Share the Road

1568101121

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I give up. Some people on this thread are hearing what they want to hear, not what people are saying.
  • Not all cyclists are wonderful. I couldn't move away from the prat on a Boris bike ringing her bell behind me last night, because there was nowhere to go. She was riding on the footpath alongside the Thames - which was packed with people walking. There's a parallel road just behind the waterfront buildings where she could have been cycling, or if she wanted to be on the footpath at that time she should have got off and pushed the bike. It was about 5:30pm - end of the working day.

    And we had the idiot who killed a woman riding an illegal bike. But pedestrians do step out without looking and bicycles are quiet. The only pedestrian I hit was at much slower speed - but she stepped out right in front of me. She chose to cross the road through a queue of traffic at some lights, without looking properly or walking to the crossing, because stationary traffic, and I was making my way up the inside of the line, legally. There was nowhere to go because there were cars to the right and she was coming from the left.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    No. It's ridiculous. ...

    Well, there we have it.

    Except, of course, that it isn't. I used to live in a place that had licenses for bicycles, and it was great. For a nominal fee, your bike was inspected for safety, and if lost or stolen and reclaimed, the police knew whom to call.

    I see unsafe bicycles all the time, with no lights and no reflectors; many have no bell or horn. With bicycle licensing, those would have be fixed up, or the rider could be ticketed.

    I see unsafe cyclists all the time, ignoring the laws. Cyclists should absolutely be licensed; then, if one causes an accident, there's some recourse. (Very few children are riding on the kinds of roads people here write about; I hope you don't let your child weave in and out of traffic on a busy road. Obviously some allowance would have to be made for children.)

    Cyclists should absolutely have to have insurance, for their own benefit and protection as well as that of others. If a cyclist is knocked down by an uninsured motorist, they're protected. And if I get knocked over by a cyclist barreling down a sidewalk or foot path, I'm protected.

    You want equal rights, Karl, and I agree with that: All should share the road. But with rights go responsibilities, at least in most societies.


    Nobody has any idea how many bicycles there are in the uk, but ~3.5 million are sold every year, so 30 million would be a reasonable estimate. The bureaucracy required to administer such a lunatic scheme would be larger than the current DVLA, and would cost FAR more because there would be no revenue - bikes would be zero-rated for excise duty, as many cars are.

    And do we REALLY want the police to spend their time checking that cyclists have the correct licenses and insurance? stopping children on their way to school and people going to work? Motorists don't have to put up with such harassment. The compulsion to have licenses and insurance doesn't stop hundreds of thousands of motorists driving illegal and dangerous vehicles, and an illegal car is much more of a danger to the public than an illegal bike.

    No government is ever going to introduce bicycle licensing. It's for the birds.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lB - you want to be a dick about this? Well, you have form, so I'm not surprised. We both know that I'd didn't compare cycling to racism, merely bikesplaining to racesplaining. But you do what you do and manufacture some outrage with that.

    No one - certainly no cyclist - is saying that cyclists are perfect, nor that cycling is the only solution to every problem. That's just smoke thrown up by people who don't want to accept that they're causing the mess. The thread title is 'Share the road'. Clearly a step too far.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    "Curiosity wrote:
    And we had the idiot who killed a woman riding an illegal bike. But pedestrians do step out without looking and bicycles are quiet.

    Very wary of revisiting the whole Charlie Alliston controversy, but if a motorist travelling at 14 mph had hit a woman who stepped out in front of them without looking, would they have been prosecuted? I doubt it.

    During the time that Alliston was being tried and acquitted of manslaughter, five pedestrians were killed by motorists in the uk.

