h a l f b a k e r yA hive of inactivity
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,
|
|
|
Bike lanes where the bikers ride in the same direction as
the cars allows them to be hit from behind without
warning. Bikes riding against the traffic can see a car
coming and not die.
I'd be curious to see what percentage of bike deaths are
caused by riders being rear ended. I'd think many
if not
most of those could be avoided by the rider having a
second or two to swerve out of the way by having the
bike riders facing and seeing the cars.
I did a quick search of this and boy oh boy are people
angry
at any biker who would do this. Like, they deserve to
die,
they're worse than Hitler hatred. So why?
About the only reason I can see to pretend a bike is just
a
really slow, really light car so they should go in the same
direction is that at night the lights could blind each other
but you could say that about cars going in the opposite
direction.
Now please, don't all bun this at once, I don't want the
internet to get overloaded and crash. And please don't
use words like "hero" and "genius" in your annotations.
Let's just stick to the subject.
a1s link again it's so good.
https://www.vox.com...hs-happen-in-the-us
The prosecution rests. [doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021]
Exhibit A
https://goo.gl/maps/wCYM6NBo6SmhGGQv7
I cycled along this cycle lane once ever in my life, it was so terrifying that I vowed never to do so again. Cycling in the vehicle lane with the traffic was much safer. [pocmloc, Sep 30 2021]
Exhibit B
https://www.google....!14m1!1BCgIgARICCAI
This is Foothill Expressway, the death road that inspired this. Cars are typically going abut 60 miles per hour. [doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021]
[link]
|
| |
Okay, like I suspected, 40% of bike deaths are from being
rear ended. (thank you a1, I will use the word hero for
that post) Here's what the article says about why bikes
need to accept that number and ride in the direction of
traffic. My favorite is the first one: |
|
| |
1- People backing out of driveways don't expect bikes to
be going the other way because bikes (currently) ride in
the direction of traffic. So that's one down. |
|
| |
2 - Drivers can repond quickly and appropriately. (Except
for all the bike riders they kill when they rear end them.)
Driving against traffic reduces reaction time. Great, if it's
the bikes hitting the cars, but the vast majority of deaths
are cars rear ending bikes. So that's two down. |
|
| |
3- It's basic physics. (already commented on in #2) |
|
| |
4- Traffic lights are set up for this. This is the only reason
with a bit of legitimacy. So put in lights for the bikes. My
town has all sorts of pedestrian crossing lights, bike
crossing lights, dog crossing lights, crazy cat lady crossing
lights. |
|
| |
5- And the worst, "It's the law." Won't even bother
commenting on that one. Ok, I will. "A car is considered a
vehicle under the law." So? Now how about we admit
there's some difference between a 20 pound bike and a 3
ton dump truck? |
|
| |
And for the link, how to not get hit by a car, 1 example of
riding the wrong way, 7 showing people riding with the
traffic. |
|
| |
I wasn't sure about this till I saw the reasons we're still
killing bike riders by rear ending them with this dumb
rule that was clearly not though out. |
|
| |
Bikes need to ride so they can see the cars coming at
them. |
|
| |
Hmm, Palo Alto, where I live. Interesting. Home of the
craziest, most obnoxious bike riders on Earth. |
|
| |
I think you're missing the fact that all those rear end
deaths are because the driver veered into the bike lane
regardless of what direction they were going. |
|
| |
So what happens if you add an anti collision system where
the bike actually SEES the car about to him? This doesn't
happen in the death scenario that kills most bike riders.
The bike rider gets hit before he knows what's happening.
So let's just assume the rider can have eyes put on the
back of his head. Not a rear view mirror, wide range
binocular vision with an entire brain devoted to collision
avoidance. What percentage of rear end collisions could
be avoided if you doubled the number of humans involved
in the collision avoidance process? |
|
| |
The single most important collision avoidance system is a
human in charge of the process. Seeing the other vehicle,
tracking it, estimating closing time and trajectory and
creating and initiating a collision avoidance vector. I'm
talking about doubling the number of systems involved
doing those jobs. |
|
| |
a1 that was a good link, I definitely didn't take it down. |
|
| |
That was what I commented on, 1 example was from
behind, 7 were from riding on the right side of the road. |
|
| |
But seriously, I didn't expect to get any buns for this but I'm
seeing more pros than cons with this idea. |
|
| |
Here’s a thought, if you substituted pedestrians for
bikes would you want them facing towards or away
from oncoming traffic? |
|
| |
The general consensus for walking is towards oncoming
traffic.
