741–750 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to nitpick a little, let's use the word cyclists, not bikers. I feel that bikers actually obey traffic signs more than cyclists do.
Sounds like you're deliberately using a longer, more activist-sounding word to "other" people you don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can also have a mini roundabout, which is a white circle painted on the road. Maybe slightly raised but with no kerb so you can just drive over it. Yield to anybody in the junction and yield to the right (we drive on the left). Very common in the UK instead of stop signs at intersections. Stop signs are only in rare places where a hedge or other environment prevents you from being able to see and yield to app…
Interesting. We have a few of those in the US, but get this, they have stop signs too!
Everybody here is discussing the car and the cyclist, but I don't see anybody considering the possibility that the intersection design is unsafe. That there is a stop sign is a pretty bad signal in itself, Not Just Bikes made a video explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM
6 minutes dense with revelations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternating pairs emerges directly from those rules. Once one person goes north, a non-conflicting person can go south. Then, the current east and west people have arrived before the new north and south people.
It doesn't though. Unless the North & South people arrive at the intersection at the exact same time they must still come to a complete stop. While say the South person is stopping an East person could have finished their stop and since the North car has passed by them they can enter the intersection. Sure as the intersection backs up it becomes very likely that the North-bound person will be blocking an East person…
I would argue you can; if you only have to yield to someone who is unable to enter the intersection for other reasons, you are free to go.
> By convention though, literally every East bound person is going to expect the South bound person to travel at the same time as the North bound one.
Sure; it's worth assuming that the Southbound person has slightly screwed up timing instead of forfeiting what would normally be "their turn".
Uhh.... thinking ahead of risks, and especially hidden cyclists and pedestrians is something that is taught in basic drivers ed here in Sweden. How can this not be the fault of the car? It should have realized that, yes, I am completely blind regarding whoever comes out from behind the truck, I should slow down. I guess there are some qualifications here. If there was a severely low probability of a cyclist there, an…
While everyone strives to be defensive, it is 100% not your fault and not expected that someone or something would show up in front of your car when you have the right of way. If it did you would be driving 5 km/hr on a 100 km/hr road "to be defensive"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not angry until some person on the bicycle tells me to go to hellvete (hell, but it's more insulting in swedish than english) because I dared to walk on the cleared up bicycle path when there was no alternative. After, I do tend get angry, yes. You are probably just set in your own ways and refuse to internalize that there's more to the experience of the human race than your little bubble.
He man we all know Klingons have anger management issues.
Perhaps it's time to do some serious self evaluation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. It sounds like you conflating two claims: safety(computer car) == 100% and safety(computer car) > safety(human driver). Refuting the former (which is easy) does not refute the latter, though the converse would be true of course. But is it true that human driver is safer or the same? > becau…
> You make impossible demand - no mechanism or system could be ready for "anything that might happen", and nobody - at least nobody not having super-natural clairvoyance - could be aware of absolutely everything everywhere. There will always be weird coincidences and hidden things, the question is how fast the system can adapt and find a safe(r) solution. Actually a human tends to figure out from the surrounding envi…
This is not true - a computer driven car can do many of these things, moreover - a regular car already does many of these things, such as detecting low traction in rain, ice, etc. Moreover, you are describing Batman - the peak of human condition. Regular human is capable of noticing those things, but more often than not won't notice them because he's distracted by a quarrel with his boss/wife, is thinking about Roman empire and sometimes even browsing his phone. For most people, driving is an automatic lizard-brain activity, and they don't meticulously calculate the wetness of the pavement, the translucency of the air and other conditions to figure out the best speed and trajectory. They just drive by the seat of their pants and hope it'll be ok.
> they're pretty slow compared to a human driver.
They're "pretty slow" what? Do you mean they have slower than human reaction times? I would rather disbelieve this without a documental proof. Or you mean they are moving slower? Then I would totally believe it, and it's easy to explain - if they move faster and something happens, they'd be sued much more readily in this situation. It's better to slow down than to risk the blowback, even if the car won't be at fault, the speed will always be taken as a measure of guilt.
> The context matters to the reaction, because if you see a something that you know it is not going to hurt your car in any way, you have no reason to slam on the brakes
No human can't make such kind of decisions in the 0.2s they need to be made. If you notice something jumping at you unexpectedly, you either slam the brakes (and then it turns out it was just a plastic bag blown by the wind, and nothing happens) or you fail to slam the brakes and pray to the Almighty that it would be the plastic bag and not something worse. Context doesn't work in humans in those kinds of timeframes, it's just not enough time. If I ever happen to be in the place of the plastic bag, I'd rather take faster slamming than slower "context", and more potentially unnecessary caution than more accidents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I'm the only person in my town without tinted windows. I never see other drivers faes whether I'm driving, biking, or walking.
Is your town in California? Cuz that would be hella illegal for their front windows and windshields to be tinted to the point you can’t even see their faces. https://www.californiacarlaws.com/window-tint/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California there is actually no requirement anymore for the bike to stop if its clear and bleed momentum.
While there is an effort to make this so, it does not yet appear to be law: https://www.calbike.org/bicycle-safety-stop-faqs/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Where I live, you cannot take the drive test to get your provisional license (allowing drivers to drive without the supervision of a fully licensed driver) without passing a 'hazards test' which involves a bunch of (crappy) videos with situations like these where you have to click the mouse when it is safe for you to start moving the car. Unsafe intersections are a reality. Cyclists and pedestrians (and other…
SO? You could do everything right, and still have a crash. Can you prove that Waymo did anything WRONG or unsafe? That will come out with inquiry