    Yes, Alliston is a dick, but if that were a prosecutable offence the jails would be full. (even more full...) He was convicted of the arcane offence of "furious and wanton carriage driving".... if 14 mph is a furious and wanton speed then that criminalises everyone on the roads.
  • There is sharing and sharing. Around here the cyclist can choose to use the road or share the pedestrian footpaths. The shared footpath also gives cyclists priority across most side roads. The Council is now removing traffic lights from the remaining side roads (allegedly to speed up the flow of traffic and reduce queues). End result? Nowhere safe for pedestrians to walk or cross. Cyclists can choose between trusting motorists not to speed out of side roads across the right-of-way or trusting them not to drive too close etc on the road. Drivers are stopped too far back to see across the right-of-way to get out of side roads or cannot pull out safely because of the increased speed of the traffic. A bit of separation would not come amiss.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Landlubber wrote: »
    There is sharing and sharing. Around here the cyclist can choose to use the road or share the pedestrian footpaths. The shared footpath also gives cyclists priority across most side roads. The Council is now removing traffic lights from the remaining side roads (allegedly to speed up the flow of traffic and reduce queues). End result? Nowhere safe for pedestrians to walk or cross. Cyclists can choose between trusting motorists not to speed out of side roads across the right-of-way or trusting them not to drive too close etc on the road. Drivers are stopped too far back to see across the right-of-way to get out of side roads or cannot pull out safely because of the increased speed of the traffic. A bit of separation would not come amiss.

    Doing the side roads properly means putting the cycle crossing a little further back along the road, so there's space for a vehicle to stop, check the cycle path is clear, then advance to the end of the side road to check the main carriageway. Then they can work quite well.

    You also, IMV, need separation on the shared path itself with a pedestrian and cycle side, as the speed differentials are such that simply mixing cyclists with pedestrians on an often very narrow pathway doesn't always work too well.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I give up. Some people on this thread are hearing what they want to hear, not what people are saying.
    This is what I’ve been saying, glad you finally understa- Oh wait
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    lB - you want to be a dick about this? Well, you have form, so I'm not surprised. We both know that I'd didn't compare cycling to racism, merely bikesplaining to racesplaining. But you do what you do and manufacture some outrage with that.

    No one - certainly no cyclist - is saying that cyclists are perfect, nor that cycling is the only solution to every problem. That's just smoke thrown up by people who don't want to accept that they're causing the mess. The thread title is 'Share the road'. Clearly a step too far.
    it isn’t rage but annoyance. It is simple. Cycling is an activity. The mechanics of which are observable. It is not the same as Being. You think it would be appropriate to compare understanding hiking to understanding being Jewish? That hikesplaining is the same as Jewishsplaining?
    That aside, I’m not telling You what to think from the outside, I telling you what I think from the INSIDE.
    The “cyclesplaining” shtick was a fail from at least two angles.
    As for the rest of the bullshit in that post, you have chosen to not see what I’ve actually written. Not that you’ll allow yourself to see that, of course.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    The fact that I was almost killed by a cyclist last fall whilst gimping through a pedestrian crosswalk with my cane is merely "testimonial." One must not inconvenience a cyclist in any way.

    It is as much testimonial as my story of the idiot pedestrian who stepped backwards into the road in front of me when I was on my bike. There are stupid, thoughtless, careless people everywhere - they are not restricted to bicycles or to the front seat of an Audi.

    One of the features of designing a road system is that you have to design it to deal with actual real people, rather than the perfect road users that you would prefer to encounter. So you have to expect a certain amount of carelessness, aggressiveness, impatience, and general idiocy, and construct your roads / bike paths / footpaths in order to minimize the consequences of small errors.

    Which certainly means separating fast cyclists from pedestrians just as it means separating cars from pedestrians.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Landlubber wrote: »
    There is sharing and sharing. Around here the cyclist can choose to use the road or share the pedestrian footpaths. The shared footpath also gives cyclists priority across most side roads. The Council is now removing traffic lights from the remaining side roads (allegedly to speed up the flow of traffic and reduce queues). End result? Nowhere safe for pedestrians to walk or cross. Cyclists can choose between trusting motorists not to speed out of side roads across the right-of-way or trusting them not to drive too close etc on the road. Drivers are stopped too far back to see across the right-of-way to get out of side roads or cannot pull out safely because of the increased speed of the traffic. A bit of separation would not come amiss.

