[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 58 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Meta on /qa/ only.
All meta discussion of boards is to be redirected to /qa/.


File: rip.jpg (57 KB, 346x520)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>driving over crest of hill
>suddenly group of spandex wearing cyclists inside the white line
>oncoming semi truck
>scrape by with an inch to spare
>cyclist gives me the finger

Seriously, get the fuck off the road.
>>
What do you mean by "inside the white line"? I'm not sure I follow what they did wrong
>>
This is a tough issue, because really the cyclists should look out for their safety, which is hard over crests. Vehicle drivers don't expect a pack of cyclists very suddenly, especially not coming over a crest. If the road is going to be used a lot by cyclists, then it deserves a proper shoulder, even if it's just around tight bends, crests and other places with poor visibility. On the other hand, there's probably better places for the cyclists to ride. Nobody likes an arrogant group of spandex monkeys, especially a group of them who feel entitled to the use of the road at expense of all others, yet they do have some right to use the public roads.

This also highlights all of the unexpected things that can happen on the road, and that you should be prepared for anything. It's too easy to become a zombie inside a car.
>>
>3" of asphalt to right of white line
>motorists still expect cyclists to ride there

Motorist are generally retarded when it comes to blind hills. Nearly every time one encounters me on a quiet shoulderless road they will pass on the hill anyway without any regard for oncoming traffic.
>>
>rolling hills
>OP sees cyclists pop in and out of view multiple times
>is still a completely surprise when he finally catches up to them
They really should test for object permanence when handing out drivers licenses.
>>
If you don't see far enough to stop safely, slow down you fucking idiot. What if there was a broken down truck or a log in your lane?
I swear half the driving population should not be allowed anywhere near lethal machinery.
>>
>>1124333 (checked)
>speed limits are a maximum speed, not a recommended speed or a safe speed
This desu
There is a local road where going the speed limit is impossible.
I tried that with my cage multiple times, even when taking the racing line over both lanes, I canĀ“t get over 50 km/h in a certain corner while the speed limit is 60 km/h there.
>>
>>1124287
was there a blind turn then a crest you couldnt see over and you were doing 85 mph?

obviously you were speeding or just not looking for others on the road.. this is your fault, slow down, obey the rules and you wont have to be a frightened little kitten anymore.
>>
>>1124287
please post the link to the exact coordinates this happened or else you are just a lying little faggot
>>
>going back from work
>huge traffic up ahead
>luckily i'm on a bike
>weave through boiling mad car cucks
>heavily scratch one's doors because he was standing to close to the left
>wave to him and ride away while he leaves the car and tries to chase me on foot
>too bad he hasn't had any exercise in the last 15 years
>i ride away

but seriously though it was his fucking fault.
He could've take the fucking bus if he didn't want his expensive toy scratched lmao
>>
>>1124353
That is basicly the same as OP, but without risking other peoples live...
>>
>>1124355
No lives are being indangered, fuck off. Every second you sit still on a bike is a secend closer to a dipshit raging on you
>>
File: this_kills_the_cager.jpg (278 KB, 1628x945)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>1124358
If you realy want to see them rage use pic related and slow down 10m from their car...
>>
>>1124296
>Vehicle drivers don't expect a pack of cyclists very suddenly, especially not coming over a crest

Nor do they expect a mail truck, school bus, farm equipment, or the damn Amish. Oddly only cyclists get their blood pumping.

>>1124358
Yet you do things that piss drivers off. Your stupidity leads to the rest of us dealing with pissed off assholes on the road.
>>
>>1124361
Blame the cager for acting like a child and reacting like damage is being done when it's not. Youre the type to say Emmit Till got what he deserved, huh?
>>
>>1124361
>Yet you do things that piss drivers off. Your stupidity leads to the rest of us dealing with pissed off assholes on the road.
Pissing them off is the only way to imprint "cyclists exist - be careful" on their brain.

I'm ready to smash 1000 windshields with my u-lock if it was to save the life of a single bicycle user from a drooling amoeba sitting behind the wheel of a 2.5 ton murdercage
>>
>>1124334
>cyclists have the same right to the road that any other vehicle operator does

Then they also have the same responsibilities. Anybody driving on a road at 10MPH is a slow moving vehical and a danger to themselves and other road users, and they should take proper precautions.

Cyclists seem to feel they're immune to any personal responsibility though, so I'm hardly surprised.
>>
>>1124287
1. You're not old enough to drive
2. You're obviously shitposting
3. You're bad at shitposting
4. Go back to >>>/b/
5. Saged
>>
>>1124445
>Anybody driving on a road at 10MPH is a slow moving vehical and a danger to themselves and other road users
Absolutely not. If slow moving vehicles were a danger they wouldn't be allowed to travel on public roads. But they are allowed, unlike on highways where those vehicles aren't allowed entry because they're considered dangerous.

It's some fucking mental gymnastics you have to employ to consider someone travelling at 20km/h dangerous while someone traveling at 80km/h is not.
>>
>Overtake dangerously, needlessly putting lives at risk
>It's everyone else's job to stay out of my way!
No, that is no the understanding under which a driver's licence is issued.
>>
>>1124572
>there are many slow moving vehicles on the road

Yes and they take necessary precautions, including using flashing lights, top & tail with escort vehicles, and pulling over frequently to allow traffic to pass.

