Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Old 03-28-18, 10:24 AM
  #2701  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
55mph may be normal on many 45mph roads here, but not there. Perhaps because it is soon after a 35mph zone on the bridge and then under the freeway before an intersection. At night from where the incident occurred it would be obvious for a long time that a vehicle was coming. The only way to not see headlights coming would be to not look at all.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 10:28 AM
  #2702  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
A couple of points.

American drivers might have a fatality rate of 1.25 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles, but the rest of the world is far better than that.

Second, just to make the math simple, and DND-like.

Ten players. Each throw two fair D10. If they throw "1" "1" they lose. Let them play 100 rounds.

Is the player who lost in the earliest round a worst player than the rest?
Are the players who *never* lost better players than the players who lost four times?


-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 10:29 AM
  #2703  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,622

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 240 Times in 185 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
What some people in this thread choose to refuse to comprehend is that while it is never legal t Deliberately hit a pedestrian, there are situations in which one can hit a pedestrian without breaking any laws.
Oh absolutely. I was the first one here to suggest that the pedestrian has a responsibility for safety too. This women appears to be looking down in the opposite direction of oncoming traffic which strikes me as peculiar. Was SHE distracted? In any event, you can also see an approaching car lights long before they can see you.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 11:23 AM
  #2704  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Also re: Lidar----this lady was pushing a bicycle festooned with plastic grocery bags. There was plenty of area and plenty of the exposed surface was Not black.

Lidar is not magic---it has limitations, okay ... but I don't see why a laser could not penetrate clear air and reflect off a five-by-five-foot target.

If Lidar Cannot pick out that pedestrian then maybe AVs Aren't ready for prime time.

However, given the fact that cars from other other companies, with better AV systems (Waymo and Cruise would be two examples) were more than 1000 times as effective at operating on the road ... one has to think the operating system----the brain--in Uber AVs is a little ********.

"[I]According to RadioFreeMobile, AV test data submitted to California shows Waymo had one “disengagement”—where the human driver had to take over for the computer—per 5,128 miles traveled.

“Cruise, the GM AV subsidiary, reported 1,200 miles between interventions, the New York Times reported.

“Internal documents from Uber (which was temporarily banned from testing in California) recorded one disengagement in every mile of driving.

“A BuzzFeed article from March 16, 2017, showed that Uber’s high disengagement rate from California persisted in Arizona.

“Company documents obtained by the New York Times showed that even after a year of testing, Uber’s AVs struggled to travel 13 miles—the company’s stated goal—without disengagement.”
( Arizona Ends Uber AV tests, Uber Wants to Maintain Dialogue | NTD.TV)

Yeah I read an Arstech? article that said Uber was having to deal with disengagements every 13 miles, while Waymo was over 5000 miles...

Uber has a long way to go to get their act together, and their current management style ("anything at all costs") isn't helping much.

Still I can't help but wonder what the Uber Lidar/radar saw?
genec is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 11:41 AM
  #2705  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18427 Post(s)
Liked 4,544 Times in 3,376 Posts
Originally Posted by Daniel4
Uber's safety system may have been turned off. No response from Uber when CBC asked.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-arizona-crash-1.4594939
It is likely that Volvo and Uber software are incompatible, and it is quite possible that Volvo didn't give Uber source level access to their system. So Volvo's system was turned off.

Nonetheless, more damming "we wouldn't have hit her" statements.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 11:49 AM
  #2706  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18427 Post(s)
Liked 4,544 Times in 3,376 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
I figure Uber wanted to corner the AV-taxi/rideshare market for a while ... i agree with you, no one company will be able to hold it ... but on the other hand, doesn't everybody say "Call an Uber"? i don't here "Call a Lyft" or Take a taxi."

That name recognition helps when breaking into new markets, and even overseas.
No Uber in Eugene, and at this point, with poor driver vetting, and now this accident, I could care less if they started driving here.

Bad publicity can just as easily shut down new markets.

I say "just ride your bike"
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 11:53 AM
  #2707  
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by RFEngineer
This is my biggest fear with AVs. The inevitable "cheapening" of the hardware included on each vehicle. Companies are going to want to profit and the sensors are expensive, so they will remove all they can so they can make money.


