Chinese plan for “traffic-straddling bus” ended after 32 people were arrested(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Chinese plan for “traffic-straddling bus” ended after 32 people were arrested
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/world/asia/china-bus-road-straddling.html
117 comments
Their only demo went back and forth for 200 meters, and nothing happened ever after. SCAM SCAM SCAM SCAM, there is no way for the bus to turn except for tearing down infrastructure and using 10 lanes. The creators made a fund out of the project(promised 12% annualized return) that attracted a lot of small investors and scammed them out of their money.
So it was basically your average Kickstarter hardware startup? :)
Anything that promises a rate higher than what govt can promise is a scam. Ie tbills
Having a higher rate than what the government gives you just means it has more risk, not necessarily that it's a scam. And 12% isn't that high, it was a common annualized rate of return a few years ago here in Brazil.
Yeah well in some European countries, there is a negative return now - the government is essentially saying "pay us for keeping your money".
> the government is essentially saying "pay us for keeping your money".
Yes, but the real message here is "we'd rather you spend your money than save it, so we're going to charge you money to keep it with us"
The whole point of a negative interest rate is to try and drive up spending/investment. If it costs money for banks to keep their deposits in the central bank, then there's (theoretically) more incentive for the banks to loan the money to someone.
It's meant to be a means of economic stimulus, and the government isn't the one setting the negative interest rate, that would be the central bank (in Europe's case, the ECB).
Yes, but the real message here is "we'd rather you spend your money than save it, so we're going to charge you money to keep it with us"
The whole point of a negative interest rate is to try and drive up spending/investment. If it costs money for banks to keep their deposits in the central bank, then there's (theoretically) more incentive for the banks to loan the money to someone.
It's meant to be a means of economic stimulus, and the government isn't the one setting the negative interest rate, that would be the central bank (in Europe's case, the ECB).
Right. Anyways, money can't be saved for free because production can't be saved for free. If you have long term savings needs, you have to invest with some risk because you'll need extra production enabled by that investment in the future.
The same would still be true if you kept gold under your mattress.
The same would still be true if you kept gold under your mattress.
That's only true in the modern era where banks get unlimited dollars for free from the central bank.
More typically in modern history, banks can deliver decent rates of return by capitalizing loans with deposits. Risk gets reduced by FDIC or other insurance.
As recently as 2006, savings accounts with zero risk for >80% of the US population paid 4-5% interest.
More typically in modern history, banks can deliver decent rates of return by capitalizing loans with deposits. Risk gets reduced by FDIC or other insurance.
As recently as 2006, savings accounts with zero risk for >80% of the US population paid 4-5% interest.
> That's only true in the modern era where banks get unlimited dollars for free from the central bank.
That has always been true. Look, you can't save grain to eat in your old age unless you build a freaking grain silo, and even then the grain rots. Money is just little pieces of paper with value attached, they don't actually have value in itself (the same is true for gold). Whatever happened in the past, e.g. savings account with higher interest rates, was more related to the demand for capital rather than in the intrinsic property of the money itself.
That has always been true. Look, you can't save grain to eat in your old age unless you build a freaking grain silo, and even then the grain rots. Money is just little pieces of paper with value attached, they don't actually have value in itself (the same is true for gold). Whatever happened in the past, e.g. savings account with higher interest rates, was more related to the demand for capital rather than in the intrinsic property of the money itself.
> As recently as 2006, savings accounts with zero risk for >80% of the US population paid 4-5% interest.
I was gonna ask how was that "zero risk" possible, but I'm thinking the answer is "it wasn't actually possible as we all found out the following years."
I was gonna ask how was that "zero risk" possible, but I'm thinking the answer is "it wasn't actually possible as we all found out the following years."
Domestic government bonds of stable countries are usually treated as "zero risk", even though they still have a small risk. A savings account with "zero risk" would be one that has as much risk as a "zero risk" bond, usually by both being backed by these bonds, and having a government-backed insurance scheme (if the bank fails, the account holders are still paid).
(It might help if you think of risk as a scale, and the "zero" as an arbitrary point in that scale. It's useful to set the "zero" to "the lowest risk you can actually get", even though there might be something with an even lower risk.)