>mail trucks, school buses, agricultural vehicles, heavily loaded/underpowered vehicles which have difficulty going up hills are all common

And they're all faster than the average cyclist.

>you must exercise caution when overtaking a slower moving vehicle at all times

You must exercise caution as a slower moving vehicle, too.

All of the above: "Unless you're a cyclist. Then fuck it, it's everybody elses problem."
>>
>>1124599
>I don't understand why being the slower moving vehicle with a 60km/h closing speed puts me in danger.
>Fuck it, it must be the other vehicles problem.
>Oh dear I died.

Cyclists.
>>
>>1124702
>Yes and they take necessary precautions, including using flashing lights,and pulling over frequently to allow traffic to pass.
cyclists do that too
>And they're all faster than the average cyclist.
so? Cyclist still doesn't go at walking speed
>You must exercise caution as a slower moving vehicle, too.
I do not disagree, but don't tell me it's the same driving a 2 ton vehicle at 80 km/h and driving a 10 kg vehicle at 15 or 20 km/h
>>Oh dear I died.
because some shithead opened their door without looking or just crossed the road without looking while not being in priority
>>
>>1124703
What if there is a...

Broken down vehicle
Tractor
Truck with a very heavy load
amish wagon
fallen tree
Cattle


Just admit it, cager. You simply hate cyclists, and will do as much mental gymnastics as required to blame them whenever possible; especially when it is you that is at fault. saged.
>>
>>1124729
>Broken down vehicle
Should place reflective triangle & cones to warn traffic.
>Tractor
Should have flashing lights to warn traffic.
>Truck with a very heavy load
Should have flashing lights and an escort.
>amish wagon
In areas where there tend to be Amish in wagons they also tend to make the roads wider specifically to allow the slow moving wagons to move over to the side of the road, precisely because it's dangerous to have a slow moving vehicle like that in the middle of the road.
>fallen tree
I'll give you that one. Congratulations, you've proven that cyclists are as dangerous as a fallen tree on the road.
>Cattle
Shouldn't be on the road.

Cyclists: It's never our fault. Not saged.
>>
File: 1.jpg (58 KB, 800x600)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>1124730
where the fuck do you live where a bike isn't at least like in pic related?
you're bitching about "muh lights" and "muh reflective shit" but literally every bike has those.
Maybe try not being a piece of shit.
Also explain to me how cars are ALWAYS the ones to cause serious problems and rarely anyone else.
>>
>>1124731
>you're bitching about "muh lights" and "muh reflective shit" but literally every bike has those.

A few square inches of reflective material and 2xAA powered LED lights are not even in the same league as the weakest incandescent bulb car headlight, and nothing at all like a flashing beacon hazard light that real vehicles use.

>Also explain to me how cars are ALWAYS the ones to cause serious problems and rarely anyone else.

They don't. It's really just that your perception is skewed because you suffer from a persecution complex. It's why you're attempting to deflect the points being made right now with that question.
>>
File: deadly bikers.jpg (79 KB, 745x609)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>1124732
>not even in the same league as the weakest incandescent bulb car headlight
Because if the average biker falls on you, you'll break a bone at the absolute worst case scenario.
If a car goes even in slow speed you die.
How fucking stupid can you be?

>They don't
explain this then. You're even killing yourselves.
>because you suffer from a persecution complex
half of the times I'm riding my bike some piece of shit will turn right without looking/open the door/etc. And it's A L W A Y S a fucking cager. I've never had a problem with pedestrians, motorcyclists, bus drivers, trucks, anyone. Only cagers.
>>
>>1124733
saved
>>
>>1124733
>If a car goes even in slow speed you die.

Exactly, and as a slow moving, vulnerable target, you have to take responsibility for yourself to minimize that risk. You're more interested in deflecting and blaming everybody else though. How typical.
>>
>>1124735
>if you don't go the speed limit, the crash is your fault

If that is your argument, you should consider handing in your licence.
You usualy learn that the speed limit is the absolute maximum you are allowed to go and not always a safe speed to go.
Another thing you usualy learn when getting your licence is that the maximum speed you are allowed to go is not only depending on the speed limit, but on your stopping distance as well:
You are required by law to be able to stop in visual range on highways and in half your visual range on regular road.
>>
File: bikersgrrrrr.png (69 KB, 743x321)
69 KB
69 KB PNG
>>1124735
>You're more interested in deflecting and blaming everybody else though
I never blamed other cyclists.
I never blamed pedestrians.
I never blamed motorcyclists.
I never blamed bus drivers.
I never blamed light trail drivers.
I never blamed train drivers.
I never blamed truck drivers.
I never blamed submarine drivers.
Every fucking time, the problem is a cager.
Because they're not professional drivers, and yet, they're given a vehicle, which USUALLY they can't fataly get harmed in, so they drive as they feel best for themselves.
If you're walking/cycling/on motorbike, you are aware that a fucking cage can run you over at any given moment, so you're always way more careful.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812456

also those damn pedestrians with their mundane clothes killing people all the time
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2013/make_walking_safe_20130502/en/
>>
File: damn bikers smh.png (322 KB, 1376x2320)
322 KB
322 KB PNG
another interesting read https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811841b.pdf
>>
File: who does the crashing.png (112 KB, 708x889)
112 KB
112 KB PNG
>it's cyclists fau-
page 96 btw https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812384
keep in mind that the "other" isn't just cyclists
>>
>>1124740
>If you're walking/cycling/on motorbike, you are aware that a fucking cage can run you over at any given moment, so you're always way more careful.

