explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3101: Good Science

2025-11-15T03:29:54Z

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3101
| date = June 11, 2025
| title = Good Science
| image = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Add explanations for predictors.}}
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and a [[Cueball]]-like kid. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong often] [https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ produces] [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong incorrect] {{w|List of experimental errors and frauds in physics|results}}. Most famously, it's been shown "by indisputably correct mathematical equations ... with the addition of only very modest assumptions" that in medical research, {{w|Why Most Published Research Findings Are False|Most Published Research Findings Are False}}. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a {{w|regression analysis}} (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does see some {{w|Ammonia_solution#Laboratory_use|laboratory use}}, but it does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it is possible that regular or thorough cleaning of equipment reduces experimental error).{{Actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being curious about how ammonia got onto the list, she is performing good science by using both curiosity and ammonia.

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor — that is, if it is well-documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite, rigor without curiosity, is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care whether they are right or wrong). There are at least two issues with a scientist who is rigorous but uncurious. First is that, in the modern world, science has a very high social and cultural status, due to its incredible achievements over the past century and a half (from electric power to spaceflight to medical care). As a result, people tend to be very deferential to science, and the trappings of science (lab coats, clipboards, etc.) command respect. A rigorous but uncurious scientist could get people to believe more strongly in the wrong answer (for an example of how symbols like lab coats and clipboards can influence human behavior, see the {{w|Milgram experiment}}). Second, a rigorous scientist could become convinced of their performance because of their rigor, mistaking the outward process of science for science itself. In that case, beyond the initial wrong results due to their incuriosity, they could become resistant to changing their conclusions even when presented with decisive evidence to the contrary, sometimes to the point of suppressing other scientists who have reached the correct answer.

Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it. She is looking away from it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now seen standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks. She is shrugging and has her arms up and looking away from board.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart is standing and Jill is seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

Talk:3162: Heart Mountain

2025-11-15T03:03:57Z

OrwellFan:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061007150515/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov//Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16819
At some point a giant sheet of limestone... detached and slid southeast towards Bighorn Basin.
Yawn. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:2120:5880:40C3:15EB:C354:BD73|2600:1700:2120:5880:40C3:15EB:C354:BD73]] 00:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This being Halloween, I was really hoping for something along the lines of "[[wikipedia:The Tell-Tale Heart|The Tell-Tale Heart]]" mountain. [[Special:Contributions/76.187.17.7|76.187.17.7]] 01:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully The Raven is close enough
Once upon an inter-blaggy as I scrolled my eyes all baggy
Searching through querulous old comics on the site
Quoth the explainers: “That’s not quite right” {{unsigned|Salsmachev|01:33, 1 November 2025}}

Typical, you make a properly researched link to Wikipedia and then, less than two hours later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heart_Mountain_(Wyoming)&diff=prev&oldid=1319829633 someone makes it] so that someone else has to {{diff|389979|'fix' the link}} and makes me look stupid. (More stupid than I already made myself look, given I might have written other bits of it differently if I'd waited until the morning.) [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 19:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi ! First Time commenter here. I wanted to note that the tone of the explanation feels weird to me (it is not specific to this comic, but to most latest explanation). It is very descriptive, dumbing down things that are obvious (panel 1, 2 and 3). I have the feeling the explanation would be better as something like "this is a joke about heart mountain [wikipedia link] <sumary of wikipedia link explaining how the exisiting theories a out heart mountain may look absurd>. Non need to paraphrase each element of the comic, but bette explain the ones that someone may not understand.
Am I the only one? Is this remark misplaced?
[[Special:Contributions/176.133.138.237|176.133.138.237]] 21:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Sayanel
:Not out of place. It's a collaborative edit, so different approaches get stacked on each other, with different ideas of what need explaining.
:I personally prefer not to describe things 'as they happen' but, if I'm coming to something already with that format, I'll place the necessarily narrative expansion of details onto that basis. (In this case, though, there was mostly an appending done, not disturbing the original any more than I saw fit.)
:Complete rewrites do get done though. Maybe you want to give that a go. Knowing that dewrites and re-rewrites might well follow, as well as the revamp merely being refined by others. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 23:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles! -[[Special:Contributions/24.177.125.170|24.177.125.170]] 03:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
: If you listen closely, you can still hear the sounds of Eurobeat echoing from when they were travelling at high speed. Multi-thrust drifting to the tune of Running in the <s>90s</s> Laramide Orogeny. {{unsigned ip|2.101.107.222|10:47, 3 November 2025}}

