US Wants Drivers To Test Wireless Auto Safety Tech

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Wants Drivers To Test Wireless Auto Safety Tech

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @06:39AM from the computer-take-the-wheel dept.

coondoggie writes "Can new wireless auto safety systems work in the real world and how will drivers respond? That's what the U.S. Department of Transportation hopes to find out in the next few months as it lets hundreds of drivers in six communities across the country test some of the latest communication devices in controlled situations."

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 06:39 · Score: 1

I can't see how any of this is likely to improve things for bicyclists, but I sure would like a transponder to carry in my pocket that warns distracted drivers that I'm in the vicinity.

--
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
1. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
2. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot about passing on the right, on the shoulder. Their favorite maneuver, and it's two moving violations in a single blow.
3. Re:Bicycles by Lumpy · 2011-07-13 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  I know what will. required prison time and $100,000 in fines for killing a bicyclist with a car. THAT will make people aware of bicyclists.
  But then I also want it to cover motorcycles and pedestrians as well.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:Bicycles by Normal+Dan · 2011-07-13 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  So the person who ran over the cyclist is now in prison and can't tell people to watch out for bicycles. When he gets out he'll be a poor felon, why should anyone listen to what he has to say?
  
  --
  A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
5. Re:Bicycles by BlastfireRS · 2011-07-13 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  A bit excessive, don't you think? All of that on top of, say, a manslaughter charge is a little rough for an accident.
6. Re:Bicycles by GuldKalle · 2011-07-13 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, because until now the worst thing about killing people has been cleaning the blood off of the car.
  You think people do this on purpose?
  
  --
  What?
7. Re:Bicycles by Ichijo · 2011-07-13 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
  When a bicyclist obeys the law, unfortunately nobody ever remembers it. How often do you remember a motorist who obeys the law?
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
8. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe get a bike rack for your car so you don't have to ride in the middle of a lane of traffic during rush hour to get to the miles of nice bike trails that exist for you to ride on.
  Also stop wearing those retarded matching spandex outfits. Seriously. You look ridiculous. Everyone laughs at you.
9. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot about passing on the right, on the shoulder. Their favorite maneuver, and it's two moving violations in a single blow.
  It depends on where you live. Where I live, bicycles are allowed to pass on the right.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
10. Re:Bicycles by liquidweaver · 2011-07-13 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think it says a lot when you get a bunch of anti-cyclist comments posting AC. It's kind of like biking responsibly in real life. You obey traffic signals, ride as far over to the right in the lane as possible allowing cars to safely pass, signaling at turns, etc. Yet still, in a week of commuting, you still get 2-3 anonymous assholes who fly by a foot to your left, screaming at you to get off their road. Strangely, it seems like this happens mostly during traffic when cars are averaging ~20mph anyways and you aren't actually slowing them down at all.
  
  I commuted about 9 miles to work for almost 8 months but gave up on it for these reasons. In the US cycling is social acceptable for children and recreationally for adults. These aren't all rednecks in trucks, either. I remember an instance where a Prius intentionally ran me off the road, cursing at me. In the spur of the moment, I yelled back, "My vehicle is greener!".
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
11. Re:Bicycles by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-07-13 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I know what will. required prison time and $100,000 in fines for killing a bicyclist with a car. THAT will make people aware of bicyclists.
  Fine, as long as bicyclists get fined 1000x what a car does for running through red lights, stop signs and violating other traffic laws.
12. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot about passing on the right, on the shoulder. Their favorite maneuver, and it's two moving violations in a single blow.
  It depends on where you live. Where I live, bicycles are allowed to pass on the right.
  I actually think that is most places. Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you. They are supposed to remain on the shoulder and out of traffic.
13. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
  That's a red herring. I obey traffic laws, and I know plenty of other cyclists who do so as well. Distracted drivers, however -- just like drunks -- make no distinction between scofflaws and law-abiding people.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
14. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  As long as cyclist that don't have a license will get fines and points, they don't run red lights and they carry insurance for when the scratch cars as they ride through the middle of stationary traffic.
  As a cyclist I know that most of them are dicks and often deserve what they get!
15. Re:Bicycles by breakfastpirate · 2011-07-13 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with this is that not everyone who hops on a bicycle cares about traffic laws. I consider myself a semi-avid cyclist and I ride with traffic quite regularly. I usually don't run into too many issues besides the occasional person honking at me or shouting something, but I follow every traffic law and make sure to give right of way when required. On the other hand I see a lot of bicycles doing stupid things like riding on the wrong side of the road, not stopping for red lights, darting into traffic, riding at night with no lights/reflectors whatsoever, etc. Should I go to prison and have my life ruined because one of these idiots did something insane? I'm all for cyclists' rights, but it goes both ways.
16. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Considering the vast majority of times I've seen near misses with a cyclist (including mine, lucky I've never seen a hit) involved the cyclist performing vastly illegal maneuvers or should-be-illegal road design (bike paths that don't merge back into a road before a right turn at an intersection--back when most everyone did their driving tests no such thing existed and there was not even a suggestion to consider traffic going straight to your right when you're making a right turn) it seems to me that in most cases the cyclist would be at fault and therefore responsible for repairing the car they dented.
  My personal near-miss incident involved it being 11 at night and a cyclist dressed in all black with no lights on their bike, and only the reflectors it came with deciding to drive against traffic from the lane I was turning right into. Definitely, any cop worth his salt would immediately put the cyclist at fault.
  Another favourite illegal maneuver is riding a bike through a crosswalk. It's illegal, because very few people are running at 30 km/h when they cross the road, so someone in a car only looks far enough down the sidewalk to ensure he's not going to hit people walking.
  I won't even get into the lack of signalling cyclists do (I know many in cars don't do it often enough, but they certainly do it more often than cyclists) or how few cyclists pull over when they are hogging an entire lane to let hordes of traffic pass by (a requirement in some places).
17. Re:Bicycles by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-07-13 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's a red herring.
  How so? On a daily basis I see multiple bikers violating traffic laws that would cost me 100s of dollars.
  
  I obey traffic laws, and I know plenty of other cyclists who do so as well.
  Yes, because you and the other cyclists you know clearly make up the entirety of all cyclists in the entire world. Oh wait...
  
