Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
It's almost like he's trying to see how many ways he can get himself sent back to prison.
Except (going off of... info I'm reading from another forum that's no fan of his) he's probably gonna get off scott free because......... reasons. Mostly dumb luck and poor police work, apparently.
-
@sloosecannon said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
It's almost like he's trying to see how many ways he can get himself sent back to prison.
Except (going off of... info I'm reading from another forum that's no fan of his) he's probably gonna get off scott free because......... reasons. Mostly dumb luck and poor police work, apparently.
This time it sounds like they're serious though!
-
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
provides escorts for funeral processions.
Isn't it really inappropriate to go to a funeral with an escort?
-
@sloosecannon said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
It's almost like he's trying to see how many ways he can get himself sent back to prison.
Except (going off of... info I'm reading from another forum that's no fan of his) he's probably gonna get off scott free because......... reasons. Mostly dumb luck and poor police work, apparently.
Going by the general rule of how dumbasses operate all over the world, if he gets off because of such reasons he'll take that as reason to keep on doing what he's been doing and double down on the stupidity. And the authorities will get another chance to prosecute (as it'll technically be a different incident).
You've got time for some more
-
https://youtu.be/2AUaIyRC_bk
DeWitt dumbfuckery with commentary.
-
@Zerosquare said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
provides escorts for funeral processions.
Isn't it really inappropriate to go to a funeral with an escort?
Might could get away with it in China.
Why do some Chinese funerals involve strippers?
Chinese authorities are once again cracking down on the practice which have existed for years.
-
@boomzilla said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Zerosquare said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
provides escorts for funeral processions.
Isn't it really inappropriate to go to a funeral with an escort?
Might could get away with it in China.
Why do some Chinese funerals involve strippers?
Chinese authorities are once again cracking down on the practice which have existed for years.
Putting the fun in funeral
-
@Carnage
There is a guy driving around in Bruges with a classic german Politzei painted car, something like this
-
@Luhmann said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
classic german Politzei
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
You know how human eyes adapt to ambient light levels, and reduce gain when presented a bright light? And then the light goes off again, and the eye tries to see what caused it? Rinse and repeat. And yes, it is more blinding.
There is no way a rear bike light is bright enough for this to be a problem. It will be less bright than other intermittent light sources like traffic lights, brake lights or indicators.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
rear bike light
battery powered front ones of 1600 or 2000 lumen can be easily found.
-
-
@Luhmann and I thought my car was bad!
-
@sloosecannon said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Luhmann and I thought my car was bad!
A searchlight. Extra thick radio antenna. Computer. "Hidden" emergency lights.
It's an undercover cop car,
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
look like road-side video advert
Exactly those blinking ads near roads have to be made illegal. With severe punishments, if they don't follow the law.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Computer
Technically, a Pi sitting on the dash.
It doesn't look like a computer up close - more like a GPS (It's working as an Android Auto headunit)
-
@Luhmann battery powered front ones of 1600 or 2000 lumen can be easily found.
Yeah but the original story here is 'I was changing lanes and a car didn't see me and nudged me from behind'.
There should be some guidance about high power front lights and how to mount them so they are 'dipped' and not dazzling to drivers. But that's an entirely separate point.
-
@error I never understood why safe following distance and safe stopping are so difficult.
Zecc: this post was originally a response to this post in Funny Stuff.
-
@xaade said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@error I never understood why safe following distance and safe stopping are so difficult.
Don't know about you but my safe distance doesn't account for retards in the leftmost lane suddenly wanting to exit.
-
I would agree if the car had suddenly shifted lanes. Hell, the bus that was in the lane they were originally in and still partially in didn't even slow down. That's insanity.
If you're too close to the next vehicle, and they move to avoid something, you won't have time to do that.
Not saying the car in question isn't doing something stupid. Just saying everyone that almost hits them is coming from way down the road towards a nearly stopped vehicle, with complete visibility.
-
@obeselymorbid And yet, if there had been some other kind of obstruction, due to someone having rolled over after having a stroke or something, you'd still need to be able to stop.
-
This discussion is hilarious, isn't it? Not sure why this was posted in Funny Stuff rather than Driving Anti-Patterns.
I'm considering moving this there.
Edit: I have now done this. I have left the original post to which @xaade was replying since it got many upvotes there.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Luhmann battery powered front ones of 1600 or 2000 lumen can be easily found.
Yeah but the original story here is 'I was changing lanes and a car didn't see me and nudged me from behind'.
Well, I've also seen some rather extreme rear lights. Bright enough to dazzle. Thankfully very rare, probably because they do get stopped by the police.
