h a l f b a k e r y
Why did I think of that?
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
I often fantisize as I commute on my bicycle about having a spike strip system attached to my bike to discourage car drivers from passing me too close . My defense system would deploy the same basic strips that law enforcement officers use to stop automobiles during car chases.
I envision a set of spike
strips attached to the bike radiating on each side and front and back , suspended just above the road surface.
The bicycle owner could adjust the strips' length to suit
his or her own personal comfort zone . I suppose that the strips should be painted a bright color to give vehicle
drivers some sort of warning.
Any car that comes too close to the operators bicycle will
be immediately rendered undrivable by the strips.
And life goes on...
My solution to 21 Quest's dilemma
Car_20Lane
all in good fun [GutPunchLullabies, Oct 24 2006]
Annotation:
|
| |
<car runs over strip, bursting the steer tyre closer to the bike, causing the car to veer wildly through the bike rider and off the side of the overpass and down into the busload of special school kids. Total bodycount.. 53> |
|
| |
not for the driver or anyone hit by the driver when he loses control. - |
|
| |
Just stay on your side of the white line. A car has every right to drive as close to the white line as the driver wants. Taking out a driver's tires won't protect a cyclist, it'll jepardize (sp?) your position even more, and then you're at fault if you get hit or if anything else happens as a result of the tire-popping, instead of the driver. |
|
| |
//your side of the white line// |
|
| |
That is exactly the problem. Obviously the solution is not a spike strip, but the fact that you think you have a right to drive next to the white line is lethal ignorance. |
|
| |
Bikes can and often must go in the driving lane. You can choose to pass them, if safe, or slow down to what may or may not be slower than the speed limit until it is safe. |
|
| |
Actually, I've always been in the habit of moving alongside the center-line to avoid cyclists who are in the driving lane. My pet peeve is cyclists who choose to drive in the lane when there is plenty of room on the other side of the line. And there are lots of them around here. It's not only a nuisance, it's dangerous. It's almost as if they're *daring* drivers to hit them. This is usually when I blare my horn at them at point-blank range and wish I had a [Porta-Puddle]. I'm only agressive when the cyclist is being an ass. |
|
| |
It sounds like you think you are doing them a special favor for not actually running them over. The other side of the line may have broken glass, nails, potholes, or car door danger zones. If they are in the lane, there is probably a reason. |
|
| |
Yes, cyclists can be intimidated by a huge, loud machine. Does that mean it is your personal responsibility to do so? |
|
| |
No... no, it doesn't. But a cyclist doesn't need to get in the center of the lane, either. If there's oncoming traffic, a car behind him may not be able to move into the other lane. If a cyclist absolutely *must* move into the travel lane to avoid broken glass or whatever, he/she needs to dismount and walk the bike over it, or stop and wait for a sufficiently large opening in traffic. It's a simple matter of safety. I shouldn't have to slam on my brakes and come to a near-stop for a cyclist dodging an obstacle I can't see. If the cyclist dodges in front of me too close for me to stop, he's going to die. Not because of any malice on my part, it's a simple matter of physics. Inertia takes time to overcome. A vehicle is a large, dangerous machine. You don't jump in front of a charging bull and demand that it stop. That's just stupid. On a road, it only makes sense to yield to larger vehicles. Being right won't help you if you're dead. |
|
| |
Being wrong won't help you out of vehicular manslaughter. |
|
| |
The fact of the matter is that bicyclists have just as much right to be on the road as car drivers. So make way, or get out of the lane. |
|
| |
That very well may be the reason they are in the lane. If there is a lot of debris on the shoulder, and they believe they may have to swerve into the lane, it makes a lot of sense to go into the lane pre-emptively and stay there. This can be done during an opening in traffic, with proper hand signals. Swerving unexpectedly in front of cars is a separate issue. |
|
| |
It also gives drivers plenty of time to realize they are there in the lane and avoid hitting them, hardly the same as "daring" the driver to strike them. |
|
| |
Bone the spike strip, Bun cleaning the shoulder as well as the road. Argument over. |