  Distracted drivers, however -- just like drunks -- make no distinction between scofflaws and law-abiding people.
  Yeah, as opposed to the bikers who drive around with headphones on and are just as unaware of their surroundings as a distracted driver?
18. Re:Bicycles by Tyr07 · 2011-07-13 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well ultimately it's a step in the right direction. As cars become more automated and the technology is expanded, newer technology will be produced that will increase safety for everyone, including those who cycle. We need to remember that we both play equal parts in accidents, cyclists and drivers a like. Many cyclists run red lights, never give right away to cars that have it, etc. These cause accidents. I get the impression that some cyclists are quite arrogant and think cars should yield to them. Let's face it, cars are made out of metal and other components that are much stonger than squishy humans. Although drivers need to be careful too as to not injure or kill someone, ultimately you need to be aware to protect yourself, as /you/ will be the one who dies, regardless of who is right or wrong. If cyclists obeyed the same rules as car drivers did, it would reduce the amount of accidents. It doesn't make sense from a safety standard to have drivers follow two sets of rules, ones for other cars and how they move, and then bikers who don't feel they should have to stop at lights, signal and so fourth. It adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to it. Don't feel too singled out either, people still get into accidents with other cars too. Hence the word accidents. We're not perfect, none of us are. But when cars can drive themselves on the other hand ;)
19. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yet still, in a week of commuting, you still get 2-3 anonymous assholes who fly by a foot to your left, screaming at you to get off their road.
  I seem to get an anonymous asshole like that about once every month or so -- and yes, it's always some driver whom I haven't impeded for more than 30 seconds, if at all. If I were driving, he'd be fuming for a lot longer than that because I drive the speed limit and my car takes up the entire lane, not 2-3 feet of it.
  I hope you'll try cycle commuting again. Check to see if there's a local bike club that can offer suggestions about routing. And always, always write down tag numbers of harassing motorists and phone them in to police. Some departments follow up with a letter to the registered owner of the vehicle, and I know that the town where I live keeps every single complaint on file.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
20. Re:Bicycles by Ichijo · 2011-07-13 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you.
  There is no such law that says cyclists should ride on the shoulder. Maybe you mean the bike lane?
  Even then, there are some good and legal reasons to venture out of the bike lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or when preparing to make a left turn, or to avoid being on the right side of right-turning traffic. And the requirement to ride in the bike lane only applies as long as the bicyclist is traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
21. Re:Bicycles by Defenestrar · 2011-07-13 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - the last town I lived in (small college type) rather seriously enforced all of the pedestrian and cyclist laws. You could bike in the center of your lane (like a cyclist is supposed to do) and cars behind would respect your space, speed, and not try to pass. You'd even be ticketed for trying the sidewalk (and definitely for stop sign/light violations & etc...).
  Pedestrians could cross at a cross walk completely blind and be perfectly safe (even at jogging speeds - you have the right away after all, why should you bother looking at every "cross-street" to see if the guy with the stop sign is really going to stop?). If you tried taking the bike through a cross walk for the right-of-way, you had better have hopped off and walked it though.
  Where I live now, biking in the lane, even at the speed limit, is more or less suicide. Cars will run you off the road with the assumption that you're going to slow them down. I haven't pulled my bike out in a few years for any serious means of transportation. If I want to go riding and not die it's got to start with a bike rack and using the car to get somewhere else. For people in the area who don't have the cash for a car, but can manage a bike, it's no wonder why they ignore the law and take to the sidewalks and such. Same thing for red lights - if it's visibly clear - you get across before some idiot making a right turn after the light goes green clips the back wheel off of you (since you have to ride on the shoulder not to get mowed down, obviously you would have been safer in the center of the lane where you're legally supposed to be if the laws were actually enforced).
22. Re:Bicycles by Kenja · 2011-07-13 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I see multiple drivers violating trafic laws every day. Therefore all drivers always violate trafic laws? Or is it only not a red hearing when you apply the same logic to bikers?
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
23. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  The vast majority of the time, the bicycle forms a rolling roadblock that takes forever to pass safely, then when you get caught at the next red light because of having to drive so slowly behind the bicycle, they pass all the cars they've been slowing down on the right up to the red light and cause another roadblock. Bicycles passing on the right is the cause of a lot of the traffic jams. Then they wonder why people give them the finger after 5 repetitions of the traffic problem they cause.
  I now pull into the shoulder at red lights after I pass a bicycle to block them from passing on the right to break the repeated idiocy.
24. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Better idea: 200 points
25. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  How often do you remember a motorist who obeys the law?
  Where I live, it's uncommon enough that I do remember it.
26. Re:Bicycles by h4rr4r · 2011-07-13 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I never bicycle, but a distract biker is only a danger to himself vs a distracted driver who is a danger to everyone on the road.
27. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  In my area, the problem is more cyclists who hop two-lane roads with 45mph speed limits and take up the lane going 10mph. If there is even moderate traffic they render the road basically impassible. I'm all for treating cyclists equally, and if a car got decided to consume the only lane with no intention of going even a quarter the speed of the flow of traffic, then I would be justified in honking at them. In some jurisdictions this would earn you a reckless driving charge in a car.
  Motorists in my area don't like sharing the road with cyclists because the cyclists in my area don't share the road in return.
28. Re:Bicycles by jellomizer · 2011-07-13 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  It can alert other drivers, it can alert you when there is a car approaching you from behind, heck it can inform you that you should pull over for a bit as you are really holding up traffic. But really lets fix one problem at a time. First lets get Car Safety up, then we can go back on to bike safety... However most of that means just giving a bikers lane
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
29. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I actually think that is most places. Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you. They are supposed to remain on the shoulder and out of traffic.
  That also varies by state. Virginia law says the cyclist should ride as far to the right as is safely practicable. It also allows the cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane if it's not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass in the lane.
  It would be nice if the people posting anti-cyclist comments would actually read the laws pertaining to them, but I guess that's too much to ask of /. readers.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
30. Re:Bicycles by 0123456 · 2011-07-13 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you.
  If I remember correctly, the most common cause of cyclist deaths in London is people who think that passing a bus or truck on the left as said bus or truck is trying to turn left is a really neat idea.
31. Re:Bicycles by liquidweaver · 2011-07-13 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - it was very disheartening. Maybe I will. I have heard it makes a major difference geographically, too. I live in St. Louis, so I can only speak for here. Once a month would be a lot more tolerable.
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
32. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Where do you live that that is not allowed?
33. Re:Bicycles by hedwards · 2011-07-13 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's not entirely unreasonable. I've noticed that cyclists seem to regularly ignore the laws when convenient. I'm not sure who gave them the idea that they can ride in the street just because they want to. But, they're only provisionally allowed to if they're going to follow the normal traffic laws. Which means that if they can't keep up with traffic that they can't be in the street.
  It's just too much of a hazard to drivers to be stuck behind a cyclist that's going well under the speed limit. Worse is trying to get around them safely.
34. Re:Bicycles by Sechr+Nibw · 2011-07-13 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  A distracted biker can be a danger to drivers around them, if the driver has to swerve or slam on his brakes to avoid killing the biker. Or are you saying we shouldn't risk other cars at the expense of one distracted biker?
  
