic. I might get a motorcycle now that I have the truck. I really want a old diesel Toyota. And do you think someone who wanted to kill you would be unable to on any of those vehicles? Or substantially less able than if you were in a self-driving car designed by a corporation with an excellent reason to keep you alive?

  • Jack Skiles Reply

    What Moore seems to forget in my humble opinion is that whilst he's sick of Batman and comics not everyone else is Alan Moore. He may have been reading and writing them for 40 years but kids haven't as they aren't Alan Moore. It may be nice to allow people who arent Alan Moore to experience all the things Alan Moore had without ridiculing them as nonsense because Alan Moore has already enjoyed them and grown out of them. So everyone who isn't Alan Moore might be allowed to work through and enjoy the stages of become a mature comic book reader without being expected to understand as soon as the exit the womb all the the things Alan Moore does. Not everyone has read Watchmen and whilst it might be of its time it would be nice if those who are about to read it for the first time might enjoy it without the man who wrote it (Alan Moore) telling them its out of date and pointless. Same goes for Batman. I still like me some Batman as I'm not Alan Moore and havent experienced or read them all. Just because Alan Moore is bored doesnt mean anyone reading batman comics is an idiot. A long post but it would be nice if Alan Moore had a little more understanding for the people who aren't Alan Moore and painted us less like imbeciles who don't understand and painted us a little more like people who are just not Alan Moore. Then again I look forward to the point when i'm a little bit Alan Moore about things so its swings and roundabouts really. He's like an lizard moaning about fish not being able to climb trees. Brilliant but slightly patronising Alan Moore. I suppose brilliant people have the luxury of being allowed to be patronising. He is Alan Moore.

  • Claudine Pagac Reply

    That actually sounds like a really bad design. Bikes should be treated just like cars. If you add a 'bike lane' with stops at each intersection in a roundabout, it's very confusing for people who are used to using roundabouts, in that you're almost NEVER supposed to stop IN a roundabout. It makes a lot more sense just to have the bikes take up a lane of traffic, and have everyone else slow down for the 10 seconds until the bike has exited the roundabout, just like a car would. The people swerving to go around that lady were in the wrong, even if she was going slowly. If people would simply take a day to time out pausing for a bike, and realize that putting someone's life in danger is not worth the literally 10 seconds of commute time, biking accidents would be lessened dramatically. So, to lessen everyone's confusion: #If you see a bike on the road, treat it like a car. (This means you bike WITH traffic). Also give it just as much room as you would give a car (fully change lanes to pass). If you see a bike on the sidewalk, it should be being walked (not ridden), and treated like a pedestrian. If you're walking a bike, you're a pedestrian, walk it against traffic (and move out of the way of oncoming cars).

  • Anastacio Strosin Reply

    Okay, I'll try and get through as much of that as I can. Let's start with the name of the trade: >I'm interested in possibly joining the RAF as a Cyberspace Communications Specialist. I'm going to stick with TG4 (Trade Group 4) which is less of a mouthful. The name changes a little too frequently for my liking, and the rest of the service has only just got to grips with calling us ICT Technicians. TG4 is very diverse, which may or may not suit you. The 'Cyberspace' title is quite misleading IMO, and cuts out a lot of what we do. You may well find yourself working in IT, but you could just as easily be maintaining an air defence radar or military ground to air radios. >I'm trying to figure out what a typical day would be like, during and after training. What kind of tasks would I be performing? How would my role change when posted abroad? What sort of tasks would I be performing then? What would be the purpose behind deployment? That's a lot of questions. I won't go into basic training too much as I know there's plenty of information already out there. RTS Halton is a gruelling 10(?) weeks, but see it through to the end and you'll remember it fondly (probably). Before I joined up, I remember [thestudentroom.co.uk](http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=96) having a wealth of information, and it looks like it's still pretty active. Phase 2 training is at RAF Cosford, and lasts around 12 months. The 4am starts and sprints around the parade square are all behind you, but you'll be under the microscope and expected to look and behave professionally (and then throughout your career obviously)! Work life honestly isn't that different to anything out in the real world. You'll either work Mon-Fri or on a shift (usually 4on/4off). You'll have supervisors, managers etc etc and probably something that needs to be maintained/repaired. For me, it's a £20m radar system, but my next posting could be sat behind a desk resetting passwords. Overseas detachments are equally diverse. Many find themselves in the Falkland Islands maintaining comms equipment, but there's also plenty going on in the Middle East. A detachment length is usually 4 months, and not necessarily anything related to your role in the UK. I'm not sure of turnaround times for detachments, but 3 years is probably ballpark. If you fancy lots of travel with deployable comms equipment, check out TCW (Tactical Communications Wing). >How does being in IT differ, if at all, from a more 'traditional' job in the forces? I don't know what you mean by traditional. Everyone has a job to do. Just make sure you choose wisely now, and don't realise you wish you'd joined as a chef in 18 months' time. >The next question revolves more around general life in the RAF - how will you be treated by those in charge of you? is it someone screaming commands and treating you like shit? No. That comes to an end after recruit training, unless you really take the piss of course. >What standard of life can I expect, when posted home and abroad? What are the living conditions like abroad? Life in the block is much like being in halls of residence at uni, or any other communal living really. If you're married, you're entitled to married quarters (a house). Overseas detachments are less glamorous, but really not that bad. TCW on the other hand... >How long would you be posted in one place? Would you always have the same 'home' base in England, or would you move around? You'd move around. Some trades are restricted because of the work they do, but TG4 gets just about everywhere. 3 years is a 'nominal tour length'. >How hard is it to save money whilst in the RAF? I can imagine the social life could be fairly expensive. That's up to you! >For those who have been in or are currently in the RAF, how did you rate your experience? Would you do it all again? Swings and roundabouts. I don't particularly enjoy the job I have just now, but I have the foresight to see that a new challenge is on the horizon (have I said diverse enough times yet)? TG4 is having a bit of an identity crisis just now, and it's tempting to look at what else is out there, but I guarantee I'd regret it. YMMV. Andy.

