3 ms·
I'm not a cyclist, but I'm a huge fan of having these on bikes. They've become more popular in my area and because of that you notice the bicycles earlier so yo
by mveety 8y ago
I'm not a cyclist, but I'm a huge fan of having these on bikes. They've become more popular in my area and because of that you notice the bicycles earlier so you have a much smaller chance of accidentally hitting them because you don't see them. After I started seeing these, I've become quite baffled why more cyclists don't use them.
Also I wish that road vehicles had radios so drivers and riders could communicate intention like we do when flying. All you have for communication in a car is turn signals, high beams, and a horn, and many drivers take severe umbrage if you use them because they willfully or accidentally misunderstand what you're trying to say.
- godelski 8y ago> Also I wish that road vehicles had radios so drivers and riders could communicate intention like we do when flying NO! Dear god no! Most people suck at communicating and could you imagine to road rage? Even though as a pilot you aren't supposed to chit chat on the radio I'm positive you've heard it. Also you couldn't realistically set up something like ATC so you could have flight following. Not only would tracking that many vehicles be extremely difficult, but setting up all the transponders and receivers would be near impossible. You may notice you have a hard time talking to ATC below 1kft AGL. Plus everyone is in such close proximity at all times what are they going to do? "November 1234 Whisky, you have a Chevy incoming from your 6 oh clock passing on the left. Stay course." Or (in general channel) "Traffic at 6th and main, there is a cyclist approaching from the East on 6th, please use caution" and everyone that isn't at 6th and main tunes out, learning to tune things out. Flight works because even at a busy airport the communication is still relatively small.
- bacon_waffle 8y ago> I'm not a cyclist, but I'm a huge fan of having these on bikes. They've become more popular in my area and because of that you notice the bicycles earlier so you have a much smaller chance of accidentally hitting them because you don't see them. After I started seeing these, I've become quite baffled why more cyclists don't use them. I find the sentiment in your first paragraph to be baffling, though common. The problem isn't that horns (or high viz, helmets, or flashing lights) are a bad idea, or that you're wishing that more people would use them - I agree that more should use them. My issue is that the sentiment displaces responsibility on to the cyclist, from the person operating the dangerous machine. It's up to the cyclist to decide what gear works for them, and the burden of responsibility is firmly on the driver to not hit other people using the road. It seems like every couple weeks, our local paper runs an article on another driver running in to a cyclist, and it nearly always frames the event as "cyclist hit by car" (notice we're already biased - "other-class-of-person hit by machine"), then proceeds to answer the "was the cyclist wearing high viz?". This creates a situation where it's more acceptable to drive carelessly, so long as the victim isn't following your locale's particular safety checklist. Remember that there are a bunch of reasons people bike, and a lot of them are counter to some of these recommended safety products; people don't want to mess up their hair for work, have to wear a dark school uniform, can't afford lights, haven't considered any of this stuff, don't have a safe cycle lane to use...