Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
@abarker said:
average biking speed is 15mph
I've ridden 160 miles in 6.5 hrs before. The first 100 was done in 3.5 hrs.
That's either a banana bike or a recumbent bike. I think @abarker was talking about normal bikes.
-
In CA, rural freeways are 70.
I see more 65 and 75 there, but I'm not in the northern parts of the state.
-
@dcon said:
You don't catch me doing that!
But if you're a car, don't FUCKING pass me and hook a turn right in front of me. (I hope to hell my bike scraped the shit out his paint. All I know is I was laying in the road, cracked my helmet, and they sped off. Several other cars stopped to make sure I was ok - I was - just PISSED - other than needing to buy a new helmet)
Needs a thermonuclear like. The number of drivers that do this - I just don't understand. They're missing part of their brain.
Yeah, that's awful. As I said, I've never hit a bike rider and don't plan on it. I just seethe with rage at them because they are terrible people making the world a worse place.
-
As an (ex) motorbike rider I demand you make it clear you're only talking about those leg powered crappy machines, not proper engine powered bikes.
Unless you're suggesting they should ride on the pavement too. Could be fun...
-
As an (ex) motorbike rider I demand you make it clear you're only talking about those leg powered crappy machines, not proper engine powered bikes.
Yes, yes...I've tried to make that clear several times. Once moar into the breeches!
-
We're required by law to be on the road afaik, but, when I've ridden in unsafe places I tried choose the least unsafe - riding on sidewalks where there is even a vague chance of a person is, pretty hair raising. Also have left a 1/2" deep X 1" wide circular dent in the door of a
carminivan b/c/o riding on the sidewalk and miscalculating a dodge.
-
-
When some people (i.e. treehuggers of nimbys) think a road is getting too busy in the Netherlands, instead of making it broader they generally make it narrower, impose an arbitrary speed limit, put in speedbumps and ban overtaking, hoping that the traffic will just evaporate or something. Welcome to a new and unnecessary traffic jam.
There is evidence that widening roads doesn't ease congestion, the volume of traffic just increases until the route takes the same time as it used to. Traffic expands to fill the space it's in.
Of course, this probably means that the minor routes people used to use instead get less congested, or it takes some strain off the public transport system. It's not like people take extra journeys just because their local motorway has an extra lane
-
I've tried to make that clear several times
So now I'm meant to read the thread before getting offended. Stop microagressing me
-
Your misspelling of microaggressing is deeply painful to me, and I demand that it be recognized as simple aggression as opposed to a mere microaggression.
-
widening roads doesn't ease congestion
It does, until the route gets to a road that's not been widened, then it bunches up again.Or, like the M42 on a normal morning, some moron is playing games with the variable speed limit which constantly changes as you drive long it from 50 to 40 to 60 to 40 to 50 to 30 etc.
-
@boomzilla said:
I've tried to make that clear several times
So now I'm meant to read the thread before getting offended. Stop microagressing me
As long as you keep your bicylce off the road, we're cool.
-
What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse
The concept is called induced demand, which is economist-speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more. Though some traffic engineers made note of this phenomenon at least as early as the 1960s, it is only in recent years that social...
-
Compare using the a motorway where they open the hard shoulder (like the M42) to a stretch of the same road where they don't.
Or a bit of the A14 where it used to be a guaranteed traffic jam until another lane was added and now isn't one.Sure, eventually, the amount of traffic increases and it happens again. It doesn't reduce the congestion forever.
-
I see more 65 and 75 there
65 in urban and suburban areas. Used to be 70 in rural; maybe they've raised it. 'Course, people on I-5 drive 80+, regardless of what it's posted.
-
In particular, I have experience with I-15, especially between Riverside and San Diego.
-
I-15, especially between Riverside and San Diego.
Not my neck of the woods. Been on it, at least once or twice, probably, but definitely not enough to know the area. (Prettiest sunrise I've ever seen was from the vantage point of SB I-15, I presume, but I was just a little kid at the time.)
