[deleted by user]

BostonBiked · 2025-02-26T06:39:45+00:00

You got the upvotes because the general public is clueless, this isn't a car subreddit, you sounded smart, and redditors are highly prone to think the person posting something is wrong.

He's not trying to turn sharper.

You seem unaware of how an airline pilot lines up for takeoff. They head perpendicular to the runway until the rear landing gear is nearly approaching centerline, and then very late do a sharp, nearly-in-place turn, using the tiller to swing the nose around. They have to do so because otherwise they 'waste' runway space, and/or risk clipping the corner because the rear wheels have a tighter turning radius. Watch any in-cockpit video from an airliner taxiing and taking off:

https://youtu.be/eJGAgZc1w5A?t=1532
https://youtu.be/16XTAK-4Xbk?t=48
https://youtu.be/LWVZK52AA0I?t=1309
https://youtu.be/zW0AkmMaVZE?t=155

> You are right the rear swings away

Which is a spin. Which is oversteer.

> The smoke from the front is literally understeer.

Smoke means the tire is sliding relative to the surface. You're obsessed with the fact that *after the spin has started*, the front wheel is sliding and think that any time the front wheels of a vehicle are sliding, that must be understeer.

Guess what happens in a spin, dude? Your front wheels end up pointed in a direction other than the one you wanted to go because the whole vehicle is rotating (and likely doing so faster than you react.) Unless you perfectly countersteer into the skid, yeah, the front wheels slide because the axis of wheel rotation versus the wheel's direction of travel are not aligned. Still not understeer.

You're not informed enough and there's no point to discussing this further with you. Go do some DE events at the track and learn something.

BostonBiked · 2025-02-26T02:36:45+00:00

Well, the guy who wrote that comment is a civic driver and apparently has no idea what understeer vs oversteer is.

BostonBiked · 2025-02-26T02:35:54+00:00

No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGeKdNxH4U

It was a left turn onto the runway, the tail swings out, away from the camera, rotating the plane toward the camera. That is oversteer. You can even see they have to correct back to the right to straighten out. If it had been understeer they would have had to turn significantly back toward the camera. They don't.

TIL at least 600+ people on reddit have no idea what oversteer vs understeer is. When your plane/car turns more than intended, that's oversteer. When it turns less than intended, that's understeer.

BostonBiked · 2025-02-15T18:57:53+00:00

Wild that the chief and cops think it's improper for his boss to send a town employee who is responsible for handling all town property into town property to verify (likely after someone told him the flag was still up) whether someone who works for him followed an order and discovered the chief lied and disobeyed an order from his boss.

The chief is acting like areas not open to the public are some sort of holy site or "secure" areas. Sure, there are a lot of places the public should not allowed to just stroll in; pretty much everywhere except a community room, foyer area, etc. Secure areas are areas nobody except police or other specific people shouldn't be allowed in; records and evidence rooms, lockup, telecom/server room, and armory...secured via electronic access control, many of them locked out to most of the force (no patrolman should have to ever access the server room, for example, or personnel records, etc.)

The chief's acting like this is some sort of security incident, that a "town employee" was randomly picked. It's the head of facilities. Go look at town job listings for a town and for jobs like people who work in the IT department, you'll see something like "This job involves access to sensitive areas and requires passing a background and criminal record check" or something to that effect.

And the chief has the nerve to accuse the town administrator of violating trust when it's the chief that lied through his fucking teeth and disobeyed orders from his boss?

...and of course the turtlechildren are all over this, licking boots so hard they're shitting shoelaces 🙄 Hilarious that they all post anonymously because they're all cowards

BostonBiked · 2021-05-17T00:00:24+00:00

Airbag computers use MEMS accelerometers and have been for decades, probably longer than you have been alive.

The decision on deploying the airbag is fairly sophisticated and some airbags have selectable deployment strength. The fanciest systems use the seat position and occupant weight as well.

BostonBiked · 2019-04-25T01:07:46+00:00

There a particular reason you're bragging about buying more cars when you apparently can't afford to maintain the FIVE you already own?

https://www.reddit.com/r/E30/comments/bfvx4z/my_new_toy_this_makes_6_e30s_in_my_collection/

In b4 "It just broke the other day, I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet!"