Made some edits to hopefully work better. I still feel the scientific explanation is a bit threadbare, and should be written with more detail of how the conclusion was reached, but I haven't read enough to confidently rewrite that.... [[Special:Contributions/216.221.83.168|216.221.83.168]] 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Recent work has focused on release of gas (CO2) along the detachment surface that allowed it to move like a hovercraft." from https://www.geowyo.com/heart-mountain.html [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C54:4E00:99C:67B7:D578:30ED:2471|2600:6C54:4E00:99C:67B7:D578:30ED:2471]] 00:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The explanation above currently says the landslide was 50-75 million years ago. However, the comic agrees with Wikipedia (and references therein) that the landslide was 48-50 million years ago, after a "period of mountain-building" 50-75 million years ago.[[Special:Contributions/2601:600:837F:B130:417B:6C65:C169:8DB9|2601:600:837F:B130:417B:6C65:C169:8DB9]] 19:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Aside from incorporating further details and suggestions from previous comments, I have also taken the liberty to make major edits to remove what I felt was unnecessary detail or speculation. Reverting my most recent edit will restore what I have removed while keeping the details and corrections. [[Special:Contributions/216.221.83.168|216.221.83.168]] 18:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking good. But 15 miles traveled at 90mph would take less than half an hour. More like 10 minutes.

3165: Earthquake Prediction Flowchart

2025-11-15T02:54:56Z

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3165
| date = November 7, 2025
| title = Earthquake Prediction Flowchart
| image = earthquake_prediction_flowchart_2x.png
| imagesize = 318x494px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At least people who make religious predictions of the apocalypse have an answer to the question 'Why didn't you predict any of the other ones that happened recently?'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.1415926 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.

In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence

This strip is similar to [[1723: Meteorite Identification]], as a one-step flowchart ending in a firm ''no''.

The title text compares those who claim to predict earthquakes to those who claim to predict the end of the world (based on their religion, for example). A prominent argument against those who claim to be able to predict non-apocalyptic disasters like earthquakes is that the "predictor" has not predicted any such disasters ''prior'' to their claim. An apocalypse, however, is not something that has occurred before,{{Citation needed}} and generally only happens once. Thus, unlike an earthquake predictor, anyone predicting an apocalypse will not need to explain any failures ({{w|False positives and false negatives|false negatives}}) to predict previous apocalypses. People who have ''previously'' predicted an apocalypse and failed to have it come about (i.e. a false positive), should be exceptions, but {{w|Harold Camping|such people}} never seem to lose credibility with their more devout followers.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above a flowchart:]
:Someone is claiming to predict the exact date of a future earthquake.
:Should you listen?

:[At the top of the flowchart is a wide diamond with the following text:]
:Start
:[An arrow points down to a rectangle with the following text:]
:<big>'''NO'''</big>
:(There are big earthquakes constantly, so if anyone ever '''''does''''' figure this out, it will be immediately obvious that their method works and the world's seismologists will not shut up about it.
:You won't need this flowchart.)

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Earthquakes]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

3165: Earthquake Prediction Flowchart

2025-11-15T02:34:19Z

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */ Improve, comment out low quality

{{comic
| number = 3165
| date = November 7, 2025
| title = Earthquake Prediction Flowchart
| image = earthquake_prediction_flowchart_2x.png
| imagesize = 318x494px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At least people who make religious predictions of the apocalypse have an answer to the question 'Why didn't you predict any of the other ones that happened recently?'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.1415926 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}}. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.

