Self Driving Vehicles

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
jbeattie wrote:

They are obligated to follow the law, whatever it may be. People
do need to read the VC and act accordingly. If everyone is playing
by the same rules, it is more likely that traffic will move smoothly.
The impatient certainly don't get a free pass. They have to follow
the rules, too.

Sure. If they're motorists. I think the imperative for people who've made a better choice of transportation is to minimize their exposure to the hazards and toxins that come from motor vehicles. Sometimes that means observing the provisions of the vehicle code, and sometimes it means deviating from bad practices that are in the code.

For instance, I'll never wait with my bike at a traffic light for an empty cross street, respecting the right-of-way of hypothetical cars, only to be enveloped in stinking poison fumes when the light changes. In that case, I will always proceed immediately in order to minimize my exposure to pollution or inattentive turning drivers.

I also won't necessarily go when it's my turn, if I distrust the willingness of crossing drivers to stop or wait, or act predictably. I want someone who's a likely threat to me to go on ahead.

I recently read in the news that a neighborhood in Tempe, Arizona of all places is going car-free, such that residents must promise not to own a car.. It hasn't even been built yet, but already it looks like possibly the smartest place in America. In Arizona! Who could have predicted it?

It will take more than a thousand reasonable people situated in the middle of a million deranged chuds to make me move, but I will move to the first real city in the USA that has a livable climate and prohibits personal cars.

If I were you I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. I spent two weeks riding around Phoenix and aside from the four or five person group I was with I saw two other cyclists and in a parking area from which we started a ride there was a car with a bicycle rack on the back.

So I see no way that there is going to be an entire neighborhood of carless Arizonans. Not to mention that you always have to have a way to get to high ground in a state in which heavy flooding is normal. Remember that Pacific Hurricanes come up the Gulf of California and dump super-heavy rainfall usually at least once a year.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:50:05 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
jbeattie wrote:

They are obligated to follow the law, whatever it may be. People
do need to read the VC and act accordingly. If everyone is playing
by the same rules, it is more likely that traffic will move smoothly.
The impatient certainly don't get a free pass. They have to follow
the rules, too.

Sure. If they're motorists. I think the imperative for people who've made a better choice of transportation is to minimize their exposure to the hazards and toxins that come from motor vehicles. Sometimes that means observing the provisions of the vehicle code, and sometimes it means deviating from bad practices that are in the code.

For instance, I'll never wait with my bike at a traffic light for an empty cross street, respecting the right-of-way of hypothetical cars, only to be enveloped in stinking poison fumes when the light changes. In that case, I will always proceed immediately in order to minimize my exposure to pollution or inattentive turning drivers.

I also won't necessarily go when it's my turn, if I distrust the willingness of crossing drivers to stop or wait, or act predictably. I want someone who's a likely threat to me to go on ahead.

I recently read in the news that a neighborhood in Tempe, Arizona of all places is going car-free, such that residents must promise not to own a car. It hasn't even been built yet, but already it looks like possibly the smartest place in America. In Arizona! Who could have predicted it?

It will take more than a thousand reasonable people situated in the middle of a million deranged chuds to make me move, but I will move to the first real city in the USA that has a livable climate and prohibits personal cars.

So I guess Michigan is out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackin...Transportation I don't know of any city in the world that totally prohibits personal cars. The place in Arizona seems implausible knowing Arizona. It sprawls like California, and when the heat hits, everyone hides in their air conditioned Habitrail. People probably ride their bikes to a massive parking lot where they get into their air conditioned cars and head to the mall. eBikes, baby. That's the future.

-- Jay Beattie.

The development he is talking about is a small - 636 multi-family
units - neighborhood to be built in Tempe, Arizona. It is to be a
rental only place and rents are from $200 - $300 higher than other
similar neighborhoods in the city. It comprises 16 acres or about 0.02
square miles in area.

Tempe has a population of 185,038 and this new neighborhood will house
an estimated 1,000 people.

