Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider 856
hh4m writes "Whether it's San Francisco, New York, or any bicyclistic city in between, you're destined to witness biker after biker dancing with danger, especially at night when visibility is uncomfortably low. Alex Tee and Evan Gant's LightLane device was recently just a concept but is soon to enter reality as a much-needed visual declaration of personal biking space. With a dire shortage of dedicated lanes, LightLane provides urban cyclists with a solution that adapts to them and any route they make take. The compact projector mounts easily to the rear of a bike frame and projects a bike lane-inspired linear pattern that provides great visibility and a familiarity that helps catch a driver's attention."
Nice thought, bad planning (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that thing's using lasers instead of just cheapo LEDs with something restricting the beam I REALLY don't want to be near it when it hits something reflective. I still cringe when I think about the time my friend tried to use his laser pointer in a rainstorm.
Better than a tail light? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... wait. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is using green lasers and the picture shows it with red? Okay, that's silly in itself, but more importantly, whenever it hits a puddle, any other reflective surface or god forbid is used in the rain, isn't EVERYONE GOING TO GO BLIND INCLUDING THE BICYCLIST?
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
and that's the attitude that causes such ire amongst drivers. Lemme requote what the important bits are.
Ultimately, I don't care
And here's why you should revise the attitude
as long as you don't crash into me.
Cars drive away from a bike collision with nasty tickets (court dates, possible criminal charges), scratches, maybe some body damage. But the cars (and their occupants) drive away. Bikes don't drive away, bikers don't walk away, or possibly walk again, ever.
Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
You should try biking to work every now and then. You sound tense.
Anyway, I agree - some cyclists are douches. So are some drivers.
I bike to work, and I have for years. It's faster for me to ride than to drive, and that includes a shower and change when I get there. (I'm an Engineer, and I wear slacks and a dress shirt.) My view is that any time a car has to pass me or slow down for me then I have failed. I'm also of the view that the lanes are just paint and they don't magically protect you against a driver who - statistically speaking - has a 20% chance of impairment. I stick to back roads and trails whenever it is physically possible. When I am on a major road, I will either go onto the sidewalk if it is possible (risking a $125 traffic ticket for doing so) or I will take the entire lane as I am permitted and required to do so by law.
From personal experience, I know that if I am close to the curb, the driver passing me (and again, I have failed) will try to stay inside the lane. If they think there's a chance that they can pass without going into the other lane, then they will. If I come out about 1 metre (3 feet), then they will pass safely. I have no illusions about how I would fare in an car-involved accident. Bikes represent 1% of all traffic, but 2% of all fatalities.
However, I simply can't ride on the sidewalk if it is populated. I generally sustain 30 km/h, and it's just not feasible for me to navigate around the pedestrians. You know those people who walk into the pedestrian crossings without looking? Where do you think they are when they aren't on the road? Yep, the sidewalk.
But these points are mostly trivial - a painted line won't protect you. Add some distance, say 100m. Throw in some trees, a nice berm, maybe a house or retail setting between you and the traffic, and now you're talking. I plan my routes so that I'm avoiding traffic. There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
If someone is riding without lights at night and/or without lights, I can't imagine that you'd face charges. One guy here killed a cyclist who was drunk, no lights, no helmet, and wearing dark clothes at night. He was only charged with "leaving the scene". (Justifiably so)
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually the car driver will carry on driving like normal. The bike isn't perceived as a threat. One of those paddles that stick out the side would be more effective. This is an expensive high tech solution looking for a problem that has already been solved. And its no good when the road is lit.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love riding bikes and skateboarding but I stay the fuck off the goddamn road. I've rode on the sidewalk my entire life and I've never been cited, even as cops drove right by.
It's illegal for a reason, you know. Speaking as an experienced cyclist (I've biked more in a summer than many people drive), I can tell you that sidewalks are often more dangerous than the roads. Drivers entering and leaving the road are not watching for bikes (when's the last time you looked more than 5 feet down a sidewalk when crossing it at a driveway?). Pedestrians move unpredictably. Even worse, many of them are walking dogs, which have a tendency to chase bikes (which is usually a losing proposition for the dog). Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for bikers, and it's unsafe for walkers.
