'Cyclists Can't Decide Whether To Fear Or Love Self-Driving Cars' (yahoo.com) 210
"Many bike riders are hopeful about a world of robot drivers that never experience road rage or get distracted by their phones," reports the Washington Post. "But some resent being guinea pigs for driverless vehicles that veer into bike lanes, suddenly stop short and confuse cyclists trying to navigate around them.
"In more than a dozen complaints submitted to the DMV, cyclists describe upsetting near misses and close calls... " Of the nearly 200 California DMV complaints analyzed by The Post, about 60 percent involved Cruise vehicles; the rest mostly involved Waymo. About a third describe erratic or reckless driving, while another third document near misses with pedestrians. The remainder involve reports of autonomous cars blocking traffic and disobeying road markings or traffic signals... Only 17 complaints involved bicyclists or bike lane disruptions. But interviews with cyclists suggest the DMV complaints represent a fraction of bikers' negative interactions with self-driving vehicles. And while most of the complaints describe relatively minor incidents, they raise questions about corporate boasts that the cars are safer than human drivers, said Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition... Robot cars could one day make roads safer, White said, "but we don't yet see the tech fully living up to the promise. ... The companies are talking about it as a much safer alternative to people driving. If that's the promise that they're making, then they have to live up to it...."
Many bicycle safety advocates support the mission of autonomous vehicles, optimistic the technology will cut injuries and deaths. They are quick to point out the carnage associated with human-driven cars: There were 2,520 collisions in San Francisco involving at least one cyclist from 2017 to 2022, according to state data analyzed by local law firm Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger. In those crashes, 10 cyclists died and another 243 riders were severely injured, the law firm found. Nationally, there were 1,105 cyclists killed by drivers in 2022, according to NHTSA, the highest on record...
Meanwhile, the fraction of complaints to the DMV related to bicycles demonstrates the shaky relationship between self-driving cars and cyclists. In April 2023, a Waymo edged into a crosswalk, confusing a cyclist and causing him to crash and fracture his elbow, according to the complaint filed by the cyclist. Then, in August — days after the state approved an expansion of these vehicles — a Cruise car allegedly made a right turn that cut off a cyclist. The rider attempted to stop but then flipped over their bike. "It clearly didn't react or see me!" the complaint said.
Even if self-driving cars are proven to be safer than human drivers, they should still receive extra scrutiny and aren't the only way to make roads safer, several cyclists said.
Thanks to Slashdot reader echo123 for sharing the article.
"In more than a dozen complaints submitted to the DMV, cyclists describe upsetting near misses and close calls... " Of the nearly 200 California DMV complaints analyzed by The Post, about 60 percent involved Cruise vehicles; the rest mostly involved Waymo. About a third describe erratic or reckless driving, while another third document near misses with pedestrians. The remainder involve reports of autonomous cars blocking traffic and disobeying road markings or traffic signals... Only 17 complaints involved bicyclists or bike lane disruptions. But interviews with cyclists suggest the DMV complaints represent a fraction of bikers' negative interactions with self-driving vehicles. And while most of the complaints describe relatively minor incidents, they raise questions about corporate boasts that the cars are safer than human drivers, said Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition... Robot cars could one day make roads safer, White said, "but we don't yet see the tech fully living up to the promise. ... The companies are talking about it as a much safer alternative to people driving. If that's the promise that they're making, then they have to live up to it...."
Many bicycle safety advocates support the mission of autonomous vehicles, optimistic the technology will cut injuries and deaths. They are quick to point out the carnage associated with human-driven cars: There were 2,520 collisions in San Francisco involving at least one cyclist from 2017 to 2022, according to state data analyzed by local law firm Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger. In those crashes, 10 cyclists died and another 243 riders were severely injured, the law firm found. Nationally, there were 1,105 cyclists killed by drivers in 2022, according to NHTSA, the highest on record...
Meanwhile, the fraction of complaints to the DMV related to bicycles demonstrates the shaky relationship between self-driving cars and cyclists. In April 2023, a Waymo edged into a crosswalk, confusing a cyclist and causing him to crash and fracture his elbow, according to the complaint filed by the cyclist. Then, in August — days after the state approved an expansion of these vehicles — a Cruise car allegedly made a right turn that cut off a cyclist. The rider attempted to stop but then flipped over their bike. "It clearly didn't react or see me!" the complaint said.
