Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[Moonbear]

Yeah I am with honestrosewater. Personally, I think the whole US car dependence is terrible. And maybe we will see some good changes in the next 10 years or so, unless some magic fuel comes out. The problem is, of course, that public transportation, no matter how good, is not the American way. Public transportation has no freedom, which all of us Americans need. At least with driving there is freedom, no matter how inefficient and terribly designed it is.

I don't avoid public transport because of some odd sense of freedom (how is sitting in traffic for 30 min freedom?), I avoid it because it doesn't exist here to any useful degree. The bus stops aren't in safe locations, and then run too infrequently at night, and if I'm in the lab until 2 AM after the buses stop running, how do I get home?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think bicycles are an alternative, but better public transportation systems certainly could be. So everyone in a big enough city, write your mayor and tell them to get on it! Oh, and write your congressmen and tell them to send money!

Public transportation is not a bad idea as an idea. Every city has its own unique problems, though. In Minneapolis things are OK in the Summer but in Winter riding the bus is unmitigated hell because waiting a mere ten minutes for a bus in sub-freezing cold every day becomes torture. Here in San Diego, where the whole place is cut up by canyons, there is never a direct route from point A to point B, and the bus that ends up where you want to go can meander three miles away before it curls back to your destination. A 15 minute drive by car can take an hour and a half by bus, not including wait time at the bus stop and the ten minute walk after you're dropped off. They've tried all kinds of improvements like more buses, better buses, adding a trolley, but they can't fight the geography.

In Minneapolis they have a "Skyway" system. You can walk all over the place in the downtown business district without ever going outside, via second story bridges from one building to the next. Outside downtown, though, you're a human popsicle.

 

[franznietzsche]

I don't like people who are so caught up in there cell phone conversation that they forget there driving. Oh and also people who see the lane is ending, yet wait till the last second to merge.

I've seen jackasses in BMWs, who knowing the lane they were in would, and were some 50 yards behind me, with plenty of room to just merge in behind me, would instead floor it to get ahead of me, leaving me with the option of either slowing down for their stupidity, or forcing them into the divider and a crash. Next time, I'm letting the ******* crash at 90 mph (i was driving 75 at the time).

 

[zoobyshoe]

The five major causes of accidents are, in order of frequency:

1) speeding

2) tailgating

3) driving under the influence

4) inattention

5) yeild violation (running red lights and stop signs)

 

[BicycleTree]

People riding bicycles in those expensive little outfits on single lane roads with no shoulders and so hilly/curvy that there is no passing allowed for 10 mile stretches and it's extremely dangerous to attempt going over into the oncoming lane due to the inability to see uncoming traffic.

My feeling is if I need to go around one of these suckers and I'm faced with an oncoming car, the bicycle guy is going to die. tsk I guess they should have picked a less dangerous route.

Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.

 

[BicycleTree]

Bicycles on a highway are iffy--dangerous, though of course we do have the right to be there. In the city, they are incomparably better than cars, buses, or walking. What irritates me is when there is a huge traffic jam full of 1-occupant vehicles. Unless I'm on my bike and can slide past all of them while flipping the bird, I just have to shake my head at how stupid these people are.

 

[BicycleTree]

Imagine if all federal highways were declared off-limits to cars during commuting hours, and large quantities of buses were made available at low cost for commuters. Say goodbye to rush hour traffic jams.

 

[chroot]

While I don't consider it particularly dangerous, I find "passive merging" to be one of my pet peeves. You know the type -- a right-hand lane is ending, merging into the one on the left. Despite all the signs, arrows, dotted white lines, etc., the driver does not actively move from the ending lane. Instead, without signalling or apparently even acknowledging the traffic to be merged into, he/she just continues along, hugging the right-hand white line as it gradually pushes him/her into the next lane over. No one has any idea what the person is doing, and they end up having to think for him/her, slowing down to leave space, trying to anticipate when (if ever) the driver is actually going to make use of it. This is particularly annoying when the driver continues along side-by-side with another vehicle, neither slowing down nor speeding up nor signalling, nor making any indication whatsoever that he/she is even aware that he/she needs to find an opening.

My other pet peeve is the way people park in parking garages. We have five- or even ten-story parking garages around here. Everyone knows that there are more spots on the top floors than anywhere else. Everyone also knows that it's completely immaterial which floor you park on, because you'll be taking an elevator either way. So, why on the Earth do people stop traffic for five minutes while they wait for someone to vacate a spot on the first level? I say people should fill in parking garages from the top down, the same way people already know to fill in buses: starting from the back, moving forwards. There are ten billion spots available two floors up, but no one can get to them because some dope is holding up traffic for five minutes waiting for someone to pull out of a lower-level spot. After this happens a couple of times, and it ends up taking 15 minutes to get to a spot in a garage with ten billion empty spaces.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Bicycles on a highway are iffy--dangerous, though of course we do have the right to be there. In the city, they are incomparably better than cars, buses, or walking. What irritates me is when there is a huge traffic jam full of 1-occupant vehicles. Unless I'm on my bike and can slide past all of them while flipping the bird, I just have to shake my head at how stupid these people are.