I agree that many bicyclists need to improve their skills. I have a headlight and taillight, wear light-colored clothing, signal turns, and share the road with cars; many others do not. By all means, stay pissed as hell at the bikers that do stupid things - they annoy me too. But bicycles have just as much right to the road as cars do.
Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:4, Insightful)
The road is big enough if both parties just share. The real problem here is self-righteous assholes, not cyclists or motorists.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:1, Insightful)
Until you start paying taxes and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.
Fixed that for you. Insurance doesn't pay for roads.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Share the road. It's not going to kill you. Not sharing the road kills cyclists. These are real lives -- this is not a game.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
So ... you want them to break traffic laws, just so you don't have to worry about them?
Interesting. Why don't you just use the sidewalk yourself? It's easier to do in a car (people WILL move out of your way, and if not you're driving a ton of steel - just run them over) AND you'll get to your destination much quicker. You don't even have to worry about rush hour.
You might want to get an old banger for the trip though. You might end up with quite a few dents in the car, and it will probably need to be washed daily. But think of the time you'll save.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle. That means that you must give me 3 feet of clearance when passing. It also means that I must give you 3 feet of clearance when passing (so none of that darting down the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic that some bikers and motorcycles like to do).
I have no idea where you're from, or what this "rego" you speak of is - but quite frankly, bikes cost less for society. In my locale, roads are not paid for entirely by gas taxes, registration fees, etc.; money for them also comes out of income or property taxes. So maybe you pay slightly more than I do - but you also require a more sturdy road, use the roads more, and cause more wear on them. Semi truck drivers undoubtedly pay more than you do too - and they cause more wear and require a heftier road, and probably put on a good number more miles than you. Is that some great injustice too?
Think of it this way; every biker you see is one less driver that's getting in your way, and one less car parked between you and that perfect parking spot right next to the door of your destination. Most of us are smart enough to use residential streets, bike lanes, or bike paths, rather than highways and main thoroughfares. If you take all the bikers off the road and replace them with the cars, you can bet they'll be in between you and the next stoplight (which you would otherwise indubitably race towards at top speed, only to slam on the brakes, repeating at each successive block).
In NYC, we have less tolerance...for cars that is (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny to hear how much ire there is for bicyclists in other parts of the country.
As a Manhattan native I can confidently say that the most annoying thing on the road is the douchebags who feel like its a good idea to bring their massive cars in from Jersey, Westchester and Long Island -- and clog up traffic.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
I'm all for a $50 toll for commuters. Clogging up the city should be incredibly expensive for non-commercial traffic.
Cities should be primarily mass transit, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles. Douchebags feeling like they have a right to bring their suburban into the city is a much bigger problem than some dude on a bike.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders...
As someone who is an occasional biker, it is unfortunate that so many bikers ride so recklessly, because it gives the sport a bad name and leads to things like all the posts around here about "get off the roads onto the sidewalk" which sounds like a much more reasonable idea then it actually is if you don't actually try to bike for transportation purposes. (Not saying you fall into that category.)
Personally, I try pretty hard to uphold what I see as my end of the deal. I'm a firm believer that bikes belong on the roads, but in exchange, bikes have to follow the rules of the road: stop at stop signs, wait a red lights, etc. (I don't view "stay against the curb" in that set, though in the absence of passing opportunities for cars, pulling over to let people pass is a good idea.) Accordingly, I usually follow said rules, and would be in favor of increased policing of moving violations committed by cyclists.
I am not going to claim that I always hold to that ideal, but when I break a rule I basically follow four guidelines: (1) is it safe for me, (2) is it safe for everyone else, and (3) will it affect the decision making of anyone else, and (4) leave a substantial safety margin. Often (3) translates to "there aren't other cars on the road". (Incidentally, I follow similar guidelines when jaywalking.) I have a variety of reasons for how I justify this to myself, which you might think are justified or not.
Regardless, I at least think I'm pretty courteous when I'm biking around, at least given the constraints of riding a me-powered vehicle. The problem isn't with bikers on the road; it's with the dumbass and selfish bikers who give us a bad name. (Which I'll admit to be a sizable proportion.)