In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence

This strip is similar to [[1723: Meteorite Identification]], as a one-step flowchart ending in a firm ''no''.

The title text compares those who claim to predict earthquakes to those who claim to predict the end of the world (based on their religion, for example). A prominent argument against those who claim to be able to predict non-apocalyptic disasters like earthquakes is that the "predictor" has not predicted any such disasters ''prior'' to their claim. An apocalypse, however, is not something that has occurred before,{{Citation needed}} and generally only happens once. Thus, unlike an earthquake predictor, anyone predicting an apocalypse will not need to explain any failures ({{w|False positives and false negatives|false negatives}}) to predict previous apocalypses. People who have ''previously'' predicted an apocalypse and failed to have it come about (i.e. a false positive), should be exceptions, but {{w|Harold Camping|such people}} never seem to lose credibility with their more devout followers.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above a flowchart:]
:Someone is claiming to predict the exact date of a future earthquake.
:Should you listen?

:[At the top of the flowchart is a wide diamond with the following text:]
:Start
:[An arrow points down to a rectangle with the following text:]
:<big>'''NO'''</big>
:(There are big earthquakes constantly, so if anyone ever '''''does''''' figure this out, it will be immediately obvious that their method works and the world's seismologists will not shut up about it.
:You won't need this flowchart.)

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Earthquakes]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

3166: Big and Little Spoons

2025-11-15T02:03:16Z

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */ tighten

{{comic
| number = 3166
| date = November 10, 2025
| title = Big and Little Spoons
| image = big_and_little_spoons_2x.png
| imagesize = 662x259px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Are you the annoying spoon or the sleepy spoon?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a SAME-SIZED SPOON. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|Spooning}} is the intimate (and sometimes, but not always, sexual) act of laying down so that one's fore is directly up against the back of another person. A common colloquial term for people in this position is to refer to the two participants as "big spoon" (the one behind) and "little spoon" (the one in front). Cueball points out that the colloquialism does not have any basis in reality due to how spoons nest; commonly, spoons of the the same size will form a relatively uniform stack (which may be handy with a full complement of {{w|cutlery}} that is stored together in functional groups), while the spoons of differing sizes would rest awkwardly due to the different curvature in their handles and bowls, and the neck between.

There are some exceptions, such as a {{w|File:Swedish Measuring Spoon Set.jpeg|measuring spoon ''set''}}, or one-person camping set (perhaps small spoon, large spoon, plus knife and fork; or involving [[419: Forks and Spoons|hybrid]] {{w|Combination eating utensils|flatware}}), where one of each type is deliberately designed to be nested/packed against the others in a particular order. Occasionally, same sized spoons of a given design do not nest neatly, due to the design resulting in differing front and back profiles.

The last panel reveals that he is {{tvtropes|ExiledToTheCouch|sleeping on the couch}}, presumably because of his nitpickery regarding the colloquialism. From another room, someone else — presumably Megan — realizes that he is addressing anyone who is listening about this, and expresses annoyance that he hasn't let the matter go. Cueball merely insists that he's ''right'', indicating [[386: Duty Calls|his refusal]] to let the matter slide. His insistence on being right in this case is apparently more important to him than spooning; instead he's alone on the couch and forked.

The title text asks whether you are the annoying spoon or the sleepy spoon, which, in this context, most likely means to ask whether you are like Cueball (who is being considered annoying) or like his sleepy partner.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Close up shot of Cueball's head and neck. Cueball is facing the left and has his arm raised.]
:Cueball: Some people like to be the big spoon.

:[Cueball's face and neck are still the only elements visible. Cueball is facing the right now and has lowered his hand.]
:Cueball: Some people like to be the little spoon.

:[A big spoon sitting atop a little spoon and a little spoon sitting atop a big spoon are depicted.]
:And some brave truth-tellers point out that the metaphor makes no sense because different-sized spoons don't nest right ''either'' way. You nest ''same''-sized spoons.