And... there will be parking, "parking on site for 24,000-square-feet
of retail concerns that include a food hall, grocery story, and coffee
shop, plus visitor parking".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 6:04:50 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

Yes, but that is in the republic of Ohio, basically the only place where that rule applies, assuming it still does. Virtually every other state has an impeding law or slow moving vehicle law -- even for cars. Washington even has a numerical rule (five vehicles): https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default..aspx?cite=46.61.427 What's good for cars is good for bikes, no? Can't have a parade without a parade permit. There is a time to "control" traffic and a time not to control traffic and get out of the way. The same is true if you are in a car, on a horse, in a golf cart, etc., etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

Actually, I agree with Franki-boy on this. Pro-active examples need to be made.

But I see in another post that Franki-boy talks about a 3 foot clearance between a motorised vehicle and a bicycle. That is inadequate. Here, according to my late doctor who used to ride with me, it is 1.5 meters or an inch short of 5 feet, and there are main roads between major towns, never mind farm lanes and minor roads, on which such space simply does not exist. Sharing here means really close co-existence.

AJ
Hell, that's one for the blue moon, me agreeing with Kreepy Krygowski on anything

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 1:09:14 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 23 December 2019 22:07:35 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2019 6:19 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 23 December 2019 16:16:12 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/22/2019 8:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I can see moving more into the lanr but deliberately slowing down
just to **** the guy off is just asking for an escalation.

Well, it worked out. Perhaps because oncoming traffic would have
provided witnesses.

FWIW, I do something similar when a driver is tailgating my car. First I
flash the brake lights three times. Most idiots then realize they're too
close and they back off.

But if an idiot stays close (or as some do, gets even closer) I slow
down. I'm determined not to reward obnoxious or dangerous behavior.


--
- Frank Krygowski

"Well, it worked out" is exactly what a lot of people say after they've
done something dangerous or aggravating. Riding a bicycle in the middle
of a traffic lane and then DELIBERATELY slowing down to impede traffic
is a very silly thing to do. There are many areas of the country where
such behaviour would have rather serious consequences for the
bicyclist. Even without that, there is now one more ****ed off motorist
to add their voice to those who would like to see bicyclists banned
from the roads or herded into segregated bicycling chutes.

Sorry, Sir, I disagree. If every cyclist pulls over at every sign of
motorist aggression, then more and more motorists are going to learn
that it pays to be aggressive. More and more roads are going to be off
limits to bicyclists.

And I don't believe this guy ended up thinking "I'm going to try to get
bicyclists banned from the roads." I think it's far more likely he ended
up thinking "Man, I was being a real jerk." And in general, I think
that's the normal result of the very rare confrontations I have.

Let me give you two other incidents, both within the past five years.

1) I was on my way to a bike club ride, and I was ahead of schedule. At
one narrow underpass there's no way to avoid taking the lane, except
perhaps to get off the bike and walk a narrow dirt path by the side of
the road. (Perhaps that's what you would do?)

Anyway, a guy in a small pickup waited behind me until it was clear,
then passed in the oncoming lane, as he should have; but he blared his
horn all through the pass. Then, within 100 feet or so, he turned left
into a plaza parking lot.

I followed him and saw him just as he was walking into a pharmacy. I
said "Is there something wrong with your horn?" He said "You're supposed
to get out of the way!"

I said "Wrong. Ohio law gives me full rights to the road, and if the
lane is narrow I'm supposed to ride in the center."

He said "Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't know that."

2) Same deal, different location, except the scrappy van passing me
didn't have to wait at all. He immediately turned left into a
residential street. I knew that neighborhood was essentially a
cul-de-sac. I followed him.

I found him about a block further on, pulled over on the left side of a
very quiet street, talking with a guy who was standing on his front
lawn. I rode up between them and said "4511.55" The driver looked
shocked and nervous, and his buddy looked confused. The driver said
"Pardon me?"

"4511.55. That's the Ohio law that gives bikes full rights to the road."

"Oh. I'm sorry."

And I rode on.

If the guy behind your bicycle was that impatient would it really have
hurt you to pull over and let him by? Yes, because it would have what?

If I had kowtowed to those three jerks, three people would have gotten
the message that bullying works. Instead, by my count, there were four
people that got educated about our legal rights to the road, counting
the guy on the lawn.

I look at it this way. My bicycle weighs between 20 and 25 pounds. A
car is around 3000 pounds and the driver is totally protected by it.
If push comes to shove my bicycle will lose every time. I prefer not to
take the risk and thus I try not to do things to deliberately **** off
a driver of a motor vehicle.

