I must also apologize. I overreacted. Upon going back and rereading the quote, it was worded somewhat poorly and it's easy to see why you took it as you did.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
Condescend much?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
and they can't see safely ahead of them
Even if the sun is in your eyes, you can see safely enough ahead of you to see things that should be on the road.
and then if they hit a cyclist
If you're on the road in traffic with your bike when it's hard to see you, that's on YOU.
Yes, no car driver is ever going to see everything. Yes, they will occasionally not stop completely before making a right turn on red. Car drivers will do even far more stupid things than this. But guess who will get killed? Not the car driver. It will be you on your bike or your theoretical pedestrian.
It's not about moral superiority. It's about realizing that you're the only one in the position to lose anything, and not being stupid.
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
I wouldn't lump all drivers in with yourself, not all drivers have such little control of their vehicle they fear running over cyclists.
All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended. After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
I've seen drivers in the wrong on both sides of the issue. I've seen car drivers be way too aggressive, and I've seen bikers do things that are totally illegal by the laws of the road, almost get hit, and then yell at the car driver as if it were their fault. People are people. There are good and bad on BOTH sides. But you know what the difference is? If you're on your bike and you get in an accident with a car, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE. And that's why your attitude on this is quite stupid.
If 90% of the drivers think that 70 is plenty (and they drive at or under that regardless of the speed limit) -- then that should be the limit.
Of course, they don't. Speed limits across the US are almost universally and intentionally set too low, for the purpose of revenue. This is why so many people get ticketed for speeding.
It is insanely dangerous to allow a few nuts to drive at incredible speeds that is way out of line with the normal traffic. I guarantee that if any road in the US has 120-150 mph limits then 1% (or less) of the vehicles on that road when even come close to driving those speeds -- and it would be prohibitively dangerous to allow vehicles to travel at a +80mph delta to the average.
That's great, pulling a guarantee out of your ass. But your example does serve to illustrate a point: it's not merely people driving too fast that are a problem. People driving too slow are equally to blame. Doing 50MPH in a 70MPH (in driving conditions where 70 MPH is safe) is without debate considerably more dangerous than doing 85MPH in a the same conditions. Yet, if a minimum speed limit exists at all, it will be either 45 or 50MPH. And even if you drive under that minimum, you're still unlikely to be ticketed. At the same time, the considerably safer driver doing 85MPH will be ticketed 90% of the time if caught.
This, exactly. I have never seen or heard of anyone being pulled over (never mind ticketed) purely for unsafe driving. I've heard of people being pulled over under suspicion of DUI because they were weaving, but that's not the same thing at all. But every day across the US, thousands (probably millions) of drivers get pulled over and ticketed because they hit some arbitrary speed over the posted limit. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
Same still holds. If you were correct and everyone followed what you claim, every item on Amazon would be rated one star. Positive ratings and reviews are necessary to offset the inevitable negative ones, at the very least.
People are different. We're not all affected by things the same way. Drowsiness is easily my biggest weakness while driving. I can get sleepy even if I've had plenty of sleep. Talking on the phone absolutely does help keep me alert and make me a safer driver. I've never come close to having an accident while talking on the phone. I've had numerous close calls from getting sleepy, including one that absolutely should have killed me.
The key to being able to safely talk on the phone while driving isn't an ability to concentrate on multiple things at once. I'm not sure anyone can really do that. The key is the ability to tune out the phone conversation as needed.
This, precisely. If I'm awake for 18 hours straight, I'm very unsafe to be driving. I could probably be at double or triple the legal limit for alcohol and still be much safer.
That said, I try to avoid either situation, but it's much easier to avoid the alcohol.
I too talk all the time while driving. I do use a bluetooth hands-free. I also treat it the same way you do: phone conversation always takes second priority to driving when it comes to focus. Sometimes I'll have to ask the person to repeat something; not because I couldn't hear them but because I couldn't pay attention. I find it actually less distracting than talking to someone physically present in the car. I think it's because subconciously, I care less if I miss something the person on the phone says. I've never had a close call due to being distracted by talking on the phone. I have had close calls due to being distracted by others in the vehicle.
Best thing that could happen is that their creative team hooks up with a leaner business team and drops out of Blizzard.
That's already happened, and not just once.
That's why Blizzard has done nothing but go downhill the last decade, why they haven't released anything actually new, and why even their rehashes range from not that good to utter shite.
The first time it happened was while WoW was still in development. Yes, even as good as it was, WoW could have been better. That first time around, the people who left started ArenaNet. And despite having significantly less development time, the first Guild Wars was more polished than WoW ever was. Not sure where the rest of the top devs they lost have gone.
Slashdot Mirror
I must also apologize. I overreacted. Upon going back and rereading the quote, it was worded somewhat poorly and it's easy to see why you took it as you did.
And if you choose the option that take five times as long, you are putting yourself in harm's way five times as long.
Both accident/injury rates per mile AND per hour need to be considered.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
Condescend much?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
and they can't see safely ahead of them
Even if the sun is in your eyes, you can see safely enough ahead of you to see things that should be on the road.
and then if they hit a cyclist
If you're on the road in traffic with your bike when it's hard to see you, that's on YOU.