-
One thing they do here is when they open the hard shoulder as an extra lane ('spitsstrook') is they reduce the speed limit at the same time. In the terms of that wired article it's a tax on using the road at it's busiest - it's just not paid in money.
-
That's either a banana bike or a recumbent bike. I think @abarker was talking about normal bikes.
A 1985 Cannondale aluminum racing bike. So, yeah, normal bike.
-
A 1985 Cannondale aluminum racing bike.
And I thought my c. 1990 Miyata sport-touring bike was old.
-
@dcon said:
A 1985 Cannondale aluminum racing bike.
And I thought my c. 1990 Miyata sport-touring bike was old.
Well, that ride I mentioned was in 1985. I drove down to SIU (got a really good deal from the shop that sponsored our team), bought the bike and went on that epic ride the next day. (And I do still have that bike)
-
that ride I mentioned
My
hathelmet's off to you sir. The longest ride I've ever done was a (nominal) 100k, but the actual route was a bit over, and had about 4000 feet of climb (the ride director told me, "I did not approve this route."). With riding to and from the start of the organized ride, I figure it was about 75 miles total in, I dunno, 7 – 8 hours, or something; definitely not racing pace. I wish I was in shape to do something like that now.
-
A 1985 Cannondale aluminum racing bike. So, yeah, normal bike.
I wouldn't classify a racing bike as a normal bike.
-
I've ridden 160 miles in 6.5 hrs before. The first 100 was done in 3.5 hrs.
The second half was done at 20mph. I can do that on my mountain bike with a slight tailwind - and I had a BMI of 35 three months ago. For those not familiar with BMI, it means I was pretty freakin' fat.
-
4000 feet of climb
The Death Ride (129mi) goes over 5 passes with 15000ft of climbing. Back when I was doing Century rides (both 100k and 100mi) regularly, I did the 3-pass version. Talk about pain... (But man, is that a beautiful ride!)
The second half was done at 20mph. I can do that on my mountain bike with a slight tailwind
Hitting 20mph and maintaining 20mph are two vastly different things. (Especially after 100mi, and the tail wind had died a bit, and the road kept turning across the wind)
-
The Death Ride (129mi) goes over 5 passes with 15000ft of climbing.
I know of the Tour of the California Alps.
This was the Sequoia Century, or strictly speaking, the workers' ride a week later, back in '89 or '90 or something like that — I'm sure I still have a tee shirt or bandanna or something with the date, if I cared to look for it.
I did the 3-pass version.
This was also a 3-pass ride, over to the coast and back, but not nearly as long or high as the Sierra passes.
-
This was the Sequoia Century
I've done that ride.
back in '89 or '90
But not then - I didn't move here until '95.
-
I didn't move here until '95.
By then I was married with a 1YO kid, we'd moved to south San Jose, and I wasn't active in Western Wheelers any more. Later, we went on a few rides with ACTC, but never really connected with them; it seemed like they had short, slow family rides or race-training rides, but any intermediate rides of the distance and pace I wanted to ride either didn't exist or were weekdays I was at work.
To bring this back to the topic, sort-of, certain people here would quite die of apoplexy if the saw the number of riders that were on the road during one of these events. OTOH, the organizers were quite emphatic in encouraging riders to ride safely and obey the rules of the road — not that they could actually enforce that when the riders were out on the road, of course. I was riding with a SAG wagon during the actual Sequoia — the driver was taking a potty break, or something, and when he came out he saw a group of riders being ticketed by a local Sheriff's Deputy (who had a reputation for going out of their way to pick on cyclists). He asked if I knew what was going on, and I said, "Yeah, they ran a stop sign. No, they're not being harassed; it's not a technicality; they blew through it like it wasn't there." The driver went over and had a chat with the Deputy and encouraged him, "Yeah, if you see people doing stupid stuff like that, by all means, come down hard on them."