  • Ewald Johns Reply

    Hm, okay.. I live in Norway and our prerequisites for getting a driver's license are kind of extensive, at least by comparison, and it's rather expensive too. You start by having a theoretical course where you learn the road signs, basic rules, first aid, and you're taken out for a ride in the dark to demonstrate how hard it can be to see pedestrians and things in the dark, and the importance of using a reflex when on foot. Next up is a practical bit where you can either drive on your own under supervision of an adult of 25 years or older, who has had the license for at least five years without interruption, or you can drive with an instructor. Most people use a mix of the two to get some formal training, and then supplement it with driving privately to rack up mileage and grow accustomed to traffic. After that is a stage where you need like 12 hours or whatever it is of training through a licensed driving instructor, and it includes some theory, and a lot of practice, driving in varied environments, navigating by roadsigns alone, overtaking people on the road, dealing with roundabouts, traffic light crossings, driving in pedestrian heavy areas, driving on the highway, narrow roads and stuff like that. The last three instructor classes that are mandatory consist of one long drive, one security course where you drive on a race track and try to dodge pedestrians and cars and things made of foam, and getting practical experience handling a car with and without safety controls like anti spin, and so on. They soap down the racetrack so it's like driving on ice, and you're encouraged to fail on purpose so you can experience how terrifying it is if you start losing control, and how to be more prepared when it happens for real to quickly gain your wits again and regain control of the vehicle. You also get to strap yourself into a kind of test vehicle that simulates a head on collision at fairly low speeds, with a seatbelt on. And you definitely do get an understanding of the importance of the seat belt when doing that. You learn how to secure a child's seat in the car, how to secure stuff to the rails on the roof of the car, or to the back, and stuff like that. During all this training you're also taught basic care for the car, such as driving economically, finding out if the tire treads are in good condition, how to check that your lights are working, securing your car, checking that the brake power amplification and the steering wheel servo work as they should, and more. And finally a long drive where you mainly practice overtaking vehicles and getting a good sense of when it's safe and when it isn't. Then you have a theoretical exam, multiple choice questionnaire, there's like 50 questions and you can have about 5 wrong before you fail. When you pass it, you can order the practical driving test, where you're told to drive a certain route, and you're also asked to demonstrate random car maintenance knowledge from a sample of different questions. There's very low tolerance for screwing up on that test, and both theory and practical tests have very high failure rates for first timers. Soo yeah, it sounds like it's a lot more comprehensive here than where you live. But then, Norway is kind of nightmarish for cars a lot of the time. What makes it gorgeous also makes it hard to make straight flat roads, and the winter temperatures make it very challenging, so I'm glad we have at least this high a bar for prospective drivers to pass.

  • Olga Nader Reply

    As someone who has seen a greater number of states than you, let me share my experience for you. Ohio: Home state. Nothing to see unless you're in the Southern 1/3 of the state (Rock & Roll HOF notwithstanding). If you find yourself in the Hocking Hills area (south, central Ohio) stop and enjoy the sights. It's the only part of Ohio that I find truly beautiful. Colorado: Beautiful! Went camping as a Boy Scout at camp Ben Delatour and loved it! Took a couple days to adjust to the altitude, but a positive experience I'll always remember. All that I saw of Colorado was great, and now you can spark up legally so it's only gotten better. Iowa and Nebraska: Corn. Lol, more corn. Okay, that's enough corn. Fucking corn! Would it kill these farmers to plant another crop?! Hey, is that a bean field? No! It's more fucking corn!! Florida: To quote Stewie Griffin, "God's waiting room". Lots of old people who drive with their bright headlights on and refuse to dim them. Overpopulated. Worst sunburn of my life in Boca Raton (which means "mouth of the rat"). Hot and humid. Maine: Love it. If I were rich I'd buy a Summer home on the South coast and eat lobster and scallops every day. Massachusetts: Enjoyed it. Opted to steer clear of Boston to avoid big city traffic. My wife and I actually honeymooned in Massachusetts. Also, cranberry bogs. Vermont and New Hampshire: Passed through both. They are lovely. My first real life encounter with roundabouts was in one of these states, I forget which. Pennsylvania: Drove W to E through the state, then returned home going E to W. It's pretty, but after several hours you're pretty tired of Pennsylvania and want to see a "Welcome to (other state)" sign. It doesn't matter what state, any really because I've had enough of PA. Your nice and all, Pennsylvania, but you hang around too long and we want to spend time with someone else after 6-8 hours of being stuck with you. West Virginia: Beautiful to look at, but from what I know you wouldn't want to live there. Capital building is pretty damn sweet-looking though. Highways were shit. Kentucky: Very nice to look at, like a cousin that you take notice of when you see her in a bikini for the fist time. That comparison was selected on purpose. Calumet Farms is pretty cool. Lexington was a nice place to live in the late 90's, not sure if that's still the case. Michigan: There are some beautiful places, but there is also Detroit. Family vacation outside of Flint (yes, the lead-tainted water city) led to my Dad catching a rainbow trout while fly fishing and my having trout for the first time in my life. Rainbow trout are delicious! North Carolina: Liked it. Raleigh-Durham area is too crowded (it's expanded a lot in the past 20 years, according to my brother, who lives there). Has Mt. Airy, which looks like a breast (with erect nipple) made of stone. That's near to where Andy Griffith was born. In various trips I've also passed through parts of Tennessee, Georgia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois and Kansas. I have no lasting memories of those states. Also, my Grandpa told me Arizona is great because people tend to think of it as nothing but desert, but it has snow-capped mountains in the North, parts that are lush and green, flat parts, elevated parts and, of course, desert. Haven't been there myself.

