|
How absurd your post is.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Xovaan posted:Also, driving tests should be manual and you should not be able to purchase and drive an automatic until you're 26. Why? Because gently caress you, that's why. 70% of accidents on the road are caused by females between 16 and 26 in la-la-land, texting or putting on makeup or staring into space. That, and cellphones are proven to be just as bad as alcohol for motor skills while driving. I'd probably say 85% of all accidents are caused by driver inattentiveness with these two statistic groups. Manual will fix both of these. Also, everyone should be required to take a motorcycle safety course and get an M1. Why? Because it's proven that people with both an M1 and a regular license are 90% less likely to be involved in an accident. Really, as unrealistic as it is for this to happen, it's such a large safety investment that it makes sense. Oh, and input extremely huge fines for people not using turn signals before changing lanes. Can you link me to the studies that gave any of those numbers? They sound like interesting reads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
The cager thing isn't an us/them proposition. Who hasn't come off a cold ride that stretched your faculties to the limit, where the last 10 miles seemed like a hundred, then hopped in a car and stared at the heater like it was the Holy Grail? It's degenerated into bumpersticker wisdom, and HD doesn't help by putting it in their ads. One wonders: do these cages they would have us despise include Harley edition Ford trucks? I think Pirsig said it best: In a car you're always in a compartment, and because you're used to it you don't realize that through that car window everything you see is just more TV. You're a passive observer and it is all moving by you boringly in a frame. On a cycle the frame is gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is overwhelming. Of course, this was written before actual TVs made it into the figurative TVs, so now they're not even observers, passive or otherwise. Re: walking vs driving/riding - without a motorcycle, I would have never truly understood that Hill Valley still exists. The self-contained towns with clock towers and solvent banks, maybe a functional barber pole, and God knows what for an economic base. They call these walkable communities now, and as bikers, that's what we do with them, at least for a little while. We're like space aliens, sizing the place up, absorbing the vibe, picking brains, sampling wares, and then it's right back to the ship toward some other random dot on the map. Who in a car even sees these places? So, here's hoping some of you goons become regional planners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:52
|
|
Xovaan posted:Among a ton of other things, my solution is to ban all trucks lifts and SUV's over a certain height and under a certain mpg unless you somehow have proof you need such a retarded behemoth of a vehicle. This culture of "people should be able to drive and buy what they want" and bigger=better is really dumb and detrimental to the financial structure of Americans, the environment, and our reputation on a global scale. Seriously, it's amazing the number of flight school students that have a new F-350 truck. They fly helicopters and live in townhomes, what they hell do they need that big a truck for?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Most people get drive to move from point A to point B, not for any "driving experience." If they gave a poo poo about what was outside their windows, they'd roll down their windows. The answer to distracted driving isn't to force them onto a motorcycle, it's to give them autonomous cars, Google-style. The automobile has allowed for tremendous freedom of mobility of labor that has largely enabled US post-war greatness and has liberated untold millions from having to pick a job from the limited pool available around where they live. Now everyone in here is an Internet Commando freed from the shackles of physical presence, but before telecommuting was viable (and for the massive percentage of people who need to actually be at their jobs to work) a car allows you to raise your children far away from where you make your wage. Seriously it's the silliest poo poo hearing "Oh, I filter and pass on the double-yellow, no, neither of those are legal, neither is my road pipe and my emissions are laffo, but gosh-darn it the Government should do something intrusive about all those danged auto drivers!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Shadowgate posted:How absurd your post is. Oh? And how so? Pham Nuwen posted:Can you link me to the studies that gave any of those numbers? They sound like interesting reads. Z3n linked it earlier in the Bike Gear thread, I believe, but I could be wrong. I don't have it offhand. Sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Hmmm...I guess their definition has expanded beyond driving to any activity not involving a Harley... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1TedN_hyWI
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