  I don't mean to take one side of the argument or another, but this is a point that I didn't see made. Yes, bikers violate traffic laws. Yes, so do drivers. Not all bikers are bad, not all drivers are bad. The danger possible with a car is potentially greater than a bike, but not always. Butterfly effect, man.
35. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  If I ever see a car drive on a sidewalk in order to get around traffic and blow a red light, I'm pretty sure I'll remember it. I see bicycles do this at least once a week.
36. Re:Bicycles by hedwards · 2011-07-13 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Around here if you're not keeping up with traffic you're not allowed on the street. And with good reason, impeding the flow of traffic is dangerous for everybody involved. It's even worse when it's a cyclist as they require even more attention from drivers when they're doing that.
37. Re:Bicycles by 0123456 · 2011-07-13 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  I never bicycle, but a distract biker is only a danger to himself vs a distracted driver who is a danger to everyone on the road.
  Yeah, right.
  Back in the real world, the number of pedestrians killed per passenger mile by cyclists in the UK is about the same as the number killed by motorists; I've no idea about US statistics. Just because a cyclist isn't likely to kill someone in a car, that doesn't mean they're not going to kill a pedestrian.
  I have fond memories of the cyclist who, just before I left the UK, barely missed me as I stepped out of a store in a 'pedestrianised' area where they were blasting along at 20mph or so with a kid sitting on their handlebars. Had they hit me, there's a good chance that I or the kid or both might have at least spent some time in hospital.
38. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes it's safer to run the stop sign on a bike than to be sitting at it when some driver looking at traffic for a whole and not what's in front of him comes to that sign! Don't even be at a corner when a driver makes a running right on red again watching traffic and not what's in front of him. There is a Y intersection I never stop at, I've been tapped from behind there and saw a big yellow schoolbus get hit, the driver said he didn't see it!
  A neighbors daughter ran into the back of his truck when he stopped for a deer, she was busy texting. They had pulled out of the driveway together so it's not like she didn't know he was ahead of her. If she had this DOT device she would probably have turned it off because it's distracting!
39. Re:Bicycles by w_dragon · 2011-07-13 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know about your laws, but where I am it's perfectly legal for a bike to be on the street, other than major highways. You are no speed minimums here, so they're just another vehicle. In fact there's a campaign now for bikes to ride in the center of the lane to force cars to actually change lanes to pass because of the number of cyclists killed by drivers who don't know where there car is and try to pass without changing lanes.
40. Re:Bicycles by Ichijo · 2011-07-13 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  In my area, the problem is more cyclists who hop two-lane roads with 45mph speed limits and take up the lane going 10mph.
  That's perfectly legal in certain situations. For example, if there's no traffic, or if the lane is a "substandard width lane."
  
  I'm all for treating cyclists equally, and if a car got decided to consume the only lane with no intention of going even a quarter the speed of the flow of traffic, then I would be justified in honking at them.
  In what state is it legal to honk at someone just because they inconvenienced you? Not in California.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
41. Re:Bicycles by Ichijo · 2011-07-13 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Around here if you're not keeping up with traffic you're not allowed on the street.
  Then you must not live in an area with farm vehicles.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
42. Re:Bicycles by 0123456 · 2011-07-13 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  In fact there's a campaign now for bikes to ride in the center of the lane to force cars to actually change lanes to pass because of the number of cyclists killed by drivers who don't know where there car is and try to pass without changing lanes.
  I'm sure that will really work well in rush hour and really, really make drivers love cyclists.
43. Re:Bicycles by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-07-13 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bicycles should not be on the same road with trucks. Neither should motorcycles. It is insane. Frankly, even cars is a little insane--drive a tractor trailer for a while, you'll see. But there's just no sense in smaller vehicles sharing the same road. We really should have a fundamentally different transportation design.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
44. Re:Bicycles by LoganDzwon · 2011-07-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do.
  Accidents are accidents, I wont hold one against you, as long as you make up for your mistake.
  Murdering someone because you are not paying attention to your surrounding while your operating a 2 ton reinforced steel cage on shared roadway is not an accident. Unintentional maybe, but if you can't keep your car from running over peds and bikes, get yourself a scooter.
45. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because you and the other cyclists you know clearly make up the entirety of all cyclists in the entire world. Oh wait...
  Just like all the cyclists you see make up the entirety of all cyclists in the entire world? Oh wait...
  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
46. Re:Bicycles by LoganDzwon · 2011-07-13 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  OK, but to make this fair we will have to remove all A/C and weather-proofing from the automobiles.
  Or you stop with bullshit about making shit fair. A bicyclist running a stop light, (which technically he can't even trigger because he doesn't give off a large enough magnetic field to trigger the light,) isn't likely to kill someone, even if he causes an accident. A car doing the same will. The laws are designed to reflect this.
47. Re:Bicycles by LoganDzwon · 2011-07-13 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect response.
48. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  I've started doing just that.
  I take the whole lane, and ride so that no cars can get past me. I stop at the intersections, and I get my speed up SLOWLY.
  I mostly do this to piss off drivers that don't understand what it is like to ride a bike.
49. Re:Bicycles by SatanClauz · 2011-07-13 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I almost flattened a guy when he decided to go straight between two turn lanes on his bike. Luckily, I pride myself in being aware of my surroundings when i'm behind the wheel and he got to keep his ability to walk that day. Riding between cars because traffic is backed up is dumb to begin with, but compound that with going straight between two turn lanes? .....
50. Re:Bicycles by Vancorps · 2011-07-13 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
  In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
  Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
51. Re:Bicycles by yodleboy · 2011-07-13 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  while we're on anecdotes... i've been hit by cars 5 times while cycling. 3 of them were drivers rolling through stop signs, even though I had gotten there first, stopped, and then gone on. 1 was an impatient lady that didn't seem to realize her light was still red and gunned it into the intersection. the last was a bozo that decided to back up at a light. into me... and let's see what about the thrown objects? firecrackers, cans, bottles. And the people that would rather clip you than dare to put a tire on or over the center line and give you some room. I could go on and on and on about the hostile asshat drivers I've dealt with over the years while I tend to obey the traffic laws like a good boy. I'd love for these tools to be on the other side someday.
  
  Now, have i rolled through a stop sign intersection or turned on red when the sign clearly admonishes me for doing so? Sure, but I think the difference is I am very aware of my surroundings when i do so and if there's a vehicle around, i just stop. The consequences for me NOT seeing a car are just too severe. Drivers on the other hand forget they are driving 2000lb missiles and roll on through, oblivious to anything in the world.
  
  The upside is all this drama has made me the most defensive driver on the planet. I'm convinced that people are really about to hit me for no reason at any moment lol.
52. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  Most road cyclists I see are suicidal:
  * night riding without lights (illegal here)
  * riding on the wrong side of the road, often in a pack
  * blowing through stop signs at full speed
  At times I feel like I am the only bicyclist that does follow the rules of the road. I can't remember the last time I have seen another cyclist use arm signals to indicate turns.
53. Re:Bicycles by Vancorps · 2011-07-13 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  No offence, but you clearly haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.
  First off, there are many conditions that can cause an accident, not paying attention is one of them but is certainly not the only one. Where I grew up black ice in the winter was a huge issue and is beyond your control because you can't see it all the time and when it comes to a car and a biker even 15 mph is enough to seriously injure or kill someone. I've even had birds dive bomb right into my windshield making me swerve unintentionally. Animals entering the roadways often cause cars to swerve as well and heaven help the cyclist in that situation. It would most certainly be an accident.
  In addition to that there is also the fact that cars can and do break down sometimes in unpredictable ways such as tire blow-outs or loss of power brakes or any number of scenarios. Being thrown in jail because the mechanic failed to put enough brake fluid in your car would definitely suck, nevermind if you happened to sneeze at the wrong time.
  I'm all for drivers paying better attention to the road but draconian laws aren't going to make it happen. Better driver education goes a much longer way and doesn't crowd our prison system even further.
54. Re:Bicycles by Idbar · 2011-07-13 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well you're not supposed to be rewarded or remembered for doing the things you're supposed to do. Even more emphatically when is the law.
  