  • Elenor Price Reply

    > If you can dominate a game that ends in a draw, then you can dominate a game that ends in a loss. That's common knowledge for anybody who has played or watched football. Of course you can dominate a game that you lose. All it takes a couple of seconds to concede and 90 minutes of dominance goes out the window. > Besides, Spain gave up 2 penalty kicks vs Ireland and were lucky only one was converted. One of which was a clear dive by Damien Duff. Swings and roundabouts. > If that constitutes Spain's "dominance" over Ireland to you, then there's no point in continuing this dialogue. IMO, "dominance" means you dominated enough aspects of the game to win comfortably. Which basically means that you let the result dictate whether a team was actually on top. Which is nonsense. I note that you never replied to my comments about Brazil dominating with Pele. You can dominate every aspect of the game to the extent that you would win 7, 8 or 9 times out of 10. But you can never ensure victory. I really find it difficult to believe that you aren't aware of the idea in football that you can have "one of those days". There are literally 1000s of examples from football history. > The disallowed goal because of the header was the bad decision. IIRC, the disallowed goal with the incorrect out of bounds ruling was made by the linesman before he knew whether it would result in the goal. Was it a bad decision? Yes. But it was made before he knew it was a goal. Where exactly in that reply do you answer my question? > But who cares. There's bad referee decisions all the time in soccer. A few things need to be addressed here. For starters, at no point have I said that bad decisions don't occur. That is actually a core part of my argument. These things happen and sometimes mean that teams who *should* win end up not winning. Which makes your point about Australia somewhat ludicrous given your stance about the poor decisions against Spain (plus Italy). > What about Frank Lampard's goal vs Germany in '10 which would've tied the score 2-2? Or Thierry Henry's handball making your Ireland lose to France? I could go on and on. No one's constantly droning about match-fixing in those games... For starters, at no point did I mention match fixing. So please don't claim I "droned on" about it. However, if you wish to bring it into the conversation, there are clear reasons why the referee against Italy-South Korea gets referred to more than other bad decisions. Any basic research into him certainly raises questions. But I haven't made any allegations about match fixing against Spain. It was most likely shit decision making. Ditto England/Germany or France Ireland. All of this comes back to my original point. Goals and game changing decisions can massively impact the end result. If the *correct* decisions had been made in favour of Spain, they would have stood a great chance of making the final. I feel they would have been deserved finalists. You seem to have a myopic, narrow view on what "deserved" actually means. All I am saying is that their talent and performances would have made their worthy finalists. They were better than any team in that half of the draw IMO.

  • Joana Powlowski Reply

    Well, it got complicated really quickly. Put simply, the pro-EU campaign was based on the economy, the Brexit campaign was based on immigration. One was based on hope, one was based on fear. People find it much easier to be scared. If course, Angela Merkel flinging open Germany's doors to a million Syrians who caused such upset in Cologne last year, and continue to do so across Germany really, REALLY didn't help. *To me, it feels like what was once a good deal purely designed for economic benefit (The EU) has turned into a globalist project to erode the sovereignty and cultures of the different countries in Europe.* Sort of. From what I can see, the timing sucked. They either should have gone full-bore for a United States of Europe from the start and we be a fully federalised continent by now, or slowed things further until populations had a decade or two more to get used to the idea. But having said that, I do disagree with your last point there, about the erosion of culture; do you honestly see the French wanting to give an inch on their culture? *If the EU had stuck to economic/military partnerships and not been intrusive on the rights of countries to manage their own affairs, I don't feel that Brexit would have happened. That being said, brits have always been very independent and attached to their identity. It's where American culture gets it from. (Thank you, by the way)* It's a tricky subject, identity. The main problem was people were strongly identifying with a Britain that simply never existed. 'We were alright before the EU' was the common mantra, but we simply weren't! Before the EU there was general strikes, runaway inflation, mass unemployment. Now EEC membership didn't solve that, but this was the Britain being fondly remembered through rose tinted specs. But in balance pro-EU people were campaigning and believing in something that didn't exist yet and couldn't be sure of. Both sides, in harking for a mystic land of milk and honey, were very mistaken. *Do the Brits feel similar about that? Every time they've voted No in the EU, the resolution has passed anyway. As one of the largest economies in the EU, I feel that brits sort of have a right to feel like their level of influence does not match their contribution to the union.* Swings and roundabouts. Were we given a raw deal based on our contributions to the EU? Depends where you live. Wales did alright from its subsidies. London did ok from financial passports, which the banks will all lose. Small businesses did ok from easy migration, but that's a prickly point with many. *How close is that to the situation and how brits feel? Just trying to see how realistic my own understanding of things is.* In all honesty, it depends who you ask. By way of full disclosure, I live in London and was staunchly pro-EU. Ask someone else and you'll get a very different opinion. The only thing that can probably be agreed on is I've never seen a political argument so divisive, so passionately believed in, on all sides, ever, and am not likely to again. It split everyone, from families to the city.