(It might help if you think of risk as a scale, and the "zero" as an arbitrary point in that scale. It's useful to set the "zero" to "the lowest risk you can actually get", even though there might be something with an even lower risk.)
So US bonds were yielding 4-5% back then?
Not at all.
The problems we found out later were with banks packaging loans into more complex securities of and selling them to third parties.
You have "zero risk" with bank deposits because FDIC insures deposits up $250k (today, $100k previously) with the full faith and credit of the US Treasury.
The problems we found out later were with banks packaging loans into more complex securities of and selling them to third parties.
You have "zero risk" with bank deposits because FDIC insures deposits up $250k (today, $100k previously) with the full faith and credit of the US Treasury.
How does that insurance work, though: If the bank promises to pay its clients some obscene interest, and goes belly up, will FDIC pay that? Or is it "the US Treasury will pay you up to the amount you initially deposited"?
No and yes, I was talking about governmental bonds. The real effect is that people who don't have enough money, knowledge or guts to invest have extremely low or even negative interests on their money even though they used to have good returns ten years ago. Social engineering at its best.
I'm not much of an economist but I think most investors know full well that they have a negative interest rate. I think it's still attractive because it's safe since the governments are unlikely to default (so you'll lose the interest but probably not anything else). Like stuffing the mattress with gold ingots, except more convenient.
I could be wrong though, but that's the only way negative interests make sense to me.
I could be wrong though, but that's the only way negative interests make sense to me.
I'm not talking about "investors", the ones getting screwed are ordinary people, young families and so on. They uses to get nice 5-8% p.a. return on the money they had in their bank account, nowadays not only they don't get any return, but also have to pay for having money in the bank account, which used to be free. That's what socialism and market manipulation does, screws ordinary people.
What would be the point of using anything but the govt's promise then?
The strange thing is they actually built a full-size "working" demo, which if anything, only reinforces how precarious and ill-advised the whole concept was to begin with.
It makes me wonder if it wasn't a scam at all, but just a really bad idea with believers that wanted to make it real?
It makes me wonder if it wasn't a scam at all, but just a really bad idea with believers that wanted to make it real?
The line between folly and scam is not absolutely sharp.
It's like murder. There's first degree premeditated murder, crimes of passion, insanity, and manslaughter. Manslaughter can in some cases be charged for gross negligence, or the death can occur as a result of another crime where murder was not the intent.
Scams can be similar. A pure scam is like first degree murder. The scammer(s) plan it as a scam and execute it with intent. But sometimes a failure or misadventure can evolve into a scam.
This happens when those behind it double down in the face of clear evidence of total non-viability. When the tech doesn't work for fundamental reasons, nobody is truly interested, etc., but the operators keep ratcheting up the salesmanship and doubling down, they are heading into scam territory.
You see this a lot with quack medicines backed by people with actual medical degrees. Sometimes a doctor or researcher comes up with an idea and then their ego gets into it. They start fantasizing about being the greatest genius in medicine, the person who cured cancer, etc. So even when the data comes in and shows that their treatment doesn't work any better than placebo they refuse to "see" this. Their ego won't let them and they delude themselves. Over time they devolve much like Walter White from Breaking Bad, going from legitimate doctor to quack. It's rarely a sudden thing.
It's like murder. There's first degree premeditated murder, crimes of passion, insanity, and manslaughter. Manslaughter can in some cases be charged for gross negligence, or the death can occur as a result of another crime where murder was not the intent.
Scams can be similar. A pure scam is like first degree murder. The scammer(s) plan it as a scam and execute it with intent. But sometimes a failure or misadventure can evolve into a scam.
This happens when those behind it double down in the face of clear evidence of total non-viability. When the tech doesn't work for fundamental reasons, nobody is truly interested, etc., but the operators keep ratcheting up the salesmanship and doubling down, they are heading into scam territory.
You see this a lot with quack medicines backed by people with actual medical degrees. Sometimes a doctor or researcher comes up with an idea and then their ego gets into it. They start fantasizing about being the greatest genius in medicine, the person who cured cancer, etc. So even when the data comes in and shows that their treatment doesn't work any better than placebo they refuse to "see" this. Their ego won't let them and they delude themselves. Over time they devolve much like Walter White from Breaking Bad, going from legitimate doctor to quack. It's rarely a sudden thing.