Funny ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the cyclist in the picture doesn't actually have any lighting on his bike apart from the lane-thingy :D
Anyway, as a dutch person who has biked in the states (Knoxville, TN area) I was absolutely appaled by the risks bikers have to take on americans roads. I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate ... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all ... worthless and dangerous.
To paint the picture, in the Netherlands you could cycle the whole country without having to share a lane with a car once ... we have a pretty good infrastructure with bike lanes and even seperate bike paths with run parallel to the roads.
My point being, this 'solution' sucks, is overengineered and impratical. If you want to really encourage people riding bikes instead of taking the car, build the infrastructure for it.
It can be done, even in formerly very car-centric cities. Take, for example, Paris, where the last years biking has taken off hugely because of a city push for more biking, including cheap rental bikes and massive new bike lane building.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate that it is physically impossible for you to travel the posted speed limit. But you don't have the right to block traffic. Here in California, you are legally required to pull over if you are unable to drive the posted speed limit and there are 5 or more cars behind you.
Here in the UK the speed limit is just that, a limit for perfect conditions. Anyone blindly driving at the speed limit is showing no regard for the conditions and should be banned.
Of course, in a nose-to-tail tailback I assume that means you have to pull over, you aren't travelling at the speed limit, and there are more than 5 cars behind you.
This is true whether you're driving an antique car or a broken car or a bicycle. If you must ride so that you block traffic, do so briefly.
This is called the primary position. Responsible cyclists take this position when they can't be safely overtaken (usually at dangerous, artificial pinch points)
If you reach a stop light, let the traffic that you blocked go past you when it turns green.
Generally in Europs it's different, but we don't worship at the alter of the car. Certainly in London, you'll find the average speed of a bike outside of rush hour is about the same as that of a car. You might find a car reaches a top speed of 5 or 10mph more, but will simply spend longer waiting at lights, or behind the car in front.
In rush hour of course, theres no choice, bikes out perform cars by an order of magnitude.
Pootling around the town I live, I'm often held up by cars on the ride from home to the station, traffic isn't particularly bad either.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not forced to overtake in the opposite lane ON A BLIND CURVE. Neither are you forced to CLOSE YOUR EYES, or LET GO OFF THE STEERING WHEEL. Instead you are supposed to stay behind the bike until you can overtake safely. Doesn't matter if its a bike, another car, or a horse drawn buggy. The road belongs to all of us and remember it's a speed limit not a speed requirement. It's only a few types of roads that have speed requirements, like motorways. But, I never see bikes there.
Where I live we have a very sensible rule called objective responsibility. It basically disassociates the responsibility from the culpability. So even if the it was the bike riders fault, the car driver will be held responsible, because they are using a two ton murder machine of steel. Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it. Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian. That is the price you pay for being allowed the use of increasingly dangerous tools in public.
Now I am a very law abiding biker, and I always use the bike lanes, stop for red etc. Sometimes, however, there are no bike lanes and I confess I will drive in the middle of a car lane. This is because of a little something called experience. I have biked in many countries in Europe, and I have never been hit by a car if I drive in the middle, because I'm easy to spot. When I drive as far right as possible I've been run into plenty of times. I've learned how to not die and that is unfortunately to be a nuisance to the car drivers.
In the big scheme of things what is more important: a 2 minute delay or a life? Would you like to have the death penalty if you ever inadvertently delayed someone for two minutes? Do you think that is reasonable?
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
You're in a giant shield of metal with bright lights and and a law forbidding dangerous driving to protect you! If any goit in a suped up Vauxhall Nova overtakes you on a bend and hits you, it's going to be HIM hitting the oncoming traffic, not you! The cyclist might get knocked off, you might get a glance if the idiot tries to pull in again, but at the end of the day you did everything you could to keep the roads safe, and it's everyone else behind you with the problem.
If you let yourself become intimidated by people behind you on the road, you should not be driving. No amount of horn beeping, following closely, or swerving in and out of lane should make you do something dangerous, to you or anyone else.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
For each single guy biking, the oil and gas used by other motorists to pass, evade, get stuck at stoplights, and make up for poor riders more than compensates for the people not using cars.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them.
