The "Dutch Reach" and parallel parking safety!

[Crissa]

IF I put my referee hat on, and look at this as objectively as I can, I think Gus took a step out of bounds and there needs to be a flag on the play.

I’ve driven cars since I was 15-1/2. I’m in my 5th decade of driving. I’ve been on a bicycle and was hit by a car. I’ve ridden thousands of miles on bikes on roads shared with cars. I have never injured, much less killed a cyclist. I don’t believe you have to have an automated system to prevent killing a cyclist. You have to be observant and have awareness. This is why we have child locks on back doors, because little kids don’t have the ability to think about what could happen if they swing the door open. And if you’re honest, the #1 reason for child safety locks is for the safety of the child, not the random cyclist. Statistically, I’m going to bet that oncoming cars are a far greater threat to the kids than are the kids to oncoming cyclists.

Now, would this proposed system improve safety for both kids and cyclists? Probably. Would it improve safety for the average moron who slings his door open without thinking? Yep. Would it be a valuable back up for those moments when we lose our situational awareness for a moment and get distracted? Sure. Does not wanting it to PREVENT you from opening the door mean or imply that you are fine with killing a cyclist? No, that’s not really a logical stretch. Thus the flag on the play. Ineligible conclusion downfield. 5 posts, repeat 2nd down. This isn’t an all or nothing option. There is a middle ground. You could stop the back doors from opening, and require you press the open button twice for the front doors. Or press, get a buzz and then press again, or press and hold. Or whatever. The point it, to go from 0-1,000 so quickly is a bit of too far. Does it seem a bit too defensive or macho to say “I’m not lettin’ no dead-gum VEE-hidkle tell me what I can and can’t do!” Yeah, maybe. Maybe the better response would have been, “I’d rather it not prevent me from getting out, I see some safety implications there, maybe just a warning or buzz is good enough.” But we all don’t always say the perfect thing in our sometimes quick responses and I’m right up there with the worst of them.

I really like me some CyberGus on here. I have agreed and disagreed with him. But I’ve never found him beyond reason. John is from Mass, and as I’m sure he knows, that makes him a masshole. That has nothing to do with this conversation, I just laugh when I get to call my friend that. John didn’t suggest the massacre of everyone on 2 wheels, so I think he is probably an ok guy. After all, he wants a CT just like the rest of us.

Gents, can we agree on this part of it all??? Can we just go back to bagging on Fords and Toyotas???

You may not need such a system. I don't need such a system.

However, in the US, automobiles are killing pedestrians at a rate not seen since the 1980s. The last ten years have wiped out the prior 30 in safety advances.

So make a long diatribe against such a system? I would definitely rethink the consequences of such an act.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

IF I put my referee hat on, and look at this as objectively as I can, I think Gus took a step out of bounds and there needs to be a flag on the play.

After further review, the play stands as called.

P.S. Ford still sucks

 

[Rutrow]

I will not back down from an assault on my character.

Toyota sucks

 

[PilotPete]

However, in the US, automobiles are killing pedestrians at a rate not seen since the 1980s. The last ten years have wiped out the prior 30 in safety advances.

So make a long diatribe against such a system? I would definitely rethink the consequences of such an act.

-Crissa

Crissa, really???

It’s not that I don’t care about pedestrians, but what does that have to do with this? We were talking about cyclists and whether or not desiring the system to keep the door closed equated to wanting to murder cyclists. To top it off, I’ll be the statistics for killing pedestrians by opening your car door is pretty darn low, maybe even non-existent. And classifying my comments as a “diatribe” is using hyperbole to try and support your lack of validity of your comments. And if you read my comments honestly, you’ll see I’m not advocating against such a system, I’m looking at the comments that were made here and whether they went use a little too far. I even made the comment that maybe there were differing ways to implement such a system that would make everyone happy. Flag on the play for your comments as well. That was poor at best. And I wouldn’t ever be so arrogant as to tell you to rethink anything. I don’t know you well enough to do that, nor do you know me. How about we inject a touch of civility and courtesy on this one, huh?

After further review, the play stands as called.

P.S. Ford still sucks

Gus,

Sorry, but a player involved in the play doesn’t get to make the review. That’s true of every sport, except golf. They get to call errors on themselves. And if you want the play to “stand as called”, I threw a flag, so you’re advocating that the flag stands??? Again, I’m not saying the idea is wrong or bad, I kinda like it. I’m just saying that just because someone doesn’t want the door to be locked against their wishes, doesn’t equate to WANTING to kill cyclists. THAT part was a stretch. Sometimes in order to do a little good, you have to compromise. And if there is an implementation that more people will accept and it still works toward improving safety, then maybe we can be a little more open to making some changes to an idea that didn’t even exist on this board 48 hours ago?

And I don’t like Ford either.

 

[Crissa]

Because cyclists are usually counted in pedestrian deaths.

The point being, it doesn't matter your ability, it matters everyone's ability.

Because the group of 'everyone' is not safer.

