A script called "LinkClick.aspx" which takes a url as argument and forwards the browser to that address. Seriously, what the hell? Do these people know ANYTHING about how the web works? I can't even begin to describe what a load of nonsense such a script is to begin with. How about, oh I don't know, an actual link? Or an HTTP redirect?
Why the hell was "LinkClick.aspx" even created to begin with? Let alone why it's publicly available and accepts any url. This is so wrong, my head is about to explode.
You are not much less maneuverable. You can simply hit the brakes and stand still, without the risk of falling over. Your choice of places to be is "in your lane, on the road", just like the cyclists. And because your vehicle is much more dangerous, you have to watch out not to hurt others. It's all really very simple, if you can simply control your desire to always move fast. You can't always move that fast, so slow down when it's needed without losing your temper. That way everyone is safe on the road, you included.
What do you mean? Laws of nature, such as your car being hit by lightning and because of that hitting a cyclist, is exactly the sort of thing where "overmacht" applies.
Beyond that I would never bike in areas that are unsafe for myself and others to do so.
That's an hilarious comment coming from you. Cycling would be safer if people like yourself would learn to chill and take responsibility for their actions while driving a car.
The only exception is when a motorist can prove he could not prevent the accident. If his car was stationary at the time of the incident, I believe he could prove in a court that that was the case and he would probably go free.
The same thing happens when you ride your bicycle straight onto an oncoming car for example. The general idea is that motorist should consider the possibility of cyclists not following the rules and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Sure if there were bike lanes etc everywhere or at least a wide paved shoulder for them to ride on, or maybe if I lived in a magical place where all of the roads are straight. However I've twice now almost run over a bike around a blind corner going up a hill.
If you can't stop in time to avoid oncoming traffic, you are taking the corner too fast. Simple as that.
You're not dealing with the government. One civilian in a car hits another civilian on a bike, no other parties are involved. The law says the motorist is liable unless he can prove he could not prevent the accident to protect the cyclist. Simple as that. If you move around in a 1000 kilogram cage of steel with a 50+ horsepower engine, you have to do responsibly. That means stopping for people who aren't protected like you, even if you are driving by the rules and someone else isn't.
It's all about making sure people are preventing accidents and injuries, instead of mindlessly obeying the rules and thinking their responsibility ends there.
Well obviously the actual law isn't written as simplistic as I wrote it down. I put a link to the text itself a few posts above here in this thread. There is an exception to it if the motorist can prove it was impossible for him to have avoided the cyclist. But in general, when a car hits a cyclist, the driver of the car is in trouble.
The law states that when a motorist and a non-motorist collide on the road, it is always the fault of the motorist, unless "overmacht" can be proven, which is a Dutch legal term meaning the motorist could not in any conceivable way have prevented the incident. So if you drive a car and hit a cyclist and it was absolutely impossible for you at any point to either brake or steer around the cyclist, then you go free. Otherwise, it's your fault.
Of course this isn't "fair" per se, but the law is there to protect the cyclists, who are perceived "weak users of the road" from motor vehicles, which are "strong users of the road". And I can tell you it works very well in practice.
You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, there isn't such a thing as a European standard speed limit. In France it's 130 km/h, in Belgium it's 120 km/h, in the UK it's 70 m/h (about 113 km/h). Every country sets their own rules, as I believe do the States of the US.
Now about the German Autobahn: nationwide there is no mandatory speed limit. There is a "recommended" speed limit of 130 km/h, but you are free to go over that if you like. Now as the population has been increasing and the roads were getting busier and cities larger, some parts of some roads did get a speed limit. That's mainly near large cities, on roads with heavy traffic or on roads with poor far-field vision (lots of bends and hills). Also limits may apply in certain conditions, such as when it rains and the roads are wet. But in general, all Autobahns are still completely speed unlimited.
I'm not sure if it's actually a crime in Holland to sue someone without proper cause, but the judge will certainly dismiss your case if he feels you aren't being sincere. That and the fact damages aren't as common and certainly not as high as in the US ensures the Netherlands is pretty much free of what you call the "lawsuit lottery", as it is in most European countries by the way.
I do believe that removing unneeded hassles, people will be more inclined to do something. In countries where cycling is common (Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan) people regard riding a bicycle as common as taking a walk. Would you walk as much if you had to wear a helmet?
And in these same countries where cycling is common, cyclists aren't hit by cars at all on a large scale. How could that be? Could it be those people are actually smarter or better at driving, or does it make more sense to assume these motorists are simply used to having cyclists on the road? And if they can become used to it, why couldn't people in other countries as well?
The reality is that you'll be seriously injured anyway if you are hit by a car while driving a bicycle, helmet or not.
By the way, in the Netherlands (where as you might now cycling is very common on the roads) the person driving the car is always liable in a car-bicycle collision. It doesn't matter if the cyclist was running a red light, it doesn't matter if it was on the wrong side of the road: if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always. This makes motorist very aware of cyclists, so despite of everyone cycling everywhere, accidents involving cars aren't actually that common at all.