    Doing the side roads properly means putting the cycle crossing a little further back along the road, so there's space for a vehicle to stop, check the cycle path is clear, then advance to the end of the side road to check the main carriageway. Then they can work quite well.

    You also, IMV, need separation on the shared path itself with a pedestrian and cycle side, as the speed differentials are such that simply mixing cyclists with pedestrians on an often very narrow pathway doesn't always work too well.
    You think we didn't try? Maybe I need a Hell thread about Council "consultations".
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited April 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    As for the rest of the bullshit in that post, you have chosen to not see what I’ve actually written. Not that you’ll allow yourself to see that, of course.
    I fisked your post quite thoroughly, but keep going with the outrage machine.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    As for the rest of the bullshit in that post, you have chosen to not see what I’ve actually written. Not that you’ll allow yourself to see that, of course.
    Keep going with the outrage machine. I fisked your post.
    Whatevs
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Landlubber wrote: »
    There is sharing and sharing. Around here the cyclist can choose to use the road or share the pedestrian footpaths. The shared footpath also gives cyclists priority across most side roads. The Council is now removing traffic lights from the remaining side roads (allegedly to speed up the flow of traffic and reduce queues). End result? Nowhere safe for pedestrians to walk or cross. Cyclists can choose between trusting motorists not to speed out of side roads across the right-of-way or trusting them not to drive too close etc on the road. Drivers are stopped too far back to see across the right-of-way to get out of side roads or cannot pull out safely because of the increased speed of the traffic. A bit of separation would not come amiss.

    Doing the side roads properly means putting the cycle crossing a little further back along the road, so there's space for a vehicle to stop, check the cycle path is clear, then advance to the end of the side road to check the main carriageway. Then they can work quite well.
    Landlubber wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Landlubber wrote: »
    There is sharing and sharing. Around here the cyclist can choose to use the road or share the pedestrian footpaths. The shared footpath also gives cyclists priority across most side roads. The Council is now removing traffic lights from the remaining side roads (allegedly to speed up the flow of traffic and reduce queues). End result? Nowhere safe for pedestrians to walk or cross. Cyclists can choose between trusting motorists not to speed out of side roads across the right-of-way or trusting them not to drive too close etc on the road. Drivers are stopped too far back to see across the right-of-way to get out of side roads or cannot pull out safely because of the increased speed of the traffic. A bit of separation would not come amiss.

    Doing the side roads properly means putting the cycle crossing a little further back along the road, so there's space for a vehicle to stop, check the cycle path is clear, then advance to the end of the side road to check the main carriageway. Then they can work quite well.

    You also, IMV, need separation on the shared path itself with a pedestrian and cycle side, as the speed differentials are such that simply mixing cyclists with pedestrians on an often very narrow pathway doesn't always work too well.
    You think we didn't try? Maybe I need a Hell thread about Council "consultations".

    I don't doubt it for a moment. Cycle Sheffield are having a dingdong with the council at the moment over a road widening where said council's solution for cyclists not fast enough to cope with lane switching in heavy traffic is "use other roads".
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I give up. Some people on this thread are hearing what they want to hear, not what people are saying.

    For once, Karl, we are in complete agreement. I'm glad you took that look in the mirror.

    @Rocinante, licensing bicycles really isn't that hard. If you really care about safety, you should be in favor of it.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Oh piss off Tossweisse. You've misrepresented my position over the whole of this thread and I intend to waste no more effort on you. Not a country in the world is stupid enough to think registering bicycles is anything but utter fuckwittery, for reasons I and Rocinante gave.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    No, Karl, I haven't. You just don't like the fact that I sometimes disagree with you. You really are the model for Jef the Cyclist, aren't you?

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Do you think we should register pairs of shoes too?

    (waits for inevitable wtf , posts "It's just that you don't like the fact that sometimes I disagree with you")

    Sorry, but some ideas are just stupidly impractical.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I see unsafe bicycles all the time, with no lights and no reflectors; many have no bell or horn. With bicycle licensing, those would have be fixed up, or the rider could be ticketed.