Maybe the future will look like this: "Human drivers cause 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles, let's reduce the cost of our AVs until they cause, say, 1.2 deaths per 100 million miles. Maximize profit!"


Obviously, Uber is nowhere close to these safety numbers, but I can absolutely see this mentality taking over if/when AVs become main-stream.
Alan
There are business pressures favoring safety: a safe record will be a marketing point and also lower insurance costs. I'd imagine insurance companies will soon develop a lot of tech expertise evaluating AV systems.

Ubur is going to take a pretty big valuation hit because of the fatality in Arizona, but it's hard to determine because it's not a publicly traded company.

Having said that, disastrous cost cutting decisions are bound to pop up from time to time.
tyrion is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 11:55 AM
  #2708  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
55mph may be normal on many 45mph roads here, but not there. Perhaps because it is soon after a 35mph zone on the bridge and then under the freeway before an intersection. At night from where the incident occurred it would be obvious for a long time that a vehicle was coming. The only way to not see headlights coming would be to not look at all.
Is that like a vehicle under the control of a human, prototype techno stuff or a combination of both that cannot see humans crossing the road and/or takes no evasive maneuver because it is programed by jackasses to not look at all for "illegal" jaywalkers and bicyclists and think it is "legal" to run them down??
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:08 PM
  #2709  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Clearly has no idea how these are 'programmed'
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:16 PM
  #2710  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
Ubur is going to take a pretty big valuation hit because of the fatality in Arizona, but it's hard to determine because it's not a publicly traded company.
It wouldn't be the first time that Uber's valuation has been significantly scaled back in the last few years. https://slate.com/business/2017/12/u...ince-2015.html Given that their stupendous losses every quarter have not abated and that with no prospect of change on the horizon, the valuation will continue to sink.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:21 PM
  #2711  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
Bad publicity can just as easily shut down new markets.
So can competent oversight/regulation of dangerous products; the thalidomide market got shut down in the U.S. fortunately before too many victims suffered the consequences of unrestricted use.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:23 PM
  #2712  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Clearly has no idea how these are 'programmed'
Do tell, how was this Uber AV programmed to see and respond to pedestrians crossing the road to include those not found in crosswalks?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:36 PM
  #2713  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Westminster, CO
Posts: 186

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu Gravel Bike, 2015 Motobecane Turino Team

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
There are business pressures favoring safety: a safe record will be a marketing point and also lower insurance costs. I'd imagine insurance companies will soon develop a lot of tech expertise evaluating AV systems.

Ubur is going to take a pretty big valuation hit because of the fatality in Arizona, but it's hard to determine because it's not a publicly traded company.

Having said that, disastrous cost cutting decisions are bound to pop up from time to time.


Cost-benefit analyses will surely drive the industry, just like it does today. Every day, companies weigh the possible cost of lawsuits vs fixing a known problem. Nothing is going to change that. E.g. Ford Pinto


Hopefully, you are right. But ultimately, someone has to decide what is an "acceptable risk level," whether it is the insurance industry or the general public. Still lots that is unknown.
RFEngineer is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 12:42 PM
  #2714  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Do tell, how was this Uber AV programmed to see and respond to pedestrians crossing the road to include those not found in crosswalks?
I don't know all the specifics of course but I do know it is not programed to:
"not look at all for "illegal" jaywalkers and bicyclists and think it is "legal" to run them down??"

The sensor is what looks, the programmed SW interprets the signal from sensor(s)

We know a functional sensor (lidar) should have been able to detect. We don't know if it was functioning. If was was not it was not because of a jackass programmers intent. It could have been a mistake or it could have been disabled by an engineer or operator.