  • Kellen Fisher Reply

    There are a couple of points to address in your post >when they bunny hopped onto a busy road without looking >bikers run red lights on busy roads >they are by far the stupidest people I have talked to So lets first keep in mind that your opinion is a bit "skewed" perhaps by some bad experiences. Keep in mind that these "bikers" are also probably "drivers" at different points in their day. Getting on a bike does not instantly make someone an idiot or not obey traffic laws. It follows that someone who runs red lights at a busy intersection on a bike, aren't the safest drivers in cars as well. >Ottawa also has trails EVERYWHERE, but again, bikers only use them for exercise, not to get around the city. This should be somewhat obvious. People WORK or LIVE in the city. The trails "everywhere" are "everywhere" because they don't actually follow normal traffic flows. They are meandering and not often the most direct route to their job which is probably in the city with all the busy roads. Its unreasonable to expect a bike to take a longer "several blocks over" or "bike trail elsewhere". A few blocks on a bike can mean 10 minutes longer of a ride. Its not as simple as it is on a car. How often have you yourself gone a meandering, scenic route to work that adds an extra 10-15 minutes to your commute just for the purpose of making traffic better for others and *NOT* yourself. I'd wager <1% of the time. Its unfair to judge cyclists for taking efficient routes when 99.9% of cars don't do the same. (Trust me bikes would rather take the bike paths if they actually were direct, they just often don't work out) >Or that biking in the middle of a lane is somehow safer than biking on a non-busy sidewalk? Finally the crux of the issue. There's actually a lot of nuance here, but the simplest way to characterize the problem is to do a thought experiment. If you had to design a bike-only traffic system where EVERYONE rode bikes everywhere, would it more closely follow the traffic patterns of the modern road? or would it more closely follow sidewalks? Sure it would probably have things like less stop signs and more roundabouts, but mostly it would look like a typical road. Two separated lanes going different directions, long sweeping turns that you can take at a moderate speed. Yield and stop signs for pedestrians etc. Given that we Don't actually have this infrastructure for a bike-only society. Which transportation system more closely mirrors the ideal case? The "wild-west" unregulated sidewalk with narrow roads with telephone poles, sharp and blind 90-degree turns, no lanes, and unregulated stops (I'm looking at you people who stop and turn around at a moments notice for no reason)? Or perhaps the streets where we already follow most of the rules in place that we would expect a civil bike-society to follow. The unfortunate side effect is that bikes are slower than cars, and will slow cars down. **TLDR** Its a lot safer and easier to have cars drive slower to follow and avoid bikes than it is for bikes to stop and turn instantaneously like pedestrians can.

  • John Daugherty Reply

    **ARE YOU GUYS IN THIS THREAD SERIOUS? YOU MERELY ADOPTED TRAFFIC. I WAS BORN IN IT, MOLDED BY IT.** **YOU THINK THAT WAS A CLUSTERFUCK? YOU THINK THAT WAS A MESS?** **YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING. YOU HAVEN'T WALKED THROUGH THE STREETS OF NAPLES IN ITALY. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CARS PARKED ON TOP OF OTHER CARS. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WOMEN TAKING 35 MINUTES TO PARALLEL PARK. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CLUSTERS OF CARS GOING THE WRONG WAY IN A ONE-WAY ROAD.** **YOU THINK THIS IS HELL? YOU HAVEN'T EVEN CROSSED THE GATES OF HELL.** **YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT FROM AFAR.** - ***All hope abandon, ye who enter here.*** - **Traffic rules in Italy:** - - **Roundabouts:** **- How it should work:** Give priority to people already in the roundabout. **- How it works in Italy:** Slowly approach the roundabout and throw yourself in there at the first occasion. Other people will stop or crash. It's a dare. - **Pedestrian Crossing:** **- How it should work:** Stop your car when a person is crossing the street. **- How it works in Italy:** Use your air horn, signals and accelerate. The person will run faster and move out of the way. - **Signals:** **- How it should work:** Use the signal to let other drivers know you are about to turn. **- How it works in Italy:** If you don't know where to go use your signals randomly. You can use the left signal, then start a turn on the right, then change signals. The drivers behind you will get scared and slow down, giving you time to find the right street you're looking for. - **Parking:** **- How it should work:** Park only if there's a spot available. If someone else is already parking find another spot. **- How it works in Italy:** If there's not a spot park your car anyway. When the other car needs to get out it will start asking for you. The 'Use-the-signal-to-claim-a-spot-that's-about-to-be-available rule' doesn't apply. When you see a spot the fastest one gets it. If you lose you can establish dominance by getting out of the car and start screaming and insulting. - **Traffic lights:** **- How it should work:** Green = Good to go. Yellow = Slow down. Red = Stop. **- How it works in Italy:** Green = Go. Yellow = Accelerate. Red = Go. Other people will stop. Corollary: If someone has stopped with a red light start honking and flashing him to let him know how dumb he is. Make your point clearer by screaming as well. - **Motor-scooters:** **- How it should work:** One or two persons depending on the size of it. Wear your helmets. If there's traffic you can overtake on the left when allowed. **- How it works in Italy:** Fun for all the family ! Bring your children, grandparents, there's room for everyone ! No helmets, they're for losers. Let your toddler enjoy the view by putting him between you and the windshield. If there's traffic use the sidewalk ! Fast and easy ! (I'm from Naples and [I'm not even joking](http://www.campaniasuweb.it/sites/default/files/imagecache/large/articolo/immagine/201408/motorino.jpg)) **[This is just a taste](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_FopOcbjpY)**

  • Makayla Hills Reply

    >What exactly is it that is so special about the bar industry that it has to have special employment methods that include not paying people for their time? No industry I can think of pays candidates for the interview process. It's just we interview differently. Anyone can interview well if they learn how to answer the questions asked in a convincing and natural manner. However, in hospitality, there are certain skills required that can only be assessed by demonstration. Let's say I'm recruiting for a chef position. Before I make a job offer, I have to be certain that they can perform to the role required. To name just a few, I have to see knife handling skills, multi-tasking, teamwork, problem solving, communication, awareness, and most of all, personal hygiene and food hygiene. It also helps if the person can cook. I can't judge these skills in a face to face, so the interview becomes a practical assessment. Normally, the face to face part of the interview is very short. It might sound strange, as many professionals in different sectors would be able to convince a recruiting manager of their suitability and experience in a face to face, and through discussion, demonstrate an understanding of the role in question. When certain practical skills are required (that could be easily bull-shitted in discussion) it's far more beneficial to observe them, than to take someone's blind word for it. Let me put it this way, if you were going to a job interview, would you expect to get paid for it? I've had job interviews for management positions that have lasted multiple hours over multiple days, and have never been paid for the recruitment process. Day long group assessments, 4 hour office interviews, and even before that, hour long phone interviews, online aptitude tests, health questionnaire and assessments, you name it. It's a bloody inconvenience and it's hard work no doubt, but sometimes these are the steps you have to go through if you want the job. Conversely, I've also had interviews that have been a 10 minute chat, and then a "so when can you start?" It's swings and roundabouts, and every situation is different. A trial is really not about taking the piss out of someone. It's an incredibly effective method of on job assessment of a candidates suitability, and additionally, it's an opportunity for the candidate to see if the job is right for them too. It does work both ways. The issue at hand is when you have a candidate like op, who clearly has experience in the industry, how come it took 7 hours of on job assessment to decide weather he was right for the position or not? In this case, op had the piss ripped out of him, and they got a skilled worker for free for the night. This is not what a trial is supposed to be, and if one of my managers had overseen this, he'd be getting reprimanded for this disgraceful behaviour, and potentially bringing the business in to disrepute.