I think it all depends on HOW separated the bike is from the
vehicle traffic; ie. "in" the road (no cycleway), just a painted
cycleway (more-or-less on the road with the traffic),
raised/separated cycleway (curb or other "change in height").
Some cycleways I've seen are between the footpath & the
"parking lane"; which is good in some ways but terrible in
others. |
|
| |
//an entire brain devoted to collision avoidance// |
|
| |
Not human, obviously, and not packing guns, but a bright flash
of light towards the driver, and an audible alarm for the rider,
should be achievable. |
|
| |
So you want bikes to do what I always do when walking on
country lanes & roads absent of a pavement or footpath,
walk
against the direction of traffic so I have a chance to
actually
see any bugger coming my way who appears to have missed
that I'm there & might hit me so I can jump in the ditch? |
|
| |
As a pedestrian it's far better to be able to see approaching
cars in the lane you are using than have them come at you
from behind & a bicycle is nearer pedestrian than a car. |
|
| |
Sorry to the nay-sayers but it sort of makes makes sense to
me. |
|
| |
Erm? this sort of works, if (& only if) the cyclist have their
own lane. |
|
| |
A cyclist needs more space than a
pedestrian & I wouldn't want to be in a same
lane situation going the other way to cars. |
|
| |
So now I see a big argument against it .. what makes sense
when they have a lane to themselves
doesn't when they don't. |
|
| |
If you constantly switch the direction they should be
going
between the two situations (cycle lane / no cycle lane)
you'll provide a frequent cause for confusion in them & in
drivers & that will breed accidents that wouldn't
have otherwise happened so that's a really bad idea .. going
against traffic on most roads (outside of towns with their
own cycle lanes) is also a really bad idea so choosing
against
traffic as the new default isn't a good idea at all. |
|
| |
Probably
best to
leave it as it is. |
|
| |
Welcome me back nay-sayers. |
|
| |
I can see a logical development of this. |
|
| |
Trucks drive in one direction.
cars travel opposite to trucks
mopeds and electric bikes opposite to cars
push-bikes opposite to mopeds
scooters opposite to push-bikes
Prams and pushchairs and wheelchairs opposite to scooters
Joggers and fast walkers opposite to prams, pushchairs and scooters
Slow walkers opposite to fast walkers and joggers
People crawling, sliding on their arses, or rolling opposite to slow walkers. |
|
| |
Only need nine contra-flowing lanes in each direction. |
|
| |
//That's not a fact. All we know is the bikes were
rear ended. That doesn't necessarily mean the
driver veered into the bike lane. Your solution of
having everyone drive into traffic to avoid rear
enders doesn't make sense if driving into traffic is
more dangerous. Yay, rear enders are down to
zero, but casualties are up 370%.// |
|
| |
LOL, up 370%? Not 369% How about 371%? That
might sound more like you didn't just make it up
out of thin air. |
|
| |
You'll need to have access to exactly how those
rear end accidents occurred. One of two ways, the
bike turned in front of the car, (in which case it
probably would be categorized as the bike cutting
off the car) or the car turned into the bike lane.
Now how many of those accidents could have been
avoided had the biker seen the car coming so they
could swerve out of the way. |
|
| |
I really am beginning to see how a poorly thought
out procedure comes to being and garners support.
This is getting interesting. 143.54 percent more
interesting than I had expected. |
|
| |
I'd pick the most dangerous road that has long
stretches with few traffic lights and heavy bike
traffic and flip it. The street by where I live where
I'm always having to watch out for bikes is Foothill
Expressway. It's perfect for this trial. |
|
| |
It's depressing to think that this is how smart motorways
happened in the UK [doc], no one stopped to ask 'why did
we
do it that way before?' or think it through
it seems,
not
even to the degree I did with this idea, they didn't
even
roll it out in a test area first that I know of, just
went ahead
& did it to save money on new lanes. |
|
| |
Okay, then THEY made it up out of thin air. |
|
| |
Did they show any videos of how these rear end collisions
occurred and then create a model of what percentage of
these suprise rear endings could have been avoided if the
main element of their danger, the suprise was removed? |
|
| |
The specificity of the number shows that it's bs. |
|
| |
The danger of a rear end colllision of the element of
suprise, you and the people with the phony numbers are
saying that removing that element would cause more
crashes because of the increased closing rate. The bike
might have to swerve what, 3 4 feet in half a second to
avoid the car? The car isn't suddenly swerving, it's drifting
into the bike lane. So how much time would that give a
bike rider to execute that half second move? 5 seconds? 10? |
|
| |
Let's throw a little bit more critical thinking at this before
just saying "I saw it on the internet so it must be true.". |
|
| |
Which means absolutely nothing if you don't see the car
coming. There may be other reasons to not do
this but the internet's: "closing time reduction vs actually
seeing the car coming" is bunk. |
|
| |
I also noted that your model needed heavy fog to work.