Great point. For example, Ponzi's original scheme was a real if somewhat abusive scheme involving arbitrage of international postage coupons. It wasn't until he realized that it was impossible to carry out this arbitrage on the required scale that it turned into a scam.
The line is super blurry. Some inventors seeking capital for their borderline idea may team up with investors that are anything but honest. One unfortunate compromise after another turns a dubious idea into an out-right scam.
Your idea for the next breakthrough technology might be the very thing some parasite "angel investor" is looking for to be the crystal at the core of their next big scam. Watch who you team up with.
Your idea for the next breakthrough technology might be the very thing some parasite "angel investor" is looking for to be the crystal at the core of their next big scam. Watch who you team up with.
The name's Lanley -- Lyle Lanley. And I come before you good people tonight with an idea. Probably the greatest ... Aww, it's not for you. It's more of a Shelbyville idea.
That does not actually kill the concept as long as you treat it like an above ground subway system. The real limitation is the buses can't cross 4 way intersections while cars are blocking their path and they can't travel around obstructions.
Another options is you placed them on slightly elevated tracks and add bridges over intersections, the larger problem is they need a lot of space above them which means overpasses etc could limit placement without major investments and it really just reinvents the monorail concept.
So, IMO it's unlikely to work in most cities, but there are a lot of city's and you only need a few. Thus, it probably did not start as a scam even if evolved into it.
Another options is you placed them on slightly elevated tracks and add bridges over intersections, the larger problem is they need a lot of space above them which means overpasses etc could limit placement without major investments and it really just reinvents the monorail concept.
So, IMO it's unlikely to work in most cities, but there are a lot of city's and you only need a few. Thus, it probably did not start as a scam even if evolved into it.
All real-world above ground light rail transit systems are able to turn and don't require gigantic roads.
These could turn much like how trains turn, they are simply stuck following the same road. Granted, they can't do a sharp turn with cars under them.
That was my problem from the beginning. "Bus" is not the right word for this thing. It's really a inefficient sort of elevated train they labeled a bus because they didn't realize or didn't want other people to realize how much fixed infrastructure would have to be built for it to work.
Light rail is able to make 90-degree turns at intersections. Being stuck following the same road is a pretty major problem.
I don't think this is a good solution, but it's not as bad as your suggesting.
Again, these could be built to spin in place they simply can't turn sharply when cars are under them. So, they could do a 90 degree turn as long as they had a separate turn signal or bridge over traffic to do so.
However, even if they where limited to nearly strait lines many city's like NYC for example have a lot of strait lines.
Again, these could be built to spin in place they simply can't turn sharply when cars are under them. So, they could do a 90 degree turn as long as they had a separate turn signal or bridge over traffic to do so.
However, even if they where limited to nearly strait lines many city's like NYC for example have a lot of strait lines.
Their concept looks like a multi-car train, not a single vehicle. Even as a single vehicle, I don't see how it could turn in place without the wheels being able to turn 90 degrees (sounds hard and expensive, but maybe I'm overestimating it) or a rotating ring built into the intersection.
Ahh, ok here is what your missing. There is no axle between the wheels so they could turn them independently. EX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IpHQRKheac You can do something similar whenever you have independent motors for each wheel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUogOpfcp8 But, even without that you can do something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrasteer
So, yea it would be cheaper to build something that can't turn, but turning radius is simply an engineering trade-off.
So, yea it would be cheaper to build something that can't turn, but turning radius is simply an engineering trade-off.
I'm sure it's possible, but it seems impractical. In any case, the part where they run as multi-car trains (as seen in the video in this article, for example) seems to be the more significant problem for this.
Well, an other big limitation is that anything taller than a car can't fit underneath, so you'd need to leave at least one more free lane for trucks, buses and motorcycles.
Continuing to play devils advocate...
IMO, a better fit would be to scale down and have two way bike lanes and pedestrian traffic beneath them vs. car only traffic. But, scaling these up to say 16' of clearance could also be viable, just more expensive.