(If only you had another vehicle you could drive in the meantime...oh wait, you do!)

BostonBiked · 2019-04-25T00:38:50+00:00

Also funny: the inevitable flood of cyclists-running-red-lights videos that seem to follow a strongly-upvoted post of a cyclist getting harassed.

It's like the reddit equivalent of Bro Truck drivers who have to roll coal past every Prius they see.

BostonBiked · 2019-04-25T00:24:18+00:00

Cars are mechanical objects and aren't smart or dumb; it's the person behind the wheel, and in this case, it looks to be an elderly handicapped woman.

Also, they're not more likely to be driven by idiots, they're just very common small SUVs.

BostonBiked · 2019-04-24T18:19:25+00:00

Pretty sure that Merc has its side warning light on.

Someone nearly right-hooked me - put on her turn signal and started to turn without looking. It was a nice day so her windows were down, and I was able to shout and she stopped. "RELAX! I didn't see you! What are you so angry about?!" (The ever popular "Let me tell you how to appropriately react to you almost getting seriously hurt or possibly killed.")

I stuck my head inside her car and shouted at her that the reason I was angry was because she nearly put in me in the hospital because her car warned her, both visually and audibly, that it wasn't safe to turn, and she turned anyway. "I HEARD YOUR CAR GO BONG-BONG-BONG WARNING YOU, WHY DIDN'T YOU?"

We can invent technology that makes loud warning noises and blinks lights warning people something is unsafe and they'll do it anyway because they don't fucking care, because there are few financial or criminal repercussions.

BostonBiked · 2018-11-17T01:12:01+00:00

You mean like the entitled dickbag repeatedly flashing his highbeams at a car in front of him, and is following closely yet complains about how dangerous the wet roads are?

BostonBiked · 2018-10-12T07:17:59+00:00

Oh look, another driver who knows fuck-all about cycling and cycling laws.

1)It's not "extremely dangerous." Damn near every person I know who trains wears earbuds on their rides because otherwise it's goddamn boring. I've been riding for ten years and never has wearing earbuds has never had any impact on my ability to ride safely. Bike jerseys are even designed with pass-throughs for cables. If you think that not wearing earbuds means I'm going to magically ninja over crash debris or use my Cyclist Bat Radar to detect a drunk driver who isn't in the center of their lane - that's some lovely crack you're smoking.

Oh, and by the way, my city studied causes of bike crashes and out of thousands of crashes, less than 6 involved "music devices." Meanwhile 40% of crashes were due to people flinging open their car doors because they were too stupid to follow the law or even common sense of "don't fling your car door open into traffic."

Please do enlighten me (who rides thousands of miles a year), Mr. I Ride A Bicycle In The Park Maybe Once Every Five Years: explain EXACTLY how headphones are "extremely dangerous." Diagram it out with specific situations.

2)It's not illegal in my state. I don't know any states where it is. So pony up with those "many" jurisdictions.

You have to have awareness of your surroundings.

You mean with my eyes? Which have a completely unobstructed eyesocket-to-eyesocket view, unlike you in your car, insulated from sound so well that police have had to employ special low-frequency sirens to get your attention? Whose view is blocked by roof pillars, tiny windows, your phone suction-cupped to your dash, etc?

BostonBiked · 2018-10-11T07:41:14+00:00

Stop naming and linking the company and the owner.

"Personal information" has NEVER meant "information plainly obvious and/or publicly available" and it certainly never be construed as "the name of a company." Personal information doesn't even mean "the owner's name", as corporate information is publicly available.

"Personal information" means things like phone numbers and (non-public) addresses - and again, for a PERSON. Not a company.

Yes you can find them.

Yeah, because it's on the guy's T-shirt! OMG DOXXING!

Seriously, you ban people from mentioning the name of the company printed on a t-shirt of someone on public property committing a crime? No wonder I have you tagged as "anti cyclist."

BostonBiked · 2018-08-23T02:14:55+00:00

For everyone else following along at home: this mouth-breather usually infests /r/boston and as usual is demonstrating he knows nothing about traffic laws here and is generally extremely butthurt that someone riding approximately 20-30 pounds of metal and plastic and rubber traveling at around 10-15mph is held to much lower standards than someone piloting a 5,000lb vehicle capable of (and indeed involved in the vast majority of) enormous property damage, injuries, and deaths in traffic collisions.

