Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#51

Post by jonahx »

herbig wrote: post #50
jonahx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems arbitrary and dangerous. A car being passed may not notice the passing cyclist in his mirrors, and attempt a lane change. Forcing the 3 foot buffer on the cyclist as well gives a chance for both cyclist and car to notice and avoid the collision.

Cars not noticing cyclists in their mirrors before they change lanes is the fault of the driver, not the cyclist. Motorists should always check their mirrors before changing lanes. There could also be other cars there. The onus is on the two ton shielded metal vehicle, not the bicycle.

Obviously if the driver hits the cyclist, the driver is legally at fault. I am suggesting that the law anticipate the inevitable carelessness of drivers, and build in at least a small safeguard. I see no good reason not to make the cylists abide by a safe distance passing rule.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#52

Post by prawn »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #40
prawn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do it by overcompensating so there is no chance I am too close to the cyclist. If there is not enough room (e.g., oncoming traffic) then I wait until there is an opportunity. I can't see cars broadly introducing this technology before we're not the ones driving them. FWIW, I worked on a "citizen jury" that recommended the adoption of the one-metre passing rule in my state. The default opposition on the jury was "wh…

I do the same thing. To me, a cyclist is a "car" in the sense that regardless of their actual road position I treat them like they're taking up the entire lane and look for a window to overtake them. I guess in my head, I assume that a cyclist could hit a rock at any moment, fall over, and get caught under my tires. So I treat the situation like that is a realistic scenario even if perhaps it is not. I wish cyclists…

Exactly. And beyond hitting a rock, they may have to adjust their line to dodge debris that would not trouble a car tyre.

As part of the jury, one member who was a cyclist showed me a first-person video of his commute overlaid with descriptions of why he changed his position when he did - it was very interesting, and the risk of being 'doored' was palpable. I think many drivers would benefit from seeing something like this.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#53

Post by ajuc »

minikites wrote: post #21
oostevo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two ways to ensure that you aren't inadvertently running afoul of drinking and driving laws: you can either not drink, or wait a large amount of time after drinking before you drive. Same with passing bicycles - you can give them so much more than three feet that there's no chance that you're within three feet of them, or not pass them until there is that much room. Three feet is the minimum. The expectation…

Should we treat speed limits the same way, so everyone drives around at a crawling pace?

Would make everybody safer.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#54

Post by to3m »

minikites wrote: post #43
to3m wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could do that. But most cars come with a handy dashboard-mounted speed indicator device, often in plain view of the driver - so you could use that to determine your car's speed instead.

You should, uh, read the whole thread, it's an analogy.

The comparison doesn't strike me as a very good one. There are no good, quick, easy ways of measuring how far from a cyclist you will be when you pass them, or your blood alcohol content (which is anyway only a crude proxy for level of intoxication, and besides is commonly measured by alcohol in one's breath, which isn't quite the same thing). That's why people are advised to err on the side of caution.

When it comes to speed, on the other hand, every car comes with a speedometer. Erring on the side of caution would not be a crime (the speed limit is a limit, after all, not a goal...), but it's far less necessary.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#55

Post by NoGravitas »

wheaties wrote: post #13
URSpider94 wrote: post #2

California has the same law. This is a great way to get tools into the hands of police to help them enforce the law and educate drivers.

And if you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you? This tool is arbitrary and will not change the problem, lack of dedicated bike lanes.

They should. A bike is a slow-moving vehicle (like a tractor or horse-drawn carriage) and when you pass a slow-moving vehicle, you should not do it in their lane (exception -- bicycles and motorcycles may lane-split). You should do it just like passing a car (or a tractor, or a horse-drawn carriage) -- in the other lane.

In some jurisdictions it is even legal to cross a double yellow line to pass a bicycle, so you don't have that excuse.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#56

Post by jessriedel »

steveax wrote: post #48
rubyfan wrote: post #9

What I find more interesting than the device is a quote from the officer, "Their attitude will determine whether I issue a citation. If they take it and just throw it on the seat, then I know I wasn’t effective. Then in that case I would issue a citation." Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?

Remorse is often considered in criminal matters. I don't see how this is any different.

I think this policing behavior is a mistake, but yours is the strongest argument for it. It actually makes me question the idea of judges trying to assess remorse.

Also, I would say there is a big difference between judges in court room and officers on the street. In a court room, the judge is going to have a substantial amount of time to assess the defendant, he's going to give the defendant feedback on the sorts of signals he's sending, and he's going to explicitly give the chance to demonstrate remorse to defendants who might think it's inappropriate, or don't have that sort of personality, or whatever. The officer on the street is just making a gut-level call which I don't trust; I think it would be dominated by things like how attractive the person is (both men and women), how generally agreeable/social they are, etc.

Also, remorse is usually used to lessen sentencing, but it's not typically used to decide if the defendant gets punished at all.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#57

Post by jessriedel »

jen729w wrote: post #39
rubyfan wrote: post #9

What I find more interesting than the device is a quote from the officer, "Their attitude will determine whether I issue a citation. If they take it and just throw it on the seat, then I know I wasn’t effective. Then in that case I would issue a citation." Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?

Honestly that sounds like excellent policing to me. If we issue everyone with a ticket for the smallest infraction we end up alienating the public. I'm a law-abiding citizen; I want to help the police. If I'm pulled over for something fairly innocent - say, not quite leaving enough room for a cyclist - and I'm given a $150 fine, no questions asked, what that does not do is make me respect cyclists more. It makes me d…

The grandparents wasn't questioning whether it makes sense to give warnings, he was questioning whether we really want officers on the street making gut-level decision about how sorry they think the driver was.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#59

Post by mindslight »

wheaties wrote: post #13
URSpider94 wrote: post #2

California has the same law. This is a great way to get tools into the hands of police to help them enforce the law and educate drivers.

And if you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you? This tool is arbitrary and will not change the problem, lack of dedicated bike lanes.

You mean dedicated debris, door, and parking lanes? Bike lanes are a restriction on cyclists.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#60

Post by mindslight »

sosuke wrote: post #35
dodders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now if only they'd come up with a device to make sure drivers stop at stop signs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneVKDI_bEc

Well red light cameras can capture license plates, so all we need to achieve parity is legally require front and back license plates on bicycles. Seems reasonable, eventually inspection stickers too. Want to make sure brakes work, has working lights. More like motorcycle requirements perhaps? Edit: just to frame, I did not watch the youtube video you linked to, I was just brainstorming out loud and I don't think anyo…

Because adding surveillance placards to one of the few remaining untracked modes of transportation is a fantastic idea.

This "make cyclists stop" red herring persists because some drivers have developed stockholm syndrome with the large quantity of unnecessary traffic control devices that have been deployed by committee (most stop signs could be yields, most red arrows could not exist, and at least a third of stop lights could be simply eliminated).

Cyclists are much more in touch with the life and death reality of public roads, because even when following all traffic laws they can easily be killed. Competent cyclists treat red lights and stop signs as yields because there is no downside for anyone - just like drivers who do rolling stops.

And yes, incompetent cyclists exist just like incompetent drivers exist - if you want to defend yourself from being wrongly blamed for an accident with a self-endangering moron in any vehicle, get a dashcam.

Post reply on HN