:[Cueball is lying alone on a couch.]
:Cueball: ...and apparently ''we'' sleep on the couch.
:[Voice from outside the panel:]
:Voice: Why are you ''still'' going on about the spoon thing?
:Cueball: Because I'm ''right!''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Sex]]

3167: Car Size

2025-11-15T01:57:32Z

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3167
| date = November 12, 2025
| title = Car Size
| image = car_size_2x.png
| imagesize = 348x754px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'They really shouldn't let those small cars drive in traffic. I worry I'm going to kill someone if I hit one! They should have to drive on the sidewalk, safely out of the way.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR WITH AN ICBM. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic demonstrates one reason why vehicles have gotten progressively larger and more powerful, due to a type of {{w|arms race}} between drivers. When vehicles of different sizes share the road, passengers in the smaller ones will usually be more at risk in collisions, since the body construction and lower inertia generally provide less protection. So, for safety reasons, people have an incentive to buy larger cars. According to the comic, this causes a cycle of cars for increasingly selfish owners, which reaches a point of absurdity due to the cost and mass of giant cars, implying a never-ending vicious cycle.

In the "Soon" panel, Randall has extrapolated this to adding spiked armor and weaponry to large cars, and other drivers will need to outdo this to compete on the road. This scenario is reminiscent of the vehicles from the {{w|Mad Max}} franchise, and of the [https://wackyraces.fandom.com/wiki/The_Slag_Brothers Slag Brothers] from Wacky Races.

The title text views this from the opposite perspective. The owner of a large car is worried that they'll kill people in small cars, so believes that small car drivers shouldn't drive on the road at all and should be restricted to the sidewalk for their own safety. Driving the smallest cars in pedestrian spaces is obviously absurd, but follows the prior trend of separating bikes from car traffic 'for cyclists' safety' and often having them share pedestrian spaces due to 'practical' constraints. While this reduces conflicts between cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles, it results in cyclists and pedestrians becoming an inconvenience and danger to each other instead. In the car-centric view, it is not worth creating separate infrastructure for bicycles and similar small vehicles, so the title text's extension of the trend is to classify small cars as bike-like vehicles, even though this endangers both smaller vehicles and pedestrians.

Biking on sidewalks is illegal in some jurisdictions, with a greater number banning small powered vehicles like e-bikes. Where either kind of bike is allowed, laws generally require that the rider take precautions like riding at reasonable speeds when near pedestrians, alerting pedestrians when passing, and yielding to pedestrians when needed. Small, low-speed carts do routinely share some larger pedestrian spaces, such as golf courses and large airports, but even these would have trouble safely passing on regular sidewalks. Smaller single-occupant electric vehicles (mobility scooters) frequently share pedestrian spaces, but their limited speeds reduce the frequency and potential severity of impacts.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[The comic is made up of four panels, each featuring Cueball talking to Megan or vice versa, both of them surrounded by progressively larger vehicles.]
:[Panel one is labeled "100 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing with a bicycle to the left of them and an old-fashioned car to their right.]
:Cueball: It's too dangerous riding a bike with these cars around. I should get a car, too.

:[Panel two is labeled "50 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing between a small hatchback (right) and a slightly larger sedan (left).]
:Megan: Small cars are less safe in collisions with larger vehicles, so I should get a bigger one.

:[Panel three is labeled "Today." Cueball and Megan are standing between a large SUV (left) and an even larger SUV (right).]
:Cueball: Everyone has huge SUVs now. If I don't get the biggest one, I'm putting my family at risk.

:[Panel four is labeled "Soon." Cueball and Megan are standing to the left of a massive SUV with metal plates bolted to its side, spiked panels attached to the front and back, and two giant spiked clubs hanging from a rotor on top of the car. Another massive spiked club is visible coming from the left of the panel, presumably attached to a similar car. Megan has both arms on her side.]
:Megan: If I don't install more whirling spike clubs, I'll be destroyed by all the other drivers who...