While I agree that bicycles are better than cars if you both live and work in the city, you seem to be missing the point that many people don't both live and work in the city. Many of the "stupid people" in the single-occupant cars are waiting to get on the freeway and leave the city to go to their houses in other places. They have a reason to be in a car, rather than on a bike. Deal with it.

- Warren

 

[gravenewworld]

people who drive under the speed limit
people who brake for no reason
damn tractor trailors in the left lane
people who try to box you in so you can not get over when lanes merge (it takes more than 100 cars to get in front of you to make you 5 minutes late).
PEOPLE ON THE CELL PHONE
people who don't use blinkers
old people
people who have those damn sound systems in their car blasting bass that can be heard 2 miles away
people who treat stop signs as yield signs when they try to get onto a major highway/road
idiots who turn right and don't yield to people who are turning left from the other lane when there is clearly a yield sign
idiots who speed up so you can't change into their lane
jackasses who try to cut in line and get off on an exit at teh very end so they can cut infront of everyone who was waiting
jackasses who don't turn left on red and wait for a green light when it is from a 1 way street onto another 1 way street.
jackasses with the xenon lights that make you go blind
jackasses who drive in two lanes and can't make up their mind whether to stay in their lane or change lanes.
jackasses who turn on their blinkers slow down 500000000 yards before their turning lane is even close
jackasses who try to get onto a highway from a store or something and pull out too much so the front of their car sticks out in your lane and youhave to go around them.
i think that's it for now

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where we live, the biggest problem is the occasional tractor. I think I had to wait for one last year, for a few minutes. You do have to watch out for deer crossing the road.

I love rural living.

 

[chroot]

Imagine if all federal highways were declared off-limits to cars during commuting hours, and large quantities of buses were made available at low cost for commuters. Say goodbye to rush hour traffic jams.

If all the commuters were going from a single location to another single location, then your "solution" would make perfect sense. This kind of solution is better known as a "train."

The problem is that most people are traveling five miles in one direction to get on the freeway, then exiting another place and driving another ten miles. Are you proposing a bus that goes from each center of business to each residential area? Would you care to calculate how many buses that would require? Hint: it'd likely only be about 1/2 of the number of cars already on the road.

Of course, you can introduce switching stations and hubs and the like, but all that would do is double the amount of time it takes to go anywhere. Now, instead of waiting in traffic, people are just wasting even more time going out of their way to get to the hub, or waiting for the next bus out of the hub.

I appreciate all of your sentiments, BicycleTree -- people should use public transportation whenever possible, and many people would actually be better served by public trans than by private automobile. On the other hand, I think you have a very narrow-minded view of the transportation world -- you seem to think the bike and the bus will answer every problem. You have generalized the situation to the point where you think anyone driving a car alone in a city is "stupid," and you think simply scaling the bus system by a thousand times will make traffic go away. Neither of these assertions are true, or supported by any evidence. You seem to be stuck on page one, frankly.

The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.

- Warren

 

[BobG]

Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.

I'm with Bicycle Tree on this one. The same traffic laws and same traffic rights apply, regardless of the vehicle - whether auto, semi, farm equipment, motorcycles, or bicycles. Of course, motorcycles and bicycles have a little more problem claiming their rights than a semi does. The sensible bicycle rider only claims his right to ride down the middle of the lane when it would be riskier to allow someone to try to pass them.

My pet peeve is people that talk on cell phones while driving. You usually only have to worry about drunk drivers at bar closing time. Cell phone users tend to aimlessly drift into your lane any time of day, change speeds constantly (slowly slow down - suddenly speed up - slowly slow down), don't notice the light has turned green, and seem to need both turn lanes to complete a left turn.

The hands free devices don't really help. It's the fact that people quit paying attention to the road when they're talking on the phone. You have the same problem when drivers fiddle with the stereo, light their cigarette, or other distraction, but those kinds of things are short distractions while phone conversations can last forever. Most (not all) drivers can wait to change the station or light their cigarette until they've completed a turn - cell phone users would never do something so rude as to interrupt an important phone conversation for something as trivial as avoiding an accident. Can you imagine someone on the other end of the line saying, "Just a sec, I need to make a turn here" and leaving you in silence for a whole 30 seconds?

They should make it illegal to use a cell phone while driving.

(For the record, I also hate barbers that take cell phone calls while in the middle of giving a hair cut. Get real!)

 

[chroot]

Can you imagine someone on the other end of the line saying, "Just a sec, I need to make a turn here" and leaving you in silence for a whole 30 seconds?

