Infuriating - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 65

Thread: Infuriating

  1. #26
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    There are no bright lines here, but 100 miles an hour is so far above the posted speed limit that it would be difficult to have done it by accident. You can accelerate from 50 to 60 without even noticing. With the exceptions of interstates or the Autobahn, which are designed to have very long sight lines, it's also well above the speed in which you could reasonably respond to something up ahead. Many states will put you in jail and impound your car for 100.

    The posted link discusses how the brain develops tunnel vision when it is looking for one specific thing. It includes a video of some basket ball players passing a basketball back and forth and asks you to count the number of passes. If you are concentrating on the passes (and I know I was when I first saw the video), you literally DO NOT SEE a guy dressed up as a bear dancing around in the center of the shot. Similarly, when drivers are just looking out for cars, they may literally not see a cyclist- brain doesn't even register the visual input because it's not what the driver is looking out for.

    Of course driving 100 would be hard to do by mistake. But the premise of you point seemed to be that looking at a cell phone would be an 'honest mistake'. If you're attempting to explain that contradiction you haven't. I don't see either driving 100 or looking at a phone and hitting 15 cyclist being a mistake but you seem to think one is and one isn't.

    I can't find words to describe how absurd that video justifying not seeing 15 cyclist in the road is.
    Tunnel vision, yes. The tunnel should be the road not a phone. Not seeing anything you're not looking for, absurd.
    But even if true you can't see what you're not looking for; people train their minds to look for "things in the road" no just cars. You mean to tell me you've not seen deer, people, whatever in the road because you were only looking for cars? Good Lord.

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    6,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Of course driving 100 would be hard to do by mistake. But the premise of you point seemed to be that looking at a cell phone would be an 'honest mistake'. If you're attempting to explain that contradiction you haven't. I don't see either driving 100 or looking at a phone and hitting 15 cyclist being a mistake but you seem to think one is and one isn't.

    I can't find words to describe how absurd that video justifying not seeing 15 cyclist in the road is.
    Tunnel vision, yes. The tunnel should be the road not a phone. Not seeing anything you're not looking for, absurd.
    But even if true you can't see what you're not looking for; people train their minds to look for "things in the road" no just cars. You mean to tell me you've not seen deer, people, whatever in the road because you were only looking for cars? Good Lord.
    It's an "honest mistake" in the sense that the user likely didn't intend to take their concentration away for the duration they did, and most certainly didn't intend harm. As I said in an earlier post, we'd all like to believe we've had razor sharp concentration all the time, but the fact of the matter is that our brains are programmed to get distracted. Even without a phone, people zone out look away, etc.- and it's not because they are trying to get distracted.

    I can absolutely tell you've I've not seen (or at least noticed) things in the road because I was not expecting them, or did not see them until the last minute. People may train themselves to look for things in the road, but 99% of what most people are worried about is other cars. On most roads in the U.S., a cyclist is an anomaly.

    Let me emphasize that I'm not suggesting this woman did nothing wrong. I'm only suggesting that the criminal justice system will not address the factors that caused the harm. It may feel good to punish someone, but it doesn't fix the problem in cases like these.

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,212
    So... If I hate you and drive you over... that's not murder?
    BANNED

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    6,422
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    So... If I hate you and drive you over... that's not murder?
    It is if you did so intentionally, and I donít think anybody here argues otherwise.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    It's an "honest mistake" in the sense that the user likely didn't intend to take their concentration away for the duration they did, and most certainly didn't intend harm. As I said in an earlier post, we'd all like to believe we've had razor sharp concentration all the time, but the fact of the matter is that our brains are programmed to get distracted. Even without a phone, people zone out look away, etc.- and it's not because they are trying to get distracted.
    I get this is the internet where people just like to argue and will stick to a point even after realizing it's difficult to support but stick to it just for the sake of killing time arguing.....but you really mean to tell us the person didn't intend to look at their phone?

