611–620 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a cyclist and a driver I feel the one driving the killing machine is always at fault. Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.
Cyclists need to follow the rules. If a cyclist starts buffooning on the road and ends up in an accident I have no problem saying that they were looking for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign. Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?
it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm drawing the conclusion that this is a non-issue, or would be if autonomous vehicles hadn't got to be so political over the last year in San Fransisco. There are many people out for blood, they want a follow-up to the Cruise scandal. One fact of the matter is that the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt, and Waymo has had many minor contact events in its 10 million+ miles of driving on public roads. We're hearing about…
> We're hearing about this event because politics. I think reporting on integrating autonomous driving into roads is a news worthy subject even outside of the agenda of a particular publisher. The good things are reported for autonomous driving as well. I don't live in SF but know that Waymo and Cruise both had fully autonomous vehicles in SF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Public transportation > Safety Pick one. Danger doesn't come only from other vehicles.
No idea why the downvotes. In my city (Seattle) there has been a dozen violent attacks in the last few months ranging from a couple being beaten with a hammer, a stabbing to a gun shooting. You aren’t likely to be beaten with a hammer while driving your own car that’s for sure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign. Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?
it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors. You've just described the average cyclist in Amsterdam. They'll do all of that at the…
28% of vehicle fatalities in Amsterdam are cycling related. Deaths do happen. If you’re arguing that these behaviors are, in fact, safe, I would disagree strongly. The U.S. drives large trucks at high speeds because the U.S. isn't very dense, even in cities, and car centric. And bike infrastructure is lacking. I agree, making cycling safer makes cyclists safer. But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes…
Of course, none of those behaviors are safe. And mandating lights, a helmet, high visibility jacket, kneepad protectors and a license plate would make a cyclist safer. (And lights are mandatory even in Amsterdam)
But it would also discourage people from cycling by making that mode of transportation even more inconvenient than it already is compared to the car. And so because, as you noted, humans seek convenience; they will take the car instead.
> But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes in every country, which is the point I was making.
Again it's self-selecting, since there is no bike infrastructure and you ride in between large trucks you have to be very assertive in traffic. Which tends to select for the more stand-offish types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can drive in 12 minutes surely the walk itself isn't that long. Public transport is never going to be able to compete over a short distance. 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 liv…
Lol it's 9 miles. The anti-car motte is "just put a little bit more funding into buses and it'll be great" , but the indefensible subtext is that we also need to abandon our homes, our present communities, and get relocated into high density urban zones. I've been there, done that. I used to commute from Philly to Radnor on SEPTA's regional rail. I like trains but the amount of time I burned every day on the train, l…
I would never recommend more buses - buses suck. Trains and trams though, are great.
I'll also take European and Australian communities over the parking lots that are American communities any day of the week. I'll also take the high-speed rail between London and Paris (and a host of other EU/UK examples) rather than driving.
Europe is absolutely an example of how you don't have to have a terrible experience if you have good public transport. London by train is ~2.5 hours, and by car it's 5-6 hours at a minimum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.
Also, if you come to a stop at the same time with two cars at right angles, the car on the right has the "right of way".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can drive in 12 minutes surely the walk itself isn't that long. Public transport is never going to be able to compete over a short distance. 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 liv…
Public transportation cannot compete over long distances either as they stop dropping people off anywhere close to home once you leave the city. They are only able to complete within a city at medium range where they special lanes.
I'm not recommending buses, buses suck. European public transport is amazing and the US could learn something.
I'm disappointed in all the folks immediately blaming the cyclist without further information, and I'm similarly disappointed in all the folks blaming Waymo for the same reason. But, unless they somehow have extra information we're not privy to, I'm much more disappointed in the S.F. Supervisor quoted in the article, Shamann Walton, for immediately going online to say "so much for safety." Us internet weenies are alw…