Drivers of Expensive Cars Less Likely To Yield For Pedestrians, Study Finds (cnn.com) 282
ClickOnThis writes: Many of us know the old joke about BMWs and hemorrhoids. Now it seems that science can back it up. In a study perhaps deserving of an Ig Nobel, scientists found that the likelihood a driver will stop for a pedestrian is inversely proportional to the value of their vehicle. CNN reports: "A new study has found that drivers of flashy vehicles are less likely to stop and allow pedestrians to cross the road -- with the likelihood they'll slow down decreasing by 3% for every extra $1,000 that their vehicle is worth. Researchers from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas speculated that the expensive car owners 'felt a sense of superiority over other road users' and were less able to empathize with lowly sidewalk-dwellers.
They came to this conclusion after asking volunteers to cross a sidewalk hundreds of times, filming and analyzing the responses by car drivers. Researchers used one white and one black man, and one white and one black woman -- also finding that cars were more likely to yield for the white and female participants. Vehicles stopped 31% of the time for both women and white participants, compared with 24% of the time for men and 25% of the time for black volunteers. But the best predictor of whether a car would stop was its cost, researchers discovered. 'Disengagement and a lower ability to interpret thoughts and feelings of others along with feelings of entitlement and narcissism may lead to a lack of empathy for pedestrians' among costly car owners, they theorized in the study." The research has been published in the Journal of Transport and Health.
The research "backed up a Finnish study published last month that found that men who own flashy vehicles are more likely to be 'argumentative, stubborn, disagreeable and unempathetic,'" adds CNN.
They came to this conclusion after asking volunteers to cross a sidewalk hundreds of times, filming and analyzing the responses by car drivers. Researchers used one white and one black man, and one white and one black woman -- also finding that cars were more likely to yield for the white and female participants. Vehicles stopped 31% of the time for both women and white participants, compared with 24% of the time for men and 25% of the time for black volunteers. But the best predictor of whether a car would stop was its cost, researchers discovered. 'Disengagement and a lower ability to interpret thoughts and feelings of others along with feelings of entitlement and narcissism may lead to a lack of empathy for pedestrians' among costly car owners, they theorized in the study." The research has been published in the Journal of Transport and Health.
The research "backed up a Finnish study published last month that found that men who own flashy vehicles are more likely to be 'argumentative, stubborn, disagreeable and unempathetic,'" adds CNN.
Is that why tanks cause so many deaths? (Score:5, Funny)
I propose a study about possibly antisocial behaviour of tank drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking something similar... I get that someone driving a $70k 4x4 truck with a steel grille guard would be more tempted to go full asshole when it comes to pedestrians, I drive a far less expensive truck and the temptation is strong under the right circumstances (especially when it comes to those chumps that step out from hiding behind a parked car at the last second w/o looking). However, I sincerely doubt that someone in a $70k Porsche (let alone driving something way out-there like a $3m Konigseg
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They really don't care about the damage to their car. They'll just buy another one.
Re: (Score:3)
Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they simply are less afraid of getting a ticket because the price means less to them. Or people who drive fancy cars tend to be busier or more distracted by fancy electronics. Or people who drive fancy cars are simply more aggressive drivers and more confident of their ability to navigate past pedestrians. Or
There are a million possible explanations here and I see no reason to accept the one given without substantial further research.
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
The Finland study removes one possible motivation - In Finland, speeding tickets are linked to your income
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
One guy got a record CHF 299,00 (USD 290,000) fine for 135 kph (85mph) in a 80kph (50mph) zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Except a constant fraction of your income means far more to the poor than the rich. If I earn 1 million bucks a year I can probably easily pay 1% of that income (10k) without blinking an eye and without affecting the quality of my life. I'll have plenty of savings and can always borrow cheaply.
If I earn only 30k a year then even a $300 ticket (also 1%) can be a huge difficulty if I'm living hand to mouth and have little savings. So no it very much doesn't.
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
While I like income linked fine programs they can't really plausibly inflict the same degree of pain on the rich person and the poor person simply because of the savings issue (high income builds up high wealth non-linearly but you don't want to penalize people more who save more so you can't really take that into account) and the fact that utility tends to be logarithmic or less in earnings.
If you want equal pain it's probably better to demand they come in and spend the same amount of time picking up litter or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
Even time can be a penalty. Throw most people in jail for a few days, they have lost their jobs and likely will have economic ramifications for months to years to come. Toss someone uber rich in who does nothing, other than the time lost, they would lose nothing because their money is made for them.