    You know, if I understood phone addiction better I might actually agree with you in a sense. Perhaps phone addiction is that so strong that it was unintended. But "honest mistake"? That means any drunk or drug addict also made an honest mistake driving in the bag. Do you drunk and drugged driving in the same category as a lapse in concentration? Because I think you just did unless you have an explanation other than addiction for looking at a cell phone while driving being unintentional.
    Last edited by Jay Strongbow; 01-28-2020 at 11:07 AM.

  6. #31
    Schuylkill Trail Bum
    Reputation: SPlKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,008
    I think we'll see more of these kinds of distracted-driver accidents, now that new cars come with blaring infotainment screens which require the driver to look away from the road to do even the simplest tasks.

    Some of these ridiculous screens even display incoming texts and emails, which are difficult for many people to ignore.

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by nayr497 View Post
    As I always think in these situations, what other license do you get at age 16, after a few hours of training, and you get to keep it for life? Driving tests in the U.S. are a joke. As is enforcement. Why aren't there far, far more traffic enforcement police? I'd like to see an entire squad of officers just going after illegal motorists 24-7 and giving them hefty fines. Also, I can't figure out why traffic cameras aren't in use everywhere. Costs of cameras is low and is a GREAT way to enforce and an easy way to make money for the city/town.
    This does not work.. I do agree, that US drivers test is a joke. I moved to the US from South Africa in 96, a month after getting here, keeping in mind I never really drove while I lived in South Africa, and spending a week driving around in parking lots while my mother was at work (I was 20), I did not have a car at the time, I went and took the test in Leesburg VA.. you know what that test was........ leave the parking lot.. turn right.. next light.. turn right.. stop sign turn right... turn right back into parking lot, did not even have to park, DMV lady told me to pull in front of the DMV and run in side and get my license.... that was it..

    Contrast that with my Sister who did learn to drive in South Africa. Keep in mind, in SA, you cannot get your drivers license till you are 18, and you can only get your learners permit at 17 and a half, and you cannot drive alone at all till you get your actual license, and you have to drive around with a giant 30cm (about a foot) red L plastered on your rear window.

    Her test, was side roads, highways, parallel parking, reverse in perpendicular parking, in heavy traffic and everything in between, and if you cannot parallel park in 3 moves, it was an automatic failure (most of us figured that was a money making racket attempt to be honest). She failed the test 5 times before passing it. They grade strictly, and you are also doing it in a manual (automatics are only really prevalent as the default choice for the US, rest of the world, its mostly manuals as the default models). We still had just as many bad or distracted drivers, so while we may have better criteria (at the time, not like that anymore) for the testing of drivers, you can be the best trained and most vigilant driver, but we all still suffer from various distractions, the radio, maps, eating while driving, cell phones, pick your distraction. Even professional drivers can be affected by distractions, and that can result in fatalities.

    In this case, I don't see there being any malice. If anything, this woman is probably going to regret what she did for the rest of her life, as she seems like someone who has a soul and is remorseful.

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by SPlKE View Post
    I think we'll see more of these kinds of distracted-driver accidents, now that new cars come with blaring infotainment screens which require the driver to look away from the road to do even the simplest tasks.

    Some of these ridiculous screens even display incoming texts and emails, which are difficult for many people to ignore.
    As important as a friend of a friend posting a new video of their cat may be it's really difficult to understand the need for it behind the wheel and laissez-faire attitude so many people have towards it.

  9. #34
    Russian Troll Farmer
    Reputation: No Time Toulouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    So... If I hate you and drive you over... that's not murder?
    If your impetus is "hate", that implies animus, which would be an aggravating factor. That's not what the facts of this case are about. Your argument is moot.
    "L'enfer, c'est les autres"

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by No Time Toulouse View Post
    If your impetus is "hate", that implies animus, which would be an aggravating factor. That's not what the facts of this case are about. Your argument is moot.
    No it's not, how do you know what she did or how she felt. There are plenty of times I get buzzed, it's not from distraction, those people do it on purpose. It is against the law!
    Now if they hit me, oh my, I guess I was looking at a cute puppy online! What a crock of shiet.
    BANNED

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Makes me sick!
    To think 6 months ban, then back on the roads again for the next lapse in concentration.
    Something is not right. I feel for the families of the victims.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by ljvb View Post
    we all still suffer from various distractions, the radio, maps, eating while driving, cell phones, pick your distraction.
    Strawman.