  • Dexter Volkman Reply

    Booking ahead will usually be cheaper. Make sure to compare prices across all of the car rental companies, as they can vary quite a bit. Consider renting the smallest car that will hold your party and all their luggage; not only will it be cheaper and better on fuel (which is quite expensive here), it's much easier to navigate the small roads and tiny parking spots with a hatchback than a big sedan. If you are planning on declining the collision damage waiver insurance and using your credit card's rental car insurance instead, you will likely need a letter from your card issuer verifying that they will provide coverage in Ireland and Scotland. This can take some time to obtain, so make sure you do it far enough ahead of time (but not too far; some companies have a limit on how old the letter can be). You shouldn't need an international driving permit, as both countries' primary language is English (unless your license is in French, in which case you should probably get one just in case). If you need an automatic transmission, make sure to request an automatic when booking; most rentals here are manual. Note that automatics are almost always more expensive, sometimes significantly so. Make sure you know the local traffic laws well, especially for roundabouts and parking. Keep in mind that it will take some time to get used to driving on the left and sitting on the right side of the car. The secondary controls (particularly the turn signal and wipers) will probably be the reverse of what you're used to, and if you're in a manual, you'll be shifting gears with your left hand (though the gear pattern will remain the same, as will the pedal arrangement). The roads in Ireland and many parts of Scotland are usually very windy, narrow, and poorly graded. Take it nice and slow; don't feel the need to hurry even when you see the locals bombing along at twice your speed. If you end up with a few cars behind you and there are no safe passing zones, then pull off at the next handy turnout or driveway and allow the faster traffic to pass. Many smaller roads are single-track, so be very careful and watch for oncoming traffic. Remember to keep your speed lower than usual; don't drive at the edge of your visibility, as you need to give any oncoming cars plenty of room to stop as well. You may end up having to reverse to the last turnout point or driveway to let an oncoming car pass, so keep a mental note every time you pass one. Typical etiquette is that the driver who is closest to a passing place (or has the easiest route to one, e.g. not around a blind corner) should reverse if necessary. You should also pull over to allow faster traffic from behind to pass, if it's safe to do so.

  • Hipolito Osinski Reply

    I live in Wagga Wagga. I'm originally from Canberra but I moved here to Study at CSU. The first two years I didn't interact with the town that much because I lived on Campus, but this last year I've been renting a house in Tolland with someone so I've had more of a chance to see the town. Honestly, I doesn't feel to different from back home expect for a few draw backs. One, employment, I know quite a few people who are having trouble finding Full time work. As a student I've also been looking for a part time or casual job while I've been here with absolutely no luck after 2.5 years. Though that could be because there are hundred of other students looking for work at the same time, that doesn't explain full time work. I'm not planning on living here after I graduate because there is simply no work available. Doesn't help that my course is practically useless here. Two, crime. The ice epidemic seems to be in full swing around here and I don't know of any attempts to put a stop to it. If the unemployment stays as it is this will spiral out of control before long. Around my neighborhood there is a lot shady business, luckily nothing has happened to me or my roommate personally, I feel pretty secure in my house. But i do make sure to lock my car in the backyard every night. I did have one occasion walking home at night that someone tried to pick a fight with me, but nothing happened, I got home safe. It shook me up a bit and since then I've made sure to have some cash for a taxi if i'm out late. Beyond that incident nothing has happened. People can get pretty loud and rowdy around Friday night, but nothing that I didn't experience living on campus around uni students. =) Three, Drivers and roads. I've heard a lot of people say Canberra drivers are the worst, I'm not sure how true this is but I feel so much safer on Canberra roads then I do on Wagga's. The road quality is abysmal, I feel like every time I go anywhere i'm going to damage my car. Some of those roundabouts give me white knuckles because the roads are so tight and crammed. But i'm calling bullshit on 3/4 drivers are high, that seems pretty ridiculous. But other then that I don't really have anything to complain about. I really don't care about things like trendy restaurants and coffee shops, i don't know how many times you can drink coffee before you realize it all taste the same. The hospital was serviced well. It has enough events to keep my anti-social ass entertained. I'm pretty content living here till i finished my degree. then i'll be off to greener pastures

