Thinking Outside The Box

aw lookit the free choice crowd whine whine whine...
saves gas, what's wrong here ?

altho the lower classes unspeakable gluttonyovercrowding my interstate
with japanese coupes may seem terminal, we should check consumtion in
'natural' gas for night'security' lighting
whenever I find commuter rail, I foind happy people. Itsa sure thing.

On Feb 26, 11:21*pm, Chalo wrote:

Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims. *What
makes you believe it's inherently OK to imperil other people's lives
by using a deadly machine with a grievously faulty control system,
just because someone's too worthlessly lazy to use his own effort?
Y'all are cyclists, for crissakes. *If this is the prevailing attitude
among people who should know better, it's no wonder that hit-and-run
assaults are out of control and the authorities are doing nothing to
fix the problem.

But hey, your convenience is far more important than other peoples'
lives and well-being. *This is an opinion shared by almost all
motorists, so it must be true.

Sorry, I don't get your point - at least, not as far as you seem to be
pushing it.

I've said for years that drivers should bear _much_ more
responsibility for the harm they cause. I'll even say that a motorist
who kills another person should never drive again. But I'd make one
exception: when someone uses another person's motor vehicle to
complete a suicide.

People really do suicide by jumping in front of train locomotives
(large motor vehicles). Should we hold the engineer responsible? Of
course not. The same holds for an auto driver if a person leaps
directly in front of his car... including by running a red light. By
any practical test, it's indistinguishable from suicide.

I really didn't understand the part about my "convenience." To me,
it's convenient to stay alive. So I obey traffic lights, with very
rare exceptions. Works for me.


At least we can all enjoy the consequences of the hideous
unsustainable resource gluttony of cars. *Energy scarcity and the
resultant skyrocketing operating cost is probably the only thing that
will cure us of our stinking death boxes (if we don't die from them
first).

Sacrificing myself on the pavement under a stinking death box will not
advance the cause.

- Frank Krygowski

On 27/02/12 15:58, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
Dan O wrote:
dustoyevsky wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:

http://transportationnation.org/2012...ies-allowing-b...

Paris "rampant with cyclists?" Not when I was there in '02. I mean,
that was ten years ago...

Loved the (approx) "cyclists must yield to motor traffic"-- well yeah!
One way or the other...
Agreed.

Excuse me, but as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
"ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice. How many times have I,
while cycling, had a motorist "not see me" even though they looked
right at me and maybe even made eye contact (!) because they didn't
want to see me? (Answer: "lots").
Agreed. Situational awareness - while in motion - is not for everyone
(I guess).

If a cyclist runs a red light and gets smushed, my sympathies are more
with the motor vehicle operator. Not an experience to be wished on
anyone, and said in spite of the many times I've been used as a pylon
or otherwise "as an object of aggression".
Agreed. The blithe idiot is not just hurting himself. But I'm not in
charge of him. Why should his stupidity dictate what I must do?

Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims. What
makes you believe it's inherently OK to imperil other people's lives
by using a deadly machine with a grievously faulty control system,
just because someone's too worthlessly lazy to use his own effort?
Y'all are cyclists, for crissakes. If this is the prevailing attitude
among people who should know better, it's no wonder that hit-and-run
assaults are out of control and the authorities are doing nothing to
fix the problem.

But hey, your convenience is far more important than other peoples'
lives and well-being. This is an opinion shared by almost all
motorists, so it must be true.

At least we can all enjoy the consequences of the hideous
unsustainable resource gluttony of cars. Energy scarcity and the
resultant skyrocketing operating cost is probably the only thing that
will cure us of our stinking death boxes (if we don't die from them
first).

Chalo

Maybe we should make railroad crossing lights optional as well. And
remove the gates, which drivers evade regularly.

(after which, news reports semantically twist the event to 'tragedy',
often reporting 'train hits car' as opposed to 'driver ran light')


Cars often run off the road and into solid objects (trees and the like).
Naughty cars.

--
JS.

Frank Krygowski writes:

So I obey traffic lights, with very
rare exceptions. Works for me.

So what do you guys do when the lights don't switch
for you? I'll turn left on a red arrow if I didn't
get the green when I should, the straight-through is green,
and it is safe to proceed. I just treat it like an
uncontrolled left-turn.