IMO, a better fit would be to scale down and have two way bike lanes and pedestrian traffic beneath them vs. car only traffic. But, scaling these up to say 16' of clearance could also be viable, just more expensive.
A group of people developed the idea, then another different group bought the patents. It's the second group who sough investment with apparently no intent to deliver.
Yea, it clearly became a scam. I just mean the first ~thousand hours likely started with the best of intentions.
I think of it as the Theranos cycle where something seems possibly viable, but not 100% viable. However, with a closer look it's probably not going to work. But, at that point it's only the people doing the investigation that know this, thus making for a good investment scam. AKA getting other people to throw good money after bad let's you extract some value from a failure.
I think of it as the Theranos cycle where something seems possibly viable, but not 100% viable. However, with a closer look it's probably not going to work. But, at that point it's only the people doing the investigation that know this, thus making for a good investment scam. AKA getting other people to throw good money after bad let's you extract some value from a failure.
Amateurs! They shouldn't have built a prototype at all and gone straight for an ICO.
It's a train... but instead of tickets, it has CryptoTickets, the ICO of which will fund the development of said train. Huge!
Although to be fair, can't you pre-sell condos to finance their construction?
Although to be fair, can't you pre-sell condos to finance their construction?
Blockchain? Old! Tired! Now how about blocktrain, huh?
Interesting to to compare the comments now versus then
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12214675
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12214675
They actually built a prototype? Renders of that thing have been around for years. I'd wondered if the track system would be designed into one of China's new cities.
It would have been the largest mobile passenger vehicle since the German Imperial Gauge Railway.[1]
The CGI videos of it cornering show the sections bending, which only works in CGI.[2][3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn
[2] https://youtu.be/vaUTIIggEis?t=131 [3] https://youtu.be/vaUTIIggEis?t=138
The CGI videos of it cornering show the sections bending, which only works in CGI.[2][3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn
[2] https://youtu.be/vaUTIIggEis?t=131 [3] https://youtu.be/vaUTIIggEis?t=138
From the photos it looks like this thing runs on tracks. OK, this concept was invented a century ago in cities like Chicago, it's called an Elevated Train.
Too bad, I was picturing this as another way for Amazon to deliver packages or perhaps snacks to people (while waiting in traffic)
why don't we have low altitude blimps? ones that pick up a car and drop it off between the car's destination and the next customer? or pull it by cable using a filtering bike of sorts?
If this was a scam... what does that make the hyperloop?
If nothing else, this always seemed like utter madness from a safety perspective.
I bet people had the same thing to say about cars in the early 20th century (not without some justification though).
Still have them today... Driving home last night, I tried to imagine how many of the people next to me on the road were drunk while riding their 2 ton steel horses home.
As a Brit, the cavalier attitude to drink-driving in the USA never ceased to amaze me.
I'd love to see accident rates for horse riders vs. car drivers.
Well the cool thing about horses is they're technically self-driving. You can fall asleep on a well-trained horse and it'll get you both home. If you're driving distracted and are headed straight for a tree, the horse typically won't smash itself into a tree. When surrounded by lots of other horses (in a charge, for example), the horses will run as if they were in a herd and won't trample eachother.
Your caveat invalidates your point. Motor vehicles are a big cause of death in many countries.
>> Motor vehicles are a big cause of death in many countries.
Yep, that is true. On the other hand there are also many laws that try to mitigate the risk of accidents.[] I think the mobility of motor vehicles is a benefit, that outweighs the risk of accidents. I doubt we could manage the logistics of supplying big cities with bikes, trains and horses alone.
[]: That does not solve the problem, that cars are dangerous machinery and some people just shouldn't handle them (despite a drivers license).
Yep, that is true. On the other hand there are also many laws that try to mitigate the risk of accidents.[] I think the mobility of motor vehicles is a benefit, that outweighs the risk of accidents. I doubt we could manage the logistics of supplying big cities with bikes, trains and horses alone.
[]: That does not solve the problem, that cars are dangerous machinery and some people just shouldn't handle them (despite a drivers license).
I don't understand the notation you're using in your comment. Is that symbol supposed to indicate an aside that's a quote, or where you state your own opinion?