  When there are many exceptions that it becomes the rule, it means that the people is not following the regulations as they should, they are not properly enforced or ignorance is taking over.
55. Re:Bicycles by HiThere · 2011-07-13 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Bike lanes are really a very poor answer. They are too narrow, if you take a fall, you fall right in the middle of traffic, and people open car doors right in front of you. (They don't make the roads any wider just by putting in those lanes. Some times they take out a lane of parking, but that has other bad effects.)
  What's really needed is separate grade. How to do it, though, is not clear. But at minimum the bike lane should be closer to the edge than the lane of parked cars.
  Remember, lots of the people cycling are quite young. 9 isn't unusual. (Yeah, lots are older, too, but that's a separate matter.) You really don't want them risking falling down into traffic. (Adults can use their judgment. I decided the streets were too dangerous at around 30. This was difficult, as I don't drive. I don't consider my eyesight good enough to handle fast traffic. I'm *REALLY* wanting automated cars to show up soon. And bus service is, frankly, quite a poor substitute.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
56. Re:Bicycles by Pope · 2011-07-13 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  A bicyclist running a stop light, (which technically he can't even trigger because he doesn't give off a large enough magnetic field to trigger the light,) isn't likely to kill someone, even if he causes an accident. .
  Granted, 100% of my cycling these days is within city limits, but I’ve yet to come across an actual stop light that didn’t have a pedestrian crossing button as well. Roll over, push the walk button, light changes sooner, go across.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
57. Re:Bicycles by Nadaka · 2011-07-13 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Once we get 5 (trucks, cars, motorcycles, bikes, pedestrians) sets of dedicated roads leading to all locations, fine. Problem is that is impossible, and we are currently serve less than 50% of locations with 2 sets (vehicles and pedestrians) in any but the most dense cities.
58. Re:Bicycles by daedae · 2011-07-13 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  They've actually started posting signs around Charlottesville to alert both bicyclists and drivers when a cyclist can use the full lane.
59. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  If I ever see a car drive on a sidewalk in order to get around traffic and blow a red light, I'm pretty sure I'll remember it. I see bicycles do this at least once a week.
  And I see cars violate the speed limit, blow red lights, accelerate into yellow lights, ignore lane markings, fail to signal turns, signal turns they never make, signal turns or lane changes they just made, tailgate, and otherwise drive recklessly hundreds of times a day. I can look out my window here at work and [i]see it right now[/i]. If you only see a cyclist violating the law once a week, they're doing far better than the average motorist.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
60. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe get a bike rack for your car so you don't have to ride in the middle of a lane of traffic during rush hour to get to the miles of nice bike trails that exist for you to ride on.
  And what if they are commuting to and from work by bike, not heading out to trails?
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
61. Re:Bicycles by Pope · 2011-07-13 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Motorbikes are perfectly safe on highways with big rigs, the rider just has to give a wider berth when passing to not get caught in the dirty air. My 31 year old 400cc Honda keeps up fine on the highways up to 120km/h, it's right in the power band. But as with cars, it's the unsafe morons who make it hell for everyone around them.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
62. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's not entirely unreasonable. I've noticed that cyclists seem to regularly ignore the laws when convenient. I'm not sure who gave them the idea that they can ride in the street just because they want to. But, they're only provisionally allowed to if they're going to follow the normal traffic laws. Which means that if they can't keep up with traffic that they can't be in the street.
  It's just too much of a hazard to drivers to be stuck behind a cyclist that's going well under the speed limit. Worse is trying to get around them safely.
  The speed limit is an upper bound, not a lower bound. All vehicles on the road are permitted to travel under that limit, unless there is also a posted minimum. It's no different than a person driving an old Model T in the street, or someone with a Horse-Drawn Carriage. Public Roadways are for public use.
  If you're so upset about their presence, here's a great idea that will make everyone happy: lobby your local city council to add bike lanes and commute bike trails so they can get out of your way. It would make them happy to be out of the street and the exhaust, and you happy since they can't slow you down.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
63. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
  I'll concede that there are fewer variations between states for motor vehicles than there are for bicycles, but on the whole, the laws are fairly consistent for both types of vehicle. Stay on the right side of the road, stop for stop signs and red lights, use lights when it's dark, etc. Don't drive on the sidewalk.
  
  In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
  The population at large doesn't know that cyclists should follow the same rules as cars because they haven't been taught anything about bicycling. In the U.S., "bike safety" pretty much consists of: 1) don't get run over by cars; and 2) wear your helmet. It's kind of like abstinence-only sex education.
  
  Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
  Biking on sidewalks is something like twice as dangerous as biking on the road in a lawful manner. The basic reason is that the cyclist isn't seen as traffic by drivers on the road, and every intersection or driveway becomes a road that he must enter. In the more than 60,000 miles that I've ridden, I've only had one collision with a motor vehicle, when the motorist coming in from a side street failed to yield. That would have happened even if I had been riding the sidewalk. In my bike club, bike-car collisions are much rarer than single-bike accidents or bike-bike accidents.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
64. Re:Bicycles by Mr.+Freeman · 2011-07-13 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely not. A biker has the capacity to cause an accident, which is a danger to EVERYONE involved. Yeah, the guy in the car is going to be a lot better off than the guy on the bike, but it doesn't mean the guy in the car is going to suffer no injuries whatsoever.
  
  Also, a distracted cyclists forces a driver to make a choice: hit and kill the cyclist or hit and injure people in an adjacent car but spare the guy on the bike. It's obviously far better to rear-end a slow moving car in the next lane than slam into a cyclist at full speed. Overall the number and severity of the injuries are reduced, but not even close to eliminated.
  
  Don't for a fucking second think that a cyclist playing around in the street isn't a danger to other people.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
65. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Now, have i rolled through a stop sign intersection or turned on red when the sign clearly admonishes me for doing so? Sure, but I think the difference is I am very aware of my surroundings when i do so and if there's a vehicle around, i just stop..
  Do you stop for pedestrians as well? As a pedestrian, if I'm crossing the road (at a pedestrian crossing with a green man) and a bike is coming, I cannot continue because 90% of the time the bike just goes straight through and I've been almost hit several times when they've continued on from behind stopped cars while i've been attempting to cross the road. Please stop doing this. Stop signs are not just for cars but also to allow pedestrians to cross.
66. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  I see, we should ban deaf people from driving and cycling.
  Because you need your ears in a car?
  Eyes are OK from within a cage where your view of the outside world is limited and you need mirrors to see it, yet someone on a bicycle is the one at fault for not being to hear, you sir, are a troll.
  AC
67. Re:Bicycles by operagost · 2011-07-13 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I only see a bicyclist about once a week, period. And about once a month, that guy is running red lights, making illegal turns, using pedestrian ROWs without dismounting, etc.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
68. Re:Bicycles by Mr.+Freeman · 2011-07-13 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's generally a special exception for farm and construction vehicles just about everywhere in the country. When in the street they're required to have an orange reflective triangle on the back of the vehicle.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
69. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to have something more than your word on this, I've never seen anything at all with regards to this.
  Just so you know, ask many cyclist, a 20mph crash has almost no chance of killing you, if it did then the speed limit for residentional areas would not be 20mph.
  It was only this week end someone on the tour de France was hit off his bike at around 26mph into a barbed wired fence, got up and continued to finished the section. O' that was after a few front flips.
  AC
70. Re:Bicycles by Mr.+Freeman · 2011-07-13 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  "Sure, but I think the difference is I am very aware of my surroundings"
  
  I hear this argument all too often. "I'm a cyclist and I hate drivers for breaking the law, but it's OK for me to break the law because I'm a better cyclist than they are a driver". Your argument rests solely on your flawed belief that you're better than everyone else.
  