    The topic is about looking at a cell phone at 65 MPH for long enough to not see 15 cyclists. We don't all suffer from that. A discussion of various distractions of various degrees has nothing to do with a particular incident. And two wrongs don't make a right anyway (except on the internet, I have learned)

  13. #38
    Schuylkill Trail Bum
    Reputation: SPlKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    As important as a friend of a friend posting a new video of their cat may be it's really difficult to understand the need for it behind the wheel and laissez-faire attitude so many people have towards it.
    It's not only laissez faire, it's aggressively, and getting more so with each new generation of infotainment screens blasting at drivers and demanding their attention, and providing stunningly bad GUIs for simple tasks that were formerly done easily, without looking, by pressing a button or turning a knob.

    I'm hoping this trend reverses at some point, when it becomes clear that drivers new fewer distractions, not more, bigger, brighter, distractions.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Strawman.

    The topic is about looking at a cell phone at 65 MPH for long enough to not see 15 cyclists. We don't all suffer from that. A discussion of various distractions of various degrees has nothing to do with a particular incident. And two wrongs don't make a right anyway (except on the internet, I have learned)
    Try reading the entire statement instead of cherry picking the last bit, and see what I was responding to, in that particular case it was a poster that noted better driving tests and training might help, to which I responded it won't. There are plenty of other reasons that might occur too.. hell, I have done this myself, after a long day at work working the overnight shift, I get to a light and realize I don't remember passing the 3 or 4 other lights that I go through to get to that point. I'll admit I have looked at my phone, and realized I have traveled further than I thought between looking down and looking up (I am not proud of that, but it's usually when I am triyng to put an address into google maps.. I probably should pull over for that.. my wife yells at me for that).

    I am not trying to make excuses for the lady. Keep in mind I have been hit by a car when I was a kid, I don't remember the accident, I stood up 20 feet from my bike which was 20 feet from the road I was on.. miraculously I was uninjured, bruised, but uninjured (supposedly I made a right turn off a steep downhill and cut a car off (it was in SA, we drive on the other side of the road, so it would have been my fault). I have also seen people staring at papers, books and phones for extended periods of time, I see it all the time in DC, and not just during rush hour. People are stupid, people are *******s, people are dangerous, but none of that comes to the level of malice and intent required for charges that are being thrown around here, namely criminal charges that typically require intent and malice.

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,816
    Quote Originally Posted by SPlKE View Post
    It's not only laissez faire, it's aggressively, and getting more so with each new generation of infotainment screens blasting at drivers and demanding their attention, and providing stunningly bad GUIs for simple tasks that were formerly done easily, without looking, by pressing a button or turning a knob.

    I'm hoping this trend reverses at some point, when it becomes clear that drivers new fewer distractions, not more, bigger, brighter, distractions.
    SPIKE, I politely disagree. The new safety systems that exist in many cars today is helping make cyclists safer. Bluetooth hand-free, voice activation, and controls of the steering wheel avoid drivers looking away from the road. Then you have pre-collision braking, forward collision warnings, road departure warnings, lane departure warnings, lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring with cross traffic, etc. Maybe if she had these systems the outcome would have been different.

  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,212
    Maybe if one of those distracted drivers ran over your mother, would we hear a different song and dance?

    I think we should just put a value on one human life, regardless of the excuses. Don't matter, you kill someone, you get a bill, no jury, no trial, a bill.
    I think 1.5 million would be good. Then if you were in the wrong, they could take you to court to see what they say.

    Is your mom worth 1500K?
    BANNED

  17. #42
    Schuylkill Trail Bum
    Reputation: SPlKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,008
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    SPIKE, I politely disagree. The new safety systems that exist in many cars today is helping make cyclists safer. Bluetooth hand-free, voice activation, and controls of the steering wheel avoid drivers looking away from the road. Then you have pre-collision braking, forward collision warnings, road departure warnings, lane departure warnings, lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring with cross traffic, etc. Maybe if she had these systems the outcome would have been different.
    I hope you're right.

