Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

Dang RIP Magnus. That’s fucked.

Random thoughts on the general topic.
I have been unnecessarily using a 3/4T truck as my daily driver for the last 2 years and I’m sick of it. Don’t have the money right now for a crappy used car (or haven’t been able to justify liquidating long term investments) but I’m also terrified of how easy it is for me to kill someone when distracted.

Also, I’ve had as many close calls and coal rolls as other roadies, but the one time I was actually hit and flipped by a car I was taking the full lane, in a bright yellow jersey, on a clear day, on a slow speed street just a few blocks south of UC Berkeley campus where one can expect bicycles on the regular. The time that my friend was hit and killed she was stopped at a fucking red light! A bright jersey and where you are in a lane, or relative to direction of travel, or in a pack or whatever, is no protection for a 4 to 8000 pound hunk of steel moving more than 5 mph. I think JM2E’s analogy is the best one I’ve heard, if you are riding on anything that shares lanes with vehicles you are backcountry skiing on a low probability persistent slab that might just get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canada1

I bet it will be a cell phone distraction.

---

The driver was a 24 year old female, odds are high.

It's f'd how many people are driving while looking down. I see it often while driving, I notice it even more when riding. This is precisely why I only mtb'd when I lived on the front range, was never a roadie down there. I'm mostly gravel roads now but I do have to use busy stretches and lots of narrow 2-lane roads to get around. There are some stretches I intentionally avoid no matter the cost, unless in a group, but most of the time, I ride solo. I use a daytime light & my varia but I noticed even more people give me more space with the addition of a blaze yellow reflective patch on the back of my saddle bag. I think at a certain distance it is more visible than just a red light, especially in blazing sun. It doesn't look 'core' but I don't give a shit.

But you can't stop the texters no matter what, they are looking down, not up. We need stiffer monetary penalties and jail time for texting and driving. No worse than DUI in my mind. And drivers ed teachers need to be teaching new drivers how to properly pass a cyclist, especially on a 2-lane road when there is opposing traffic. And I also feel like the State of Colorado should add a few questions on their written test for a license on how to safely pass cyclists.

As a driver, I also get frustrated with drivers in the opposing lane, when they have a cyclist on their side, they feel it's their right to swerve into my lane as if I can safely swerve to the right, which isn't always the case. That's not how it goes. Slow down and wait your turn for my car to pass, then you can swerve over the line to pass the cyclist. I see this most with red plates and out-of-state plates headed up or back from the hot springs, but also with the local yokels, though they usually just buzz the cyclist anyway. And it's really scary when they attempt this on a hill, whether in a car or on a bike, which is why to take the lane on a bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxtar

I get all these concerns. And I don't disagree with a lot of them. But there's one overlaying factor that, at least to me, trumps all arguments.
What will get me the best chance of getting through the next two miles of road home alive?
I'll do all I can to be unobtrusive; stay far off on the shoulder, ever farther when cars come, but I WILL NOT turn my back on approaching vehicles.
I refuse to put my life in the hands of angry rednecks, drunks, texting teens, self medicating idiots, lipstick applying soccer moms, or anyone else driving down this section of 2-lane.

There is simply too much history of people who did so, and didn't live to regret it.

---

This is the bottom line for me:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...51#post6901351

This stuff is why dirt roads (logging/fire) are best for drops and skinnies. Folks have been doing it around here for decades and is a nice way to mix it up and can be somewhat exploratory if you have enough of it. Industry calls it gravel now, marketing, hype, sales etc.

Years ago, I was driving down the highway when I passed a vehicle with a car seated child in the back seat and a (I assume) mother, deeply engaged in a text.
I slowed down to stay right next to her. She never noticed. I sped up aggressively and then hit the brakes aggressively. Repeatedly. She never even glanced my way. Never noticed I was even next to her.
A wide open highway in the country?
Nope.
This was on I94 in Chicago.

I94 IN F'N CHICAGO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

This is the bottom line for me:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...51#post6901351

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

behave predictably and act like vehicles .

---

But we're not vehicles. We're not surrounded by 5000lbs of protection. Vehicle hit vehicles 1000s of times a day and they're just fender benders. These fender benders kill people when they happen to cyclists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

People who ride fast on sidewalks, against traffic, meander over center medians, and any other litany of DUI bike behavior really hack me off because they’re adding fuel to the problem.

---

I feel you're talking about the wrong problem. If a driver can't even stay off the shoulder how will a bike lane help?
The problem is drivers who are inattentive for any number of reasons. That's a problem that can't be fixed. It will continue to happen until the day of self driving vehicles.
As a cyclist, you have one simple choice; to trust them or to protect yourself.
This discussion started about a young kid who obeyed all the rules and ended up dead because of it.