Visibility is typically about a mile, not 100 feet. We
almost never get fog in Palo Alto. On the rear occasion
that we do, it makes the news. |
|
| |
The link showing what inspired this it Foothill expressway. I
made the mistake of riding a bike here once. Every time a
car blasts by you feel the wind hit you like a bomb. The
sound of an approaching car that's going to miss you by 3
feet vs one that's going to hit you is identical. They veer
into the bike lane (and they do) your course of action is to
die. |
|
| |
Yeah I hadn't even really considered the reaction time cut
from the bicycles speed [limp], a significant difference to a
pedestrian situation that. |
|
| |
And seeing a car a mile away isn't helpful,
it's only possible to make a judgement that they won't
adjust
course
to avoid you when they're
much much closer than that, you already had your fun &
made your point [doc], stop flip flopping between gotcha!
&
more daft stuff so you can do another gotcha later ;p |
|
| |
I am of
course assuming the whole idea was 'idiot' bait? you already
got your catch including me (initially at least) so move on :) |
|
| |
//your fun & made your point [doc], stop flip flopping
between gotcha! & more daft stuff so you can do another
gotcha later ;p// |
|
| |
Insults in lieu of logical arguments are a sure sign of panic.
Like when you're boxing and the guy's against the ropes and
he
tries to punch you in the nuts. You know you've got him. |
|
| |
//Insults in lieu of logical argument// |
|
| |
Characterising a compliment as an insult is a sure sign the
speaker is still trying to wrongfoot you or that you made a
mistake & assumed wrongly that they were someone clever
making a humorous attempt to trick you into making a fool
of
yourself for fun. |
|
| |
[Wonders which of those it is?] |
|
| |
(Original post above was: "Do tell".) |
|
| |
Insults in lieu of logical arguments are a sure sign of panic. |
|
| |
(Then he said "Do tell." I was devastated, I had no
comeback. It was brilliant and I didn't know what to do. I
cried at first, hid under the bed but the pain woudln't go
away. Words like nuclear missiles. "Do tell." They still haunt
me till this day.) |
|
| |
Wait, did I write that or just think it? |
|
| |
Another sign the debater is out of ammo is when they go ad
hominem. |
|
| |
By the way, okay to debate here, don't take it seriously. If I
thought anybody here was stupid I woudn't bother. I
appreciate the criticism. I love debate. |
|
| |
I also love boxing, but it has to be consensual. |
|
| |
Let me try the iron man argument, where I make your
point. (the opposite of a straw man argument) |
|
| |
So here's the main point of contention: from your side as I
see it, it's better to have an extra second or two for the car
driver to correct his drift into the bike lane and keep the
biker who's about to get hit blind. Would that accurately
characterize your position? |
|
| |
So you're honestly telling me you think this
is a good idea? |
|
| |
Even after going ahead & dropping a line like this right
into one of your
annos? |
|
| |
//beginning to see how a poorly thought out procedure
comes to being and garners support// |
|
| |
I took that (having realised just how silly this idea is) to be
a deliberate (right in your face) nod & a wink or a Freudian
slip. |
|
| |
Yes, I'm very stupid, will stipulate. Enjoy your victory. Well
played. |
|
| |
So back to the iron man argument, does that correctly
summarize your position? I see that the scientific numbers,
basic physics arguments etc have been dropped. The core
information needed by both sides at this point is actual rear
end collision information. I can't make a decision without
these, can you? |
|
| |
Without seeing some very specific cases of cars rear ending
bikes and evaluating if the bike seeing the car coming
would have prevented the collision I can't conclusively say,
but the idea that the bike seeing the car coming doesn't do
anything to help seems a bit... well, if it's true I'd be
suprised, leave it at that. |
|
| |
Oh get a grip [doc] I just went out of my way to explain what
you're calling an insult was meant as a compliment. |
|
| |
If you now tell me the premise it was made on
was
flawed that does negate the compliment but not by my
intent. |
|
| |
"Get a grip is insulting" and further avoiding the subject and
changing to an entirely new one so I'll
take that as you tapping out. |
|
| |
You made some good points. Thank you for an interesting
discussion. |
|
| |
Wish I could say the same, you've been everything you
accused me of (though it was fun until you started with that)
& I can't be bothered so I'll just toddle on. |
|
| |
(Waves back) Have a good rest of your day. |
|
| |
I assume by ripe you mean awesome, so sorry I
made you so angry, have a nice day. |
|
| |
Yea, went down the list commenting on each assertion one
by one. I'll re-post. |
|
| |
By the way, just so nobody else gets their feelings hurt,
(not you a1, I think you're fine with being on the opposite
side of this argument without taking it seriously, which is
where I am as well) but for anybody who might think this
stuff is important enough to get emotional about WHO
CARES?!? |
|
| |
It's interesting to look at stuff, disagree and discuss. If I'm
wrong, so what? Questioning orthodoxy can be interesting. |
|
| |
Anyway, here's my view on the first article. |
|
| |
1- People backing out of driveways don't expect bikes
to be going the other way because bikes (currently) ride in
the direction of traffic. So that's one down. |
|
| |
2 - Drivers can repond quickly and appropriately.