You just KNOW that while they were making that ad there was a big argument over whether they were allowed to put in a guy riding a supersport or an import with a big cage around him, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Xovaan posted:Oh? And how so? Because even driving a manual transmission i can talk on the phone and eat a cheeseburger at the same time, it doesn't make me safer, just...better at multitasking in my cage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
More than a page worth of new posts and both z3n and ponies are probated. That and some of the dumb rear end posts are equally impressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Covert Ops Wizard posted:Because even driving a manual transmission i can talk on the phone and eat a cheeseburger at the same time, it doesn't make me safer, just...better at multitasking in my cage. But the average person can't even drive and text at the same time. The point is adding complexity to a task that increases attentiveness is ultimately a good thing if it teaches good driving habits. I also support things like requiring blueteeth and phones in glove boxes if you don't have one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
nsaP posted:More than a page worth of new posts and both z3n and ponies are probated. That and some of the dumb rear end posts are equally impressive. I'm busy stirring up the Aus D&D thread about stupid riding stuff. Apparently I'm super special because I watch everything whilst riding. I'm expecting at least a red title out of it  They mean well, but get far too excitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
I love you, Xovaan. I've been urban-exploring Buffalo, NY, where I student-teach. The impact of the car and car-focused planning on the city is astounding: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/12/buffalo-then-and-now-1902-2011/716/ There's been a general trend in young Americans to move into cities to be closer to each other, and of course, save money. The suburbs are now becoming filled with poverty, when they used to be money-supple (google up "suburbs + poverty"), and the allure of the safe suburbs is becoming more sullied. $4-5 gas is decimating the suburbs. Driving everyday and for long commutes is proving to be nonsensical to us. The emerging generation of Americans have significantly less money to spend than the previous generations, and is stacked with heavy debt (college debt particularly). This is a new world, mate. I'm looking forward to the effects of a national average of $5 gas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Xovaan posted:I also support things like requiring blueteeth and phones in glove boxes if you don't have one. I have always felt that the "no handheld objects" laws completely miss the point. I drive with one hand on the wheel the majority of the time, whether it's because my right hand is operating the gearshift or just because I only need one hand to keep the wheel stable. I don't think that having one hand otherwise occupied really affects people's driving in the slightest. What DOES affect driving, though, is having your BRAIN preoccupied. And that occurs whether or not you have something in your hand -- you get just as distracted talking on a bluetooth headset as you do with the phone up to your ear. It's a stupid restriction based on a kneejerk reaction rather than an understanding of what makes cell phones dangerous while driving. (Texting is even worse, because not only does it occupy your brain and your hand, but also your eyes. I'm in favor of mandatory roadside license suspension and vehicle impoundment if you're caught texting on the road.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Covert Ops Wizard posted:Maybe it's something we've just never noticed? I've not seen it either It's the blinking yellow lights on the back. Apparently they exist so buses can draft each other and get better mpgs, hence the reason nobody knows about them except other bus drivers (and crafty commuters like myself).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Gnaghi posted:It's the blinking yellow lights on the back. Apparently they exist so buses can draft each other and get better mpgs, hence the reason nobody knows about them except other bus drivers (and crafty commuters like myself). Okay, you live in specialville. MARTA busses don't have those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Seriously, it's amazing the number of flight school students that have a new F-350 truck. They fly helicopters and live in townhomes, what they hell do they need that big a truck for? There's a guy I see hop out of his F350 crew cab dualie every day at work. We work in an office building in a city. He must own one awesome gooseneck (right?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
I drive a 1996 F-150 V8 because I grew up on a farm and I don't want to sell it now that I moved to Chicago...no payments, cheap insurance, cheap to maintain, just sucks filling it up with gas. It comes in handy helping people move though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What DOES affect driving, though, is having your BRAIN preoccupied. Ok, now enforce it. No more occupied brains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