  "The consequences for me NOT seeing a car are just too severe"
  You imply that the consequences for a driver failing to see another car are negligible. Do you seriously believe that drivers always walk away from car v. car collisions?
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
71. Re:Bicycles by silas_moeckel · 2011-07-13 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I can say I'm aware of bicyclists in my area they travel in packs 3 or 4 abreast and generally impede traffic. They do not stop at stop signs and generally think they own the road. I'm not talking about residential streets where you expect children riding bikes or even kicks playing street hockey etc but through roads with 50 mph speed limits.
  Why do you expect to be better under the law? You choose to drive a flimsy unsafe vehicle. If there is an accident it's an accident you pay for the damage you caused via your insurance. If it's malicious that's different.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
72. Re:Bicycles by operagost · 2011-07-13 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Please look up the dictionary definition of "accident" and stop redefining words based on your own beliefs.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
73. Re:Bicycles by Mr.+Freeman · 2011-07-13 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live (and I suspect most places) there are laws that allow the cyclist to treat a red light as a stop sign for exactly this reason. The key phrase here is "STOP SIGN". As in, you still have to stop, look both ways, etc. before proceeding through.
  
  Most cyclists argue "I can ride through without stopping because I can't trigger the sensor", which is ridiculous.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
74. Re:Bicycles by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-07-13 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  They are perfectly safe assuming there are no problems--the problem is that the margin for error is so small, and that if there is an accident there is hardly any protection for the driver or passenger. I know someone who suffered major injuries from a relatively slow speed injury between a car and motorcycle, when he was stopped at a red light. It was not his fault--but a car would have made all the difference.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
75. Re:Bicycles by ngg · 2011-07-13 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  You think people do this on purpose?
  Why, yes, I do.
  http://californiabicycleracing.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-is-what-doctor-christopher.html (warning, NSFW).
  And the verdict:
  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sentenced.html
76. Re:Bicycles by cayenne8 · 2011-07-13 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  2) wear your helmet.
  It isn't law that you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle is it??
  I never wore one as a kid...no such thing really that I recall when growing up and riding bicycles.
  I see lots of them now..but was assuming it was voluntary.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
77. Re:Bicycles by cayenne8 · 2011-07-13 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  These days...roads ARE meant for motorized vehicles....I mean, you rarely see horse's and carriages on paved road ways these days....they just aren't good for todays modern traffic needs, and neither are bicycles.
  If you can pedal > than 30mph consistantly, you really should have no right to be on a modern roadway with motorized vehicles.
  The difference in speed is a killer.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
78. Re:Bicycles by cayenne8 · 2011-07-13 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  And what if they are commuting to and from work by bike, not heading out to trails?
  Then get a car or ride a bus....and quit holding up traffic while the rest of us in/on proper motorized vehicles can get to where we're supposed to be ON TIME, rather than stuck behind bicycles that can't keep up.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
79. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  The speed limit is an upper bound, not a lower bound. All vehicles on the road are permitted to travel under that limit, unless there is also a posted minimum. It's no different than a person driving an old Model T in the street, or someone with a Horse-Drawn Carriage. Public Roadways are for public use.
  Ha! Tell that to my driving examiner. The first time I took the test, he failed me because I was "violating the law" by going 30kph in a 60kph zone, while going uphill, changing across two lanes, and seeing a red light at the top of the hill. The fact that he wrote it as the only reason to fail me means that there is an unwritten rule for a lower bound speed limit to all public roadways.
  Or maybe just in the city of Toronto.
  Or maybe he's a psycho.
80. Re:Bicycles by OhHellWithIt · 2011-07-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  2) wear your helmet.
  It isn't law that you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle is it??
  I never wore one as a kid...no such thing really that I recall when growing up and riding bicycles.
  I see lots of them now..but was assuming it was voluntary.
  Helmet laws for bicyclists are one of those highly variable things, as is the case with motorcycle helmets. Maryland requires helmets on bicyclists under 16 but requires no helmet on an adult motorcyclist or bicyclist. Virginia requires motorcyclists to wear helmets and allows some counties and cities to require bicyclists under 16 to wear a helmet. The town where I live is one of those counties, but evidently the town law doesn't require helmets. (Both bicycle activists and motorcycle activists can be extremely emotional and irrational on the subject of helmets.) I don't know of any states that have enacted a helmet requirement for all bicyclists, but I'm not as familiar with other states' laws on that point.
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
81. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  I've NEVER seen one of those accessible from the left turn lane.
  Frequently the left turn light only gets activated when the sensor gets tripped.
82. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  A distracted biker is a danger to everyone:
  http://news.google.ca/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dqu7B1H4VAtsXdM4bcTXldehGkhXM
83. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much every cyclist who self identifies that way is a self righteous arrogant twat, so really, you're wasting your breath.
84. Re:Bicycles by Defenestrar · 2011-07-13 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Never had trouble with that. In fact one of my favorite things to do back in the old town was to pass cars in the left lane. I kept hoping I could manage either a speeding ticket or at least an official warning - wanted to frame it on the wall (maybe even talk up the cited speed).
  Even a mountain bike should be able to push 30 to 35 on a flat, road bikes can do far better. Country highways are different, but in town riders should have no trouble keeping up with city speeds unless there's terrain issues (I certainly wouldn't be able to travel up a San Francisco hill at 25 mph - not even close). Mountain bikes on a sustained downhill road may actually need to worry about melting/fusing bearings (the better road bikes should be fine with a sustained 50+ mph), slow down -> freeze up -> inertia does BAD THINGS.
  Bikes need to follow the same rules. That means if they can't keep up within 5 mph of the limit they should pull over, if they're holding up five or more cars and there's room to move over but they don't take it, they can be ticketed just like any motorized vehicle. The point is that (other than freeways) the rules are exactly the same (possible local exceptions may exist).
  IANAL
85. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  These days...roads ARE meant for motorized vehicles....I mean, you rarely see horse's and carriages on paved road ways these days....they just aren't good for todays modern traffic needs, and neither are bicycles.
  Depends on where you live. I saw horse-drawn carriages all the time in Pennsylvania and irregularly in Upstate New York, and even around New York City (along with other non-standard motorized vehicles that wouldn't be able to maintain the speeds you're looking for). Those methods of transportation are perfectly fine for those individuals' needs, and public roadways are meant for public usage. The people using those methods (along with cyclists) have equal rights to road use that you do.
  Personally, I haven't needed a car daily in 10 years. I've rented one on the 3 occasions when I did want one. I have lived in Boston, Washington D.C., Albany, Los Angeles, and Austin. If you feel that you need one, that's nice, but they are by no means a requirement to living a modern life.
  
