The two guys were laughing? Haha... Lucky...
I would have gotten out and knocked the wanker off his bike. Then run over his bicycle. Five times.
A cyclist riding a fixed-gear bike claims to have brought a Google robo-car to a standstill. The rider, one “Oxtox” took to the forums of Road Bike Review with a tale in which he spotted “a Google self-driving Lexus”. Oxtox says “near the end of my ride today... we both stopped at an intersection with 4-way stop signs.” The …
Might I suggest that you contact your local IAM or RoSPA group and get yourself some Advanced Driving training so you can learn how to use the road in *co-operation* with other road users, rather than in competition with them.
Similarly I suggest that cyclists also remind themselves of the rules regarding red lights, pedestrian crossings, using lights at night etc.
That way the roads might actually become nicer to use for those of us who aren't prone to Tarmac Tantrums.
should be a little more cautious and follow the rules of the road better and drivers might have less anger at cyclists of any kind.
ALL of you arrogant idiots feel like you can ride or pass anywhere on the road and drivers are just supposed to somehow miraculously avoid you and if you were a motorcyclist and rode like that would be pulled over and ticketed by the cops. Not enough bicyclists are ticketed for their traffic infractions as it is, do you want Darwin to solve that for you?
When you are at an intersection keep in line with the vehicle ahead of you and stop riding in peoples blind spots, wait your turn just like an automobile must if you have to share the road with one. Stop cutting around vehicles like a bike messenger and they will be less able to hit you. SIGNAL your direction, or the driver has no idea where you are going and YOU are responsible if they hit you. I never see that.
The roads are designed for Autos. They pay the taxes that provide upkeep for the roadways. YOU DON'T! The most any registration for a bicycle pays for is tracking down the owner if lost or stolen.
The vehicle that weighs the most is also the most difficult to stop. An Ocean Liner can't stop on a dime for a sailboat. The larger vessel has the right of way.
In similar fashion, your little toy has no chance when being struck by a car so you should yield to the larger vehicle, especially when you are about to tempt fate and argue with the laws of physics. The same rule applies to autos versus trucks (if you value your life).
You can argue the laws of Man and God all you want to but the laws of Physics are incontrovertible.
Try using some common sense instead of your "entitled" arrogance and "righteous indignation" (puke voluminously) and you may cause less grief and survive longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea#Section_I_.28Conduct_of_vessel_in_any_condition of_visibility.29
"The roads are designed for Autos. They pay the taxes that provide upkeep for the roadways. YOU DON'T!"
Really? May be true for the USA. But If the roads in London were designed for cars, then they'd be quite different. 'Autos' I drive a manual - or do you mean 'automobile' how quaint. In the UK at least the vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads maintenance - there isn't any except for widening the whole of every motorway all at once. (need to give the european workers something to do).
"The larger vessel has the right of way."
Since when? to take your analogy of water craft in actual fact paddle/oar has priority over sail over motor - size doesn't come into it: it's not a case of my ***** is bigger than yours.
"Since when? to take your analogy of water craft in actual fact paddle/oar has priority over sail over motor - size doesn't come into it: it's not a case of my ***** is bigger than yours."
Within the same power sources, "my ship is bigger than yours" really does apply, and it's all down to physics and inertia. Outside them, you have a point, the harder to steer vessel needs the space more than you. I would think in the late 19th century (when sail was giving way to self-powered watercraft), powered craft gave way to sail craft out of desire not to cause wrecks. That's also why drivers are told to give lorries more way and why you must never trust your gut at railroad crossings (in both cases, it's easy to misjudge the amount of momentum these vehicles have and just how difficult it is for them to stop suddenly).
I don;t know about the US vehicle taxation, but in the UK it's just plain wrong to say that it's car drivers that pay for the roads.
In the UK, most roads are maintained by local councils, using funding from council tax. Cyclist pay rhan.
The motorways and major roads are paid for out of central taxation.
Vehicle Excise Duty brings in approx £5bn per year (to central taxation). The road building program was approx £15bn last year, so cyclists are subsidising drivers.
I suspect that the situation isn't that different in the US.
"Vehicle Excise Duty brings in approx £5bn per year (to central taxation). The road building program was approx £15bn last year, so cyclists are subsidising drivers."
How much income did the UK govt take from motor fuel excise duty? Convenient of you to miss that out.
I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
"VED and fuel tax raised approximately £32 billion in 2009, a further £4 billion was raised from the value added tax on fuel purchases. Motoring-related taxes for fiscal year 2011/12, including fuel duties and VED, are estimated that will amount to more than £38 billion, representing almost 7% of total UK taxation."
Who's subsidising whom?
To be fair we also pay rather a lot in fuel tax too. Around 80p/litre and raising well north of 25 billion from a cursory Google. There is likely a significant amount of productivity associated with some of the vehicles moving on the roads network too, which shouldn't be underestimated in terms of contribution to the economy.
Central government does also disperse funds to councils for local road building and maintenance.
> The roads are designed for Autos.
