If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Omaha World Herald)   Legislative proposal that would require drivers 80 years of age and older to take a cognitive test to determine whether or not they are capable of getting behind the wheel. Naturally, only old people have a problem with this   (omaha.com) divider line 166
    More: Scary, lawmakers, John Hurt, medical complications, driver's licenses, Nebraska Legislature, senior citizens, psychological testing  
•       •       •

4781 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 9:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 10:37:58 AM  

musashi1600: The problem with that chart is that while all those cities have rail transit systems that would probably qualify as light rail under FTA rules, a number of those are also heritage streetcar lines that are operated with historic equipment. The bottom four systems on that list, River Rail Streetcar (Little Rock), MATA Trolley (Memphis), the Kenosha Streetcar, and the Galveston Island Trolley are all heritage systems operated with restored historic vehicles on short systems (about 10 miles or less of total track.) In comparison, the four top systems, the San Diego Trolley, MAX (Portland), TRAX (Salt Lake City), and MetroLink (St. Louis) are all much larger systems (35-53 miles of track each) with contemporary vehicles (that are presumably more energy-efficient.) The top four cities are also much larger and denser than the bottom four cities, and since the chart is based on energy use per passenger-mile (1 passenger carried 1 mile), it's also much easier for them to attract higher ridership to offset the vehicles' energy consumption.


The St Louis light rail is nearly useless for 99% of the population of the city. If you look at Melbourne Australia which has a massive usable tram system, then the numbers start to show a major problem with trams. The Melbourne system uses about 6 times the energy per mile as the average new small car with one person. Converting to average car energy consumption would put the Melbourne system below the "average" on that graph but that could get tricky considering the Aussie car fleet is smaller but older. In addition to trams, it has light rail and heavy passenger rail systems. One of the light rail lines (96) would be similar to St Louis line for about 1/3 of its run but has way too many stops and starts on the rest of the line to hit that efficiency.
 
2013-01-20 10:40:16 AM  
My grandfather had a stroke when I was a kid, and he kept getting his driver's license renewed up until a few years before he died, regardless of the fact that he was paralyzed on his right side. He was physically incapable of driving in any way and they kept giving his license to him anyway.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:15 AM  
www.global-air.com

Age does bring some declines that affect driving. Chief among them are night vision that is less sharp, declining mobility that can make turning around or craning your neck difficult, and slower reaction times. (new window)
 
2013-01-20 11:59:43 AM  

GeneralJim: Well, farktard, the SCIENCE is what is falsifying all the panic-mongers trying for higher taxes and more control. The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.


Look how much you're lying. Good farking god.

Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.
 
2013-01-20 02:10:42 PM  
As someone who lost a friend to an 87 year old driver that "just didn't see him" in broad daylight, leaving behind a wife and two small children, I can totally get behind this. The worst part was that he was riding his motorcycle home from the shop, and his wife and kids were following him home in the car, so they saw everything.
 
2013-01-20 02:56:24 PM  

Moonfisher: As someone who lost a friend to an 87 year old driver that "just didn't see him" in broad daylight, leaving behind a wife and two small children, I can totally get behind this. The worst part was that he was riding his motorcycle home from the shop, and his wife and kids were following him home in the car, so they saw everything.


Closure
 
2013-01-20 03:37:19 PM  

GeneralJim: Well, farktard,


Because personal attacks automatically declare victory in any discussion.
 
2013-01-20 03:41:50 PM  

jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.

Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.


LOL yes. I love the ridiculous argument that no one would be served on one hand, while on the other hand asserting the need to drive long distances because there is decent public transportation system.

You also ignore that much of the country did travel by rail, and in great numbers, before the car was mass marketed and the freeways were built.

The math is simple:
If millions of people can drive by car, then they can ride by train. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, and it doesn't have to meet some ridiculous business model where the service makes money within an X number of years.

The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.
 
2013-01-20 04:04:17 PM  
But, of course, no similar test for gun owners.
 
2013-01-20 04:24:57 PM  

whidbey: jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.

Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.

LOL yes. I love the ridiculous argument that no one would be served on one hand, while on the other hand asserting the need to drive long distances because there is decent public transportation system.

