|
Post by redchimera on Sept 6, 2023 8:59:58 GMT -5
This is more about a cyclist on the pavement, (forcing pedestrians to give way) and not much traffic on the road, rather than when I'm driving down a quiet road and see a lone cyclist and no else around.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Sept 6, 2023 9:36:40 GMT -5
Cyclists on the pavement (sidewalk for those over the pond). Adults, kids, whatever. Bicycles go on the road or a designated cycle path. They barrel down the pavement forcing pedestrians onto the road. Makes me grind my teeth. Cyclists doing “pack rides”. You sir, are not in fact in the Tour De France. And neither are your mates. I fully endorse and support your right to cycle on the road, where there isn’t a dedicated cycle path. And when doing so, you absolutely should be treated as any other vehicle on the road - so not being overtaken unless you can be given good space in doing so. But that goes both ways, my shaven legged knobhead. Single file, if you please. Not a mass of hazards bunched up close together. You know, just like All The Other Traffic. And for my old old home town? Use. The. Fucking. Cycle. Lane. You bitched, pissed and moaned to get it, so don’t fucking ignore it you clueless, selfish twat.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Sept 6, 2023 10:57:55 GMT -5
This. Changing lanes for every merge is way, waaaaay worse for traffic than going the speed limit in one lane, and more dangerous to boot! Besides which, in big cities here, right lanes come and go all the time, so sticking in the slow lane is impractical. It makes sense on a long desert highway with two consistent lanes, but downtown, you’re just adding to congestion and cascading braking moving over and back all the time. I suspect there are some big differences in the way traffic flows on US freeways vs UK motorways that accounts for this. I have a feeling that the expected norm on UK motorways is the "desert highway" situation you describe. Areas that regularly get congested to the point of causing merge issues are pretty much all smart motorways with variable speed limits and lane controls to improve traffic flow. On further consideration, a significant difference is the US pattern of freeways being run right through the middle of cities, even city centres, vs the UK approach of running motorways near cities but rarely through them (exceptions exist like Glasgow). I think that would encourage different traffic use. I can’t imagine how the US could avoid putting freeways through cities. LA, OC, the Bay Area, Phoenix, even Bakersfield, are all far too large to cross by surface streets alone. In my experience, most freeway driving is in the city. The freeways that connect the cities tend to be long, straight, two-lane affairs with a different “set of rules”.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Sept 6, 2023 11:13:22 GMT -5
Context: I have done a fair bit of road cycling, including club runs in a group context. I also drive regularly. Cyclists on the pavement (sidewalk for those over the pond). Adults, kids, whatever. Bicycles go on the road or a designated cycle path. They barrel down the pavement forcing pedestrians onto the road. Makes me grind my teeth. I am of two minds on this- on the one hand, very frustrating as a pedestrian, particularly if the cyclists are not considerate. On the other, cycling on the road is often horribly dangerous, especially for kids, and I'd rather they didn't die. Also many pavements are marked as mixed use these days. I am far less opposed to this- cycling two abreast is far safer as it forces cars to actually overtake when there is nothing coming the other way rather than squeezing through and clipping the handlebars (I have had vehicles, including lorries, pass within a hands-width of my bike, and once got brushed by a wing mirror). In addition, a group cycling two abreast is half the length of a single-file group, so actually can be easier to overtake. It is terrifying when a car starts overtaking a group of single-file cyclists, realises they can't make it all the way, so tries to squeeze in to the middle of the group. Groups should move to single-file on narrow roads (and most do) but on a two-laned road, if you can't overtake a group riding two abreast, you almost certainly shouldn't be overtaking them if they were in single-file. See current highway code rules on overtaking cyclists as if they had the footprint of a car. A very large group would be a problem, but that is rare on roads and they tend to fragment into smaller groups anyway due to the rubber-band effect going around corners (it is very hard to keep up with a large, fast group going around tight corners if you are far from the front). I don't agree- for one, cyclists are not a homogenous group. The people asking for the cycle lanes likely don't overlap that much with the cyclists who prefer not to use cycle lanes (usually competent, fast cyclists). The latter tend to be traveling at a similar speed to cars in urban areas and are usually better off being in the main lane ("vehicular" cycling) rather than in most of what the UK calls cycling infrastructure. Secondly, UK cycle "infrastructure" is mostly shite and arguably more dangerous than not bothering with anything. Painting a line to mark the gutter that