Even if self-driving cars are proven to be safer than human drivers, they should still receive extra scrutiny and aren't the only way to make roads safer, several cyclists said.
Thanks to Slashdot reader echo123 for sharing the article.
Need more information (Score:2)
The cars definitely need to be able to detect cyclists beside them. But I'd really like to know more about this one, based on numerous experiences with bicyclists in the university district in Seattle. Basically, was this interaction at
Re:Need more information (Score:4, Informative)
Good point. In Washington bicyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign as a "yield" sign if there is no oncoming traffic, aka the Idaho Stop. [wikipedia.org]
SDCs might not have that programmed into their behavior model or react properly depending on which state the car is operating in.
46.61.190 . . . . The Safety Stop allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields if there is no oncoming traffic https://wabikes.org/index.php/... [wabikes.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Why should they have to behave differently? The cyclist is supposed to treat a stop sign as a stop sign if there is oncoming traffic. A self-driving car is oncoming traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
You misread the parent's comment. The cyclist still has to yield. I.e. A cyclist does not get fined if they cruise through a stop sign, but if there's another car coming they actually do have to stop, or at least slow down enough to yield. The cyclist doesn't have right of way.
Ultimately regardless of what sign was in the OP's case, the cyclist was actually at fault.
Re: Need more information (Score:2)
The cyclist still has to yield.
Which they didn't even when they were still bound by general traffic laws. Now it's a free for all out there.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the funny things I hear from people who laud the "Idaho Stop" is they miss the "Idaho Yield" [idaho.gov] law. Particularly section 3:
[...] if a driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of highways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.
Re:Need more information (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, was this interaction at a stop sign, and if so - was the bicyclist in the act of just cruising through it without stopping?
You do need more info. Specifically that it's not illegal for a bicycle to cruise through stop signs. To be clear the bike needs to give way to the car still, but it's amazing the amount of hate given to cyclists by drivers who don't know the road rules. In Seattle a cyclist does not need to come to a stop. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/def... [wa.gov]
The concept of a safety stop is safer for all and reduces collisions due to reduced time for cyclist to clear an intersection and the much smaller stopping distance of a bike making the stop sign irrelevant to them in the first place.
But in the case you were talking about the cyclist was obscured behind a vehicle. Being a 4way stop he didn't have right of way, but I suspect he probably did not see the car and the car evidentially did not see him.
As a cyclist and FSD user... (Score:3)
Tesla's FSD actually handles bicycles quite well already. (It just needs to handle cars 2-3 ahead of the car in front of you properly.)
Distracted drivers are an exponentially worse problem.
It is only a matter of time.... (Score:2)
So the good news is they don't do stupid shit (Score:2, Interesting)
The downside is the tech is nowhere is near ready to be on roads safely so they could easily bump you and send you a flying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you travel (Score:3)
with the meat on the outside... you're going to lose any encounter with a motor vehicle. You are not equal.
We need to quit pretending that a form of transport that arose with the horse-and-buggy is still as safe as ever when sharing the road with motor vehicles. That hasn't been the case for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and that's why civilized cities are removing the most dangerous and least efficient form of transport from relatively large swathes of roads.
Re: When you travel (Score:2)
Sounds like you're talking about bicycles, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're talking about bicycles, mate.
Bicycles and buses. Both vastly more space efficient than cars. I was commuting into work the other day across London bridge. The multi lane wide bike box was completely full with cyclists an there was spill over behind for maybe the same depth. Over 50 cyclists (I counted) waiting in the space which would be taken up by 4 to 6 cars, and they cleared the lights within seconds of them going green.
For equivalent commuting by car, that would have been all lanes f
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that not everybody can cycle to work, or get the bus, so just banning cars isn't very practical or fair. There has to be a way to reasonably co-exist, and part of that involves things like getting rid of wankpanzer-style SUVs in favour of more sensible and safer cars, but also introducing proper regulation for cyclists and bikes.
Ideally we could have a Dutch style system, but in many places there just isn't the space.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that not everybody can cycle to work, or get the bus, so just banning cars isn't very practical or fair.
Good grief, no one's banned cars.
Cars, frankly in many cities are neither practical or fair. Why is it fair that the residents of southwark have to sit in a bus doing 0mph stuck in a massive line of slow moving cars when the majority of people in the borough don't even have access to a car? the prioritization of cars over public transport is absurdly unfair and most unfair towards poorer pe
Re: (Score:2)
You write "removing the most dangerous and least efficient form of transport from relatively large swathes of roads". And also "There doesn't "have" to be a way. The combination of physics and human factors may well dictate that no solution can exist. So far no one has found a way."
