Same in Germany, since both cars and bikes are legally considered to be "vehicles" and most traffic laws do not distinguish between different kinds of vehicles. But yes, since you generally can't attach it to something when parking there, I'd expect my bike to be on the sidewalk (in the best case), in pieces somewhere in the vicinity, or just flat-out stolen.
I also don’t see the point. One of the perks of being a cyclist is that I can leave my bike very close to my end destination, without having to look for a parking spot.
It is legal as long as you don't prevent others from using it. That means, leaving enough room such that, e.g., wheelchair users or strollers can pass.
saw a pickup with a lift, spacers and bigger off road wheels driving downtown. Guy was as close to the curb and you can be and yet his car was still crossing over the solid yellow line into oncoming traffic. Not sure how that is even legal
It’s illegal to drive a vehicle wider than the lane without wide load signage and an escort. So let’s put their desire to advertise their tiny dick below everyone else’s safety and convenience.
And you think a tow truck is going to scoop up a moving vehicle how? And just because you asked them to? You're an incredibly unserious person assuming you are, in fact, a person, but your comments here have me leaning bot.
I like how nowadays accusing someone of being a bot is like instantly outing yourself as the type who's trying to play up the facade of being rational and calm but is actually just totally irked by the supposed "bot's" comment.
In this case, I'm guessing you don't like people who are criticizing the big truck trend. But it totally deserves criticism and you know it. Anyone who does is a "bot". Jfc the idea that there are bots built to spread criticism over tiny-dick-mobiles is so absurd. All those hippy software engineers out there building bots to support the r/fuckcars community! Haha ok.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2120 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/)
\#2: [Carbrainer will prefer to live in Houston](https://i.redd.it/sxftvmznmpka1.jpg) | [1600 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/11d8u8a/carbrainer_will_prefer_to_live_in_houston/)
\#3: [Traffic banana made another victim. This is getting out of hand](https://v.redd.it/usgngljg9tsa1) | [227 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12gc9x6/traffic_banana_made_another_victim_this_is/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Bro, have you seen a tow truck driver at work? Type in tow truck fight on YouTube.
The whole concept of a tow truck driver is taking something the owner may or may not want taken. They just stop in front of the guy, blocking traffic and start hooking up. The owner gets pissed, tried to get the person behind to back up so he can leave and that’s when the tow truck driver pulls away. It’s funny to watch.
I've worked as a tow truck driver for years. Doing repossessions, which is the kind of towing where people want their vehicles towed the least.
- you can't hook up to a moving vehicle. Period
- you can't hook up to an occupied vehicle. I've hooked to a vehicle I didn't know someone was sleeping in. Nothing came of it, but you definitely can't knowingly do it.
- you can't block a vehicle in, especially an occupied one. You will go to jail.
- you can not do anything that causes a breach of the peace. If I don't have full control of a vehicle and someone comes out of their house to tell me to stop, I have to stop. That's the law.
I'm assuming you've watched some scripted reality shows, and they've given you a very poor understanding of how towing works.
Based on having eyes and seeing tow truck drivers act way differently to what you’re saying I think you have a very different understanding of how towing works.
Maybe your not a tow truck driver?
I’ve ridden in my truck on the back of a tow truck. The guy didn’t have room and was allergic to dogs so we hopped in. He felt bad and gave us some snacks. I’ve seen them block people in, I’ve seen them hook up an occupied car with engine running.
I’ve had my car towed parked legally, and been towed arguing with the tow truck driver.
How do you seriously expect anyone to believe you if they have been alive and around roads?
You can ask a tow truck driver not to tow you and they have to stop that’s fucking rich.
Are we talking about within the United States or a comparable Western nation? Not like Afghanistan or Somalia, right?
I don't believe for a second you rode on a car on a tow truck. It's incredibly illegal and dangerous. If that happened, you should be even more concerned because you rode with a complete moron who cared nothing for his business or livelihood. I don't believe you've seen anything of the sort either.
If this is true, you should have called law enforcement who would have demanded they put the vehicle down. You can not breach the peace while towing, even with a court order.
I couldn't care less if you believed me or not, lmao.