There should be some guidance about high power front lights and how to mount them so they are 'dipped' and not dazzling to drivers. But that's an entirely separate point.
If even actual law isn't followed, then guidance is unlikely to do the trick. I'd prefer that cycling required a license just like driving, since not following the rules gets people killed. But if even the enforcement of the current regulations is lacking, it's unlikely to happen.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
There should be some guidance about high power front lights and how to mount them so they are 'dipped' and not dazzling to drivers.
It would make sense if the high power front lights were designed to be mounted lower, because bike handlebars are too high and about in level with driver eyes, so the light then has to be dipped fairly low to avoid dazzling, but then it does not serve its purpose. But I haven't seen suitable mounting bracket. And it used to be different—old dynamo-powered lights used to be mounted on the fork just above the wheel.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
. I'd prefer that cycling required a license just like driving, since not following the rules gets people killed
In any collision between a 100kg person+bike doing 10mph and a 1 tonne metal box doing 30mph+, it is not the bike that gets anyone killed, it is the motor vehicle. Drivers are required to have a licence which means they know how to react to hazards on the road because they're in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
A cyclist isn't even an unexpected hazard on a road. Motor vehicle operators should certainly be able to deal with that hazard without colliding with it.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
. I'd prefer that cycling required a license just like driving, since not following the rules gets people killed
In any collision between a 100kg person+bike doing 10mph and a 1 tonne metal box doing 30mph+, it is not the bike that gets anyone killed, it is the motor vehicle.
Nope. If the cyclist ignored a stop-sign or darts across the road in a random location, and gets run over, he pretty much killed himself. And lucky for me, police tend to agree with me on this.
Drivers are required to have a licence which means they know how to react to hazards on the road because they're in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
Expected hazards, yes. But they're perfectly entitled to assume that everyone follows the law. Including laws regulating road traffic.
A cyclist isn't even an unexpected hazard on a road. Motor vehicle operators should certainly be able to deal with that hazard without colliding with it.
Depends on how the cyclist is driving. If they flaunt traffic rules, then they may very well be a literally unexpected hazard. After all, such things as stop-signs are placed where they are to prevent crossing and merging traffic from popping unexpectedly in front of another car.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
. I'd prefer that cycling required a license just like driving, since not following the rules gets people killed
In any collision between a 100kg person+bike doing 10mph and a 1 tonne metal box doing 30mph+, it is not the bike that gets anyone killed, it is the motor vehicle.
Nope. If the cyclist ignored a stop-sign or darts across the road in a random location, and gets run over, he pretty much killed himself. And lucky for me, police tend to agree with me on this.
Drivers are required to have a licence which means they know how to react to hazards on the road because they're in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
Expected hazards, yes. But they're perfectly entitled to assume that everyone follows the law. Including laws regulating road traffic.
A cyclist isn't even an unexpected hazard on a road. Motor vehicle operators should certainly be able to deal with that hazard without colliding with it.
Depends on how the cyclist is driving. If they flaunt traffic rules, then they may very well be a literally unexpected hazard. After all, such things as stop-signs are placed where they are to prevent crossing and merging traffic from popping unexpectedly in front of another car.
I recommend you do not move to The Netherlands.
-
@PleegWat said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
I recommend you do not move to The Netherlands.
The easiest way to deal with this is to drive a Lithuanian lorry. Everyone knows that they drive like maniacs on crack, so when they mow down a bunch of cyclists who didn't stop at a STOP sign, it'll be Death By Natural Causes.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Drivers are required to have a licence which means they know how to react to hazards on the road because they're in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
Expected hazards, yes. But they're perfectly entitled to assume that everyone follows the law. Including laws regulating road traffic.
As much as I agree on you with the "respect traffic laws" part (yes, even though you're also saying retarded things about lights I can agree on the rest
), I disagree on that bit. When driving a car you should be ready to react to any event, expected or not, following the rules or not. For one thing, not everyone knows the rules (think children running suddenly from the sidewalk, or animal straying on the road) or can follow them at a given point (heart attack or similar is rare, but it can happen, or even a perfectly maintained tyre may sometimes suddenly blow up). And much more importantly IMO, it's not going to be much help to the person being killed (which might be you or someone in your car, not necessarily the other person who broke the rules!) to know that a rule was broken (go explain to a parent whose kid you just crushed that "well, he broke the rule, you should have taught him better, so it's not my problem").The rule-breaking part plays a huge role in determining who (if anyone) is legally responsible for the accident, but I hope you'll agree that not having an accident is much, much better than having a accident for which you're not responsible.
