Dreaded cyclists

[SirEdward]

Should there be another separate road for tractors doing 25km/h just because your car can go faster? Another for trucks limited to 80 to not impede cars allowed to do 100? Just relax, wait for a safe and legal opportunity to overtake, and off you go

Oh, gosh, another contrastive, hair-splitting, logically-bugged sentence.

To be brief: tractors are not bicycles

to be a bit longer: they are not a form of mass transportation, like bicycles are depicted and supported to be (and differently fro bicycles, they can not be!). This lack of political, social and ideological support means they are not favoured in comparison to other vehicles, they have not preferential laws making them "equaler". In the end: they are not considered to be better than others.

Tractors have speed limits adapted to what they are, they must let faster traffic pass, they pay taxes, are insured and licenced, and they can be strongly limited in terms of days of the week they can drive in or roads they can drive on.

They do clog up traffic, they do slow down everyone. They do. But this is seen as a problem to be limited, not as a holy banner to be held against other road users to force them to slow down and shut up.

Also, and I have to be extremely clear on this: they are not like bicycles because their number and frequency on the road is quite limited. Bicycles are much much more, and increasing in number every day.

The day tractors will become too numerous and frequent on the roads, I WILL support the idea of dedicated lanes for different flows of traffic: tractors/non tractors.

These are the logical passages that you overlook, that you blatantly missed, that you chose to ignore - i don't know, choose one of the reasons why you do this -. Actually, I do know: you're a very intelligent person, you are able to notice, and you still overlook it.

Your proposal of tractors as if they were bicycles is logically flawed right from the beginning. And in a blunt, offensive way. what do you think I am, an idiot who's incapable of noticing fallacies like that? I'm starting to feel quite offended by the way you continually choose your examples so poorly, and always in the direction of generating a debate, a clash, a fight.

You are not following a discussion, you are building an argument to oppose people with. But I believe in talking, not fighting.

EDIT:

the safe distance... In that video, the safe distance between the caddy and the bicyle exist. Safe passing distance depends ALSO on relative speed. The caddy still chose the passing spot poorly, and the cyclist was still a bit all over the place.

Everybody had reasons. And the more the cars will get bigger, the roads smaller and the traffic heavier, the more these situations will arise. humans are humans, you will have idiotic laws well before those laws will have eliminated certain kind of problems.

The caddy driver was not driving recklessly nor carelessly, and was not trying to endager the cyclist in any way. That is a vital point. If we don't understand that he WAS TRYING not to be dangerous, even if I think he failed at this, we won't understand what the problem is and we won't propose anything more to solve it that a rather stupid series of stricter laws.

What do we want? Safety or strangling regulations?

 

[narf]

To be brief: tractors are not bicycles

to be a bit longer: they are not a form of mass transportation, like bicycles are depicted and supported to be (and differently fro bicycles, they can not be!). This lack of political, social and ideological support means they are not favoured in comparison to other vehicles, they have not preferential laws making them "equaler". In the end: they are not considered to be better than others.

Bicycles aren't mass transportation either. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transportation

The caddy still chose the passing spot poorly

That's all I'm saying

What do we want? Safety or strangling regulations?

Leaving enough space for others to live is "strangling regulation"?

 

[TC]

Leaving enough space for others to live is "strangling regulation"?

So the Caddy did leave enough space then.

 

[narf]

So the Caddy did leave enough space then.

In this very instance, nothing bad happened. People occasionally get out of car crashes without a scratch on them as well, doesn't mean you should be in them.

 

[TC]

In this very instance, nothing bad happened. People occasionally get out of car crashes without a scratch on them as well, doesn't mean you should be in them.

No one ever claimed the roads are a safe place to screw around. Everyone needs to take it seriously and understand the spatial awareness of their vehicle and the objects around their vehicle. I'm not sure I buy the "within arms reach" logic, since I find myself in traffic congestion often enough where I can roll down my window and reach over and touch other vehicles' side view mirrors. As long as you didn't hit anything, run anyone off the road, or cut anyone off, I have a hard time find fault with road users just wanting to get to their destinations as safely and efficiently as possible.

