Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 8

= April 8 =

seat-belts on buses
How come on state-run buses the passengers don't have to wear seat-belts (and indeed, none are even provided) but the driver wears a seat-belt? If there was a crash the passengers would get thrown about and injured badly, which is the whole justification for seat-belts in the first place. How can the bus company get away with that? Nonproduct3 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What's a state-run bus? Anyway, if you're talking about the U.S., this page might be of some help. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A bus run by the state instead of a private company. Nonproduct3 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you live but I presume it's the US. There are many states that have some sort of public bus system.  They normally only operate in larger cities and are not a state-wide system but they are run by the state.  In my own area in Vermont, we have the CCTA system which operates in and around Burlington, Vermont.  Boston has the MBTA, etc.  Dismas |(talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the UK (not what you are talking about, of course), all buses and coaches are run by private companies, and the local buses do not provide seat belts, presumably because there is less chance of an accident when going only 30mph in a built-up area (even though it is actually law for every passenger in a vehicle to have a seatbelt on), but the intercity coaches do have seatbelts, as they are travelling at 60mph on motorways. Having said that, trains don't have them, either. Ironically, we have seat belts on planes, which is fairly pointless, because if it crashes, the seat belt will not save you. You always get told to put your seat belt on while the aircraft is going through turbulence, as if they think all the passengers will be bouncing around the cabin. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 11:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been through fairly severe turbulence a time or two, and the seat belts are definitely important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. It just means you can't go to the toilet for a short while after all the free beer. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, You Should Buckle Your Seatbelt On An Airplane says: "Every year, about 58 people in the U.S. are injured by turbulence while not wearing seatbelts". Many crashes have no survivors but in some crashes a seatbelt can make a difference for some passengers. Here is a guy claiming seatbelts are pointless but he is the boss of a low-cost airline arguing that you shouldn't require seats either. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what airline you've been flying on KageTora but every one that I've seen charges (quite a bit) for beer. Dismas |(talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On Long-haul flights, food and drinks are free. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 13:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the UK, coaches have seatbelts but busses don't and I believe this is because they are multi-drop vehicles.--Ykraps (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To make sure my mental translation is correct, a British coach is essentially the same as a bus but it just goes for longer distances and doesn't have any standing passengers? Dismas |(talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And they tend to be more luxurious: the seats are plusher and recline, you get your own personal light and cool air blower (whoopee!)--Ykraps (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * School and intercity buses utilize the concept of compartmentalization to reduce injury in case of an accident rather than seatbelts. By placing the seats very close together and making the seats quite tall, a passenger's entire body will press against the seat in front of them. The driver's seat has nothing in front of him but glass so a seatbelt is required to keep him from leaving the vehicle in case of an accident. Seatbelts are not used along with compartmentalization because the seatbelts would require a rigid seat while compartmentalization requires a bendable seat to absorb the kinetic energy of the passengers behind the seat. If every single rider was to always be wearing a 3 or 4 point seatbelt, seatbelts might be safer, but the addition of seatbelts would make those who do not wear them less safe. Also, seatbelts cost around $15,000 more to add to a bus and require space which would reduce the number of seats available on a bus. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Figures show coaches and buses remain the safest form of road travel in the UK, accounting for 17 deaths per one billion passenger kilometres travelled, compared to 37 for cars and 1,500 for motorcycles. Nine people were killed in coaches and buses in 2005, compared to 1,675 in cars." Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The last sentence is quite irrelevant, since apparently far more passenger km's are traveled in cars. The 17 fatalities versus 37 per billion passenger km's is relevant.  However, that 37 must include drunk drivers, drivers on drugs, drivers who use cell phones ("mobiles") while driving and drivers with medical problems.  If you exclude those, I bet the fatality rate for safe car drivers is lower than buses.  (Of course, safe bus drivers would be nice, too, but presumably you aren't going to ask your bus driver to pass a urine test before you get on the bus.)   So, my take on all this is that seat belts on buses may indeed be warranted. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You forgot to post your sources, I would really like to see these sources of yours that show casualty numbers are lower among "safe car drivers" than buses. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't list a number, but merely pointed out that the numbers listed lumped all drivers together, rather than separating good drivers from bad drivers, my source for that is the same as Alansplodge's. Something else I should add, since they looked at fatalities per total distance traveled, is that bus travel frequently requires more distance for a given trip, as buses rarely travel directly from your desired origin to your desired designation, thus increasing the risk.  Also, there's some danger in walking to and waiting at the bus stop, not to mention being run over by your bus, although those risks don't involve seat belts.  So, any conclusion that "buses are safer than cars" is highly questionable.  (Buses also pose a risk to car drivers, but I'm not sure how that would fit in.) StuRat (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Much as I hate to admit it, User:StuRat has a point as Department of Transport - National Travel Survey: 2012 (p. 5 of 25) shows that car or van travel (either as a driver or passenger) accounts for 78% of the distance travelled in the UK, whereas buses only account for 5%. Somebody who is clever at arithmatic and has time on their hands can work out exactly how much safer that makes car travel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stu's point is only apt insofar as he's pointing out some stats were scaled, and some were not. The standard way for assessing transportation safety is to scale by passenger mile. Ignoring drunk drivers is just silly, they cause a large amount of deaths. If you get killed by a drunk driver, you're still dead, right? By the standard measure, buses are indeed safer. By total injury, buses are also safer. Sure, you can slice stats in other ways, but there's a reason why the experts at NHTSA and similar agencies around the world use passenger-mile scaling- it's the sensible thing to do. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your chances of getting in an accident are far higher than the average if you drive drunk or impaired in any of the ways I listed. Therefore, your chances are much better than average, if you don't do those things.  (Yes, another drunk driver could still cause you to get into an accident, but he could also cause a bus to get into an accident, so that doesn't much affect the relative safety of the two.) StuRat (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delivery drivers get in and out of their vehicles more frequently than other drivers, so are more likely to be run over by another vehicle. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk
What's the point of the "travel" link that goes off wikipedia to some other site? Why is it on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangeard (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there as a result of this discussion. Questions such as "What are some good things to see in Bratislava?" or "How can I get from Wedmore to Climping on public transport?" are sometimes asked and answered here; but it may be thought that they're more appropriate for Wikivoyage's Tourist Office, and the site is, after all, a Wikimedia project just as we are. Deor (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Woman eating pizza
In America is it normal for a woman to order a full-sized pizza for herself only and eat it all in one sitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.84.26.87 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "full sized." Most restaurants have personal pizzas that are usually 6 to 8 inches (or 15 to 20 cm) across, a small about 12 inches (30 cm) across, a medium about 18 inches (46 cm) across, and larger sizes that are at least a couple of inches wider than the medium.
 * It is normal to eat a whole personal pizza by yourself in one sitting. It would not be unusual for someone to eat a small by oneself, especially if it was with nothing else.  It is uncommon for anyone to eat a whole medium or large pizza by themselves.  I'm a man, my height is 6 feet and 2 inches (188 cm), and my weight is 220 pounds (100 kg) -- and the only way I can eat more than half a medium pizza is if I do a lot of work without food before eating and do not eat anything else for the rest of the day.
 * However, it is common in America for someone to order a pizza, eat some of it, and store the rest in their refrigerator for another meal. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Define "normal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me google that for you. Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know there was an international standard for pizza consumption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Man or woman, no. But that does rest on your definition of a full-sized pizza. Pizzas can be ordered in various sizes by diameter, Personal- 15cm(650kcal), Small-25cm, Medium-30cm(2000kcal), Large-35cm(2900kcal), Extra Large -40cm. A large pizza would normally be split between two adults although if it is ordered as a late night snack rather than a dinner meal it may be split between 3 or 4. A personal pizza is only large enough for one and even then could leave an adult hungry. A small pizza could be finished by an adult with a large appetite. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In what bizarre, exotic country do you live that a twelve inch diameter pizza is a "medium"? In the US our pizzas (which are exceptional, of course) come in small: 16", large 18", and jumbo 32" diameters. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just measured out the size of a 16" pizza on my desk; it looks like a good meal for a family of three. If this is what Americans think of as "small" I think we can understand why obesity is on the rise! RomanSpa (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Obesity is on the rise worldwide, it can hardly be blamed on one American invention. The pizza place my parents patronize has 14" small and 18" large pizzas, and they always get two pizzas, ten slices in one sitting and save the rest for the toaster oven. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I worked retail ( and would pull in more carts with a rope than the cart-pushing machine could do without breaking down ), a 12" microwavable pizza was something I'd fold in half and eat as a regular-sized sandwich. I almost get the impression that America is about the only place large enough that a single pie could feed four to eight people.  This German menu calls their largest size "American," and I'd have to buy at least two if I was covering dinner for my Dungeons & Dragons group. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was about America which I thought meant USA so I used the American PizzaHut.com for sizes and calories - . 70.50.122.38 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pizza Hut and Domino's are to manager-owned pizzerias as McDonald's is to a nice burger joint. A McDonald's "hamburger" is 1.6 ounces (before cooking) of patty; 8 ounces is normal for respectable establishments with table service. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As others have commented above the answer will depend upon the person and the pizza, and what you cosider "normal" (middle quintile? <90 percentile? within 2 sd of mean?). To give you an idea of average consumption, though: "Among consumers of pizza [in US], the mean energy intake obtained from pizza was 538 kilocalories for children and 744 kilocalories for adults... The amount of energy contained in a slice of cheese pizza (1/8th of a medium, all crust types) ranged from approximately 220-370 kilocalories." That is,  adults on average consumed the rough equivalent of 2-4 slices of a medium cheese pizza at a sitting. The Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies may have more details. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My own OR, but women usually eat one or two (never three) slices of pizza, while men will eat six slices at one sitting if they can get it, and all eight slices is not unheard of. Pizza for men is like chocolate for women. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The data cited above does not support the OR (there is some gender difference, but nowhere close to that). Beware of falling for or propagating gender stereotypes. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm reminded of this Yogi Berra attribution: "Would you like your pizza cut into 4 slices or 8?" -- "Better make it 4. I don't think I can eat 8." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew a waitress who told his customers, "I could tell you guys were hungry, so I cut you eight slices, rather than six." I was not aware that was an old joke. I am not sure how reporting my observations amounts to "perpetuating" a gender stereotypes. I don't know if I'm being told I'm delusional, or to hold my tongue for the good of the cause. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful Yogi ever actually said that, it just sounds like something he "might" say. He has often been attributed for quips that weren't his, hence his comment, "I never said half the things I said." As for your being lectured about gender stereotypes, that's too funny for words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * MY OR is that it will depend on the size of the stomach and how hungry you are. It will also depend on the pizza. For example Pizza Hut makes a "cracker crust" style which can go pretty fast. The same might not be said for Chicago-style deep-dish pizza. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There is pizza with really thin dough so you can easily eat a diameter of 40 cm when hungry (from a German perspective, the typical "Italian" pizza), and there is pizza where one or two slices leave you full. Also depends on the amount and type of topping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:69:CE25:C000:226:BBFF:FE17:86D5 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anecdote alert: My brother went to Greece with three friends and one day they wanted a pizza, so they went to a pizzeria and ordered one each. The waiter said, astounded, "One EACH? Are you sure?", they replied, "Yes." The pizzas came a few minutes later, and my brother and his friends had to sit at four separate tables, because they were so big. None of them finished them. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I'm going to Greece for my next vacation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Information on a Metronome's Manufacturer
I found your article on metronomes quite fascinating. Having recently purchased an old metronome my question is about it's possible manufacturer. An oval brass plate on it's front contains the initials "H L", a small crown underneath the letters, and the words "Improved Maelzel, Patent Applied For" is the only information contained. Any information you can share as to when and where it may have been made and by whom would be greatly appreciated.

Sincere thanks, E Klodzen 184.1.34.87 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Maelzel is the name of the manufacturer. If he made it himself, that would put it somewhere in the decades around 1800, so you'd have quite an antique.  If that wording is in English, then that's a little suspicious, although I suppose he might have made some for English-speaking nations.  StuRat (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Several other manufacturers also use Maelzel's name on their plaque (see this website) and the "Improved Maelzel" could mean that the manufacturer is claiming to have improved upon Maelzel's design. Would help if op could take photographs of the metronome they own and upload it online somewhere. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's someone auctioning an "HL Wind-Up Wood Cased Metronome P-1899"; but the description unfortunately contains no further information, and the photo doesn't show the manufacturer's plaque. Deor (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a photo here of a "vintage HL metronome", which sold for $25. The photo is grainy and small, and cannot be enlarged.  Above it is a "Seth Thomas metronome", so HL seems to suggest the name of the maker, but my searches for info on HL produced only this hit.  Here are some older manufacturers and their plaques, including Seth Thomas.  No mention of HL. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

bread
Is there anywhere I can buy a loaf of bread that doesnt have the crusts or the nasty burned bits at both ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estoy Loca (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We have Crustless bread which doesn't have many specific examples of products and where to buy them. Just google "crustless bread" for lots more. Staecker (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * However, note that the crust keeps the rest from getting stale. So, you can just buy regular bread, cut the crusts off each slice as you eat it, then toss those and the unwanted ends to the birds. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whence hails the OP that she gets bread with burnt ends? In our family get-togethers one has to ask Grandfather's permission to eat the nose.  I can't think of ever having seen such burnt bread for sale in bakeries or stores of all ethnic persuasion, including plain old white-bread stores. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Such bread is available in Austria, see for example.  It is marketed as "sandwich bread" because all slices, including the ones at the end, can be used to make sandwiches. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Scottish standard plain loaf meets your requirements. RomanSpa (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, neither the example shown by VW nor by RS are crustless at least from the pictures shown. VW's example seems to exclude the crust at the top and bottom of the loaf, but still has the crust on all four sides of each slice. RS's example excludes the crust on 2 sides of the slice, but has it on the other 2 sides. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct, and I was wrong. The plain loaf has no crusts on the sides, nor has it any at the ends, but it does have crusts at the top and bottom. I was having a momentary brain-storm; my apologies. RomanSpa (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)