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:3167: Car Size

2025-11-15T01:52:30Z

OrwellFan: I second.

It is I, broseph. [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:MY LETTERS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!!! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
tears of the kingdom be like [[Special:Contributions/128.135.204.243|128.135.204.243]] 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Did someone say {{w|Not Just Bikes}}? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A --[[Special:Contributions/62.0.12.1|62.0.12.1]] 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

On the (current) closing paragraph of the Explanation, note that (at least where I am) it is illegal to ride a bike on the footway, unless specifically signed and permitted as a shared/split pavement area. As a cyclist, I really wouldn't even want to (or to increase fellow motorists' misconceptions that they exclusively own the road) when it's a perfectly good highway, but 'people on bikes' seem to do what they like and perpetuate such misunderstandings. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:It's illegal here too, and I've added a note to that effect. As a cyclist, I do sometimes ride on sidewalks where sharing a road with cars is just too dangerous, but I try to be extremely cautious in my interactions with pedestrians. They've got the right of way; I don't. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::On top of often ill-conceived official cycle/pedestrian paths, I have a mild dislike for "cycle lanes", personally, as a sort of official "we really would prefer you to not be on the road, but we don't know what else to do with you, and it looks good when we add up the amount of 'cycle friendly' routes we have" kind of thing. With awareness (so no plugging your ears with headphones playing your 'tunez') most roads that I might use ''ought'' to be safe to cycle without badly implemented off-road/side-of-road segregation, and an overwhelming amount don't have such provision (riding to a cafe forty-plus miles away and circling round a different way back home, there's surprisingly few no-motor-vehicles opportunities to take).
::Even worse, though, is walking by a road with a 'perfectly good' clearly marked cycle lane (not particularly bad, compared to some instances, clean gutter and no bad grates) and some idiot on a bike rushes past me on the ''pavement'' (i.e. sidewalk), these days it often being an electrically-assisted, near silent bike (courtesy of Deliveroo/whoever), except that he's (assuming 'he', but it's a good chance) zooming past me, slightly ''uphill'', without pedalling at all... Technically, he's riding an electric motorcycle, and going at normal traffic speeds (and wearing a motorcycle-style helmet, so probably no point shouting at him as his ears are covered, if he hasn't also got earbuds in!) and ''definitely'' shouldn't be sharing the pavement with me (on the verge of needing a registration plate and paying insurance/tax for his e-moped).
::Of course, he'll act just as badly when he transitions back on the road, ignoring other traffic rules and barely avoiding become the jam on an asphalt smogasbord, various drivers cursing him and wishing ''all cyclists'' were off the streets. (The same drivers might well sneak through lights themselves, though "if it's quiet and nobody else is there", plus happily exceed the 20/30/40/50/60/70 mph limits on roads whenever they can, and don't have me driving ''at the limit'' in front of them when it's awkward for them to pass...)
::Not saying I'm perfect, but there are idiots out there with everything from no wheels (just two legs) up to perhaps 18-ish or whatever their juggernaut has, engines of whatever type or none, but I hope that I do my bit by being more considerate than most (except when it comes to dealing with inconsideration itself, when I internalise any joy I get about stopping others breaking the law for a few short moments) whether I'm walking, riding or driving. Though always trying to be aware of what the inevitably ever-present idiots out there will be doing. (Well, I couldn't do a thing about the time that a car pulled out in front of the bus I was a passenger in. But neither could the bus-driver, really, from what I could work out. Bus. Small car. Not a battle that I'd want to fight, on inertia alone.)
::Darn... this was not intended to be a holier-than-though rant, when I started, but I still don't regret it starting to go that way one bit... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.223|82.132.245.223]] 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::''Starting'' to go that way?! Bro, you went full Jeremy Vine caller. Might I suggest that you grow up and realise that the ones you see are 100% of the ones you see, but that doesn't mean they are 100% of the picture. There is nuance. There are rules that are worth avoiding because that allows cyclists to get out of the way quickly – crossing in a way that a pedestrian is allowed to do, at a speed that a pedestrian can't, for example. Co-exist. High horses are far less welcome than cyclists. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 17:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::The marking of a 'red bit of asphalt' ahead of the line that cars are expected to stop at, to give cyclists that little extra space when the lights go green, is useless when motorists don't just drive into that space but seem to think the 'stop line' is where the ''driver'' should position themselves (long bonnet being well over that line, half way across the pedestrian crossing or even out into the road junction).