At least income based tickets is a start in the right direction, and better than nothing.
Re:Or (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon insurance companies will be adjusting your rate depending on your day to day driving behavior. It can't be that long before you're required to give them access to your vehicle's data if you want insurance at all, let alone just cheaper, as it is now. Drive slow, save money.
Here's the problem. With the current system, overly-affluent people can easily pay their way out of almost any legal issue. We basically have a two tiered legal industry, there's one set of rules for most people, and a special, less restrictive, set of rules for the upper class.
It's not just cars, it's how they act in the workplace that the reality of affluence can be best seen. These upper class people expect, and demand, subservience. If you don't do as you're told, and smile while you're being told, then you'll be laid off. This is the reality of economic class divisions.
The real reason for our economic system is not to provide transactional functionality to a society, our system is structured to maintain the power that one group of people has over the rest of us.
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
You could compellingly reduce all of your explanations to "has a superiority complex". A driver not yielding because they can afford the fine is not meaningfully different than "feelings of entitlement". All of these behaviours show either a lack of empathy or a lack of self awareness, both critical when operating a vehicle on city streets.
Re: (Score:2)
A driver not yielding because they can afford the fine is not meaningfully different than "feelings of entitlement". All of these behaviors show either a lack of empathy or a lack of self awareness
This of course assumes most people follow those rules of the road because of empathy and self-awareness instead of the laws and penalties in place. I feel most people drive differently around police than when no police are visible, so I doubt your assumption is correct (for most people that is). My guess is most people lack empathy and self-awareness, but some are more financially capable to get away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
While driving any car do do feel isolated from rest of the world. The outside world is often moving past you at unnatural speeds, with a big screen like watching TV.
When teaching driving we have been taught safety skills that oppose our natural instinct. Such as looking out hundreds of feet away from you may just a few feet while you are walking or running.
Re:Or (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not the first time a correlation like this has been observed. The natural question arises: does being an a**hole help you get rich, or does being rich make you an a**hole? So one social psychology experiment examined this question by manipulating subjects' perceptions of their own financial security.
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups; the first group was asked to contemplate their own level of financial success and security vs. people less successful than they were, and the second was asked to compare themselves to people who were more successful. A standard test to assess empathetic attitudes was then administered.
People who'd been primed to think of themselves as relatively successful and secure expressed significantly less empathetic attitudes. Now this is a classic social psych "priming" result, which have a low degree of replicability, so we can't be sure it's real. But it's intriguing.
Re:Or (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there's probably an emergent aspect to this.
The people who are already securely rich have no reason to be in a big hurry -- the fucking private jet, helicopter, or yacht isn't leaving without its owner/charter sponsor, the event isn't starting without them (or will wait for the big moment until they get there), etc.
And there's lots of assholes who aren't rich. At least half of my worst aggressive driver encounters aren't with people driving expensive cars, they're with obviously low income people driving shitty cars. A beater Dodge Neon with a peeling tint job, bad muffler. Driver is having a cigarette, on their phone and weaving in and out of traffic 10-20 mph over the speed of traffic.
It's probably the people on the *cusp* of being rich or who have finally gotten there after a long struggle that better explain this phenomenon. Even "good" people who are on a high-success trajectory face relentless pressure to succeed -- impossibly tight schedules, high workloads, all the kinds of things that contribute to them making "asshole choices" in all aspects of their lives, especially behind the wheel.
It's a self-defining narrative when they're driving expensive cars -- rich people are assholes. But if I stop and think about it, I have these asshole encounters with people driving mid-range cars in a good shape, so I'm kind of inclined to think they're just not rich enough yet to have that first luxury car, but are still trying to juggle the ridiculous demands to get there.
Alternate explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
Numerous studies have found that people try to conform to social norms - act like how they see other people acting [youtube.com]. So if people in expensive cars are constantly seeing other people cutting them off and driving rudely, that will condition them to think that's how everyone normally drives. And they'll be less likely to yield to pedestrians not because they lack empathy or have an inflated sense of self-worth, but because that's how they think everyone drives.
Personally, I think it's a little of both. Some of these people are self-important pricks who are just rude regardless. Some of them didn't start off rude, they became so after seeing other people being rude to them, and began to think that's how everyone normally acts so they conformed to the norm they were seeing. Something to think about before you cut off that BMW just because you assume he doesn't deserve his success.