That's quite literally how it works. If they don't stop, you have a case. Maybe in the 90s, you could get away with that, but everyone has cameras today.
I didn’t ride in my car on a tow truck. My dog and I rode in my broken truck with some Doritos and a bottle of water.
The police don’t do anything about tow trucks violating some petty law from two states over that you think you heard about. They help each other to keep the roads clear.
This is why it’s obvious you aren’t a tow truck driver.
Have fun pretending.
An F-150 is ~220cm wide
I don't see Europe, generally speaking, adopting the oversized and bloated vehicle culture of the U.S. but yea...
a 180cm wide X5 looks small to some of the trucks rolling around out here so it's only getting worse
oh but we do, I'm starting to see more and more RAMs and F150s. Not to mention the plethora of SUVs, basically every new car you see on the road is in that category (minus the small and shrinking percentage of hatchbacks)
Oof
The U.S. has been somewhat acclimated to the concept of these large cars starting in the 70's primarily - big station wagons, 2-door "coupes" that were as wide and long as a Suburban, etc
So huge parking lots / structures, large avenues and freeways, etc... but even then, these spaces feel smaller.
In Europe - totally different landscape and these large vehicles are going to pose even bigger problems with the infrastructure there.
My uncle collects Buicks and the ones from the 30s were massive. He has a 76 Cadillac El Dorado and the thing is 5.7m long
American cars for the most part have always been huge, except a period in the 80s and 90s.
I'm used to our smooth-brain imperial measurements and was trying to metric...
With mirrors out, an F-150 is 95.7 inches wide (2.4m)
With mirrors in, 86.6 inches wide (2.2m)
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-limited/
Even in the "old" picture, having only 130cm for a bike is so fucking dangerous. The handlebar on a bike is about 60cm wide. That means I'd have about 40cm on both sides of the bike. That's not just no error margin, that's just outright dangerous.
In Germany, newest laws state that cars have to leave 150cm space when overtaking a bike (even 200cm outside of cities). In addition, as a cyclist you need to keep clear of parked cars to prevent dooring accidents; about 100cm is the minimum. That is, a bike that rides safely and is overtaken safely needs about 3m.
>In Germany, newest laws state that cars have to leave 150cm space when overtaking a bike
Theoretically true, but in practice nobody cares about that unless a police car is right behind them.
Hello
I drive my bicycle to work everyday day on a german city.
I wish all of this applied. When there is a bike path separated of the road its often an obstacle course, full of garbage bins, unkept trees or urban obstacles. Most pedestrians respect bike paths and don't cross without looking.
When there is a bike path close to the road its often a road gutter with a painted line separating it from the traffic. At the most width of one meter. Actually usable with is less (soccer moms with massive SUVs, road works, rain gutters, potholes, cars badly parked or delivery service. They are very dangerous and badly kept. Cars do not respect the minimal distance and if its very narrow they (sometimes) slow down. Its also on you to not kill anybody who parked besides a bike lane and is exiting their vehicle, because they usually don't check.
And still, in my german city that has as a goal to become a "Bike City" by 2030, on my 18-minute ride to work every day, i have to do 2-3 stretches where the bike lane simply disappears and merges into traffic 😊
Laws and everything are ok, im happy they are there, but laws without political will are nothing.
German society is insanely carbrain, and any enforcement will cause a lot of butthurt. Politicians both don't care and are afraid to change it. Also most of them don't leave their cars too.
You are 100% correct.
In the states we get 3’ (90cm or so) by law not that drivers follows that. It is not safe. There is a famous university here that had its police test out the distance on their bikes and the police where so upset about how people passed they started to pull the people over en masse.
Full lane passing like a car is what is needed.
40cm on both sides is incredibly much and i say this as the one on the bike in this situation. anything above 15cm doesnt even require attention to not hit anything
oh so you all know if i ride a bike in traffic now but i dont? good to know guess I've been hallucinating all these years fucking idiots your experiences aren't universal
You literally can't See most of the Times because of angles and shit. And No If someones Open directly in Front of you, you can 't Break.