[deleted]
"China's Vision", I mean, come on. There seems to be some opinion leaking into the title.
It was just the vision of a bunch of hustler/entrepreneurs. It seemed too easy to hit with large vehicles and a death trap for vehicles underneath it.
An elevated rail system seemed so much easier and without the difficulties that this introduced.
But an elevated rail system required significantly more investment thus it had to be city sanctioned in a large way, rather than the minimal investments this required.
An elevated rail system seemed so much easier and without the difficulties that this introduced.
But an elevated rail system required significantly more investment thus it had to be city sanctioned in a large way, rather than the minimal investments this required.
I imagine the turning radius for this thing is significant enough that you'd have to tear out existing intersections and even push the buildings back from where they exist now.
Just so it can turn. I think in this specific comparison elevated light rail would be significantly less-disruptive and cheaper too.
Just so it can turn. I think in this specific comparison elevated light rail would be significantly less-disruptive and cheaper too.
They just need to install a giant turntable at every intersection!
It would be better if they installed two turntables and a microphone.
Intersections and cars under the bus wanting to turn left or right would be interesting. Dedicated turn lanes helps a little, but you would have to trail or lead the bus to see them coming soon enough.
Just ban cars. It's not that hard. We banned horses, why not cars?
Not sure where you are but here in the UK it's quite legal to ride a horse or drive a horse with a carriage of some kind on the road. The carriage needs to be "road worthy" but aside from that you don't even need a license of any kind unless you're transporting passengers.
It's just not very fast compared to modern cars and quite expensive so not as many people do it.
Edit: Oh one minor mostly common sense note -
You can't ride/drive horses on the motorway and probably shouldn't on faster roads or dual carriageways due to the rest of the traffic going far faster than you.
It's just not very fast compared to modern cars and quite expensive so not as many people do it.
Edit: Oh one minor mostly common sense note -
You can't ride/drive horses on the motorway and probably shouldn't on faster roads or dual carriageways due to the rest of the traffic going far faster than you.
In fact, in Australia, if you ride your horse up to a pub/bar, they're technically legally required to give water and feed for the horses.
That's awesome! Is it legal to ride your horse while inebriated?
No, so put some oats in his feedbag and let him sleep it off.
Oh, you meant the rider. Yeah, that's fine.
Oh, you meant the rider. Yeah, that's fine.
> Is it legal to ride your horse while inebriated?
there was a fellow arrested in colorado a few years back for that:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_24052312/cu-bould...
there was a fellow arrested in colorado a few years back for that:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_24052312/cu-bould...
In my country they are banned on highways, national roads, cities. I was referring to that.
I think banning them on congested roads will increase the demand for public transport which is what we should have on those road anyway.
I think banning them on congested roads will increase the demand for public transport which is what we should have on those road anyway.
You want to ban cars on congested roads? Isn't that a paradox? If cars are banned on a road then it won't be congested anymore, so cars will be allowed on it, then it will get congested so cars get banned ... in the end I think what you're suggesting is running around giving tickets to people in traffic jams.
Also, in what country did they ban horses?
Also, in what country did they ban horses?
That's taking the idea to absurd extreme. You don't flip-flop the law every day. London for example has a congestion zone around the main city, which involves multiple limits and in many places removed congestion. This doesn't mean those areas are free for all again - the zone remains to keep out / reduce the congestion which would otherwise come back.
In my defense, the OP said "banning cars." In London to deal with congestion they basically just turn large sections of the city into a toll road. That's pretty different than "banning cars"
That's true, but whether banning cars or making it less attractive to cars (e.g. with London's congestion charge), the point is that places already have people working on road planning/etc., it can be done with humans making decisions, not a piece of code going "if (congested) {ban cars} else {allow cars}".
To use Oxford as a small example of more than a toll, there's a few roads in the city centre that only buses/taxis are allowed to use, and a few roads that only pedestrians can use (with some time-specific exceptions for loading/unloading/etc.). Nobody looks at it and thinks "well now it's not congested we should allow cars again".