Except you've shown yourself, over and over again, that cyclists as a group are NOT more careful. They don't use the protection that other vulnerable groups use, then they blame other people for their lack of situational awareness, just as you continue to do.
>>
>>1124739
>>strawman
>
>Well if THAT'S your argument!

This is just embarrassing.
>>
>>1124753
are you fucking blind? see >>1124742
>>
>>1124756
That's just self-reported data, reported by the sort of people who think that a couple of square inches of reflectors make them safe riding at 20kph amongst traffic moving 40kph faster than they are. If they "feel threatened" there's a good reason for that: they've put themselves in a vulnerable position. Nothing in that infographic proves me wrong.
>>
>>1124772
Motorists arent wild animals, though they act like it, or forces of nature, though they act like it. It is not entirely on myself to the point of absolving you from blame, to protect myself from a retarded human. At some point, you need to admit that you have greater ease of doing damage, with greater ease if escape with little harm to yourself, I'll add, and thus mist shoulder more responsibility. Drive safe. There's nonreason you should be trucking over hills with limited visibility so fast, I dont care what the harzard on the other side is doing or wearing.
>>
>>1124772
>reported by the sort of people who think that a couple of square inches of reflectors
that's just the bare minimum a biker can have. Can you even read? It says "tried to make themselves more visible to motorists", which means wearing more shit.
>you shouldn't ride slow
first of all there's a speed limit, that doesn't mean you can't drive slower than that.
Second of all, bikers stay on the RIGHT of the road. Rest of it is all yours.
Third of all, it's your job to look the damn road when driving. If you can't see someone 10 meters ahead of you and slow down a bit, better take the bus next time.
Fourth of all, most accidents happen in urban areas, meaning you shouldn't be running anyway.
Fifth of all, you're talking about "muh lights". You should have your car lights on, are you aware of that?
Sixth, again on the "muh lights", what about daytime crashes? Which is more than 50% ?
>they've put themselves in a vulnerable position
rarely do cyclists do that. And why would they? No one wants to die.
>Nothing in that infographic proves me wrong.
absolutely everything proves you wrong, you're just too lazy to read even a few infographics.
How do you explain pedestrians being afraid of motorvehicles too? Are they insane people? Are they on the wrong for walking on the sidewalk?

Cars are causing the majority of crashes. Cyclists, motorcyclists, professional drivers (buses, trucks, etc) and most of pedestrians don't use phones, cagers do.
Same goes for drinking.
You're cancer to this world.
>>
>>1124778
>Cars are causing the majority of crashes.

Of course: they're the majority of road users.
>>
>>1124785
Theyre also going faster, with more distraction, and with physical alienation from the outside world that lulls them into feeling safe, thus taking more risks. I feel like even making motorists open their windows anytime they go iver 40 would actually make them feel the speed theyre going. Most cars are automatic now, it's far too easy to let yourself become a road zombie.
Cyclists have to be more proactive in preventing their death than motorists have to be (almost 100% due to motorists. What else is there? Falling?)

You cant deflect that away.
>>
>>1124786
>What else is there? Falling?)
Mostly falling on steep downhills.
>>
File: 1.png (25 KB, 1050x383)
25 KB
25 KB PNG
>>1124785
yes, now compare the pic with this fun list
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/05/10/the-most-and-least-dangerous-states-to-drive/2/

the states with the least cars per capita also have the least deaths per capita.
My neurons are on fire
>>
>>1124793

I havent fallen since childhood unless I was hit by a car or drunk at the time
>>
>>1124334
>taking the full width of the lane prevents motorists from overtaking without fully changing lanes, and is an important safety precaution

At the right time, in the right place. Not all the fucking time. The cyclists near my hometown refuse to use the bike lane on the sidewalk because it's on the sidewalk - and they feel like they're too good for that, because they have lycra and ride S-WORKS Allez with carbon fibre brakes and max aero seat posts even though they weigh 100+ KG and can barely get above 22km/h. They insist on riding in peloton formation, taking up the whole lane, even on long straight sections on road and wave their flabby arms at any car that overtakes them or waits behind for a good opportunity to do so for too long.

I'm a keen cyclist but these guys are pollution.
>>
>>1124832
Translation:
>I drive for pleasure on narrow winding scenic country roads and nobody else should be able to use those roads but me

Being stuck behind someone for 2 minutes != all the fucking time. I know it must feel that way with your cager ADHD, but it's not actually the case
>>
>>1124839
Same, except my rear red flasher is on my seat post and I've got a red steady light on the back of my rack. Also my panniers have huge ass reflective triangles, my cranks and fork are wrapped in 3M reflective tape, and my fenders are plastered with marine-grade SOLAS prismatic tape. Up front I've got a 1000 lumen flood (usually in strobe mode during daylight hours) and an 80 lux shaped beam.