You also ignore that much of the country did travel by rail, and in great numbers, before the car was mass marketed and the freeways were built.

The math is simple:
If millions of people can drive by car, then they can ride by train. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, and it doesn't have to meet some ridiculous business model where the service makes money within an X number of years.

The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.


8/10. Thats a great effort there. Unless you're serious in which case you need to look at the basic math of it. Removing millions of cars off the road won't happen. Simply because of geography. Once we get from point A to point B, we still need transportation in most places we go. Which requires in most instances, a car.
 
2013-01-20 09:54:52 PM  

DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.


I wonder about that in practice.  Melbourne has been adding more public transport services yet average commute times have increased.  It is typical to drive 20 miles in an hour through most of the city if you can use the highways.  The average distance driven per year is decreasing each year and the accidents per mile drive is increasing sharply. Melbourne and Sydney both have wonderful public transport yet parking is $20 an hour in their downtown areas.  Most of the roads in Melbourne carry less passengers per hour than other major cities because the trams block cars. Of course some say the cars block the trams but the reality is they they both block each other which leads to gridlock spreading through a massive area.  Melbourne is smaller than Chicago yet seems to have much higher transport costs in money, time, taxes, inconvenience and stress.  I think it is partially because of the good public transport, planning involves most office jobs being in the cubicle farms in the downtown area and people living an hour away unlike most US cities where a majority of jobs are around the outer interstate ring roads and some downtown.

On the plus side, you can be elderly around here and still get to a grocery store.  I have 6 food stores within 20 minute walk and busses run to all of them.
 
2013-01-21 06:34:53 AM  

Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.


And they should! Not just for dementia, but they should screen for sleep disorders. If I wanted, I could totally get my license, despite having narcolepsy. No medical professional is obligated or even confident they legally can report me to have it stopped. People with severe and untreated sleep apnea are more impaired than people driving drunk.

Since people aren't going to put down the keys on their own, I'm all for making sure people who are chronically impaired at the level of a drunk driver being taken off the roads.
 
2013-01-21 08:03:09 AM  

This is a thread about elderly drivers... oh well.

GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.


blogs.loc.gov


I won't hold my breath for anything useful - since that statement is patently false. If the science has proven any such thing(as opposed to proving quite the opposite), then why does NEARLY EVERY scientist feel different?

www.desmogblog.com


Do you REALLY think that nearly all scientists of the world are on the take(from the green energy sector), or is it just a bit more likely and feasible that a small fraction are on the take (from the MUCH larger, richer oil industry sector)? Think man.

RandomRandom: Warlordtrooper: Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Uh, no. That's not how our system works. We all have a constitutionally protected right against warrant-less searches, yet DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court as have a great many other forms of warrant-less searches.

There then is the very large question as to what constitutes a firearm suitable for public ownership. Most Republicans consider themselves to be constitutional orientalists, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Because when the constitution was originally written, firearms were single shot, very slowly hand-reloading muskets. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist.

Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.

Will semi-automatic weapon ownership be greatly limited? Probably not. Would such limits be constitutional under the supreme court's current interpretation of the constitution? Yes.


You have about half the right idea, leading you to the wrong conclusion. Sure our forefathers probably did not imagine the kind of firepower we have today. So you automatically assume they would not want this firepower in the people's hands. But you neglect to realize that there are 2 sides to that coin. Our forefathers also did not imagine that kind of firepower in the hands of Government. Our forefathers had to fight against their legitimate government.

People like you - who pretend that the 2nd amendment is not there so the populace has a chance(we probably still don't) against our government should it become too corrupt or hostile to our freedoms - are playing word games where it suits you. Although it is not expressly spelled out in those words, that fact is every bit as obvious as the separation of church and state(also not spelled out in exactly those words).

Of course your interpretation is silly anyhow - the 2nd amendment (nor anywhere else in the constitution) DOES NOT specify models for which we have a right to bear.