That would be a good idea even without the cyclists. Proper instructions are key to making roads safe. Look at Germany: no speed limits, yet because of decent training, the Autobahn is less dangerous than the roads are in a lot of other countries.
Cycling will never become mainstream while helmet laws are enforced. In none of the countries where cycling is common it is required to where helmets and in every country where helmets are mandatory, cycling isn't very popular.
So lose the helmets and learn to drive. It's the only way.
I do agree with the bike lanes, but that's really an added extra, not a substitute for the above.
And why is it such a problem to have to sit through a generation to profoundly improve something? The lack of long term solutions is exactly what is wrong with the world. Everyone wants everything now and that's just not feasible. The reality is that short term solutions generally make things worse in the long term, not better.
You realize that is just a temporary problem which doesn't need a permanent fix? If you ditch the need for helmets, more people would start cycling, which will make motorists more aware of them. It might take a generation to get fully adjusted, but there are lots of European countries where drivers are fully used to having to watch out for people riding bicycles (and small scooters by the way).
Well even if you are able to comprehend the German texts, I'd still recommend you get the multimedia tour, as it is a great way to guide you through the museum. Without it, you can't help but feel a bit lost, as there is just so much to see there. And there's some pictures and video's there as well which aren't featured in the museum itself, so if you're a completionist, that's a good reason too to invest another 2 euro's into the little HTC Android box they give you to tour the museum with.
You should definitely check out the Heinz Nixdorf museum in Padenborn, Germany. It's the largest collection of old computers on display anywhere in the world. Make sure you get the English audio tour from the reception though, as nearly all of the texts within the museum are written in German.
It truly is an awesome place, with lots of wonderful machines, including (but by no means limited to) a piece of a Jacquard loom, a real German WW2 Enigma, lots of huge old IBM machines, a full Zuse Z11 (including a modified typewriter to function as printer!), some PDP's, a Xerox Alto, an Altair 8800, an Apple I. One could spend a week in there, it's simply amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
A script called "LinkClick.aspx" which takes a url as argument and forwards the browser to that address. Seriously, what the hell? Do these people know ANYTHING about how the web works? I can't even begin to describe what a load of nonsense such a script is to begin with. How about, oh I don't know, an actual link? Or an HTTP redirect?
Why the hell was "LinkClick.aspx" even created to begin with? Let alone why it's publicly available and accepts any url. This is so wrong, my head is about to explode.
You are not much less maneuverable. You can simply hit the brakes and stand still, without the risk of falling over. Your choice of places to be is "in your lane, on the road", just like the cyclists. And because your vehicle is much more dangerous, you have to watch out not to hurt others. It's all really very simple, if you can simply control your desire to always move fast. You can't always move that fast, so slow down when it's needed without losing your temper. That way everyone is safe on the road, you included.
What does Slashdot have to do with niches?
What do you mean? Laws of nature, such as your car being hit by lightning and because of that hitting a cyclist, is exactly the sort of thing where "overmacht" applies.
Beyond that I would never bike in areas that are unsafe for myself and others to do so.
That's an hilarious comment coming from you. Cycling would be safer if people like yourself would learn to chill and take responsibility for their actions while driving a car.
Biking is a fucking hobby.
It's no more a hobby than driving is a hobby. And they're both forms of transportation as well.
Do you have problems sharing other things as well or is it just the road that you consider yours?
Sorry, but the slowdown in traffic isn't worth it
Slowing down isn't worth the saved lives of people on bicycles? Are you nuts?
The only exception is when a motorist can prove he could not prevent the accident. If his car was stationary at the time of the incident, I believe he could prove in a court that that was the case and he would probably go free.
The same thing happens when you ride your bicycle straight onto an oncoming car for example. The general idea is that motorist should consider the possibility of cyclists not following the rules and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Sure if there were bike lanes etc everywhere or at least a wide paved shoulder for them to ride on, or maybe if I lived in a magical place where all of the roads are straight. However I've twice now almost run over a bike around a blind corner going up a hill.
If you can't stop in time to avoid oncoming traffic, you are taking the corner too fast. Simple as that.
You're not dealing with the government. One civilian in a car hits another civilian on a bike, no other parties are involved. The law says the motorist is liable unless he can prove he could not prevent the accident to protect the cyclist. Simple as that. If you move around in a 1000 kilogram cage of steel with a 50+ horsepower engine, you have to do responsibly. That means stopping for people who aren't protected like you, even if you are driving by the rules and someone else isn't.
It's all about making sure people are preventing accidents and injuries, instead of mindlessly obeying the rules and thinking their responsibility ends there.
Well obviously the actual law isn't written as simplistic as I wrote it down. I put a link to the text itself a few posts above here in this thread. There is an exception to it if the motorist can prove it was impossible for him to have avoided the cyclist. But in general, when a car hits a cyclist, the driver of the car is in trouble.
If you could choose between fair and safe, what would you pick?
It's article 185 of the "Wegenverkeerswet" which is the Dutch traffic law.
