BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I think the thing that bothers me most about this, had the women hit the stroller, doing an illegal traffic maneuver while not paying attention it would have just been another "accident". How to educate drivers to pay attention, any suggestions?

instituting the death penalty for "accidents" might get people to pay attention... otherwise i don't know. as it is, how dare you try to turn a poor innocent woman into a baby killer - that's so insensitive of you.

I honestly stopped getting mad, mostly. I felt kinda bad for the women. Her insurance must be outrageous, she can't see a guy with a stroller six feet from her and she's backing onto Butler, rest assured she's most likely backed into something else.

I'm trying to change my approach when I'm on my bike I focus on people doin it right, when somebody doesn't pull out in front of me and waits a second for me to roll by. I might see them at the light and mention it, you know, thanks for the break back there. Lots of people do this actually, definitely more then the bonehead talking on the phone but it's that guy that's gonna ruin my life, he's hard not to get mad and yell at.

I think real drivers education should be mandatory.

a)a required class in high school. You fail the class you cant get a license.

b)the license test should be much more comprehensive and should take the average test taker at least an hour to two hours.

c)There should be a reflex and coordination test. Some would say that this would be age discriminatory since it would prohibit many elderly or otherwise physically inhibited people from getting a license, I say they shouldnt be driving if they dont have the reflexes to do so.

and d) all written and reflex/coordination/vision tests should be retaken every time the license is renewed. The renewal test should primarily focus on laws that have changed in the last 5 years and the current state of motor laws.

Reflex test: Red Hands. Cheap, quick and humiliating...

Alright netvlin, those are great ideas, I'm going to put you in charge, good luck.

Peolpe are stupid and politicians even more so. They would never go with something as "radical" as my idea because then their dear old grandmother and their stoner teenage son couldnt get a license. They dont see that they wouldnt get a license because perhaps they arent capable or responsible enough to drive, just they they couldnt get a license.

I know in many european countries getting a license is a very expensive and time consuming ordeal. Then again, they also have transit systems to accommodate all the people that dont drive or have licenses.

Its sort of a chicken and egg thing. large transit systems dont exist because of the availability of the automobile. you cant take away the ready access to the automobile because the large transit systems dont exist. and you cant justify the building of large transit systems because due to the abundance of autos, there is no need.

Saddens me, but, I think a financial penalty is really the only way to reduce the amount of auto use and promote transit and cycling. if gas were 10$/gallon, there would be a hell of a lot less frivolous driving

It's still amazing to me that once you get a license you never have to take a test to renew it. There is no way some of these people I see out there would pass a written or driving test again and they shouldn't be driving.

The only way it ended up on my license that I needed glasses was because I had glasses on when I renewed it and the attendant was paying attention.

I think the increased cost of owning an auto is at least partially responsible for more people riding bicycles. I see/talk to a lot of people riding ill-fitting bicycles, there not DUI guys or fixie kids, they're people going to work who can't afford a car, if they could drive they would but they just can't afford it. Twenty years ago you could buy a car for a few hundred bucks, NOT have insurance and just drive, gas was around a buck a gallon. Now it's definitely more costly to own and drive a car.

I'm in the middle of this argument from several angles. One, I have a 16yo daughter who's just about to take her test. Two, I have a 20yo son who's decided to bus-bicycle some instead of getting a license, but expects to be driven everywhere. Three, living and working in suburbs where it's damn near impossible to get just about anywhere without a car, I get the constant heat about promoting transit and cycles to the detriment of cars (family, neighbors, co-workers, church folks, everyone I see, basically). Four, I point to myself as a former four-car owner and once-six-motorized-vehicle family, and say, "I did it, and figured out transit, too." Five, I can remember 32-cent gasoline and bought it at 58-cents, and have marked down every gas purchase for almost 30 years, so have the price history.

I could go on and on. But the essential argument doesn't change: You can get around without a car if you put your mind to it, but you first have to change a lot of fundamental ideas about walking, biking, transit and driving. That is a HUGE curve for practically everyone I know.

It's still amazing to me that once you get a license you never have to take a test to renew it.

I've seen a friend's Arizona driver's license that expires when he turns 65. That will be in 2048.

Why is it there is a minimum age for a license, but no maximum?

Most everyone I know who has been hit by cars while riding myself included, was hit by a senior citizen. The excuse has always been the same, "I didn't see you" and the police did not cite the driver for any violations.

I don't care for the arbitrary 65-and-you're-out line of thinking. I know people in their 50s who shouldn't be driving now, and people in their 70s who are still very capable.

Ability and education mean far more than age. If you had to re-take a written exam at age 38, and fail it, that ought to count for something.

I'd also like to see some real time in a simulator for people who have to renew their licenses. I've sat in and operated Port Authority's bus simulator, which can be programmed for thousands of situations. Something similar for auto drivers, with pass-fail enforcement, would get a lot of stupid people off the road.

I don't get the "I didn't see you" excuse,

I was talking to a friend, he was relating a story where he jumped out of the way to avoid a car. I asked him what happened, He says "well, he couldn't see me" I reply, "you were hiding?", "you jumped out of nowhere?". No, the guy couldn't see me, my friend, an avid cyclist, is kind of taking responsibility for this other persons mistake. It's the driver's responsibility to see you, your in a crosswalk, so there's a car parked where it shouldn't be. The driver needs to look around parked cars. He couldn't see you? Sounds like he wasn't looking.

With Strict Liability, it's always the motorist at fault when they collide with vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

When I am behind the wheel and I see the potential for something odd, I slow down to improve the chances that I could avoid an accident. Too many people favor their time to destination over safety.

I think before tightening standards, they need to figure out ways to prevent people from driving without licenses.