Can you explain what that is, if not a car ban?
My recent experience as a pedestrian in London is that many cyclists don't seem to understand the rules, or maybe they do but just don't care. In particular, pedestrians are now sup
Re: (Score:2)
You write "removing the most dangerous and least efficient form of transport from relatively large swathes of roads".
Yes.
And also "There doesn't "have" to be a way.
Yes.
Can you explain what that is, if not a car ban?
Red the post, it's entirely clear what I mean and I said it several time. You also are in the UK. You presumably have heard in the news about LTNs and so on. You presumably know about this stuff in some way to be commenting on it.
How do you think they have removed large amount of car traffic with
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't really mean removing them from the roads, you mean just making it less convenient/impossible to use certain roads for certain journeys, to reduce automotive traffic.
That's a more interesting proposition. The issue I have with LTNs is their impact on people with mobility issues. There's a decent study that covers most of it: https://www.transportforall.or... [transportforall.org.uk]
At the moment the majority of people with disabilities feel negatively impacted by LTNs. So while there clearly are benefits to them, partic
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't really mean removing them from the roads, you mean just making it less convenient/impossible to use certain roads for certain journeys, to reduce automotive traffic.
I do mean removing them and that's a perfectly good way of removing them. Same as ULEZ removed cars from the roads even though nothing was forced.
The issue I have with LTNs is their impact on people with mobility issues. There's a decent study that covers most of it: https://www.transportforall.or... [www.transportforall.or]
That study is... interesting.
Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Cars, frankly in many cities are neither practical or fair. Why is it fair that the residents of southwark have to sit in a bus doing 0mph stuck in a massive line of slow moving cars when the majority of people in the borough don't even have access to a car? the prioritization of cars over public transport is absurdly unfair and most unfair towards poorer people, frankly. And how is an hour long tailback of cars completely clogging up a city remotely practical? It's taken me 3 hours to get from the south circular to the M25 before. That is not practical.
I feel the same way about buses. They are constantly starting and stopping holding up and slowing down traffic. Buses are neither practical or fair.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel the same way about buses. They are constantly starting and stopping holding up and slowing down traffic. Buses are neither practical or fair.
Yes but the difference is (a) America is uniquely shit at buses and (b) you're an entitled wanker or (c) intentionally talking about a different region in order to make an equally stupid point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the difference is (a) America is uniquely shit at buses and (b) you're an entitled wanker or (c) intentionally talking about a different region in order to make an equally stupid point.
My commentary was most certainly just as "equally stupid" and "entitled" as yours. It was in fact the entire point of posting it to highlight how ridiculous all this sort of commentary is.
You drive a car and are like WTF is with all of these buses and bicyclists getting in my way.
You ride a bus and are like WTF is with all of these cars holding up traffic.
You ride a bicycle and are like WTF is with all of these cars not giving way to ME.
Different modality, same bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
> Despite the frankly histrionics about cyclist
> behaviour I see far more dangerous and deeply
> anticocial driver behaviour than cyclist
As one whose commute in San Francisco has, for nearly a quarter-century now, been about 60% MUNI/BART, 30% walking, and mostly just occasionally driving when MUNI drivers would decide to ignore their published timetables or the weather is particularly nasty; I have. I've seen it many, Many, MANY times. It even has a name: Critical Mass.
Don't get me wrong here.
Re:When you travel (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why, in sensible countries, they have built large amounts of infrastructure to support active transport. That way, more people can use bikes and scooters and everyone gets around more efficiently than when everyone uses cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmed. Amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle. [imgur.com]
Are there situations with fear but no danger? (Score:3)
Fundamental problem for non-car safety (Score:5, Interesting)
The most fundamental safety advice to give any pedestrian or cyclist coming in contact with any machine be that car, forklift or crane is to make eye contact with the operator. When you can see someone and they see you there is an important piece of communication that has taken place, it says "I know you're there". Implicitly some right of way rules are followed from there, or gestures made to describe priority (or unkind gestures depending on the person)
How do I make eye contact with a self driving car?
When I drive with pilot assist on I can see on the dashboard that the car has recognised the vehicle or person in front of it. But from outside the car you can't see that info.
Re: (Score:2)
How do I make eye-contact with a car coming up from behind and overtaking me?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a problem which is why many of the times that car drivers kill cyclists, they hit them from behind.
