Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think they could be a major
I think they could be a major part of achieving Vision Zero, but first we have to get rid of the ridiculous Tesla idea of having partly autonomous vehicles but relying on a human driver to step in and take control. People are utterly unable to concentrate on a boring task where they have to do nothing for long periods, so when the car suddenly turns control over to them, they’ve been doing something else other than watching the road.
A collision is inevitable, so it’s the head on collisionThe idea is to reduce the energy of the impact and ideally you don’t want to be introducing rotational forces into the collision as that could end up with the vehicles hitting pedestrians etc. Also, the front of the car is often the most heavily protected with crumple zones and passenger airbags.
It’s possible to contrive situations where slowing down as much as possible in a straight line isn’t the best choice, but 99% of the time it’s the best thing to do. Ideally with computer reacting as quickly as possible, the vehicle should be able to come to a complete stop which certainly makes the liability easier to determine.
As we move towards fully autonomous cars becoming the norm on our roads this begs the question “what does a car do when a collision is inevitable?”The obvious answer is to slow down as much as possible in a straight line.
Ok, so turns out a half turn of the hi limit screw has indeed sorted it! Feel a bit silly I didn’t check it first, but anyhow, thanks for the suggestion.Nice one and now you know more about adjusting gears too.
I’d be looking at the limit
I’d be looking at the limit screw and the B tension screw that affects how close the derailleur goes to the sprockets. However, it’s strange that it can work well on the stand and not when you’re putting some power through it. Maybe check that the cassette is tight with no movement.
Using a similar logic: because there is always a first driver at the lights, on my route to work the majority of drivers who have the opportunity do indeed jump red lights, because the majority of those at the front go over the ASLs.Don’t forget about the actual first drivers at lights – the ones that speed up when they see amber and then jump the red light.
,
,
‘accidents happen’The latest
Direct LineAviva advert is of a young lady who obviously approached a corner too fast for the icy conditions, crashed straight into a pet shop and probably has killed multiple animals plus put added financial burden on the shop owner. But don’t worry, we will show a few rabbits bounding around alive, and her smiling because Direct Line sent a truck to take the car away. Accidents Happen.I thought that was an Animal Liberation Front commercial
( I remember bringing round someone who was criticising RNLI for funding swimming lessons for girls in other countries, I think it was Afghan, ..quite understandable, no one has yet been swept out to sea in Afgahnistan and lost their life.
Well that sounds like they’re doing an outstanding job
Two totally different events from the stories / pics available.And it is just me but does the driver who got out look like they might have driven down the “closed off” lanes. Then is trying to work out how to get around the emergency vehicles so they are not held up.
I think you’re right as one was northbound and the other was southbound. Strange that both incidents involved a lorry and a car towing a caravan.
I agree with all of that, but I do think there’s still a place for calling out bad behaviour – it doesn’t need to amount to abuse (I wasn’t actually endorsing the ‘loser’ proposal in the OP). I’d also probably support things like the Idaho Stop (haven’t given it a lot of thought), but unless and until it is law here, I don’t agree with just acting like it is. Sadly, it’s not uncommon to see cyclists in London going through a pedestrian phase at speed, rather than with Idaho Stop levels of care.What I think is also an enabler of bad road behaviour is the lack of traffic policing. When it’s common to see people routinely breaking the law, then it just becomes normal. One way to do that is to pick a random junction, and put a load of police there and stop and prosecute all RLJers, speeders, mobile phone users (whilst driving) etc.
Looks like a fishtailing caravan to me. I always wonder if you get billed for any of the hassle and work this sort of thing causes.Apparently, it’s being described as a collision between a lorry and a car towing a caravan. It’s creating a bit of a tailback.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/m5-traffic-live-delays-car-5831276
All traffic being temporarily held and stationary traffic due to accident, a lorry and a car involved on M5 Southbound before J19 A369 Martcombe Road (Portishead).All traffic has been stopped as of 14:25 just after the Avonmouth Bridge. Camera images show the lorry diagonally across lanes one and two. A caravan is facing the wrong way in lane four.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t care about cyclists’ offences unless and until we have eradicated motoring offences? I fully understand that cyclists pose a much lower risk to other road users, relative to drivers. But the risk of harm is not zero, as illustrated by my example above. Why can’t we try to make both drivers and cyclists better at the same time?I do think that offences should be dealt with according to the amount of danger caused to others and society. Currently, cycle offences seem to be extremely harshly penalised compared to motoring offences and additionally, there is a large amount of abuse given to cyclists both on the roads and in popular discourse. I don’t think we need to increase the amount of abuse that cyclists are subjected to even if some of them are cycling recklessly.
Currently we’re in the situation where the car is king and even when cycle lanes are grudgingly put in place by councils, they seem to be ripped out even quicker. This is while there’s increasing indication that climate change has reached or about to reach the tipping point of no return (i.e. large areas of the world are likely to become unlivable and there will be large numbers of people having their homes destroyed by “freak” weather events) and we also seem to have an epidemic of obesity and poor health brought about by people’s lack of exercise.
What we should be focussing on is encouraging as many people as possible to take up active travel (maybe just swapping a journey here or there with walking/cycling/scootering) and what we don’t need to be doing is creating a climate of abuse and dissent amongst us. There’s also the tribal problem of assuming that all cyclists are a group and as such need to be policing each other (c.f. war crimes of group responsibility).
Personally, I think we should have a change in the road laws regarding cyclists. Implement something like the Idaho Stop whereby red traffic lights can be treated as “Stop” signs (e.g. proceed with care only if your way is clear and give way to everything – that may be what you are seeing when cyclists go through established red lights) or at least allow turn-left-on-red with similar caveats (c.f. the U.S. turn right on red which also allows cars to do the same). I also think one way streets should allow two-way cycle traffic where there is room and it is safe to do so.
I think the problem is also exacerbated by the way roads are designed to prioritise motor traffic and there are often red lights that perform a meaningful function with large vehicles but are unnecessary for much smaller bicycles.
I’m surprised you’ve got any
I’m surprised you’ve got any breath left to shout at cyclists if you’re shouting at every single motorist that you see speeding
How about shouting something
How about shouting something at motorists that speed?