4 ms·

> If self-driving vehicles almost never crash, roads will become immensely more safe and inviting to cyclists. Not unless the more aggressive cyclists also sta

> If self-driving vehicles almost never crash, roads will become immensely more safe and inviting to cyclists. Not unless the more aggressive cyclists also start following the rules of the road as they pertain to bicycles. I can't count the times I've seen near accidents caused by cyclists who make abrupt, last-second dashes into oncoming traffic because they feel they have 100% of the right-of-way 100% of the time. And I say that as a bicyclist myself.

Zigurd 11y ago
As a driver who recently had a jackass cyclist cut across opposing traffic across Mass Ave in Central Square in front of me, I'd rather have the self-driving car I'll soon be robot chauffeured in stand on the brakes than hit the cyclist, had he been more of a jackass than he was. People inconvenienced for a few seconds by cyclists need to get over themselves and probably have the wrong attitude to have a driver's license.
- delinka 11y ago
  "Inconvenienced" is not the right word. "Frightened witless" is more apropos. Example: The cyclist cuts in front of me, violating traffic laws, and I hit him and he's injured or killed. Not only does this affect me emotionally, but suddenly I'm in the liability hotseat unless I can prove the cyclist was in the wrong. After all, I'm in a one ton car and he's on a 30lb bike. It is this situation that I'm hoping to avoid, and if a cyclist nearly causes it, I'm pissed. Unless it'd been another car. Then the damage to the other vehicle is pretty obvious and, since we're on city streets, neither driver is injured.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    The impression I get from the media and from cycling advocates is that auto drivers are very rarely ticketed for killing or injuring cyclists. But please, ignore that fact and continue to drive so as not to kill and injure cyclists.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > As a driver who recently had a jackass cyclist cut across opposing traffic across Mass Ave in Central Square in front of me, I'd rather have the self-driving car I'll soon be robot chauffeured in stand on the brakes than hit the cyclist, had he been more of a jackass than he was. I agree, however: > People inconvenienced for a few seconds by cyclists need to get over themselves and probably have the wrong attitude to have a driver's license. How does observing someone else doing something completely out of my control, that almost causes an accident with me, make me have the "wrong attitude" to have a driver's license? That doesn't begin to make sense. You're also contradicting your own point of view between sentences (in your first sentence, the cyclist is the jackass; in your second, the driver who dares to question the cyclist's bad habits is the jackass unworthy of a driver's license).
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Obviously it's better to not have an accident than to have an accident. But there's nothing at all wrong with being angry when some moron on a bicycle does something dangerous and illegal, almost getting himself killed by my car and through no fault of my own.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't care about the inconvenience. I care that I was nearly made a part of someone's death without my consent.

Zigurd 11y ago

As a driver who recently had a jackass cyclist cut across opposing traffic across Mass Ave in Central Square in front of me, I'd rather have the self-driving car I'll soon be robot chauffeured in stand on the brakes than hit the cyclist, had he been more of a jackass than he was. People inconvenienced for a few seconds by cyclists need to get over themselves and probably have the wrong attitude to have a driver's license.

delinka 11y ago
"Inconvenienced" is not the right word. "Frightened witless" is more apropos. Example: The cyclist cuts in front of me, violating traffic laws, and I hit him and he's injured or killed. Not only does this affect me emotionally, but suddenly I'm in the liability hotseat unless I can prove the cyclist was in the wrong. After all, I'm in a one ton car and he's on a 30lb bike. It is this situation that I'm hoping to avoid, and if a cyclist nearly causes it, I'm pissed. Unless it'd been another car. Then the damage to the other vehicle is pretty obvious and, since we're on city streets, neither driver is injured.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  The impression I get from the media and from cycling advocates is that auto drivers are very rarely ticketed for killing or injuring cyclists. But please, ignore that fact and continue to drive so as not to kill and injure cyclists.
morganvachon 11y ago
> As a driver who recently had a jackass cyclist cut across opposing traffic across Mass Ave in Central Square in front of me, I'd rather have the self-driving car I'll soon be robot chauffeured in stand on the brakes than hit the cyclist, had he been more of a jackass than he was. I agree, however: > People inconvenienced for a few seconds by cyclists need to get over themselves and probably have the wrong attitude to have a driver's license. How does observing someone else doing something completely out of my control, that almost causes an accident with me, make me have the "wrong attitude" to have a driver's license? That doesn't begin to make sense. You're also contradicting your own point of view between sentences (in your first sentence, the cyclist is the jackass; in your second, the driver who dares to question the cyclist's bad habits is the jackass unworthy of a driver's license).
monochromatic 11y ago
Obviously it's better to not have an accident than to have an accident. But there's nothing at all wrong with being angry when some moron on a bicycle does something dangerous and illegal, almost getting himself killed by my car and through no fault of my own.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't care about the inconvenience. I care that I was nearly made a part of someone's death without my consent.