Roads existed well before automobiles. Bicycles existed well before automobiles. Where do you get your silly ideas from? Arrogance?
> They pay the taxes that provide upkeep for the roadways
Motor vehicles do the most damage to roads, bicycles do no damage (except when squashed into the road by a car). That is why cars and trucks pay for the maintenance.
> your little toy has no chance when being struck by a car so you should yield to the larger vehicle,
There are rules of the road, such as when you can overtake another vehicle, following distance, giving way. Bicycles are vehicles too, obey the rules and stop bullying smaller vehicles.
> Try using some common sense instead of your "entitled" arrogance and "righteous indignation" (puke voluminously) and you may cause less grief and survive longer.
The only lack of common sense, entitled arrogance and righteousness that I see is from you.
"The roads are designed for Autos. They pay the taxes that provide upkeep for the roadways. YOU DON'T!"
WRONGO! Autos don't pay taxes, the owners of the autos pay taxes. Since road wear and tear rises exponentially with weight, bicycles cause almost no damage while cars cause about 1% damage and OTR trucks are responsible for about 99% of the road wear and tear. The problem is not that bicyclists aren't paying their fair share, the problem is that the owners of the trucks aren't paying their fair share as they only pay 35% of the cost of road maintenance. These are US figures.
Read more here:
http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
http://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/
And no, I do not ride a bicycle, I drive a minivan. A loud, butt-ugly minivan that gets people the hell outta my way!
Since you mention the COLREGs ...
"The vehicle that weighs the most is also the most difficult to stop. An Ocean Liner can't stop on a dime for a sailboat. The larger vessel has the right of way."
Err ... no it doesn't Power gives way to sail. See COLREGS, section 18
A power-driven vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre (this may include vessels towing one another[12]);
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.
> Only for small ones that are similar in size. Ocean Liners versus Sailboats is not the same, the smaller vessel must move out of the way unless it is dead in the water.
You are a simpleton. The rules are very complex and who gives way depends not on size but on many factors such as whether it is open sea, traffic lanes, or restricted areas. It also depends on particular activities. Your example above may be true in a harbour, but not at sea. Please refrain from commenting until you actually know something about the subject.
> Same for Trucks versus bicycles.
You are an idiot who should be prevented from ever holding a driving licence.
And there are reasons for each noted line:
"a vessel not under command;"
Meaning essentially a vessel adrift. Since it has no means to steer itself, you must give way to it.
"a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre (this may include vessels towing one another);"
Same reason as above; they can't steer so well. This is also why a smaller powered vessel must give way to a larger one: the larger one can't steer so well due to inertia.
"a vessel engaged in fishing;"
Fishing vessels have equipment overboard and therefore are pretty much fixed in place. An emergency move for them would entail some costly consequences, usually in lost or damaged equipment.
"a sailing vessel."
Sail vessels are at the mercy of the wind, including to steer, meaning they can't always move on demand, so you have to give way to them.
Dear Sir,
Might I kindly remind you that Rules of the Sea *do not* apply to the Road?
If you were so kind and to actually open you eyes and mind you would see all kinds of traffic rule violations by drivers of all kinds of vehicles (and I include shoes in the term vehicle for the purpose of this reply).
And I'm speaking for Dublin.
Everybody who uses the road these days seems to be tempted to go on an egoistic type of trip: taxi drivers jumping through orange (which is the color that signals: Clear the intersection), busses starting to accelerate while the light is still red (which is the color that signals: Stop), pedestrians crossing on a whim and without looking, cyclists stopping between the lines used for pedestrian crossings. Nobody ever uses any signalling anymore these days, and the use of hand signals by cyclists go largely unnoticed by cars. Oh and what's the story with all sorts of vehicles stopping inside the bike box so that there's actually no room left for a bike in that box?
It is not just cyclists that need going after. The police (Gardai) should do what they're paid for: Fine / Arrest people for violating the laws, which includes traffic. And in terms of registration: Cyclists / pedestrians should not need to be registered, instead their fines should be paid on the spot, no arguing.
Kind regards,
and please do read up on the Highway Code,
Guus
"Anyone who knows about friction will tell you that a heavier vehicle does not need a longer stopping distance"
That depends on the strength of the vehicle's brakes versus the inertia of the vehicle. Since the brakes on a truck aren't proportially larger relative to its weight versus a car, that means the truck has a harder time stopping. With trains, the brake:weight ratio's even lower AND it has to contend with the reduced friction of its riding surface (a smooth steel rail versus a rough, frictious road). Then you have ships, which cannot use the sea as a means to stop so have no real "brakes" persay. They stop by reversing thrust, which for a huge vessel takes some time (again, huge ship, tiny propellers). Airplanes are somewhere in the middle of all this. They have brakes but they're really only for when they're taxiing so have to first use thrust reversers upon landing to slow down to come back down to taxi speed.