But, the OP makes a good point. At a junction when I have to pass in front of the intended path of a car, then you always look for eye contact.
Re: Fundamental problem for non-car safety (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most fundamental safety advice to give any pedestrian or cyclist coming in contact with any machine be that car, forklift or crane is to make eye contact with the operator. When you can see someone and they see you there is an important piece of communication that has taken place, it says "I know you're there".
True, but the only reason this is necessary is because human drivers often do not see you, and without that communication you can't know if they have. Self-driving cars that "see" in all directions at all times and never get distracted or tired or bored will always see you unless they're defective. When we have confidence that SDCs work properly, the need for the communication you describe disappears. It's an artifact of human driver deficiencies which SDCs should not suffer.
Plus, as others mentioned, th
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, those situations are where you're going to ride your bike across the path of the car, where the driver failing to detect you means he'll run you over. In any place with halfway sane traffic road layouts, those are the most dangerous situations, other cases may be more accident prone, but with milder results, like a parked car opening the door for a bike to ride into,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, In a parallel universe... (Score:2)
Drivers get annoyed about cyclists on their phones, jumping all red lights, undertaking with millimeters of space to spare and, having undertaken 10 cars, holding back all traffic at every junction.
Re: (Score:3)
None of those endanger drivers. Drivers on the whole get ragey about perceived inconvenience no matter the cost to safety, as long as they're the ones protected in a steel box.
Thankfully I live in a place which has decided that every more cars is not the solution to persistent congestion and has deprioritised cars in favour of other users. The gales of whining which ensued are beginning to take on a musical quality to my ears.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Become a driver, spend some time on the road from a car driver's perspective and I promise you'll understand all the frustration pretty quickly.
Law of the jungle (Score:2)
In the animal kingdom all animals know their place simply by comparing their size and strength. Smaller and weaker animals yield to bigger and stronger. It's a self-regulating system and when you observe it, you can clearly see how beautiful of a system it is and it just works. I believe cyclists could learn a lot from it. If you, a small and weak unit, choose to throw yourself into a stampede or rhinos, you should accept the possibility that you may get hurt and that you should obey by the same rules as th
Cars are the problem? (Score:2)
About a third describe erratic or reckless driving, while another third document near misses with pedestrians.
Aren't those the same statistics for cyclists? Should include what percentage run red lights.
Orly? (Score:2)
Ai mislabeling (Score:2)
is Cycling’s greatest risk in the face of self-driving 4,000 lb metal blocks of steel and rubber. Human’s have mistaken cyclist for pedestrians misjudging, underestimating and thereafter regrettably apologetic for accident taking life in a calamity of confusion.
FSD, level 4 and 5 self-driving Ai, ought be held to higher standards, justly down regulated by an abundance of facts that warrant looser regulation from ground truth. Idaho law prescribes pedestrians Right of Way immediates follows the a
Motorcyclists have the same concern (Score:2)
The AMA has been raising the issue to trying to make sure the self-driving software can detect motorcycles.
Certainly is a pickle. (Score:2)
I'm sure we'll figure it out in time.
What Bullshit (Score:2)
Lack of Communication & Liability is the Issue (Score:2)
I'm a cycling instructor and frequently work with local and state officials on bicycle law/policy. I have NO problem with functional autonomous vehicles. The problem is when they are less-than-100% functional. Without a driver, there is no response to communication, no on the spot education, no deterrence, etc. The best thing that can happen is you MIGHT be able to talk with someone via a camera/speakerphone in the car, but as these things scale up, they're going to use fewer and fewer people per vehicle.
I'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They feel bigger than a groundhog, smaller than a moose.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes I am.
Now get the fuck out of the road!
Re:They are afraid of the future (Score:4, Interesting)
more self-driving car lanes.
SDCs don't need "more lanes". They use the same lanes as HDCs but can drive closer, so they better utilize existing lanes.
There have been a few "man bites dog" stories about SDC collisions with bikes (many were the fault of the cyclist), but HDCs killed over a thousand cyclists last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars don't kill people. People kill people!
Re: (Score:2)
Additional lanes will still benefit SDCs.
Additional lanes will benefit anything with wheels.
Replacing HDCs with SDCs reduces the need for additional lanes.
but bike lanes are also definitely going to go away.
