Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I must admit to being
I must admit to being confused about rim measurements and which tape size to go for. I’ve got Prime RP50 wheels which are listed as 16.5mm internal and 25.00mm external, so I went with the 25-29mm tape. The tape seems to fit really well as it sits across the edge of the rims until it’s pulled tight against the rim bed, so it more or less covers the entire width.
Haven’t heard of that
Haven’t heard of that happening.
I’ve got a MTB that only gets occasional use these days and I don’t get any problems with that apart from needing inflation.
I use CaffeLatex tape: https://www.wiggle.co.uk/effetto-mariposa-caffelatex-tubeless-tape/
I went for the medium size which will probably be about right for your rims, though I don’t know for sure.
It’s like a plastic film that doesn’t seem to stretch very much so I guess it shouldn’t have a problem with being sat in sealant. I tend to use a couple of layers as I don’t get the rims completely clean before applying which is probably not the best way to do it.
She may have been drunk or suffering from mental issues or just simply pre-occupied with whatever was going on in her life. She wasn’t threatening or violent and just simply wanted to get across the road. Maybe she would have been sorry for causing a few seconds of inconvenience to a driver.Did you have the same understanding for the Kim Briggs in the Alliston case? Or the ped knocked down on the crossing who then sued the cyclist? Because when you look at what happened in all of these cases, they are all pedestrians crossing the road and getting hit by a vehicle that was on the road. Or where you more on the side of the cyclist on these, and apportioning some fault for the incident on the pedestrian to some extent?
Kim Briggs was quite a tragic case as her death could easily have been avoided. I don’t have much sympathy for Alliston as he didn’t show any remorse after the event, though I still think his punishment was excessive compared to similar incidents involving drivers and pedestrians.
The Brushnett-Hazeldean case (presumably that’s the one you’re referring to) was initially presented as a poor innocent cyclist who got caught out by the pedestrian crossing whilst looking at her phone, but the facts turned out to be somewhat different (the cyclist deliberately rode at the bunch of pedestrians crossing the road). In the comments on the stories here, I advocated that the cyclist was a fool for not getting legal advice and I then suggested that his best course of action was to go for bankruptcy. I didn’t give the cyclist or the pedestrian much sympathy as neither was blameless (obviously, I’d have preferred that they hadn’t collided at all). In the end, the cyclist got landed with an excessive bill due to his ignorance of court/law procedures and I think the 50/50 result did actually make sense.
I don’t think cyclists are always blameless or drivers are always at fauly, but if you’re in charge of heavy machinery then you must take responsibility for your actions and recognise that you are bringing significant danger into the lives of others. What bugs me is the double standards whereby drivers can claim “I didn’t see her until too late” or “I didn’t expect her to cross the road there” and they pretty much get let off due to juries all being drivers and all thinking “I could have done that”.
The reason I picked up the footage maybe being doctored is that only one street light (up high on the right of the Uber one) in the distance is on. According to both the correspoding videos showing the accident site taken a couple of days later, there should have been at least two more in view closer and to the left. It is just a black area. So indicates doctoring or those lights might not have been on. I would be surprised if it was just the settings on the camera as the lights on the building and the previously mentioned light in the distance are visible if fuzzier.I’m sorry for coming across as callous and / or totally victim blaming as the accident should never have happened if the “driver” was “driving” or if Uber had programmed better. However I still don’t understand what the pedestrian was expecting to happen when she crossed there. Any car approaching would have had to take avoiding action of some sort. However, If the lights were out, it is easier to misjudge the position or speed of a car just from headlights so maybe it was that. If the car changed lanes it might have been that. Unfortunately we will never know from her side and that is the big tragedy here.
She may have been drunk or suffering from mental issues or just simply pre-occupied with whatever was going on in her life. She wasn’t threatening or violent and just simply wanted to get across the road. Maybe she would have been sorry for causing a few seconds of inconvenience to a driver.
Meanwhile, I just spotted
Meanwhile, I just spotted this: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evj9bm/adversarial-design-shirt-makes-you-invisible-to-ai
It could make for an interesting murder case – you get someone a fancy t-shirt with some abstract design/logo on it and then wait for an autonomous vehicle to completely not see them. Hopefully, radar would come to the rescue and allow the vehicle to still ‘see’ them, but not if it’s an Uber.
How about we skip autonomous
How about we skip autonomous cars and go straight to autonomous flying cars? I reckon it’s easier to get flying cars to miss each other (and birds and planes) up in the air and it’d free up the roads for cyclists/walkers/joggers/street parties.
Also, here’s the info showing the difference between lighting conditions on the road in question and the Uber video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/Unless the original Uber video was deliberately doctored, I would argue that the lights were off along that stretch on that day as only one in the distance at the junction is showing and none of the others that should have appeared are showing at all. I wonder if the NTSB full report will mention that or not. And as for the headlight distance, unfortunately we now have cars with adjustable dipping, supposedly to stop blinding of people if you put too much weight in the back to lift the front. Unfortunately most people set and forget so might have been on lowest setting. That woiuld have been on Uber / Vehicle operator.
