|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/24/2019 1:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:30:45 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:10:55 PM UTC-5, 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. You mean by driving under the speed limit? "Horrors! How dare they! Everyone knows it's a lower limit, not an upper limit." No, Sir, that's wrong. It's not a lower limit. A bicyclist is allowed to ride at a normal speed for a bicycle. That's a very close paraphrase of an Ohio appelate court decision. There is no requirement for me to ride as fast as I can. There is also no requirement for me to leave the roadway if someone else wants to drive faster than I'm riding. 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. OK, perhaps we have to specify what situation we're discussing. Then you can explain what sort of bicyclist behavior you're advocating. First, Ohio has no "five or more" law, and it wouldn't matter anyway. None of the incidents I described involved more than one motorist. And in fact, it's vanishingly rare for me to delay a chain of five cars. It's far more common for a line of cars to delay _me_. Next: IIRC, more than half the states have minimum passing clearance laws. Most, like Ohio, say three feet clearance is required. Typical minimum width of a car is 6.5 feet or so, but trucks can be as wide as 8.5 feet. That means in most states a 12 foot lane is the bare minimum that can be safely and legally shared. In my three examples, none of the lanes were that wide. So what are you saying that I should have done in those three situations? What do _you_ do when you're riding a ten foot lane and an 8.5 foot truck comes up behind? Do you really jump off your bike and bow as the motorist passes? Do you really tell your riding buddies to do that? And while we're at it, perhaps you should say what should be the behavior of a farmer driving his tractor from field to field; an Amish guy in his horse drawn buggy; a post office employee driving a delivery truck; a heavily loaded truck climbing a steep grade, etc. Are all those people required to leave the road to avoid slowing an impatient jerk? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/24/2019 8:09 AM, 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. True Christians don't claim to be perfect. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/24/2019 3:43 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 02:05:00 UTC-5, 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. -- cheers, John B. Once again Frank has posted an incident and then morphed that incident into something else entirely. The point that I was trying to make and that Frank has ignored or rationalized to suit his behaviour is, that it's wrong to DELIBERATELY SLOW DOWN SO AS TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC. I be that all Frank did was **** off that driver. OK, Sir, please tell me what you would have done. Again: It's a narrow lane by the law's definition (too narrow to share with three feet of clearance between passing cars and a bike). The guy blasted down his driveway in reverse directly toward me, stopping partway into the road only when I yelled. Then he immediately rushed up close behind me. I slowed from maybe 15 mph (it's uphill) to maybe 12 mph and glared back at the guy to let him know I disapproved. You would have said "Oh, please, don't let me delay you. Pardon me for using the road" and jumped into the gutter? Seriously? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 1:24:35 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2019 1:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 9:46:23 PM UTC-8, Claus Aßmann wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: I was saying that I didn't think that self driving vehicles would work. Are you talking about self-driving bicycles or why are you posting this here? [since it is off-topic here I won't post a reply about the object recognition problems....] -- Note: please read the netiquette before posting. I will almost never reply to top-postings which include a full copy of the previous article(s) at the end because it's annoying, shows that the poster is too lazy to trim his article, and it's wasting the time of all readers. Claus, this is a continuation from another string. And the significance of it is that self driving cars do not get road rage and run people on bicycles over. It's true the self driving cars don't deliberately try to run over cyclists. But there are real concerns over their ability to reliably detect bicyclists and respond appropriately. And it's not a simple problem. For one thing, bicycles and bicyclists come in a dizzying array of configurations. Someone riding with loaded panniers can "look" different than a person pedaling an unladen bike. Tandems, recumbents, trikes, enclosed velocars, bike trailers, etc. can mess with the detection. For another thing, bicyclists have much more variation in behavior than do other vehicle operators. Riding wrong way, turning left from a right side bike lane, running red lights etc. are more common for people on bikes than people in motor vehicles. The normally useless League of American Bicyclists is lobbying for legal standards for self driving cars. I think there should be tests that the systems must pass, which includes detecting a wide variety of bicyclists. ISTM we need something analogous to a driver's test, but for the self driving system. I'm surprised it's not already a requirement. -- - Frank Krygowski Thee is no guarantee that drivers can reliably detect bicyclists and avoid them. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 7:39:34 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2019 1:04 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:30:45 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:10:55 PM UTC-5, 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. You mean by driving under the speed limit? "Horrors! How dare they! Everyone knows it's a lower limit, not an upper limit." No, Sir, that's wrong. It's not a lower limit. A bicyclist is allowed to ride at a normal speed for a bicycle. That's a very close paraphrase of an Ohio appelate court decision. There is no requirement for me to ride as fast as I can. There is also no requirement for me to leave the roadway if someone else wants to drive faster than I'm riding. 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. OK, perhaps we have to specify what situation we're discussing. Then you can explain what sort of bicyclist behavior you're advocating. First, Ohio has no "five or more" law, and it wouldn't matter anyway. None of the incidents I described involved more than one motorist. And in fact, it's vanishingly rare for me to delay a chain of five cars. It's far more common for a line of cars to delay _me_. You're lucky. Like I said, we have a lot of of former farm roads that are now arterials between McMansionville. https://tinyurl.com/ruvthtj 30 years ago, that road was empty. Now its got some scary dense building at one end and tony Lake Oswego at the other. Next: IIRC, more than half the states have minimum passing clearance laws. Most, like Ohio, say three feet clearance is required. Typical minimum width of a car is 6.5 feet or so, but trucks can be as wide as 8.5 feet. That means in most states a 12 foot lane is the bare minimum that can be safely and legally shared. In my three examples, none of the lanes were that wide. So what are you saying that I should have done in those three situations? What do _you_ do when you're riding a ten foot lane and an 8.5 foot truck comes up behind? Do you really jump off your bike and bow as the motorist passes? Do you really tell your riding buddies to do that? I don't know what you should do, which is kind of my point. I'm not going to prescribe for you because I don't ride where you do. My lane position depends on a lot of things, including sight lines and the character of the traffic, which sounds strange, but riding lane-center in hick-town Clackamas County will incite some homicidal mullet-head to cut me off or push me off the road, both of which have happened more than once. On my way to work, I take the lane going over the bridges and up he back roads home. https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...c1ab8d08_b.jpg That is 50mph traffic except when it really backs up. Most drivers are compliant, but the buses are sketchy, and I have to really stiffen my spine before pulling out in front of them. And yes, there are times when I think I'm going to get flattened, and then I take different routes for a week or two -- until I'm late to work and go that way again. And while we're at it, perhaps you should say what should be the behavior of a farmer driving his tractor from field to field; an Amish guy in his horse drawn buggy; a post office employee driving a delivery truck; a heavily loaded truck climbing a steep grade, etc. Are all those people required to leave the road to avoid slowing an impatient jerk? 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. -- Jay Beattie. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
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? As I think I've mentioned I live on the main highway between Bangkok and the N.E. east part of the country and truck traffic is heavy. I've seen lines of trucks at least a kilometer long thundering down the road, nose to tail at 100 kph. And you advocate riding out in front of them? 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? -- cheers, John B. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
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. -- cheers, John B. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slow vehicles should give way to faster vehicles | Simon Jester | UK | 3 | May 20th 18 05:17 PM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | donquijote1954 | General | 278 | December 30th 07 12:12 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | John Everett | Social Issues | 63 | December 28th 07 03:21 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | Jack May | Rides | 102 | December 21st 07 03:10 AM |
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge | Toby Sleigh | UK | 8 | March 17th 07 10:12 AM |