Road Rage Revenge
-
I agree, but the law doesn't always, as you said.
-
The law is a ass.
-
It really depends on the bike and the cyclist. If you're going at 25mph you are a menace to pedestrians and should ride on the road. If you're only going at running speed, you're more of a menace to traffic than to pedestrians and should ride on the pavement unless a bike lane exists.
The only real solution is that there be bike lanes everywhere, and that's definitely going to happen any day now.
-
It really depends on the bike and the cyclist.
It really does not.
The only real solution is that there be bike lanes everywhere,
Just get a damn car like a normal person.
-
Just get a damn car like a normal person
Or stick an engine to the bike. And keep dedicated bike lanes for motorbikes
-
It really does not.
If you're going at 25mph down a a crowded pavement, you're more of a menace than if you did it on the road.
-
If you're going at 25mph down a a crowded pavement, you're more of a menace than if you did it on the road.
But now the cars are going 45mph and you're a cycling menace again. And now your experience on the sidewalk has taught you what the drivers think about you. And you realize that you have no place in the world.
-
If you're going at 25mph you are a menace to pedestrians and should ride on the road.
In Dallas, there are approximately 3 pedestrians per square mile of sidewalk, and the cars are all doing 45pmh to your 25. Everyone is safer if cyclists stay off the road.
-
But now the cars are going 45mph and you're a cycling menace again.
My personal feeling is that it's more justifiable to be a menace primarily to your own safety than to bystanders who never asked you to be there.
Sure, it's not fun as a driver to experience a cyclist attempting suicide by car, but you're likely to survive the incident with your skin and bones intact.
-
My personal feeling is that it's more justifiable to be a menace primarily to your own safety than to bystanders who never asked you to be there.
They're not just hazards to safety. They also reduce traffic flow because cars get stuck behind them. The roads aren't meant for bicycles (again, excepting residential streets).
-
it's more justifiable to be a menace primarily to your own safety than to bystanders who never asked you to be there
By that logic, it's better to risk your life as a cyclist than drive a car down the same road and potentially risk a cyclist's life
-
Also, I could easily "win" a crash with a cyclist as a pedestrian.
Just say no to cycling on public roads.
-
-
Nah, bikes are fun in appropriate environments. Just don't mix them with high traffic areas.
-
So it may make sense in ways that your hyperbolic examples don't.
My examples were intentionally hyperbolic to show to obviousness of "Just because it's safer doesn't mean you should do it". If speed limits were set based on the ideas that drive this thread, they would be cut in half every so often until it got to the point where cars were banned.
I'm out of this discussion until someone figures out how to debate.
-
My examples were intentionally hyperbolic to show to obviousness of "Just because it's safer doesn't mean you should do it".
I don't think anyone was arguing that here, exactly.
If speed limits were set based on the ideas that drive this thread, they would be cut in half every so often until it got to the point where cars were banned.
Whatever.
I'm out of this discussion until someone figures out how to debate.
Fine....ignore my points, like a non-debater.
-
I don't think anyone was arguing that here, exactly.
And the risk is higher in front of schools. Stop being dumb.
It's well accepted by the traffic engineering community that people will drive at a speed that they feel comfortable driving. Dicking with the posted speed limit just causes a higher differential between the average traffic speed and the slowest drivers, reducing safety.
The only safe way to set speed limits is to measure how fast people drive and set it there. Any conscious decision to raise or lower it is unsafe. Therefore, the entire concept of reducing the speed limit in a school zone, although it sounds right, is a bad idea.
-
It's well accepted by the traffic engineering community that people will drive at a speed that they feel comfortable driving. Dicking with the posted speed limit just causes a higher differential between the average traffic speed and the slowest drivers, reducing safety.
People will also reduce speeds if they believe the cops are nearby and interested in ticketing them, which can be the case around schools. I agree that in general, the speed limits are not rational, but I still think it's reasonable to reduce speeds in certain areas due to what's going on around the road, like at schools.
But even so, he's not arguing what you accused him of.
-
It's well accepted by the traffic engineering community that people will drive at a speed that they feel comfortable driving. Dicking with the posted speed limit just causes a higher differential between the average traffic speed and the slowest drivers, reducing safety.
The only safe way to set speed limits is to measure how fast people drive and set it there. Any conscious decision to raise or lower it is unsafe. Therefore, the entire concept of reducing the speed limit in a school zone, although it sounds right, is a bad idea.
Citation needed for that kind of stupid argument.
I mean, seriously? "People are driving too fast so we need to allow them to drive too fast"? Is that actually an argument people are willing to make?
Not to mention that it's based on circular reasoning.
-
Citation needed for that kind of stupid argument.
I mean, seriously? "People are driving too fast so we need to allow them to drive too fast"? Is that actually an argument people are willing to make?
Not to mention that it's based on circular reasoning.
Actually -- that's only true for existing roads -- road users adapt to the perceived design speed of the road, not the numbers on the white signs. Narrowing the road, or even the lanes, will cause people to slow down, for instance, while banking curves cause them to not slow as much for them.
So, the actual design speed of the road becomes the first try at a speed limit; on a well-designed road, this will be rather close to what drivers perceive the design speed to be, so it works out in the end.
-
You can yell at people all day long for not following The Process, but if you want the process to be followed, you change it to something close or identical to what they're already doing.