To use Oxford as a small example of more than a toll, there's a few roads in the city centre that only buses/taxis are allowed to use, and a few roads that only pedestrians can use (with some time-specific exceptions for loading/unloading/etc.). Nobody looks at it and thinks "well now it's not congested we should allow cars again".
> If cars are banned on a road then it won't be congested anymore, so cars will be allowed on it, then it will get congested so cars get banned
Some roads are congested even with private cars banned (e.g. Oxford Street).
> in the end I think what you're suggesting is running around giving tickets to people in traffic jams.
Would that be such a bad thing? Obv. it would need to be a little more formalized than that.
Some roads are congested even with private cars banned (e.g. Oxford Street).
> in the end I think what you're suggesting is running around giving tickets to people in traffic jams.
Would that be such a bad thing? Obv. it would need to be a little more formalized than that.
You don't work in a city with shitty traffic and public transport systems, then. I live in D.C.
If I were to take public transportation to my job it would take about twice as long and involve me walking 5 miles both ways. And I get in traffic jams daily.
So yeah, if you went around penalizing people for something largely outside their ability to control, there would be riots in the streets.
If I were to take public transportation to my job it would take about twice as long and involve me walking 5 miles both ways. And I get in traffic jams daily.
So yeah, if you went around penalizing people for something largely outside their ability to control, there would be riots in the streets.
You put public transport instead. At least on some city centers this is already happening.
Ah I see yes they are banned in the EU on highways - I'm guessing you're referring to Romania going by the site in your profile -
I'll concede that yeah in that situation (the ban resulting in going from business horses to no horses) was essentially banning them. They're not technically banned as such, but the rules they're under changed too much for them to be viable.
I'll concede that yeah in that situation (the ban resulting in going from business horses to no horses) was essentially banning them. They're not technically banned as such, but the rules they're under changed too much for them to be viable.
Also they should not use cycle lanes unless local signs explicitly state otherwise.
I didn't know that specific rule but I think I would have assumed it were I riding a horse.
In regard to road rules I'd see a horse as more a downgraded car than an upgraded bike, sorta like a motorbike but slower.
In regard to road rules I'd see a horse as more a downgraded car than an upgraded bike, sorta like a motorbike but slower.
It's not a rule, it's a "should not", not a "must not".
Rule 54: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-about-ani...
> You MUST NOT take a horse onto a footpath or pavement, and you should not take a horse onto a cycle track. Use a bridleway where possible. Equestrian crossings may be provided for horse riders to cross the road and you should use these where available (see Rule 27). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘horse rider dismount’ sign is displayed.
Rule 54: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-about-ani...
> You MUST NOT take a horse onto a footpath or pavement, and you should not take a horse onto a cycle track. Use a bridleway where possible. Equestrian crossings may be provided for horse riders to cross the road and you should use these where available (see Rule 27). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘horse rider dismount’ sign is displayed.
Horses aren't banned. If you spend some time in a big city, they're everywhere. Police ride them, people ride them, people use them to pull carts and pull other people. The horses are always less useful than machines, but they exist.
China doing a massive ban-change to vehicles wouldn't be a first. Friedman wrote about their policy shifts in Hot, Flat, and Crowded. China has implemented changes to vehicle emissions in just a few years that took the US decades (e.g. unleaded gas). So, okay, they won't ban cars outright, but it isn't impossible to imagine other scenarios that would be impossible to imagine the US doing in the same time period.
Horses declined after a better option - cars - were widely available and accepted. I'm all for coming up with a better solution, but if you ban cars before we have that solution you'll effectively shut down civilization in much of the developed world.
"We" did? Who is "we"?
>"Every person having control or charge of a vehicle shall, whenever upon any way and approaching any horse, drive, manage, and control such vehicle in such a manner as to exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent the frightening of such horse, and to insure the safety and protection of any person riding or driving the same."
That's the law (for instance) in New Hampshire. The same article (the very first link when I search for "horse street legal united states") http://cs.thehorse.com/blogs/horses-and-the-law/archive/2012... further states
>Traffic laws in a few states, including Colorado, Michigan, and New Mexico, specifically state that horses have all the rights and obligations of other vehicles when they are being ridden or driven on a public highway. Everywhere else, except in states like Louisiana where it appears to be illegal to ride a horse on a paved road, riders and drivers probably enjoy similar rights and obligations by implication.