|
| |
That's true, gutpunch. When they have the presence of mind to remember to signal, which isn't very often. |
|
| |
The closer to the side of the road a cyclist rides, the closer vehicles pass on the other side. Cycle lanes are often so poorly maintained/designed they are unusable. Motorists use lane markings as an indication of a right rather than a responsibility, and often assume that a cyclist is in the cycle lane and not in the main lanes - and this is more likely the closer to the cycle lane they are riding. Cyclists often ride in toward the middle of the main (NOT "driver's", usually all the lanes are available to cyclists) lane for all these reasons and more. Just because a motorist cannot work this out doesn't mean it is safer or better for cyclists to do what motorists think they should do. Rest assured, any cyclist's most engaging concern is their own welfare, and they know more about it than a non-cyclist. The ones who don't are probably dead. |
|
| |
You should work on making this more lethal for the driver. Cars give bicyclers a wide berth in Baghdad, and for good reason, as bikes might explode at any moment. (The cars too, come to think of it.) |
|
| |
Imagine this scenario: You're driving a compact car and merging onto the interstate. A large tractor-trailer is hauling ass toward the merge point, and not moving into another lane to let you in. Do you: |
|
| |
a) Jump in front of the fast-moving 18-wheeler, planning to sue him *if* you survive the collision |
|
| |
b) Ram the tractor-trailer from the side, in a valient yet futile (and probably suicidal) attempt to physically enforce your right to share the roadway |
|
| |
c) Shoot out the tractor-trailer's tires and pray it doesn't swerve into you (and you can bet, if you shoot out his tires, he *will* ram you, which he can legally do in self defense) |
|
| |
d) Come to a stop and wait for it to pass before merging |
|
| |
Well, which is it going to be? |
|
| |
By the way, it is illegal to place a spike strip on the road, where a car, not seeing it, can easily run over it. It's called "creating a hazardous traffic condition". |
|
| |
My understanding is that the uniform vehicle code states that "If a bicycle lane is not provided, the bicyclist is to travel in the middle of the traffic lane". I believe that the uniform vehicle code that I cite is more or less world wide, though it may apply only to the 50 US states. |
|
| |
I recently read a book about bicycle safety that suggested that it is much safer to ride in the center of the traffic lane that at the edge. The premise is that the bicyclist is more visible there, and that almost all drivers respect the rights of bicyclists, and that drivers have more respect for the safety of bicyclists who assert their rights. I have recently begun riding in the middle of the traffic lane if there is no bike lane. I do this about 50% of the time, (depending on other circumstances too numerous to list). My experience so far indicates that this author is right, and that the center of the traffic lane is often the safest place to ride. |
|
| |
In every state I've lived in (Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Washington) it's illegal to impede the flow of traffic. What that means here in Washington (this is what I was taught in the Driver's Education course) is that if you wish to go slower than the posted speed limit and traffic behind you cannot safely pass, then you must pull over and let them pass. People have to get where they are going, and you cannot ask motorists to drive 15 mph or less in a 45-55 mph zone because that's all a cyclist can go and there is no way to get around. If you choose to use a form of transportation that cannot go the posted speed limit, then the burden is on you to accomodate the other road users. |
|
| |
You know what my favorite move is? When I'm going down a hill on the way home from work, going 30-35 mph, and cars will actually accelerate to pass me, then slam on their brakes because they are going uncomfortably fast. IT happens all the time. |
|
| |
It's like people just can't concieve of moving slower than a bicycle. |
|
| |
A close second? Stop lights placed 300 feet apart. The car guns it past me to be first to the light. Fine, I wait far behind his right side in case he turns right without signaling. |
|
| |
Green- He hits 40 mph and gets to the next red first, I toddle along 10 seconds later. We wait for the light together. Repeat. |
|
| |
I knew someone who got knocked silly by a rear-view mirror because someone HAD to pass him before a stop sign, and couldn't be bothered to drive 15 per for a hundred feet. |
|
| |