cyclists should go in is not infrastructure- given current highway code rules that state a cyclist should be overtaken as if they have the footprint of a car, these bike gutters actually mean that cars come closer when passing. They are also routinely filled by parked cars, bins, even lampposts and signposts where they move onto pavements. In addition, the layout is frequently terrible and fragmented- most regularly spit cyclists back into the main traffic flow without much warning, at which point why bother with the lane? They also typically don't include any engineering solutions to minimise side-swiping when crossing sideroads, so it is safer to be in the middle of the lane (the so-called prime position) where traffic pulling out can see you easier (and you have more time to react). Good cycle infrastructure is great, crap cycle infrastructure is often worse than nothing. See the Netherlands for good infrastructure. I had a look at where I think you used to live on streetview, and the cycle lanes on the main roads I looked at are exactly the kind I mentioned above- painted gutters alongside a busy road, with no protection and frequent vomiting back into traffic. Some shared bus lanes too, which is better. The fundamental problem here is that the majority of roads are for the public in general, not just cars, but the speed and danger of cars dominates roads.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Sept 6, 2023 11:20:25 GMT -5
I suspect there are some big differences in the way traffic flows on US freeways vs UK motorways that accounts for this. I have a feeling that the expected norm on UK motorways is the "desert highway" situation you describe. Areas that regularly get congested to the point of causing merge issues are pretty much all smart motorways with variable speed limits and lane controls to improve traffic flow. On further consideration, a significant difference is the US pattern of freeways being run right through the middle of cities, even city centres, vs the UK approach of running motorways near cities but rarely through them (exceptions exist like Glasgow). I think that would encourage different traffic use. I can’t imagine how the US could avoid putting freeways through cities. LA, OC, the Bay Area, Phoenix, even Bakersfield, are all far too large to cross by surface streets alone. In my experience, most freeway driving is in the city. The freeways that connect the cities tend to be long, straight, two-lane affairs with a different “set of rules”. We do have motorways that go through wider conurbations, like the M6 past Birmingham (notoriously congested as a result), but these seem to have largely been engulfed by growing cities rather than planned to go into them. I think a key difference is city density- LA and Phoenix are notorious for urban sprawl so I can see why freeways feel necessary. The decisions were made largely in the 50's and 60's that lead to the current pattern of freeway construction and low-density urban sprawl. Some places did fight it though, San Francisco nearly had a freeway into the centre but fought it.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Sept 6, 2023 11:30:36 GMT -5
Stolen Valor is a part of the US's weird obsession with service as a "re-alignment" to how we treated soldiers post-Vietnam. 9/11 only exacerbated the obsession.
I see the weaponization of this military glorification on the national level as one of the small steps we have taken towards authoritarianism since the 80's. Military service has largely been lionized by the right, and the left just went along with it because it made no sense to go against it.
Now we are at this weird extreme level of performative soldier worship while we cut their benefits, refuse to fund the VA, and refuse to boost the active soldiers pay with inflation while increasing our overall defense budget?
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Sept 6, 2023 16:37:02 GMT -5
It’s usually some old duffer doing 45mph, with a Lorry right up their slow driving arse, creating a lovely and dangerous rolling roadblock. If you’re not comfortable driving near ish the speed limit? Don’t drive on the motorway. I'd argue that driving 50-60mph is entirely acceptable on the motorway, and shouldn't cause traffic issues on a 3 lane motorway as it is the typical speed range for lorries. If it is starting to clog things up, there is probably too much traffic to safely drive at 70mph anyway.
The biggest hindrance to good traffic flow is tailgating, which is usually linked to speeding. Basically by being too close to the car in front, they need to brake hard to either match their speed or if they are slowing, which then results in a chain reaction of braking which slows everything right down. It's a phenomena called a phantom traffic jam.
Everyone doing a steady speed, and 60 is hardly unreasonable.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Sept 6, 2023 16:42:44 GMT -5
Phantom traffic jams suck arse.
But….it’s not just tailgating. It can be someone changing lanes without accelerating.
British example.
The driver causing it is in the inside lane, behind a lorry. They shift right into the middle lane…..and don’t accelerate. Given lorries are speed limited (57mph, I think?), the vehicle changing lanes can’t be going much more than 60mph.
