|
Memento posted:No roll-bars, roll-over bars. Just like a single upright at the back of the quadbike that means if it rolls, it forms a triangle with the ground as opposed to pancaking the rider. I literally didn't notice those the first time I read the article. Having rolled plenty of quads I can't really picture how something that low could help. In fact at least two of my crashes the second one (the one that looks like a traditional bike/motorcycle "sissy bar" would have possibly speared me in the back as I went over the bars. I guess maybe they make more sense on a utility-style quad, but as far as I see those are losing a lot of ground to UTVs which pretty much all have full cages anyways. No way in hell on a sport quad though.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
MausoleumExtremist posted:See also reduced reaction time when autonomous braking is active. Has any study been done on why they occur so close to the home? It might be just because the majority of drives people take are going to be 5 to 15 miles as opposed to road trips, so people are in their cars more often for the short distances and you obviously can't crash when you're not driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Has any study been done on why they occur so close to the home? It might be just because the majority of drives people take are going to be 5 to 15 miles as opposed to road trips, so people are in their cars more often for the short distances and you obviously can't crash when you're not driving. Yeah I've heard that statistic many times and I think it would be cool to see (% of crashes that occur within 15 miles of home) graphed alongside (% of miles driven that occur within 15 miles of home). Logically if you spend most of your time in one area, the chances of you having an accident in that area will go up. It's not like the roads get more and more dangerous the further you get from your house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
I've always heard it as you're so familiar with the area you're driving, you're just not as alert as you would be otherwise. But yeah, it would be interesting to read some serious literature on the topic of what might be going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Has any study been done on why they occur so close to the home? It might be just because the majority of drives people take are going to be 5 to 15 miles as opposed to road trips, so people are in their cars more often for the short distances and you obviously can't crash when you're not driving. I believe that's the exact reason you have so many crashes close to home (you drive a lot close to home). The reason people quote that statistic isn't because it's a mystery why, it's to counteract people that don't wear seatbelts or safety gear on short drives because "it's just around the block" or "I know this neighborhood like the back of my hand" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I'd assume it's because most people's jobs and shopping aren't more than 5-15 miles away? 50% of accidents within 5 miles because 50% of trips are in that same range?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
15 miles is also a pretty hefty drive in urban areas. If you live out in the sticks you may drive 40 or 50 miles just to reach the nearest major town, but I live only about 8 miles from my work and people in places like NYC usually live only 3 or 4 miles away. In my area, 15 miles is often an interstate drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Worst accident I ever had was about 100-yards from my front door. Unlicensed driver left-turned me, I hit her head-on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Worst accident I ever had WHY, TONIGHT'S THE ANNIVERSARY
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Has any study been done on why they occur so close to the home? It might be just because the majority of drives people take are going to be 5 to 15 miles as opposed to road trips, so people are in their cars more often for the short distances and you obviously can't crash when you're not driving. Partially I'd guess it's also caused by less safe roads close to home. Highways are, generally speaking, very safe roads. Most homes do not have their own on-ramp. TL;DR: Long trips often take place on safer roads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Most drunk drivers also tend to drive towards residential areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
half of a ten mile drive is within five miles of where you set out from. you'd have to to drive quite a lot of long trips for that 5 mile area to be a minor portion of your travel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:WHY, TONIGHT'S THE ANNIVERSARY 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:Sure. But that's a very specific instance. Probably on the low side of "vehicles involved in auto accidents" statistic. Especially considering that there's a crash every, what? 15 seconds or something dumb like that? If the tanker does catch fire, it's not always instantaneous. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la2ua_DtFKU Two minutes from impact to truck catching fire. Almost 6 minutes from time of impact to (a rather impressive) fiery explosion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Burning_Monk posted:On the other side of the story about not wearing seat belts, I had a buddy in highschool get tossed from his flipping and rolling vehicle while not wearing a seat belt and then get promptly steamrolled as his truck landed on him. I knew a guy who got skull plates by flinging himself out the drivers side window while doing doughnuts in the walmart parking lot. He's an EOD tech now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I guess he's getting good money and his adrenaline fix in the same place now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
GET. hosed. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
The beginning of natural selection in action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
MausoleumExtremist posted:See also reduced reaction time when autonomous braking is active. I heard this was the case, so I moved. (Serious answer: 50+% of driving occurs within 5 miles of the home, and 75% within 15).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Why was the car driving the wrong way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Why was the car driving the wrong way? Drugs/alcohol and a possible death wish. The truck driver thinks the guy actually aimed for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
 Apparently because of frozen mist blocking the air inlets this Shell tank crushed itself. Must have made some noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
It may not be OSHA now, but I feel there was some OSHA level poo poo going on when it was being built.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Zil posted:It may not be OSHA now, but I feel there was some OSHA level poo poo going on when it was being built. Surely those aren't bricks and someone's just gone a little crazy with that paint-on brick texture stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
It’s like they used a clone brush to finish the job. edit: It’s like they used a Sagebrush to post their joke. SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
That looks for all the world like somebody clone-stamped out a bunch of windows or something. e: ah, gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
I want it to be an art piece, like the only concession given to the architects initial vision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Google Maps seems to agree with the photo: Streetview Also, bigger photo: https://i.redd.it/e3tokw7zgc201.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Interesting, the funkadelic brickwork seems to be all over the building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Maybe it's not structural brick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/two-men-trapped-in-a-tank-in-sydneys-west-20171206-h00b5l.html Three men in an ink vat and the stirring blade turned on. quote:New South Wales Ambulance were called to the business, DIC Australia, at 8:45am.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:Interesting, the funkadelic brickwork seems to be all over the building. I can't remember the name of it but it's A Thing. Bombadilillo posted:Maybe it's not structural brick? Pretty sure it's not, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Maybe it's not structural brick? It's like that diagram of all of Mr. Burns' diseases trying to cram through a door: the bricks are all collapsing in conflicting directions so the building stays up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Most brick nowadays is about as important to the structural integrity of a building as vinyl siding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Yeah brick hasn't been structural for a long long time, it's just a cladding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Zil posted:It may not be OSHA now, but I feel there was some OSHA level poo poo going on when it was being built. That makes me queezy to look at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah brick hasn't been structural for a long long time, it's just a cladding. and that sucks because structural brick always looks better than cladding and YES, I can tell
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Zil posted:It may not be OSHA now, but I feel there was some OSHA level poo poo going on when it was being built. gently caress, that is precisely what a brick wall looks like when I eat shrooms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/two-men-trapped-in-a-tank-in-sydneys-west-20171206-h00b5l.html  I know what they meant but it sounds bad when you deteriorate in a vat of chemicals
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 05:48
|
|