I got hit by a car once, when the driver was pulling out of a parking garage, into traffic. She calmly waited for me to pick myself up off her hood, waited for an opening in traffic, and drove off. |
|
| |
Erm, [21], roads are not just for cars. |
|
| |
If there is a pushbike, horse rider, tractor, motorbike, bus, mobility scooter or whatever in front of you, you have to *wait* until you can overtake. They aren't forcing you, as the rightful, car-driving owner of that bit of road, to swerve into the middle. They have every right to be there. You also are required to drive with due care and attention (at least in the UK) which means leaving enough space between you and the next vehicle/non-motorised thingy to allow you to stop in time if necessary. |
|
| |
I dunno where you learned to drive, but I was always told to give bikes, motorbikes, horses etc. as much room as possible. It's common sense. You're in a car and protected, they're not. Use your brain. |
|
| |
Oh, and speed limits are the *maximum* speed you are allowed to go. |
|
| |
Oh I'm well aware of this. And I give other road-users their due space. But I see it this way: The person on the bicycle can afford to wait for traffic to pass because, if they were in a real hurry, they'd be using faster means of transportation. If you choose to save gas by using slower means of transportation, more power to you! But if I leave for work 1 hour early early every moring to get there at the posted speed limit (and that's enough time to get there going a little slower) and one day I'm an hour late because that's the day a cyclist decided to take up the entire lane while saving gas, I'm screwed. And I'm not going to leave 3 hours early because there *might* be a cyclist going 1/4 the speed limit. The cyclist needs to move. |
|
| |
That said, this has not happened to me (most cyclists I've passed are quite considerate, but a few have swerved into the lane unexpectedly w/o signalling) and this is all hypothetical. |
|
| |
In the case of not signalling, I get just as upset if a car does it. But if you're in such a hurry that you cannot let traffic pass, then you should be going the speed limit. If it wasn't safe to drive that fast, the limit would be lower, and if you simply cannot handle your vehicle at that speed, you should not be driving. |
|
| |
In the case of tractors and slower industrial vehicles, again, most are courteous enough to move as far right as they can to let other traffic flow around them. |
|
| |
And, as far as //I dunno where you learned to drive//... I learned in Washington State. |
|
| |
Hehe. You must live 100 kilometers from your place of work and you say "the cyclist needs to move"? |
|
| |
In Toronto, at least, some are realizing that the post-war development of suburbia wasn't such a great idea. |
|
| |
Personal motor vehicles are a luxury. |
|
| |
The idea proposed is a rant, I say. I'm fishboning. |
|
| |
I don't agree with all that 21 has been saying, but he does have some valid points. Some of the folks on bicycles are just kids, or overgrown children, who don't know jack about safety, courtesy or traffic law. But the same thing can be said for a lot of people driving cars. Cyclists that spend a lot of time on the road generally know more about the rules than most drivers, as is needed for survival. |
|
| |
My (very extensive) experience as a bicyclist leads me to ride defensively, but not wimpishly. I know that riding in a straight line very close to the edge of the road seems to invite motorists to pass me very closely (which makes me wish for a spike strip, some days). But if I ride a bit further out, which is safer for me, and throw in a wobble at the right time, the cars go well around. All that with safety in mind and two eyes on conditions, of course. |
|
| |
'Hey look, it's a wonderful biker. So nice of them to care for the enviro-' |
|
| |
*floors gas to over-compensate* |
|
| |
/*floors gas to over-compensate* / |
|
| |
I think that that's a pretty unlikely reaction. |
|
| |
I think the problem would sort itself out if each user knew the problems and frustrations of the others:
1. All car drivers rode a bicycle for a while.
2. All bicycle riders drove a car for a while. |
|
| |
Until the road users have the appropriate experience, then they cannot predict the actions of other users so easily. |
|
| |
I'll give an example:
Dog sees bicycle. Bicycle sees dog. Car sees bicycle. Car doesn't expect that if dog runs to bicycle, bicycle will swerve. Bicycle doesn't realise that car doesn't see dog as threat. Bicycle says, "Surely car could see dog?" Car says, "Surely bicycle should not swerve when car is passing?". etc. |
|
| |
Hold on everybody! I think doggie is trying to tell us something.