And when you're driving your car do you pull off the road for trucks? If
you were on a motorcycle, would you pull off the road for a Honda Fit?

I don't base my driving or riding practices on relative weight. I base
them on the laws, and on what I've learned in about five different
cycling courses, plus tons of reading and countless miles of riding.

Your beliefs and practices once again differ from what I think most bicyclists would do.

Oh, I'm sure most bicyclists don't ride as I do. Most bicyclists haven't
bothered to consciously learn anything about riding. Many ride without
lights at night, ride mostly on sidewalks, routinely blow stop signs and
traffic lights, don't maintain their bikes, ride facing traffic, never
signal turns or lane changes, don't know how to execute a proper left
turn, can't ride a straight line, etc.

I'm not going to emulate "most riders," just as my driving doesn't
emulate "most drivers."


--
- Frank Krygowski

You on your bicycle deliberately holding back traffic as you did in your
first comment are no different than those car drivers who do silly things
and then spend time justifying their actions. I know a lot of areas where
if you did what you did you would have been at least bumped from behind
or worse. One day your luck is going to run out and you'll have a run
down feeling that even Geritol won't help.

Cheers


A tale of two Christians.

I was thinking the same thing.

Andre Jute
Must be the season -- nah, it's great minds thinking alike

Tom Kunich writes:

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:

[...]

I recently read in the news that a neighborhood in Tempe, Arizona of
all places is going car-free, such that residents must promise not
to own a car. It hasn't even been built yet, but already it looks
like possibly the smartest place in America. In Arizona! Who could
have predicted it?

It will take more than a thousand reasonable people situated in the
middle of a million deranged chuds to make me move, but I will move
to the first real city in the USA that has a livable climate and
prohibits personal cars.

If I were you I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. I spent two weeks
riding around Phoenix and aside from the four or five person group I
was with I saw two other cyclists and in a parking area from which we
started a ride there was a car with a bicycle rack on the back.

So I see no way that there is going to be an entire neighborhood of
carless Arizonans. Not to mention that you always have to have a way
to get to high ground in a state in which heavy flooding is
normal. Remember that Pacific Hurricanes come up the Gulf of
California and dump super-heavy rainfall usually at least once a year.

I believe Mr. Colina lives in Austin, Texas, where flash floods are not
unknown. My ex once reported seeing pro-active employees literally
mooring cars to a hand rail with ropes in order to prevent them drifting
away on rising water. This happened at the old Whole Foods parking lot
on Lamar Boulevard.

Her Hyundai death-mobile had a lot of new scratches on the bumper from
floating debris when she got home, which made the story quite
believable. Why didn't you turn uphill? I asked. Can't remember the
answer.

On 24/12/2019 15.41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2019 8:09 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

A tale of two Christians.

True Christians don't claim to be perfect.

If only I could tell the difference between true christians and false
christians.

On 24/12/2019 23.05, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:49:34 +0000, Tosspot
wrote:

On 24/12/2019 07.04, John B. wrote:

snip

Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer
a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea.

But it's important to die knowing you were in the right :-)

Btw, sig-sep bust?

Here lies the body of Henry Gray
He died defending his right of way.
His way was right, his will was strong,
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong.

Lol! Never heard that one before. I know *so* many people that could
apply to :-)

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 20:20:07 +0000, Tosspot
wrote:

On 24/12/2019 23.05, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:49:34 +0000, Tosspot
wrote:

On 24/12/2019 07.04, John B. wrote:

snip

Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer
a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea.

But it's important to die knowing you were in the right :-)

Btw, sig-sep bust?

Here lies the body of Henry Gray
He died defending his right of way.
His way was right, his will was strong,
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong.

Lol! Never heard that one before. I know *so* many people that could
apply to :-)

I think it is actually quite old. I remember hearing/seeing it years
ago. If you google "defending his right of way" you get some
373,000,000 hits, so apparently it is a commonly known epitaph.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 12/25/2019 3:18 PM, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/12/2019 15.41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2019 8:09 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

A tale of two Christians.

True Christians don't claim to be perfect.

If only I could tell the difference between true christians and false
christians.

Yep. And true vs. false Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists,
Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Americans, Canadians...
and Bicyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/24/2019 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:44:43 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/23/2019 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:


Thus it would seem to behoove the cyclist, for his own protection, to
avoid, in any way possible, contact with other traffic.

