[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: oio4.webm (2.08 MB, 640x628)
2.08 MB
2.08 MB WEBM
>muh ride on road
>muh kick scooter belong to roads
Do people even think about consequences of this?
Unlike motorcycles, bicyclists and scooter riders don't need a license, so people aren't supposed to know how to drive this thing, thus a riders should LEGALLY have an option to use sidewalk, if his/her driving skill is insufficient.
This is hazard for everyone.

Sure, in this webm fat cunt definitely has no clue how to use the fucking scooter, but legally they are considered bicycles, and (((politicians))) are pushing them road (and they weren't designed for this, considering 20 km/h max speed).
>>
It's safe to make roads considerably lower speed and more chaotic. It means drivers have to constantly pay attention and can't just zone out in autopilot mode. That's the biggest danger for cyclists 'oh i just didn't see you', yeah, cos you weren't looking out. If the road is full of crazy fat bitches on scooters zig zaging every where, then that won't even be an option.
It's like the (successful) tests done in some small towns where they remove all road markings and signage.

It just makes driving way less efficient, further disincentivising it, which is good too.
>>
I meant this
>If you ride good, you can use road and drive by traffic code
>If you dont't ride good, you can use sidewalk, yet behave like pedestrian, when it comes to crossings, in other words, get off the bike on crosswalk, or travel @ 5 km/h, so you don't surprise any drivers.
>>
Given that she was turning to steer instead of leaning to steer, I doubt she even knows how to ride a bicycle.
>>
>>1284533
>It's safe to make roads considerably lower speed and more chaotic. It means drivers have to constantly pay attention and can't just zone out in autopilot mode.
Keeping roads self-explanatory and organised is a key to safety.
>biggest danger for cyclists 'oh i just didn't see you', yeah, cos you weren't looking out.
Chaos causes distraction, unironically.
>If the road is full of crazy fat bitches on scooters zig zaging every where, then that won't even be an option.
This is why it is a good idea to keep them on sidewalk.
>It's like the (successful) tests done in some small towns where they remove all road markings and signage.
This will only work in small towns, and they have pretty self-explanatory roads there, no complicated intersections etc.
>It just makes driving way less efficient, further disincentivising it, which is good too.
Actually, this speeds up traffic. And in my area it reduced red-light accidents, since there is no more traffic light in that place
>>
>>1284535
Sure.
Either we make loisence to drive bicycles (which is not cool), or change legislation, so fat fags like her, can actually legally learn how to drive two-wheeled stuff on sidewalk, without causing accidents.
>>
Still, I don't understand how this happened. I'd fall like that only if it is super slippery and I didn't notice that.
>>
>>1284539
On a 2 wheeled vehicle when you turn the bars one way, you are tossed in the opposite direction. For anything more than a slow creep you have to lean to turn instead of turning the bars. Its second nature to anyone who knows how to ride a bike.
>>
>>1284537
Not for cyclists. When a driver hits a cyclist it's because they were zoned out, not paying enough attention, not even looking for other road users and just didn't see them.
>>
File: shelleyduvall.jpg (41 KB, 634x367)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
I highly doubt she was sober
>>
>>1284540
>On a 2 wheeled vehicle when you turn the bars one way, you are tossed in the opposite direction.
Makes sense.
>Its second nature to anyone who knows how to ride a bike.
Indeed. This is why I'm slightly confused. I usually don't turn bars much, but lean, unless it is sharp turn. I don't even think about this, it happens automatically
Now I understand why some people ride bicycle straight, while others have shaky steering bars.
>>
>>1284541
>When a driver hits a cyclist it's because they were zoned out, not paying enough attention, not even looking for other road users and just didn't see them.
Those zombie drivers would hit other car just as well. Nothing would help those people, besides license suspension.
In my area, all accidents with cyclists were caused either due to cyclist not giving a fuck about driving rules.
Also, in my opinion, cyclists should always yield... But I guess my opinion is discarded
>>
>>1284545
>Those zombie drivers would hit other car just as well.
Not really. Only if something unpredictable happens. Cyclists being on the road at all are unpredictable to them. You can basically just watch the car in front of you and keep speed and be fine in a car.
And 'zombie drivers' aren't some strange outlier, it's probably the majority of cars on the road aren't paying enough attention, aren't scanning, don't use their mirrors enough, and expect simply by following the rules they'll be safe. Which is generally true for drivers. But cyclists don't have that luxury. You have to cycle cautiously and defensively and constantly be aware for people not seeing you on a bicycle, to be safe. You basically have to pretend you're invisible, and not trust anyone else to see you or follow the rules in regard to you.

