Cycling UK Forum

rick99 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:

rick99 wrote:
This would be against the law.
I think the moderators should take this post down for advocating dangerous and illegal behaviour.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

What else can I do?

I advocate a change in the law. If my rear light dazzles the driver behind can easily drop back but if I try to accelerate away he will too

I was being facetious after mybreoeated deletions on the other thread. I'm totally happy to put my rear fog lights on in a similar situation in my car . I think it's a good idea


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

+1

But they are not bright enough. And what if the driver behind puts her lights on full beam and sticks to my tail?

I do dislike confrontation

Going cycling now although the weather is awful, very bright and sunny

Try sticking a *P* plate or a sign *just past my test* on the back of the vehicle

I just put a sticker on my motor: Abstand halten! 1,5m, pass cyclists with 1,5 m distance! [should really be 2m min]

The semiliterate drivers behind me probably 'think' they should slipstream at 1,5 m

One wonders what might be a suitable text to ward off the terrorists, I understand bumper stickers are big in trumpland

'My Irish Wolfhound is still asleep'
'The car is small but the driver is big and does marshall arts' [only the first is true]

Any suggestions? Diolch

drossall wrote:A former colleague who rode motorbikes told me that he and many others would dress to look as much as possible like a policeman without actually getting arrested for impersonation. No more hi-vis than any other motorcyclist, but did wonders for visibility.

+1

Here's some news about an anti-tailgating technology that's apparently been around for many years (since 2002 on some Volvos) and has therefore been subject to some statistical analysis concerning it's effects on "accidents". It's claimed that the auto-braking applied by the car when it senses things in front are too close have saved over 1000 lives in a decade and prevented many, many injuries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43752226

The article also recognises the danger of drivers becoming complacent and exerting less control or attention themselves when their awareness of the technology suggests they can "leave it to the car". There's no information in the article as to whether such technology will recognise a bike becoming too close in front of a dopey driver.

One could interpolate this technology and it's effects into other technologies contributing to the advent of driverless cars. Despite the glitches and the growing inattention of the occupants, will these technologies, overall, reduce the carnage on the roads, including pedestrian and cyclist carnage?

Cugel

Cugel wrote: There's no information in the article as to whether such technology will recognise a bike becoming too close in front of a dopey driver.

There is, right at the end where it refers to "Cyclist or Pedestrian AEB: a more sensitive AEB that can detect cyclists, pedestrians and some animals". That suggests that the standard version will not detect people or bikes, and so a driver becoming less vigilant due to trusting the device to protect them from collisions with other cars may increase the danger that driver poses to cyclists and pedestrians.

An underlying problem, IMO, is that it seems another step in accepting low standards of driving skills and designing roads and cars to compensate, rather than demanding a high standard of driving skill and refusing licences to those who do not meet the standard.

jgurney wrote:

Cugel wrote: There's no information in the article as to whether such technology will recognise a bike becoming too close in front of a dopey driver.

There is, right at the end where it refers to "Cyclist or Pedestrian AEB: a more sensitive AEB that can detect cyclists, pedestrians and some animals". That suggests that the standard version will not detect people or bikes, and so a driver becoming less vigilant due to trusting the device to protect them from collisions with other cars may increase the danger that driver poses to cyclists and pedestrians.

An underlying problem, IMO, is that it seems another step in accepting low standards of driving skills and designing roads and cars to compensate, rather than demanding a high standard of driving skill and refusing licences to those who do not meet the standard.

It does seem that the technology involved needs to be refined so that it can recognise cyclists, pedestrians and, no doubt, horses and perhaps their carts. The article seems to be saying that such technology exists but implies that it costs more or is "optional" so those who want a fancy cup holder instead will eschew the anti-tailgater, especially the more sophisticated and therefore expensive ilk.