You know what else our forefathers probably did not envision? That our politicians (and their their control and appointments our entire government) would be the property of gigantic corporate conglomerates. So maybe we might just need those firearms - higher power stuff than we really have access too as well. But if you want to take away people's right to firearms, do it properly... with an amendment to repeal the 2nd. A law is the incorrect way to do it, and not constitutionally valid where it clashes with the constitution. But even then, such an amendment is still a very bad idea.

crabsno termites: Fade2black: smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"

Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.

Both are examples of discrimination.

So? Discrimination is a natural part of society, even if you won't admit to it. Not everyone is equal.

Example: My 89 yr old mother who has had a stroke and uses a walker is routinely singled out nfor 'further screening' by TSA. She's a farking security threat? What about all the 15 - 50 yr old semitic-appearing passengers who are routinely passed through without question? 'Racial profiling'? How 'bout farking common sense?


I dunno. How about that common sense you speak of? Because you don't seem to have any. Your post makes that very clear.
 
2013-01-21 08:22:38 AM  
DON.MAC:
DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.

I wonder about that in practice.  Melbourne has been adding more public transport services yet average commute times have increased.  It is typical to drive 20 miles in an hour through most of the city if you can use the highways.  The average distance driven per year is decreasing each year and the accidents per mile drive is increasing sharply. Melbourne and Sydney both have wonderful public transport yet parking is $20 an hour in their downtown areas.  Most of the roads in Melbourne carry less passengers per hour than other major cities because the trams block cars. Of course some say the cars block the trams but the reality is they they both block each other which leads to gridlock spreading through a massive area.  Melbourne is smaller than Chicago yet seems to have much higher transport costs in money, time, taxes, inconvenience and stress.  I think it is partially because of the good public transport, planning involves most office jobs being in the cubicle farms in the downtown area and people living an hour away unlike most US cities where a majority of jobs are around the outer interstate ring roads and some downtown.

Whoops. I didn't mean to "me too" you there... Too bad I didn't see this before I also answered. Good job. Carry on.
 
2013-01-21 09:51:22 AM  
bk3k:
This is a thread about elderly drivers... oh well.

GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.

[blogs.loc.gov image 340x180]

I won't hold my breath for anything useful - since that statement is patently false.

Oh, already know the answer, do you? THAT'S not very scientific of you, but it IS typical of a warmer alarmist.

If the science has proven any such thing(as opposed to proving quite the opposite), then why does NEARLY EVERY scientist feel different?

Did you notice that you mention what scientists feel, and then post a graphic describing published papers? Is that appropriate? Also, much of what passes for research in this area consists of references to ONE study, the Oreskes study, that was a highly flawed look at the literature. Her "fence" to jump to be considered skeptical of the "consensus" was so high that she claimed NO skeptical papers had been published in the period under study. That's bollocks, as every climate scientist who keeps up on the literature knows: "Wot? NO papers critical of AGW last year? Why, I read three or four myself."

Additionally, as has been documented by the remains of the e-mail base released to the public as "Climategate," there has been a lot of mucking about with the peer-review process in climatology. Reviewers have been picked who are both believers in the AGW hypothesis, and who tend to rate papers on whether or not they agree with the conclusions, rather than on the scientific rigor with which the papers were produced. This process is called "pal-review," and it does NOT produce good science. Examples of this go as "high" as the IPCC reports themselves, which have been found to be positively chock-a-block with un-reviewed material, despite their claims that they are peer-reviewed. Environmental groups' literature has been inserted into IPCC reports, totally without checking. It's pathetic.

And, finally, the questions used to determine which scientists support AGW are simply useless. I am a strong opponent of the crap that has taken the place of science in climatology, and I do not believe carbon dioxide release will offer ANY non-trivial danger to the planet until concentrations approach 10,000 ppm (1%). They are currently under 400 ppm. Nonetheless, when I took the Scientific American survey, my results placed me in the "AGW Supporter" category. Why? Because I believe that the planet has been warming, on average, for 150 years, and that mankind's release of carbon dioxide contributes to that increase.