--
Joe Riel

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:20:49 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:

http://transportationnation.org/2012...ties-allowing-
bikes-to-run-red-lights/

Yeah, what could go wrong with that?

http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2012...yclist-killed-
second-southern-california-fatality-in-just-two-days/

There has been quite a bit of misunderstanding regarding the Paris
regulation.

Here's a link to the original proposal

http://www.paris.fr/accueil/deplacem...feu-rouge-oui-
mais/rub_9648_actu_111135_port_23738

What they are allowing is right turn on red only for cyclists. They are
also allowing cyclists to go straight through if and only if the
intersection has no right turn. The rule is not universal, just at marked
intersections.

From the link:

Une flèche de couleur jaune indique aux cyclistes la direction Ã* suivre,
Ã* droite ou tout droit s’il n’y a pas de voie Ã* droite.

(A yellow arrow showing cyclists which direction to follow: right or
straight if there isn't any right turn. )

I live in one of the two jurisdictions in the US that prohibits right
turn on red for cars. Outside that area, a cyclist isn't safe even if he
proceeds on a green signal. There's always the danger of being t-boned by
a driver turning right on red. At least the proposed Paris regulation is
limited to cyclists. Red still means stop for cars.

I've been hit three times by cars during my 50+ years of cycling. All
three were at or in intersections. Once I stopped for a red light and the
NYC cab following me did not. Twice, I was hit by cars while traveling
through an intersection when I had a green light. Based on my limited
anecdotal experience, the conclusions are obvious: going through green
lights is dangerous and be extra careful while stopping for a red
light. :=)

Per Jay Beattie:
If Paris is that thick with bicycles,
then they're going to start running into each other if they're running
lights. In a dense city, you can't have one mode of transportation
following one set of rules, and another mode of transportation
following another -- not when they're all on the same road.

One thing is for su if a city the size of Paris goes all the
way with this, we should have some hard data on whether it works
or not within a few years.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Feb 26, 10:06*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
So I obey traffic lights, with very
rare exceptions. *Works for me.

So what do you guys do when the lights don't switch
for you? * I'll turn left on a red arrow if I didn't
get the green when I should, the straight-through is green,
and it is safe to proceed. *I just treat it like an
uncontrolled left-turn.

I do that too, but I've hunted all through the vehicle code and not
been able to find anything that says that I can do it legally. The
only relevant exception to not following a traffic control device is
when you are signaled through by a cop, at least in Oregon.

-- Jay Beattie.

James wrote:

When the motor vehicle sensing coils don't sense a bicycle, I don't take
a _chance_ it will be safe to proceed, I wait until it _is_ safe. Hell,
I look sideways even when the lights are in my favor!

Same here. Wise move.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank writes:

So I obey traffic lights, with very
rare exceptions. Works for me.

So what do you guys do when the lights don't switch
for you? I'll turn left on a red arrow if I didn't
get the green when I should, the straight-through is green,
and it is safe to proceed. I just treat it like an
uncontrolled left-turn.

That's the main "rare exception" I mentioned. I believe a person is not
required to wait an unreasonable amount of time at a non-working red
light. And if the detection loop doesn't trip the light for me, I'd say
it's non-working.

More discussion: Be sure you know the tricks for getting those loops to
detect your bike - or at least, increasing the chances. Some tips are
he
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...nals/green.htm
and http://www.labreform.org/education/loops.html

In addition, I've had some success at dipole detectors by putting my
wheels on the wire line, then leaning my bike toward the inside of the
rectangle. The bike wheels and frame then have a bigger effect on the
electric fields.

And I've also had success by phoning the agency responsible for the
detector and complaining. They've turned up the sensitivity for me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 26, 1:58*pm, " wrote:

as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
"ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice

You sound like a "driver".

How many times have I,
while cycling, had a motorist "not see me" even though they looked
right at me and maybe even made eye contact (!) because they didn't
want to see me? (Answer: "lots").

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Visual perception is not what motorists think it is, despite the fact
we've all experienced not seeing something that was right in front of
our faces.
-----

- gpsman