I actually do this. I try to avoid phone conversations while driving anyway, but sometimes they are, frankly, necessary. I often just toss the phone into the passenger seat when having to merge or make some other tricky move, usually without saying anything more than "hold on." My friends know I do it, and don't mind.

The reason phone calls are dangerous, while chatting with passenger is not, is that the person on the phone can't tell when you need to give your full attention to driving. Solution: tell them, and put the phone down.

- Warren

 

[zoobyshoe]

Tips for the Southern California Highway:

1) Never, ever drive in the fast lane. This is the "cop magnet" lane. They will scrutinize you. If you are pulled over from the fast lane they will ticket the maximum number of things they can find.

2) Always drive in the slow lane at about the same speed everyone else in that lane is driving. Cops will often ignore minor infractions. If you are pulled over from the slow lane you're more likely to get the minimum ticket they can think of.

3) Never ask a cop why he doesn't have some more serious crime to pursue.

4) Never do anything that might be construed as a subtle attempt at bribery; no flashing cash. They'll find more things to ticket.

5) Women: never appear to be coming on to the cop, i.e., don't pop another button on your blouse. They view this the same way they view a bribery attempt. They will find something else to ticket. (Wailing and crying might have a beneficial effect, but only if it seems completely sincere.)

 

[mattmns]

The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.

- Warren

Exactly!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested.

But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.

 

[BobG]

The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.

- Warren

The fundamental difference is that there is some planning of European cities and none in American cities. A lot of that has to do with necessity. Overall, Europe's a lot more crowded than the United States. Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please. The two go hand-in-hand. Public transportation doesn't work in most US cities because there is no city planning.

Not that I'd want to live in a city big enough for public transportation to work well. But I would accept the idea of living in a city that was designed for efficiency - I'm not sure expanding randomly across the country side just because you can really yields many benefits.

 

[Evo]

Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.

No it wouldn't because I have to make a decision, collide head on with another vehicle (possibly killing them and all passengers) or avoid the collision by returning to my lane. Even on sections without the double line it's a very short space and limited vision of uncoming traffic.

These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested.

But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please.

This isn't the case. There is no place to put anything in most cities. To build, you have to tear something down first. I think in Europe, there are far fewer things they'll let anyone tear down. There's too much historical value.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that this is, or was true for both Ca and Or, but then again I haven't lived down there for a long time now. So I could just be out of date. I know that this was still true here within the last few years.

The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

That is also true - that you can get a ticket going while 30MPH in a 40MPH zone - .but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.

Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents. "Too fast for conditions" was absolutely number one.

One of the stranger things that I've done was to be trained by an insurance company trainer [a very smart guy btw], and to then give classes for Ca. Class 2 vehicles - full sized busses. It's a long story but in short I had suggested that the CT and MRI bus drivers needed training, so guess who got the job?!? .

 

[Moonbear]

jackasses who don't turn left on red and wait for a green light when it is from a 1 way street onto another 1 way street.

That's not legal everywhere. When I moved to Ann Arbor, I was wondering why all the jackasses kept turning left on red lights, until someone pointed out that in MI, that's legal if it's a one-way street. But, in neither case are you REQUIRED to turn on red, it's just permitted if you feel safe doing so.

Even a right on red isn't legal in some places, like NYC, let alone a left on red!

 

[Moonbear]

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit. If it's a yellow sign, then it's a suggestion (i.e., you might want to slow down so you don't careen through that guard rail on the sharp curve ahead).

You can get away with speeding when a road is unmarked. That's been challenged many times that you can't always "divine" whether you're in a residential zone when no houses are visible from the road and you're on a double yellow line road that looks like it should allow highway speeds.

I do get a chuckle over the signs you see when you're approaching toll booths that say, "Slow Down Get Ticket." I don't want a ticket, so I better not slow down, right?

 

[matthyaouw]

Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.

*read: go single file around the same block of buildings 8 times being as loud as possible.

I often wonder if I'm the only cyclist in this city that realizes road laws actually apply to me (i.e. red light = STOP), and that the traffic will not unconditionally part to make way for me if i pull into a lane of oncoming traffic without warning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit.

It was only meant as an aside, but since you mentioned it, that does not mean that it always must be enforced as the maximum speed, as is a speed limit.

 

[BicycleTree]

While I agree that bicycles are better than cars if you both live and work in the city, you seem to be missing the point that many people don't both live and work in the city. Many of the "stupid people" in the single-occupant cars are waiting to get on the freeway and leave the city to go to their houses in other places. They have a reason to be in a car, rather than on a bike. Deal with it.

You're right, they should not be riding bicycles. They should be riding buses. Consider: 10 buses, which will be able to do 60 mph... or 500 cars, carrying the same number of people, which will only be able to do 30 mph because of jamming. Plus, you can do work while riding in a bus, which you cannot do (safely) while riding in a car.