  If you can pedal > than 30mph consistantly, you really should have no right to be on a modern roadway with motorized vehicles.
  The difference in speed is a killer.
  If you can't adjust to cyclists, you have no right to be on a modern local-access roadway, and your license should be revoked. If they really bother you that much, petition your local government to add appropriate bike lanes and bike trails to get them out of your way.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
86. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  I get to where I'm supposed to be on time just fine on my bike. I can't help it if you aren't allotting enough time for local traffic conditions. Move closer to work and walk or ride yourself and you won't need to worry about it.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
87. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Once a week I see a bicycle violate that specific set of laws I stated. In a week, I see thousands of cars driving on the roads I drive on. I only see a few bicycles. Well over half of the bicycles do something dangerous in the short and rare time I see them. With cars, it's rare for them to do something dangerous.
  Most of what you listed isn't dangerous. How exactly is signaling a turn you don't make dangerous?
88. Re:Bicycles by scdeimos · 2011-07-13 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  I can beat that... on the way home through peak-hour traffic recently, not only was I passed by a bicyclist who was riding between two lanes of traffic, he felt it was necessary to show off to everybody by "popping a mono" for as long as possible as well.
89. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-13 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's dangerous for the same reason that not signalling a turn is dangerous. If you signal a turn, I (going the opposite direction) may start my turn ahead of you if there is a lane available for that action and the traffic controls don't otherwise prohibit it. You have signaled your intent and ceded right-of-way to cross the intersection. When you go straight instead of turning, that causes a hazard, and may result in an accident.
  Tailgating, which is nearly constant on every highway I've ever been on during any high volume traffic situation, is exceedingly dangerous, and nearly every single motorist does it without a thought. You see it so often, you don't even think about it anymore. How many "X car pile-ups" happen on your local roads... all of the people over 2 on that list had to have been tailgating, speeding, or otherwise violating moving laws. I believe most states require a "reasonable and prudent" gap between you and the vehicle ahead of you - on average that's at least 2 to 3 seconds between you and the car ahead, meaning it's larger as you get to higher speeds. Count it out next time you're on the highway in a rush hour that isn't stop-and-go traffic and see if anyone is actually following that. If the guy ahead of you slammed on his brakes while you were sneezing (reducing your reaction time), could you stop in time? Would you have already hit him before you can even open your eyes post-sneeze? If you're like 95% of the drivers I see daily, you'd have hit him, and the next 5 cars (at least) would have hit you, or scattered into adjacent lanes and had glancing accidents there.
  At most stop signs, I see vehicles come to a "rolling stop" where they slow to a reasonable point where they could stop if necessary, scan all directions, then proceed without stopping. Are the cyclists you see blowing through at top speed without looking, or are the coasting through and checking for opposing traffic? Are the red lights they ignore controlled by pressure plate switches? Are there pedestrian crossings available they could use to cause a light change? You haven't necessarily cited traffic violations. It's possible they are behaving recklessly, some cyclists aren't terribly bright when it comes to their own safety -- but I maintain you see far more motorists driving dangerously and illegally, and I mean that per capita.
  You see over 50% of cyclists violate traffic laws in potentially dangerous ways. I see over 99% of motorists violating traffic laws in potentially dangerous ways.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
90. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  Funny how every single time some dickhead ays this, while ignoring the facts of all those retarded fucking asshole in cars who outright kill cyclists by their dickhead driving.
  Fuck you shit for brains
91. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  The bicyclist running a red light or stop sign is most likely to kill themselves when the car/truck crossing the intersection hits them. So it's their own fault you say but now the car/truck driver has to deal with the aftermath of the bicyclists unintended suicide as do their friends and family. So suck it up, do the right thing and obey the rules of the road as you are supposed to. Makes life simpler and safer for all concerned.
92. Re:Bicycles by GuldKalle · 2011-07-13 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  OK, followup question: do you think any "Tough-on-drivers"-law (as Lumpy suggested) would have helped here?
  
  --
  What?
93. Re:Bicycles by hedwards · 2011-07-13 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's not true, if you wish to drive significantly below the speed limit then you're required to have traffic control devices. I remember seeing a convoy of vintage vehicles being driven on the highway a few years ago and they had a pilot truck and one following because of the hazard.
  The only times you're allowed to drive significantly under the speed limit are when conditions don't allow for driving the limit or there aren't any other cars.
94. Re:Bicycles by hedwards · 2011-07-13 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  They can drive in the streets here only if they adhere to the same regulations that apply to cars. And they can drive on the sidewalks only if they obey the same regulations that apply to pedestrian traffic.
  So, no they're not allowed to be on the street if they aren't going to keep up with traffic. And they're especially not allowed to do it if they're going up hill at a speed similar to a pedestrian. Obstructing traffic is a no no.
95. Re:Bicycles by syousef · 2011-07-13 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to improve things for cyclists maybe you guys could obey the traffic laws for once instead of biking through stop signs and red lights?
  When a bicyclist obeys the law, unfortunately nobody ever remembers it. How often do you remember a motorist who obeys the law?
  I notice when people drive like maniacs. There are a lot more cars than bikes, yet motor and pedal bikes make up a third to a half (my estimate) of the bad behaviour I see. They duck and weave out of traffic, use the shoulder of the road and move between stopped cars regularly. It is exceedingly rare to see a bike stopped in traffic, despite this being the law.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
96. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Getting stuck behind some asshole on a bike riding in the middle of rush hour traffic is not local traffic conditions.
  See your attitude? That's why everyone hates idiots on bikes.
97. Re:Bicycles by SatanClauz · 2011-07-14 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  nice! good thing someone didn't "accidentally" open their door, eh? ;)
98. Re:Bicycles by w_dragon · 2011-07-14 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  In rush hour what city are you in that traffic moves quickly enough that a bike couldn't keep up? For enough room to be safe you need to be partly into the next lane to pass a bike anyway (unless you have bike lanes or really wide lanes), so why not force you to actually change lanes so you aren't just drifting into a lane that someone else is using?
99. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-14 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Funny how every single time some dickhead says this, while ignoring the facts of all those retarded fucking asshole in bicycles who outright kill pedestrians by their dickhead cycling.
  Fuck you shit for brains
  There.. fixed that for ya.
  Ok.... granted, the pedestrian struck will recover, but you cannot deny the same thing can happen between a cyclist and a pedestrian due to the anarchy that cyclists seem to operate under.
100. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-14 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's dangerous for the same reason that not signalling a turn is dangerous. If you signal a turn, I (going the opposite direction) may start my turn ahead of you if there is a lane available for that action and the traffic controls don't otherwise prohibit it. You have signaled your intent and ceded right-of-way to cross the intersection. When you go straight instead of turning, that causes a hazard, and may result in an accident.
  Which is where my father's "drive defensively" rule comes in. NEVER assume that the person signalling is accurate. There are also a lot of other information that you can gather other than just the signal lights: eg. the speed of the car (nobody in their sane mind would turn at 40kph+). Around here in Toronto, left turners are required to yield to oncoming traffic, even if they have several witnesses to prove that the other driver ran a red light.
  