Then, of course, if they limit the people that can hold licenses, the constituency for public transportation and biking will increase proportionately.

It wouldn't be technically hard to virtually eliminate speeding. Drivers (the majority in our democracy) wouldn't like that.

Police wouldn't like eliminating speeding either. Nearly universal speeding gives law enforcement an easy work around for fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

BTW, in almost any accident with a bike "I didn't see him," is the magic words that will allow car drivers to avoid prosecution, no matter if they were blatently driving recklessless or not.

I like the idea of strict liability, but I suspect it would create an uproar of similar size and loudness to the tea party movement - only way better funded.

Mick

> Its sort of a chicken and egg thing.

Not really. America used to have trains and streetcars and buses and a multitude of ways that people got around. Pittsburgh even had steps that people would walk up Mount Washington to get to an from work. Walking to work! How radical is that.

But then, the cars took over. The railroads were relegated only for freight. The streetcar tracks were pulled up. The bus companies that replaced them were consolidated and underfunded. The new roads and highways were built for cars. Sidewalks were narrowed in cities and eliminated in suburbs.

The chickens got greedy and broke all the eggs.

I agree kordite, I was referring more to the current situation. Someone has to sacrifice for the to be progression forward at this point. Whether it is money for rebuilding multimode transportation options, or restricting incapable drivers.

And for gods sake, will someone please enforce distracted driving laws. They NEED to be a primary offense and they NEED to carry a harsh penalty.

"I didn't see him" should be considered a very strong indicator that this person should not be driving. I would support an automatic revocation of license with the opportunity for retest, written and driving both, after some short period. Say, a week. It's not quite like DUI, where you voluntarily impaired yourself, but you're still admitting to an impairment.

@timito Twenty years ago you could buy a car for a few hundred bucks, NOT have insurance and just drive, gas was around a buck a gallon

I had to get insurance to register a car in 1979 (last time I purchased a car).

Looking at the data, gas prices have risen a bit compared to inflation, but not much.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

Cars are probably little pricier than in the 80's, but they last a whole lot longer and typically get better milage.

I'm guessing that adjusting for inflation, a mile of driving costs about the same as it has since the 60's.

After 2008, it might be more obvious that won't continue

We have a large military and car drivers vote. As a consequence, I suspect we will have cheap gas up until the oil is nearly gone, then the price will go through the roof.

I'm not talking about a relatively reasonable $10 a gallon.

Flakes say things like "Known oil reserves would serve current needs for 300 years" Yes. True enough.

The "if we use at current rates" phrase is is just nuts, though.

But if energy consumption keeps rising at the rate it has been, the 300 years suddenly becomes 115 years until oil is ALL gone.

I expect that prices will spike sometime.

There'll be a few false alarms, like 2008, but then the price will go up 80%, stay there for a few years, then do it again. And again.

It's hard to imagine oil prices not doing that. The only argument is just whether it will happen in 2020 or 2200. I think much closer to the former.

It's why I oppose new drilling in the US. Why do it now, when gas is cheap, when we know it will be worth something in a few years?

@Mick: I think before tightening standards, they need to figure out ways to prevent people from driving without licenses.

How about automatic confiscation and sale at auction of vehicle if caught, regardless of ownership? Only exception would be if the vehicle was reported stolen, in which case unlicensed driver is on the hook for GTA.

Make it the vehicle owner's responsibility to ensure that users are legit.

I've often fantasized about something like Strict Liability; I had no idea it actually existed.

Although, is that cyclist @1:17 riding and texting?

Also, remember if a motorist hits a vulnerable user (pedestrian/cyclists) they are automatically granted full tort, even if they only have limited tort auto insurance.

I have a good story to add tho this. yesterday morning I am traveling up smithfield street between the traffic and the parked cars. As always I take my time and watch for doors opening. Well suddenly a passenger door opens from my left. I had plenty of time to slow and stop but this lady still just left the door open then stood there in traffic. She had white hair and looked elderly so I tried as nicely as I could to talk to her.

Me:maam you really have to watch out when opening doors in traffic like that, If you open it and hit someone it will be your fault.

Lady:NO YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT.

ME: apparently I was that's why I didn't crash into you. But the law states the car is at fault in a situation like this

Lady:Pfffffffttt!!! (walks off into traffic with her hand up in my face)

should have "tapped" her door and said "sorry, i didn't see you!"

funny story:

last fall i had a guy honking at me to make an illegal right on red, and then when the light changed and i did go he gunned it around me, almost right hooking me, slammed on the gas for about 3 seconds, saw a parking space and then slammed on his brakes and pulled over to the right and threw open his door and started to get out. luckily i was planing to do some street riding over my lunch so i was commuting on one of my stouter mountain bikes with a great big fork in the front, a skate helmet on and gloves and knee pads(didn't feel like wearing a bag to carry my kneepads). lucky because i was about 3 feet behind him when he swerved to park (almost hitting me AGAIN) and had no time to stop when he threw open his door. i flipped over his door, like dove headfirst over it and was fortunate to only smack my hips and fork into it.

the guy almost pooped himself, i was probably 2 or 3 inches from smashing him into the door. he started freaking out when i got up and started screaming him. apologizing and claiming that he never saw me. i wasn't too badly hurt and was already close to being late for a meeting so i checked my bike out and took of swearing a blue streak. as i looked back it looked like he was having some trouble shutting his door.

some people, i hate.

That brings me to another complaint. There has been a few times, mostly at station square crossing to the incline, that I was waiting for the crosswalk to turn when someone in a car and once a bus waved me across. Just becuase they would walk out into traffic dosent mean I want to. I just usually point to the little red guy up on the sign and shake my head no. Some times they have this look on there face like that was the first time they have ever noticed the crosswalk light.