I think it would be good for everyone if the same was atleast somewhat true for drivers.

>Nothing would help those people, besides license suspension
I'm suggesting that having lots and lots of unpredictable unsafe other road users would force those people to pay attention.

Don't misinterpret what i'm saying as the whole story, or something you can refute with your perspective. What we're saying isn't mutually exclusive and what i'm saying is by no means my entire position on this.
>>
>>1284545
>In my area, all accidents with cyclists were caused either due to cyclist not giving a fuck about driving rules.
How do you know that?

I've actually been hit by a car twice, i've seen a cyclist hit by a car right in front of me, and i've nearly been hit by a car.
Every single time the driver was clearly at fault, admitted they were at fault, and said they just didn't see me/him and weren't paying enough attention.
>>
>>1284543
>Makes sense.
How? I mean, it's true, but it seems counterintuitive to me.
>>
>>1284549
Body wants to stay in place, while bicycle (or scooter) turns.
>>
>>1284546
Unpredictable causes distraction. Distraction causes accidents.
Car drivers won't give a fuck about cyclists at all.
>>
>>1284594
>Unpredictable causes distraction. Distraction causes accidents.
Yes, that's true.
But unpredictable being common also forces people to be more alert to deal with unpredictable and leave a larger margin of error.
>Car drivers won't give a fuck about cyclists at all.
What do you mean?

You don't have to agree that it's on the whole good, but do you really not think what i'm saying makes sense at all?
>>
>>1284530
It's just another stupid fad that soon enough there will be legislation against and that'll be the end of it, these ridiculous scooters will then be scrapped.
>>
File: counter steering.jpg (252 KB, 1093x1074)
252 KB
252 KB JPG
>>1284540
>you have to lean to turn instead of turning the bars
ask me how I know you're an unskilled rider
>>
File: thatcher-reagan.jpg (306 KB, 2048x1365)
306 KB
306 KB JPG
>>1284530
if you use this crap and don't know how to drive it you deserve to be run over by cage
>>
>>1284606
>What do you mean?
They won't notice them at all.
They won't notice pedestrians.
Since they're busy understanding sights and looking on traffic light.
>>
>>1284675
what we're saying isn't mutually exclusive
do you understand what i'm saying?
>>
>>1284851
I thought you wanted to remove signs and stuff, but you confused me.
>>
>>1284865
no that was just an example to illustrate my point that having more dodgy people on 2 wheels (or chaos in general) on the road makes drivers pay more attention and so makes it safer, in one way, for responsible cyclists.
>>
>>1284872
Okay, now everything makes sense.
But especially bad riders will be beaten up by some polish scum for riding slow.
This is why sidewalks should be allowed, yet not recommended.
>>
>>1284530
Licence doesn't prove your skills, tho.
Also, kick scooterists are legally pedestrians here.
>>
>>1284934
>sidewalks should be allowed, yet not recommended.
im with you
>>
>>1284530

You need a license to ride bird
>>
>>1286084
Depends on country.
They have 25 km/h cut-off, and 250W motors, so they don't require license in many countries.
>>1285057
In order to get licence you have to pass a driving test, which tests your basic driving skill.
>>
>>1284545
>But I guess my opinion is discarded
No shit. People who used to carpet bathrooms were ignored as well
>>
>>1286108
>carpet bathrooms
Are you joking?
>>
>>1286112
My grandparents had one, yes. All the rage when they remodeled in the 70s.
>>
>>1286125
How stinky and moldy it was?
>>
>>1286112
>>1286137
>you will never know the pleasure of toasty feet and carpet between your toes while sitting on the loo
>>
>>1286144
Any bathmat set includes one for in front of the shitter.
>>
>>1284530
Good thing nobody was watching. That would have been embarrassing.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.