Assorted Links


On #2,

That damned global warming!!

4. I guess in England they'd have to "end the right." I wonder if the researchers used right turns in England as another control variable.

Left turns are more dangerous, but not inherently so. The problem is 1) stupid, impatient people making left turns, 2) not enough protected left turns where traffic volume is high.

Three rights are not more fuel efficient than one left at any given point, but planning for right turns is probably prudent - in right-side countries.

People making right turns often do "rolling stops" and only look left. In cities where you have stupid bicyclists and stupid pedestrians crossing the path of cars turning right, there's greater danger to them.

Left turns by cars rarely hit bicyclists. Left turns usually hit pedestrians or cause car accidents - again - when there is an unprotected left turn and the driver is trying to get through a momentary pause in traffic coming the opposite direction. But most left turners come to a complete stop as opposed to right turns.

I live in a city where left turns are banned along major streets. Trust me - it makes traffic much more dangerous as people make ad hoc adjustments to get where they want to go. They either make illegal lefts, or a series of angry, dangerous rights.

Not everyone is familiar with the roads they're on, and not everyone can or will plan their trip. With this national ban on left turns, will government also mandate or subsidize GPS with left turn avoidance?

The same UPS (and Fed Ex and USPS) makes a conscious business decision to park delivery trucks illegally, blocking traffic, and paying the fines. I see their trucks every day driving down the street with several tickets under their windshield wipers. Imagine what other traffic rules they might be breaking for speedy delivery and cost minimization.

I'm not impressed by the rigor of this article or this research, or UPS's "novel" solution.

I'd say that's a corroboration. A refutation would be "Pizza+Low Hanging Fruit"

I, too, like the idea of ligers, and I'd like to see them someday.

>>In the human world, the “breeding” of blacks and whites to create mulattoes was once seen as against the natural order as well.>>

...but whoever wrote that analogy brings his three-digit IQ into serious doubt.

As someone from Michigan who no longer lives there, I must say I miss Michigan Lefts a lot.

Re #1: It is interesting to note that what I most took away from "Reasons and Persons" was a vow to never let a surgeon sever my corpus callosum.

@todd - Note that this isn't usually something done for the sheer heck of it. Keep in mind that the people that had the operation might have had even WORSE problems before...or at least problems bad enough that a troublesome arm seems like a risk worth taking.


"basically this is a terrible idea."

Only because they are doing it wrong. I often fantasize about starting a company to mass produce cheap overpasses.

#3 The natural vs unnatural argument creates a false dichotomy. One is not innately better or morally wrong.

Furthermore, the idea that each individual liger has the right to exist is only an argument against exterminating all the ligers that currently exist, which isn't really an issue. It does nothing to justify or argue against the purposeful breeding of further ligers which is how it sounds like most ligers are created.

Comments for this post are closed