Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Husar:
And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades...
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades...
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
.
Interesting theory.If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left.
Also:
Originally Posted by :
The trend among nations over the years has been toward driving on the right, but Britain has done its best to stave off global homogenisation.
And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow... The trend among nations over the years has been toward driving on the right, but Britain has done its best to stave off global homogenisation.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.
Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.
Originally Posted by Husar:
That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left.
Also:
And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow...
*Cracks historic knuckles*That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left.
Also:
And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow...
Ow...
Anyway, the likelihood is that the reason for driving on the left is more prosaic. For one thing, it would originally have been driving and walking, because originally all traffic would go the same way. As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".
For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.
I admit, I made mine up to make it sound like I knew stuff. I thought it was pretty convincing at least!
Hi all, long time no see!
I don't think the US has any intention of leaving NATO, at least not insomuch as wanting to leave NATO.
As someone else said; NATO is a fantastic vehicle for US ambitions.
Trump appears to want what I want (and there the shared purpose ends): For collective defence to mean something real.
It is not sufficient for the US (and a few honourable exceptions) to be the only one to 'give' to the system, knowing that the rest have atrophied their capability (and public will) to the point where they could not (and would not) give back. That is where we are right now: going to war without belgium is like going to war without your accordian (credit:some famous general).
This is a kick in the pants. What really matters is how europe responds. If they truly intend to meet the Cardiff promise to reach 2.0% within a decade, then all well and good. If not...
As to my identity:
I'm British.
Then Crown Dominion.
Then Commonwealth/Western.
Then World Citizen.
The EU doesn't really factor into it. I'm european, but not in any political sense where i recognise a common-weal, and thus assent to common governance.
The EU is simply an institution, and thus I view it with the same sentimentality as the department of business, innovation and skills (hasn't that been disbanded?).
So, lacking an emotional EUropean identity, what do I think of it as an institution?
1. I think it is insufficiently representative of the British common-weal; in tending to take a more collective view of society than I wish for, and I believe the Country as a whole would accept. This is expressed principally as a function of taxation and regulation. I also think it is insufficiently war'ry, in that it has largely lost its appetite for elective warfare in pursuit of a common good. I understand why this is the case, but I don't agree with it.
2. It is because I am a democrat that the above bothers me; as EU acquires more competences we share a collective governance, as is only proper. This means the majority achiev the consensus compromise, but I cannot accept the outcomes of those compromises as that consensus is too far removed from my priorities. It is not the Britain I want, and the EU feels like a form of gerrymandering to my mind: Achieving an outcome that would not naturally arrive from the British electorate alone.
3. I feel it is a poor form of governance, in seeking to preserve a baseline of harmonisation - in aspic - as a necessary pre-condition for consensus based compromise between different peoples. It is the same reason I like FPTP and parliamentary sovereignty, along with an uncodified constitution, and a lack of any constitutional barriers to change. Everything is there to be challenged, nothing safe from a little creative destruction.
4. In failing to be representative of it constituent peoples, I feel that it is particularly destructive form of governance, particularly for those smaller nations and more vulnerable least able to argue forcefully for their opinion. Mechanisms such as the Euro are used to crush dissent.
So what do I want?
a) well, an essentially sovereign Britain for a start - and I'd have been quite okay with that being as an EU member, but Cameron's failed renegotiation put paid to that.
b) an essentially sovereign Poland/Sweden/CountryX, if that is what they want, but Belgium et-al made sure that even Cameron's meagre concessions would apply to Britain only, and not anyone else.
c) as essentially content collection of EU nations, within the EU, and optionally within a federal Eurozone if that is their wish.
d) happy relations between Britain and the nations of the EU, including a federal entity known as Eurozoneland.
Item b) matters particularly, because it represented an insurance policy in that Britain could always organise a blocking minority to ensure objective a) is not undermined by further moves to QMV with an ECJ that practices judicial activism. Yes, I want the best for them too, but my principal motivation was to achieve a vehicle to perpetuate British sovereignty.
I don't think the US has any intention of leaving NATO, at least not insomuch as wanting to leave NATO.
As someone else said; NATO is a fantastic vehicle for US ambitions.
Trump appears to want what I want (and there the shared purpose ends): For collective defence to mean something real.