They should. They also spend many millions on roads, and if cars don't want to share those, you need dedicated bicycle paths. Where else do you expect cyclists to ride?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me (but Spain is rumoured to be even worse).
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE?
What the hell are you doing overtaking traffic ON A BLIND CURVE, you dangerous loon?
Why does this person on a bicycle have the right to put us all at risk?
You are the one putting everybody at risk with your reckless behaviour.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's flamebait that happened to stray near to valid points while insulting people.
I'm not a cyclist and I commute a considerable distance down country roads used by bikes, walkers, tractors etc and I find your self-centric view of who the road is for to be condemnable. Roads are for use by vehicles and any competent driver can share them with other forms of traffic without difficulty. More bike lanes would be great but spending a small fortune adding them where their isn't sufficient traffic to justify it is wasteful when so many other things could do with government expenditure.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Thanks for that post. Not only that, but sidewalks (previously suggested) are definitely not for cyclists. That shit drives me batshit insane as a pedestrian every time some dumbass cyclist practically bowls me over because he's going 15 mph on a sidewalk, in a vehicle that's probably three times as large as the width of a person's shoulders, in a city that doesn't have enough sidewalk space to begin with.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this right.... you think it is the cyclists fault if a car driver passes them on a blind corner and then has an accident? If it's a blind corner then the car driver should wait until they can see! Would you blame a tractor or other slow moving vehicle if you had a crash while trying to overtake them on a blind corner??
Cyclists cycle out from the curb because it is the safest way to cycle, otherwise they frequently end up getting run over / pushed off the road as cars try and squeeze past while traffic is in the other lane. I've been run off the road by a car trying to squeeze past then suddenly realising there is a truck coming so they need to move over more.. right into me.
I used to try and cycle in a way that made it easy for car drivers to get past etc. But I've been nearly hit, cut up and run off the road too many times. Now I cycle out from the curb and car drivers pass me properly and I've had no issues with being cut up, it is by far the safest way to cycle.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the "share the road" mentality that really gets to me. If a bike is really meant to be there, then there should be a bike lane that motorists can see. If I see a bike lane I make DAMN SURE that I give enough room and stay away from it.
There's a small subset of drivers that don't (personally, I think it's a larger subset than your cyclist subset). They will cut into the lane to pass on the wrong side, or get ahead at junctions. They'll park in the lane "just for a minute" or 30.
How does "share the road" apply to a winding path through the mountains that really only supports two lanes of traffic?
I thought you were discussing roads designed for cars (dual carriagways, divided highways, motorways, autobahns etc), but these are roads designed for people.
Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE?
Why are you trying to pass on a blind curve? Would you try and pass a slow farm vehicle on a blind curve? So why do you try and pass a bike?
Just wait. Most decent cyclists will move to the side when they think it's safe (e.g. when they see the road ahead is straight and clear) to let you pass.
What if the oncoming traffic is a little to close to my lane? We get to trade paint and lose our mirrors? Why does this person on a bicycle have the right to put us all at risk?
I think you're the one putting everyone at risk by attempting unsafe overtaking.
Why does he/she get to slow us all down to the bikes speed?
Oh dear! Do you slow down for old women crossing the road? That probably delays you more than a bicycle.
I definitely don't want to hurt you, and I am offended that you think you can put me at risk any time you please.
You are the one with the dangerous vehicle, so you carry the responsibility. It's *you* that puts everyone around you at risk whenever you drive somewhere. You should do everything you can to keep that risk to a minimum, which includes giving vulnerable road users space when you pass them, or being patient when you can't.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
As a driver, I often have the reverse thought. I work weekends, and what is a nice ride out of the suburbs for lots of cyclists is my commute. What is it with convoys of cyclists? Either two (or more) abreast, stretching the overtaking distance substantially or preventing it completely, or in indian file leaving no gaps for cars to pull into, meaning you either have to try and overtake anywhere from 2 to 6 bikes at once, or not at all.
I'm a realist. I know we're going to have to throttle back on car use a lot in the future. I'm quite happy to pay more road tax to fund better public transport, and if it was better I would use it. Perhaps we can build more off-road cycle lanes too? Bikes and cars just don't mix - the size, vulnerability, and speed differentials are just too great.