  Tailgating...
  You'll receive no argument from me there.
  
  At most stop signs, I see vehicles come to a "rolling stop" where they slow to a reasonable point where they could stop if necessary, scan all directions, then proceed without stopping. Are the cyclists you see blowing through at top speed without looking, or are the coasting through and checking for opposing traffic?
  Nope. I see cyclist blatantly ignore the right of way. I've seen situations where vehicles are already at stop signs and are next to go, but some cyclists just blow through the intersection as if they expected others to treat them as pedestrians on wheels.
  
  Are the red lights they ignore controlled by pressure plate switches?
  This one, I would have to agree with another poster somewhere in this thread: Treat it as a stop sign. If there's no traffic, go. If there's lots of traffic, try using the pedestrian button. But blowing through a red light (which is what you have listed in your earlier post)? No. Absolutely not allowed!
  
  Are there pedestrian crossings available they could use to cause a light change? You haven't necessarily cited traffic violations. It's possible they are behaving recklessly, some cyclists aren't terribly bright when it comes to their own safety -- but I maintain you see far more motorists driving dangerously and illegally, and I mean that per capita.
  Maybe it's just me. I do see bad motorists on the road. However, most of the time, I comment it at the time, and it's usually forgotten the next day. I see less cyclists, but I'm more likely to remember their wrong-doings. Perhaps because they are more fragile that makes me remember them so that I can improve my defensive driving.
101. Re:Bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-14 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  I take the whole lane, and ride so that no cars can get past me.
  Thus contributes more to the cyclist-hate. Nobody will understand what it is like to ride a bike if you keep that up.
102. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-14 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between prudence (voluntarily having a pilot and following vehicle with flashing lights), and legal requirement. To my knowledge, only Arizona has a state-wide statute on minimum speeds, which is the same as maximum speed: "reasonable & prudent". I'm unaware of any that actually require additional reflective strips or the like (for, say, Amish carts), but most people will apply them on their own. I certainly always have my own flashing lights and reflectors on my bicycle when I'm out - but it's self-preservation I'm acting on in tryign to increase my visibility, not legal requirement.
  Many highways and interstates have explicit minimums, but also generally explicitly don't allow pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Local-access roads (which is generally where you'd see cyclists) do not have explicit or implicit minimums, and cannot since they need to be public access and available to people using, say, slower farm vehicles, bicycles, various motorized scooters, and so on.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
103. Re:Bicycles by cayenne8 · 2011-07-14 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't adjust to cyclists, you have no right to be on a modern local-access roadway, and your license should be revoked.
  Tell you what. When bicycles on the road require the same licensing, fees, testing and insurance as auto/motorcycles do...I'll give my thoughts a bit more consideration towards bikes and motorized vehicles on the same roadways.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
104. Re:Bicycles by Anguirel · 2011-07-14 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  If bicycles had the same risks as auto/motorcyles do, they would require them. Remember, horses, pedestrians, and even bicycles were there before cars -- motor vehicles are the interloper, not the bicycle. But you bring up a good point -- cyclists and motorists don't have equal rights to road use. Cyclists actually have a right to use the road, motorists obtain it only as a privilege.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
105. Re:Bicycles by ngg · 2011-07-14 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think that a better place to start would be strict enforcement of existing laws: Drivers in the LA area have been noticeably more well-behaved (especially near Malibu, where this attack took place) since this widely-publicized trial--The realization of possibility of loosing one's freedom has a tendency to focus the mind. Treating extremely aggressive driving as assault (look up the legal definition of assault), and better cooperation from law enforcement officers would be a good place to start. If that doesn't work after a reasonable trial period, I would be open to increasing penalties.
  And just to head off the predictable responses at the pass: yes, cyclist need to follow the laws, too. But as much as I hear drivers complain, I can't help but notice the double-standard: speeding and "california rolls" aren't illegal when motorists do it. Yet, somehow, a cyclist flying down a hill at ten over the speed limit is still obstructing the flow of traffic.
106. Re:Bicycles by Uzuri · 2011-07-15 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly I have problems with those people when I'm driving a truck at speed.
  They're just assholes. It has little to do with what you're actually driving, riding, flying, or walking on.
  
  --
  I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
107. Re:Bicycles by Uzuri · 2011-07-15 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Gah, I meant problems with people passing 30 seconds after getting behind me at insane speeds, not bicyclists. That was ambiguous. Sorry.
  
  --
  I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
108. Re:Bicycles by liquidweaver · 2011-07-15 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but when you are in a truck it's a lit easier not to die when several thousand pounds flies by :)
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
109. Re:Bicycles by Uzuri · 2011-07-15 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  True :)
  Except when they cut in and your options are let them hit you or drive off a 20 ft. embankment into a creek XD But yeah, in general, VERY true.
  
  --
  I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 06:54 · Score: 0

One of the last bastions of natural population control falls. This will lead to massive overpopulation, then starvation, disease, and crime.
Wireless drivers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:08 · Score: 0

Anyone else think of device drivers (software) after reading the headline?
Let's see where... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:14 · Score: 0

Missouri, Florida, Virginia, Texas and California.
With the exception of Minneapolis, they're avoiding places that actually get snow. As a New Yorker (*NOT* New York City, but upstate, where the snow goes) I'm not sure why they would do so.
1. Re:Let's see where... by hedwards · 2011-07-13 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's a first step, eventually they'll need to get that tested in those areas as well. But there's a large number of drivers in areas that don't get snow, or get it regularly. Which makes for an excellent place to get the gear working for times when it isn't snowing. Then, after they've got that down, they can finish the snow stuff.
  But, at any rate, even without perfecting it on snow it's still beneficial during the parts of the year when there isn't any.
  Having seen the way my relatives drive in the snow, if they tried to drive like that around here, they'd be in the ditch within a block. Fortunately, we don't get snow that often.
Off Topic-Bicycles by einstein4pres · 2011-07-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Well, that varies by cyclist, as you can imagine. Some cyclists obey the law, just as some drivers do. I can't control what other cyclists do, just like you can't control what other motorists do.
There's a lot of confusion between both cyclists and motorists about how to treat cyclists. Laws vary a lot by state (and city). And a lot of people (on both sides) just don't seem to understand that bicycles are vehicles and should obey the laws of vehicles on the road. And be on the road, not the sidewalk (by law in many jurisdictions)
I stop at stop signs and yield to traffic with right of way, and occupy the lane when it's necessary for safety (and get over to the right if not).
I do not stop completely at stop signs if no one is around and I have good sight lines. Bicycles are much slower, have much better visibility than cars (higher, no near-field distractions) and therefore get a much better view of intersection. And they've got a lot more skin in the game if they make a mistake. Coming to a complete stop with a bicycle is almost never necessary for safety reasons. Idaho allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.
Probably 70% of drivers incorrectly yield to me when I approach a 4-way stop, though. Even after I come to a full stop, and put my foot on the pavement, they'll sit there and wait for me to go. Not to mention the aggressive, unsafe overtaking and other problems that drivers seem to have sharing the road with cyclists.
1. Re:Off Topic-Bicycles by SleazyRidr · 2011-07-13 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I very rarely find a good middle ground with cars. Either they're too scared to go past me even when I'm stopped on the side of the road with one foot on the curb, or they want to blow past me straight away, no matter what else is happening around them.
  From my observations, most bicyclists obey the law about as much as most car drivers: which is not very much.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
I have you covered on that. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:21 · Score: 0