KARMA! posted:Ok, now enforce it. No more occupied brains. Well a good first step would be banning any use of a cell phone by any person driving a car. If the call is so critical, pull over for a couple of minutes. Other distractions like putting on makeup, or shaving, or reading a book, or marking papers (I've seen all four of those personally) should also be entirely prohibited. I'd allow drinking coffee or whatever, but anything beyond that seems iffy. Not that eating or drinking is too distracting in itself, but the guy who just spilled taco sauce all over his suit is not going to be paying any attention to the road at all. I grew up regularly taking 12+ hour road trips to see my extended family all over the country, so we were always eating on the road, but when I started driving my father told me "if you're eating while driving and you drop food on yourself, IGNORE IT, and deal with it when the car is stopped. You can always wash your clothes." I think that's a fair way to treat it but not many people would go along with it I think. As for enforcement, how about getting the TSA to do it? We've got tens of thousands of them, they're supposedly all about "transportation security", and I bet that prosecuting distracted drivers would save way more lives than they have so far by hassling toddlers and nuns at the airport. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush: Visionary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well a good first step would be banning any use of a cell phone by any person driving a car. If the call is so critical, pull over for a couple of minutes. Other distractions like putting on makeup, or shaving, or reading a book, or marking papers (I've seen all four of those personally) should also be entirely prohibited. I'd allow drinking coffee or whatever, but anything beyond that seems iffy. Not that eating or drinking is too distracting in itself, but the guy who just spilled taco sauce all over his suit is not going to be paying any attention to the road at all. I like this idea, but drinking coffee is really bad. Ever had hot coffee in your lap? Apparently, this is really distracting. Like a burning cigarette, but better. Or a very annoying child in the back seat who won't stop screaming. Or a driver calling hands free that's breaking with the soon-to-be-ex over the phone, which looks like someone singing to a song on the radio but is something different altogether. Point being, the list of things that are a) distracting enough to be dangerous, b) be observable from another car and c) distinct enough that it cannot be misconstrued with a 'safe' movement is hilariously small. Most people die on a bike because they themselves hosed up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
I don't know, I think it would be fairly simple to say that any use of a cell phone, or any other handheld object that is not a cup of liquid, is an infraction. Yes this means you can't read a map or dial a phone number or screw with the GPS or whatever while you're driving. Pull over. That's not a terrible price to pay for MASSIVELY increased attention to the road. I tried to reply to a text message while driving exactly once in my life; I found that I couldn't hold a curve accurately and I nearly ran a stop sign at 35 mph. I'm quite a conscientious and attentive driver otherwise, so it scared the poo poo out of me. Never again, thanks. A motorcycle cop splitting through traffic could catch dozens or hundreds of people doing these things per day. It wouldn't easily catch stuff like bluetooth headsets because those are not very obvious from a distance, but it'd be a start, at least until someone develops a highly localized RF jammer that prevents anyone in the driver's seat from using a phone while the car's speedometer reads above 0 mph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
2 more pages and we'll be at those stupid autopiloting things from Minority Report. Riding motorcycles is dangerous, it's a dangerous world, nobody cares about anybody else (on the road), loving deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Gnaghi posted:2 more pages and we'll be at those stupid autopiloting things from Minority Report. But we can dream
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:This. This right here. This is overheard stupid motorcycle related poo poo. This is true, unfortunately. Also, bikes tend to be *way, way, way* more polluting per mile than, say, a new Toyota Corolla. Raging against cars because they pollute more or get worse gas mileage per passenger mileage is kinda dumb because it's always nearly wrong. However, there are plenty of other reasons to hate bad drivers. Gnaghi posted:4. They have "I let off the gas" lights in addition to brake lights Those indicate that the retarder has kicked in and the bus is being actively slowed, not just coasting. And no, they are never used as "drafting indicators", although that's hilarious and I will definitely mention that to my friends. Commercial driving instructor checking in!  