    The only time a bike needs lights is when it is being ridden in the dark. If you leave lights on a bike when it's parked, someone will nick them. When a bike is being ridden, the rider is present. You do not require a license to be able to pull him over and issue a ticket.

    But in stead of going in detail through all the reasons why bicycle licensing is nonsense, I'll simply point you at this article, which seems to be a fair summary. Or perhaps this one.

    From the latter article, with bicycle licenses, "what you usually get is a bureaucratic facepalm."
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    ... Sorry, but some ideas are just stupidly impractical.

    As previously noted, I lived in a city that licensed bicycles, and it worked just fine. It was for our benefit. (In those days, I made most local trips by bicycle, including grocery shopping, often with a small child in the trailer.)

    I suppose that I really don't understand the hostility toward any suggestion aimed at making cyclists more responsible, rather than just continuing to blame every issue on the great boogeyman of Motor Vehicles. Yes, bad drivers are a problem; given their numbers, they're the bigger one, and given the laws of physics they're harder on both cyclists and pedestrians.

    But bad cyclists are a problem, too. As a pedestrian, I shouldn't have to worry about being run down on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk. As your Chicago Magazine article notes, many cyclists do blow through stop signs and red lights, endangering both themselves and those who have to avoid them.

    Why the refusal on the part of so many cyclists here to admit that sharing the road is not an issue with only one possible point of view?



  • @Rocinante, licensing bicycles really isn't that hard. If you really care about safety, you should be in favor of it.

    I love the way you dismiss all the evidence above for why bicycle licensing is a ruinously expensive, bureaucratic nanny-state clusterfuck with ~"it's not that hard". You could use that "reasoning" to win any argument there ever was.

    You mainly seem to base this on the fact that you "used to live somewhere that did it." From which I conclude that this place no longer does it, and/or that everywhere else you've ever lived doesn't do it, for the reasons outline above.

    I think you will probably find that in this idyllic place (Mayor J. Clarkson, perhaps?), the nice people like you got their bikes checked and paid their annual fee, and most everyone else just ignored the regulations knowing that enforcement was a logistical impossibility, and that City Hall and the police had no resources to give to it because they were, oh, catching criminals.

    I'm opposed to bicycle licensing because (a) it involve the state spending immense amounts of money to not solve a really tiny problem (bad cyclists will just ignore the regs as bad motorists do) and (b) I want to encourage more cycling. Licensing will discourage it even more than it already is discouraged.

    Bad motorists killing and seriously injuring tens of thousands of us on the streets every year seems to be regarded as the price of doing business. Bad cyclists injuring a few dozen and very occasionally killing someone is an insignificant problem by comparison, which licensing will not solve.



  • Most of us who cycle have the other 2 roles as well: ped and driver.

    On a slightly different angle, in Toronto they want to remove signs which slow traffic because they slow traffic. Link.

    It seems that hitting children with cars is merely annoying.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Round here, there's a need for horses to be taken into consideration as well. And gypsy trotting whatever they are called.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Rocinante wrote: »
    ...I think you will probably find that in this idyllic place (Mayor J. Clarkson, perhaps?)...
    Who?
    Bad motorists killing and seriously injuring tens of thousands of us on the streets every year seems to be regarded as the price of doing business. Bad cyclists injuring a few dozen and very occasionally killing someone is an insignificant problem by comparison, which licensing will not solve.

    I don't think anyone regards motorists hitting cyclists "as the price of doing business," and I'm appalled that you would suggest that of me. But I'm also appalled that you don't seem to care about bad cyclists, who injure well over "a few dozen" just in New York City alone. (Have you ever tried to share the sidewalk with a bicycle messenger?)

    All I'm asking is that bad cyclists get some of the same attention that bad motorists and careless pedestrians get on this thread; we're all supposed to share the road (if not the sidewalk). But that's clearly not going to come from you.


