h a l f b a k e r yAlas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Most people seem to have a common-sense understanding of the etiquette for revolving doors, but some people wanting to go past you seem to think they're doing you a favor by waiting for you and standing in your path while you are passing through. Either that, or they'll follow the door further than
necessary and obstruct someone who is about to use it.
Painting ingress and egress lanes will make explicit the fact that you can pretty much walk straight and do not have to follow the door for more than about 30-45 degrees of movement.
Debunking the Coriolis effect on toilets, etc.
http://www.ems.psu....ad/BadCoriolis.html
Info on the misconception (which is unrelated to my idea) waugsqueke mentions. [Dewey, Jul 10 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
OK, I realize this is a pretty lame idea, but it's really posted as an excuse to ask those from countries who drive on the, um, "other" side of the road whether their doors revolve in the opposite direction. I.e., here in the USA, all doors I have ever seen revolve counter-clockwise (bird's-eye view) to allow for the natural tendency of pedestrians to pass each other on the right side, following driving habits. So do your doors in the UK, or wherever, revolve clockwise as would seem logical? |
|
| |
UK doors revolve counter-clockwise, as US doors. Somehow we can manage to treat revolving doors differently from roundabouts, even without lane markings. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke]: my idea and annotation have nothing to do with the spin of the earth, more to do with what I assume would be a cultural tendency for pedestrians in a country to pass each other on the same side as they would if they were in cars. Actually, you surprise me by saying the toilet and drain thing is a misconception. Off to research. |
|
| |
[angel]: thanks. But all things being equal, you would pass someone on the sidewalk on the left, no? |
|
| |
[PeterSealy]: rope lanes seem a little bit too dictatorial. I'm trying to encourage & educate, rather than force, but I'll give you the Baked. |
|
| |
waugsqueke seems to be correct about drainage. See link. <sigh>That's what I get for listening to my high school teachers.</sigh> |
|
| |
This whole "in which direction will culture be spinning as it's circling the drain" thing is beside the point. The question still remains...do homo sapians, as a species, "tend to prefer" passing on a particular side, or does environment set the preference? If the former, we can simply stop allowing the ones who can't handle revolving doors to reproduce and...all these "chute" ideas become moot. |
|
| |
The Coriolis effect only affects relatively large bodies of air or water. The direction of plug-hole-draining water is determined by the design of the fitting and its degree of non-level-ness.
As for the passing on the sidewalk thing, there's no convention here; one tends to weave around as necessary to make best progress. Where the path is narrow, the convention is to walk on the side facing oncoming traffic, but for two lanes on the same path, anarchy fairly reigns. |
|
| |
In most North European countries passing pedestrians keep the oncoming individual to the left as a signal that the encounter is peaceful. To pass with the person on the right would mean presenting the sword arm toward the person--essentially a threat behavior. Interestingly, in many African countries (and Borneo) the rule is reversed: where spears are the primary weapon, the thrust is to the left with the right hand used to power the stroke and the left hand for guidance--so people habitually keep oncoming pedestrians to their right. |
|
| |
Find all this plausible? I just made it up. ; ) |
|
| |
I like it, Dog Ed. Did you know that in the House of Commons, there's a red line in front of the front-benches, which is exactly the distance that one MP wouldn't be able to get the guy on the other side with his sword? That's actually true. I love watching the governments of random East Asian countries get into big fights on telly. If only they followed our great English example... |
|
| |
Which meant they were morons, not that the US does that. Even old toilets, <Not OLD toilets...> only used six or so, and the newer ones use two or three. |
|
| |
I've seen low water toilets, but they were poorly designed. No water is saved when you have to flush three times to clear the bowl. |
|
| |
The dual-flush thing has always seemed a good idea to me, sometimes you need more water than others. |
|
| |