On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
>> >> >> >> >> > > > trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
>> >> >> >> >> > > More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
>> >> >> >> >> > Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
>> >> >> >> >> Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No wonder it costs so much to transport things.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
>> >> >> We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
>> >> And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?
>> >
>> > That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if we did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.
>> Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.
>>
>> And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.
>
> And for some reason, people like you fail to understand that is WITH laws. Without laws about speeding the numbers would be much worse. But it doesn't surprise me you think this way. If nothing, you are consistent.

People speed if they want to, the ones that stick to the limit do so because they think it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law.

And think about my 4% again. Do you know hoe many people speed? Again, a government stat - a third. So even if everyone sped, that would make it 12% of accidents caused by speeding, the rest by morons doing something stupid.

>> You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.
>
> You had not mentioned Libertarianism until now. Why did you bring it up? I've not been discussing it.

That's the name of what we're discussing you ignoranus.

>> > The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.
>> No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.
>
> Unfortunately, once they have the crash and kill someone, it's too late. Laws are to prevent harm. Enforcement is too late, but the threat of enforcement is what gives the laws an impact. Otherwise they are just recommendations.

Stop being such a pansy.

This way would work far batter - instead of getting an insurance premium rise when you cause a crash, no matter how minor, get points on your license. X number of crashes and you're off.

> A trucker doesn't need to sleep after driving for the max time. He just has to stop driving and do something else. Talking about playing football is just being silly, but again, consistent for you.

You really are stupid, do you seriously think using your brain for something else is a rest?!

> They don't assume anyone will crash without a break. They *know* it will happen to some, too many. Those laws were passed and are enforced to prevent history from repeating.

They assume because it happens to some it happens to all. I might crash because I didn't get any sleep last night, well before my break time. Only taking account of driving time is insanity.

>> > Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
>> If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?
>
> If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those conditions.

I never said they had to did I?

> If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.

If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

>> > BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
>> Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.
>
> LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought.

No it hasn't. Compare us to animals as I suggested.

> That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.

Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

>> > The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
>> Repetition of the above ignored.
>
> Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?

Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.