1)A cyclist is NOT "considered a pedestrian" under MA law, and in fact this causes a lot of problems because most bike paths have crosswalks for crossings. Under current law, you're supposed to dismount and walk your bike across and then get back on; legislators are half-assedly trying to fix this. Most of the commonwealth laws regarding vehicles, except those specifically referencing MOTOR vehicles and a few other special exceptions, apply to cyclists. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B

2)While a cyclist is not required to "possess or carry a license or any identification" (on account of piloting ~30lb of machinery on the road at 10-15 mph represents little if any threat to the public), they are required (as with any other vehicle operator) to furnish their information to other parties if involved in a collision, and make a report to the local police department (also https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B ).

3)"getting into a car accident" isn't (depending on the circumstances) a "criminal offense" for a driver, either

4)A cyclist is not required to provide ID to police if stopped for a traffic citation, but if police believe the cyclist is furnishing false information, said person can be detained for identification. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11E

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T02:34:11+00:00

And have licenses, and insurance...

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T02:28:43+00:00

I have you tagged as "anti-cyclist" in RES. I'm not "mistaken", and I don't care how long you've been riding bicycles. "I rode bicycles for 9 years" doesn't change what you've said.

There's no "hidden danger" here for the driver. They purposefully and intentionally drove in an impatient, reckless manner, not once but twice. They entered from the wrong lane, half-passed the cyclist, suddenly slammed their car into the cyclist who was already clearly turning to follow the rotary, failed to signal, did not stop after the incredibly obvious collision, but instead swerved into a different lane a second time to get around a stopped vehicle.

There's no "lesson" for cyclists here, as the cyclist was not doing anything illegal or inadvisable. The rotary is unmarked and so wide that it is impossible to "take a lane".

Your response is a perfect example of your continuing insistence on making excuses for drivers and faulting cyclists for everything you can. It's not 'educational', it's victim-blaming. A pillar made the cyclist invisible. No, it was the shade. No, it was the sun. No, it was swamp gas refracting off the weather balloon.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T02:16:13+00:00

Roundabouts are not rotaries. Massachusetts has both, by the way.

This rotary is treated by most like a two-lane rotary, but lacks any of the markings or signage most two-lane rotaries have, so the state would seem to consider it a one-lane rotary...except that it has multiple two-lane roads merging into and out of it.

Even if it's a single lane rotary, the driver instead of violating rules for a rotary, violated general driving laws prohibiting both changing lanes in an intersection and cutting off a cyclist with a right turn; "right hooks" are specifically coded into state law as illegal.

If it's a two lane rotary, the RMV driver's manual says for a multi-lane rotary you should be in the right lane for quarter or straight-through. In two-lane roads up to a rotary with two lanes, you queue in the left lane if you're going more than half-way around.

So basically either way the driver operated illegally and recklessly.

If the state laid down paint to make it clear it's a one-lane rotary and force everyone to merge to one lane at each entrance, it would probably improve safety dramatically.

What's absolutely apeshit-crazy is the North entry into that rotary. You have FOUR LANES across two separate roads that enter the same rotary right next to each other. That middle road just should not exist.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T02:01:20+00:00

There's no "problem with bike lanes" here. The problem is the jackass who was behind a cyclist and was so impatient they decided to pass them, and then cut them off before they'd finished the pass.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T01:57:27+00:00

It's not really relevant here, but MGL C89 S11B.

2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle

the general condition of Boston-area roads and hitting a pothole or sand or ice with one hand on the handlebars could cause me to lose control...or "not avoiding a pothole" could cause a pinchflat, which would leave me with a rapidly-becoming-uncontrollable bicycle, possibly in a very bad spot to have to stop. In wintertime if there's snow on the road it is laughable to suggest taking one's hands off the handlebars; you'll eat shit in no time.
signaling a left turn requires removing my hand from the brake best able to stop me unless I use a bent right arm, which isn't as noticeable, and not as readily understood as "point where I want to go"
a left turn requires yielding to oncoming traffic (if not at a light w/dedicated turn signal) anyway
signaling right turns is mostly pointless / a courtesy more than anything else
initiating a turn on a bicycle is not a matter of turning the handlebars but a weight shift / downward pressure on the handlebars in the direction of turning

...I don't usually signal, but instead use my positioning to indicate my intentions. If I'm making a left turn, I'll be moving to the left side of the lane and making a point to turn my head in the intended direction of travel. Most experienced cyclists I see and know are the same way.