So you're the one using hyperbole, not me.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Get rid of sideways opening doors. Much safer.
Actually just delete cars and bikes, and curb side parking.

Also get rid of alcohol, druggoes and any other addict problems, and see what that does to traffic statistics. Let alone a countries health budget.

Best part is not taking part in idiocracy.

 

[rudedawg78]

Get rid of sideways opening doors. Much safer.
Actually just delete cars and bikes, and curb side parking.

Also get rid of alcohol, druggoes and any other addict problems, and see what that does to traffic statistics. Let alone a countries health budget.

Best part is not taking part in idiocracy.

And get rid of cell phones! I've been almost hit by so many drivers paying more attention to their phones than the road.

 

[Rutrow]

Also get rid of alcohol

“Now you’ve stopped preaching and started meddling.”

 

[Rutrow]

“Now you’ve stopped preaching and started meddling.”

For those who don't get the cultural reference:

The frontier preacher was giving the traditional sermon on sin. "We should take all the whiskey and dump it in the river!" Back in the back of the church, a little old lady with a bonnet on stood up and shouted, "Amen, Amen!" and sat back down. The preacher smiled and continued, "And we should take all the sinful lust and dump it in the river!" The little old lady jumped up and shouted, "Amen, Amen, Amen!” then sat back down. The preacher excitedly hollered, "And we should take all of the snuff in this world and dump it in the river!" And the little old lady stood up and said, "Now you've stopped preaching and started meddling’!"

 

[CyberGus]

Crissa, really???

It’s not that I don’t care about pedestrians, but what does that have to do with this? We were talking about cyclists and whether or not desiring the system to keep the door closed equated to wanting to murder cyclists. To top it off, I’ll be the statistics for killing pedestrians by opening your car door is pretty darn low, maybe even non-existent. And classifying my comments as a “diatribe” is using hyperbole to try and support your lack of validity of your comments. And if you read my comments honestly, you’ll see I’m not advocating against such a system, I’m looking at the comments that were made here and whether they went use a little too far. I even made the comment that maybe there were differing ways to implement such a system that would make everyone happy. Flag on the play for your comments as well. That was poor at best. And I wouldn’t ever be so arrogant as to tell you to rethink anything. I don’t know you well enough to do that, nor do you know me. How about we inject a touch of civility and courtesy on this one, huh?



Gus,

Sorry, but a player involved in the play doesn’t get to make the review. That’s true of every sport, except golf. They get to call errors on themselves. And if you want the play to “stand as called”, I threw a flag, so you’re advocating that the flag stands??? Again, I’m not saying the idea is wrong or bad, I kinda like it. I’m just saying that just because someone doesn’t want the door to be locked against their wishes, doesn’t equate to WANTING to kill cyclists. THAT part was a stretch. Sometimes in order to do a little good, you have to compromise. And if there is an implementation that more people will accept and it still works toward improving safety, then maybe we can be a little more open to making some changes to an idea that didn’t even exist on this board 48 hours ago?

And I don’t like Ford either.

You’re not wrong that I was being hyperbolic, but I did this intentionally to make a point.

If one chooses to skip their seatbelt because “freedom!!!!” then that’s their risk to take. But if you eschew ADAS safety features, you’re passing the risk to everyone around you.

The odds of you killing someone with your door is admittedly negligible, but a small risk multiplied by millions of cars means more incidents, more injuries, and yeah sometimes deaths.

The AI revolution is coming, and can reduce risk by overriding human control. My point was that the price of “feeling in control” is increased risk for others around you.

 

[sstevens805]

Get rid of sideways opening doors. Much safer.
Actually just delete cars and bikes, and curb side parking.

Also get rid of alcohol, druggoes and any other addict problems, and see what that does to traffic statistics. Let alone a countries health budget.

Best part is not taking part in idiocracy.

Minivan doors for everyone! I've always thought they were more logical anyway.

 

[PilotPete]

You’re not wrong that I was being hyperbolic, but I did this intentionally to make a point.

If one chooses to skip their seatbelt because “freedom!!!!” then that’s their risk to take. But if you eschew ADAS safety features, you’re passing the risk to everyone around you.

The odds of you killing someone with your door is admittedly negligible, but a small risk multiplied by millions of cars means more incidents, more injuries, and yeah sometimes deaths.

The AI revolution is coming, and can reduce risk by overriding human control. My point was that the price of “feeling in control” is increased risk for others around you.

Well said Sir. I can’t disagree with you on anything there.

 

[CyberGus]

Well said Sir. I can’t disagree with you on anything there.

Maybe I should lead with that next time 🫢

 

[PilotPete]

Maybe I should lead with that next time 🫢

Like I said, I do like me some CyberGus on here!

 

[Crissa]

Also get rid of alcohol, druggoes and any other addict problems, and see what that does to traffic statistics. Let alone a countries health budget.

Well, it's not drunk driving in the US.

https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/2022/

(Can't say the same for Australia, tho)
https://www.mynrma.com.au/community/initiatives/rbt-every-driver

-Crissa

Sponsored