    What I see when riding in cars with people who have all these tools is that they seem to be fiddling around with stuff on the screen instead of driving.

    As for all the sensors and warnings, they're not foolproof nor are they immune to malfunctioning and being wrong.

    Case in point: my wife's car has warnings on both outside mirrors to eliminate blindspots one gets by not knowing how to adjust mirrors. A connection in the rear bumper came loose after a very minor no-damage fender bender. The blindspot warning was offline. There was no message displayed about this. It just quietly ceased to work.

    At some point, all technology fails. Do you want to be in the peloton ahead of the driver who is lulled into being comfortable not watching the road because they're depending on a collision warning system that's malfunctioning?

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    SPIKE, I politely disagree. The new safety systems that exist in many cars today is helping make cyclists safer. Bluetooth hand-free, voice activation, and controls of the steering wheel avoid drivers looking away from the road. Then you have pre-collision braking, forward collision warnings, road departure warnings, lane departure warnings, lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring with cross traffic, etc. Maybe if she had these systems the outcome would have been different.
    Maybe. Or maybe she had all that stuff and got a false sense of security from it. I don't have a car with all that stuff but certainly there's no warning for something moving the same direction up the road (like 15 cyclist) because it would be on everytime you were behind another car. I've been in enough cars to know there are no warnings for that. So if she was just worried about drifting lanes and figured the car would tell her about that........

    I recently took a bus trip from Boston to NYC and back and from being higher up than cars I could see inside them and what the driver was doing.
    Those warning systems may make things safer vs without them for some people. But there is no way I could be convinced having and useing entertainment and communications devises alone with warning features is safer than having neither after what I saw on that bus ride.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,816
    Quote Originally Posted by SPlKE View Post
    I hope you're right.

    What I see when riding in cars with people who have all these tools is that they seem to be fiddling around with stuff on the screen instead of driving.

    As for all the sensors and warnings, they're not foolproof nor are they immune to malfunctioning and being wrong.

    Case in point: my wife's car has warnings on both outside mirrors to eliminate blindspots one gets by not knowing how to adjust mirrors. A connection in the rear bumper came loose after a very minor no-damage fender bender. The blindspot warning was offline. There was no message displayed about this. It just quietly ceased to work.

    At some point, all technology fails. Do you want to be in the peloton ahead of the driver who is lulled into being comfortable not watching the road because they're depending on a collision warning system that's malfunctioning?
    No, these things are not foolproof, but I think chances are better that a system detects a possible collision than it malfunctions. The current state of self-driving cars is pretty impressive. Plus computers and sensors dont get tired, don't drink alcohol, and don't use Facebook. I have very little hope that drivers will dramatically improve but I do have hope that technology can mitigate some of that

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Maybe. Or maybe she had all that stuff and got a false sense of security from it. I don't have a car with all that stuff but certainly there's no warning for something moving the same direction up the road (like 15 cyclist) because it would be on everytime you were behind another car. I've been in enough cars to know there are no warnings for that. So if she was just worried about drifting lanes and figured the car would tell her about that........

    I recently took a bus trip from Boston to NYC and back and from being higher up than cars I could see inside them and what the driver was doing.
    Those warning systems may make things safer vs without them for some people. But there is no way I could be convinced having and useing entertainment and communications devises alone with warning features is safer than having neither after what I saw on that bus ride.
    So whats the answer, don't install safety devices because they don't cover 100% of all cases? I don't see any scenario where cell phones and entertainment systems will be banned from cars. Counting on drivers to get better is a false hope. Will someday human error magically end?

    FYI, collision avoidance systems take into a account the closing rate between you are the object if front of you. So no, the system does not create an alert every time you are behind another car. Some cars have a cruise control that adjusts speed to maintain a safe distance behind the car in front. They are smart like that

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,514
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    So whats the answer, don't install safety devices because they don't cover 100% of all cases? I don't see any scenario where cell phones and entertainment systems will be banned from cars. Counting on drivers to get better is a false hope. Will someday human error magically end?
    I don't know quite what the answer is but don't think accepting rampant distracted driving will be part of any solution.