During the day I can actually see my strobe lighting up the sides of tall buildings from hundreds of feet away.

If someone wants to kill me I don't really have much say in the matter, but they can't get away with the "I didn't see him" excuse.
>>
>>1124317
LOL hahaha exactly this
>>
>>1124832
are you saying there's a proper, asphalt bike lane or poorly maintained pavement filled with pedestrians that is significantly more dangerous to ride on for everyone involved?
>>
>>1124832
Sidewalk cycle lanes are a hazard, dude. Imagine being forced to drive on the sidewalk with the rules that if a ped gets hit, it's your fault no matter what. And then throw in that the road isn't maintained so it's bumpy, covered in ice and leaves and blind corners.
Sidewalks were not made for speed.
>>
>>1125009
>Imagine being forced to drive on the sidewalk with the rules that if a ped gets hit, it's your fault no matter what.

Shit yeah that'd be like cyclists being on a road where if a car hits them it's the cars fault no matter what. That's fucking insane, you're right. Obviously sometimes it could be the cycl..I mean, pedestrians fault!

>Sidewalks were not made for speed.

No, that's what roads are for. Which is why cyclists shouldn't be on them with fast moving traffic.
>>
>>1125030
So what you're saying is that we need a real cycle lane?
>>
stop speeding cagerfag, its a road not a fucking track
>>
>>1124732
Car lights apparently pale in comparison to "2xAA powered LED lights", yet in other threads I'll find cagers whining about how distracting and blinding high power bike lights(especially flashing) are. Pick one.
>>
ITT: Dumb cagers who think that going so fast that you can't see an obstruction on the road in time to stop is justified because they've got a personal vendetta against cyclists
>>
>>1125032
Yes.
>>
People riding at night with regular flashlights blasting at full thousand gorillion lumens are the evil of the world and should get run over by a truck.
Either get an actual, properly adjusted headlight with shaped beam or somehow else limit the brightness so you won't blind oncoming traffic. Being visible is one thing, being a fucking UFO where the driver can't see neither what's in front of him, nor where he himself is going completely defeats the purpose.
>hurr mine doesn't blind, I checked
t. every retrofit xenon gay ass faggot ever
>>
File: 0fc.jpg (147 KB, 1500x1500)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>1125084
If it managed to blind you, it means you saw me, slow the fuck down and we're all going to be safe
>>
>>1124287
why don't you just let off the gas for the 2 seconds it takes for the oncoming semi to pass by you fucking spazz?
>>
>>1125084
Generally this. LEDs and modern batteries make for some stupid bright lights. Save the flashing modes for daylight riding. I got a Fenix BC21R which cuts the top of the beam off when set parallel with the ground. I can't out-ride the light on the 300 or 800 lumen setting.

Assholes who blast their highs at me get the beam on max directed up into their eyes. I do the same in any car or truck. It gets people's attention.

>every retrofit xenon gay ass faggot ever

Add every tuck with a lift kit. Honestly wish my state would crack down on lick and stick inspections. Yeah you got a small dick, but please don't blind everyone else on the road with your 14 inch lift that aims your light into everyone's eye balls.
>>
>>1125178
>oncoming driver doesn't see you
>blind him with super bright flashlight right in his eyes
>now he doesn't see the road or anything else as well
Great plan there, anon
>>
>>1125288
should've taken the bus lmao
>>
>>1124316
>Motorist are generally retarded when it comes to blind hills.
I still remember a webm from last winter, when a bunch of burgerland cagers crashed in the snow behind a blind hill because one car parked there and they did not slow down properly for the conditions.
Judging by the braking performance, I most of the had bad tires as well...
>>
>>1124754
Did I misrepresent your argument?
>>
>>1125321
>take a bus
>lycra-clad fred blinds the driver with his death ray of doom on a sharp corner
>bus crashes from a cliff
>WITH NO SURVIVORS
>>
>>1125356
another cage bites the dust
>>
>>1125326
Yes.
>>
>>1124443
>Pissing them off is the only way to imprint "cyclists exist - be careful" on their brain
The message received is probably more like "cyclists exist - and they're fucking assholes"
>>
>>1125364
the end justifies the means bub
>>
>>1125362
Ok, wich part did I misrepresent?
>>
>>1125416
The entire argument. For more information please re-read.
>>
File: fl.jpg (207 KB, 960x1440)
207 KB
207 KB JPG
>>1125084
Here's what I did. It's far from perfect but it works.
>>
>>1125433
>slow moving, vulnerable target, you have to take responsibility for yourself
My only responsibility in that case is to not endager other drivers/pedestrians.
>>
>>1124287
>passing over crest of hill