-
Hitting 20mph and maintaining 20mph are two vastly different things.
I didn't say I could hit 20. On my regular ride, I usually average about 17mph for over an hour, and that's fighting the wind for half of the ride. With wind at my back the whole time, an average of 20 would be no problem. This is on a twenty year old mountain bike, not a racing bike.
-
Well, I just bought a dashcam (A118-C) and <10 minutes after I started my first drive with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R854PWmnr0w
I've done it before, but not when people are around me, and especially not when there's someone turning left right beside me.
-
I just bought a dashcam
I can recommend having a rear-facing one as well. Like that, if some idiot rear-ends you, you can (assuming it's not your fault) prove it and let your insurance play hard-ball with the other party.
-
If you get rear ended it's always the other party's fault.
-
If you get rear ended it's always the other party's fault.
If you get rear-ended 7 times by 7 different people in under 2 years, it most certainly is not.
-
If you get rear ended it's always the other party's fault
unless he has a dashcam showing you cutting him off and braking.
-
Which having a rear-facing cam wouldn't fix in the first place
-
If you get rear ended it's always the other party's fault.
If you have a rear-facing cam, you've got proof of that too.
-
Random question but does everyone in that video keep a gap the size of a car in front of them? Would anything less be considered microaggression?
-
unless he has a dashcam showing you cutting him off and braking.
In Ontario, that falls under the "stunt driving" set of laws-- that carry instant license suspension, vehicle gets impounded, fines up to $10k.
I've honestly never understood this maneuver. It's happened to me twice-- each time I knew the other person was a dumbfuck enough of a moron to be doing it, and already was braking. But seriously, what is the thinking behind this. (I know, I know-- dumbfuck drivers and thinking--)?
"Hahahahah-- I'll show them I'll--- umm-- get rammed into at full speed, possibly flung into oncoming traffic. I'll surely get injured, seriously hurt or killed. Even if I don't, best case scenario is my car is damaged to the tune of multi-thousands of dollars-- or even completely totaled. Sure my insurance may pay for it, but my fancy-pants car will still be smashed to hell and I'll have to go through the whole process of buying a new car."
I'm just waiting for the day the tiny-penis man decides to do it to a truck-- driven by a trained driver. Trained, of course, to NOT slam on the brakes because that'd jackknife the truck and cause way more harm to all around. So instead he'll just keep on trucking, ram right into the tiny-penis-mobile tin can. Maybe it'll disintegrate the other car-- maybe it'll just completely run it over and crush it and everyone inside. In either case, the gene pool will get just a little bit cleaner.
-
I have probably less than a half car length in front of me. The hood of my car drops off pretty fast.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
But seriously, what is the thinking behind this. (I know, I know-- dumbfuck drivers and thinking--)?
I think it has something to do with “I want to go in that lane, and I want to go in it right now, and oh look, there's a gap just large enough for me. Happy for me. I win again!” The thinking, such as it is (I suspect such people don't really think very much behind the wheel, just react) is probably extremely self-centred, and any potential consequences are probably either unconsidered or only contemplated from a panglossian perspective.
So yes, dumbfuck drivers don't really think.
-
Because stupid people do things like this (5 seconds in far right):
-
I think it has something to do with “I want to go in that lane, and I want to go in it right now, and oh look, there's a gap just large enough for me. Happy for me. I win again!”
There is that, but in both cases, it was:
- I was doing speed limit on nearly empty road.
- Asshole comes up right behind and starts flashing lights. Fuck them. Flash-to-pass doesn't mean "get out of my way person doing speed limit on multi-lane road".
- They swerve to the left-- for you non-NA folks, that's them swerving into ONCOMING TRAFFIC to get around me, rather than just pass on the right.
- They gun their engine. I honk at them for being a fucking moron.
- The very second their back bumped passes my front bumper, I can see them already starting to swerve back into my lane.
- I proactively start braking, because fucking idiot
- The fucking idiot slams on his brakes. Keep in mind there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC around. It isn't like they're squeezing between two cars or anything.
