291–300 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> detecting moving objects substantial movement relative to your position/trajectory.
Not to be rude, but yeah, what else would they mean? Is your peripheral good at picking up anything on the planet since it's always spinning? Everything is always moving relative to something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that. At any rate ... Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrian…
Well, when I was growing up, common sense said I should ride on the side walk. The side walk was hardly ever used and perfectly suited to riding a bike. The road was much more frequently used; by 3000lb death machines piloted by zombies. No thanks. If the side walk is too populated to comfortably ride a bike, and the road is busy with said suicide cans, then there is simply no place for a bike. I haven't ridden one i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A pillars don't create much of a problem; you're pretty much always going to be aware of objects 45 degrees to the left or right of your heading. fat B and C pillars are far more problematic. that said, there are plenty of affordable cars with great visibility (e.g., a vw golf). if you pick a car with bad visibility, it's kinda on you.
A pillars can hide cyclists https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th...
I have to say though, the design of that intersection seems crazy. do I understand correctly that vehicles traveling on either road can just go straight across without stopping if they don't see anyone? where I live, at least one of those roads would need a stop sign. I can't think of a single time where I've been surprised by someone moving perpendicular to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewa…
Non-motorized wheelchairs operated by obese 90-year-old people are also vehicles, and they clearly don't belong on the road (hope you agree), so "vehicle" doesn't matter. The same goes for little battery operated kid toys and traditional kid tricycles. Most bike riders are far closer to the above than they are to cars. Lots of people are obese, elderly, and otherwise lacking in athletic ability. If these people are e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passive safety. A-pillar might be so bulky because it contains curtain airbag and provides structural stability necessary for good crash rating.
Airbags don’t go into the A pillars typically - they start at about the top of the windshield, and when they blow the headliner tears, but not the plastic covering the A pillar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate cars. Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. It is car drivers' and regulators' responsibility to make cars avoid colliding with bikes, not vice versa. There are plenty of collisions between cars and big rigs on freeways, y…
> Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. Only vehicles that have been built to safety and performance standards, checked for roadworthiness, been registered and insured, and are under the control of licensed operators are allowed on the road. When bicycles accept the same responsibilities they can enjoy the right to be be on the road.
Otherwise you are not the authority on this. International law codifies cyclists' right to the road. Most large American municipalities and states explicitly state in their municipal codes that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles. The US federal government doesn't state that outright, but implicitly treats bikes as equal to other vehicles as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, this is the best advice in this thread. In the event that I lose track of what's behind me, I will even sometimes go as far as intentionally varying my speed a bit to get something to go around me so I can re-establish a complete mental picture with 100% certainty.
Or maybe use your mirrors or shoulder check instead of flying blind.
There are smaller things (bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians) that can sneak into the gap between the side and rearview mirror views here. And colliding with one of those is much more likely to cause serious injury or death than colliding with a car. It's a much better idea to make sure your side and rear mirrors have complete coverage (i.e. no gaps) at the back, and actually turning your head to check the blind spot…
This is fantastic advice. The only thing I can really add is you should be keeping track of what’s around you, don’t look just before a lane change. Having good situational awareness is the most important thing when driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an integral part of a driving exam in the Netherlands. You are drilled to look over the shoulder for literally every maneuver (lane switch, turn, etc.) and if you fail to do it even once during the driving exam you will get a fail. In other news: driving test in the US is a complete joke.
In the US, this is also part of the driving exam. However, it is not an automatic failure on its own. I myself failed to do it once, on the test for turning right after crossing through a bicycle lane on my right. Every other maneuver, I checked over my shoulder. Felt bad because I used to commute via bicycle and it was...well, a little ironic that I messed up there of all places. Agreed, though. The US driving test…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so they can keep both hands on the wheel and devote more attention to what's happening outside. That was my point though. When driving a manual, your hands are either A) on the wheel, or B) one on wheel, other shifting gears. You can't really do much else. Maybe drink coffee if you're sitting in the same gear over distance, but in suburban traffic with stop lights and signs and turns, you can't afford to do much mo…
If your hypothesis is correct then we would expect to see auto insurers offering lower rates for manual transmission vehicles due to a lower risk of crashes. Do you have any evidence for that?