That's within the range you can acclimate to. They don't feel the altitude like we do.
I've made an attempt on Kilimanjaro. We ascended the first three days with porters but no guides. Our guides met us at that camp, they had come up in one day--they did it all the time, going from the surround to the summit in one day was possible and safe. For us--out of the question. The expected outcome would be unconsciousness before reaching the summit.
We have this issue with imported deer, that the local hunters will gladly reduce their population, but not to zero. And baits and other methods are prohibited. Deer were likely imported for hunting, and hunters effectively protect the species from eradication by killing off their competition (roos mostly), and permitting them to breed within limits. Not to mention trying to protect them politically.
Yup. Camel's noses should always be shot. Otherwise they creep in more and more.
Some examples that come to mind:
Look how the exception for searches at border crossings has expanded.
The use of actions against licenses for behavior that has nothing to do with the license.
The use of permits to get companies to do things only marginally related to the purpose of the permit.
The encouragement of universities to expel those accused of criminal acts--just because the punishment isn't jail should not mean the state can hand it off to a kangaroo court.
Pressuring financial companies to cut ties with disliked things. (For example, getting Steam to remove games with any whiff of incest. Either declare them illegal or don't take action against them!)
If the yellows are set correctly there should be very little of misjudging. You see yellow, if you can reasonably stop you do so. Judging only is an issue when you're going below the speed limit.
In the old days it certainly happened. Joyriding. Take someone's vehicle for a spin, put it back. Illegal but nowhere near as serious a penalty. Car security systems have gotten a lot better since then.
Sometimes an intersection simply has bad luck, draws more accidents than anything about it would cause. Put a camera there, you'll see an "improvement".
One might argue the intersection itself is the problem and should be redesigned, as well as adjoining roadways feeding into the offending intersection.
If it's consistently high something needs fixing. But accidents are random, there will always be some intersections that by pure chance have more accidents. Put cameras on those, presto, cameras "work".
Let's make a hypothetical city with 10 intersections, all absolutely identical. Watch until you have seen 20 accidents. Do you really think there will be exactly 2 accidents per intersection??
Select the intersection that gets the most accidents, declare it dangerous.
Case A: stick a camera on it. Case B: do nothing. Watch another 20 accidents.
In both cases you expect to see fewer accidents at the intersection as the original number was just chance. But if you're trying to prove cameras work...
I've made an attempt on Kilimanjaro. We ascended the first three days with porters but no guides. Our guides met us at that camp, they had come up in one day--they did it all the time, going from the surround to the summit in one day was possible and safe. For us--out of the question. The expected outcome would be unconsciousness before reaching the summit.
reply