So, ride in your basement on a wind trainer.

Have at it, if that's all you can handle. But I feel sorry for you.

Insult if you chose but a bit more accurate reading would show that:
"I ride on roads where traffic is *normally* moving at speeds
of 100 KPH or faster..."

A _perfectly_ accurate reading would show that I was talking about riding to
church on Sunday morning, and dealing with one rude motorist. Nobody was going
100kph. Yet you advised "avoiding, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, contact with other traffic."

If you meant physical contact, I suppose you might have a case. But in about five decades of riding, that's not been a problem (despite Sir's and you fears.)
If you mean I should not have been on the street I was riding, I'm sorry, but
that's nuts. I'm not going to ride only on segregated bike trails.

Yes, it's conceivable that a motorist could try to murder me. But it's also
conceivable that a car could crash into a house and knock a sleeping person out
of bed. (We had one of those incidents on the news tonight.) It would be
paranoid to give up road riding - or sleeping in bed - because of such a rare
possibility.

Frank, it is perfectly all right to froth at the mouth in fury but
don't get it all over the screen so you can't see what the other guy
said, before you post your insults. (It makes you look like a fool)

Sorry, John, I'm not frothing. I'm not even angry. But I'm quite surprised that
two purportedly avid cyclists think another cyclist should give away his legal
rights if a motorist acts like an ass.

Guys, grow a pair!

- Frank Krygowski

Should give away his legal rights.... Yes, it makes perfect sense. Or
does it?

I came across some data on vehicle - pedestrian collisions and while
it isn't cyclists I suggest that it has some relationship as the
cyclist has about as much protection in a collision as the pedestrian.

Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway
with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm
whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph.
The chart, published by the European Commission for Mobility and
Transport (Road Safety) shows that the chance of death of a
pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 75 kph is ~98%. I suggest
that the chances of death in a motor vehicle - bicycle collision at
the same speed is very similar.

Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer
a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea.

The idea is to avoid the collision. The question is, what's the best way
of avoiding the collision.

Certainly I agree with your first 7 words. The remainder of your post
is simply self justification.

There are several schools of thought. The most common idea is to never
ride a bicycle on a public road. Perhaps that's what you're advocating -
although it's inconsistent with your posting here, and with your claimed
habits. It's certainly incompatible with my life.

As I previously wrote, "Remembering that I was referring in my post of
cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph,
or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a
difference of about 75kph."

Does that sound like "never ride a bicycle on a public road"?

The second most common idea is to ride on the extreme edge of the road
and/or its shoulder, even if it has gravel, bumps, broken glass, drain
grates, cracks, etc. and even if doing so encourages motorists to pass
leaving mere inches of clearance. That's the habit of every cyclist who
kowtows to every motorist, and who thinks any toothless moron driving a
beat up pickup deserves higher status than any bicyclist. They trust
such a moron to accurately gauge where his right mirror is as said moron
rushes home to watch Oprah.

Which, I might point out, no one has mentioned except you. Is this
another scare story to bolster your theories?

The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and
European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've
encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the
lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor
vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their
riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost
eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and
riding pleasure.

So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is
traveling 75 kph faster than you?

No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of
traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above,
you are constructing straw man arguments.


But most people can't seem to comprehend the verbiage of the laws, and
almost nobody is interested in actually _learning_ about competent
riding. That's because everyone already "knows" that they are
wonderfully competent and have nothing more to learn. It's
Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

So, again, most people don't ride at all. And most of those who do cower
as far to the edge as physically possible. They put up with vehicles
passing inches from their elbow, and think "Oh, I hope none of those
drivers twitches a couple inches toward the edge; because at their
speed, there's a 98% chance they'll kill me."

If that's how you like to ride, do so. But ISTM that if you want to
argue about it, you should make your way through a proper cycling class
first. Or at least read a good book on competent road cycling.

Ah yes, And of course the class is teaching the correct
information....

The Holy Roman Church taught that the sun rotated around the earth and
justified it by quoting the Bible... until 1822 when The College of
Cardinals state that the "publication of works treating of the motion
of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the
opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted."

That is nearly 2,000 years of teaching the wrong thing.... are your
bicycle schools better?

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?


--
- Frank Krygowski