your fault, cager
>>
>>1125451
>little old lady steps into the road in front of you
>stabbed through the heart
I love it
>>
>>1125517
Yeah, nah. It bends really easy and isn't holding very good there in the first place. Though I'm actually wondering whether it blocks a bit too much light and should I've made it out of some sort of opaque plastic.
>>
>>1125537
Nah, looks good. Opaque plastic would reflect some light back into your face and blind you.
>>
>>1125188
>800 lumen setting
Honestly I have a 800 lumen light but just use the 'pulsating' (really just switches from 150 lumens to 300 lumens once every second) all the time, even at night. It's more visible than 800 anyway and doesn't have the effect of blinding everyone. I know it's blinding even pointed towards the ground because it's a shitty design. There's some people Iknow who ride with *1700* lumen, helmet mounted lights that are genuinely ridiculous. Although, at least visible... from the front and side. If anything I'd want a stronger rear light desu
>>
>>1125464
You don't think you have any responsibility for your own safety? At all? Would you go skinny dipping in an alligator pool?
>>
>>1125539
>opaque
Lifehack: You should google the meaning of fancy words to lessen the risk of embarrassing yourself on anonymous cartoon forums.
>>
>>1125576
Read again where I said that motorists are not animals, though they act like it. Not a fair comparison. You need to do your fair share of keeping the road safe and fair =/= identical workload, it means fair. Motorists have more potential to harm, and have to pay the fuck attention. Just because your car can go 80 doesnt mean you do. The only thing dangerous about what I'm doing is motorists not doing what theyre supposed to do.
>>
File: 1506395167465.png (943 KB, 758x569)
943 KB
943 KB PNG
lol at all these butthurt lycrafags saging

good thread op, /o/ sends hugs.
>>
>>1125624
>You need to do your fair share of keeping the road safe and fair =/= identical workload

This has been my point all along. As the more vulnerable user, you clearly have a much stronger responsibility for your own safety. You don't swim in alligator infested water, because you know it would be a dumb and dangerous thing to do: you take responsibility for your own safety. The same applies on the road. I'm so glad to see you've finally agreed with me.
>>
>>1125656
you also don't keep alligator infested water in cities, do you?
>>
>>1125660
You've never been to Florida have you?
>>
>>1125662
nah, I'm just in purgatory so far
>>
Faget no
>>
>>1125656
>As the more vulnerable user, you clearly have a much stronger responsibility for your own safety.
I do in that I remain visable and dont crash into anyone. Motorists can't do half of that.
Again, the only dangerous thing about what I do, the literal, one, single thing, is motorists behaving like children. (And this isn't just a 'butthurt lycrafag' here, I see more of this than you likely do daily driving for my job.)

>You don't swim in alligator infested water, because you know it would be a dumb and dangerous thing to do
Why must I say this a third time? Motorists are not wild animals, they're people, just like cyclists are people. Nine times out of ten, all motorists are really being asked to do is look, and they fucking can't.

If you pull away from a green light without looking right and left just one more time to be sure, you ought to be fucking sentenced to death, since you're a lazy fuck lacking any empathy.
>>
>>1124361
In certain zones and areas those things are expected. A rule Road in farm country you will expect farm equipment. Certain times of day in areas with houses or Suburban areas you will expect delivery vehicles school buses mail delivery vehicles and the like.

And I think for most people it's just the attitude right away that the cyclist puts out. Maybe obeying the same traffic laws stopping at stop signs stopping at red lights not running intersections using bike signals properly and hand signals properly. I bet that would alleviate a lot of the mess and attitudes created.

I know I pass cyclist all the time in my personal vehicles and in my work truck with no issue because they don't put out an issue sometimes they'll move a tad over and I'll move a tad over. Now the ones that sit in front of you and obviously physically cannot do the speed that you do that is a little frustrating. Or like I said when I'm stopped at a red light even in an intersection and the cycle is blows the red light and the whole intersection has to come to a stop. I've also seen a fair amount of cyclist go through stopped school buses through railroad crossings when the gates were down and things like that.
>>
>>1125753
>>1125753
>ust the attitude right away that the cyclist puts out.
That happens when people [nearly] hurt you """""by accident""""", throw things, and shout things

> Maybe obeying the same traffic laws
Going to stop you right there because motorists do no obey traffic laws, signal, or drive safe and I see someone do something super dangerous once at minimum every day while working. With the potential for more disastrous results, I'l add.

Besides, no one should have to be on their best behavior for you to care about not hurting them. Just fucking use your eyes is all cyclists are asking. Motorists do NOT think.

I cannot tell you how many times I'll come to a stop so that a pedestrain can cross in front of me, and the cars behind me rather than thinking 'Oh, a car is stopped but there isn't a stop sign or red, why is that? Better slow down and see since that's not the norm', they just wail around me and nearly hit the ped who was crossing. This is even common on crosswalks that are, I would think, obnoxiously marked.

Fuck you.
>>
>>1125748
>If you pull away from a green light without looking right and left just one more time to be sure

Look left & right for what? Cyclists who have inappropriately placed themselves in a dangerous position alongside the vehicle? If the driver does look, and they look right first but the cyclist on their left and get hit before the driver looks left and can see you, is that the drivers fault still? If the cyclist has put themselves in the blind spot and the driver doesn't see them, is the it the fault of the driver that the cyclist placed themselves in danger? If the driver is always the responsible party regardless of what the cyclist has done to place themselves in danger, do you advocate that cars should come to a complete stop at every junction just in case a cyclist has jumped a red light?