-
It's based on this.
Here's the actual document from the USDOT describing that what you term a "stupid argument" is actually the accepted way to determine a safe speed limit.
-
Actually -- that's only true for existing roads -- road users adapt to the perceived design speed of the road, not the numbers on the white signs. Narrowing the road, or even the lanes, will cause people to slow down, for instance, while banking curves cause them to not slow as much for them.
One thing apparently being missed here is that the school zone speed limit isn't designed to enhance the safety of the people driving on the road. You can argue that the students walking around aren't safer with the slower speed, but that's a different argument than arguing about general traffic safety.
And while I sympathize with people who get ticketed for stupid speed laws, that goes out the window in an active school zone. Fuck those assholes.
-
It's based on [this][1].
Here's [the actual document][2] from the USDOT describing that what you term a "stupid argument" is actually the accepted way to determine a safe speed limit.
Wut?
From your posted link in the abstract:
Despite the general acceptance and wide-spread use of speed limits throughout the world, there has been no consensus among practitioners concerning the methods and techniques that should be used to select the most appropriate speed limit for a particular facility.
-
Works there too. Drivers generally slow down when they are near pedestrians, so "the method" will measure that slowdown and capture it as the defined speed limit.
-
-
OK.
I don't watch videos on principle. I have no interest in watching something for 15 minutes when the actual content can usually be condensed to 1 minute of actual stuff. Plus, I read way faster than those guys are talking.
-
The DOT publishes guidance and your only response is, "well, the document says a lot of people are doing different things". That's the reason the DOT published this document - to make them stop. You are way too thickheaded on this. You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong here.
-
The DOT publishes guidance and your only response is, "well, the document says a lot of people are doing different things". That's the reason the DOT published this document - to make them stop. You are way too thickheaded on this. You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong here.
My dear, then don't post stuff which contains counterarguments to your own arguments like this:
As an informational report it provides a broad overview of the different speed limit setting methods that are available for use, but it makes no specific policy recommendations or suggestions.
-
Moron. It's guidance, why do you think they wrote it? So I could use it in an Internet argument?
-
I don't watch videos on principle.
Fine. Using your Web search engine of choice, look for Solomon curve. Then go from there.
-
Moron. It's guidance, why do you think they wrote it? So I could use it in an Internet argument?
THIS is from your own document, idiot:
School Zone Speed Limits
Reduced speed limits should be considered for school zones during the hours when children are going
to and from school. Usually such school speed zones are only considered for schools located adjacent
to highways or visible from highways. However, school-age pedestrian activity should be the primary
basis for implementing reduced school zone speed limits. This includes irregular traffic and pedestrian
movements that may result from children being dropped off and picked up from school.19So, tell us again how your magical mystery document supports your statement that school zone speed limits are useless WHEN YOUR OWN SOURCE ADVISES DIFFERENTLY.
Good grief.
-
As an informational report it provides a broad overview of the different speed limit setting methods that are available for use
It means that this is what people are actually doing here and the DOT is capturing the practices so every jurisdiction doesn't have to do the research themselves. It doesn't mean "we'll just put this pile of words here and have you ignore them".
-
during the hours when children are goingto and from school
That's what isn't being done. A 10 mph reduction directly in front of the school from 7am to 6pm is not what they are recommending.
-
That's what isn't being done. A 10 mph reduction directly in front of the school from 7am to 6pm is not what they are recommending.
Did you see me arguing for that? No? Well, then you have only yourself to blame for attacking strawmen you set up yourself.. Moron.
Maybe next time actually read what I'm writing.
-
Did you see me arguing for that? No?
o rly?
And, yes, by the way, driving slower IS driving safer
-
A 10 mph reduction directly in front of the school from 7am to 6pm is not what they are recommending.
It's not what I was recommending, FTR. I thought that was clear, but I guess not.
-
People will also reduce speeds if they believe the cops are nearby and interested in ticketing them
Even if they are driving well below the posted speed limit already
-
Urg...I hate those guys. Maybe as much a bicyclists.
-
I hate the guys who slow down for the cop who already has someone pulled over.
Unless you believe the cop is The Flash, he's not gonna be able to cite you while he's also citing some other dude. Speed the fuck up.
-
I hate the guys who slow down for the cop who already has someone pulled over.
Unless you believe the cop is The Flash, he's not gonna be able to cite you while he's also citing some other dude. Speed the fuck up.
I'm ok with the slowdown if they're slowing down to the speed limit, particularly if they are in the lane that is next to the shoulder the cop is pulled over on.
What drives me crazy is a scenario like this: Speed limit = 55, car is 3 lanes over from the cop, driver in front of me slows down to 45.
-
You can yell at people all day long for not following The Process, but if you want the process to be followed, you change it to something close or identical to what they're already doing.
Like ignoring source control and emailing files back and forth? Yeah, I've had management say, "Devs in $thirdWorldCountry are going to continue to ignore source control, so shut up and deal with it."
-
-
(Almost all traffic law is just codification of “don't be a jerk”, FWIW.)
That and "be predictable".
Being able to anticipate what other traffic participants are going to do, is what allows you to prevent accidents.
Driving defensively is all about expecting the unexpected.
-
-
Not taking a maturity lecture from a cartoon hedgehog.
-
Wasn't giving a maturity lecture
-
-
You lot are no fun today.
-