The exact text (in Dutch of course) can be found here: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006622/HoofdstukXII/Artikel185/geldigheidsdatum_02-10-2012
An explanation of the law is on Wikipedia (also in Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_185_Wegenverkeerswet
The law states that when a motorist and a non-motorist collide on the road, it is always the fault of the motorist, unless "overmacht" can be proven, which is a Dutch legal term meaning the motorist could not in any conceivable way have prevented the incident. So if you drive a car and hit a cyclist and it was absolutely impossible for you at any point to either brake or steer around the cyclist, then you go free. Otherwise, it's your fault.
Of course this isn't "fair" per se, but the law is there to protect the cyclists, who are perceived "weak users of the road" from motor vehicles, which are "strong users of the road". And I can tell you it works very well in practice.
Anything that is besides the point is annoying. Or do you think it wouldn't be a hassle to have to bring, say, a bucket everywhere you went?
You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, there isn't such a thing as a European standard speed limit. In France it's 130 km/h, in Belgium it's 120 km/h, in the UK it's 70 m/h (about 113 km/h). Every country sets their own rules, as I believe do the States of the US.
Now about the German Autobahn: nationwide there is no mandatory speed limit. There is a "recommended" speed limit of 130 km/h, but you are free to go over that if you like. Now as the population has been increasing and the roads were getting busier and cities larger, some parts of some roads did get a speed limit. That's mainly near large cities, on roads with heavy traffic or on roads with poor far-field vision (lots of bends and hills). Also limits may apply in certain conditions, such as when it rains and the roads are wet. But in general, all Autobahns are still completely speed unlimited.
I'm not sure if it's actually a crime in Holland to sue someone without proper cause, but the judge will certainly dismiss your case if he feels you aren't being sincere. That and the fact damages aren't as common and certainly not as high as in the US ensures the Netherlands is pretty much free of what you call the "lawsuit lottery", as it is in most European countries by the way.
Ha! That's a great fun fact. A shame it didn't launch a cycling revolution like it did in Holland.
I do believe that removing unneeded hassles, people will be more inclined to do something. In countries where cycling is common (Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan) people regard riding a bicycle as common as taking a walk. Would you walk as much if you had to wear a helmet?
And in these same countries where cycling is common, cyclists aren't hit by cars at all on a large scale. How could that be? Could it be those people are actually smarter or better at driving, or does it make more sense to assume these motorists are simply used to having cyclists on the road? And if they can become used to it, why couldn't people in other countries as well?
The reality is that you'll be seriously injured anyway if you are hit by a car while driving a bicycle, helmet or not.
By the way, in the Netherlands (where as you might now cycling is very common on the roads) the person driving the car is always liable in a car-bicycle collision. It doesn't matter if the cyclist was running a red light, it doesn't matter if it was on the wrong side of the road: if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always. This makes motorist very aware of cyclists, so despite of everyone cycling everywhere, accidents involving cars aren't actually that common at all.
That would be a good idea even without the cyclists. Proper instructions are key to making roads safe. Look at Germany: no speed limits, yet because of decent training, the Autobahn is less dangerous than the roads are in a lot of other countries.
I believe in the Netherlands, the first tarmac roads were actually placed for cyclist.
Cycling will never become mainstream while helmet laws are enforced. In none of the countries where cycling is common it is required to where helmets and in every country where helmets are mandatory, cycling isn't very popular.
So lose the helmets and learn to drive. It's the only way.
I do agree with the bike lanes, but that's really an added extra, not a substitute for the above.
And why is it such a problem to have to sit through a generation to profoundly improve something? The lack of long term solutions is exactly what is wrong with the world. Everyone wants everything now and that's just not feasible. The reality is that short term solutions generally make things worse in the long term, not better.
You realize that is just a temporary problem which doesn't need a permanent fix? If you ditch the need for helmets, more people would start cycling, which will make motorists more aware of them. It might take a generation to get fully adjusted, but there are lots of European countries where drivers are fully used to having to watch out for people riding bicycles (and small scooters by the way).
Well even if you are able to comprehend the German texts, I'd still recommend you get the multimedia tour, as it is a great way to guide you through the museum. Without it, you can't help but feel a bit lost, as there is just so much to see there. And there's some pictures and video's there as well which aren't featured in the museum itself, so if you're a completionist, that's a good reason too to invest another 2 euro's into the little HTC Android box they give you to tour the museum with.
You should definitely check out the Heinz Nixdorf museum in Padenborn, Germany. It's the largest collection of old computers on display anywhere in the world. Make sure you get the English audio tour from the reception though, as nearly all of the texts within the museum are written in German.
It truly is an awesome place, with lots of wonderful machines, including (but by no means limited to) a piece of a Jacquard loom, a real German WW2 Enigma, lots of huge old IBM machines, a full Zuse Z11 (including a modified typewriter to function as printer!), some PDP's, a Xerox Alto, an Altair 8800, an Apple I. One could spend a week in there, it's simply amazing.