A vehicle with AWD or 4x4 is a lot easier to operate than a 2-wheel only, especially in cold and wet conditions, which Ol' Blighty is no stranger to.
Yes and no. AWD or 4WD absolutely
can help with driving in cold and wet conditions, but it is not a cure-all. More important to retaining control in cold & wet, in rough order of importance are:
- Staying calm and not making any sudden or drastic changes to power or braking. In reduced traction, at any speed, nothing will cause you lose control faster than suddenly mashing your gas or brake pedals.
- A familiarity with and intuition for the vehicle's handling dynamics, how they interact with point 3, below, and how that interaction changes in various road conditions. A kid with a 20-year-old Honda Civic held together with duct tape and hope, who has payed attention to how his car car interacts with the road for the past 5 year's he's driven it, is going to do far better in bad road conditions than someone who hasn't payed attention to how their SUV drives.
- Tires appropriate for the road conditions, be it tread pattern, compound, or other factor. They don't even have to be special snow or rain tires, they just have to not suck in the conditions they're being used. A tire appropriate to keeping a Dodge Viper attached to the road during the summer is probably the wrong tire for freezing rain.
When I lived in parts of the country that got snow and ice during the winter, time and time again, I would see the results of people who panicked. Through over-application of braking and/or power, they would turn a mild, recoverable upset into a complete loss of control that sent them off the road or into another car. In fact, in AWD or 4WD setups, panic tends to make the over-application of power even worse, because now you have all 4 corners spinning freely.
The moral quandary of pedestrian traffic lights.
The gist: traffic signals are immoral because 1. if cars didn't exist, traffic control wouldn't be needed, and 2. cars only cross the same intersection once, but pedestrians sometimes have to cross twice.
Do these niggers think that only pedestrians existed in the road before cars? That there were no dangers to crossing the road, because not even horses existed before the invention of the horseless carriage? Have they ever actually
seen a horse? I'm guessing not, because anyone who has, will know a horse can fuck up a man just as easily as a car.
A tranny explains why libertarians should prefer bikes to cars.
This faggot has a poor mental model of the mindset and activities of libertarians. Or how police chases work.
Forgot to include this one in my previous post. Comes from
this downdooted post /
archive.
Full thread /
Archive
I'll give credit that the monstrosity in the upper left actually carries a pallet, but there's no way its structure allows it to carry a particularly heavy one. Or be stable when loaded heavily.
I think people would make those sacrifices and live in the sky ghettos if the rent was cheap, but it never is.
Even if the rent was cheap, you'd still eventually get limited uptake. Not everyone wants to live in dense housing. If I had the option of a cheap apartment that was say, a 20 minute walk or 10 minute bike ride from work, or a detached house with a decent yard that was a 30 minute drive from work, and I could afford the latter, odds are I'd choose the latter. In a detached house with a yard, I can do things like have a vegetable garden, do my own car maintenance, host barbecue parties with my friends, have a dog, and so on. These are all things that dense apartment blocks tend to explicitly ban in their lease agreements. Even if they weren't banned, the kind of dense packing these faggots dream of make such activities impractical.
Does it count as a declaration of war when you've already definitively won?
I fail to see how people having the option to own a American pickup is a threat to the Dutch way of life. Not unless the Dutch only live the way they do because they have not had the option to use a pickup for tasks to which the pickup is better suited.