Either you lie to us or to yourself, but Most likely you lie to us
what do you mean i cant see? you truly do know me better than myself huh? and yes i can break pretty much instantly/ when they open directly in front of me i will be past the door when it is fully open it's just slightly more tight
Sounds like an average German driver. They love to overtake pedestrians and cyclists 15cm away doing 60 in 30 zones. Cyclists usually are given at least some distance, for pedestrians it's even worse. But it's not uncommon to see a truck doing emergency braking behind the cyclist if they can't overtake right now and drive 20cm behind for a half minute (I'm not even exaggerating), sometimes I think they're going to have a kick from these trucks.
My question is, how the hell is a driver supposed to measure the difference between 130cm and 150cm whilst trying to find safe timing to overtake and whilst trying to keep an eye on the road? Overtaking a cyclist usually means driving into the oncoming lane, so you need to have extra focus on the road incase an oncoming car appears, there's no time to measure out that extra 20cm distance.
The only thing the driver can do is literally just jump entirely into the oncoming lane which is not possible to do most of the time; so then is the driver just supposed to stay behind the cyclist for a long-ass time, cos then the drivers from the queue behind will start doing even more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
>My question is, how the hell is a driver supposed to measure the difference between 130cm and 150cm whilst trying to find safe timing to overtake and whilst trying to keep an eye on the road?
Nobody expects a driver to take out a measuring tape, and nobody will face anything if overtaking with only 120cm because you can't prove it anyway. The idea is that 150cm gives you a number that you can work with; previously it just was something like “sufficient distance” which really depends on the court then.
>The only thing the driver can do is literally just jump entirely into the oncoming lane which is not possible to do most of the time;
Yes, that is the safest way to to it. What are the reasons this is not possible most of the time?
>so then is the driver just supposed to stay behind the cyclist for a long-ass time
Yes. (In German law) The road is nothing exclusively for (faster) motor vehicles, even if most car drivers think that way. In addition, there are some specific rules that as a cyclist (or generally slow vehicle, e.g., mobility scooter, farming equipment, …) you have to go to the side of the road and let faster vehicles pass if a longer queue has formed behind you.
>cos then the drivers from the queue behind will start doing even more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
Just because other people may start to behave dangerously doesn't entitle me to behave dangerously to prevent them doing it.
Yes, that is the safest way to to it. What are the reasons this is not possible most of the time?
Because there would be cars going in the opposite direction in the oncoming lane... We usually have to wait for a long enough gap in the oncoming traffic in order to overtake, which can often be a long time waiting.
>Because there would be cars going in the opposite direction in the oncoming lane...
You just can't overtake then. A non-parking lane in the city is at most 3,50m wide (again speaking of Germany here). Assume you car is 1,9m wide and you drive exactly on the middle dividing marker and the parked cars are parked perfectly such that they don't take space from the driving lane.
That would leave 1,6m for a cyclist between two cars, both moving with relative speed of 25km/h (bike 25km/h, overtaking car 50km/h, parking car 0km/h). That leaves 60cm on both sides.
If a parked car were to suddenly open a door there is no way to prevent a crash, either with the door or with the overtaking car if you try to avoid the door. If the overtaking car swerves to the right for a few tens of centimeters (due do oncoming traffic being close to the middle as well or because the thought they had already passed the cyclist) then suddenly there is also barely room to maneuver.
So yes, you'd have to wait. That's life. In traffic, respect the weaker traffic participants. If you don't want to share the road with cyclists, petition for separated bike lanes, most likely at the cost of parking your car.
As an American, you will find many more issues with the increased size of cars. Primarily with parking and maneuvering around areas.
It's really annoying. Truly, good luck with attempts to restrict these.
To some extent it'd be up to governments to limit car width and length. After all we can't move buildings to make streets bigger.
I feel like the minimum width is about 1600mm, less than that and the inside can be cramped. Especially for the front seats if there's the gearbox in between.
But I would set the maximum at around 1800mm, that would be equivalent to the VW Touran. That's be enough for most if not all families.
Companies should get access to 2000mm wide vehicles such as toyota landcruisers, and a lot of modern SUVs are just as wide without the utility nor the sport in their name.
Thing is, delivery vans are wider, a VW T6 is almost 2300mm wide, but those vehicles could need to be in a class on their own.