Gnaghi posted:2 more pages and we'll be at those stupid autopiloting things from Minority Report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Gnaghi posted:2 more pages and we'll be at those stupid autopiloting things from Minority Report. For the majority of commuters out there, who just use their cars to go A->B and would like to pay as little attention to the actual drive as possible, those autopiloting things would be a godsend. And my comments haven't been out of a desire to pass off motorcycling risk or something. I know that it's dangerous. People do stupid things on the road in front of me whether I'm in a car, on a motorcycle, on a bicycle or just walking through a crosswalk, and eighty percent of the time I see their faces lit up blue from the glow of an LCD. Everyone is at risk from stupid zero-attention drivers, not just motorcyclists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is true, unfortunately. Also, bikes tend to be *way, way, way* more polluting per mile than, say, a new Toyota Corolla. Raging against cars because they pollute more or get worse gas mileage per passenger mileage is kinda dumb because it's always nearly wrong. However, there are plenty of other reasons to hate bad drivers. Bikes do pollute more at the tailpipe - though not all are terrible, as some are catalyzed, too - but it may not be as clear in The Total Picture. 25mpg mid-sized car versus 50mpg motorcycle. The bike has worse tailpipe emissions. The car required 6-7x the materials to manufacture (450lbs versus 3,000lbs). The car contributes to much more road wear (requiring re-paving) and requires much bigger parking areas, and pavement is pretty permanent. The car needs 2 people in it 100% of the time to match the passenger-per-gallon of the bike. For a single occupant - most commuting is a single person - the car needs twice the gas. Which means twice the drilling, twice the refining, twice the shipping (and shipping emissions are really loving horrible), twice the trucking, etc. etc. etc. The car will probably be used much more consistently for much more of its usable life, though, by many owners over many years. Both final products are likely to require extensive transportation to the first customer, perhaps including overseas shipping and likely including rail or truck travel. The car, obviously, requires a lot more effort to transport. I have no idea how this all comes together and I've never seen any study that truly takes all of this into consideration. But by the time you factor in the total cost of manufacturing the car versus the motorcycle (incl. mining/refining/smelting/whatever all the raw ingredients) and the total cost of all the gasoline and consumables used (as above), I would guess the case for the car weakens - when you consider total miles covered by a single occupant, anyway. Total cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
True, but light passenger cars don't contribute significantly to road damage anyways, and the vast majority of bikes are not catalyzed, let alone get 50MPG under the riding most riders put them through. Many modern bikes still burn oil, which is pretty much the most polluting thing possible and which is basically unheard of in a new Civic. Even if they are, I don't think any of them meet the ULEV standard that most modern econoboxes meet. Motorcycles own but I don't think the climate change argument can be used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:For the majority of commuters out there, who just use their cars to go A->B and would like to pay as little attention to the actual drive as possible, those autopiloting things would be a godsend. This is happening in real life in Europe, it looks pretty cool. Thanks, Volvo! Sagebrush posted:That's not a terrible price to pay for MASSIVELY increased attention to the road. Remove the distractions and people are sure to pay more attention!  To contribute to the actual thread, I got told today that I wouldn't possibly be able to get a 250 to even move while I was sitting on it because I was such a big guy: "But I rode a bunch of different 250s at MSF the other weekend." "Yeah but those MSF guys juice the bikes up a lot so men will take the class. I mean, it's a bunch of bitch bikes, right?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:True, but light passenger cars don't contribute significantly to road damage anyways, and the vast majority of bikes are not catalyzed, let alone get 50MPG under the riding most riders put them through. Many modern bikes still burn oil, which is pretty much the most polluting thing possible and which is basically unheard of in a new Civic. Even if they are, I don't think any of them meet the ULEV standard that most modern econoboxes meet. Motorcycles own but I don't think the climate change argument can be used. I'm just not sure that the tailpipe emissions are the biggest concern. But I ride an uncatalyzed 2-stroke every day so I don't give a gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Motorcycles own but I don't think the climate change argument can be used. On a pollution