  • Actually, collateral damage is the price of doing business. Expedience and cost v. potential damage, injury or death is a calculation in everything. Transportation,building, food safety, airport security; pretty much anything you can think of.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    But bad cyclists are a problem, too. As a pedestrian, I shouldn't have to worry about being run down on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk. As your Chicago Magazine article notes, many cyclists do blow through stop signs and red lights, endangering both themselves and those who have to avoid them.

    Why the refusal on the part of so many cyclists here to admit that sharing the road is not an issue with only one possible point of view?

    Individual bad cyclists should get attention. There's always some moron who does wrong in any group of humans. Sorry you got traumatized by one.

    From the statistics (see article I posted above), as a group, cyclists should get 90% less attention than drivers.

    Blowing through stop signs is another issue about which there are statistics. Drivers also do this, and they do it because of momentum (it takes 30% more effort to stop completely and restart, than from rolling) and because they can see when it is safe to go. The signs are car infrastructure not cycling. The admittance rate for not coming to a full stop at a sign is about 2/3 of drivers admitting, and about the same for cyclists.

    There's initiatives to make stop signs mean yield signs for cyclists in many places. Good idea in general.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    ...I think you will probably find that in this idyllic place (Mayor J. Clarkson, perhaps?)...
    Who?

    Sorry, Mr. Clarkson is obviously not as famous as he'd like to think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

    I've been known to watch Top Gear and The Grand Tour. Guilty pleasure.
    Bad motorists killing and seriously injuring tens of thousands of us on the streets every year seems to be regarded as the price of doing business. Bad cyclists injuring a few dozen and very occasionally killing someone is an insignificant problem by comparison, which licensing will not solve.

    I don't think anyone regards motorists hitting cyclists "as the price of doing business," and I'm appalled that you would suggest that of me. But I'm also appalled that you don't seem to care about bad cyclists, who injure well over "a few dozen" just in New York City alone. (Have you ever tried to share the sidewalk with a bicycle messenger?)

    I'm not attributing the attitude to you personally, but it is a fact that motor vehicles cause levels of carnage that far exceed that due to air crashes, train wrecks and terrorism combined, and as a society we really don't seem all that bothered about it.
    As LB pointed out, there's a cost benefit calculation to everything and we evidently think that the supposed freedom of motoring is worth the cost in lives.

    All I'm asking is that bad cyclists get some of the same attention that bad motorists and careless pedestrians get on this thread; we're all supposed to share the road (if not the sidewalk). But that's clearly not going to come from you.

    If cyclists are causing widespread injury there are plenty of existing laws they can be prosecuted under, we don't need new ones. The police need to enforce them, as they need to enforce existing laws about speeding and running red lights (yes looking at you guy behind who honked me when I stopped at a red light today IN MY CAR. I'm not going to break the law just so you can break it even more flagrantly)


  • Here's helpful link about some of these issues. "9 THINGS DRIVERS NEED TO STOP SAYING IN THE BIKES VS. CARS DEBATE". It's more balanced that the title would suggest.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited April 2018
    Individual bad cyclists should get attention. There's always some moron who does wrong in any group of humans. Sorry you got traumatized by one. ...

    Only one? I've been traumatized by many cyclists, most often as a pedestrian (heaven forbid that any cyclist should have to accommodate someone on foot). I've been nearly run down on quite a few occasions. That would be disastrous for me, in particular, since the cancer has metastasized into my back and pelvis, and I'm fragile. I'm always careful; too many cyclists aren't.
    There's initiatives to make stop signs mean yield signs for cyclists in many places. Good idea in general.

    The cyclists who have traumatized me as a driver didn't yield for red lights, let alone stop signs.

    (Thanks for the link; I agree with most of it - just not all of it.)

    @Rocinante writes:
    Sorry, Mr. Clarkson is obviously not as famous as he'd like to think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

    I've been known to watch Top Gear and The Grand Tour. Guilty pleasure.

    Alas, I've never heard of any of them.


