Not only is it simple, it's an idea that would actually make life better even if it didn't save a drop of gas! The idea:
....a total, 100% stop, with the weight of the car falling back on its haunches, before stepping on the accelerator to get moving again. When I do this I can hear and actually feel the engine sucking in vast quantities of precious refined petroleum to overcome the inertia of 3400 pounds of metal at a dead rest. Which leads to the thought: Wouldn't we save a lot of gasoline quickly and cheaply if we replaced most of our "STOP" signs with "YIELD" signs?
http://www.slate.com/id/2165717/&#;yield
Granted, a lot of stop signs are necessary, and replacing them with yield signs could cause accidents if nearby structures and terrain afford low visibility. But that's precisely why the proposal says "most" and not "all" (personally, I'd even settle for "many").
Found via instapundit.com (not to be confused with my favorite blog, instapunk.com).
ID:30467
 May 10 2007, 4:53 am
|
|
Elation wrote:
Better solution: pedal-powered cars! The Government would never settle for non-gasoline vehicles for the public, According to the Government, that could ruin our Economy, that's the Government for ya, we are doomed to die from suffocation"Smog", The Government is already able to allow us Eclectro or solar powered vehicles, but it wont happen....ok ok, I'll stop now...LOL | |
Eclectro... is that like... vehicles powered by an eclectic taste?
| |
I don't know, ask the Government.
| |
Most stop signs are already treated as yield signs, at least around here...
| |
Great idea, but come to North Carolina(USA) sometime, and you'll understand why there are so many stop signs. these stupid hicks wreck all the time. In an average day down here, on a 5 mile stretch of highway and intersections, there is at least one wreck a day. and all of those intersections have at least a stop sign, if not a red light. It would work in a country like Germany, where drivers are responsible, and see driving as a privilege, not a right from God. Although, after like 2 months, we would be rid of like 10% of the racially handicapped population of the Untied States....but they would probably also kill a good 20% of the intelligent people in North Carolina >_>
| |
What the hell does "racially handicapped" mean?
| |
Racist. I don't like the term racist, because they don't know any better. so I use racially handicapped instead. They don't know what it means either, which makes me feel that much better.
| |
Well, literally speaking, "racially handicapped" would mean "your race is handicapped", just like "mentally handicapped" means "your mental functions are handicapped" and "physically handicapped" means "your physique is handicapped"... =P
| |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
Racist. I don't like the term racist, because they don't know any better. That doesn't excuse it. "Racist" is a derogatory term for a good reason. Avoiding the term just because the people in question "don't know any better" is political correctness taken to ridiculous extremes. They SHOULD know better. Most suicide bombers don't know any better (otherwise why the hell would you willingly blow yourself up?). That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be called terrorists. "And in other news, a self-preservation-handicapped person blew up a marketplace in Iraq, killing 20..." | |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
I don't like the term racist, because they don't know any better. so I use racially handicapped instead. If you don't like the word "racist," I recommend "Darwinist" as a suitable replacement. | |
Nah; "fundamentalist" is a better replacement, if you have to choose one. (Fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, take your pick.) I say this because the mindset required for fundamentalism is much closer to the mindset required for racism than that required for Darwinism.
"Closer" as in "just as closed-minded"! Now, if you're referring to some of the racist connotations of Classical Darwinism (as in "natural selection is no longer working and this allows inferior races to breed") then you may have a point - however, these should not be confused with modern Darwinism, which is much more progressive, and is the "default" meaning of Darwinism. So if you do mean Classical Darwinism then you really should be more specific. =) You're also committing a fallacy, in that Classical Darwinism (arguably) implies racism, but the reverse is certainly not true. Many racists are Creationists. | |
I think I'm going to hurt the next person who tells me that 'the preservation of favoured races' in Origin of the Species was about our modern conception of the term race.
And I'm not normally a violent person. | |
I think I'm going to hurt the next person who tells me that 'the preservation of favoured races' in Origin of the Species was about our modern conception of the term race. I don't know nothin' about that! I just like being a troll on my own comments list. :) | |
You'd conserve much more money just by slowing down. Kinetic energy increases as the square of a moving body's velocity, which means that a car doubling it's speed will use four times the gas (slightly less than four times, actually; engines are generally more efficient at higher speeds).
Leaving ten minutes early and driving slowly will actually save you money, and lower your risk of an accident. | |
Fuel savings if you adhere to posted speed limits? Up to 30%.
When I tell people that I only gas up my car every two weeks, they gape at me in wide wonder. Jp wrote: And I'm not normally a violent person. Sure you aren't. Darwinist. ;-) | |
*edit*
Wait, er... goddamnit.