However it still doesn’t stop the fact that the ped / cyclist stepped in front of a car to cross a road with the car in view (and probably computer controlled to do the legal speed limit on that stretch) and expected the driver to move out of her way by either braking or switching lanes.
The video doesn’t have to be deliberately doctored – it’s just got a different sensitivity/shutter speed and thus doesn’t match what human eyes would perceive. It’s quite common for cameras to record scenes quite differently than you would expect as human eyes/brain do a lot of image processing so that colours look the same under low light etc.
The headlight issue also confirms that the dashcam was poorly calibrated for night-time footage – it’s discussed in the ArsTechnica link I supplied.
I find your attitude regarding the pedestrian to be quite disturbing – basically it seems like you want a death sentence for anyone who makes a mistake about where they’re walking.
“Wheel sucking” is some sort of foolish Yank terminology denoting a “freeloader” (another foolish Yank term) that is “stealing” your effort by using you to push air out of the way. The terminology reflects the ridiculously over-competative winner-loser schtick of that benighted country.In Britain it’s called “sitting on a wheel” and is a recognised method of cycling eficiently that costs the fellow in front nothing. And, being the co-operative fellows we proper cyclists are, the usual arrangement for fellows of more or less equal ability is to take turns on the front, as relative fitness or current condition dictates.
So, you won’t be surprised to hear, OP, that I find your post rather silly, not to say infantile, especially if you cut orf your nose to spite your face by clarting up your own bike such that you have to perform the tedious business of hosing it down all the time.
My advice is, stop sucking up Yank kulturekrap. 🙂
Cugel
Wow. Jacob Rees-Mogg had joined road.cc.
Can’t be him – he didn’t go on about ‘common sense’…
I think it’s ironic that Cugel is complaining about Yank terminology whilst using the name “Cugel” which AFAIK is a creation of American author Jack Vance (Dying Earth series).
Just read a bit of
Just read a bit of ArsTechnica’s report on this: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/how-terrible-software-design-decisions-led-to-ubers-deadly-2018-crash/
It sounds like Uber just kept on making bad design choices.
When the AI first saw the pedestrian, it thinks it sees an “other” object, the next moment it sees a stationary vehicle and each time it flips between “other” and “vehicle”, it doesn’t use the previous movement data and instead thinks that the pedestrian was stationary. Completely idiotic design.
Also, here’s the info showing the difference between lighting conditions on the road in question and the Uber video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
Two points-Why was the car driving at a speed inconsistent with it’s headlight range?And don’t these self driving cars have a radar system? Radar works in the dark doesn’t it?
The radar did pick up the pedestrian 5.6 seconds before the collision, but the AI didn’t categorise correctly and predicted that she wasn’t in the path of the car. Lidar then picked her up 5.2 seconds before, but again predicted no collision – it registered her as stationary.
I’m assuming the cameras they used for the footage might not have been high quality, but I’m pretty sure the woman pushing the bike was in total darkness until lit by the car lights a second before impact. Whilst it might have been avoided if the “vehicle operator” had been fully in control rather then being a bored passenger watching a phone or whatever. And definitely would have been avoided if the programmers had thought that roads might contain people anywhere, why was she crossing a road, in the dark, without waiting for the traffic to clear or sure they had slowed down? I suspect the accident would have happened if it was a normal car in those circumstances.If I recall, the video footage was much darker than you would expect from the general lighting conditions, so the pedestrian would have been much more visible than you’d expect from the car footage. Personally, I don’t think that drivers can pay enough attention if they’re not driving and are just being passengers until they’re suddenly in the middle of a situation.
The account talks repeatedly of ‘jaywalking’. Jaywalking is only a ‘thing’ in certain legal systems (notably the US).It’s worrying if that concept, that is irrelevant to the UK, where there is no such thing, was built-in to the logic of the vehicle. It all fits precisely what worries me about autonomous vehicles – that the law will changed to accomodate them at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists, rather than the reverse.
I think that is more of a symptom of Uber being rubbish and cutting corners. It does seem that autonomous vehicles are a lot harder to get right than originally thought, but I still think that they have tremendous advantages in the long run. Give it another 10 years maybe.
With 8 spares you can be slap dash with your hex keys too!
PP
There’s an even chance that I’ll forget where the spares are and lose them, only to find them several months later.
You’ve got some trailing
You’ve got some trailing characters in your link. Try this instead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/06/uber_self_driving_car_death/
Thanks for posting that, anyhow.
Totally justified in my
Totally justified in my opinion. For more of a laugh, go a bit slower and just as you hit a really deep bit of mud, give it a bit of juice to hopefully maximise the spray.
If they don’t want to get muddy they need to hang back or go in front.