So by not accelerating? The vehicles now behind them have to either change to then outside lane, or slow down. And depending on how abrupt the first car’s lane change was, maybe both. Because they can’t necessarily just move into the outside lane, on account of other traffic.
Different cause, same affect.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Sept 6, 2023 16:53:41 GMT -5
Cyclists on the pavement (sidewalk for those over the pond). Adults, kids, whatever. Bicycles go on the road or a designated cycle path. They barrel down the pavement forcing pedestrians onto the road. Makes me grind my teeth. Cyclists doing “pack rides”. You sir, are not in fact in the Tour De France. And neither are your mates. I fully endorse and support your right to cycle on the road, where there isn’t a dedicated cycle path. And when doing so, you absolutely should be treated as any other vehicle on the road - so not being overtaken unless you can be given good space in doing so. But that goes both ways, my shaven legged knobhead. Single file, if you please. Not a mass of hazards bunched up close together. You know, just like All The Other Traffic.
It's way easier for you to overtake a group of 6 cycles riding 2 abreast, who are like overtaking a van, than it is a group of 6 cyclists in single file, who are like overtaking a truck with trailer. Or worse, 6 individual cyclists with a couple of car lengths between them, because that's going to result in 6 overtakes.
If you're giving them the appropriate space, then it doesn't matter if there are 2 of them, but at least it's half as long.
As for the cycle paths, they are great of the bicycle users but not so good for the cyclists (as the Dutch differentiate them). I use one to get to work because I feel more comfortable off the road, but it means stopping at pedestrian crossings every block, sharing a narrow bit of tarmac with pedestrians who are invariably not paying any attention, resulting in a fairly slow stop-start ride. If I were more confident and in better shape I could travel significantly faster by using the roads alongside it. Those are also completely separate from the road so relatively clear and safe; I've seen many many cases of cycle lanes that are just the gutter on the road and often filled with parked cars etc.
That's another thing that annoys me - people who abandon cars in awkward places to save them walking a few feet. We have a largely pedestrianized town centre, but the pedestrian sections outside the takeaways and cash machine are usually full of vehicles that have had to go down a "no entry" road or bump across a kerb onto a pedestrian precinct.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Sept 9, 2023 18:23:39 GMT -5
Kinda blurring lines here?
But sad wee blokes on the Internet acting as if GW are their only encounter with capitalism. And that GW are somehow uniquely evil in their pricing and marketing.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Sept 9, 2023 20:10:44 GMT -5
I can complain about my medical debt and GW at the same time. In fact, resentment of one sort of feeds the other.
By the same token, I can’t fathom why anyone would defend that company. What has it done to earn such loyalty?
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Sept 9, 2023 20:48:28 GMT -5
Made some kick ass models and a game I have generally enjoyed for over two decades?
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Sept 11, 2023 8:26:25 GMT -5
Kinda blurring lines here? But sad wee blokes on the Internet acting as if GW are their only encounter with capitalism. And that GW are somehow uniquely evil in their pricing and marketing. GW just seems to be so brazen about the capitalist side of things, every interaction with them seems to very transparently about getting money and don't seem to be trying to do it in a sophisticated way where it just feels like they don't care. Whereas all of the other (admittedly smaller) companies don't have that vibe. They are obviously there to get paid, but it's obviously a hobby first.
The rabid defence of all things GW annoys me, because it's one of these things you can't have a rational discussion about. I love 40K and WHF, the lore, the games etc, but I can still acknowledge that whilst fun, the games are objectively crap. Ditto the books, and so on. It doesn't bother me, because I've got serious games for the times I want serious games, and GW for when I want to push cool models around without worrying too much.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Sept 11, 2023 8:52:14 GMT -5
For me, it’s the Serial Whiners.
God knows there’s plenty not to like about GW, and some of it objective (edition refresh is too rapid for one). But those who seem to have made “I don’t like this company” their personality baffle me. And they’re the ones always pointing out that a for-profit company, legally required to provide maximum revenue for its shareholders and not the people buying it products like its somehow meant to be a shock to….anyone.
It’s like the gimps who drop into any given Star Wars related conversation just to remind everyone they still don’t like The Last Jedi. People either already know, or don’t care. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Sept 11, 2023 10:25:52 GMT -5
Well, back when they used a more personality driven model of advertising, it was easy to think of them as a group of fellow gamers who also ran a business doing what they love. That period ended a long, long time ago and the curtain was torn away and stomped on when they went public.
|
|