 

[BicycleTree]

When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.

 

[zoobyshoe]

but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.

Why, what could "Speed" be construed to mean if not "Maximum Speed"?

Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents.

He defintely said tailgating was #2: not leaving the proper amount of space between yourself and the car in front of you in proportion to your speed.

 

[Moonbear]

These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.

Yep, they aren't people on their way home from work or school, they're out in their fancy shorts to bike nowhere in particular.

I don't mind having to share roads with bicyclists as long as they follow the rules they're supposed to follow too, and have the courtesy to move aside if they can so someone in a car can pass. Of course the folks I know who live close enough to bike to work still appreciate that some of us have cars when the skies open up with a thunderstorm just about the time to head home.

Yeah, buses aren't terribly practical either. By the time they're done making all their stops and zigzagging around town, it takes twice as long to get home. Again, back to when I lived in Ann Arbor, my first half year there, I lived within walking distance of the lab...a long walk...took me about a half hour, but most days it was very pleasant. Parking near campus was impossible to find, so driving wasn't a good option at all if you didn't want to pay through the nose for a parking permit for one of the lots. So, once in a while, if the weather was really bad (freezing or the sidewalks were badly snow-covered or it was raining really hard), I'd take the bus from a stop close to the building I worked in (actually, I'd just start walking along the bus route...if I saw a bus, I took it, and if I missed it, I kept walking). It would take longer to get home by bus than it did to walk. But, when the alternative was freezing halfway home or trudging through snow halfway to my knees (oh did I hate people who didn't shovel their sidewalks), it was worth the extra time. Once I moved out of the city to where I could afford the apartments and have more quiet, buses were no longer an option, nor was walking or biking (30 min drive when there was no traffic...and there usually wasn't because I'd take dirt roads most of the way, at least when it wasn't snowing...no speed limits on dirt roads, or at least nobody enforces them...I had an old enough car I didn't care what I did to the suspension...yee haw!) Then I had to pay for parking, but that plus the additional gas usage still didn't add up to what I was saving by living away from campus.

So, that is really the problem. As soon as you get an area urbanized enough to make it worth having public transportation, the housing costs go up exhorbitantly in the area. I saw that happen in my hometown. As soon as they put in a park & ride with service to NYC, property values soared, because the commuters with city salaries were suddenly moving in. I couldn't afford to move back to my old neighborhood anymore.

Oh, though I'm also thinking now of Davis, CA. Have any of you been there? They say there are more bicycles than people there. People even have bicycle carts and sidecars for their kids and for towing groceries. I've heard they also have bicycle traffic jams. I've never seen a bicycle traffic jam though.

 

[BicycleTree]

Buses in cities are stupid because bicycles are superior to them (and to cars) in cities. It's buses BETWEEN cities that beat cars. Plus, buses are cheaper, and you can get work done on them.

Here are some traffic zones I have noticed, with rankings:
Within city, in general:
1. Bicycle
2. Car
3. Bus

Within city, at peak rush hour:
1. Bicycle
2. Pedestrian
3. Car
4. Bus

Between cities during rush hours:
1. Bus
2. Car
3. Bicycle

Other short-range travel:
1. Car (usually)
2. Bus or bicycle (depending on the situation)

Long-range travel:
1. Airplane
2. Bus
3. Car

 

[Moonbear]

When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.

Did you read what Chroot posted? Where will those buses be taking people? I can't even find one other person in my part of town who works similar hours to mine and works on or close to the campus to carpool let alone make it worthwhile having a bus running this direction at those hours.

And, do you know where those people are heading after work? Are they stopping at the grocery store on their way, or picking their kids up from daycare or soccer practice, or dropping off the dry-cleaning, or maybe they have a trunk full of files to take home from the office to work on at night, or maybe they are driving out to the middle of nowhere where they live, maybe meeting friends for dinner or picking up take-out, or heading out of town for the weekend? You're taking an overly simplistic view of the problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, I read and replied to Chroot's post, and he was confused about where I was talking about the single-occupancy-vehicles causing jamming.

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.


Your arguments about doing laundry and other non-work related activities that demand cars have some merit. However, one could easily take a car to the bus station and then immediately use it again upon one's return; indeed, most bus commuters in my town do this.

 

[brewnog]

Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.

Now I'm scared that you're going to put me into this category. I've had my car about a year (I'm not going to tell you what sort), and when I picked it up it had this stupid massive (4" diameter?) exhaust pipe on it. It annoys me to hell, I can't go above 60 without deafening myself, although it is pretty nippy and it does sound quite nice... I just feel embarassed every time I drive through a built up area in anything less than 4th. Anyway, it's hanging on by a thread, so I'm kinda waiting for it to drop off, when I can put the OEM exhaust on it again...

 

[mattmns]

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?