Ultimately though I do think there is a safety issue with vehicles that cannot maintain a minimum safe speed and something should be done about it, and pandering to the lowest common denominator isn't acceptable. We want progress and improvement, not regression.

 

[SirEdward]

Bicycles aren't mass transportation either. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transportation

Narf, in comment 1236 you told Spectre to f**k off because he made fun of your "safetiness". Remember?
Why do you expect to be treated one way and then you treat -me- exactly like you don't like to be treated yourself? Again, this is not nice at all.

Or would you like for me to believe you're so stupid that you can't understand what I was saying? You are not. You understand. And yet you nitpick your way into some other stupid argument, disregarding the fact that a) your sticking to the exact letter in this case is a fallacy; b) you yourself dislike being reproached for using wrong words when the meaning is clear; c) that was not the only thing that I said, My point was not only more ample, but also more deep. I wasn't making it a problem on categories or definitions or grammar.

Should I tell you now that I was speaking of bicycles as a mean of transportation which is widely diffused among population and widely used, in contrast with the way road-legal machinery is used? Is that really necessary?

Narf, let's face it: you want to have the last word on everything, and to came out victorious. Except, as I have already told you, this is not a fight, and your actions are becoming so silly that you are shifting more and more from interlocutor to troll. And the more I try to talk to you reasonably, the more this shows.

SE: The caddy still chose the passing spot poorly
Narf: That's all I'm saying

If that was all you were saying, you would have noticed that I have already told that pages ago, in comment 1188. I quote myself: "the driver [...] is quite bad at choosing his time and is not that confident with his ridiculously big vehicle, but is not driving unsafely". Quite clear from the beginning.

The cars stuck behnd bicycles were a way I chose to show how roads can be badly designed and how in my opinion they need an entire new way of thinking. And then you brought about tractors to create hilarity from absurd. But I was speaking road design, not caddy's choices.

Your point could not have been to just to say the caddy chose a bad spot, because I had already told that clearly adn I was speaking about something else. Now the question is whether what you last say is a lie (if you said it deliberately) or a gigantic bad step (if you really believe it).

Leaving enough space for others to live is "strangling regulation"?

I quote my last message:

"The caddy driver was not driving recklessly nor carelessly, and was not trying to endager the cyclist in any way. That is a vital point. If we don't understand that he WAS TRYING not to be dangerous, even if I think he failed at this, we won't understand what the problem is and we won't propose anything more to solve it that a rather stupid series of stricter laws."

It's all already there.

What else can I say if not "let your spirit of opposition go f**k itself some place else"? Please.

 

[narf]

No one ever claimed the roads are a safe place to screw around. Everyone needs to take it seriously and understand the spatial awareness of their vehicle and the objects around their vehicle. I'm not sure I buy the "within arms reach" logic, since I find myself in traffic congestion often enough where I can roll down my window and reach over and touch other vehicles' side view mirrors. As long as you didn't hit anything, run anyone off the road, or cut anyone off, I have a hard time find fault with road users just wanting to get to their destinations as safely and efficiently as possible.

That's the thing - by not waiting another ten to twenty metres to overtake, the Caddy didn't allow the bicyclist to get to his destination as safely as possible.

Narf, in comment 1236 you told Spectre to f**k off because he made fun of your "safetiness". Remember?
Why do you expect to be treated one way and then you treat -me- exactly like you don't like to be treated yourself? Again, this is not nice at all.

If that's just lost in translation - what's the Italian word you were thinking of?

- - - Updated - - -

If that was all you were saying, you would have noticed that I have already told that pages ago, in comment 1188. I quote myself: "the driver [...] is quite bad at choosing his time and is not that confident with his ridiculously big vehicle, but is not driving unsafely". Quite clear from the beginning.

It is all I'm saying. To illustrate that, here's my very first post on the subject:

I like how the Caddy chose to overtake in a narrower spot right before the road opened up with a lot more width.

That's four pages ago. If that position were generally accepted I don't know why we're still going on about it.