(Except for all the bike riders they kill when they rear end
them.) Driving against traffic reduces reaction time. Great,
if it's the bikes hitting the cars, but the vast majority of
deaths are cars rear ending bikes. So that's two down. |
|
| |
3- It's basic physics. (already commented on in #2) |
|
| |
4- Traffic lights are set up for this. This is the only
reason with a bit of legitimacy. So put in lights for the
bikes. My town has all sorts of pedestrian crossing lights,
bike crossing lights, dog crossing lights, crazy cat lady
crossing lights. |
|
| |
5- And the worst, "It's the law." Won't even bother
commenting on that one. Ok, I will. "A car is considered a
vehicle under the law." So? Now how about we admit there's
some difference between a 20 pound bike and a 3 ton dump
truck? |
|
| |
Just a thought about debate, anger, emotion etc. |
|
| |
If you're debating a flat Earther, would you get mad? I
wouldn't. If you get mad at somebody you disagree with,
isn't that a bit of a red flag? Maybe you're doubting yourself
which can be uncomfortable so here's what I do. |
|
| |
"Oh, I'm wrong? Great, I just got smarter and good for me
for not being emotionally married to a particular view." |
|
| |
I'll start with this one by repeating what I said (basically)
"There may be other reasons for this to not work but the
having one of the two drivers being blind so you get a bit
more time for ONLY ONE of the drivers to correct sounds
like bunk to me." |
|
| |
Anyway, semi interesting subject. Might be interesting to
try this on Foothill expressway. |
|
| |
Try this for size 'having both of those people seeing the
oncoming collision means they both try to zig or zag, all
else
being equal you have a 50% chance they'll both dodge the
same way & the cyclist is dead, if only the driver sees & the
cyclist
doesn't react the drivers reactions are the only issue &
whichever way he dodges he'll miss, plus
with the bicycle travelling away from him he gets more
reaction time than if it's coming toward, it may be that all
adds up to
better odds for the cyclist going with the traffic' .. & (now
I've
read some) some of the links we've got here conclude that
travelling with traffic is shown to be statistically safer,
none I've read conclude contrarywise, but I've
not read them all & only skimmed those I did because I'm
not that interested, but what I did read coincides with my
second developed opinion (you'll remember I was on your
side to start with) formed after I thought it through. |
|
| |
In summary, (my opinion is) it's a bad idea & would likely
cause more
accidents than without it. |
|
| |
More study would be interesting though. |
|
| |
Looks like you get the bicycle [doc], what speed do you
want to start with? |
|
| |
Let it go Limp. You're being kind of a jerk. Notice that's
the first time I've
made a judgement on YOU, not your opinion. If you want to
play some kind of insulting game find another person to
play with. Really. Tell you what, you win. Now will you go
away? |
|
| |
Skewed, I think I'm not understanging you, did say the bike
might not try to turn away from the car coming at him at
60
miles per hour and might try to cut across the car's path to
make it onto the road? And conversely, the car might try to
correct by turning further into the bike lane? Maybe I'm not
understanding you. |
|
| |
This is very very very very easily tested. If the test proves
my theory (which I'm not particulary married to) wrong, the
world will have more proof that rear end bike deaths are
the way to reduce bicycle fatalities. |
|
| |
Video game simulation. That's it. Here's how it works: |
|
| |
In a driving simulator, you have two subjects, the biker and
the driver. We'll need about 10,000 hours of testing and 7 or
8 thousand accidents to get any usable data. The way you
get the crash is this: |
|
| |
The car driver has to constantly look away from the screen
while driving a curvy road with lots of bikes in the bike
lane. We have 2,000 "players" 500 bikes going with traffic,
500 bikes going against traffic each with 500 cars either
driving in their direction or in the opposite direction. |
|
| |
Actually, we don't need any bikers going the direction of
the car, they'll be hit no matter what they do so we don't
need human interaction there so only 1,500 test subjects
needed. |
|
| |
At the end of the experiment I think we'd have conclusive
results. |
|
| |
//did say the bike might // try to cut across the car's
path// |
|
| |
Oh you noticed that, Yeah kind of ;) but I did preface that
by saying all else
being equal. |
