you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.
what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Dosen’t worry me as long as I don’t hit them.
they might get deathed.
But seriously, if we are going to do highways, motorways and freeways properly, we should segregate motor vehicle traffic from non-motor traffic.
you know it makes sense.
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Dosen’t worry me as long as I don’t hit them.
who’s endangering who?
transition said:
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Dosen’t worry me as long as I don’t hit them.
who’s endangering who?
Well If I hit the silly bastard, they would probably dent the Kingswood.
party_pants said:
they might get deathed.But seriously, if we are going to do highways, motorways and freeways properly, we should segregate motor vehicle traffic from non-motor traffic.
you know it makes sense.
of course, by agreement, somehow in that though is the notion that if you put a human body in a metal capsule with wheels and accelerate it it becomes vehicle traffic.
in the motorized vehicle are non-motorized vehicles(human bodies), somehow from that the human becomes a lesser aspect, a lesser vehicle.
so there is some sort of notional bullshit in it.
human aren’t somehow transformed into a lesser subordinate transport form by being in such a capsule.
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
PermeateFree said:Dosen’t worry me as long as I don’t hit them.
who’s endangering who?
Well If I hit the silly bastard, they would probably dent the Kingswood.
your mass and velocity make you superior
transition said:
PermeateFree said:
transition said:who’s endangering who?
Well If I hit the silly bastard, they would probably dent the Kingswood.
your mass and velocity make you superior
Yes, that’s nice. The way it should be!
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
PermeateFree said:Well If I hit the silly bastard, they would probably dent the Kingswood.
your mass and velocity make you superior
Yes, that’s nice. The way it should be!
which is it, mass or velocity, or .5M x (V^2)
or maybe the size of the vehicle
wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to state that the force of of culture and ideology is expressed with roads and vehicles.
a lot of that goes unabstracted, largely unconscious.
that’s a lot of stupid, if you hop in a motorized vehicle (or idealize of) and forget about the human body-vehicle while, or in some way automatically, unthinkingly subordinate the latter.
transition said:
wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to state that the force of of culture and ideology is expressed with roads and vehicles.a lot of that goes unabstracted, largely unconscious.
that’s a lot of stupid, if you hop in a motorized vehicle (or idealize of) and forget about the human body-vehicle while, or in some way automatically, unthinkingly subordinate the latter.
Oh, I don’t know, works for me.
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway. The number of people who can be sent down a given stretch of highway per hour will be about 30 times higher if you don’t let pedestrians wander down the highway than if you do.
You should move to India transition.
More people walking down the highway there than you can shake a stick at.
Not to mention the cows and monkeys.
And what about walking down the railway?
What are your thoughts on that?
The Rev Dodgson said:
And what about walking down the railway?What are your thoughts on that?
don’t railroad transition, rev!
JudgeMental said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
And what about walking down the railway?What are your thoughts on that?
don’t railroad transition, rev!
dv said:
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway. The number of people who can be sent down a given stretch of highway per hour will be about 30 times higher if you don’t let pedestrians wander down the highway than if you do.
>Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway.
that’s not the point, people every day agree what roads are for, and avoid the dangers of walking on them.
the point is of the conceptual subordination of ‘lesser’ forms of transport, a displacement.
like, for example, you spend a lot of time in cars from young, are afforded status in a sense by the added mass and velocity, others similarly, and the shared thinking (or unthink) inclines you to forget the primary form of transport is courtesy the human body-vehicle, that every vehicle (ignoring self-driving/autonomous) has human occupant/s that are walkers.
any way you see it, even of autonomous vehicles, are propelled into existence by the will of walkers, (somewhere, even if just the will/desire) so even walkers wanting not to walk, or wanting to do more than walk, inspire vehicles.
the conceptual territory of a motorized vehicle originates with the human body-vehicle, you could argue.
so, i’m thinking about the bastards that hate bicycle riders. Their moron notions, related status, their territorialness.
transition said:
dv said:
transition said:
you’re traveling down the highway in your car, there’s someone walking down the highway.what’s your objection to them walking down the highway?
Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway. The number of people who can be sent down a given stretch of highway per hour will be about 30 times higher if you don’t let pedestrians wander down the highway than if you do.
>Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway.
that’s not the point, people every day agree what roads are for, and avoid the dangers of walking on them.
the point is of the conceptual subordination of ‘lesser’ forms of transport, a displacement.
like, for example, you spend a lot of time in cars from young, are afforded status in a sense by the added mass and velocity, others similarly, and the shared thinking (or unthink) inclines you to forget the primary form of transport is courtesy the human body-vehicle, that every vehicle (ignoring self-driving/autonomous) has human occupant/s that are walkers.
any way you see it, even of autonomous vehicles, are propelled into existence by the will of walkers, (somewhere, even if just the will/desire) so even walkers wanting not to walk, or wanting to do more than walk, inspire vehicles.
the conceptual territory of a motorized vehicle originates with the human body-vehicle, you could argue.
so, i’m thinking about the bastards that hate bicycle riders. Their moron notions, related status, their territorialness.
Is it sharing the road with the bike riders or the fact some/many ignore road rules
Cymek said:
transition said:
dv said:Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway. The number of people who can be sent down a given stretch of highway per hour will be about 30 times higher if you don’t let pedestrians wander down the highway than if you do.
>Permitting this reduces the effectiveness of the highway.
that’s not the point, people every day agree what roads are for, and avoid the dangers of walking on them.
the point is of the conceptual subordination of ‘lesser’ forms of transport, a displacement.
like, for example, you spend a lot of time in cars from young, are afforded status in a sense by the added mass and velocity, others similarly, and the shared thinking (or unthink) inclines you to forget the primary form of transport is courtesy the human body-vehicle, that every vehicle (ignoring self-driving/autonomous) has human occupant/s that are walkers.
any way you see it, even of autonomous vehicles, are propelled into existence by the will of walkers, (somewhere, even if just the will/desire) so even walkers wanting not to walk, or wanting to do more than walk, inspire vehicles.
the conceptual territory of a motorized vehicle originates with the human body-vehicle, you could argue.
so, i’m thinking about the bastards that hate bicycle riders. Their moron notions, related status, their territorialness.
Is it sharing the road with the bike riders or the fact some/many ignore road rules
And what about the bastard bicyclists who hate walkers?
>Is it sharing the road with the bike riders or the fact some/many ignore road rules
it’s the prophylactic guilt, the horror of running over a bicyclist, aversion, conversions of.