::::I blame bad driving for that (as a cyclist of decades experience, I have to ride defensively), but bad 'biking' doesn't help.
::::I'd much rather ride across a box-junction ''with'' traffic (when the lights allow) than do the slalom of hopping on and off the pavement 'at will' and either waiting for the pedestrian crossing (''ideally'' a proper Toucan, or even Pegasus, given that you normally should only walk your bike across a Zebra or Pelican/Puffin) or disobeying those lights too, at your own risk and giving inconvenience/annoyance to both wheeled and walking traffic.
::::I have a low opinion of the way 'helpful' cycle-infrastructure has been implemented, and a low (but understandable) opinion of how ignorant people are of the bicycle position in the Highway Code and all relevent laws (see Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, and all successive legislation, which establishes a bicycle as a road vehicle, and I do not want either my rights or obligations to be eroded, either legally or through misconceptions and misunderstandings).
::::I also know that I can drive at 70mph on a motorway (where there's no lesser limit applied to it by gantry signs and/or contraflow-protection signage) and, though I may be going faster than all HGVs, and possibly someone else happy to tootle along at 60ish (which I'm happy to do, too, but not in an overtaking lane unless its due to all the lanes being congested), there'll be traffic passing me at 80, 90 or maybe more in the outside (or middle!) overtaking lane. The only time it seems motorists will ''not'' exceed the limit (not just for a particular road, having not realised the local limit, but for ''every'' UK road) is where there are Average Speed cameras. (Site-only speed-cameras just have them maybe touch the brakes then speed up again afterwards. I've even been parked by the side of a road, by a 30-sign, and seen the approaching traffic ''really'' slam the brakes on on thinking my car (red) is a speed-trap, then speed back up once the guilty reaction has worn out. Stand in the very same place, inconspicuously and without any car, and nobody does it anything like that (probably going 70+ in the 60-zone, easing off to ''eventually'' 35-40 in the 30-zone).)
::::With the widespread ignoring of such laws, I am of course not surprised that people who may-or-may-not have even passed a driving test (or cycling proficiency test) are riding bikes badly. But I don't have to like it. And (like the title-text's forcing of 'lesser vehicles' off the road), I'd rather not have it rebounding upon those of us who ''aren't'' troublemakers.
::::It ''almost'' wants me to change my mind over the ideas of having "taxed, insured and registration-plated" cycles. But that is what other people suggest, probably to 'restore' the car's supremacy of the road (short-sightedly and ignorant of road-history) by making supposed nuisance-cyclists be made accountable (while they'll be shocked if they're ever stopped from going 30 in a 20-zone, or 90 in a NSL-zone).
::::This is no kneejerk opinion. I've been a cyclist for the best part of five decades (only marginally less than I've been walking, though I was also apparently first taken out in a cycle-trailer as a week-old baby) and a motorist for well over three. I've seen cycling become diminished as an everyday past-time and 'biking' spring up as a more elitish one (MAMILs, etc). And the rise of "Kensington Tractors", in the UK, but luckily it's still not heading inexorably down the comic's story. And if I can do my bit to evangelise for general law-abiding consideration and prick the conscience of ''all'' road users (and pedestrians), without myself causing problems to others (I don't count blocking those who intend to drive faster than my on-the-limit speed, just wait until I'm going slower than that because I don't want to spin off an icy road!), I will do so without apology. It doesn't have to be like that (cycling in Belgium is a dream, better even than the Netherlands, with not too shabby experiences from other countries from Denmark through to France), and really shouldn't be like the US, where even ''walking'' often seems to be an inconvenient eccentricity that's barely tolerated.
::::Ok, more enough of that. Most people reading this will never share the roads with me, anyway, even if you might. And Jeremy Vine has nothing to do with it. (Nor any of the Jeremies 'Kyle', 'Clarkson' or 'Corbyn', in their own ways. "Jeremy Hillary Boob, Ph.D.", ''perhaps''...) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.231.193|82.132.231.193]] 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::: Translation for Yanks-- "''in England, “Kensington Tractors” (referring to expensive 4WD Land Rovers in the city, and Kensington, a posh district in London.)."'' --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty good comic [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