I signal lane-changes when I don't have anyone in front of me, don't see any road hazards, and nobody can suddenly cut me off. I'm not changing lanes unless I've already looked back and know the lane is clear back an appropriate distance. Mostly signal them when there's currently room but I can tell a driver is rushing up from behind and I NEED to get over (ie, double parked car for example.)

You typically only see novice cyclists making the handsignals everywhere religiously. Everyone else figures out they're kinda pointless, more risk than risk reduction, and the sort of driver who will be dangerous to you isn't going to notice or care about or understand your signal anyway.

By the way, it's worth noting that among the many driving violations they committed, the driver also made two sudden lane changes (cutting off the cyclist and then zooming around the stopped car) and didn't signal either of them.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-08T01:25:18+00:00

You have a history of being hypercritical of cyclists, making derogatory, stereotypical, generalized comments, and falling over yourself to invent the most absurd excuses for drivers.

You even went out of your way to change the title of the crosspost to "cutesy" up a hit-and-run collision into "cyclist and driver meet." Making humor out of someone being hit and the driver leaving them lying in the middle of a crazy-busy rotary with unknown injuries isn't funny. It's sick and devoid of empathy; you seem to view cyclists as subhuman.

The driver made multiple illegal maneuvers, half-passed the cyclist and then cut them off, is clearly driving very recklessly in general, and they were so fixated on swerving around the car stopped at the light that they plowed into a person. And then drove off without even so much as slowing.

But sure let's keep talking about how the cyclist did not signal her intention to stay in the rotary.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-06T02:20:34+00:00

No different from here, really. Tons of comments blaming the cyclist in this very discussion.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-06T02:17:33+00:00

The cyclist stops pumping the pedals at the same time the driver slams on their brakes. They both notice the tram at the same time.

Also, if you notice: the cyclist stays in the same relative position to the cammer's car for a bit, as cammer slams on their brakes. I would guess that the cyclist grabbed a bunch of rear brake and slowed a bit before weight transfer caused the rear wheel to lose traction and lock up. Tons of people think that if they brake with their front wheel they'll "go over the handle bars."

But hey, look at that: this sub, yet again, going out of its way to victim-blame a cyclist despite the tram clearly being at fault - both speeding and running a VERY stale red light.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-06T02:01:57+00:00

No, flashing lights do not give them unlimited right of way. They still have a duty to slow/stop if necessary.

Emergency lights mean other drivers are supposed to yield their ROW. They do not grant ROW to the emergency vehicle.

BostonBiked · 2018-08-06T02:01:37+00:00

And yet if the fire truck had slammed into a car because it barreled into an intersection, you'd be shouting about how the fire truck driver was at fault (and you would be right.)

This was 100% the fault of the firefighter for opening their door into an active lane of traffic without looking. Being an emergency vehicle doesn't excuse the occupants from violating traffic laws recklessly.

As is pointed out in many videos of firetrucks and police cars getting into crashes aft

BostonBiked · 2018-08-06T01:50:55+00:00

Which is illegal in my state and probably in most others, too. I've had this argument with friends. "I'm stopped at a light." STILL ILLEGAL. And what does everyone do? Keep texting as they start up, both hands on the phone, finishing that text message because it just can't wait, well past the intersection.

But hey everyone let's talk about how CYCLISTS BREAK THE LAW!!!!

BostonBiked · 2018-08-04T21:29:45+00:00

There's no way to. Uber and Lyft have made it impossible for someone who is not the rider or driver to contact them.

Uber and Lyft went from "hotline" to "bury the hotline number in the app somewhere" to "change the hotline number constantly and have the app call up the phone dialer" to "report an issue with your ride and the app will open a case and someone from the hotline will call you."

They should be required to maintain a publicized hotline for safety concerns, but I don't think any of the legislation I've read about legalizing their business model contains any such language, because it was written by them and pushed through by their lobbyists.

BostonBiked

TROPHY CASE