521–530 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I know that my odds are different from the average.
So are you one of the 88% who know they are better than average, or one of the 12% who are worse? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly go on foot and… I'd go for a bicycle is always at fault law to be honest. Meek with cars and assholes with pedestrians is how cyclists mostly are.
You obviously are not from a culture where everybody is a cyclist. We have more bikes than cars in our country because you can use them at all ages and get to more places using a bike. My kids learned to ride a bike at 2. We have some research [0], on average anybody over 6 rode a bike 232 times and an average of about 1000 km in 2022. [0] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...
Having said that. In Sweden this routinely happens:
To clear the bike and car paths from snow, a mountain is of snow is made over the pedestrian path, then INEVITABLY bicyclists angry ring at pedestrians all the time… because pedestrians should walk in 1 meter high piled up snow of course?
The same also happens if there is a digging in progress and there is a 2 meter hole… cyclists still expect pedestrians to jump down in a hole and then climb up.
However where there is no bicycle path, they will go on the side walk (which is not allowed).
Of course a good % of them actually have an electric engine and zoom around very fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never once heard self-driving cars sold with the argument "they're great for sleep deprived and alcoholics". Maybe they should be.
I have always wanted a self-driving car so there's no more "designated driver" hassle with going out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self driving cars are a misguided attempt to make driving safer when the underlying issue isn't necessarily the driver.
I think the end goal of self driving cars is simply to let people do something else than drive. Safety is only a condition for this to happen.
... while still being subjected to random g-forces.
Make me a robot that cooks meals, then I would actually save time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
i think cyclists should have equal share of the road and should be protected but for whatever reason cyclists in SF seem to think the rules don't apply to only them and will get militant if you breath the wrong way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"[...] that can to the job better " is the key phrase here though. It's probably a bit misguided in the sense that, if the end-result further down the line is the "more machines than humans driving in the streets" (let alone zero humans), then it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead, rather than have machines try to work under infrastructure that is designed to be good for human…
But the roads and cars were iteratively improved in a co-evolving way. Early cars with huge wheels could traverse cow-paths and mud and weren't very fast. (And you opened fences. :-)
I agree with GP: automating everything and removing humans from the equation would be a much better solution. Unfortunately it's not practical because it's not profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a better solution for that: Public transportation.
I can drive to work in twelve minutes. If I humor the premise of a bus that stops in front of my home and also my workplace, which is unlikely to ever exist no matter how much money is thrown at public transit, it would still take several times longer than driving myself because there are numerous other homes and businesses between which the bus would stop at. Using a bus would mean I have to wake up earlier, and the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the end goal of self driving cars is simply to let people do something else than drive. Safety is only a condition for this to happen.
There is a better solution for that: Public transportation.
You could say that it's flawed to live in the countryside and/or have distant friends but my point is that public transportation on fixed lines will never reach every place at every time, especially where people are spread thinly. Taxis can do that, self driving cars can maybe drive their cost down. I could do without my own car if I could summon a public transport car at a whim anywhere I am to go anywhere I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a better solution for that: Public transportation.
I can drive to work in twelve minutes. If I humor the premise of a bus that stops in front of my home and also my workplace, which is unlikely to ever exist no matter how much money is thrown at public transit, it would still take several times longer than driving myself because there are numerous other homes and businesses between which the bus would stop at. Using a bus would mean I have to wake up earlier, and the…
I used to commute 1.5 hours each way on the train from Wollongong to Sydney. The alternative drive takes the same or longer, depending on traffic. Hundreds and hundreds of people do this trip every day (and the equivalent from Newcastle).
Another period of my life was living in Brunswick (MEL) and working in Richmond (MEL). Drive 40 mins to 1 hour, train including 5-6 min walk at both ends 44 mins. I can read on the train though.
Every situation is going to be different. When the public transport is as bad as most US cities I'm not surprised that people don't want to take it, but with European/UK and Australian public transport you're almost certainly better off commuting that way (excluding things like carrying goods, or mobility issues).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cyclist would’ve assumed whoever was going to make a turn would’ve waited to check nothing was behind the truck. Maybe I’m weird but it’s the default way I drive. I hate cutting corners, or making blind turns. The car is in the wrong as it should’ve made sure the road was completely clear before executing the turn. I mean it must’ve been a pretty aggressive move to turn that soon after a truck went past… That or…
It’s unclear to me from the article who was turning, the cyclist or the car. I agree that whoever was turning is at fault.
Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.