I never wanted submission, only to be able to ride my bike, legally, and according to the rules of the road without fear of becoming hamburger because someone couldn't be bothered to see what is right in front of them.
And a car horn would not work to make them see when needed, only after I am already in trouble ( or do I blow it continually? )
It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess.
I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me.
I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible.
The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't.
( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )
Some ( many? ) treat the responsibility seriously and are looking for "things I can hurt/damage" and "things that can hurt/damage me".
Others have a different take on things ( at least as experienced by me ), and are only looking at "things that can hurt/damage me"
I find it illuminating that for you, conflictual debate leads quickly to questions of mental stability.
No, its not conflictual debate, its illogic. Repeated insistence on illogic. That makes me wonder what the cause is. Its interesting that you focused on mental stability when that wasn't really my best guess.
I was thinking love of hierarchy was probably your real issue, you aren't the first person to be so insistently illogical. My working theory is that hierarchy is a replacement for empathy. That hierarchy is a heuristic for understanding the circumstances of each person - so long as they are in their place then their experience in life is defined by their position in the hierarchy.
It's only when people don't fit into the hierarchy that you have to engage other parts of your brain to understand their perspective. Having used hierarchy as a crutch for so long the part of your brain that processes empathy is underdeveloped. So you end up having a very hard time figuring out if their actions are appropriate or not. The default state, for most humans, seems to be that if you can't understand it, then it is bad. That's a very primal reaction which would explain your illogic.
Maybe that also explains your excessive focus on typos and your inability to realize that the reference to a rorschach test was not literal. Understanding a metaphor requires a certain level of abstract thinking, which hierarchy does not encourage either. I bet you have problems with metaphors quite frequently, am I right?
If you are asking if there is a law preventing it, no there is no law preventing it.
If you are asking if it is practical, the answer is no it is not practical.
Yes, F=MA, to be sure.
So, no one should ride a bike, ever?
I had a similar thing ( car turning across bike lane ) happen to me. Old dude in a huge convertible, top down.
Took me right into the curb and laid me down, just barely passed me, then turned.
I'm lying on the ground, he drove off.
Didn't get hurt, I started braking and turned into the curb ( which stopped me cold and put a big gash in my RH crank arm ) while it was happening.
So, yeah, I would avoid night riding, were I actively cycling, and be similarly reserved.
( and for what it is worth, I don't get belligerent while riding, I do realize you are right about "i had the right of way" wont help when dead or maimed or
I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...
So, yeah, there will be car/bike accidents where the car driver did everything right. But I have had too many almosts with boneheads to think that is anything like a small percentage. And there will be ones where the cyclist was a bonehead and did it to themselves. And I see too many idiot cyclists to believe that that is a small percentage.
Definitely, protect yourself cyclists, and idiots, stop being idiots!
Car drivers, keep your eyes and minds on your responsibilities.
That is pretty sad. And quite true.
How does anyone operate a machine capable of creating so much death and destruction without having a fair idea of it's parameters?
But yeah, I do expect them to follow that guideline. I think in most places, the law would hold them to it also.
My personal opinion is that most people should not be driving. My oldest daughter just started driving, and I hope and believe I have impressed an appreciation that driving is much more than just pointing the car in a given direction....
You made it sound like there was a big gap between their car's ability to stop and the distance out they can see.
If that is the case, then, yeah, I expect them to drive at speeds consonant with safety, and to ignore ( within the bounds of safety ) what other cars are doing ( and those other cars should be driving in a manner consonant with safety ). If they cant see out far enough so they can brake if something comes in view, that seems like a problem to me.
You cant really be arguing that it would be OK to drive at such a speed and in such conditions that a surprise like bad road, a box in the middle of the road, or an unexpected cyclist would result in a high probability of trouble/collision.
Yikes. There is a lot of hostility out there, it seems.
Invisible is not the right word. Harder to see? Sure.
Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.
And if someone is driving fast enough that they cant stop when something comes within range of the headlights and it truly is that dark out, then I would argue that they were driving unsafely, period.
Yeah, that would suck.
The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay