For me, that would only make sense if Owens literally ‘accused’ her of being a man, not a trans woman. The other case outlined in the text then would be a distinctly different case:
Brigitte Macron was previously awarded £6,750 in damages last year after two other far-right influencers falsely accused her of being a transgender woman.
You mean https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49542266 ?
(Your link opens in a Browser, mine opens in the Lemmy client)
Of course, yes.
From the legal pov that simply does not matter at all.
There is no such scenario for digital distribution.
The whole point it that content has been consumed without purchasing a proper licence.
The damage is calculaded like this, because those who’ve used the streaming service to watch a movie would have needed to purchase some form of a licence to do so legally. It’s not a question of whether they would have had the money or the willing to do so. It’s the same like someone would sneak into a cinema and watch a movie. They usually would be required to purchase a ticket to do so. The damage is not a question of whether they would have had the money for that or wouldn’t have went to the cinema if purchasing a ticket was necessary.
I think, you don’t know how fucked up the UK railway system is.
Seems to me you can’t solve for case 2 here since in this case m2 and m1 are switched.
No, for both cases, body “1” is the biker and body “2” is the car.
The force of the impact does not depend on the mass, I agree,
This is just for the sake if simplicity. The force does in general depend on both masses, not just the mass of the car. Yet, the biker has only ~ 5 - 10 % of the mass of the car and thus, their mass can be neglected and the simplfied solution (m_1 / m_2 -> 0) doesn’t include masses anymore
but the energy to dissipate (in the cyclist body) is much higher. I’m just saying that inertia plays a role as it contribute to the energy necessary to stop either vehicule.
Exactly. This part is included in the coefficient k. Yet, for the simplified solution, the biker doesn’t stop the car in any form.
Suppose a completely plastic impact, k=0: The biker would be stopped to zero velocity in case 1, and in case 2 they would be accelerated to the velocity of the car. Here the magnitude of the force/acceleration doesn’t depend on whether the bike did move or the car did move.
For the elastic case, k=1, car and bike are treated as billard balls: For case 1, the biker moves with the same velocity as before, but in opposite direction. For the other case, the biker would move in opposite direction, but with the double velocity as in case 1. Thus, here, the force causing the acceleration must also be twice.
So as long as the impact is not purely plastic, it does matter whether the biker hits the car (case 1) or the car hits the biker (case 2).
Yet under some circumstances they (but not their families) can be a legitimate target.
@Alerian@sh.itjust.works
Suppose the impact coefficient k is similar, it does make a difference whether a bike crashes into a standing car (case 1) or a car crashes into a standing biker (case 2).
As this one is capable of reaching 45 km/h it’s a “Moped”, not a “Mofa”.
But maybe S-Pedelecs are treated like normal bicycles in the rest of Europe?
No, it’s exactly like you’ve described the situation in Norway.
And such an s-pedelec, by law, is no bicicle and thus, generally not allowed on dedicated bike lanes. So what’s your point?
(Additionally, by e-bike they probably mean a 25 km/h limited pedelec, which is called E-Bike in German law.)
Yes, exactly this is what makes e-bikes so unpredictable in traffic. While a normal biker is unlikely to bing 350 W onto the street every time they start, it’s a piece of cake with an e-bike. Additionally, as e-bikes legally count as regular bikes, they are subject to the same slack safety standards and e-bike manufacturers regularly have been criticised e.g. by Stiftung Warentest for failing components.
In addition, in 1965 mofas where exempted from requiring a drivers licence. Before, as of 1960, a mofa was considedered a moped and did require a proper class 5 (today: class AM) drivers license.
In many surveys on bike usage and bike friendlyness, Amsterdam is a strong second after Copenhagen.
Me pedalling doesn’t bring any safety improvement.
It does, as stopping your bike from 25 km/h will occur more often if no pedaling is required and thus, the brakes (or the rim) may overheat. Many pedelecs (“E-Bikes”) do still have rim brakes or their disc brakes have smaller dimensions than required for proper e-bike with throttle.
The regulation is more ar less only intended for high speed tracks ("Radschnellwege") where it is sometimes suitable to allow 45 km/h fast bikes or bike streets (“Fahrradstraßen”) where the s-pelelecs then would have to obey to the 30 km/h limit, not for each and every small narrow bike lane.
Yes. But unlike in Sweden, where “klass II mopeds” don’t need an insurance nor a drivig permit , in Germany they do in general (‘mofa test certificate’, “Mofa-Prüfbescheinigung”, i.e. you need to take 6×90 minutes theory lessons and a 90 minute driving lesson and pass a theoretical test, not a practical test like for a usual driving licence/permit). Only normal pedelecs (those with 25 km/h limit, not s-pedelecs) are exempt and are treated as usual bikes and thus, don’t need any insurance nor driving permit.
Like in Sweden, S-pedelecs in Germany are treated equal to Mopeds (klass I moped) and thus, require the AM drivers licence and an insurance.
If I get the reply from @melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone right, the medium doesn’t matter. As in this scenario, you are telling the fake service yourself the secret code.