 

[eizbaer]

That's four pages ago. If that position were generally accepted I don't know why we're still going on about it.

because the internet

 

[SirEdward]

If that's just lost in translation - what's the Italian word you were thinking of?

Thank you for your sad mistrust.

The word I had in mind (or rather words) was: "mezzo di trasporto di massa". Which is quite different from "sistema di trasporto di massa" (mass trasnportation).

It is all I'm saying.

If that was all you wanted to say, why have you started arguing with me on something I was already agreeing on, starting with something that was unrelated (road are badly designed)?

That's four pages ago. If that position were generally accepted I don't know why we're still going on about it.

You talked to me like I think tractors and bicyles are the same... If you don't know why, how can you ask me to tell you?

EDIT Also, Narf. If you want to mock me, don't send me green reputation. Have the balls to click on the red one.

 

[TC]

That's the thing - by not waiting another ten to twenty metres to overtake, the Caddy didn't allow the bicyclist to get to his destination as safely as possible.

But he got to his destination in one piece, safe and sound, I'm guessing. Ultimately the driver did make a safe pass. Could it have been safer? Sure. And if the bicyclist wanted to travel as safely as possible, he'd be in a car or bus instead. Even walking or jogging would be safer, since you could use the sidewalks and paths. We all have to make our own choices and live with them. The world doesn't revolve around each of us.

 

[prizrak]

Sound like the narrow one-way road I live on - except on mine bicycles are legally allowed to ride on the road in the wrong direction, and except way less than five feet of space to spare.
The road is roughly 2.5-2.8m between the mirrors of parked cars depending on how they park, which leaves 2-3ft of space on both sides put together. When a bicycle is in front of me, I follow it. When a bicycle comes the other way, I stop. That's the only way I can reasonably avoid scratches in my paint.

German cyclists must be way more cautious then since NYC ones will simply ride past you or with you...

You have no control over how close to others you drive your car? I'd stop driving if I had no control over my car.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever been outside in your entire life... How do you suggest I control how close other vehicles get to mine? By moving over? What if there is nowhere to move over to? You might want to drop by NYC or hell even London and city what real city traffic looks like and how small the margins are. Mind you NYC is actually pretty well laid out and has generally wide streets compared to most European cities. You seem to have some sort of fantasy in your head of how things are supposed to be with no concept of how they really are.

 

[Interrobang]

How do you suggest I control how close other vehicles get to mine? [...]

I suggest the Steeringwheel. He?s talking about moving traffic, you seem to envision a scenario where you are stationary. If you are stationary you of course can?t control said distance yourself. But it is the other way around when you are moving ...

German cyclists must be way more cautious then since NYC ones will simply ride past you or with you...

This pretty much makes the point - in germany it is indeed more common for the driver of the car to pass the slower cyclist. Not the faster cyclist to pass the slow car.
And thx to the narrower roads, cyclists are often simply "stuck" behind the Cars when they use the same road (and not a cycle-path). There simply is no way past your average car for the average bike in a german (in town) traffic lane. The only way past is the oncoming traffic ... wich is usally not such a good idea
Not that some idiots wouldn?t try ... but like I said ... usually.

 

[prizrak]

But he got to his destination in one piece, safe and sound, I'm guessing. Ultimately the driver did make a safe pass. Could it have been safer? Sure. And if the bicyclist wanted to travel as safely as possible, he'd be in a car or bus instead. Even walking or jogging would be safer, since you could use the sidewalks and paths. We all have to make our own choices and live with them. The world doesn't revolve around each of us.

To further this, in NY the rule of thumb is 3feet for passing bikes, works out to about 1 meter for our metric friends, my arm is about that, so safe passing distance as taught by the DOT/DMV would allow me to touch the caddy...

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest the Steeringwheel. He?s talking about moving traffic, you seem to envision a scenario where you are stationary. If you are stationary you of course can?t control said distance yourself. But it is the other way around when you are moving ...

Roads are not infinitely wide there is a limit to how far I can move if another vehicle chooses to get near.