The cyclist saw the effect he had on the vehicle and decided to keep doing his balancing act when he could have simply stood on his feet for a second, allowing the car to pass normally (so your implication that the only alternative to what the cyclist did came with a risk of being run down is nonsense). But no, he decided to be a self-righteous prick, like most cyclists on the road seem to be, and just keep doing what he was doing and not give a toss.
> The cyclist saw the effect he had on the vehicle and decided to keep doing his balancing act when he could have simply stood on his feet for a second, allowing the car to pass normally
There is no indication that the cyclist knew that is was _his_ actions that were affecting the car. He had no way of knowing how the car was programmed or what sensors were used, nor that putting his foot on the ground would 'release' the car.
The only 'self-righteous prick' that I see is you.
Haha! Look, all those cyclists are coming out like worms after the recent rains :D
Cyclimorons Londinicus - an invasive species in need of pest control. LOL.
Sorry, guys, no amount of healthy lifestyle reasoning or moralising about saving the planet will turn me around. Cyclists on city roads - my sworn enemies (and I love cycling, by the way...).
"I would have gotten out and knocked the wanker off his bike."
Oh yeah? Talk to this guy.
Sure you would, Vladik.
I go to the same kickboxing gym as a 6 foot tall Romanian bloke - quiet, polite guy with a pleasant smile. Holding the kick pads for him is quite an experience which I have to brace for and my forearms have visible bruises for days afterwards, even though I'm not exactly a small guy (a little under 13 stone, he's around 15). He cycles to gym and to work.
Now, I would pay good money to see what happens when you get out of your car and try to knock him off his bike. I'd wager the majority of readers on here would chip in for the popcorn.
This post has been deleted by its author
stop driving in Mother Russia Suburbia
But... but... I just renewed my cyclist hunting licence! You know how expensive that is? So many applications and such a small quota...
@Payne: tsk, tsk, threats, I see... Well, your Romanian friend - nothing that a wheel wrench won't fix, you know...
"Rider in stock photo cannot be hipster. Is not sporting a Ned Kelly beard."
Had one of them in the village shop on Wednesday. Picked something up, took it to the counter, assistant rung it up, then he "remembered" all the other things he had to buy and wandered off round the shop.
Assistant cancelled the sale and dealt with the other people who were now waiting. He looked hurt that he had lost his place...wanker.
Yes, he had a bicycle.
So: no prejudice against cyclists but special get-out for ones with silly beards.
Is it specified who (should have had) priority? Could it be that everyone concerned was in fact doing exactly the right thing?
Funnily enough, I had a long-hesitation situation while cycling into town just yesterday. Needed to turn right[1], but some car coming the other way slowed and stopped just in front of the junction. I wasn't about to turn right[1] across the path of a car whose driver was behaving unpredictably and had right of way. Had to resolve it with a "what are you doing?", whereupon the driver asked if I knew [some road name he was looking for]. So evidently he'd stopped to look at the name of the road I was turning into and he was blocking.
[1] This is in England. Readers in countries that drive on the right, please read this in a mirror.
The general rules of thumb at an all-stop is (1) first in, first out; (2) if two or more vehicles arrive at once, drivers yield to the one to the side of their driving hand (eg. right in the US, left in the UK), meaning the one with no vehicle to his driving side normally goes first and proceeds in reverse from there; (3) in the event all approaches are filled at the same time, meaning the driving-hand rule has an infinite loop, that's gonna have to be hashed out between the drivers.
Anyway, in this case, the Google car was obviously waxing caution. It just turned out it hit an edge case: someone who didn't exactly follow the driving-hand rule. If I read this correctly, both car and bike arrived at the same time, and the bike was to the right, meaning the car was correctly yielding to the bike. Thing was, the bike didn't move right away, so the car started to move, but stopped when the bike started moving, too. It's sort of a case of ping-ponging hesitation, each flinching when the other moves and then vice versa.
"(eg. right in the US, left in the UK)"
Hmm, I think that is the wrong way around?
ANyway, I'm not sure it was a yeild thing, it was probably the slight forward motion of the bike would have put him into the 'safe area' of the Googlecar and as a vulnerable road user the car took evasive action. What the car didn't realise was that the forward motion was only going to be for a few inches and not continue into its path. After it happened a couple of times the vehicle just got annoyed and sat there in a strop, it is only a toddler after all.
Whichever side of the road you drive on is considered your "driving hand". The US makes you drive on the right (so is a right-hand) while in the UK you drive on the left (a left-hand). There's no advantage or disadvantage either way and mainly boils down to cultural and practical considerations (how did you do it before cars, where do most of your cars come from, etc.).
I live in the sticks and there are about 5 roundabouts in a 20 mile radius of me. Frequently we get things called traffic jams four or five cars long which are invariably caused by four cars at the entrance to the roundabouts all politely waiting for someone else to go.
"Roundabouts are much more efficient than Four-Way stop sign junctions and this sort of situation would be much less likely to happen on one"
Back in the day I was visiting Kentucky on business and was told that there was now one of these roundabouts in Louisville. It was seriously suggested that we make the trip so I could show my work colleagues how to deal with them.
It was, more or less, a mini-roundabout.