Re:Or (Score:5, Interesting)
I do agree that it is a subject worth of further research, however all those rebuttals appear to me to built on top of an attitude that self importance overrides pro-social behaviour. I don't see those rebuttals as solid grounds to dismiss these findings. I strive to respect pedestrian crossing because it is IMHO the morally right thing to do, not because I might be penalised.
AIH I own two cars, a mid-market sports Coupe (MG6) and a Land Rover Discovery. I respect pedestrian crossings in both. However, when I'm in the MG6 I regularly experience drivers of prestige marques attempting to intimidate me. When I'm in my Discovery, which is actually older and has a far lower residual value they do not.
This is an observation, I won't profess to have an explanation, it might be the Discos is judged to have greater prestige or that it is larger or something else. This is a topic worthy of further study and science is about continuously refining of findings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bicycle rider that rides the roads and abides by bicycle law. I'm a white guy mid 50's.
The majority of drivers that pull up beside me and scream at me to "Get the F' on the sidewalk" are 20's something Asian men. Much rarer is a teenage or early 20's something white guy. One was a mid 30's black guy driving a BMW that pulled a gun and pointed it at me while screaming to get o
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
it is illegal for anyone over the age of 12 to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk
Weird. I'm in a different state (MO) but I always ride my bike on the sidewalk because I feel it is safer. No one actually walks on the sidewalks in my town anymore anyways except for downtown. On the rare occasion I do meet a walker, I yield to them but it basically never happens. Even downtown, it seems like half the bikers are on the sidewalk and the other half use the road. The ones that use the road are generally the ones that also are wearing actual biker clothes while the ones on the sidewalk tend to be wearing normal street clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah riding a bike on a road is totally worth it. You couldn't pay me enough to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
You couldn't pay me enough not to ride a bicycle on the roads.
People are at their most highly functional when in a state of flow. For me, that's often on a bicycle. I love cycling because it causes the desired chemical reactions in my brain, an increase in dopamine, seratonin, and anandamide.
I'm a very high-strung person, and a bicycle is one of the few places I can relax. For me, screwing around, riding no-hands, finding the perfect line... that's what satisfies me and removes the stresses of everyday life
Re: (Score:3)
The 3 foot passing distance is a bit of a... well, allow me to explain.
I'm a cyclist with a background rooted in road and cyclocross racing. I've raced US nationals, though I'm not fast enough to win consistently, which is why I'm a programmer and not a professional cyclist. Still, I'm faster than 99.9% of people on a bike.
When a car passes at a distance of 3 feet, it tends to cause the vortices of their wake to hit me, upsetting the balance and orientation of the bike. If they pass closer to me, within a f
Re: (Score:2)
I used to own a Mercedes E550 and the only people who tried to race me always had turbo Mini Coopers.
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they simply are less afraid of getting a ticket because the price means less to them. Or people who drive fancy cars tend to be busier or more distracted by fancy electronics. Or people who drive fancy cars are simply more aggressive drivers and more confident of their ability to navigate past pedestrians. Or
There are a million possible explanations here and I see no reason to accept the one given without substantial further research.
No, the explanation is simply that people who can afford cars like that are assholes who think their wealth makes them 'winners of the great meritocracy' which in turn entitles them to use, abuse and shit all over everybody else which is basically the cause of every revolution, mutiny, insurrection and insurgency in human history.
Re: Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Or (Score:5, Interesting)
Definitely. Among my friends, family, and coworkers, driving an expensive car is far more correlated with “asshole” than income. Of the assholes, most of them were assholes long before they could afford an expensive car.
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely. Among my friends, family, and coworkers, driving an expensive car is far more correlated with “asshole” than income. Of the assholes, most of them were assholes long before they could afford an expensive car.
I see this phenomenon as income independent meaning that a person doesn’t have to be especially wealthy or competent to claim the title ‘winner in the great meritocracy’ and feel themselves entitled to use, abuse and shit on everybody else. There are plenty of wealthy people who aren’t assholes. A person just has to be an asshole who suffers from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely. Among my friends, family, and coworkers, driving an expensive car is far more correlated with “asshole” than income. Of the assholes, most of them were assholes long before they could afford an expensive car.
If you meet an asshole in the morning then you just met an asshole in the morning. If you've met assholes all day then you're the asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
An expensive car is not a utilitarian choice. [...] It's a social choice. It's like fancy clothes. You show others what your social standing supposedly is, whether you really can afford that or not.