Here is an example scenario, parked cars on the right, someone turning left out of the left lane, someone behind that person tries to go around getting half into my lane when it's already too late to brake (going to end up side by side with them regardless), so now I'm too close to the moving vehicle AND to the parked cars. This is a beyond common ocurence around here. To drive the point even more home my out of town friends basically refuse to drive here and make me do it, because they are not comfortable with how close cars get to each other.

 

[narf]

But he got to his destination in one piece, safe and sound, I'm guessing. Ultimately the driver did make a safe pass. Could it have been safer? Sure. And if the bicyclist wanted to travel as safely as possible, he'd be in a car or bus instead. Even walking or jogging would be safer, since you could use the sidewalks and paths. We all have to make our own choices and live with them. The world doesn't revolve around each of us.

When you run a stop sign or a red light and not hit anything, does that make it safe to do so?

Sometimes I wonder if you ever been outside in your entire life... How do you suggest I control how close other vehicles get to mine? By moving over? What if there is nowhere to move over to? You might want to drop by NYC or hell even London and city what real city traffic looks like and how small the margins are. Mind you NYC is actually pretty well laid out and has generally wide streets compared to most European cities. You seem to have some sort of fantasy in your head of how things are supposed to be with no concept of how they really are.

That's lovely, but as you can see from the video there was ample space to move over far enough to the right and overtake safely - just wait another ten to twenty metres and use the space after the Mitsu.

To further this, in NY the rule of thumb is 3feet for passing bikes, works out to about 1 meter for our metric friends, my arm is about that, so safe passing distance as taught by the DOT/DMV would allow me to touch the caddy...

1m arms? I'm not small, and get almost 70cm fingertips to shoulder.
If I can touch the Caddy, does that mean he left me 70cm of space? No, you need to allow space for the arm itself while holding on to the handlebar - leaving at most 60cm / under 2ft of space.

Roads are not infinitely wide there is a limit to how far I can move if another vehicle chooses to get near.

That's obviously true, but as you can see from the video there was ample space to move over far enough to the right and overtake safely - just wait another ten to twenty metres and use the space after the Mitsu.

 

[TC]

When you run a stop sign or a red light and not hit anything, does that make it safe to do so?

There is a difference between taking a blind reckless risk and simply passing a slower vehicle without incident, lawful or otherwise.

 

[narf]

There is a difference between taking a blind reckless risk and simply passing a slower vehicle without incident, lawful or otherwise.

Passing someone with small margins in a narrow spot right before the road opens up is a reckless risk.

 

[TC]

Passing someone with small margins in a narrow spot right before the road opens up is a reckless risk.

In your opinion. Not everyone is so unskilled at driving, unlike bicycling apparently.

 

[eizbaer]

Not everyone is so unskilled at driving, unlike bicycling apparently.

exactly! not everyone is that skilled either, which makes that particular maneuver a reckless risk, just like narf said. as the driver of the car, you can't possibly know how the cyclist will react to you being too close for comfort... just because you can handle the little space, does not mean anyone else can. traffic is about making sure other people are safe, not judging everything by your own capabilities and saying "screw everyone else for not being as good a driver as me".

 

[TC]

exactly! not everyone is that skilled either, which makes that particular maneuver a reckless risk, just like narf said. as the driver of the car, you can't possibly know how the cyclist will react to you being too close for comfort...

Which means passing a bike at any time is reckless, because you don't know if he'll swerve suddenly into your path. I refuse to take responsibility for the complete and total absence of intelligence of my fellow man. Life is about give and take. Not take, take, take, and take some more.

 

[prizrak]

narf,
Your problem is that you confuse your opinion on what constitutes a safe pass with actual real world reality of what constitutes a safe pass. A safe pass is any pass where vehicles do not touch and neither of them has to take any kind of measures to avoid a collision. As you are a fan of both math and science you know that two parallel lines in 3D space will never ever intersect, this is what happened in the video both vehicles were traveling parallel to each other, the cyclist was in no danger of getting hit as long as both stayed on the same course (which they did).