|
| |
On the other hand it's amazing how
daft a panicked person can be so it's not beyond the realms
of 'things that do happen'. |
|
| |
It may be worse than 50% for the cyclist in reality because
there's often only one unoccupied space both can dash
for (other traffic, pedestrians on the walkway, railings etc
in the way can reduce options)
to try to avoid the other & it only needs the cyclist to jig
just a little bit the wrong way in panic before catching
himself to negate any chance of the driver missing him, no
having two actors rather than one make choices won't
improve this situation, traveling against traffic isn't a good
idea. |
|
| |
Come on, I'm still waiting for you to pick a speed for our
first test run. |
|
| |
//Video game simulation// |
|
| |
You really are no fun any more. |
|
| |
You may as well go home guys we won't need the ambulance
today. |
|
| |
Well, I'd be pretty sure there's no confusion about which way
to turn unless the bike is dead center to the car but I'm
assuming most collissions occur where the right side of the car
hits the bike. |
|
| |
But there you are, let's get that simulation going. |
|
| |
I'd even add a black comedy element like "You just killed the
16th biker out for a ride. Hope that funny meme you sent got
lots of thumbs up." |
|
| |
//Video game simulation//You really are no fun any
more.[Pouts][Looks over shoulder] You may as well go home
guys we won't need the ambulance today.// |
|
| |
LOl, know who your post reminded me of? Give you a hint,
it
made me a bit nostalgic. |
|
| |
(Hint: His name wasn't 6th of 5.) |
|
| |
And he'd be in here right now goading us on, calling
anybody
trying to make the peace or wrap it up a wussy, saying stuff
like "You gonna let him get away with that?" |
|
| |
//rear end bike deaths are the way to reduce bicycle
fatalities// |
|
| |
I like the way you put that, I'm going to use it next time I'm in
court. |
|
| |
Okay 8th, I knew your death was a fake! |
|
| |
Well played. Welcome back! |
|
| |
Sad to say but there'll not be another quite like him, until
there is of course, infinity being what it is, doubtful I'll be
here to
see the next one though, infinity's a bit long for that. |
|
| |
Shit, now I'm sad. LimpNotes! Get back in here you big
lummox! Just kidding. |
|
| |
Sigh, may the flying spaghetti monster bless us all. You too
LimpNotes. |
|
| |
Well, maybe the extra set of eyes helps there too. |
|
| |
All could be added very easily to the simulation with very
off the shelf video game technology. The only thing you're
adding is the having to look away from the screen to do
various tasks to cause the accidents. |
|
| |
Scratch that, have the screen switch from the road to a
text you need to respond to, a funny meme you need to put
a laughing emoji on etc. |
|
| |
This just gets simpler and simpler. |
|
| |
And I'd say this, results from this would be conclusive
because you're studying hundreds of accidents if not
thousands and you have 100% control of all the parameters. |
|
| |
Somebody has to have done something similar to this. |
|
| |
//Well, maybe the extra set of eyes helps there too// |
|
| |
Uncle Mordecai already tried that, was a bugger getting
the optic nerves to bed in & when they
finally did the extra visual stimuli were a bit too
confusing & made him feel nauseous, then the tissue
rejection
set
in, got a bit wiffy after that & they threw him out of the
country
club, at
the end of the day he said all the sneaking about
in graveyards just wasn't worth it. |
|
| |
Aesthetically displeasing, I mean, can you imagine? two eyes
one size & two more another, no that would never
do, they'd be the wrong colour & iris type &
everything. |
|
| |
Yes I know, but there's just no telling some girls that is there
[thoughtful musing] or maybe there is,
might be why
the last one tried to tear my eyes out, then she'd have the
beauty in the eye of the beholder? [muses further] can't help
thinking she took that all a bit too literally if that was it. |
|
| |
When I was a boy in the 1970s in Israel, the law was that you
had to ride you bike against the direction of traffic so you
saw them and they saw you. Nobody thought at that time of
making special bicycle lanes, but then they also didn't have
to explain to the drivers that they should care about the lives
of pedestrians and the cars didn't seal hermetically in order
to boil the babies forgotten in them. |
|
| |
The concern is not just seeing each other, but how long it
takes to see each other, and what options are available for
avoiding an accident once you see the other party. |