Seriously, at what point does the cyclist become absolved of all responsibility for their own safety?
>>
>>1125647
>op getting consecutively blown the fuck out with every post
>b-b-b-buthurt
cager delusions lmao
>>
>>1125084
Why do people get their panties in a twist about bright bicycle lights on roads when motorists are constantly blasting their high beams in my face and get a free pass? Car headlights are far more powerful than even my 1000 lumen headlamp.

Obviously you shouldn't be running a 1000 lumen LED on a narrow bike path but we're talking about a road with motorists and in that case you're never going to be close enough to me for it to be a problem unless I'm overtaking you in gridlock and in that case it's in the rear view mirror and significantly attenuated by the time it reaches your eyes, so deal with it cager.
>>
>>1125871
>Look left & right for what?
A dog running away, a kid who's a dumbass, a fucking squirrel, another car not paying attention or having brake problems or trying to """make"""" the light, someone stepping out you didn't see walk up because you've been sitting with your eyes on the light. I can understand you not giving a shit about hitting someone because you think they deserve it at that point, but you should know that that doesn't make them any less dead, just because you can't turn you fat fucking neck.

>>1125892
Littledickedfuckbois constantly blind me through my rearview mirror in my car even
>>
File: 1451605575828.jpg (168 KB, 1024x768)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
I shall continue to use my 2000 lumen americlap christmas tree lightning because it keeps me secure and cagers butthurt.
>>
>>1125901
This is what happens when people teach their kids that vegetables are icky
>>
>>1125901
>A dog running away, a kid who's a dumbass, a fucking squirrel

You'd never see those things. You can't see through doors & body panels. I question whether you've ever even sat in a car, let alone driven one.
>>
>>1125913
>You'd never see those things. You can't see through doors & body panels
How short are you? If you're in a truck, you can certainly see. If you drive a small car like I do, your head is pretty much at torso level to anyone standing by your window.
You're fucking kidding me, right? Are you driving a tank?

>I question whether you've ever even sat in a car, let alone driven one.
I deliver pizza. It's the perfect way to observe how motorists treat other 'regular' motorists without any clout of something like a semi would have to influence behavior.
Most motorists going from one errand to their house and back don't see enough, or don't think they see enough, shitty behavior. I spend all day in the suburbs watching deplorable behavior by motorists.
>>
>>1125914
>your head is pretty much at torso level to anyone standing by your window.

How tall are these dogs & kids running around you regularly avoid hitting? Do they all wear stilts? Are the squirrels in little squirrel hot-air balloons?
>>
>>1125936
Sorry, I didn't know you were wearing a neckbrace, dipshit. You're telling me you can't sit in your car and look both over and down?
>>
>>1125945
If I look down I see the side of the door & body panels. Like I said, is your car transparent?
>>
>>1125962
>>1125913
the real response to this is

You should be looking forward and out far enough that you see them coming much before they're close enough to your vehicle that you can no longer see them. If there is a line of parked cars or buildings etc that close, the proper act is to reduce your speed to where you can have time to see and react to someone/thing stepping out
>>
>>1125965
THis
>>1125962
Only when theyre like six inches from your car. What are you talking about? I drive an 80s Camry; I basically sit on the ground and I can see shit next to me. Even comparable modern cars usually sit higher.
>>
>>1125965
I think the problem is that >>1126040 is a poor communicator; he seems to be talking about something like a cyclist riding out at a 4-way stop or junction, where I'm talking about cyclists placing themselves in danger by lane-filtering and then pulling up alongside a car stopped at a light.

In the first case, yeah of course you should fucking see them if you have functioning eyes.

In the second case you may only see them less than 50% of the time, because it's impossible to look both ways at once, and there are still blind spots involved where a cyclist may place themselves.

Having said all of that, the cyclist has the same responsibility to use a 4-way stop correctly just as much as a motorist does: if they're cycling through without stopping that's their stupid fault and they have to take responsibility for placing themselves in a position of danger.
>>
>>1126123
Wonderful, I dont give a shit. All your being asked to do is look. Like tgere's nothing sayin I HAVE to drive defensively, but if I see someone backing out of a driveway and it doesnt look like theyre gonna stop, I dont ram into them. I just slow or stop.
I see people pull away from lights without taking their eyes off the light, that's horrifying.
>>
>>1126123
>cyclists placing themselves in danger by lane-filtering and then pulling up alongside a car stopped at a light.
Wait, what? How is that putting myself in danger exactly? Don't you have eyes?
>>
>>1126137
>Wonderful, I dont give a shit.

Yet here you are.

>All your being asked to do is look.

And all I'm trying to get you to understand that even if you do all the looking in the world, there are situations where you will still not see somebody if they choose to place themselves in a dangerous position. There are both real, physical reasons for this (blind spots, relative size & position of vehicles etc.) and psychological (drivers brains are trained to look for car shaped objects and may not register non-car shaped objects). You need to understand that this isn't anybody's "fault" it just "is", and because it always will be, it has to be your responsibility to understand it and minimize your risk by not placing yourself in dangerous situations.

>>1126147
>How is that putting myself in danger exactly? Don't you have eyes?

