231–240 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. I see your point, but that will only work when small city cars will be cheap enough to let have a "real" car too for non-daily purposes (long journey, huge shopping, out with the family...).
You don't need a large vehicle like an SUV or pick-up truck for those purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think of the drivers, not as reacting to threats, but navigating an evolving mental model of their surroundings -- with a primary focus on opportunities rather than threats. The mechanism that updates that model doesn't have "training data" with cyclists in the picture.
again, why do cyclists not provide opportunity/threat data more or less than other cars?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it already the case? A brand new C1 is about 12K€. That's not even twice the price of an electrified cargo bike (I saw about 7/8K€ floated around the other day). And if you go for used, you can get cars in good enough shape for less than 5K€. Obviously, the additional car will have a much higher running cost than if you went for an electrified cargo bike or stuck to a single car. Forcing people to make that con…
I admit I fell in a lucky spot, but 12 k€ is just a bit less than what I paid my new Jeep Renegade, so I don't consider it that cheap. > electrified cargo bike Hilly area? Taking children to school or old parent to the doctor's? Not a chance! > stuck to a single car Yes, the SUV. Edit: > if you go for used, you can get cars in good enough shape for less than 5K€. Yeah, that's nicer. Unfortunately, you have to add ins…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if we had cars that were built like cars from the 80s ... I'd happily but such a car for the city, if it was cheap enough to be able to afford a more serious car for long journeys.
How often do you go on long journeys? Rental is an option...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think of the drivers, not as reacting to threats, but navigating an evolving mental model of their surroundings -- with a primary focus on opportunities rather than threats. The mechanism that updates that model doesn't have "training data" with cyclists in the picture.
again, why do cyclists not provide opportunity/threat data more or less than other cars?
Especially in a urban area where everyone is stuck trying to get to home/work/etc, most cars appear to be looking for opportunities. Opportunities to get ahead, to squeeze through a left turn lane before oncoming traffic, to find an empty bike lane to drop off an uber eats order. With that opportunity, get ahead” mindset, cyclists do not register. Until, of course, something happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a driver of an oversized vehicle I am always paranoid about driving in the city and almost never do it in my truck. If you walk in front of my truck I literally cannot see you. The tires are almost 4 ft tall and it is easily possible to simple drive over smaller cars. I keep this diesel monstrosity where it belongs, out in nature off roading and buying groceries in my local suburb.
> buying groceries in my local suburb Ah yes, the natural environment of the 4ft tall tired diesel monstrosity truck. I understand that you want this vehicle for offroading. But in my opinion it should be treated like a dirt bike or a 4 wheeler: you should have to tow it to the trails. If you live in the wilderness, feel free to drive it right onto dirt roads and trails. But it just shouldn't be allowed at all in a s…
I do at least ponder the moral implications of it. It was fun for a while, I will probably sell it soon, it is rather impractical :)
I drive a Camaro. I can’t fit an infant seat behind my driver’s side seat, and I sit abnormally closer to the steering wheel than most. Never mind a larger child seat. Ok, you’re saying - but that’s a Camaro. Well, said Camaro is in repair at the moment and they gave me a loaner. It’s a Chevy Sonic. I also can’t fit the infant seat behind the driver’s side. To be fair, it’s a subcompact. However, even in my wife’s CX…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the Gorilla study: > failure to attend to it while engaged in the difficult task of counting passes of the ball I'm not sure how this applies to commuting, except when the driver is attentively looking at other cars.
It applies because drivers tend to look for other cars, which are a threat to them, while filtering out pedestrians and bicycles. It is very noticeable as a pedestrian, e.g. when a driver enters a road through a right turn and only looks left to avoid incoming traffic, ignoring the possibility of a pedestrian coming from their right.
That or just have completely separated pathways for motorized vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more of a sliding scale than a rigid dichotomy. The car we drive might reasonably be described as an SUV, the Seat Tarraco. As a pedestrian or a cyclist I'd take my chances on against it before something like the Chevy Suburban any day of the week.
Getting hit by a Romanian Dacia Sandero is just as bad as getting hit by a Chevy Suburban at the same speed.
I haven't seen one in person for a while but but a Chevy Suburban is practically flat until 4ft off the ground. A Dacia Sandero isn't nearly that tall. I find it hard to believe that it is the same as a Sandero at least at potentially survivable speeds around 30mph.
