Age & slippers discrimination

that is in fact true and I've heard about it being enforced i.e. in Cebu years ago already.

Useless if you ask me, unless you wear special abrasion resistant motorcycle gear there's not much of a difference between short and long pants in terms of protection.

Proper footwear is way more important, however all in all it would be the best if they just stuck to helmet law and enforced that, instead of inventing overly complex regulations dictating styles of clothing and shoewear. I wonder why they never ever look at other countries that have solved all this long time ago, and simply do as they do.

 

Helmet for sure is the most important. It needs to be ICC approved with the sticker (that's a minimum for safety on a motorbike). Personally I wear sandals when driving a scooter and shoes on a motorbike with shifter.

 

This puzzles me generally - why don't countries model more often on existing systems used successfully elsewhere. I know someone will reply about different cultures but many countries have systems in place which would transfer to most other cultures; however governments seem to like 're-inventing the wheel'. In doing so they employ consultants at a huge cost to tell them something they could easily find out by sending one person to observe abroad or, more easily, just read about it on the internet.

 

In the software development world we have a name for that - NIH or Not Invented Here Syndrome.

It's a general reluctance to accepting even well proven solutions that were invented elsewhere. Occurs frequently in less experienced teams or team members that still feel the need to prove themselves and therefore try to do everything themselves even if the same problem has been solved over and over again before.

Guess it's a similar situation with evolving countries, and their politicians. "We're so special, we must find our very own solution to this"

 

It is because most people do not read much. They get most of their information via verbal dialog with the people around them and TV. As a result they end up in a bubble of group think.

People who read have a greater reach. They can consume content written by many different writers from far away. Whereas verbal communicators only consume content from the people around them and TV. This relates specifically to your question in that verbal leaders in one country do not learn from verbal communications in another country.

Verbal dialog is very inefficient. It is a serial process that people have to wait through the BS to pick up the tidbits here and there. Reading is much faster and readers can glance over the BS fast.

Writers put more thinking time into their effort. The thinking to production ratio is much higher. Something that takes 3 minutes to read may take 30 minutes to write and edit. On the other hand when speaking the thinking time is the same as the consumption time and no more.

Written communications are more accountable. Readers can pause and glance back at previous written assumptions and conclusions to reassess subsequent conclusions. Whereas verbal communication takes place at high speed with no pause for thought or accountability. It is just a stream of consciousness.

So the question becomes: Why do we elect verbal communicators and not readers? This boils down to confidence vs competence. The population measures a persons ability by actually considering their confidence and how well they project themselves not their competence. People with good verbal skills project confidence. (Competence does not matter, it is not measured.) Hence the rise of the con-man. The con is for confidence.

The ability to manipulate this has given rise to a new behavior. Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon and the orange man have perfected the concept of "Flood the zone with sh*t" in order to distract the simple minded.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...impeachment-trial-trump-bannon-misinformation

The same happens here on DI. There is little accountability or encouragement for better quality. Every post gets the same visibility no matter the quality. (The moderation only disciplines the most egregious.)

This is why I think a more community moderated process would work better. Quality moderation takes too much work for a few people. Something more like a democratic wiki with a moderator at the top. This way individual posts could be reviewed and cleaned of ad hominem by an effort that was distributed amongst the readers. With a later ultimate authority from the moderator.

If the process (software) was created well, it would be intuitive and easy to understand for the user and result in a better quality experience for the reader.

 

Please help me understand your suggestion. Are you asking for a quality control system for our posts? And is this so you can enjoy reading DI? If so, borders on arrogance. We are not here to please you and could care less if you are critical of the postings.
If I misinterpreted your comments, my apologies, if I am correct, why don’t you leave this forum.

 

ok, I admit I exagerated a bit.

But then again, a pair of jeans isn't what people are going to wear here if long pants are required. I know I wouldn't, it's just unbearable and not practical, takes forever to dry if you get into some rain.

So, my point that any such regulation is useless still stands - people either go through some inconvenience because they understand the necessity (in this case they would do so with or without a long pants law) or they wear the lightest long pants possible, which will not offer more protection than a tshirt.