  • Britney Lebsack Reply

    Oh man, that takes me back. My very first car when I was 20 was this right here, a '85 5.0. http://i.imgur.com/sVnvoKv.jpg Definitely give it a good look over and do all the usual stuff you'd do for a used car. If it runs, the fact that it runs after this many miles implies that it's been taken care of pretty good. But feel for anything that doesn't feel right in the transmission when you take it for a test drive. Ad says it's an auto, so feel for shifting that feels too hard or rough in any of the gears. Or if it seems like it wants to hesitate too long if you get on it a little bit. Take it around a few corners, or through some roundabouts and if it wants to do the thing where it revs without actually going for a minute...those are all signs that my '06 GT that I got rid of started exhibiting with it's transmission issues. Every damn one of those. Check for leaks, take a look at the oil and see if it looks dark and shitty or not. I mean if the guy selling it can't even pretend to give a fuck and at least change the oil while his car is on ad, then what's that say for how he treated her during the duration he owned it? How is the coolant level, transmission fluid, that kind of thing? Take it in to either a good mechanic or at least bring along a trusted family member or friend who has some knowledge about working on cars, just to get a second opinion on the condition of the vehicle or maybe at least think of things to look at or ask about that you might not think of. Hell, that was even good advice for me going to the dealership getting my '16 GT, I think my stepfather was more excited over me buying my car than I was and he wanted to tag along. I let him and was glad I did because there were a few things he asked too that had completely slipped my mind during the purchase. The great thing about these foxbody era cars was that they were easy to work on, you had plenty of space in that engine bay. There are literally 1001 different aftermarket parts for these things. This right here is probably the cheapest and easiest route to owning a mustang, and for the people that drag race it's a popular choice because most of the time you're not throwing as much money at them as you might some other years to turn them into track beasts. Of course, that might not be advisable with a a convertible, as it's the least sturdiest frame of them all. That pecking order goes notchback>hatchback>convertible. But I'm just saying, parts are pretty cheap and affordable for these badboys. Definitely a great first car to learn in.

  • Reagan Yundt Reply

    > Sorry, no, there should be no conflict with traffic IN the roundabout exiting to Prices Fork. In this case, you're correct because the Prices Fork exit only has a single lane. If the exit had multiple lanes like either exit to Main St, then there would be conflict like I stated. As I stated earlier, in general, if you're in the outer lane of a roundabout, you *must* take the first exit after you enter (which is why I disagree with allowing traffic to proceed straight through the roundabout from the right lane of N. Main when approaching downtown). This allows for both lanes in a multilane roundabout to be used concurrently rather than traffic having to wait for both lanes to be clear when you're only going to use the outer lane to make a right. > Again, you are part of the problem if you do that. The signs and arrows on Prices Fork when approaching the roundabout clearly indicate that traffic in the left lane is ONLY to head into the roundabout. That signage was only put in later on (well after the roundabout opened, IIRC) for people who, evidently, are incapable of merging from one lane to another once they're on Main St. In all the other multilane roundabouts I have experience with, that particular movement is perfectly legal and acceptable. > Making a right turn from the left lane is not to be done, unless you want to deal with a claim against your insurance for causing a collision So how is it any different than someone who proceeds straight through the roundabout from N. Main towards downtown while at the same time someone approaching from Prices Fork in the right lane enters the roundabout and ends up in the right turn only lane going towards Gilbert St? The only difference is where the first vehicle entered the roundabout since the exit movement is clearly the same. Also, no matter what, it's the responsibility of traffic changing lanes to yield to through traffic in the adjacent lane. If they're unable to change lanes, then they can proceed onto Gilbert St, turn around in one of the available parking lots, and then make a right onto Main St. For what it's worth, I don't make a right from the left lane when approaching the roundabout from Prices Fork since they put that signage up, but I really don't see it as a problem as long as one is capable of switching lanes after yielding to through traffic.

  • Germaine Sipes Reply

    I'm a cyclist and I hate cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road. But for every time a motorist has to deal with a cyclist who's putting their own lives in danger, a cyclist has to deal with a motorist who's putting the cyclists' life in danger. In Ireland motorists are woefully unaware about the rights a cyclist has. For example, I routinely get the horn beeped at me when I do things like use a roundabout or use the middle lane when I'm going straight when the lane closer to the kerb is for left turns only. A lot of drivers won't give right of way to cyclists either. It gets worse than that too, I frequently get undertaken on roundabouts (so dangerous since cyclists don't have mirrors. I've had people overtake me and then attempt to turn left 20m later only to errupt in anger because I cut in front of them when they were turning. That's happened to me a few times. This has gotten so bad that they have ads on TV now warning motorists about this offence.

  • Emerald Wuckert Reply

    > That signage was only put in later on (well after the roundabout opened, IIRC) for people who, evidently, are incapable of merging from one lane to another once they're on Main St. In all the other multilane roundabouts I have experience with, that particular movement is perfectly legal and acceptable. The sign has been there since the day the roundabout opened, as were the arrows right in front of the roundabout. The arrows on the pavement were added later to provide another clue to those approaching what lane they should be in. What may be true in other roundabouts is not true here. > Making a right turn from the left lane is not to be done, unless you want to deal with a claim against your insurance for causing a collision > > So how is it any different than someone who proceeds straight through the roundabout from N. Main towards downtown while at the same time someone approaching from Prices Fork in the right lane enters the roundabout and ends up in the right turn only lane going towards Gilbert St? The only difference is where the first vehicle entered the roundabout since the exit movement is clearly the same. Also, no matter what, it's the responsibility of traffic changing lanes to yield to through traffic in the adjacent lane. If they're unable to change lanes, then they can proceed onto Gilbert St, turn around in one of the available parking lots, and then make a right onto Main St. If someone is approaching from Prices Fork while someone is proceeding straight through the roundabout, the person on Prices Fork must YIELD to the car IN THE ROUNDABOUT. That avoids any conflict with entering from the right (correct) lane and shifting across the dashed line to the through lane. It is a screwy design, but it works for those who pay attention. I'm not sure in what world it is normal to make a right turn from the left lane or a left turn from the right lane.

  • Katheryn Mosciski Reply

    The more bottlenecks on your way to work and back, the worse your commute. The situation really depends on the neighbourhood and where you're trying to get to. If you live in a place like Hautes-Plaines, your commute's a fucking breeze, relatively speaking. If you join all the plebs across the Gatineau river, your commute is susceptible to the overall shit infrastructure design, because yes, it's not the amount of cars going on the highways or other crossing points that's a problem, but the choices that have been made when the roads were built that are the biggest issue. Successions of onramps are what's causing (much like it is the case in Orleans with the 174) the bulk of the slowdowns before you get to the McDonald-Cartier bridge. Then there's the overall shit timing of the lights on the 148. As for the Fournier boulevard, the city somehow is able to justify keeping the reserved lanes in spite of the fact that the bulk of the transit traffic is now using a dedicated route. If you're coming in from Aylmer, what's killing you is the series of roundabouts heading into town from the 148. Not that they're theoretically bad, it's just nobody knows how to properly engage in them and frankly, they require too much concentration for the bulk of our drivers who have grown awfully accustomed to absent minded driving. Other than that, it's the lights. Aylmer has the benefit of having an access point off the Hull Island whereas nobody Eastward has that benefit thanks to the Rockcliffe NIMBY crowd. The issue right now with Aylmer/Plateau is that it's underserved transit-wise, but the area, IMO, copes a lot better with the additional traffic. Supposedly the Des Grives lights sort of "fucked it all up" according to some residents but every time I find myself commuting from there the real issues just seem to be A: the distances you can cover (Aylmer being pretty fucking sizable) and B: the roundabout traffic. Just mind where you're commuting from. Look at Google Maps traffic data for everyday (simulate/plan a departure using the web interface) and you should get an idea of how much time you're trading to save some dough. Note that commuting back home is often a bigger deal than getting to work. Still haven't worked out why exactly myself.

  • Yvette Von Reply

    If you have data on your phone you can download WAZE for free on android or ios. I use it fairly often and only have 1gb of data pooled over 3 months and still have 250mb left with 6 days until reup so it doesn't even use that much data. It takes real time traffic data into consideration from other users and will route you around it accordingly and provide you with a fairly accurate eta. If you use your calendar and input the address of your location in there, it will also message you and tell you what time you have to leave by to arrive on time according to current conditions. Otherwise. West side North-South: Avoid Wonderland during rush hour at all costs especially from Springbank to Sarnia Rd. Wharncliffe can be ok, but once University gets back in the number of horrible student drivers increases. Wharncliffe and Oxford is a horrible intersection for going North/South on Wharncliffe so pay extra attention as cars like to merge before the bridge without warning. North end East-West: If you're going East-West at the North end of town, heading up to Sunningdale can help you avoid some of the congestion around the Mall on Fanshawe Park. This may not be quicker depending on the time of day and amount of traffic on Fanshawe Park. Watch out for people who don't yet understand how roundabouts work. More Central East-West: Riverside is fairly quick from the West end to Downtown or vice versa. I've noticed there has been a huge increase of pedestrians standing at green lights catching pokemon (one would assume) for a few cars and then just walking into traffic without looking at Riverside(Dundas) and Ridout. So be extra careful turning right onto Ridout if there are people standing at that light. Springbank/Horton/Hamilton moves decently well most times of the day to cut across the city. Watch out for confused drivers at Trafalgar. Misc: Talbot can be used to get under the train tracks and get to Oxford from Downtown, but when students move in/out avoid it. Wellington despite being fairly busy usually moves pretty quickly from Horton going South.

  • Jordane Mohr Reply

    Check with others who have gone through the same testing station - and there was a report last year about which ones had the highest failrate (ie deliberately failing people). One thing that makes the practical tests really hard is the guy in the passenger seat telling you where to go, and much worse asking you questions while you are focusing on driving. Things they will test you on : - keeping to the speed limit - give way/stop signs - how to turn around without doing a u-turn or 3-point turn in a side street - roundabouts (only if there are any in your area that they may use) - you may have to point out potential hazards as you see them (eg pedestrians etc) - lane changes - whether you use the indicator correctly - parking (parallel parking may be tested, depends on tester but definitely normal parking) TIPS: 1. Make certain that the car you are using for the test has a current warrant of fitness, and lights and indicator are working properly 2. Have both hands on the steering wheel about halfway 3. Always use the indicator, when changing lanes, using roundabouts, turning etc 4. Check your blindspot (brief turn of the head) especially when changing lanes 5. Relax 6. Repeat step 5 PROTIP: If you have time, get someone you know who has a full license to take you through a practice run with them directing you and asking you questions about what you see and what you are doing. At the end of the test, the examiner will give you feedback, and then if you pass they will give you a temporary paper license to use until you get the photo license in the mail. Remember, right turning traffic must give way to all traffic (including pedestrians) if you have a tester that says otherwise, then the tester shouldn't have a license themselves.. TL/DR: Relax. Don't tense up.

  • Marcellus Toy Reply

    Yep, one of those close to my house too. Even when people arent doing that and *trying* to be polite, there's no consensus between people on whether it's first-in-first-out or if it should just go clockwise. So even if its not the tow train you mentioned and people try to get in order, it still devolves into a shit show. Such is driving in Mass. Rotaries are just my pet peev because I grew up in Europe where roundabouts used to be put in everywhere to replace lights in an effort to improve traffic flow. Even though they went back to lights in some places, they are still popular. The driving test has a huge emphasis on roundabouts both in the theory test (regarding the rules and procedures given a scenario presented to you) and in the practical which usually involves a multi-lane busy circle which is notorious for being the cause of failure for new drivers who miss time which lane to be in at a given point in the circle, when to shift lanes, signalling, checking mirrors, shifting mistakes, etc, etc, etc so you've got no choice but to learn it right. My test in the US was crazy... multiple choice questions about laws surrounding cops finding weed while I'm driving my parents car(I was in my late 20s owning my own car), then the practical test was basically 4 right turns and reversing to park (I take it to simulate parallel parking but not actually between anything). Makes it seem very easy to get licenced and just wing it in terms or rules and procedures on the road.

  • Kailee Block Reply

    Sweden: Everything is recycled. EVERYTHING. Trips to the dump include throwing different things in different bins. Even the fast food places have 3-7 different holes for garbage. Life without a car is totally possible for most people. Any and all dressing rooms in pool houses or gyms often have stark naked people who don't give a shit. Never order a small drink. It's way smaller. I sometimes forget this even though I moved here. Roundabouts for days. There exists only ONE brand of drugstore and ONE gambling company. Hardly anyone has air conditioning. I grew up in Las Vegas. This is weird, but understandable. Coffee can and will be drank at literally any time during the day or night.