Go back and read the posts where I already covered this. It is impossible to look both left & right at the same time (if I look left and you're to my right, I wont see you) and there are still blind spots where you may not be seen (especially in moving traffic where you may move into or out of the blind spot after I have looked).
>>
>>1126155
It's called a bike lane, and you should always assume someone is in it when you're waiting at a light, unless you've checked and confirmed otherwise.
>blind spots
So don't swerve, how hard is that? Do you just randomly change lanes on the freeway without looking?
>oh no he shouldn't have come up behind me doesn't he know that's my blind spot?
Turn in your license, you suck at driving
>>
>>1126161
>It's called a bike lane

Out of fucking nowhere a bike lane appears.

>So don't swerve

Who said anything about "swerving"? Or even changing lanes? If you've placed yourself close enough to a car in the blind spot, the car only has to move by a matter of inches to hit you. That doesn't have to be violent motion, either: all it has to do is touch your handlebars and you're off.

>You suck at driving because I put myself in your blindspot and this is YOUR FAULT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE X-RAY EYES CERTAINLY NOT MINE FOR PUTTING MYSELF THERE WAAAARGARBL!

Solid logic. I can see why you're so upset at the suggestion of having some personal responsibility.
>>
>>1126166
We are both stopped at a red light, remember? How are you going to move laterally by several inches unless you turn the steering wheel and accelerate?
>>
>>1126166
Unless you move without singaling, you wont be hitting anyone in your blind spot.
And motorists dont register 'noncar shapes', bud, how old are you? I know that's true in practice, I've been in the hospital for that, but that's a hundres percent the drivers fault. It's lazyness and willfull ignorance. Youre not a wild animal. If I can look for noncars, so can you. This attitude is what makes a motorist a cager.
>>
>>1126168
You realise lights turn green eventually, right? You're a cyclist so I guess perhaps you've never waited around long enough for one to change.

>Unless you move without singaling, you wont be hitting anyone in your blind spot.

Unless they're inches away from you because they filtered up and positioned themselves dangerously alongside you.

>And motorists dont register 'noncar shapes', bud, how old are you?

Old enough to understand the science behind my statement: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721412471679
>>
>>1126216
>when the light turns green I slam my foot down on the accelerator without looking up from my phone
This is why we refer to your type as "cagers"
>>
>>1126216
No. If I'm in your blind spot snd you drive straight as you should, you csnt hit me. Only if you turn or sweve.
And, no, I dont care that scuence says you cant pay attention. I look and see bikes, you can too.
>>
>>1126222
>strawman

If a car is pulling away slowly and touches your handlebars at even <5MPH, you're coming off your bike. You know this. I know this. Why act like a moron?

>>1126227
>you drive straight as you should

The steering wheel is not locked in position. Perhaps the driver needs to correct their course by an inch or two because the junction is offset or there's something on the other side of the road a little too close to the line that they need to avoid? While we're here let's also not pretend you're going to set off from a dead start and not move laterally AT ALL, because you will. It could take less than an inch of movement on the part of the cyclist and the car each to cause them to come into contact.

>I dont care that scuence says you cant pay attention

I see we're right back to "WAH! I'm a cyclist and I'm NEVER WRONG and it's not up to me to take any responsibility for my actions or the fact that I placed myself in danger. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT!"

You're like a child who can't understand why he's not allowed to stick a fork into the outlet, and throws a tantrum about it.
>>
>>1126231
>If a car is pulling away slowly
Pulling away != colliding with me. Do you know what "away" means, anon?
>and touches your handlebars at even <5MPH, you're coming off your bike.
I'd either be off the bike jumping away from you, or I'd be crushed between you and the parked car, which you would strike a split second after hitting my handlebars.

Why can't you look where you're going?
>>
>>1126231
No, youre acting as if an explanation as to why motorists dont look as a reason why motorists cant look. Again, I drive all day, everyday on surface roads for my job. I look for motorists, peds, bikes, dogs, everything. You can too. Dont be a road zombie.
>>
>>1126233
>Pulling away != colliding with me.
>I'd either be off the bike jumping away from you

Oh you're just trolling, why didn't you say so?

>>1126237
>No, youre

No.

>I look for motorists, peds, bikes, dogs, everything.

No. You *think* you do, which makes you even more dangerous, because you're complacent. "I'm a good driver, I've looked, I'll always see everything I need to see so I'm always safe." Not even close Anon, and the science shows it's not true.
>>
>>1126254
No. I look and I drive a reasonable speed for where I am.
If you can't 'register', you're going too fast and that speed might be slower for you than someone who isn't a retarded cager who's lived the cager meme his whole life.
>>
>>1126254
Let me expand, part of the reason motorists have trouble gauging the speed of a bicycle is because they've had the 'bicycles are slow' meme hammered in their heads and don't ever bother to look into how fast bikes might actually be going. (Which is bullshit, because there's a section on them in the drivers manual for my state.) Cagers gonna cage and be willfully ignorant and claim SCIENCE!
>>
>>1126256
Have you never dropped something small and spent ages looking for it only to realise it been right under your nose in plain view the whole time?
>>
>>1126267
When this happens the proper reaction is to go "oh my god I am so retarded lol"

In your case though you are saying "oh my god this thing is retarded, it should have made itself more visible to me REEEEEEE!"