Unlikely. There is no reason bike lanes will "go away," and you've given no evidence or explanation why they will.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They are afraid of the future (Score:4, Insightful)
As a cyclist, removal of bike lanes doesn't faze me; I'm perfectly happy to bike in the regular (right-hand) traffic lane instead.
The cars who now have to drive behind me at my speed, rather than pass me, on the other hand, might have preferred to have the bike lanes remain in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I did not know this about car safety systems, (since I don't drive). Several years ago I bought a Garmin 515 [dcrainmaker.com] that's a radar activated flashing light. As the cars get closer, the rear light flashes more frequently to get their attention. Now knowing the device interacts with a car safety system via radar makes me feel a little safer.
Re: (Score:3)
That gets to the fundamental problem with roads - there is a large speed difference between users. Not just cars and cyclists, but pedestrians as well. There are quite a lot of cyclist-pedestrian collisions.
The Dutch have the right idea with separated cycle lanes and footpaths where possible.
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:2)
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:2)
accidents happen (sometimes fatal) when cars are crossing the bike lanes.
They don't have signals or stop signs at intersections? Oh yeah. What was I thinking? Bicycles and traffic laws.
One of our cities lefty (pro cycling, anti car) web sites had an article about "Vision Zero", the plan to eliminate cycle and pedestrian deaths in traffic. The headline photo was of a cyclist, crossing an intersection against the lights. Riding in a pedestrian crosswalk. On the wrong side of the road.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As a cyclist, removal of bike lanes doesn't faze me; I'm perfectly happy to bike in the regular (right-hand) traffic lane instead.
The cars who now have to drive behind me at my speed, rather than pass me, on the other hand, might have preferred to have the bike lanes remain in place.
Any vehicle that can't go the minimum required speed has no business being on the road in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
As a cyclist, removal of bike lanes doesn't faze me; I'm perfectly happy to bike in the regular (right-hand) traffic lane instead.
The cars who now have to drive behind me at my speed, rather than pass me, on the other hand, might have preferred to have the bike lanes remain in place.
Any vehicle that can't go the minimum required speed has no business being on the road in the first place.
The only US roads that have minimum speeds are freeways. And for those you're correct, cyclists cannot legally use them. For all the rest, though, there are no minimum speeds and cyclists have just as much right to use them as motorists.
Re: (Score:3)
Might I instead suggest that the person behind wait until it's safe to pass, then do so?
15 mph is a pretty typical speed for an average cyclist --- you're not going to get much more speed than that out of most of them without a hill to go down or a motor.
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:2)
When was I rude to a pedestrian while cycling my bike?
Most cyclists can also drive cars. Do you think a rude cyclist behaves any better when they get behind the wheel of a two ton metal box that insulates them from the world and their behaviour?
Re: (Score:2)
Most cyclists can also drive cars. Do you think a rude cyclist behaves any better when they get behind the wheel of a two ton metal box that insulates them from the world and their behaviour?
This is certainly my belief. I believe it is more about feelings of entitlement than retaliative safety. When you are in a car you are no different than other cars so the entitlement that bikers feel while biking melts away while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody forces us to use bikes, only sets an example. My journey started by visiting Switzerland and being astonishing how many of them have been stacked at key communication nodes. Been riding daily since for decades, last year did not pay for car's insurance and for car check. It just stands in wait mode. Battery is on a charger, that's all that matters for a car in case of utmost necessity.
Now as to new bike lanes - they initially do increase the share of riders, absolutely, then they increase flexibility
Re: (Score:2)
...That's why I choose to ride sidewalks, if no bike path nearby. ...
I find some reassurance with my nearly non-statistical lifestyle given your comment. Thank you. I cruise with my easy-to-park skateboard on the sidewalk everywhere I go, (hands free too, in case I am carrying groceries with my low center-of-gravity tote bags). All I need is my hi-tech non-electric skateboard, (suspension-ed, so I fall on my face less), plus a smartphone with Google maps and I am good to go global. And I do! Lo-tech/economics is/are often times best tech.
Of course if the bike bath is safe, I
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, Google maps and other apps do public transportation navigation extremely well, including point A->B dockable bicycles in the major US cities.
Re: (Score:2)
I find some reassurance with my nearly non-statistical lifestyle given your comment. Thank you. I cruise with my easy-to-park skateboard on the sidewalk everywhere I go, (hands free too, in case I am carrying groceries with my low center-of-gravity tote bags). All I need is my hi-tech non-electric skateboard, (suspension-ed, so I fall on my face less), plus a smartphone with Google maps and I am good to go global. And I do! Lo-tech/economics is/are often times best tech.