In the meantime I wish cyclists would realise that some people still have to drive to make a living. We're not arseholes, most of us have good spatial awareness and don't really fancy the idea of killing anyone. Any chance of some consideration going in the other direction?
Rant over.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you're being silly, if you feel that unsafe and react to 'pressure' from drivers behind you then I'd say you probably be shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
The fact is that both cyclists and motorists are legally allowed to use the road, along with horses and carts, tractors, articulated lorries and all sorts of other things and the key to safe and relaxing journeys for everyone is for everyone to treat other road users with respect and make sure that your own driving/cycling whatever is considerate and safe.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
You like many others responding to me are ignoring the fact, that the danger is simply by virtue of the bike being there in the first place on this mountain road. I may not be forced to do anything, but you are still ignoring that the level of danger is increased for everyone. If there are a LOT of blind curves and I have many cars already passing me out of frustration, my level of danger is GREATLY increased. You're right that I am making a choice to get away from the "problem". That problem is the bike. It slows down traffic a LOT, and that is the primary danger, right or wrong. I can choose to stay where I am, or drive closer to the bike and pass him. My only other choice is to wait 15 miles in some cases and then pass. Of course, I would have spent those 15 miles getting butt *$*%$% by other vehicles, and exposed to the very real and significant danger of frustrated drivers passing on SOLID YELLOW LINES.
You conveniently ignore my PRIMARY point above ALL others. The road does NOT belong to "all" of us. It belongs to those of us with "two ton murder machines". Your logic might also seem to mean that pedestrians have as much right to the "roads" as do all other forms of transportation. The laws are more specific than that, and the laws are clear where I live, and they state that bicyclists must be in bicycle lanes or off the roads. There is no variations, no ifs, ands, and butts.
Your objective responsibility rule I find reasonable, but it is predicated upon the fact, that the bicycles have the right to be there. If that is really true in Europe, then I would absolutely RESPECT that while driving in Europe. I never have driven in Europe. I live in the U.S.
If I am right, and you don't have any sort of legal entitlement to be there (for the sake of argument), are you not unfairly putting others at risk with your actions? I understand the logic in you doing so, since it greatly increases your safety, but my arguments are about your RIGHTS to do so.
You admit you are a nuisance, but I am more concerned by the increase of danger for all concerned, most especially yourself. Unfortunately, there is a fast growing population of drivers that are extremely frustrated by ANY impediment to the full speed, sometimes not allowed by law.
They might not be right, but that is irrelevant. It's not about right or wrong. It's simply about the increase of danger and the assumption that you don't have the right to be there to create it.
Of course, I don't find the death penalty reasonable, but the rest of your argument is reasonable. My problem is not with a 2 minute delay at all, but rather the substantial increase in danger having bicycles on certain roads creates.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most bicycle paths that run near roads are lower in elevation than the roads. It's entirely possible that the drivers in his situation were running with the low beams on, and that due to unfortunate positioning the glare of the lights still hit him. The same thing happens when you're driving in a car and approach a hill... if there's an oncoming car that crests the hill before you do, there will be a point where the headlights, even on low-beam, will shine directly in your eyes. If you're on a country road with no street lighting, you will be blinded.
It's also possible that he just encountered one asshole who didn't bother to turn off his brights. Carry a mirror for that, not a laser... when somebody's following me with his brights on, I turn the rearview mirror to shine them back in his eyes... usually doesn't last more than a few seconds before he either passes me or turns his lights down.
I still think it's a solution without a problem, though. When I drive, I have never had trouble seeing cyclists who use the proper equipment at night. There's laws in this country that require that bikes used at nights have lights on them, and they really do work, when installed properly. Have a red flasher mounted under the seat or on the back of your helmet, have a white light in front, and you've still got the reflectors in your wheels (which are also mandated by law), and a bike is *very* visible at night.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle.
The law is not morality. It's legal for a record company to sue somebody for $200,000 for copying a $1 song, but that does not make it right.
Using "its the law", ought to be right up there with Godwin's rule when it comes to making lame arguments.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE
Nobody is forcing you to overtake on a blind curve. Wait until it's clear to go. It's not difficult.