If you've ever followed a course on safe driving, they stress quite a lot the fact that most accidents can be avoided if everyone applies a few "tricks" to ensure they're (more) ready to react to hazards. Basic stuff like keeping distances and anticipating other actors' (cars, pedestrians...) actions, which you should have learnt about when getting your driver's license, but which since it's "soft" rules it can't really be enforced and thus people easily forget about it. And that's particularly important to avoid unexpected events.
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
which you should have learnt about when getting your driver's license, but which since it's "soft" rules it can't really be enforced and thus people easily forget about it.
May be it's time to introduce yearly refresher on simulator that would include some unexpected hazards. Or at least a couple of such lessons in the driving school and then requiring the refresher whenever you commit a violation (and get caught, of course).
-
@Bulb I think the refresher format is the only one that can work. Most of us are thankfully never involved in accidents, and therefore we all tend to lapse back into the "easy" way (typically about keeping safe distances), finding all kind of excuses initially, then not even bothering with excuses anymore. Learning more about it from the start will help initially, but will probably not make a huge difference on the long term (plus, some of it requires some experience to truly understand what it means!).
So yeah, having e.g. to have a 1-2 hours refresher every time you renew your license (10 years or so, for countries where licenses aren't permanent, I think?) would probably be a good idea. Some specific offenses already requiring taking some sort of training (I think) but that's actually too late since you've already committed the offense (granted, most of the time people are caught before an accident happens, but still), and I believe that everyone, not just caught-offenders, would benefit from it (and if we're looking a max half a day every 10 years, it wouldn't really be a strong constraint... lorry drivers have to pass a full training and medical exam every 5 years, which is much more strenuous!).
ETA: to me that training should always be on simulator (or the real thing, but it's much more expensive!) so that you can truly get a feeling of what's happening, not just slides that you watch without listening.
There was (still is, but lockdowns etc.) a parking lot next to my office where I regularly saw police officers doing brake tests with other bikers. I assume it probably was both fun to try and see if you could outbreak a trained police biker (from what I saw, no one could), and useful to get a feel of how your bike behaves and how long you need to stop.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
But they're perfectly entitled to assume that everyone follows the law. Including laws regulating road traffic.
No no no. This is not how you should drive. At any time, someone could not follow the rules, and if you're assuming they will, you will have a collision (and potentially injure or kill someone) which you could have avoided.
This isn't even about cyclists, although they are one hazard you might encounter. What about:
- There is a horse approaching. It doesn't like the sound of your engine/the truck behind it/the guy who just dropped and broke a vase on the balcony of the house opposite, and bolts across your lane.
- You are driving along a road in the country or through a park. A deer jumps out and runs across the road. Damn that deer, it isn't respecting traffic laws!
- You are approaching a roundabout. A car on the roundabout signals to leave at your exit, but then doesn't.
- You're on a motorway in the fast lane. Someone pulls in to the lane inside you and undertakes. (This is illegal in the country in question.)
- You are driving along a city street. A small child is waiting at a pedestrian crossing, but gets distracted and steps out into the road.
- You are driving along a main road with right of way. A white van emerges from a side road without giving way.
In any of these situations, if you just assume rules will be followed, you will have a crash. You may enjoy the moral high ground of claiming it wasn't your fault, but you could still have avoided it.
And honestly motorists disobey traffic laws at least as often as cyclists. I see them parking on double yellows, speeding, crossing lane markers, running amber or red traffic lights, ignoring stop signs and the like all the time. You manage not to run into those (I assume) even when they break the rules.
And lucky for me, police tend to agree with me on this.
That's only 'lucky for you' if you've actually hit a cyclist, in which case I'd hope to see a less flippant attitude about it. It's also not true in many countries, if a car and a bike are in an incident there is a general assumption that the motorist is at fault unless provably not the case.
-
The refresher thing indeed exists in France. But it's not something that's periodic.
Basically, driving licenses have a number of points. Committing violations makes you lose points ; when you don't have any points left, your license gets withdrawn. One of the ways to get points back is passing a refresher course.
I don't know if they use simulators, but I seem to recall an insurance company offering a free course using them.
-
@dkf said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@PleegWat said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
I recommend you do not move to The Netherlands.
The easiest way to deal with this is to drive a Lithuanian lorry. Everyone knows that they drive like maniacs on crack, so when they mow down a bunch of cyclists who didn't stop at a STOP sign, it'll be Death By
Natural CausesCOVID.FTFUS
-
@Zerosquare said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
I don't know if they use simulators
They don't, or at least some of them don't (and since simulators cost money I suspect most of them don't since it's clearly not mandatory). I know that because my mother decided to take one last year.
