If I catch their eye and I know they’re actually seeing me, that’s about the only time.
I try to make eye contact, especially where multi-use paths venture into intersections on a cross ride, because people ALWAYS drive right into the cross ride as they "stop" for their turn. But I'm finding more and more that the tint on many vehicles makes it impossible to even see if the driver is looking at you. So, I'm often forced to stop waiting for them to stop, just so I can continue with my right of way. Incredibly frustrating, but you've gotta stay alive.
For sure. I'm only saying that the advantage we all seek really only applies when others are paying attention.
When I'm driving or cycling, I can see cyclists that are hundreds of meters away. Yet, a cyclist less than 10m from a motorist at an intersection is suddenly unseeable? No, someone was distracted or impaired while at the wheel.
I completely agree, but this still doesn't fix the problem of motorists "not seeing you" when they are looking down at their phone.
I've nearly been hit a few times by turning cars... while wearing high-viz and reflective clothing... riding a bike that's high-viz... riding on tires that have reflective sidewalls... while using a flashing front light, a solid front light... equipped with a flashing rear light... and riding in a slow, predictable way.
Being visible only works on those who are paying attention around you, and these days that means fewer and fewer people.
In the RC car world, I've heard of people having their workshop go into flames from batteries that were simply in storage... not charging or anything.
I keep mine (RC car batteries) in a special, fireproof box when they are not in use, and also charge them in that box (as it's designed to be).
Not an easy way to do with this larger, e-bike batteries, especially when those batteries are built into the frame of the vehicle (some e-bikes and pretty much all e-scooters).
I guess anything is possible, but you are right that most of the time, there is a reason.
Realistically, the EV/e-bike industries will destroy themselves if they can't come up with safer battery tech that won't kill your entire family.
At some point, everyone will have multiple e-vehicles in their home, office, or parked in an underground/above ground parking garage.
If something isn't done fast, these cases of fires will be so common that people will accept them as "normal".
Heat pumps sounds like a good way forward. I haven't looked into the cost to replace a heater in a home, but I guess new homes could just have them installed by default.
What about natural gas use in home cooking/restaurants? Surely, you can't just replace that easily.
EDIT: And what about heating water? I mean, natural gas is used for more than heating the space in a home.
Why do they continue to publish articles literally stating the same facts, word for word, from those old, published position statements?
The science hasn't changed. In fact, it's only supported plant-based diets over the years.
If you talk to a registered dietitian today, they will say the same thing. At least, that's been my experience through working with several over the years.
Either way, it doesn't particularly matter to me. I've been vegan for over two decades and my doctor is quite happy with my health.
They did not retract or change their position, though.
And they still publish information based on the same wording and conclusions they had when they did publish a position.
I'm not sure what's so confusing about this. They did not change their position on plant-based diets, and I believe because it would be redundant to keep saying what the science has confirmed year after year.
Is there any position they continually confirm year after year? If so, I'd be really surprised, unless the science isn't supporting their position, so they have to give their reasons for still having them.
The only article I linked was reviewed by their people just a few weeks ago, so it's as current as you could expect.
It's not that they no longer support the idea of a plant-based diet, it's more likely that plant-based diets are so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that they no longer have to keep saying it out loud.
Especially since their recent articles seem to echo what their position paper on vegetarian diets already said years ago. To them, it's like common knowledge.
That said, they are one of dozens of dietetic and health authorities around the world who have made it clear that a plant-based diet can not only be appropriate for all life stages, but it can be used to reverse certain diseases (i.e heart disease and T2 diabetes) when other diets simply can't compare.