Have you ever owned a luxury car? I used to be someone who couldn't understand getting a luxury car when a Mustang GT was just as fast and far cheaper. Then I wanted a convertible with AWD, and luxury models were the only option. Now that I have a BMW, I would have a hard time going back to "standard" vehicles even just from a utilitarian perspective. Well, maybe not a hard time, but I would miss the extra features, more comfortable seats, better climate control, reduced cabin noise, etc. that I enjoy in my
Re: (Score:3)
My coworkers Porsche 911 was identical to my wife's VW Sirocco
Does not compute. 911 is six in the back, RWD, has been like that since the first ones in the 60's. Scirocco was straight-four, FWD.
Re: Or (Score:2)
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when it comes to addressing policy and safety regulation of crosswalks, prior measures (and their costs) to reduce harm, e.g., high-contrast and reflective paints, signage, pedestrian signal systems, etc., must be considered in proportion to a previously assumed irrelevant component of "rich-asshole", to give it a term polite researchers don't publish.
Re: (Score:3)
Hm. Perhaps smart signs that recognize cars and announce "this means you too asshole" whenever they recognize a car worth over a certain amount.
Re: Or (Score:2)
Inflated sense of self importance. Iâ(TM)ll give you an example. Theres a Toyota Camry (TRD) thats outfitted with performance and luxury features that run the price to pushing $40k. Or $50K for the TRD of the Avalon. With the premium color options the GR Supra can exceed $60K. But people will still go with the Lexus IS line instead because of the Loser moniker emblazoned on it. they dont see themselves as nearly as important driving a Toyota logo around town.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, the test did not involve red light / speeding, it was a midblock crosswalk. I don't think anyone is afraid of getting a ticket for not yielding to a pedestrian. Your hypotheses in general sound much less plausible than "richer people feel superior", or non-sensical even (e.g. not yielding means you don't let the pedestrian cross first, not that you need better manoeuvring skills). To be fair, the study does say it is only one possible explanation:
Therefore, one potential explanation may be that drivers of higher value cars were displaying some of these characteristic traits through their lack of yielding behavior; e.g. felt a sense of superiority over other road users.
Also the racial aspect in the study they claim is below s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How I approach those varies: If there is a sign for "Must yield for pedestrians" then by all means, I stop. If the crosswalk has blinking signal lights available and they aren't using them, I will generally assume they aren't ready to cross yet. (Especially if they aren't waiting at the line, or if there are no cars behind me) If there isn't traffic behind a car, it takes longer for them to come to a complete stop than for the pedestrian to wait for the one car to pass and cross normally.
My city has had a n
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you!!!
As a cyclist, the vast majority of potential accidents involve someone trying to be "nice". But, if you decide to break the flow of traffic, and try to wave me in front of your lethal kinetic weapon, you're a moron.
I time everything to go behind the dangerous moving masses, not in front of. Had a lady stop in the middle of traffic, coming off a highway (4 lanes wide), and try to get me to cross in front of her, while the other cars were flying around her. Even though she could see me, she was herself blocking other drivers from seeing me, so I still couldn't safely do what she wanted.
Then she starts yelling at me to just cross already and how she's trying to be nice.
How about you fucking follow the law, and let me make my own decisions so I don't get run over?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I had something like that in my car. I was stopped with my left turn blinker going. The first oncoming car stopped and waved me to turn ahead of him. I didn't have a clear view of the other lane, so I waited, and sure enough another car zipped out and would have creamed me if I had turned.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't ride a bicycle but this infuriates me the most at 4 way stop signs, which people seem to forgot how to navigate the second they pass the driving test. No, I don't want to play who's the nicer driver by trying to let the other go first all the while actually making the process WORSE by mak
Re:Or (Score:4, Insightful)
Your logic is flawed. No matter how many million of those "other explanations" you may come up with, most if not all of them will include seeingly ignoring pedestrians which always stays linked with not caring for them, i.e. lack of empathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider (line feeds mine):
Researchers used
one white [man] and
one black man, and
one white [woman] and
one black woman
check
...Vehicles stopped 31% of the time for both women and white participants,
31% for one black woman and
31% for one white woman and
31% for one white man
compared with 24% of the time for men
24% for the one white man and
24% for the one black man
25% of the time for black volunteers.
25% for the one black woman and
25% for the one black man.
Re: (Score:2)
You even support my theory. First or - that's prime assholedness. Second or - they did this long before fancy electronics. Third or - an example of prime assholedness.
They're just assholes.
Every Rowdy drives an Audi !? (Score:4, Funny)
Long studied in Germany an produced numerous puns and limericks.