It is not sufficient for the US (and a few honourable exceptions) to be the only one to 'give' to the system, knowing that the rest have atrophied their capability (and public will) to the point where they could not (and would not) give back. That is where we are right now: going to war without belgium is like going to war without your accordian (credit:some famous general).
This is a kick in the pants. What really matters is how europe responds. If they truly intend to meet the Cardiff promise to reach 2.0% within a decade, then all well and good. If not...
As to my identity:
I'm British.
Then Crown Dominion.
Then Commonwealth/Western.
Then World Citizen.
The EU doesn't really factor into it. I'm european, but not in any political sense where i recognise a common-weal, and thus assent to common governance.
The EU is simply an institution, and thus I view it with the same sentimentality as the department of business, innovation and skills (hasn't that been disbanded?).
So, lacking an emotional EUropean identity, what do I think of it as an institution?
1. I think it is insufficiently representative of the British common-weal; in tending to take a more collective view of society than I wish for, and I believe the Country as a whole would accept. This is expressed principally as a function of taxation and regulation. I also think it is insufficiently war'ry, in that it has largely lost its appetite for elective warfare in pursuit of a common good. I understand why this is the case, but I don't agree with it.
2. It is because I am a democrat that the above bothers me; as EU acquires more competences we share a collective governance, as is only proper. This means the majority achiev the consensus compromise, but I cannot accept the outcomes of those compromises as that consensus is too far removed from my priorities. It is not the Britain I want, and the EU feels like a form of gerrymandering to my mind: Achieving an outcome that would not naturally arrive from the British electorate alone.
3. I feel it is a poor form of governance, in seeking to preserve a baseline of harmonisation - in aspic - as a necessary pre-condition for consensus based compromise between different peoples. It is the same reason I like FPTP and parliamentary sovereignty, along with an uncodified constitution, and a lack of any constitutional barriers to change. Everything is there to be challenged, nothing safe from a little creative destruction.
4. In failing to be representative of it constituent peoples, I feel that it is particularly destructive form of governance, particularly for those smaller nations and more vulnerable least able to argue forcefully for their opinion. Mechanisms such as the Euro are used to crush dissent.
So what do I want?
a) well, an essentially sovereign Britain for a start - and I'd have been quite okay with that being as an EU member, but Cameron's failed renegotiation put paid to that.
b) an essentially sovereign Poland/Sweden/CountryX, if that is what they want, but Belgium et-al made sure that even Cameron's meagre concessions would apply to Britain only, and not anyone else.
c) as essentially content collection of EU nations, within the EU, and optionally within a federal Eurozone if that is their wish.
d) happy relations between Britain and the nations of the EU, including a federal entity known as Eurozoneland.
Item b) matters particularly, because it represented an insurance policy in that Britain could always organise a blocking minority to ensure objective a) is not undermined by further moves to QMV with an ECJ that practices judicial activism. Yes, I want the best for them too, but my principal motivation was to achieve a vehicle to perpetuate British sovereignty.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".
For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.
Lies, one only needs to watch asian martial arts movies to see that staffs are also used to fight everyone else on the road. As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".
For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.
After playing a number of medieval
Originally Posted by Beskar:
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Conclusion: this is the whole world who are driving on the wrong side of the road.If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Actually in Ancient Regime France foot traffic kept right, carriages kept left. Canada converted by province (save British Columbia which went in stages over 3 years) in the 20's, and Newfoundland converted on their own in 1947.If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.
Well, two comments:
Blaming Napoleon for British extraordinariness is unfair, I guess. He worked hard to spread civilisation even to the islands in the far west.
Why should right-handed men walk on the left side to protect themselves. Didn't you protect yourself with a shield on the left and attack with the right.
I wonder if the Americans will change to left-drive. This will give better opportunities to use the gun to fire at other drivers and - without a doubt - lead to more safety in traffic.
Blaming Napoleon for British extraordinariness is unfair, I guess. He worked hard to spread civilisation even to the islands in the far west.
Why should right-handed men walk on the left side to protect themselves. Didn't you protect yourself with a shield on the left and attack with the right.
I wonder if the Americans will change to left-drive. This will give better opportunities to use the gun to fire at other drivers and - without a doubt - lead to more safety in traffic.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO