kevindsingleton 

lol.


I'll grant that your memory may be a bit fuzzy. There were no actual cyclists in the subject article, nor a reference to a related video. Perhaps you read a completely different article?

I don't know the YT posts to which you refer, so it's not helpful to even bring them into the discussion, unless you're going to provide relevant links. My position is that the article does not contain a reference to a situation in which blame could be ascribed for the death of a cyclist.

You said, "I suspect that sometimes cyclists die due to accidents that could be avoided if cars didn't pass cyclists that closely." Now, you're suggesting that speed and physical size are more important than proximity? I guess I still don't understand what you meant by "that closely". If it's all relative, then, "that closely" doesn't really have any meaning, does it?

The point was, there was no cyclist, and no "close pass", in the article, thus there was no possible way to ascribe any blame. Perhaps you've ignored the context of my original post, and that's what's upsetting you?

You can manufacture a scenario, and then try to ascribe liability, based on your fantasy, but that doesn't change the fact that the subject of the thread: the article, does not contain a scenario from which we can extrapolate culpability. As much fun as it may be to go tripping down the yellow brick road, it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't care. It's not relevant. "Clipped by the mirror" is not a "close pass". And, since you've determined that "that closely" is an arbitrary standard, there is no scenario you can present that can produce a consistent outcome. I can simply say that the pass wasn't "that closely", and we can argue 'round and 'round, 'til the court locks both of us up for wasting its time.

salcedo

Lol this is getting too long and childish.

I still think your initial post was completely misguided, and your defensive response to it was simply ridiculous. I think the problem originated because you miss-understood them meaning of the phrase "in this case" in the context of the original question which was "So who would be liable to death of a cyclists in this case? BMW the company or owner of the BMW?"

But I guess I'm being childish too. At some point we need to stop this and move on with our lives.

someones wrong on the internet

Chris0516

What about both? BMW for inaccurate technology, and the car owner for improper reliance on the technology.
(I did edit your comment for my answer)

Ninety5rpm

Not sure about BMW, but Tesla makes it abundantly clear that it accepts no responsibility when the driver chooses to engage their Level 2 Autopilot. Doesn't make it immune from being sued, of course, but they have pretty good protection, I think.

Chris0516

I agree.

Road Fan

On this point, there is a trade-off to requiring passes of cyclists to be wide, isn't there? If the passing car goes across the double-yellow line, it encroaches on the traffic going in the opposing direction. Ok for the cyclist, but it imposes a new hazard, unless mitigated. And if the cyclist is not as far right as practicable or there is a lot of damage and debris on the right side of the road there will either be no passing of cycles or drivers will take chances, either encroaching on the cyclist or encroaching on the opposing traffic.

avole

Google ‘hypothetical’.

Ninety5rpm

False dichotomy alert. There is a third option: slow down and wait!!!

Ninety5rpm

???

noun
1.
a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"

avole

That’s the definition, now try to understand it. Your response above to the hypothetical scenario lacked that.

Ninety5rpm

My response: "There is no point about speculating about an impossible hypothetical."

In other words, if the hypothetical scenario is unrealistic, what's the point in speculating that it might happen?

How is that misunderstanding "hypothetical"?

CliffordK

As far as danger to cyclists... I consider any close pass where I don't get hit safe enough.

However, laws vary from state to state, often defining 3 to 5 feet minimum passing distance. Did BMW forget to program that into their cars? Especially considering laws vary from state to state.

Hopefully they did program in automatic brakes, so if I'm "taking the lane" at 3 MPH with my cargo bike, I'll get a long line of BMW's patiently following me.

BMW.jpg

Part of the reason for a buffer is that it is awfully easy to swerve just a little bit with a bike. Pedestrians, of course, can be unpredictable too. However, two things occur with bicycles. First of all, they're subject to many road obstructions that are often unseen by drivers. Second, a small swerve is often amplified. So one can accidentally swerve by 3 feet or so, perhaps even more. That may be in part due to essentially counter-steering to recover.

This, however, seems to be a HUGE OVERSIGHT by BMW. Mom's Prius has beepers for lane drifting. They can be most annoying. And, if one gets too many reminders, it pops up with a Coffee Cup suggestion. Nonetheless, annoying or not, the subtle reminders to hold one's lane can be a good thing.


What I've decided, however, is that not all "drifting" is in fact bad.

Obviously it should be done safely. But, there are instances where one may slightly cut a corner.

The bicycle might be one instance where one would at least put one's left wheel on the center line.

If it is a multi-lane road, then all other vehicles (either direction) should also naturally compensate some. And doing so becomes very natural for drivers. So, oncoming traffic might put their right tire on the fog line, or even cross the fog line slightly.

Drive with the flow of traffic, not based on little white lines painted on the road.

Hopefully if a Semi Truck starts drifting towards a BMW, it will get out of the way, rather than insisting it is RIGHT to stay in its own lane. Stand one's ground!!

jefnvk

Lane assist is not autonomous driving. It is drivers assistance. It is there to keep the driver from drifting out of lane causing a wreck.

Use the blinker, or turn the system off. I'd be shocked if the system allowed a close pass at any sort of speed anyhow, collision avoidance shouldn't allow it.

CliffordK

True, but I think there is both safe, and unsafe drifting associated with driving, and not all of it truly requires blinkers.

Forcing a single solution in all driving situations is incorrect.

sweeks

It would seem prudent to allow a little extra room for the cyclist possibly needing to veer to avoid a road hazard. In Illinois, State law requires motorists to give at least three feet of clearance when passing in recognition of this possibility.

I wonder if autonomous or semi-autonomous systems are designed with this in mind.
Steve

Ninety5rpm

Yes, of course they are.

sweeks

@CliffordK said it better (#38) than I did.
Steve

Milton Keynes

Dallas, TX is like that. You use your turn signal to change lanes and other drivers see it as a challenge.

Gresp15C

Modern cars have sophisticated controls built into the vehicular computer. The manufacturer has to choose which settings should be the defaults when the vehicle is delivered to the customer. The BMW is shipped with settings that emulate the "classic BMW driving experience." This includes both the "buzz cyclists" and "frighten your passengers" modes. To disable these, you have to go into the Control Panel, "Advanced Settings," and "Driver Entitlement Modes."

Hoopdriver

I've seen this many times and have never understood the behaviour. What I do know is that karma will eventually catch up to the "me first" drivers.

genec

Blinkers at least signal intent... lane drift without intention is a collision about to happen.

unterhausen

I saw a case of instant karma on this score. I had plenty of room to merge in front of someone and they sped up to keep me from doing it, but I had already gotten in front of them. So on the next block, the driver tried to put me on the sidewalk. Unfortunately for him, the car behind me was a cop.

My car has what's called "lane keeper assistant" if you change lanes, it will fight you unless you have the blinker on. But it lets you change lanes.

Nissan autonomous car recognizes cyclist and still doesn't give enough room "Tetsuya Iijima, global head of autonomous drive development at Nissan, is behind the wheel, but fails to over-ride the car and move out either" Video: Nissan driverless car in cyclist close pass | road.cc
That's why the autonomous car motto should be "autonomous cars, u gonna die"

Ninety5rpm

Really? You draw that conclusion from a single event among thousands of safe passes of cyclists by AVs, during a beta test of a Nissan AV from almost a year ago?

I-Like-To-Bike

Why not?

Don't you do the same hyping routine with every optimistic (only optimistic!) press release you can find on the Internet that you can spin into your fanciful predictions about the imminent arrival of inexpensive driver less vehicles available for safely transporting passengers at bargain prices, presumably all the while making profits for the organizations producing, owning and/or operating these miracle vehicles?

Ninety5rpm

No, I don't do the same.

And even if I did...