Both of those ARE true. To sum up my position for you, I buy into the whole warmer argument... EXCEPT that estimates made of the atmosphere's temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide are WAY high. Mankind HAS warmed the planet via carbon dioxide a bit; my estimate is that the amount warmed is less than 0.3 K, and that further increases of carbon dioxide will have even less effect. Early estimates of sensitivity involved eliminating how much the planet had warmed, how much carbon dioxide had been released, subtracting insolation warming, and the warming of carbon dioxide itself, and assuming that the balance of the warming was due to feedback from the carbon dioxide warming. First pass hypotheses are FINE. So is shooting them down; making guesses and then trying to falsify them is the very heart of science. That first pass hypothesis was falsified several ways recently. The PROBLEM is that the first pass hypothesis is mouth-watering for governments, notably that of the U.S. and the U.N., in that they can collect more taxes, and have an iron grip in controlling all business by using the "we have to save the planet" excuse, which works VERY well. But the science now, while it DOES show that mankind has warmed the planet a tad, does NOT support drastic and Draconian measure to "save" anything. Man's warming of the planet is so small that it is a mere scientific curiosity, and not a disaster waiting to happen.

About ninety per cent of the money for climate research comes from one government or another. About ninety per cent of the remainder comes from environmental groups. The last one per cent comes from industry, primarily from the energy industry. This money TALKS. It also talks LOUDLY. Since the panic over global warming began, right after the panic over the Soviet Union became untenable, funding for climate research has increased TWENTY-FOLD. Any climatologist who points out that the planet is in no danger is, in effect, saying "Please cut funding for my field of research by 95%."



[www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you REALLY think that nearly all scientists of the world are on the take(from the green energy sector), or is it just a bit more likely and feasible that a small fraction are on the take (from the MUCH larger, richer oil industry sector)? Think man.

Neither of those are feasible. Here's what I think: A VERY few scientists are corrupt. I would say fewer than a dozen. The ones of which I am aware are: James Hansen, Hansen's droog Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and someone at NOAA.

"Evil oil companies" being the fly in the ointment is NOT feasible for a couple of reasons. First, they DID oppose anything that smacked of carbon taxes, the same way that the insurance industry opposed Obamacare while it appeared it might become a single-payer system. The insurance industry, by the time of the "vote to pass the bill to see what was in it" took place, was a SUPPORTER of Obamacare, and for a simple reason: insurance industry lobbyists had written the health care bill, so it was VERY kind for them, including fining people who did not buy their products. The proposed legislation for the carbon scam has also been written by industry lobbyists -- oil industry, in this case. Once long-term high profits were written into the proposed bills, the oil industry now WANTS Gore and his ilk to get their way. They even funded the bash in Cancun.

Another reason that "evil oil company" manipulation is grossly unlikely is the very small amount of money they are spending, which appears on their financial statements. Environmentalist activist groups are out-spending the oil companies ten-to-one. And governments, who want this with a dull, throbbing ache, are outspending the greenies by ten-to-one. If money corrupts the process, this process is leaning 99% to the pro-AGW side.

Finally, my favorite -- EXAMINE what is happening. Have we seen corruption of the IPCC? Yes, yes we have. How much of it is "pro-oil company" corruption? Not a single incident of which I am aware. There are LOTS of examples of playing fast and loose on the environmental, pro-AGW side. Activist literature becomes part of the IPCC reports, and has caused dozens of embarrassing incidents. If you want links, I have them. The process involves bureaucrats modifying the "peer-reviewed" literature AFTER the scientists release it. And, all of THEIR modifications eliminate the scientific statements of uncertainty, and factors which argue against AGW. THINK, man -- and research.
 
2013-01-21 12:48:22 PM  

jayphat: The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.

8/10. Thats a great effort there. Unless you're serious in which case you need to look at the basic math of it. Removing millions of cars off the road won't happen. Simply because of geography. Once we get from point A to point B, we still need transportation in most places we go. Which requires in most instances, a car.


Not a troll. Maybe you yourself might imagine what a nationwide transportation system would look without talking yourself out of it.

Amazing how hard that is for some people here.

GeneralJim: Nope.


Yep. I don't personally believe you are a "real" poster, but if you aren't some astroturfer (which is nearly impossible given the times you've been pwned in climate change threads), attacking me forfeits whatever point you were making.

Better luck next time. If I even choose to respond to you and validate what you have to post.
 
Displayed 16 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report