"ruff ruff"
Dad has been hit by an inconsiderate driver? He's lying unconscious on Main Street? Good doggie! |
|
| |
Translation: "What a dumbass! He was riding his tricycle down the middle of Main street." |
|
| |
I can't figure it out for sure in my head, but I have some apprehensions that the reaction between the tire and the tire strip might go badly for the bicyclist. |
|
| |
Would the car tire not jerk the strip attached to the bike towards it? (for a front wheel drive car?) |
|
| |
The strip could be designed to tear off when yanked too hard. |
|
| |
It's a wonderful idea. I don't think the cyclist would ever again complain about cars riding too close... |
|
| |
Cyclists, as has been mentioned, have every right to be on the road. However, in the UK it is my understanding that any vehicle which is holding up more than a few cars, be it a slow tractor, cyclist, lorry or halfblind halfwit is required to move over and let them past. |
|
| |
If there's only one car impatiently trying to get past, let the sod wait if you don't feel there's space; there's no point getting right into the gutter only to have his mirrors miss you by millimetres. If there are a few cars backed up behind you then you should be more considerate. |
|
| |
And hey, bear in mind that bicycles were there well before automobiles came on the scene. |
|
| |
And autombobiles were there long before spike strips came onto the scene. |
|
| |
I suspect those who cycle for exercise are among the most UN-green people on the planet, epitomising the Consume-And-Waste model. Comparatively green-ER are those who profess to Consume-And-Enjoy (fat?) |
|
| |
It's not like anybody is still around who was here before automobiles were invented. Automobiles are not interfering with anybody's current way of life (except, maybe, the amish, but if you're amish you shouldn't be on the HB anyway because computers are evil). If you choose to ride a bike, you do so knowing full well that there are large, dangerous vehicles on the road. Every road user has mutual responsibility to make the roads a safe place, but as a cyclist you have a responsibility to yourself to drive in a manner that will keep you safe. Law aside, I don't feel it's my responsibility to make somebody feel safe. If you want the extra protection a vehicle offers, drive a vehicle. |
|
| |
Just turn the white strip into a line of spikes! Eliminates the problem. Of course, it would suck if you tripped on the side of the road and hit your face on the spikes. That's why there's cars. They're faster anyway. |
|
| |
Ouch. I don't like the idea of the car running me over after I've popped his tires. |
|
| |
Driving laws and how they apply to cyclists vary from country to country. |
|
| |
>I believe that the uniform vehicle code that I cite is more or less world wide, though it may apply only to the 50 US states. |
|
| |
<rant> That's a pretty telling caveat. US laws, contrary to what you may have heard on CNN, do not apply world wide. There is no "uniform vehicle code." </rant> |
|
| |
"vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; |
|
| |
(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. |
|
| |
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. |
|
| |
Driver unable to turn out is to stop
(7) Where one vehicle is met or overtaken by another, if by reason of the weight of the load on either of the vehicles so meeting or on the vehicle so overtaken the driver finds it impracticable to turn out, he or she shall immediately stop, and, if necessary for the safety of the other vehicle and if required so to do, he or she shall assist the person in charge thereof to pass without damage. |
|
| |
Passing vehicle going in same direction
(8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway, |
|
| |
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and |
|
| |
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. |
|
| |
Basically, don't be obnoxious about letting cars pass, but do so ONLY WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. At all times, you have all the rights of a vehicle on the road. |
|
| |