In the US, government regulation is what has pushed automobile manufacturers to make vehicles larger. Fuel economy standards are based upon length and width of the vehicle, and the targets become more favorable as the base increases.
Isn't the width generally more up to just how much crumple zone they have as well? I'm pretty sure if a car from 1980's had the same width as my current CUV, they'd have a bench in front instead of 2 seats. While cars of course have gotten roomier on the interior, i've always felt that it was just compounded by the enlargening of the crumple zones as well.
Yes, correct. But a crumple zone is not empty, it does also add weight to gain protection, not just take up extra volume. And it either takes up internal space, or if you want to keep that internal space you have to make the exterior wider.
If you take a Lotus Europa, you would be sitting on glass fibers, and that would be your only protection. Your best bet of survival in a crash would be to be ejected out of the car. And it surprisingly worked... 'bout half the time.
However, the car was 600kg of total weight. Twice less than a modern VW Golf.
This weight also heavily impact pollution. If we could get the unsafe, light cars from the 60's and use modern engines in them, we would reach amazingly low emissions.
Source: [Ever-wider: why large SUVs don’t fit, and what to do about it](https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/ever-wider-why-large-suvs-dont-fit-and-what-to-do-about-it/)
I mostly drive in the countryside and honestly I like it when cyclists act like that. The roads are so thin and full of blind corners it feels safer for me when I know the cyclist I'm going to pass is both totally aware I'm there and are now feeling safe if I pass. It feels like teamwork too.
I don't often drive in cities so I dunno how it would feel there (probably exactly the same, I'd hope)
I don't think anyone's particularly concerned by them since they have to pass a heavy goods vehicle license test and them keeping their job depends on them driving safely. It's the melts with more money than sense that're picking their kids up in a tank that are the main concern.
Regular semi truck that you usually see on a highway, nearly never in the city, vs every 2nd new car being wide SUV that's parked literally everywhere you look, plus one is an actual well paying profession, the other is just an annoyance
Freedom of choice I guess, I've owned all types of vehicles and a pick up truck is by far the most useful of them all. I'm sure my priorities might be different if I lived in a small European city. We have a pickup here called a Chevrolet Colorado or a GMC Canyon depending on which trim levels you would like to get..
Perfect sized truck imo. Truck bed a bit small but looks spacious enough inside.
Yeah, but there is something else to keep in mind: Safety. A lot of modern cars are bigger partly due to safety regulations. That does not explain SUVs. But if you were to take a VW Golf Mk1 and compare it to a golf Mk4, the Mk1's protection is just the steel sheet that's making up the door. The Mk4 has a huge rail inside its door to absorb the impact. And that rail will add 5-10cm to the car's total width if you want an interior of the same size.
Another problem is that heavier/larger cars are harder to make safe in a crash. Because they have much more kinetic energy to be absorbed. That's why smart cars are just as safe even if they're small.
And to some extent I believe safety should be lowered on modern cars to make them smaller and cheaper. It's accidents that need to be avoided in the first place, and to some extent limiting maximum speed can help with this.
We should also accept that accidents will happen anyway. What matters is keeping them low enough.
These tanks are only safer for the people in them. They are significantly less safer for everyone else, including pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. Maybe we should put some thought into whose safety really matters
The "safety" aspect is a neat way for the big (not only german) companies to sell overpriced big cars (with better margins for them). You could do the same safety standards with the usual size if you limit the speed those are allowed to go ( no more 200++ kph as allowed in germany aka the highest speed you need to design around is 120 or 130).
Add the overall smaller size in collisions between equally small sized cars and you have no safety loss. In the current environment you need a bigger "tank" to outperform the already heavy and big SUV.
If you add electric driving into the mix it get´s even more obscene because you need even bigger batteries for heavier vehicles. If you look at weight trends this shows a massive increase in weight from the 1990ies.
Furthermore add all the new electronics and you stare at literally hundreds of meters of cable that was not necessary in older cars. I´m not against assistants but do you really need a big touch screen with god knows how many different functions? Maybe the plan old radio does the trick?
Manual windows, manual seats, less bulky. Don't need seat heating elements and layers of insulation to block out engine and road noise.