Most of my driving is done on twisty country roads, and a far bigger problem than cyclists is idiots who think they can just come hammering round cyclists without looking properly.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
I agree with the spirit of your post, so this isn't an argument or anything, but I do think the above list is a bit off regarding trains. ;}
While that list is correct if you are listing 'what causes / can cause the most damage', but as far as responsibility, trains have almost no control over their situation. A loaded train moving at a quarter of the road speed limit when crossing it, still can require up to a quarter mile to come to a full stop. So hitting the breaks so to speak is not really an option without lots of advanced warning of the need to stop. And obviously swerving out of the way is out of the question
It would be quite silly to hold a train responsible for actions they have no control over...
The rest of the list is fair, even if not reflected in US law as you describe it as being over there.
Here, its partially the fault of whom broke the law at the time, and partially the fault of whomever is pissing the cop off the most at the time.
This is mostly a good thing. Yes, there are asshole motorists, but there are also asshole bikers.
If only everyone would use common sense and realize being delayed 30 seconds is not the end of the world.
I never understood how a person could be on the road, see no one in front of them, then see an insanely long line of traffic behind them which is being held up due to their driving behavior, how can they not feel ashamed at being so selfish and inconsiderate?
Giving up 30 seconds to get out of the way to not inconvenience many others, while not required by law, is just the right thing to do. This goes for both bikes AND cars.
This does go for cars too, when they try with all their assholish might to pass everyone for that 30 second advantage. It's just not worth it. It is equally dickish to do to others like the above, but arguably even more dangerous.
Back to the topic of the device in question... I conclude that a technical solution can not truly solve a social / human problem.
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying you shouldn't give a cyclist room, just that some cyclists are pricks that will bike where no bike belongs and this device could empower those morons.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, you have a duty of care to not harm others with your 1.5tonne (conservatively) high speed machine of death; You take a test to ensure you're responsible enough for that task.
I say again, if you can't handle stressful situations on the road, you shouldn't be driving. It has nothing to do with the (bad) decisions of one particular cyclist. If it pisses you off that much, or you feel it puts you in danger, flag him down next time you see him and tell him he's not supposed to be there, present him with the legislation which says so, and say that next time you're calling the local police. Acting in any other way is irresponsible.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about if bikers just get off the streets? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean roads that were designed for horse drawn carriage
Those roads were mainly mud, and the real good ones were made of cobblestones. Asphalt is 100% thanks to automobiles. Bikers like asphalt too - hey everyone likes asphalt. It's a smooth ride. But the only reason the world is covered in black goo is because of those "invading" automobiles.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have fantastic luck with my court case. Unfortunately, it has been a trend for a great many pedestrians and bicyclists to get struck and sometimes killed in my city. The vast majority, of those admittedly sad events, never even result in a citation for the driver. This is because during those cases the driver was in a traffic lane, observing the rules of the road, and had the right of way. More importantly, there was no way that the driver could have reacted fast enough or safely avoided this person.
I do not say this with glee either, or to take joy in being "right". It is just a fact where I live. It does mean that I wish to take chances with other people's lives, because I may not be found liable. I am not that much of a jerk.
That does not mean I have a "duty" to not harm others when they are unlawfully in the traffic lanes and I am unable to avoid them. There is a reasonableness to the situation you are talking about. If it is dark at night, and somebody all in black is standing in the middle of the road, and I am driving safely within the conditions of the road, and I cannot react fast enough to avoid this person, I am not held liable.
If it was the noon, and the person was very visible and I had plenty of time to slow down and react, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Your statement of duty ignores the specifics of various situations and examples that we could come up with. Sure, I have a duty to bring no harm. However, that is not an absolute, and if harm is caused and I am determine to not be at fault, than I am free to go. If it was clear I could have avoided the person, but chose not too, then it would most likely result in charges of manslaughter or worse.
Once again, you keep stating it is stress and fear that are causing my actions. It isn't. It is my awareness of a significantly increased level of danger to myself, the bicyclist, and the other motorists around me. It is not stress or fear that motivates me to make any decision in that specific example.