"Jeder Rowdy faehrt nen Audi"
"Jeder Popel faehrt nen Opel"
"Audi a.k.a. the lord of the Rings"
"F.I.A.T. - Fehler in allen Teilen" - one defect in every part
"Er fuhr Ford (fort) und kam nie wieder" - he droves with his Ford and was never seen again.
The star of Mercedes Benz is sometimes referred to as being a crosshair to target pedestrians and bicycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford = Found on road dead.
Fiat = Fix it again, Tony.
Audi = Four zeros on the bonnet and a fifth behind the wheel (swedish).
I'm sure there are more.
Re: (Score:2)
Just 30 %? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In Scandinavia, at least in Norway, virtual all drivers stop for pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk.
They clearly don't buy enough BMW's or Mercedes there.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember some years ago travelling from Paris to Baden Baden by train. In Paris (at least back then) drivers seemed to think the black and white stripes were painted on the road just to look pretty. They would never even consider stopping for pedestrians on one. In Baden Baden by contrast, you only had to look vaguely like you might be thinking of crossing the road for both directions of traffic to screech to a halt in front of you. On more than one occasion, I had to try to convey with sign language,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For even more fun, obviously and dramatically take out your camera and take a picture of them inside the crosswalk, making sure to include the traffic lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because it's the law in Scandinavia and just a guideline in Las Vegas? Dunno, just guessing.
In Germany for example pedestrians have the right of way at a marked crosswalk by law. Thus pretty much every car stops for pedestrians.
Re:Just 30 %? (Score:4, Insightful)
US specific (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Russia it's quite the contrary: drivers of more expensive cars are the most polite on the roads in terms of yielding the right of way to pedestrians crossing the street (except for very expensive cars but those are a minority).
Re: US specific (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the content of all those Russian dash cam videos on the internet, I would say Russia is in a different class all by itself anyway.
Those drivers of the nice cars probably give pedestrians a wide berth because the pedestrians might try to jump onto the car then try to sue the driver for hitting them.
Wait, So rich people are assholes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$30k car = run over pedestrians? (Score:2)
the fact that they are saying for every $1000 in value a car has, you drop 3% in likelihood to a yield to pedestrians, to me screams small sample set. This is basically claiming that someone with a $30k car, like a toyota Camry is going to run you down if you try to cross the street or at least has a 90% probability of it. .
I'm not sure how something like this gets to be news unless it's plan is to try to pair it with other misinformation trying to claim that anyone who makes more than $X is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how something like this gets to be news unless it's plan is to try to pair it with other misinformation trying to claim that anyone who makes more than $X is bad.
Well, it's CNN, so ... yeah ... par for the course.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment to me screams you can't do simple math. To add 3% to something, you MULTIPLY the something by 1.03. You don't ADD 0.03. If something has a 10% chance of happening, then something with a 3% higher chance has a 10.3% chance, not a 13% chance.
Re: (Score:2)
racist stats? (Score:4, Insightful)
so they stopped 31% of the time for the black woman because she's a woman, but stopped only 25% of the time for the black woman because she's black?
And they stopped only 24% of the time for the white man, but 25% of the time for the black man. And that proves that drivers are prejudiced against blacks?
Who writes this guff?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh... they're averages. So they would have stopped less than 31% of the time for the white man, and more than 31% of the time for the white woman. They stopped less than 25% of the time for the black man, and more than 25% of the time for the black woman. I don't think there's enough information to solve for the actual values of each, but the way the data work is pretty clear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
White woman: 24%
White man: 38%
Black woman: 38%
Black man: 12%
Which... wow. That's really not what I expected. The way those stats were reported was really bad.
Correlates with my observations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
they probably cheat on their spouses as well. (Score:2)
I'd like to see the same study, but for bikes (Score:2)
I'd be interested to see if the price of bike, the daft fixie things they use (which are illegal in the UK on roads due to no front brake [bbc.co.uk], but which are widely used anyway) and the amount of lycra worn correlates with the bad behavior in a similar manner to the expensive car badge.
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor (popular but discredited) has it more pedestrians are injured/killed in New York City by bicyclists [nypost.com] than by automobiles. Not quite true [nyc.gov]. But cyclists are dangerous to pedestrians, even if they share the danger... I've not yet run anyone over, but come close. Cars on the other hand, they seem to be uniquely dangerous to me as a cyclist. usually from not paying attention. Pedestrians are just more agile at lower speeds, but smaller and easier to avoid. Sort of.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing personal by the way - this is my observation as a daily commuter in central London, particularly aroun
Re: (Score:2)
"Not quite true" - is quite an understatement. More than 100x more pedestrians are killed by motor vehicle crashes than by bicyclists in NYC. Your linked article has a single bicycle-caused pedestrian fatality. Most years it's 0.