>Some states prohibit specific conduct when riding on a highway: It is illegal to ride a horse at night in New Mexico; to cross bridges at a gait faster than a walk in Idaho, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania; to ride or drive a horse "recklessly" in Nevada; to race or run horses on a highway in Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, or New Jersey; to ride on a levee in Kentucky; and to ride on interstate highways in several states. Horses should be ridden on the right-hand side of the road, going with the flow of traffic, almost everywhere except Colorado, where riders must ride on the left.
Sorry but I don't think you know what you're talking about, you're not in the United States, or you failed to specify enough context so that in that limited situation your statement is true. At the very least you failed to make a simple Google search for a sweeping generalization that is demonstrably not true.
>"Every person having control or charge of a vehicle shall, whenever upon any way and approaching any horse, drive, manage, and control such vehicle in such a manner as to exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent the frightening of such horse, and to insure the safety and protection of any person riding or driving the same."
That's the law (for instance) in New Hampshire. The same article (the very first link when I search for "horse street legal united states") http://cs.thehorse.com/blogs/horses-and-the-law/archive/2012... further states
>Traffic laws in a few states, including Colorado, Michigan, and New Mexico, specifically state that horses have all the rights and obligations of other vehicles when they are being ridden or driven on a public highway. Everywhere else, except in states like Louisiana where it appears to be illegal to ride a horse on a paved road, riders and drivers probably enjoy similar rights and obligations by implication.
>Some states prohibit specific conduct when riding on a highway: It is illegal to ride a horse at night in New Mexico; to cross bridges at a gait faster than a walk in Idaho, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania; to ride or drive a horse "recklessly" in Nevada; to race or run horses on a highway in Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, or New Jersey; to ride on a levee in Kentucky; and to ride on interstate highways in several states. Horses should be ridden on the right-hand side of the road, going with the flow of traffic, almost everywhere except Colorado, where riders must ride on the left.
Sorry but I don't think you know what you're talking about, you're not in the United States, or you failed to specify enough context so that in that limited situation your statement is true. At the very least you failed to make a simple Google search for a sweeping generalization that is demonstrably not true.
Hold your horses! It's just a comment on internet and I didn't think I had to treat all edge cases :)) Also, if you don't have enough context for something it doesn't mean you should pick any random context...
I'm sorry, but you were assuming a non-obvious context here, as you can see from the many responses.
Without any context the entire world is your edge case, mate. Sorry if I'm being a bit pedantic but HN is not Reddit.
when did horses get banned?
2007, in Romania [1][2]. More specifically, horse-drawn carts were banned. From what I can see, the movement to ban them stems from an argument that horse-drawn carts/carriages are a form of animal cruelty [3]. I haven't seen anything that singles out/bans horses (with riders, rather than carriages) though.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/02/14/the-ro...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578965/Horses-lef...
[3] https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-d...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/02/14/the-ro...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578965/Horses-lef...
[3] https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-d...
Depends on your location. In my country they are banned on highways, national roads and cities or in other words in all those places in which cars rule.
Well, in the Netherlands and I think most other European countries, they are banned on car-only roads (i.e., motorways and expressways; autosnelweg and autoweg in Dutch). Elsewhere, including cities, they are allowed.
I thought horses was banned because they ... produce some unwanted mass on the road which hard to clean?
Cars on the other hand, don't do that at all.
Maybe that's the reason why cars are not banned.
Cars on the other hand, don't do that at all.
Maybe that's the reason why cars are not banned.
>I thought horses was banned because they ... produce some unwanted mass on the road which hard to clean?
>
>Cars on the other hand, don't do that at all.
Cars do it, but instead of it being a hard to clean mass, it's a nearly-impossible-to-clean toxic gas that kills thousands of people every year.
Cars do it, but instead of it being a hard to clean mass, it's a nearly-impossible-to-clean toxic gas that kills thousands of people every year.
I actually agree with what you said.
What I mean is that the "nearly-impossible-to-clean toxic gas" is also "nearly-impossible-to-see" when in the air.