If you want to ride against traffic on a 2-lane rural road, sure, go ahead. But city/urban riding? Fuck. That.

The answer is clearly Sur Ron / Talaria at full throttle on multi use paths on the left side of the pavement.





RIP Magnus.

I get the response of wanting to be safe. I also agree that cars are the main problem. I think a good future of cyclists is most likely with good adherence to traffic laws.

There was a lady near me that rode her electric tricycle against traffic in bike lanes on moderately busy roads. She wouldn’t yield to oncoming bikes and was terrifying to encounter. The smart move was to either leave the bike lane and fully enter the lane but roads were often busy enough that you’d need to take take your next turn when you see her coming a few blocks away.

I get that’s not what you’re doing… but when you say ‘ride against traffic’ that’s what’s going to happen as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxtar

But we're not vehicles. We're not surrounded by 5000lbs of protection. Vehicle hit vehicles 1000s of times a day and they're just fender benders. These fender benders kill people when they happen to cyclists

I feel you're talking about the wrong problem. If a driver can't even stay off the shoulder how will a bike lane help?
The problem is drivers who are inattentive for any number of reasons. That's a problem that can't be fixed. It will continue to happen until the day of self driving vehicles.
As a cyclist, you have one simple choice; to trust them or to protect yourself.
This discussion started about a young kid who obeyed all the rules and ended up dead because of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

The answer is clearly Sur Ron / Talaria at full throttle on multi use paths on the left side of the pavement.





.

---

I had that exact thing happen on the pathway north of town, actually in the National Park. Sur-Ron going at least 40, he couldn’t quite stay on his side on the curve we were on. Fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

I had that exact thing happen on the pathway north of town, actually in the National Park. Sur-Ron going at least 40, he couldn’t quite stay on his side on the curve we were on. Fucked up.

---

Stick in spokes. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jax

The driver was a 24 year old female, odds are high.

It's f'd how many people are driving while looking down. I see it often while driving, I notice it even more when riding.

But you can't stop the texters no matter what, they are looking down, not up. We need stiffer monetary penalties and jail time for texting and driving. No worse than DUI in my mind. And drivers ed teachers need to be teaching new drivers how to properly pass a cyclist, especially on a 2-lane road when there is opposing traffic. And I also feel like the State of Colorado should add a few questions on their written test for a license on how to safely pass cyclists.

---

I have never understood why there haven't been larger-scale ticketing campaigns for people texting and driving. Or instagramming and driving, or whatever--it actually isn't texting a lot of the time these days, people just can't handle 30 seconds of idle time without feeling an urge to look at their phones. The second they hit a stop, traffic slows, or they see a straight open road ahead, their attention drifts to their device...goes double if they feel some notification buzzes and start to feel anxiety.

When I used to commute by motorcycle in a big city, I saw the change happen over the 2010s...From my riding position I could easily see down into every driver's lap and by 2017 when I sold the bike, it was terrifying how many people were happily staring down not just at texts or "urgent" emails, but just scrolling through facebook or instagram instead of watching the damn road.

How hard would it be for a motorcycle cop to go out there and just nab people non-stop? Give them a helmet cam with a polarized lens...irrefutable evidence that the driver was on their phone (and that they weren't doing a "permitted" activity in the states that still allow that bullshit).

Or grab an unmarked SUV or mini-bus and put someone with a camera in the back to check cars on either side. They can phone-ahead to waiting patrol cars the same way some speed traps are set up.

For places without multiple lanes of travel, you could probably also do some static sting ops near intersections...you'd think drivers would notice something suspicious and be on their best behavior, but the ones who don't even notice they are being watched are exactly the people who should be pulled over.

Yeah, that won't catch everyone, but you do it often enough and soon everyone will know a guy who got a ticket and start to second guess whether they should do it. Especially if you start to treat multiple offenders like DUIs (which I think we should--distracted driving is incredibly dangerous).

And for all the police departments complaining about lack of revenue...this is easy money. Fines in some states are higher than speeding tickets and with camera-evidence it is a quick and easy, irrefutable ticket.

Unfortunately here in Montana that's a pipe dream outside the handful of towns that have banned handheld devices...texting and driving isn't even illegal here because state republicans think your freedom to text is more important than my freedom to stay alive (doesn't have to have anything to do with cycling--a distracted driver can kill me just fine when I'm driving or walking).
Attachment 466367
I think this is a place where the feds/NHTSA need to flex their interstate highway funding muscle and make total "no handled devices while driving" a national rule rather than a patchwork of random rules.