It has everything to do with these bad decisions of the cyclist. The cyclist created the dangerous environment, not me, or anyone else. Up until the point I make a decision to move my vehicle around him, he is entirely responsible for the increased level of danger for everyone.
That's just it. He is not pissing me off, in that I am slowed down or otherwise inconvenienced. I am offended that he chose to put me and others in danger, but that it not a level of emotion that could characterized as a hasty or overly emotional reaction.
It's not my job to flag him down either. At the point I could safely stop anyways, I might not ever even see him. It might take 20 minutes to wait. With respect, that is the job of law enforcement, but they are too busy putting people away for drug offenses, and getting their quota of "taxes". With fairness, there might be simply too much for them to do. Either way, not my responsibility to educate everyone about the laws.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
True, bikes don't take up a lot of space and don't directly harm other people and the truly good ones are smart about it: they signal, pay attention when nearing an intersection / parking lot / etc, ride on the side of the road or in a bike lane, etc. I have no problem when there's a smart cyclist around, and though I give him extra room and pay more attention, I have NO problem with them on the road.
However for every smart and safe cyclist I also see 1-2 jerk cyclists. The jerks ride their bikes on fast roads without a shoulder and don't signal while drifting to the other side of a fast multi-lane road so they can make a turn later... all without wearing a helmet. My favorite was this Monday when a jerk was riding against traffic on a 50 MPH road without a shoulder (yes, I'm being serious... none of the cars around me knew wtf was going on) and wasn't wearing a helmet.
The problem with the jerks is, I as a driver have to be VERY careful around them... more-so than a smart cyclist or even a flippin' 12-year-old on a BMX. They're erratic, don't pay attention, and don't know the rules and common courtesy an experienced cyclist knows. And god forbid the jerk leaves the bike lane and drifts in front of me without signaling and I hit him, besides ending a human life (or severely maiming them) my family's would probably be financially ruined with lawsuits.
I think the jerks are multiplying, as they used to be a rarity and rode on the weekends or away from commuter roads. It must be the economy and price of gas; inexperienced people deciding to ride their bikes to work, dusting off their bikes for the first time in 10 years, and thinkiit's just fine to hop on the road and do whatever they want.
So I have no problem with cyclists in general, just when a jerk makes things unsafe for himself and everyone else.
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Perhaps pedestrians could get an expensive, battery powered solution to the problem of cyclists illegally (in the UK, at least) cycling on the pavements by projecting an arrow pointing to the road above the text "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ARSEHOLE"!
Re:If there's no room to overtake (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a similar situation for you; The cyclist is a parent walking with their child. To pass them, you need to pass to close to the child, as the father is walking on the inside. He's being an idiot, but hey, that's life. Do you put the childs' life in danger because of a) the impatience of the idiot drivers behind you, or b) the idiocy of the parent?
Putting the cyclists' life in jeopardy is not the solution. Passing too close to him is not the solution. Putting up with idiots on the road who put your life in danger is not the solution. Tell the police, write to your congressman, tell the cyclist he's being a douche, hell, drive a different route from work if it's that much trouble, but I find it very hard to believe the law, or morality, is on your side if you knock him off in the situations you've described.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
Legally, the bike is traffic on anything but a limited access highway. You might not like him being there. You might think the law should be changed to further limit or even ban bike traffic. But until you can get the law changed, "bikes are not traffic" (which I take to mean that they have no legal rights to use the road) is simply wrong.
There's lots of vehicles on the road I wish weren't there. When I've got to deal with a tractor trailer making a tricky turn, I wish it wasn't there. When I'm behind agricultural or construction machinery and I cannot pass, I wish they weren't there. When I'm on a road with narrow lanes and I've got to look out for some huge SUV that barely fits, I wish it wasn't there. But I can't wish it away, and more importantly, I can't wish my legal and moral responsibility to drive in a safe manner away. Even if I am dealing with an illegal vehicle (e.g. a bicycle on an limited access highway) it is my responsibility to drive in a manner which ensures everybody, including the driver of the illegal vehicle, remains safe. If I drive in an unsafe way because I don't think that vehicle should be there, I'm breaking the law. Even if the law agrees with me that the vehicle shouldn't be there, I'd actually be the greater lawbreaker in that case.