Assuming the SW did receive the signal we don't know what it did with it. It can be confidently assumed that every object identified is addressed by SW whether a jaywalker, pothole or sofa that fell off a truck. The SW can not simply ignore specific objects if they produce a signal from the sensor. By its very design it can not 'not look' for specific objects.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that if the SW had identified a jaywalker or unidentified perpendicular moving object that it would ignore it because it has been programmed that it is legal to run them down. First that is not how the law is written and secondly it is not in the interest of the company or the individual vehicle to collide with anything and that if the sensor/sw was functioning correctly it should have responded in some manner.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 01:17 PM
  #2715  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
It is also ridiculous to suggest that if the SW had identified a jaywalker or unidentified perpendicular moving object that it would ignore it because it has been programmed that it is legal to run them down. First that is not how the law is written and secondly it is not in the interest of the company or the individual vehicle to collide with anything and that if the sensor/sw was functioning correctly it should have responded in some manner.
You don't recognize obvious sarcasm do you?

You must not be reading the posts from some of our comrades who are constantly making all sorts of excuses for the actions/inaction of the Uber vehicle based on what the victim wore or whether she was a "legal" pedestrian, or what the cheapo dash cam recorded, or from those including yourself, who continually question what the victim saw or did not see prior to impact as if it removes any responsibility of this AV to respond to a human crossing the road.

My point and I'm sure the focus of the NHSTA investigation will be on the Uber vehicle equipment (software and hardware) and its operation on public roads including supervision of these AV "tests" and what should be done about it in the future.

I suppose for some, including the Tempe police chief and some of our BF comrades the only finding called for is to reissue warnings to pedestrians to use more care when crossing the street, and Uber operations should continue as in the past. Thankfully the AZ governor has at last recognized the consequences of giving free reign to outfits like Uber to "test" their unsupervised or unregulated testing schemes on public roads.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-28-18 at 01:34 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 01:49 PM
  #2716  
Senior Member
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,928

Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque

Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 2,903 Times in 1,582 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
I don't know all the specifics of course but I do know it is not programed to:
"not look at all for "illegal" jaywalkers and bicyclists and think it is "legal" to run them down??"

The sensor is what looks, the programmed SW interprets the signal from sensor(s)

We know a functional sensor (lidar) should have been able to detect. We don't know if it was functioning. If was was not it was not because of a jackass programmers intent. It could have been a mistake or it could have been disabled by an engineer or operator.

Assuming the SW did receive the signal we don't know what it did with it. It can be confidently assumed that every object identified is addressed by SW whether a jaywalker, pothole or sofa that fell off a truck. The SW can not simply ignore specific objects if they produce a signal from the sensor. By its very design it can not 'not look' for specific objects.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that if the SW had identified a jaywalker or unidentified perpendicular moving object that it would ignore it because it has been programmed that it is legal to run them down. First that is not how the law is written and secondly it is not in the interest of the company or the individual vehicle to collide with anything and that if the sensor/sw was functioning correctly it should have responded in some manner.
disabling would make no sense and may be crimnal.

that is assuming the software does not have any bugs.....which is a big assumption with Uber history of aggressive implementation.
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)



squirtdad is online now  
Old 03-28-18, 01:53 PM
  #2717  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by squirtdad
disabling would make no sense and may be crimnal.

that is assuming the software does not have any bugs
all correct, but i am countering the ridiculous notion that this (ignoring jaywalkers and hitting them because it is legal) was by design of the jackass programmers.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 02:53 PM
  #2718  
Senior Member
 
MidSouthBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: MidSouth
Posts: 352

Bikes: Mr.White Mr.Green Mr.Orange

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Rollfast
I had a '69 4-door as well as a 1972 Duster Twister after that, both 225 Slant Sixes.
My very first car in High School was a 1966 Plymouth Valiant with that famous Slant Six. It was like a first love.
MidSouthBiker is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 02:55 PM
  #2719  
Senior Member
 
robertorolfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Queens, NY for now...
Posts: 1,515

Bikes: 82 Lotus Unique, 86 Lotus Legend, 88 Basso Loto, 88 Basso PR, 89 Basso PR, 96 Bianchi CDI, 2013 Deda Aegis, 2019 Basso Diamante SV

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times in 113 Posts
I know there is another thread going on with this issue, but have any of you seen the recent videos taken by regular drivers and posted on youtube? The ambient light is significantly brighter than what is shown on the Uber video, and in most likelihood she would have been visible to the human eye.
robertorolfo is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 04:11 PM
  #2720  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,577

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7680 Post(s)
Liked 3,570 Times in 1,878 Posts
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
I know there is another thread going on with this issue, but have any of you seen the recent videos taken by regular drivers and posted on youtube? The ambient light is significantly brighter than what is shown on the Uber video, and in most likelihood she would have been visible to the human eye.
yes.