    Pretty clear no one thinks human error will end and we are talking about reduction in both frequency and severity here.

  22. #47
    Schuylkill Trail Bum
    Reputation: SPlKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I don't know quite what the answer is but don't think accepting rampant distracted driving is will be part of a good solution.

    Pretty clear no one thinks human error will end and we are talking about reduction in both frequency and severity here.
    Not only accepting rampant distracted driving... but continuously providing drivers with even more distractions in increasingly large, increasingly more complex touchscreens that demand several touches for tasks that previously took a simple no-look muscle-memory twist of a knob, a shift of a slider or a simple switch.

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by SPlKE View Post
    It's not only laissez faire, it's aggressively, and getting more so with each new generation of infotainment screens blasting at drivers and demanding their attention, and providing stunningly bad GUIs for simple tasks that were formerly done easily, without looking, by pressing a button or turning a knob.

    I'm hoping this trend reverses at some point, when it becomes clear that drivers new fewer distractions, not more, bigger, brighter, distractions.
    Our new pickup has the touch screen controls for a lot of stuff. I'd like to rant specifically about the HVAC controls. After a bit of a learning period, I could operate all of those controls without taking my eyes off the road on any of my previous vehicles with knobs & levers. Now I have to tap the 'climate' icon and find the right area of the screen to tap to adjust whatever. At least temp and fan controls have hard buttons.

    I agree the Bluetooth connection for using a phone is probably better than fiddling with and holding the phone. On our pickup, the interface for navigation is horrendous. The voice control commands are very specific and not all that intuitive. I think I'd spend more time distracted trying to get these right than if I just tapped it out on the phone.

    The other safety features I am definitely all for. I know some people who get really upset about having these things in their car and that they don't need them. I guess I don't 'need' a backup camera or proximity warnings either but it has saved my kid's bike/scooters a few times. If my kid were on them or around any of those times I sure would have been thankful for the sensors.

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Maybe. Or maybe she had all that stuff and got a false sense of security from it. I don't have a car with all that stuff but certainly there's no warning for something moving the same direction up the road (like 15 cyclist) because it would be on everytime you were behind another car. I've been in enough cars to know there are no warnings for that. So if she was just worried about drifting lanes and figured the car would tell her about that........

    I recently took a bus trip from Boston to NYC and back and from being higher up than cars I could see inside them and what the driver was doing.
    Those warning systems may make things safer vs without them for some people. But there is no way I could be convinced having and useing entertainment and communications devises alone with warning features is safer than having neither after what I saw on that bus ride.

    There actually are pedestrian warning systems in some higher end cars, most notably Mercedes, https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/techn...00ccec1e35RCRD
    They also had a system with a night vision camera, I know the S class had it a few years ago, not sure if they are still using that system, or the newer one I linked to above, which may have been the successor to the previous generation which was only on their high end models. Looks like this version has trickled down to their entire range. This would actually have prevented the accident, or drastically reduced it. I am sure there are other version for other manufacturers, but probably stupid expensive (I did not bother to do more than a 5 second google for MBs stuff)

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    It's an "honest mistake" in the sense that the user likely didn't intend to take their concentration away for the duration they did, and most certainly didn't intend harm.
    I cycle and drive regularly on three continents. Americans often are surprised when I say the US is by far where I feel the least safe. Thanks for explaining this so concise.

    The person admitted earlier to be blinded by the sun. continues above the speed limit and then starts to fiddle around with stuff, in this case the cell phone.
    And yet, that is explained by " we'd all like to believe we've had razor sharp concentration all the time".
    Blows your hair back.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. In-laws. Infuriating.
    By PlasticMotif in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 04-18-2011, 07:09 PM
  2. This is SAD and a little infuriating...
    By Kvonnah in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-26-2004, 08:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.