Cops want to wear body armor and eat donuts not give tickets for bad driving habits.

The real enforcement will come when car companies make cars undrivable until you put your phone in a special case you can't access while driving.

Every contractor and social media addict will lose their fucking minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

Cops want to wear body armor and eat donuts not give tickets for bad driving habits.

The real enforcement will come when car companies make cars undrivable until you put your phone in a special case you can't access while driving.

Every contractor and social media addict will lose their fucking minds.

---

How does the car know I'm not a passenger?

Enforcement is the solution. But there won't be any real enforcement until there's a collective agreement that it's a problem that needs addressing. Montana barely even enforces DUI laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Sugar in the fuel tank. :mad:

---

No, gasoline in the diesel tank.

Here in the heart of Methregon, I heard a researcher talk about the various reasons why pedestrian accidents by cars, especially fatal ones, are way up, nationally and here. A lot of the usual stuff came up, bigger vehicles, more aggressive vehicle behaviors, distracted drivers and distracted pedestrians, poor roadway design and safe pedestrian infrastructure, poor lighting, etc. But the researcher said something like in 2021 the majority of drivers involved in fatal pedestrian impacts tested positive for drugs and alcohol. So that’s probably the starting point with vehicle-cyclist impacts too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdrhound

No, gasoline in the diesel tank.

---

Sounds messy.

Although TIL that sugar doesn't dissolve in diesel, so my suggestion would do nothing.

ETA: apparently it doesn't dissolve in gas either, so apparently it's (mostly) harmless when introduced in fuel tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Sounds messy.

Although TIL that sugar doesn't dissolve in diesel, so my suggestion would do nothing.

---

I think water will fuck a diesel system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

How does the car know I'm not a passenger?

Enforcement is the solution. But there won't be any real enforcement until there's a collective agreement that it's a problem that needs addressing. Montana barely even enforces DUI laws.

---

The phone accesses the camera to look at the surroundings. AI makes the choice to shut the driving access down. Apply the same technology to guns.

Fuck your freedom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

The phone accesses the camera to look at the surroundings. AI makes the choice to shut the driving access down. Apply the same technology to guns.

Fuck your freedom

---

I think Elon will have the self driving car situation figured out before anyone agrees to let Siri have control over an interlock device. I would assume that Elon is also working on AI powered self driving guns too.

But in 20 years when self driving cars are more ubiquitous, a lot of this conversation will be moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

How does the car know I'm not a passenger?

Enforcement is the solution. But there won't be any real enforcement until there's a collective agreement that it's a problem that needs addressing. Montana barely even enforces DUI laws.

---

Any chance of the insurance industry forcing the state's hand?

As it is, my car insurance doubled when I moved here and a local plumbing business's insurance paid out a solid $13-14k in body shop and rental fees after their self-admitted-distracted driver hit my wife's stopped car in a low speed rear-ending.

When does it become "not having sane laws is severely hurting everyone in the pocketbook" as insurance providers pull out and rates skyrocket just like they are in fire-prone areas of CA?


As for how does the car know if you are a passenger...I've often wondered if phones could be made to detect whether you appear to be in a moving vehicle and then pop up a little nag screen. Little nag screen says "I'm not driving, please let me use my phone" and makes it clear that the time/date/duration will be logged. If you're in an accident, police/opposing insurance immediately pull that data. If it turns out you WERE driving, and disabled the nag screen, you are immediately ticketed and likely found at fault for the accident. If the "driving detection" fails and you don't get the nag screen...well I guess you get off free, but how many people want to take that risk?

Won't work in Montana, but might be viable everywhere else (although I'm sure I am missing a bunch of flaws). You could still say it was a passenger using the phone, but I'd wager most distracted driving crashes are single-occupant.

Many autonomous features now detect when you have some distractions. Blue cruise, etc let you know you have to have control still... That plus radar tech in bumpers, etc will hopefully start making a difference in outcomes in crash frequencies.

There will need to be a totally different shift to think about re: outcomes if/when collisions happen.

Edit to not be such a dumb ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grskier

start making a dent in this stuff.

---

Phrasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Phrasing.

---

My bad.

My phone connected to idrive automatically goes into 'no text/no use mode' as soon as I get in the car. I can bypass it, but I don't, made a pledge years ago to not text and drive. It's hard enough for me to even carry a conversation over bluetooth, tbh. I hate it, still takes away my attention from the road. So I no longer take calls at all while driving. If it's that important, I pull over where possible.

re sugar or water in tank, it was my first thought, but his driveway is long, I would likely get shot trespassing. Shoulda kept that dead bird from my yard a few days ago, that would smell real nice in his sweltering mailbox.