>You can put duct tape over your federally mandated backup camera display if you really believe they're so distracting that they cause you to run over more people in reverse.
>But maybe you should just stay off the road instead, so you have less blood on your own hands.
Tape won't undo all the other changes to cars that OEMs engaged in once they were required to have a screen.
Congratulations. Your pet regulatory change has reduced back over deaths by under a hundred a year. In a vacuum with spherical cow that's great but reality isn't a vacuum with spherical cows. And now that you've put this hardware in cars and engineers have taken advantage of it you've increased back out accidents and merging accidents (both are inversely correlated with rear visibility) and you've made many of the critical 2nd order functions of operating a car less intuitive and more distracting to use. You've but you don't care about that because the metric you were gaming (back over deaths) is marginally improved. And when called out by people who want to look at the big picture you respond with insults. Screw you and the safety vest you rode in on.
Yes. I am. That guy (and everyone else involved) probably has ten times blood on his hands as a result of "wE doN't need TO CarE aBOUT REaR vIsIBILITY BeCaUsE we have a BACKup CaMERa" engineering and touch screen distractions than he's saved by getting backup cameras put in things.
Backup cameras are the unholy trinity of upper middle class moral panic and shirking of responsibility, government Doing Something (TM) and people's inability to accept small but concentrated bad things versus large diffuse and hard to measure bad things.
Few that wouldn't have been saved by Suburbans and Excursions going out of vogue with the upper middle class in favor of 4Runner, Pilots and a myriad of crossovers.
The 17th amendment was passed ~50yr after the civil war, a point in time when the overwhelming majority of the electorate had no memory of overt slavery and the people who did or who's parents did were even less influential than before due to immigration waves and industrialization (which concentrated population money and power in the northeast and Midwest generally speaking). Please f right off with your revisionist history.
>Anyone suggesting that the US Senate as constituted for the last century is a populist institution may require institutional help of another kind.
This is rich coming from the guy that just said an amendment passed in the 1900s was done to placate slave owners.
Regardless of the intent of the amendment, only a complete fool would claim that making appointed positions directly elected doesn't make the body formed by those positions more subject to populist sentiments than it previously was.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea that direct electing the senate is a bad thing but it doesn't take a genius to look at the situation before and after and see that there are pros and cons to both. Like you can literally pick up a history book and look at the influences the senate was beholden to and strongly pushed around by before and after the change.
Sure, but so was everything else the states did at the time and they did eventually clean up their act. It's hard to say whether direct electing the senate was good or bad because it's not like there's a control country we can compare to. It certainly gave the states as entities less influence which is probably not great.
>But the writers of the constitution in 1788 wanted a strong one because the existing weak one sucked.
The founders wrote reams upon reams discussing exactly what they wanted to do with the constitution and how they intended each and every bit of the constitution to work toward that goal. The intent was basically "we need just a little more centralization in order to deal with the truly national issues."
The government they created to replace the articles of confederation was weak by the standards of the time let alone modern ones.
The senate was never meant to represent people. It was meant to represent the interested of the states as sovereign entities. The house was supposed to be the populist dumpster fire.
But then some geniuses decided that we should direct elect both and have two dumpster fires.
I didn't say "at least we're not as bad as the French". I said you don't know how bad the French (or whoever) are because they don't share the same level of details.
If you bothered to comprehend what I wrote I'm pretty much advocating the opposite of American exceptionalism. The accident rate is pretty close across the first world. Why would the close call rate be substantially different?
Thank god aviation policy isn't dictated by people like you who have an ideological bone to pick.
You wouldn't even have the opportunity to make these peanut gallery potshots if those overly optimistic Yankees took the British/French/German route and did not give the general public access to ATC recordings.
As a passenger there's a pretty obvious difference between "swing a turn, stand on the brakes, floor it and full send" and "swing a turn, come to a stop, sit there a minute or so, stand on the brakes, floor it and full send"
> Sounds like a money problem to me. Less time between planes means more planes means more money.
Everything is a money/greed problem if you look at it through the lens of motivated reasoning.
The usage of infrastructure is mutually beneficial. The airport, the various businesses operating at it, the customers, everyone benefits per flight. Likewise you want to make that infrastructure get used as much as possible.
Would you be complaining about greed if a subway was running trains close together?
You can't have good leaders who perform as such in a world where cooperate process always strives to flatten the deviation and make people interchangeable in the name of business continuity.
I wouldn't call it a "tug of war" but it seems like a lot of people are/were happy to just leave a lot of things as expensive civil infractions (not the case here) because they implicitly trust the cops/DA to only enforce it on people who are "violating cultural standards" (e.g. drinking in broad daylight on your front porch somewhere "nice" vs the same behavior in the hood).
Every modern gasoline vehicle should be fine at those temps even without a block heater. It's just a question of can your 12v battery deliver enough power to start it, but that's a problem you can solve in 30min if you encounter it (bring your battery inside).
>But maybe you should just stay off the road instead, so you have less blood on your own hands.
Tape won't undo all the other changes to cars that OEMs engaged in once they were required to have a screen.
Congratulations. Your pet regulatory change has reduced back over deaths by under a hundred a year. In a vacuum with spherical cow that's great but reality isn't a vacuum with spherical cows. And now that you've put this hardware in cars and engineers have taken advantage of it you've increased back out accidents and merging accidents (both are inversely correlated with rear visibility) and you've made many of the critical 2nd order functions of operating a car less intuitive and more distracting to use. You've but you don't care about that because the metric you were gaming (back over deaths) is marginally improved. And when called out by people who want to look at the big picture you respond with insults. Screw you and the safety vest you rode in on.