I really think simulators are key. My mother claims she learnt a lot by just having the refresher, and I'm sure she did (especially since it was her first refresher ever, so since she had her license many decades ago). But I happen to have had (through my company) a refresher that used a simulator and I can say for sure that I remember much more vividly the couple of minutes I spent mock-driving than the rest of the 2 hours of slides we watched. Slides are also needed to explain some stuff, but IMO the real impact is in simulator.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
You are driving along a road in the country or through a park. A deer jumps out and runs across the road. Damn that deer, it isn't respecting traffic laws!
While I'd rather avoid the deer, I'm not too worried about that. My car is moose-proof!
-
@remi Look, I drive a car just as alert as anyone else. And I try my utmost to keep everybody alive. Including keeping as much of a distance to the car in front of me while not inviting people to pass me to fill the "void".
But that said, humans have a reaction time. And the only way to "prepare" for the perfectly unexpected is to slow down when there's anything at the side of the road; a bush, a large signpost, a construction container, a pile of snow... (And several bad intersections here just don't have visibility to the crossing roads.) But if I do that, I'll become an obstacle to traffic, since there are a lot of those. And will get either cited or fined. So for the most part, I have to trust cyclists and other non-cars (and cars) to not blow a red light or a stop-sign.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
This isn't even about cyclists, although they are one hazard you might encounter. What about:
I drive carefully and try to predict the movements of others. That being said, this whataboutism is useless. All I'm saying that a cyclist who doesn't know the traffic rules, and uses the road willy-nilly, is more liable to end up as roadkill. And I'd very much like to correct that by having them all educated on the rules.
And honestly motorists disobey traffic laws at least as often as cyclists. I see them parking on double yellows, speeding, crossing lane markers, running amber or red traffic lights, ignoring stop signs and the like all the time. You manage not to run into those (I assume) even when they break the rules.
Sure. And when I see them breaking the rules, I usually call the cops. If only bicycles had license plates on them, so that I could report the worst of those too.
It's also not true in many countries, if a car and a bike are in an incident there is a general assumption that the motorist is at fault unless provably not the case.
Which is why I also have a dashcam. As does also everyone in Russia, and several other countries.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
You are driving along a road in the country or through a park. A deer jumps out and runs across the road.
Ironically, I had a deer jump in front of me 4 years ago, within city limits. The local railway track herds them to the large motorways in a perfect example of idiotic city design.
Managed to almost stop before bumping it. But the deer survived, ran into the woods, and wasn't found by hunters later, so assumed to be uninjured. As was my car.
I bought my dashcam the next weekend.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
As was my car.
You car ran into the woods and was found by hunters later?
-
@Zerosquare said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
As was my car.
You car ran into the woods and wasn't found by hunters later?
That would have been interesting to explain to the insurance company.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
So for the most part, I have to trust cyclists and other non-cars (and cars) to not blow a red light or a stop-sign.
I agree on that, and I think everyone does (I sometimes reflect how trustful we are on the whole of other road users, since we all hurl tons of metal barely a couple of meters of each other!). Still, something like "trust but verify": I trust others to not be dumb, but I try to be watchful in case they aren't.
-
-
I was waiting for the conversation to die down and the thread getting back on track.
That failed to happen in due time, so here we are.As mentioned above in an edited post of mine, I've left the original post where it was since it got many upvotes.
But I've moved the replies here because the post where I said I was considering it got itself many upvotes.
-
@bobjanova said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
No no no. This is not how you should drive. At any time, someone could not follow the rules, and if you're assuming they will, you will have a collision (and potentially injure or kill someone) which you could have avoided.
Indeed. I was taught to assume that everyone else around me was a potential moron of the highest order when driving or, indeed, merely being in the vicinity of public roads.
-
@Zecc said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
got itself many upvotes.
And here I thought I was the upvote slut!
-
F*CK YEAH!
But I have a hard time de-learning this blinker thing ... old habits die hard (with a vengeance)
-
@Bulb said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
bike handlebars are too high and about in level with driver eyes,
What kind of overcompensating bikes do Y'all have? IME bike handlebars are at the same level as car headlights.
Unless you're mounting lights on those motorcycles that have handlebars at eye level to an upright-seated rider, this seems... I don't know, disingenuous?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
IME bike handlebars are at the same level as car headlights.
Eh. Maybe not quite driver eye height, but definitely above the headlights.
-
@acrow said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Depends on how the cyclist is driving. If they flaunt traffic rules, then they may very well be a literally unexpected hazard.
I'll go through a red-light but only after I checked for both cars and pedestrians.
This is where the other bikers tend to pass me. I'm more cautious at lights than your average NYC biker.
In NYC, cross-traffic on the Avenues is very light and one way except on the major cross streets.