See, that's why they're not banned, because people "Don't see" the problem.
If cars needs to take a sold mass smelly hot dump every few miles too, they were long banned.
What I mean is that the "nearly-impossible-to-clean toxic gas" is also "nearly-impossible-to-see" when in the air.
See, that's why they're not banned, because people "Don't see" the problem.
If cars needs to take a sold mass smelly hot dump every few miles too, they were long banned.
It was already addressed in other content that they're not banned everywhere, but additionally, the poop you mention is not a big problem. In many places horses in the cities are forced to wear horse-size napies which catch the poop.
Yes. But cars produce unwanted mess in atmosphere that in almost impossible to clean..
Horses were never banned (except maybe locally), they're just far more expensive and difficult to run than cars.
Depending on local regulations, you may of course be fined if you don't clean up your horse's mess.
Horse poop degrades fairly rapidly (relative to omnivore and carnivore excrement). Doesn't smell as bad either.
Cars produce all sorts of chemical compounds that ruin the air we breath.
Cars produce all sorts of chemical compounds that ruin the air we breath.
No. It doesn't degrade rapidly. It stays there for weeks unless there's rain. It does smell bad. Hitting a fresh one is a cyclists worst nightmare.
I'm not saying cars are innocent here, but at least they don't poop.
I'm not saying cars are innocent here, but at least they don't poop.
Bicycle sharing companies are next I guess, give it a year or two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdsb2wwn-7g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdsb2wwn-7g
What worries me about the bike shares is they all take a 100-200 rmb refundable deposit from each user. That's an unsecured interest free "crowdsourced" loan! If the company collapses, it's riders' deposits that'll go down the toilet.
There was an article in chinadaily a while back in how the government was forcing the bike companies to deposit these deposits in a special account. So it might not be as bad as that, but I wouldn't expect to get my deposit back either.
Yes, they used to be deposit free, but once bigger ones started demanding them, all of them did too. Now, their business model is effectively that of a bank.
Maybe when you've got too many of them, but Mobike has just arrived in Manchester, UK and I've tried it a couple of times. I really like it and am impressed with how well it actually works. They just need to deploy more bikes so that it is easier for me to find one during busy periods.
A tram would be much safer and probably cause less disruption.
A "tram" is also a proven technology that doesn't get investors.
A traffic straddling bus is one of those "so crazy it just might work" ideas that gets funding.
A traffic straddling bus is one of those "so crazy it just might work" ideas that gets funding.
still seems a decent idea to me. maybe something went wrong in the execution here, but it could be a solution for densely packed historical urban centers that do not wish to tear down too many buildings.
BTW this isn't the original headline (the error in the rewrite caused me to click on the title).
NYT would have written this in the indefinite present: "Chinese plan for “traffic-straddling bus” ends with 32 arrests." Except it didn't end, and the NYT headline says so.
NYT would have written this in the indefinite present: "Chinese plan for “traffic-straddling bus” ends with 32 arrests." Except it didn't end, and the NYT headline says so.
What do you mean? It ended a while ago.
Not sure what you mean. Either the project is effectively dead, or ended, after the arrests, or its technically continuing though for all intents and purposes is over. Or it ended a while ago and that's why it's a scam?
The article as up right now has a title that says it's over, but did not have the same headline when I added my comment :-(. Also says it's effectively over as a result of the arrests which it didn't before. Unfortunately the NYT does not have a policy of always indicating edits. So this may have made my comment look odd.
However FWIW the NYT typically won't use the past tense, and in particular the perfect, for topics which are ongoing. US Civil war? Sure. Bernie Madoff? Possibly, possibly not, depending. People having just been arrested gets a present, or at best imperfect tense.
The article as up right now has a title that says it's over, but did not have the same headline when I added my comment :-(. Also says it's effectively over as a result of the arrests which it didn't before. Unfortunately the NYT does not have a policy of always indicating edits. So this may have made my comment look odd.
However FWIW the NYT typically won't use the past tense, and in particular the perfect, for topics which are ongoing. US Civil war? Sure. Bernie Madoff? Possibly, possibly not, depending. People having just been arrested gets a present, or at best imperfect tense.