Before retirement when we lived in Phoenix, I did a lot of inline skating. Phoenix is particularly good for both skating and cycling because it has hundreds of miles of off road paved paths along a system of urban canals. There are two different canal systems, one for irrigation and one for drainage, that intersect in complex ways with each other and with the street system.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Be odd, be non-statistical! This was my deliberate choice, matching the branded punk-attitude era, and this is framework for a lifestyle since and still. Highly satisfactory, the essence of the freedom.
2. I wouldn't mind meeting skater in the lane of a bike path, yet be aware, whether rules are on your side. Here in Lithuania skate or skateboard is to be used along the pedestrians, not with the bikes or small two-wheels. As a cyclist, though, I find real trouble coming from high-power scooters, crossing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recently I take time to make about three photos of vehicles, placed on the bike path, so they are seen sitting, blocking, and report them online to the police upon return home. Nothing is allowed to block the bike path by our rules. If in need to stop and hold, they must do it in the proximity of the bike lane, and never on it. Quite some rent scooters are left on path, must to remove them, and see resolution with rent companies in the perspective - most likely certain places will be dedicated to replace cu
Re:They are afraid of the future (Score:5, Interesting)
And, yet, where there is good bike infrastructure, combined with public transport, the share of bike commutes can be well over 30%.
I cycle because it is quicker than anything else. It's also rather pleasant and part of the day I look forward to; today, I have to work from home, and am sad to miss my commute! Granted the occasional hail storm which isn't much fun, but the prospect of sitting in a car, inching forward in a traffic jam, horrifies me.
I hope I don't get forced to use a car as so many people have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It obviously depends where you live, but I just go at a speed that doesn't make me sweaty. In bike friendly cities, you see most people using bikes dressed for the destination rather than the journey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all we is an speaker to say X is not responsible for injury or death just before the crash.
Re:They are afraid of the future (Score:4, Funny)
Wait until the tables are turned and you come face to face with a self-driving bicycle.
Re: (Score:3)
[citation needed]
Though from what i hear about American road infrastructure, in many parts of the USA i can imagine that actually being the case XD.
But that's then just because of plain hostile road design that makes cycling a suicide mission..
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pedestrians (Score:2)
DONT RIDE YOUR BIKE ON THE ROAD AND YOUR ARENT LIKELY TO GET HIT BY CARS THE ROAD WAS MADE FOR.
Everything you have said here applies to pedestrians too so are you advocating that nobody should be allowed to walk anywhere too? ...or is it possible that we have come up with road designs that work for pedestrians and cars, in which case, logically we can clearly come up with designs that workd for pedestrians, cyclists and cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess...you drive a Beemer?
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they get rid of the evidence.
Re: They are afraid of the future (Score:2)
So you're saying a city decided to add bike lanes but didn't bother to make the city walkable? I mean... Duh. I thought this would be obvious. If you can't walk a block to get groceries, then you're forced into cars as a necessity. As the original designer laments: people will use their cars as a grocery cart
You need to provide an infrastructure that makes cars useless. Not by sabotaging roads for cars as you suggest, but by allowing residents to skip the entire idea of owning a car.
Re: SDCs will be a failed experiment in the end (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a matter of how long and how many people will be injured or killed by them before they're banned.
Why would you say that? We kill 10s of people everyday with other cars and we haven't banned them.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the data on this, unfortunately, and it is not true. We know that every area where Uber has entered to the market, charging below cost for their services (as they did), we have seen an increase in the number of cars trips. If the cost, real and opportunity, for the passenger drops, more people will do it.
Robotaxis might decrease the number of parked cars. Even there, I am not sure, because while cars are not used most of them time, lots of people use them all at the same time. So self-driving will n
Re: They're fine, until BMW starts making them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
orange flashy lights? what?
https://www.bbspot.com/News/20... [bbspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fun. How many times did you go over the speed limit. I'm talking 46 in a 45 zone or faster than 25 in a residential neighborhood? 1 over is breaking the law. /completely/ stopped, not just slowed down.
How many times do you roll a stop sign? Stopping means
How many times do you right-on-red without completely stopping? Block a cross walk? Run a yellow or red light (I know... it changed quick).
Studies show that cyclists break traffic laws much less than motorists do. It's just that the types of laws tha