As someone who lives in the UK, the title text comes across as a comment on the US attitude to jaywalking - where the "solution" to vulnerable road users (pedestrians) being put in danger by careless drivers is to make it illegal for the vulnerable group to using the road at all. US people, is it likely that Randall had something like that in mind?
(Unrelated, but when posting this I got a captcha asking me to identify bicycles...) [[Special:Contributions/87.115.222.218|87.115.222.218]] 00:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think so. I think he's just joking about not caring about peds at all. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 00:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

As a German, I take offense to this comic. ONLY CARS WILL SURVIVE THE APOCALYPSE! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6|2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6]] 08:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The comic is a typical example of US-centric views. Car ownership in Europe was much lower 50 years ago than in the US. Most people were still stuck in the first panel.--[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213|2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213]] 10:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:...Because Randall is American? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:Europe has been catching up to the US. In 1995, SUV sales were only 2%, but they were 54% in 2024. This is just a little lower than the US 58%. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:the concept of people buying bigger cars is western-centric in general. [[user:lett‪herebedarklight|raeb]] 01:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For those of you who keep a eX-Twitter account, someone posted a similar take that was so hilariously self-unaware: https://x.com/jerimiahlee/status/1758883775642059265 that people started one-upping him with larger and larger vehicles in quote posts, sometimes veering in chains that ended up with fictional vehicles, but my personal favorite on one-upmanship was the one who posted an image of a Takraf strip mine excavator… https://x.com/carl___spackler/status/1759646389376852009 [[Special:Contributions/89.83.116.217|89.83.116.217]] 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Pierre Lebeaupin

I realize this is US-specific, but the comic completely ignores the fact that vehicle manufacturers are incentivized by the US Government to increase the size of the cars they design, since the CAFE standards are graduated based on vehicle size. Larger vehicles are allowed to get lower MPG, so the bigger the vehicle you design, the less you have to worry about making it efficient. In fact, it's difficult to find a small vehicle for sale in the US. [[Special:Contributions/136.226.7.177|136.226.7.177]] 04:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Renault Twingo ? So I followed the link, and this is pretty obviously a gag video. Now I know I'm not hip and with it on all the best memes, but I don't see how this helps explain the comic, or is actually relevant or noteworthy. [[Special:Contributions/104.129.192.105|104.129.192.105]] 19:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've answered your own question - it's there as a gag. And it is lampooning exactly the kind of sales talk that helps drive the trend in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:I second. I don't feel it helps explain the comic, or is actually relevant or noteworthy. [[User:OrwellFan|OrwellFan]] ([[User talk:OrwellFan|talk]]) 01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that some electric scooters can reach speeds in excess of 80 km/h, which makes them a really serious threat to pedestrians or bicycles. (but less so than to the rider, obviously)

"This would almost certainly never happen in real life"... have you never seen spiked lug nuts? (Technically, spiked lug nut *covers*.) They seem to be standard on long haul trucks around here. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9DA3:8040:684C:E1EE:D1AD:89AD|2600:1700:9DA3:8040:684C:E1EE:D1AD:89AD]] 22:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:Again, I second. [[User:OrwellFan|OrwellFan]] ([[User talk:OrwellFan|talk]]) 01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)