Self-driving cars vs. bikes

On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

BTW, this isn't hypothetical. There are places where such laws exist.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:30:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

BTW, this isn't hypothetical. There are places where such laws exist.

While I do agree with you, in practice I suggest that in a contest
between two participants, where the possibility are very great that
the weaker will die, some form of prevention may be the better part of
valor.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:30:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/3/2017 8:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:30:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.

-- Jay Beattie.




perhaps a white vehicle with big reflective graphics all
over it might help.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/poli...-suv/306253408

or not.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 03/02/2017 9:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:30:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.



We don't have sidewalks in my town and I've come close to hitting people
dressed in black walking along the road. Add some snow and nasty
weather and it's more of a problem.

I've had the same thing happen when I'm riding. Worst one was some kid
in black on a black skateboard. Had to admire the lube job on his
wheels though. Didn't hear or see him.

On 2/3/2017 9:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:30:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Yes, I know.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this.

I know that, too, Russell.

So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse.

The laws still require motorists to not harm horses and horse-drawn
carriages.

The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

That's not a requirement for adequate safety.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

Well, we're going to differ on that.

Perhaps you would favor enforcing a law requiring that all nighttime
pedestrians carry reflective equipment. I wouldn't. I'm fine with
pedestrians choosing to use reflective gear (or to carry flashlights or
torches); but I don't think they should bear a legal burden in order to
protect themselves from incompetent motorists.

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.

OK, we're deep into the analogy now (pedestrians without reflectors)
instead of the original issue (bicycles without radar reflectors). But
to continue with the analogous situation:

Over 4500 pedestrians are killed by cars every year. Most fatalities
happen at night, and IIRC in cities, the majority of those deaths happen
to pedestrians legally using crosswalks.

So should we start chiding all those pedestrians in Portland for walking
without reflectors? If a motorist kills an un-reflectorized walker in a
crosswalk, should we say "He should have used a reflector"? Should we
pass laws saying walking without a reflector is illegal? Should "no
reflector" be used as a driver's defense in a fatality situation?

I actually do carry a small flashlight when my wife and I take
neighborhood walks at night (in part because several local streets have
no sidewalks). But I maintain that the responsibility is on the
motorist, the person who brings the danger to the situation. If the
pedestrian is walking legally, that's all that should be expected, let
alone required.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/3/2017 10:19 AM, Duane wrote:
On 03/02/2017 9:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists
driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black
outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who
dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are
taking an unnecessary risk.

We don't have sidewalks in my town and I've come close to hitting people
dressed in black walking along the road. Add some snow and nasty
weather and it's more of a problem.

You're supposed to adjust your driving speed and drive within the limits
of visibility.

We've railed against "I didn't see him" or SMIDSY as an excuse given by
motorists who hit bicyclists. I'm astounded anyone here would give that
excuse for their own driving behavior.

If the pedestrian or bicyclist was not breaking a law, "I didn't see
him" should be considered an admission of guilt. Or at the _very_
least, incompetence.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:30:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.

OK, we're deep into the analogy now (pedestrians without reflectors)
instead of the original issue (bicycles without radar reflectors). But
to continue with the analogous situation:

Over 4500 pedestrians are killed by cars every year. Most fatalities
happen at night, and IIRC in cities, the majority of those deaths happen
to pedestrians legally using crosswalks.

So should we start chiding all those pedestrians in Portland for walking
without reflectors? If a motorist kills an un-reflectorized walker in a
crosswalk, should we say "He should have used a reflector"? Should we
pass laws saying walking without a reflector is illegal? Should "no
reflector" be used as a driver's defense in a fatality situation?

I actually do carry a small flashlight when my wife and I take
neighborhood walks at night (in part because several local streets have
no sidewalks). But I maintain that the responsibility is on the
motorist, the person who brings the danger to the situation. If the
pedestrian is walking legally, that's all that should be expected, let
alone required.

Hair-splitting over who is at fault doesn't do much good after pedestrian has been flattened. We're all road users and should try to make it easier for other road users who want to follow the law. It's hard for a motorist to yield to a an invisible pedestrian. Pedestrians should be reasonably visible. 50 years ago my mother was telling me to wear light-colored clothes at night. It seems like a reasonable thing to do.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/3/2017 10:58 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:30:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

You're assuming the motorist is incompetent. Competent motorists driving at night can hit stealth pedestrians in their black-on-black outfits. I've almost done it in my own neighborhood. People who dress-up like Ninjas and then stroll unlit neighborhood streets are taking an unnecessary risk.

OK, we're deep into the analogy now (pedestrians without reflectors)
instead of the original issue (bicycles without radar reflectors). But
to continue with the analogous situation:

Over 4500 pedestrians are killed by cars every year. Most fatalities
happen at night, and IIRC in cities, the majority of those deaths happen
to pedestrians legally using crosswalks.

So should we start chiding all those pedestrians in Portland for walking
without reflectors? If a motorist kills an un-reflectorized walker in a
crosswalk, should we say "He should have used a reflector"? Should we
pass laws saying walking without a reflector is illegal? Should "no
reflector" be used as a driver's defense in a fatality situation?

I actually do carry a small flashlight when my wife and I take
neighborhood walks at night (in part because several local streets have
no sidewalks). But I maintain that the responsibility is on the
motorist, the person who brings the danger to the situation. If the
pedestrian is walking legally, that's all that should be expected, let
alone required.

Hair-splitting over who is at fault doesn't do much good after pedestrian has been flattened. We're all road users and should try to make it easier for other road users who want to follow the law. It's hard for a motorist to yield to a an invisible pedestrian. Pedestrians should be reasonably visible. 50 years ago my mother was telling me to wear light-colored clothes at night. It seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Again, I often carry a small flashlight on walks. OTOH, last night my
wife and I drove to a shopping plaza and parked 100 yards away from the
store's door. I walked across the parking lot without a flashlight or
reflectors, wearing blue jeans and a blue jacket. Was that wrong?

Andrew brought up the issue of "necessary" laws.

Is it necessary to require reflectors on pedestrians? Should that be a law?

Is it necessary to require radar reflectors on bicycles? Should that be
a law?



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/2/17 9:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

"That terrorist wouldn't have succeeded if the owner of the bicycle he
stole had installed an NSA-approved transponder."

No doubt NSA's biggest competitor AND a self-driving car maker would
also like you to have such a transponder.

--
Wes Groleau