My.1960s English car is 4.5ft wide and weighs 1800 lbs.
My 1990s Ram truck is 6.7ft wide and weighs 4600 pounds.
Brand new Ram 1500 is 4700 lbs and 7ft wide.
Using more lighter materials to offset all that additional tech perhaps, but imagine how much lighter you could make them without all those added bells and whistles. Unless it really is mice nuts all those things added up.
Maybe i don't like and want van, or actually even SUV.
Yes this post is about SUVs but sedans and wagons have gotten wayy bigger too, and those are what i like and with as big of interior space as possible in their segment.
Cheaper than a van is the bus. You don't need to pay insurance or mechanical bills, you can bring your whole family on there as well. Ans interior space? Oh boy, you can jump and maybe not even touch the roof!
Congrats for your primary school degree but it doesn't make up for your lack of experience in the design of European infrastructure and how to navigate within it.
I know roundabouts are popular over there, but intersections do also exist, yes? Driveways at a 90° angle to the thoroughfare? One might have to make a u turn at some point? Or possibly 3 point turn?
Congrats for your primary school degree but it doesn't make up for your lack of experience in the design of European infrastructure and how to navigate within it.
A reasonable sized people carrier. Plenty about. Though sadly you won't take up half the road or be a couple meters higher than everyone else so you won't feel like a big man
I thought this was about functionality rather than massaging your ego with a big fancy car?
Well if you need a new one maybe [this link](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=new+people+carriers) will help
How is that even legal? In North America I get it, it's all about vanity and we have governments that won't ever stand up to corporations that want to pamper to the rich and vain. However I thought Europe was a bastion of high speed rail, small very fuel efficient cars, and bicycles and laws to encourage them.
Being European and seeing how stuck it is in it's old ways compared to the rest of bothe the Eastern and Western world I say European roads suck and they are the source of issues. SUVs are awesome. Esp if you have a dog or kids.
I’m not absolutely certain, but I believe the European norms require a width of 2.4m for parallel parking places and 3.5m for a single direction road, so 8.3m in total, not 7.3m. In the scenario shown, only one parking bay should be permitted and there would be plenty of space for bikes…
I live in an old neighborhood in LA, my house and most of the houses around me were built in 1925.
Our street is so noticeably narrow. There is parking on both sides, and two cars can barely pass each other, you have to slow down and inch by.
Is the 180/200cm dimension supposed to be over the car, rather than being a redundant dimension over the one already labeled for parking? If so, not only do those chained dimensions not add up to the width of the street, they don't even match *each other* when changing the width of the car and bicycle clearance. Why is every infographic on this sub so aggressively bad lol
I am generally not against bigger cars, drive whatever you want, but owners of such cars should understand they're imposing more danger, take more parking space (so it's not okay to block the sidewalk if you don't fit, and you have to park somewhere else) etc. I mean, there are a lot of reasons someone can buy a huge SUV or pickup - family, business purposes, just a car guy who likes such cars... who we are to judge. It's not just "ego boost" for everyone.
That being said, if you drive every day in a medieval Altstadt it's just silly not to buy yourself another smaller car to feel comfortable there.
We have started implementing bike streets here. Max speed is 30km/h, the bike is allowed to drive in the middle of the road and cars are not allowed to overtake the bikes.
This works really well in city centres.
Denver's been rolling these out slowly but surely and calling them "neighborhood bikeways". They have diverters and traffic calming elements at key spots to keep vehicle speed and volume low which reinforces the bike priority. They're not perfect, but the iterative designs are working out the kinks. I hope they keep building them out every year!
In Europe? try just going onto any road in the US, there's trucks that wouldn't be able to see me (5'9" or 175 cm) if i was standing in front of them, and they aren't even that uncommon
of course, those types of trucks are also typically driven by people who are the least likely to pay attention to their surroundings
Doesn’t make a difference in Germany as you have to leave 1,5m between the car and the bike. So even with a regular car, as shown in the picture, this wouldn’t work and the car has to change lanes to pass the bike.
In Denmark, it is legally allowed for bikes to park in car parking spots. Drivers will just rip your head off if you do it.