  • Don’t bother aquainting yourself with the odious man or his televised excretions.
  • Here's helpful link about some of these issues. "9 THINGS DRIVERS NEED TO STOP SAYING IN THE BIKES VS. CARS DEBATE". It's more balanced that the title would suggest.
    More than the title says, maybe. But it is not balanced. Strawmen, poor use of statistics, incorrect information, skewed information and that was all before the third thing. Wording is far towards the cyclist side. Not that it is all bad, there is some potential in some of his examples, but those are not universally applicable.
  • On a slightly different angle, in Toronto they want to remove signs which slow traffic because they slow traffic.
    Looking at the photo posted by Mathieu Goetzke in that article, with a row of parked cars down one side of the road and the plastic sign in the middle of the road, it looks like it would be an awfully tight squeeze on the side with the parked cars. Too tight? It's hard to say from the perspective shown.

    What you want your traffic-calming measure to achieve is to slow drivers to a steady speed (20pmh, 25mph - whatever your desired target is) and have them pay attention to their surroundings in case a pedestrian is about to leap out from between the parked cars.

    If what you build causes drivers to slow to 10mph to negotiate an obstacle, then accelerate harshly in frustration afterwards, it didn't work very well. Are people who behave like that bad drivers? Yes, they are. But the people you're designing these mechanisms for are the bad drivers - the courteous, considerate drivers are already obeying the posted limit in a residential area.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    One of the problems which could be addressed at driver training, is what I call clog and anchor - the right foot is either to the floor on the throttle or hard on the break. This results in pointless acceleration from one queue to the next; when I'm driving (which believe it or not I probably do more than I cycle), the number of times I've trundled up to a red light, and seen someone flying up behind me before hitting the brakes is amazing. What is the point? It's red, you'll have to wait anyway. Cycling, the same phenomenon is expressed as motorists who overtake as you approach the lights, then pull in straight in front of you and brake hard. What was the point? I filter past wondering what goes through their minds. Possibly very little.

    The problems with clog and and anchor are of course the conflicts it creates between those who do it and those who don't, and between vehicles with very different acceleration characteristics. I partly blame the driving test foe this; it has a "making progress" requirement which is often interpreted as "go as fast as legally and physically possible at all times with no forward planning".
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I partly blame the driving test foe this; it has a "making progress" requirement which is often interpreted as "go as fast as legally and physically possible at all times with no forward planning".
    One could see it as impatience. And the desire to move forward even if it does no good. One could observe the same behaviour in queues, in walking along the pavement; in innumerable human activities where any movement feels better than none, even if it is futile. But no, something about driving must be part of it.
    I know, I know; you didn’t say all the blame.
    Making progress is a sensible thing. Blaming it for racing towards a stop is reaching.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.
    IMO, assisted driving is being rolled out a bit too fast. Idiots will rely on it and it will, as has been shown, fail. By the time the technology is solid, a strong distrust will be established and a proper rollout will be stretched out longer than it needs to be.
    Assisted driving is for people of sufficient means, how many failing self-driving vehicles do you want on the road with you?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.
    IMO, assisted driving is being rolled out a bit too fast. Idiots will rely on it and it will, as has been shown, fail. By the time the technology is solid, a strong distrust will be established and a proper rollout will be stretched out longer than it needs to be.
    Assisted driving is for people of sufficient means, how many failing self-driving vehicles do you want on the road with you?

    It's the failing human-powered ones which give me problems.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.
    IMO, assisted driving is being rolled out a bit too fast. Idiots will rely on it and it will, as has been shown, fail. By the time the technology is solid, a strong distrust will be established and a proper rollout will be stretched out longer than it needs to be.
    Assisted driving is for people of sufficient means, how many failing self-driving vehicles do you want on the road with you?

    It's the failing human-powered ones which give me problems.
    Simply put: Failing self-driving cars will make it worse.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.
    IMO, assisted driving is being rolled out a bit too fast. Idiots will rely on it and it will, as has been shown, fail. By the time the technology is solid, a strong distrust will be established and a proper rollout will be stretched out longer than it needs to be.
    Assisted driving is for people of sufficient means, how many failing self-driving vehicles do you want on the road with you?