basis, passenger vehicles are a drop in the bucket. Passenger cars have to meet such strict standards that it's not far from the truth to say that in a big city, the exhaust is cleaner than the intake air. Motorcycles may pollute more per mile but the passenger-miles as a whole are so much fewer that it doesn't make a difference really. You want to look at anthropogenic greenhouse gases, start with coal power plants, airliners, and container ships burning bunker fuel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:On a pollution basis, passenger vehicles are a drop in the bucket. Passenger cars have to meet such strict standards that it's not far from the truth to say that in a big city, the exhaust is cleaner than the intake air. Motorcycles may pollute more per mile but the passenger-miles as a whole are so much fewer that it doesn't make a difference really. You want to look at anthropogenic greenhouse gases, start with coal power plants, airliners, and container ships burning bunker fuel. I absolutely agree, however I believe anthropogenic greenhouse gases are created by any human source, including tailpipe emissions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Xovaan posted:Also, everyone should be required to take a motorcycle safety course and get an M1. Why? Because it's proven that people with both an M1 and a regular license are 90% less likely to be involved in an accident. Really, as unrealistic as it is for this to happen, it's such a large safety investment that it makes sense. Oh, and input extremely huge fines for people not using turn signals before changing lanes. Correlation vs. causation, yadda yadda yadda. There's very little to say it will dramatically improve their driving. Maybe it's the act of motorcycling regularly itself that improves their skills... maybe it's just that the type of people who get an M1 license are better drivers in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I absolutely agree, however I believe anthropogenic greenhouse gases are created by any human source, including tailpipe emissions. Well yes, but I'm saying that being increasingly nitpicky with the standards that personal vehicles have to meet results in a negligible benefit, because they're already producing extremely clean exhaust as a whole. Our cars are burning oxygenated fuel and running three catalytic converters each, while cargo ships are burning what is basically unrefined crude oil in two-stroke diesel engines with no emissions controls whatsoever. Passenger jets burn kerosene and dump the exhaust at high altitude for maximum greenhouse effectiveness. Increasingly cleaner tailpipe emissions make cities more livable, and that is excellent, but we've reached a point of diminishing returns with their effect on planetary climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Robo-Pope posted:Correlation vs. causation, yadda yadda yadda. There's very little to say it will dramatically improve their driving. Maybe it's the act of motorcycling regularly itself that improves their skills... maybe it's just that the type of people who get an M1 license are better drivers in the first place. Naturally, but it's hard to argue that people don't become better planners and more attentive after riding a motorcycle. Most of us have in some way. At the very least, people would watch for cyclists a lot more often and there would be less road rage involved around them. (and trust me-- there is a lot)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Since MSF, not only have I given a lot more gently caress about bikers around me while I drive, but I've been trying to figure out how and why they're doing what they do as they ride; ie why is he shifting when, what speed will he hit this curve and how will he handle it, etc. Basically trying to observe and compare to what I learned to build a better mental database about what's going on and how things work. Also leaving them more space, especially on roads without passing. On the other hand it now burns my rear end way more than it already did to see people riding like complete chucklefucks at triple the speed of traffic and causing a string of near-accidents behind them as they weave up the street. gently caress those assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well a good first step would be banning any use of a cell phone by any person driving a car. If the call is so critical, pull over for a couple of minutes. Other distractions like putting on makeup, or shaving, or reading a book, or marking papers (I've seen all four of those personally) should also be entirely prohibited. I'd allow drinking coffee or whatever, but anything beyond that seems iffy. We passed pretty much exactly this law in AB last year, and it's the strictest distracted driving law in the country. About the only thing you are allowed to do is adjust the radio, drink drinks or eat one-handed snacks like small burgers or chips. No Five Guys. You can't even mess with your phone at a stoplight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Splizwarf posted:
Whats a bitch bike?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 04:54
|
|