I ride on the sidewalk, as to not break any road laws!
avoid... roadway problems and other hazards. by countertrolling · 2011-07-13 07:25 · Score: 2

Does this include police checkpoints? For some reason, I doubt it... But I thought I'd ask anyway

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Anonyomous hacks Santa Monica Freeway. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:32 · Score: 0

All it will take to end this idea is the first time some script-kiddies decide they want to play in traffic.
excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 07:43 · Score: 0

Arcos will be pleased.
on step closer by krgallagher · 2011-07-13 07:43 · Score: 1

Looks like we are one step closer to flying cars. We won't get flying cars until cars can fly themselves.

--
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Can someone show this article? by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-07-13 07:46 · Score: 1

...to the cop when they get pulled over for texting while driving?

--
I8-D
In Europe they're doing it right by countertrolling · 2011-07-13 07:47 · Score: 1

Make driving a bigger pain in the ass than it already is..
And the sidebar within the Slashdot linked article on the Seven advanced car technologies the government wants now does not say anything about driverless vehicles. That's what the priority should be. I mean. if reducing the risk of accidents is what you're after...

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Re:In Europe they're doing it right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  The title of the article is "Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy", for others who would like to google it.
2. Re:In Europe they're doing it right by VortexCortex · 2011-07-14 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  does not say anything about driverless vehicles. That's what the priority should be
  After driverless, we'll discover that cars that can link-up with each-other physically are even more efficient.
  Next, we'll realize that specialized tracks can provide power to the vehicles enabling long trips without refueling.
  Finally, we'll be able to use trains again.
Hacking the Driving network... by Rogue974 · 2011-07-13 08:15 · Score: 1

I have one big fear with this kind of thing. If the cars do start driving themselves and taking directions from the other vehicles and lights around them, how do they design it so that it is not hackable. We have had many articles talking about industrial controls systems that are getting viruses and make things vulnerable, what about a car.
How do they secure someone from hacking into a vehicle, or from just injecting false inputs by broadcasting them, and causing accidents? Have they considered that? Are the car computers going to take the signals as inputs and then have it's own sensors to independently verify the information it is seeing and that make decisions? Are the cars just going to use information to know when they need to override control and stop the vehicle? If we ever get to cars driving themselves, is there a risk that the car will just be told to accelerate and then turn into a brick wall?
It is a bit scary to think of all the possible exploits for this sort of thing and how they are going to keep people safe.
1. Re:Hacking the Driving network... by VortexCortex · 2011-07-14 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  SHHHH!!!
  You'll spoil all the fun!
  Everyone knows that, although not impossible to create, there's no such thing as a 100% secure system because the cost to create one is too high, especially in the consumer sector -- their lust for the "nouveau" and the competitive time-sensitive markets virtually ensure that us hackers can Crack Everything Forever!
  --That is, until we have AI that can write & test software for us we won't be able to fully trust the system security (... wait, what?!)
As an aggressive driver by SeeSp0tRun · 2011-07-13 08:35 · Score: 1

I respond aggressively. I have a fun, fast car. I drive it just like that. No accidents and never pulled over, in almost 10 years.
I never ride passenger, unless I am exhausted, because I find driving to be enjoyable, and I don't trust other drivers (including my own friends).
Automated cars are slowly, but surely going to be taking the fun out of driving. Not very dissimilar, the "green" movement is doing the same, with lower HP cars, and tiny gas sipping engines.
And don't even get me started on the "auto-pull-over/handcuff" option the 5-0 will have...

--
Something witty.
1. Re:As an aggressive driver by Vancorps · 2011-07-13 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  As a fellow driver of a fun and fast car I can say that private track and road courses will always be available. I have way more fun on the private courses here in AZ. It's also nice because you don't have to worry about cops thinking that you're going too fast.
  It will be a long time before cars driving themselves will become the status quo, you've got nothing to worry about.
2. Re:As an aggressive driver by cayenne8 · 2011-07-13 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  I respond aggressively. I have a fun, fast car. I drive it just like that. No accidents and never pulled over, in almost 10 years.
  I never ride passenger, unless I am exhausted, because I find driving to be enjoyable, and I don't trust other drivers (including my own friends).
  Automated cars are slowly, but surely going to be taking the fun out of driving. Not very dissimilar, the "green" movement is doing the same, with lower HP cars, and tiny gas sipping engines.
  THIS
  I could not agree more!!
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:As an aggressive driver by r_jensen11 · 2011-07-13 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Automated cars will give me 2 more hours a day to do productive things (1 hour each way on what feels like the straightest road in the world.) Ultimately, I would love it if these 2 hours mean I finish my work earlier and can enjoy more of my life with friends & family.
Motorists by bigtrike · 2011-07-13 08:52 · Score: 1

Motorists obeying traffic laws would be a great start. Not even the cops here actually stop at stop signs. Turn signal use is infrequent, as is stopping for pedestrians in a crosswalk. Everyone talks on their cell phone while driving too, which is illegal here.
V2R working in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 10:07 · Score: 0

As the article states, one part of the 'Connected Vehicles' concept is vehicle to roadside (V2R) communication -- a dialogue between the vehicles and the infrastructure such as traffic signals. Here in Seattle, more correctly King County, we have 11 miles of a 'Connected Vehicle' environment in place for transit with about 100 more miles funded. The buses communicate with the traffic signals and to central back office systems. Our Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) network also feeds bus arrival signs and fare card readers.
The rub of DSRC -- Dedicated Short Range Communications, the 5.9GHz wireless band set aside by the FCC for transportation -- is that the protocol standards are taking forever to complete in great part due to the fact that the auto makers and public transportation can't seem to get together on this. In the meantime, we've gone ahead and used the 4.9GHz public safety band.
Frankly, DSRC and connected vehicles is a great idea that has real problems ahead. There is a list of more than 20 great applications, but safety gets all the attention because, well, safety is one of those magic funding words. Somehow the other magic word, "Green" has shown up too, but no one can quite figure out how wifi is going to save the planet. In any case, the automakers actually care more about content delivery than anything else. I have to say that they should be allowed to go ahead but ensure the standards are done with the rest of the package in mind. Safety applications aren't really going to work until every car is replaced or fitted with an aftermarket transponder, and many people I talk to have the same opinion that the people who won't/can't get DSRC on their car are probably the ones you're most worried about.
Information good; control bad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 15:56 · Score: 0

I am all for additional information being available to the driver. However, I do not want the car to automatically apply the brakes (for example) in a dangerous situation which is where I fear this technology is heading.
It seems to me that every advance in automobile safety only encourages people to drive more dangerously. Plus, I want to reserve the right to ram the car in front of me in the unlikely event that it is a useful thing to do.