Re your "underlying problem ...[of] ... accepting low standards of driving skills and designing roads and cars to compensate...". The sad fact is that the human is a flawed biological entity in that it can invent technologies that humans are not really equipped to manage well, the car being a prime example. Our peculiar human nature (so variegated!) along with our infestation of memes (languages and their many mad notions) mean that we often do go mad, defined as "dangerous to ourselves and others, acting sporadically against our own self-interest whilst taking down our neighbours too". Low standards of driving will always be with us - unless you are advocating a cull of the idiots (not you & me, obviously).

This crazed human nature being an unavoidable aspect of modern societies - and an incurable condition in all humans - perhaps the only way to improve driving is to take the responsibility away from the madmen and give it to a cold & emotionless robot? Of course, the robot's programing may well reflect the many prejudices and predilections of the software writers. On the other hand, neural nets have shown some remarkable and unpredictable developments of their own, not that far from the notion "developing a personality".

I only hope they don't make cyclists have it. No more sitting on Phil The Monster's back wheel, out of the wind!

Cugel

From cujel's BBC link:-

Here is an extraordinary statistic: since the Volvo XC90 went on sale in the UK in 2002 it has sold over 50,000 vehicles, yet not a single person has been killed while driving it, or as a passenger.

It is, according to the independent laboratory Thatcham Research, the safest car it has ever tested.
(My emphasis.)

Is this an entry in a competition for the most intellectually bankrupt twaddle ever written?

Just wait till Volvo are peddling driverless cars and Thatcham Research is legitimising the results. Get used to riding on farcilities.

Cugel wrote:Low standards of driving will always be with us - unless you are advocating a cull of the idiots

In the sense of making driving licences harder to get and easier to lose, that is exactly what I am advocating.

thirdcrank wrote:From cujel's BBC link:-

Here is an extraordinary statistic: since the Volvo XC90 went on sale in the UK in 2002 it has sold over 50,000 vehicles, yet not a single person has been killed while driving it, or as a passenger.

It is, according to the independent laboratory Thatcham Research, the safest car it has ever tested.
(My emphasis.)

Is this an entry in a competition for the most intellectually bankrupt twaddle ever written?

Just wait till Volvo are peddling driverless cars and Thatcham Research is legitimising the results. Get used to riding on farcilities.

How many people outside or in other vehicles have been killed by these behemoths?

Cyril Haearn wrote: ... How many people outside or in other vehicles have been killed by these behemoths?

Probably few or none.

As Chief Dan Mathew's was won't to comment

It isn't the car that kills, it's the driver.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=br ... ORM=VRDGAR

At 1 min 06 seconds.

thirdcrank wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote: ... How many people outside or in other vehicles have been killed by these behemoths?

Probably few or none.

As Chief Dan Mathew's was won't to comment

It isn't the car that kills, it's the driver.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=br ... ORM=VRDGAR

At 1 min 06 seconds.

I bet quite a few collision-partners have suffered, one wonders whether statistics are kept
It costs more than a dwelling* and is almost as big
* a Tiny Home, 20qm

I am trying to dream up a text to stick on the back of my vehicle to hold the terrorists off#

Seen a couple of times (in small print!):
*The closer you follow, the slower I go*
Might that work?

I think one might try confusing the semiliterate normal drivers:
*Too fast? Blow your horn, come closer!*

Or maybe:
*37 kW, 700 kg, Vmax 90 kmh*

*Great Dane (90 kg) on board. She might not be asleep*
..
# I am only too happy to let them by where safe and legal

Driving home locally one evening in the dark I had a tailgater, so as I normally do I slowed down , only to be overtaken and the overtaking car was a police car , who stopped and breathalysed me, The breath test showed up as zero , which I was a little perturbed at as I had drunk one pint of been in a pub an hour ago. I almost went back to the pub to complain that perhaps they were watering the beer down

DaveGos wrote:Driving home locally one evening in the dark I had a tailgater, so as I normally do I slowed down , only to be overtaken and the overtaking car was a police car , who stopped and breathalysed me, The breath test showed up as zero , which I was a little perturbed at as I had drunk one pint of been in a pub an hour ago. I almost went back to the pub to complain that perhaps they were watering the beer down

Did the Police give a reason for breathalysing you? Surely they weren't claiming you were wrongly going too slow on a bike!!