|
| |
Your average cyclist travels at ~15mph. Your average car,
on roads that cyclists travel on, travels at ~45mph. So you
have a choice of closing speed of 30mph or 60mph. So,
assuming that neither party wants to hit the other, the
question is if a driver can do more to avoid an accident at
30mph than the driver and cyclist, combined, can at 60. |
|
| |
What can each of the parties do to (actively) avoid an
accident? The driver can take care not to drift into the
bike lane, and to not pass the cyclist to closely. A cyclist,
hemmed in by parked cars, a curb, or a ditch, can do very
little except a reflex based bailout. |
|
| |
So, practically speaking, maximizing the driver's
opportunity to see the cyclist and avoid contact is more
important than trading that opportunity for the cyclist's
ability to dodge. |
|
| |
(That being said, the cyclist should make every effort to
increase visibility, but that is a passive thing, and direction
doesn't matter much) |
|
| |
Why would you assume the driver even sees the
bike and
that they're not adjusting their radio or texting?
There's a
reason they've veered into the bike lane in the first
place.
They weren't paying attention to the line
delineating the
bike lane, which is why they crossed over it. If
they're not
paying attention to keeping their car properly on
the road,
why would they notice a little thing like a bike? |
|
| |
Having the bike be able to see this car that's in the
bike
lane due to lack of attention to the road ahead of
them,
which is how it got there, allows a second person
to be able
to diverge the vehicles from their collision course.
It
doubles the amount of people in control of the
situation. |
|
| |
The car's driver already proved they're not
cognizant of
their surroundings by virtue of the fact that they're
not on
the road they're supposed to be on so they can
hardly be
trusted to suddenly become aware theyr'e driving
in a bike
lane at the appropriate time to steer away from a
bike in that bike lane. |
|
| |
I've seen that done in Turkey. |
|
| |
Do we have any statistics from there to compare
with? |
|
| |
Or get rid of the inattentive drivers. |
|
| |
Lifetime ban for driving inattentively, fiddling with the radio or phone, or talking whilst in the car, would quickly make the roads a lot safer for everyone. |
|
| |
[docremulac] I don't assume that the driver is paying
attention. I assume that doubling the time the inattentive
driver has to look up does more good than giving the cyclist
with nowhere to go notice that they are about to be hit. |
|
| |
//I assume that doubling the time the inattentive driver
has to look up does more good than giving the cyclist with
nowhere to go notice that they are about to be hit.// |
|
| |
The inattentive driver is going to look up when the bike
rider crashes through his window. Their car's in the bike
lane because the driver wasn't looking where they were
going. They
aren't going to suddenly become aware of a bike when they
weren't even aware enough to keep their car on the road. |
|
| |
And who says the bike has no place to go? It swerves a
couple of feet to the left to get out of the way of the
oncoming car whose driver's eyes are fixed on their
cellphone. Unless you're saying the driver is taking up the
entire bike lane and even scraping along the curb, in which
case I'd REALLY rather depend on the bike rider to fix the
situation. I've pretty much lost faith in that car's driver who
at that point is probably asleep or drunk. |
|
| |
But like I said, easily simulated to test. Results would be
conclusive. Check the earlier posts. |
|
| |
I'm typically a pedestrian, so I see no point in this when no
one will abide by whatever is decided if it means they cannot
ride on the pavement. It would be easier to require cars to
drive on the right as is done in the U.K. than to change rules
in the U.S. no cyclists follow anyway. |
|
| |
Well I think we can all agree that SOME direction
should be picked for bikes. And I very seldom see
bikes riding towards traffic, they pretty much alway
drive blind with the traffic like they're told to. |
|
| |
I mean, traffic laws are good, they should just be
proven to be the right traffic laws. |
|
| |
So just kill people so we don’t need to do that
proposed human/simulator comparison? |
|
| |
Or is this more about fantasizing about me being
killed since we might have a different opinion? |
|
| |
Whatever the case I like my idea better. |
|
| |
Appreciate that but I’ll go with the test that has
the least chance of killing me. |
|
| |