Re: I'd like to see the same study, but for bikes (Score:2)
Look at the injuries.
On the other hand, people that drive beaters (Score:4)
Re:On the other hand, people that drive beaters (Score:4, Interesting)
Y'know, even when I drive a beater (A *real* Beater with a Heater like the half-84 half-85* Escort I had in North Dakota for a winter car) I:
Drove it safely,
Parked it so it wouldn't get door dings,
Didn' try to run people over with it,
Didn't cut in front of or brake-checked anyone.
In short, other than not changing the oil in 3 years, I treated it as I would treat any car of mine. (reason for no oil change? The thing would burn about a quart every half month, so I just kept pouring fresh oil in..)
Idle kickdown didn't work too well, so all too often I'd start it in a -30F morning, go back in for a smoke and coffee, come back out and she'd be screaming her little 1.5l one-barrel heart out, reeking of roasted oil. Poor thing.
I .. don't miss it.
* she was a frankencar, made up of two wrecked Escorts. I think I paid 50 bucks for it when I missed out on what I really wanted for a winter car, a '75 land cruiser. Slept on it for one night, called the next morning, it had already sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't credit them with intention. They mostly neither know or care they are driving in the State of Oblivion, right next to Montana.
Certainly not where we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Beaters that are old with no dings get respect since those drivers most likely care about their car enough that it lasted all this time.
Studies proving the already known. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes drivers are the worst (Score:2)
Same for people driving black vehicles ... (Score:2)
... or so it seems from a lifetime of random sampling.
A lot of jokes are rooted in truths (Score:2)
Like the one about the difference between a BMW and a cactus.
Or the engineering goal of Cadillac up to about the 90s... Hint, it has to do with isolating the driver from road imperfections, such as pedestrians.
And yes, the Cimarron was that much of a failure. As was GM from about 1970 onward. But that's another form or arrogance and entitlement.
I do recognize today that more than ever highway speeding is democratic. My morning commute in particular is now punctuated by fast movers, and they are as often dri
A slap wakes them up (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife and I were in a crosswalk at the mall parking lot, when a guy drove his SUV right through in front of us.
I gave the back of it a good hard slap with my open hand, and when he screeched to a stop and opened his window to start yelling at me, my wife let into him about nearly running us over in a crosswalk (you're REQUIRED to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk here).
He realised he was in the wrong, apologised and left quietly.
Don't let them get away with it. Call them on it.
Bloody Peasents! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's good that BMW doesn't make vans. That would likely achieve peak assholery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Legally, in the US, on a public road, they are in fact treated as motor vehicles and subject to the same laws and privileges.
For example, I can fully legally use the entire lane at my own pace, as long as it doesn't have a marked minimum speed limit. The fact that I ride on the shoulder is a courtesy to faster vehicles, not a law I have to abide by.
Re: (Score:2)
Bicycles are not necessarily motor vehicles. I know for certain in Minnesota, bicycles are vehicles, but they are specifically not motor vehicles.
I'm not going to look up the statues for all 50 states, but I'd bet good money Minnesota is closer to the rule than an exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. For instance, NYS law says this: https://www.nysenate.gov/legis... [nysenate.gov]
Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes and bicycle or in-line skate paths.
(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interferen
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. I live in MA, and should have made my comment specific to MA laws and not so overly broad.
However, in MA,
Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
I ride on the roads, and the sidewalks at a walking pace, audibly and visually signaling in a manner consistent with the laws of my state. And I can ride right down the middle of the lane if I feel like it, and I do (but I can also do 30 MPH on a bicycle from decades of cycling and racing). MA law gives me the option to pass on the right, but for general cycling, I could hang out in th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In many states bicycles are not considered motor vehicles, and laws concerning motor vehicles are an additional set of laws that apply to all road vehicles. One example is that in MN drunk driving laws only pertain to motor vehicles, so it's perfectly legal to bike while drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
correction to above: and laws concerning motor vehicles are an additional set of laws that apply to only some road vehicles.
Ugh slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a cop stop me one night, at around 2 AM, while I was out for a short ride. He pulled up on my left at a stop sign, rolled down his passenger window, and asked me if I'd been drinking. I truthfully said, "no".
After a moment, he realized that I'd been doing a trackstand next to him for this entire encounter and hadn't once set a foot on the ground. Then he took off.