    It's the failing human-powered ones which give me problems.
    Simply put: Failing self-driving cars will make it worse.

    I think cars driven by humans will kill and injure more per mile than computer driven ones. Maybe not with current tech, but before very long.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.

    I don't think it will. Adaptive cruise control won't think that the light at the top of the hill has just turned red, so it's OK to coast to a stop because we'll be here a while, but not if there's someone behind you and there's a side street before the lights, because the person behind you might want to turn down the side street and you shouldn't unnecessarily impede him, and not if there is significant traffic because you don't want to unnecessarily back traffic up past the previous set of lights.

    In urban traffic which is dominated by queues and traffic lights, the (car) throughput of a road system is determined by the number of cars that get through each cycle of the lights, isn't it? If you're dawdling along because there's no rush because you can see a queue of traffic up ahead, and in so dawdling cause the person behind you to stop at the previous set of lights, you might, depending on the relative phasing of all the traffic lights and so on, have just delayed him by two minutes, or whatever the cycle time of the lights is. You should endeavour not to do that.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.

    I don't think it will. Adaptive cruise control won't think that the light at the top of the hill has just turned red, so it's OK to coast to a stop because we'll be here a while, but not if there's someone behind you and there's a side street before the lights, because the person behind you might want to turn down the side street and you shouldn't unnecessarily impede him, and not if there is significant traffic because you don't want to unnecessarily back traffic up past the previous set of lights.

    In urban traffic which is dominated by queues and traffic lights, the (car) throughput of a road system is determined by the number of cars that get through each cycle of the lights, isn't it? If you're dawdling along because there's no rush because you can see a queue of traffic up ahead, and in so dawdling cause the person behind you to stop at the previous set of lights, you might, depending on the relative phasing of all the traffic lights and so on, have just delayed him by two minutes, or whatever the cycle time of the lights is. You should endeavour not to do that.

    Yes, but there are other considerations; clog and anchor uses more fuel so it's worse for everyone breathing the city air. It's also wearing on the mechanics shortening the economically viable lifetime of the vehicle. I think your former scenario, in the situations I'm thinking of, would seldom slow anyone for more than a second or two, and your latter would be rather rare. Besides, I'm largely talking about approaching red lights a hundred yards or so away, not crawling along in view of a red light three junctions away. Just driving smoothly, not like you're on the dodgems.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Yes -
    Boogie wrote: »
    Adaptive cruise control will cure this.

    I don't think it will. Adaptive cruise control won't think that the light at the top of the hill has just turned red, so it's OK to coast to a stop because we'll be here a while, but not if there's someone behind you and there's a side street before the lights, because the person behind you might want to turn down the side street and you shouldn't unnecessarily impede him, and not if there is significant traffic because you don't want to unnecessarily back traffic up past the previous set of lights.

    In urban traffic which is dominated by queues and traffic lights, the (car) throughput of a road system is determined by the number of cars that get through each cycle of the lights, isn't it? If you're dawdling along because there's no rush because you can see a queue of traffic up ahead, and in so dawdling cause the person behind you to stop at the previous set of lights, you might, depending on the relative phasing of all the traffic lights and so on, have just delayed him by two minutes, or whatever the cycle time of the lights is. You should endeavour not to do that.

    Have you tried it?

    I use it all the time when driving my car. (Skoda Superb). The only time it doesn’t coast sensibly and smoothly to a stop is if I am first to the lights. But, even then, I find that I do, as my driving is improving - as I emulate the smooth drive the car does itself. It starts and sets off itself too. There is no way it ‘dawdles’ or leaves too big a gap. In a 30 mph zone I set it to thirty and it’s like having a sensible, calm chauffeur. I never lose concentration and I simply love it.