Level of self awareness: 0
>>
>>1124730
bicycles usually have both flashing lighta and reflective triangles
>>
>>1126269
Neither reaction stops you from being a faggot who hit a cyclist because you were overconfident in your ability to see him on the road.
>>
>>1126254
>No. You *think* you do, which makes you even more dangerous, because you're complacent. "I'm a good driver, I've looked, I'll always see everything I need to see so I'm always safe." Not even close Anon, and the science shows it's not true.
My dude, if you can't be aware of your surroundings, control your trajectory, and adapt your speed to traffic conditions, then you shouldn't be on the public roads.

t.motorist
>>
>>1126256
>>1126259
>>1126363
>I'm just going to ignore everything I'm being told, including peer review journal published science that supports the claim, because HERF DERF CAGERS R BAD

Now this is where it gets interesting.

The same studies (for there are multiple) show that the phenomena applies to motorcyclists, too: car drivers don't always see them, and misjudge their speed because the human brain is bad at calculating the trajectory of "small" things moving at high speed.[1]

Motorcyclists used to be like you: they'd bitch & moan about cagers (indeed, the term came from the motorcycle community) and how they were out to git 'em. Then something interesting happened: motorcyclists began to listen, and to learn.

They learned that far from being out to "get" motorcycles "because cagers are retarded", there were genuine reasons behind it. They learned that they could recognise situations that were likely to increase the danger to them, and that they could adapt their behaviour to minimise that danger. They learned not to do things that put them in danger, and to maximise their safety. It was just simple things; learning to recognise dangerous situations before they occurred and just changing their position on the road, for example. Not riding on the inside of trucks on bends. Not sitting in blind spots.

Death & injury from motorcycle accidents has decreased as a result. Both motorcyclists & motorists are happier.

Now cyclists could learn from the experience of motorcyclist, and take the same path, but it's much easier to wave your arms around your head and blame everybody else.

1: Cats on the other hand, are very very good at it. Evolutionary traits, you see.
>>
>>1126380
I don't understand what point you're trying to make
>>
>>1126390
Hes saying cyclists should stop being so butthurt about 'cagers' (right) and that it will make cyclists safer (wrong)
>>
>>1126380
>They learned that they could recognise situations that were likely to increase the danger to them, and that they could adapt their behaviour to minimise that danger.
Adapt to minimize danger? You mean like how cyclists proceed through red lights to avoid getting caught in the dangerous post-green rush of idiots like you who somehow think your vehicle is magically lurching laterally into the bike lane through no fault of your own?

Oh wait, you're not ok with cyclists actually adapting to danger, you just want to soapbox about how it's not your responsibility to look up from your phone.
>>
>>1126390
>I don't understand all these posts I've been replying too all this time

Damn son.
>>
>>1126401
That was my first reply in this entire thread. >>1126392 summed up your verbal diarrhea pretty well.
>>
>>1126380
A rational human being takes the information given to him, realizes that humans are worse at judging the speed of small things and takes extra care snd precaution around them as a result. He does not just go OH WELL SCIENCE SAYS I GOTTA CAGE and cage on.
>>
>>1126392
No. I'm saying cyclists can make cyclists safer by taking the time to understand what's actually happening on the road, instead of screaming and waving their arms around like a child throwing a tantrum.

>>1126395
There you go with the bike lane nobody was talking about again. Actually, you're Exhibit A of the type of person who refuses to listen to anything at all that might require them to actually take some responsibility for themselves instead of blaming everyone around you. Good job.

>>1126407
He summed it up wrong and you're almost as bad >>1126395 for getting upset over it.

>>1126410
No shit? Well thank God you were here to point that out. Gotcha: we can overcome inbuilt perception of speed & distance simply by thinking about it some more. You have blown the science of psychology wide open, here.
>>
>>1126455
SCIENCE SAYS HUMANS ARE BAD AT JUGDING SPEED AND DISTANCE IN THE DARK, THATS JUST HOW IT IS! WHAT YA MEAN I COULD SLOW DOWN AND USE HEADLIGHTS, IGNORE THE SCIENCING SAYING DIFFICULTY AT NIGHT IS INBORN????
>>
>>1126455
You still aren't making any sense
>>
>>1126458
You seem mad. Mad at basic science. How odd.

>>1126460
I'm sorry anon I can't help you here. I've explained it to death. It isn't a very complicated concept: cyclists can take steps to minimize their risk of harm, those steps are easy and simple for them to take, it's worked for another group of vulnerable road users, the science supports them taking these steps. How is any of that complicated?
>>
>>1126455
>bike lanes aren't real because I refuse to see them
I think we covered this already, cager-kun
>>
>>1126471
>mad at science
he's not mad at science, he's mad at stupid people.
Science also says that if you drink petrol, you'll die, that doesn't mean that you should go ahead and do that
>>
>>1126476
Nobody was talking about bike lanes until you showed up with "I can't believe you're swerving into bike lanes like a mad man!". Literally out of nowhere you started with the bike lanes.

>>1126477
>Science also says that if you drink petrol, you'll die, that doesn't mean that you should go ahead and do that

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be violently agreeing with me that people should trust science.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.