  • Maybell Frami Reply

    >But you are literally advocating that you shouldn't have a voice or a vote on issues that don't affect you. I didn't say that, nor do I agree with it. I tried to make my analogy clear, but it seems you missed my point, so I'll try again with a different analogy. Picture this: a meeting of rocket engineers are working at NASA because the current Apollo mission has encountered a critical error, and if the problem isn't solved soon, everyone on board will be ejected towards the sun! So amidst their problem solving, a civil engineer wanders into the room uninvited. The civil engineer is very used to being right, he's designed roads and ditches and roundabouts and he's very well respected in his own mind. The civil engineer interrupts the NASA scientists who know what they are talking about to tell them that they should have designed their rocket ship with wheels. The common thread: an uninformed person is derailing a productive meeting to assert their opinion. It's a waste of time for the scientists, the Pokeman players, and the feminists. If the civil engineer educated himself about rocket science, maybe he could help the current situation, and maybe if you educated yourself about the trans population and current issues and struggles that affect the community, perhaps you'd have a good chance to share your opinion. But as it stands, I stick to my original point, that she has a point.

  • Erica Yost Reply

    Shitty American intersection design. You guys can't even tell for sure who has the right of way even when you have time to think. In Europe we just put roundabouts. They save our collective time and money.

  • Polly Shanahan Reply

    Do understand that end of august/early september means that you will have to drop the northern lights. I lived in Bergen for five years and have seen them exactly twice, so you'll have to go further north during the winter to get a better chance. Tromsø is probably the best bet. Hiking is quite simple, most hiking is directly accessible from the cities. In Bergen, you have the 7 mountains surrounding the city that make for some great views. The interesting fjords are also here in the west. Many boat tours leave direct from Bergen and other cities. There is culture everywhere, and night life thrives during the week in places with students (especially during the time you are looking to arive). Weekends are generally busy at night regardless of the time of year. Public transport isn't so bad, know that some distances are quite large and if you get the idea to head up north to Lofoten or something, you should fly. The roads are small and there will be a few ferry crossings as well. Driving from the south of Norway to the north is just as long as driving from Oslo to Paris but with crappier roads. Bergen-Oslo by train is about 6 hours I think. Also, as an American who has moved here, I can tell you that the driving is quite different. If you do choose to drive, expect to drive a lot slower and learn how to use roundabouts and the right-hand rule. Bring raingear and decent clothes. It can be cold and wet, even in september.

  • Seth Harris Reply

    Nice sunny ride in this morning! Finally starting to get through all this college work so I can get more time on the bike! Pretty standard commute. Testing how fast I can go around roundabouts (25mph is my best. Room to improve) and having fun accelerating my dinky little 300 to bypass speeds. A lot of people hate bypasses but I love them! Big straight-ish roads where you can hold the throttle and just chill! Doesn't help that I am a little pansie when it comes to cornering. Shout out to the dude on the red bike this morning who was super polite. I was filtering and stopped beside him. Gave him the friendly "Sup bro" nod and he opens his visor, waves and goes "Morning mate! Nice bike!" Made me proud of my little 300! We both then faffed around doing the typical British thing of "You go first, No YOU go first" I hope that guy has a great day. Hopefully can go for a wee dicking around on the bike after college. Not sure where to go yet but will see where the mood takes me! Have a great day everyone!

  • Jayda Schmitt Reply

    You still need to make lane changes from time to time. On roundabouts for example, I always make more than one lane JUST a left (or right if you're set on american roads) exit to the roundabout. That makes sure that cars use the inner lanes more. As for slow down, I cannot say I have noticed any difference at all to be honest. Personally I feel the game is unplayable without it because of this very issue. There are smart ways to segregate traffic which get round the issue but they're a pain in the ass to figure out and completely unrealistic. Who decides all their lanes for their whole trip before they set off? One other thing I would mention that the video does not, is that if you make roundabouts that are as small as he has, sometimes cars will go round and round because of the lane changing frequency of cars on highways. Make them a bit bigger! TLDR: Not noticeable slow down. Lane changes still required in areas. Make roundabouts bigger than video.

  • Parker Corwin Reply

    That just doesn't really exist anywhere in the world though. That's not an NRL thing. It's a sports thing. Every comp in every sport has sides that are just not gonna perform that year, or for a few years, and everyone knows it. Parramatta are probably the team who have languished the longest at the bottom. Knights are atrocious yet 3 years ago they made the finals. Sharks won the spoon 2 years ago yet now sit number one. Sure, there will always be teams in every sport that are consistently good, but even they falter at times. The AFL has just had the same team win a hat trick. *That's* unevenness in sports. The NFL has had the Patriots absolutely tear the league apart for 15 years, while teams like the Lions and the Browns watch the playoffs from the sidelines. It's swings and roundabouts, and it all changes with time. You get a Thurston, a Brady or a LeBron and your team is gonna dominate.

  • Aisha Dach Reply

    X-Post referenced from /r/funny by /u/The_Bard [Who has time for roundabouts](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4kahl2/who_has_time_for_roundabouts/) ***** ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^made ^^for ^^your ^^convenience ^^\(Especially ^^for ^^mobile ^^users). ^^P.S. ^^my ^^negative ^^comments ^^get ^^deleted. ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[Code](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[FAQ](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher#faq)

  • Elsa Auer Reply

    As someone who has driven in the UK (commonly, because this is where I live) and Europe (less commonly), I find that making the switch between the two is actually fairly intuitive. The only time it can get a bit confusing is roundabouts, because I'm used to doing them a certain way. I don't think it really matters. I think it would be chaos if the UK switched to left-side overnight because the road layouts just aren't built that way, so the cost would be monumental, for very little gain.

  • Nia Boyer Reply

    Original post: [Who has time for roundabouts](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4kahl2/who_has_time_for_roundabouts/)