    (I hate driving and the more automatic it is the better for me)

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    One of the problems which could be addressed at driver training, is what I call clog and anchor - the right foot is either to the floor on the throttle or hard on the break.
    I assume you mean “brake” :wink:

    Anyway, it’s not a fault with driver training. Nobody is taught to drive like that - at least not by a qualified ADI and it certainly wouldn’t go down well on the driving test.
    I partly blame the driving test foe this; it has a "making progress" requirement which is often interpreted as "go as fast as legally and physically possible at all times with no forward planning".
    Yes and no. The requirement of the test is to drive safely according to the road conditions. That may or not be at the speed limit, but if it’s safe to drive at the limit, that’s what the examiner wants to see. That said, harsh acceleration and braking would definitely be marked down. “Progress” is one of the items on the test marking sheet, as is “anticipation and planning”.

    It pisses me off no end when I hear people say that driving instructors only teach “to pass the test” and that you “learn to drive” after passing the test. If more people drove they way they are taught the roads would be much safer for everyone.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I think cars driven by humans will kill and injure more per mile than computer driven ones. Maybe not with current tech, but before very long.
    Obviously. But I’d rather hope that you don’t think you’ve said anything contradictory to what I said.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    One of the problems which could be addressed at driver training, is what I call clog and anchor - the right foot is either to the floor on the throttle or hard on the break.
    I assume you mean “brake” :wink:

    Anyway, it’s not a fault with driver training. Nobody is taught to drive like that - at least not by a qualified ADI and it certainly wouldn’t go down well on the driving test.
    I partly blame the driving test foe this; it has a "making progress" requirement which is often interpreted as "go as fast as legally and physically possible at all times with no forward planning".
    Yes and no. The requirement of the test is to drive safely according to the road conditions. That may or not be at the speed limit, but if it’s safe to drive at the limit, that’s what the examiner wants to see. That said, harsh acceleration and braking would definitely be marked down. “Progress” is one of the items on the test marking sheet, as is “anticipation and planning”.

    It pisses me off no end when I hear people say that driving instructors only teach “to pass the test” and that you “learn to drive” after passing the test. If more people drove they way they are taught the roads would be much safer for everyone.

    My driving test was a long time ago. With your last paragraph I couldn't agree more.
  • So what's your answer to the question:
    Are bicycles slower cars or faster pedestrians?

    If you see what I'm getting at.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    ...Are bicycles slower cars or faster pedestrians? ...

    When I was a regular cyclist, I felt more like a fast pedestrian - but I was exceptionally careful, yielding the right-of-way when necessary and taking no unnecessary risks.

    As a pedestrian, my sense is definitely that they're slower cars. Too many just don't seem to care about anyone else.


  • The question is similar to the one:
    Q: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

    A: it does not matter if you call the tail a leg, it is still a tail. Dogs have four legs.

    The classification of a bicycle is that it is a bicycle. It's not a car. It's not a ped. It's not a writing desk. It's not an albatross. Nor a dog.
  • So what's your answer to the question:
    Are bicycles slower cars or faster pedestrians?

    If you see what I'm getting at.
    Rationally, they are faster pedestrians. Thinking of them as vehicles, whilst technically true, is a category error in understanding how they interact with motor vehicles. Some cyclists wish to interact with vehicles on an equal basis, but that is not based on practical assessment. The idea that all it takes is for motorists to understand is itself a failure to understand how people operate.
    It is ALWAYS going to be more dangerous for cyclists to mix with motorised traffic.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    So what's your answer to the question:
    Are bicycles slower cars or faster pedestrians?

    If you see what I'm getting at.
    Rationally, they are faster pedestrians. Thinking of them as vehicles, whilst technically true, is a category error in understanding how they interact with motor vehicles. Some cyclists wish to interact with vehicles on an equal basis, but that is not based on practical assessment. The idea that all it takes is for motorists to understand is itself a failure to understand how people operate.
    It is ALWAYS going to be more dangerous for cyclists to mix with motorised traffic.

    In cities, they go about the same speed as othet vehicles. Much faster than pedestrians. Your conclusion is thus bizarre.
Sign In or Register to comment.