- I slam on my brakes because I was expecting this.
- Fucking idiot "drives slow" for a moment (hur hur hur, that's sure punishing me, going slow when I was going slow... wat.)
So I can only guess his intention was to make me rear end him. Because unless I was already braking, that's what would have happened. Which means 99% of drivers would have hit him. Which means that's what the fucking idiot's expected outcome was.
That I would have hit him with my 2001 Honda Civic-- totaling his super fancy $100k sports car. I-- wat-- huh? Seriously, I don't understand fucking idiots!
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
They swerve to the left-- for you non-NA folks, that's them swerving into ONCOMING TRAFFIC to get around me, rather than just pass on the right.
Yes, that guy is clearly an idiot but to be perfectly honest you have no business in the fast lane unless you are overtaking.
I don't know what the rules in your particular area are but undertaking is generally illegal.
-
Ah, must be the camera perspective messing with my sense of distance.
-
Yeah, the lens has a piece of plastic acting as somewhat of a fisheye in front of it too.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
They swerve to the left-- for you non-NA folks, that's them swerving into ONCOMING TRAFFIC to get around me, rather than just pass on the right.
Yes, that guy is clearly an idiot but to be perfectly honest you have no business in the fast lane unless you are overtaking.
I don't know what the rules in your particular area are but undertaking is generally illegal.
- (In Ontario at least) there is literally no legal definition of "the fast lane"
- This was a normal, in-built-up-city road.
- I was doing the speed limit, so there's no bullshit "flow of traffic" excuse
- (In Ontario at least) there is literally no legal definition for "flow of traffic" that allows you to exceed the speedlimit
If he was going to be an illegal shithead, going into the right lane (or one of them, since it was a 3 lane street there) would have been the least of his crimes. It isn't my responsibility to get out of his way so he can speed. Hell, he could have gotten into one of those lanes at least a KM before he reached my bumper-- since it was a long straight road with plenty of visibility.
My point being: he was a shithead, and there were so many ways for him to have just passed me in so many different ways, that doing what he did makes him a memorable shithead.
(Sidenote: the other shit head was pretty much the same scenario. He had California plates. That explained a lot)
ALSO, re: Flash to Pass
(In Ontario at least) "Flash to pass" means:- You are on a road, behind a vehicle moving below the speed limit
- There is a place for the other vehicle to legally pull over to-- a paved shoulder, another lane, etc
- You wish to pass the vehicle and resume the speed limit, but the driver has not yet moved over into that safe area
- You may flash your headlights to request the vehicle to move over.
If the other car doesn't, and it could safely and legally get out of your way, and that vehicle is impeding the flow of traffic (there are multiple vehicles stuck behind it), then that driver can be charged. Not for disobeying your request for "flash to pass" mind you, but for driving too far under the speed limit. The "flash to pass" is just something the officer will bring up as evidence against the driver, if it gets to court.
Flash to pass does not mean "I want to speed and am too much of a dumbfuck to go around you". It doesn't mean "drive onto an unsafe unpaved shoulder so that I can keep speeding".
In fact, in Ontario, unless you're an emergency vehicle, with your lights on, in the act of responding to an emergency-- there is NO****strong text provision under the Highway Traffic Act for exceeding the speed limit. None. Any "but..." you come up with is wrong. By (legal) definition.
-
In fact, I would challenge ANYONE in North America to come up with a provision of their version of the Highway Traffic Act that allows for non-emergency vehicles to speed.
-
Because fuck you pay me.
-
Look, I'm not arguing for speeding but I honestly don't see any reason for you to be sitting in the fastest lane on an empty 3-lane road. Leave it to the cops to deal with speeding idiots.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
In fact, I would challenge ANYONE in North America to come up with a provision of their version of the Highway Traffic Act that allows for non-emergency vehicles to speed.
You're driving someone to the hospital who's having a heart attack.