That is why people who want to post should read the Whole Thread before rehashing old battles.

The Ars Technica video is as overexposed as the Uber dash-cam video is underexposed.

Not trying to be harsh, but I mentioned it for a Second time—Right On This page, in post #2106.

Originally Posted by Maelochs
I think the Ars Technica video (which was overexposed, as much as the Uber video was underexposed) .....
So … you didn’t even read This Page carefully, one might think. Uber-level sensor performance, there.

but anyway ....
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 04:22 PM
  #2721  
Senior Member
 
robertorolfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Queens, NY for now...
Posts: 1,515

Bikes: 82 Lotus Unique, 86 Lotus Legend, 88 Basso Loto, 88 Basso PR, 89 Basso PR, 96 Bianchi CDI, 2013 Deda Aegis, 2019 Basso Diamante SV

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times in 113 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
yes.

That is why people who want to post should read the Whole Thread before rehashing old battles.

The Ars Technica video is as overexposed as the Uber dash-cam video is underexposed.

Not trying to be harsh, but I mentioned it for a Second time—Right On This page, in post #2106.



So … you didn’t even read This Page carefully, one might think. Uber-level sensor performance, there.

but anyway ....

Yeah, I read your comment, but essentially dismissed it because your "overexposed" claim is pretty laughable.

It was a simple video taken with a phone, and there are actually multiple videos that are consistent with that level of light.

Are you really saying a human wouldn't have seen the pedestrian? Are you really saying that a human might not have been able to swerve left to avoid her, if stopping in time wasn't possible? (You know that some of us are constantly checking our mirrors, and try to keep constant track of what is going on around them... kind of like what these computers are supposedly doing).
robertorolfo is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 05:30 PM
  #2722  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,008

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
Are you really saying a human wouldn't have seen the pedestrian? Are you really saying that a human might not have been able to swerve left to avoid her, if stopping in time wasn't possible? (You know that some of us are constantly checking our mirrors, and try to keep constant track of what is going on around them... kind of like what these computers are supposedly doing).
I believe what he is saying is that the Uber AV's failure to take any evasive action is immaterial to the legal issue for Uber because its AV hit a pedestrian who was a jaywalker. If that is not what is being posted here I would like to see the clarification about it.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 05:34 PM
  #2723  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
Originally Posted by MidSouthBiker
My very first car in High School was a 1966 Plymouth Valiant with that famous Slant Six. It was like a first love.
At the risk of upsetting SBW, YES, once you've owned a Mopar with a Slant Six it's like your first girlfriend. Compare it to your first bike and you won't be too far off.

To be honest, I begin to wonder if the Off-topic makes more sense than the direction of the topics of this and that poor Uber-victim.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 06:21 PM
  #2724  
Senior Member
 
MidSouthBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: MidSouth
Posts: 352

Bikes: Mr.White Mr.Green Mr.Orange

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Rollfast
At the risk of upsetting SBW, YES, once you've owned a Mopar with a Slant Six it's like your first girlfriend. Compare it to your first bike and you won't be too far off.

To be honest, I begin to wonder if the Off-topic makes more sense than the direction of the topics of this and that poor Uber-victim.
I remember my Uncle helping me drop the manual transmission, and replacing the clutch and throwout bearing.
Because I had done a lot of weight lifting in HS, I did all the muscle work while he provided the instruction.

Years later after I had bought my first car with an automatic transmission, I had this strange habit of accidentally slamming on the brakes with my left foot. It was searching for the clutch pedal.
MidSouthBiker is offline  
Old 03-28-18, 07:05 PM
  #2725  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Wish we could get 10.8 feet:
Self-Driving Car Ticketed In San Francisco; Company Disputes Violation « CBS San Francisco
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.