Slashdot Mirror
US Wants Drivers To Test Wireless Auto Safety Tech
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."
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.