The context of the quote was about ALL biking injuries, not specifically bike-car collisions.
Yes, no car driver is ever going to see everything. Yes, they will occasionally not stop completely before making a right turn on red. Car drivers will do even far more stupid things than this. But guess who will get killed? Not the car driver. It will be you on your bike or your theoretical pedestrian.
It's not about moral superiority. It's about realizing that you're the only one in the position to lose anything, and not being stupid.
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
I wouldn't lump all drivers in with yourself, not all drivers have such little control of their vehicle they fear running over cyclists.
All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended. After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
I've seen drivers in the wrong on both sides of the issue. I've seen car drivers be way too aggressive, and I've seen bikers do things that are totally illegal by the laws of the road, almost get hit, and then yell at the car driver as if it were their fault. People are people. There are good and bad on BOTH sides. But you know what the difference is? If you're on your bike and you get in an accident with a car, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE. And that's why your attitude on this is quite stupid.
Should be modded to +5.
If 90% of the drivers think that 70 is plenty (and they drive at or under that regardless of the speed limit) -- then that should be the limit.
Of course, they don't. Speed limits across the US are almost universally and intentionally set too low, for the purpose of revenue. This is why so many people get ticketed for speeding.
It is insanely dangerous to allow a few nuts to drive at incredible speeds that is way out of line with the normal traffic. I guarantee that if any road in the US has 120-150 mph limits then 1% (or less) of the vehicles on that road when even come close to driving those speeds -- and it would be prohibitively dangerous to allow vehicles to travel at a +80mph delta to the average.
That's great, pulling a guarantee out of your ass. But your example does serve to illustrate a point: it's not merely people driving too fast that are a problem. People driving too slow are equally to blame. Doing 50MPH in a 70MPH (in driving conditions where 70 MPH is safe) is without debate considerably more dangerous than doing 85MPH in a the same conditions. Yet, if a minimum speed limit exists at all, it will be either 45 or 50MPH. And even if you drive under that minimum, you're still unlikely to be ticketed. At the same time, the considerably safer driver doing 85MPH will be ticketed 90% of the time if caught.
Can't let safety get in the way of profit.
This, exactly. I have never seen or heard of anyone being pulled over (never mind ticketed) purely for unsafe driving. I've heard of people being pulled over under suspicion of DUI because they were weaving, but that's not the same thing at all. But every day across the US, thousands (probably millions) of drivers get pulled over and ticketed because they hit some arbitrary speed over the posted limit. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
Of course, 100% of your comments are crud. You just confirmed it.
Oblig: http://xkcd.com/1170/
Same still holds. If you were correct and everyone followed what you claim, every item on Amazon would be rated one star. Positive ratings and reviews are necessary to offset the inevitable negative ones, at the very least.
People are different. We're not all affected by things the same way. Drowsiness is easily my biggest weakness while driving. I can get sleepy even if I've had plenty of sleep. Talking on the phone absolutely does help keep me alert and make me a safer driver. I've never come close to having an accident while talking on the phone. I've had numerous close calls from getting sleepy, including one that absolutely should have killed me.
In short: you're wrong.
The key to being able to safely talk on the phone while driving isn't an ability to concentrate on multiple things at once. I'm not sure anyone can really do that. The key is the ability to tune out the phone conversation as needed.
This, precisely. If I'm awake for 18 hours straight, I'm very unsafe to be driving. I could probably be at double or triple the legal limit for alcohol and still be much safer.
That said, I try to avoid either situation, but it's much easier to avoid the alcohol.
I too talk all the time while driving. I do use a bluetooth hands-free. I also treat it the same way you do: phone conversation always takes second priority to driving when it comes to focus. Sometimes I'll have to ask the person to repeat something; not because I couldn't hear them but because I couldn't pay attention. I find it actually less distracting than talking to someone physically present in the car. I think it's because subconciously, I care less if I miss something the person on the phone says. I've never had a close call due to being distracted by talking on the phone. I have had close calls due to being distracted by others in the vehicle.
It's called plausable deniability. As long as you don't have proof, you can claim you didn't know.
Please describe a reasonable method for obtaining proof that someone is in fact a paid internet shill.
No. You can only do that once it's too late to matter.
Like we didn't already know this was going on...
Interesting sig, and oddly appropriate for this discussion.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
But I do like Calvin's version better:
"If life gives you a lemon, I say wing it right back and add some lemons of your own!"
Mmm. This is a tasty burger!
Suddenly it makes sense why so much animal cruelty exists. Apparently many people are stupid enough to think animals aren't intelligent.
I strongly suspect in these cases, the animals may actually be more intelligent than their keepers.
Wow. They're losing subs even faster than I thought they would.
Best thing that could happen is that their creative team hooks up with a leaner business team and drops out of Blizzard.
That's already happened, and not just once.
That's why Blizzard has done nothing but go downhill the last decade, why they haven't released anything actually new, and why even their rehashes range from not that good to utter shite.
The first time it happened was while WoW was still in development. Yes, even as good as it was, WoW could have been better. That first time around, the people who left started ArenaNet. And despite having significantly less development time, the first Guild Wars was more polished than WoW ever was. Not sure where the rest of the top devs they lost have gone.