Now it sometimes happens in the course of driving that things are not safe as we'd want them to be. I might come around a blind curve and find a front end loader ahead. I might be in the right lane and a car in the left has an engine that suddenly belches smoke so it needs to get into the breakdown lane. I might even encounter a bad driver who cuts me off. It's natural to feel fear and sometimes anger, but these are facts of driving, which will never be totally safe. Driving itself is a tradeoff between the benefits of safety and the benefits of mobility. It takes maturity and mental toughness, but when confronted with a situation that irritates or outrages you on the road, you just have to eat it. Driving requires we all share the road. It is always the case that if you force some set of vehicles or drivers off the road, driving becomes a bit safer. By that measure, we should force cars of the road, because roads would be come very much safer for the remaining vehicles. But it's not about absolute safety. It's about the greatest safety consistent with freedom of movement.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to bike? Don't inconvience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, bikers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that its ok to ride on sidewalks (its not), ignore stop signs (they can't), ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me) and ignore red lights.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm all in favor of making it illegal from them to ride ANYWHERE except dedicated paths in city limits.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, most of us cyclists are not trying to inconvenience you, but just trying to get home safely.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The car may be parked, but the door is moving. ;-)
If someone opens a door 3 feet in front of you when you're traveling 20-25mph, you don't have time to even apply the brakes in any vehicle. The difference is that roads with on-street parking are usually designed so that traffic is a safe difference from parked cars. But that's often not the case for bikes -- in many places marked bike lanes are right in the "door zone".
In Massachusetts we recently passed a bike law that, among other things, makes it a ticketable offense to open your door in the path of a cyclist. On the other hand, there are some states where it's illegal for a bike to ride within 3 feet of parked cars.
I personally try to avoid the door zone unless I'm moving very slowly, even though the law is on my side here.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you honk and swear at tractors, funerals, and Amish buggies too?
Actually, yes. AND other cars! But bikes are the worst because they have that high and mighty moral swagger. "I'm just exercising and saving the environment." Yeah... and wasting my time, fucker.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where does the money to build and maintain roads come from? Oh yea, road use tax in gasoline, parking meters (do bikes have to pay to park?), drivers license, vehicle registration? Oh, and keep up with pace of traffic.
When bikes start paying road use tax by the mile, require registration, inspection.. then maybe you have a legit reason to complain. In the meantime STFU.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
The cyclist will not choose another route out of his own volition; He's used to that route, and nobody has pointed out how inconvenient (and illegal, apparently) it is. If you won't tell him, as a person who is obviously concerned for his safety as well as your own and that of those around you, then who will?
I guess the alternative solution is for him to get knocked off and killed. That would solve your problem, wouldn't it?
Re:Just what we need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, there are plenty of asses, however, in my experience, only cyclists combine being asses with pretending they have the moral high ground.
I know good cyclists, just as I know good drivers, but this is an asshat toy, it's creating a bike lane just for you, because you're a cyclist and you deserve one. It won't make you safer because it's not a lane, it doesn't create space for you and it doesn't magically move the cars around you.
If you're doing the right thing and the driver is doing the right thing you won't need it, and if you're not or they're not then it won't help. If people want bike lanes they should be proper bike lanes. I like real bike lanes, they keep cyclists in a lane designed for traffic of their own speed, so they can do their thing, and I can do mine(whether I'm walking or driving).
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Insightful)
sure I can. A quick search brought up the fact that only ninety percent of the roads are paid for through petrol taxes and excises. The rest is paid for thought ordinary taxes. Secondly the roads are placed on public land which should belong to everybody, but the roads are not paying rent or property taxes to the state. Because they are very reasonable seen to provide a public good.
So according to your financial argument more than ten percent of the road is paid for by other means than car taxes and should therefore be reserved for other uses. Now I'm sure that less than 10% of the traffic is bikes in the US.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The claim that funding for roads comes solely from use taxes is false. Depending one where you are and what roads you are talking about, the claim that funding for roads comes primarily from uses taxes is false.
one hyphenated word (Score:2, Insightful)