Half of the things that go on with donations. People who are enlightened enough to know 90% of your money doesn’t go to its intended place (whether you’re donating to starving Africans, people with a medical condition, etc.) cannot effectively stand up to corrupt charity organizations in a culture where half of the people still think the Salvation Army is a literal branch of the army. Even the charity watch groups are compromised.
Passing on the left in regions with LH traffic (RHD)
Since it is the opposite of Overtaking, it is typically called undertaking, especially if you try to undertake a large truck with limited visibility on the passenger side.
I drive a lot in the UK for work. I see it occasionally when younger and/or angry drivers get frustrated with overtaking lane hoggers. Sometimes I also see people do it very slowly and overtly for that same reason.
Generally, I don’t think people want to do it and are aware of the dangers. But it’s easy to do it without being caught, unless it goes wrong of course.
Apparently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the US allows it on highways. Which helps explain why their traffic related deaths rate per capita is almost twice the European average.
I’ve never seen anyone do it so I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in all countries were I’ve found myself on a highway. The US and Germany (due to their free speed generally quite weird autobahns) come to mind as countries that might allow it.
I’m turning left on a two-lane street, waiting for incoming traffic to clear, and some jackass pulls into the right-turn cutout to pass me. It’s both rude and dangerous.
What. So this “jackass” and all the people in the right lane should pull up behind you and wait for you to turn left? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. That’s partially why there are two lanes, so traffic can continue to flow instead of waiting for you.
Edit:
Hold up. When you say “two lane street” do you mean one lane on each side? Because that changes everything. Whenever people I talk to refer to a two lane street they mean two lane in your direction.
Let’s say you need to borrow 5000 € for your first car, but you have only 700 €. First, you’ll need to find a lender who is willing to share the risk with you. Then, you form a joint stock company (Tom’s Volvo C30 2008 incorporated), where you own 7/50 of the car and the other party owns the rest. When you have some more money, you can buy some more stocks. One day, you’ll own the whole car and the lender has all of their money back.
So…instead of loans, you’re advocating that people form corporations where shares are bought over time instead?
You’ll still have to pay some interest to motivate the other party to invest, all you’ve really done is generate a bunch of extra paperwork to spin up a corporation.
The idea is to avoid the expense spiraling out of control due to exponential growth.
In order to motivate your business partner, you should have a contract that defines the price of the stocks in a favorable way. It’s like buying and selling really. The lender pays 4300 € for the car, and sells it at a higher price, such as 4600 €.
Oh, if you’re trying to prevent usury, it would be far simpler to either cap interest rates or ban compound interest in favor of simple interest.
Rate caps are the simplest solution least likely to backfire, but unfortunately they tend to push people away from legitimate sources of lending, so you do have to be careful that they aren’t too low.
Like I said, forming a corporation isn’t a simple thing, doing it to organize a personal loan would take up an enormous amount of time and money, and result in substantially fewer consumer protections.
Well, now that taking a loan is fast and easy, people tend to spend the money they don’t have and buy the things they can’t afford. Having some sort of a speed bump along the way should make people think a little more and avoid getting into unnecessary debt.
I agree, but forming a corp is time consuming in an expensive way, you need (usually) retain lawyers and an accounting firm.
I think it would be better if getting credit were subject to income and asset verification, and most importantly that the government make sure eligibility verification is not abusive, discriminatory, or inconsistent in nature.