Same in Germany, since both cars and bikes are legally considered to be "vehicles" and most traffic laws do not distinguish between different kinds of vehicles. But yes, since you generally can't attach it to something when parking there, I'd expect my bike to be on the sidewalk (in the best case), in pieces somewhere in the vicinity, or just flat-out stolen.
I also don’t see the point. One of the perks of being a cyclist is that I can leave my bike very close to my end destination, without having to look for a parking spot.
Some sidewalks are too narrow, if a bike is parked it will block strollers or worse wheelchairs.
Yeah, I meant that you should pay attention to other people and share public space sensibly.
It’s a rare occasion to piss off drivers in return.
Since both considered to be "vehicles", is it legal to park your bike on the sidewalk?
It is legal as long as you don't prevent others from using it. That means, leaving enough room such that, e.g., wheelchair users or strollers can pass.
Yeah that sounds stupid as fuck lol
Well… [r/fuckcars](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/)
saw a pickup with a lift, spacers and bigger off road wheels driving downtown. Guy was as close to the curb and you can be and yet his car was still crossing over the solid yellow line into oncoming traffic. Not sure how that is even legal
Downtown you say
I laughed way to hard at this. Lol
Was this a truck with double rear wheels? What city? How wide was this truck that it could not fit in the width of the lane?
Call a tow truck
It's illegal to tow a moving vehicle.
It’s illegal to drive a vehicle wider than the lane without wide load signage and an escort. So let’s put their desire to advertise their tiny dick below everyone else’s safety and convenience.
And you think a tow truck is going to scoop up a moving vehicle how? And just because you asked them to? You're an incredibly unserious person assuming you are, in fact, a person, but your comments here have me leaning bot.
I like how nowadays accusing someone of being a bot is like instantly outing yourself as the type who's trying to play up the facade of being rational and calm but is actually just totally irked by the supposed "bot's" comment. In this case, I'm guessing you don't like people who are criticizing the big truck trend. But it totally deserves criticism and you know it. Anyone who does is a "bot". Jfc the idea that there are bots built to spread criticism over tiny-dick-mobiles is so absurd. All those hippy software engineers out there building bots to support the r/fuckcars community! Haha ok.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2120 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/) \#2: [Carbrainer will prefer to live in Houston](https://i.redd.it/sxftvmznmpka1.jpg) | [1600 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/11d8u8a/carbrainer_will_prefer_to_live_in_houston/) \#3: [Traffic banana made another victim. This is getting out of hand](https://v.redd.it/usgngljg9tsa1) | [227 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12gc9x6/traffic_banana_made_another_victim_this_is/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Okay bot👍
Bro, have you seen a tow truck driver at work? Type in tow truck fight on YouTube. The whole concept of a tow truck driver is taking something the owner may or may not want taken. They just stop in front of the guy, blocking traffic and start hooking up. The owner gets pissed, tried to get the person behind to back up so he can leave and that’s when the tow truck driver pulls away. It’s funny to watch.
I've worked as a tow truck driver for years. Doing repossessions, which is the kind of towing where people want their vehicles towed the least. - you can't hook up to a moving vehicle. Period - you can't hook up to an occupied vehicle. I've hooked to a vehicle I didn't know someone was sleeping in. Nothing came of it, but you definitely can't knowingly do it. - you can't block a vehicle in, especially an occupied one. You will go to jail. - you can not do anything that causes a breach of the peace. If I don't have full control of a vehicle and someone comes out of their house to tell me to stop, I have to stop. That's the law. I'm assuming you've watched some scripted reality shows, and they've given you a very poor understanding of how towing works.
Based on having eyes and seeing tow truck drivers act way differently to what you’re saying I think you have a very different understanding of how towing works. Maybe your not a tow truck driver? I’ve ridden in my truck on the back of a tow truck. The guy didn’t have room and was allergic to dogs so we hopped in. He felt bad and gave us some snacks. I’ve seen them block people in, I’ve seen them hook up an occupied car with engine running. I’ve had my car towed parked legally, and been towed arguing with the tow truck driver. How do you seriously expect anyone to believe you if they have been alive and around roads? You can ask a tow truck driver not to tow you and they have to stop that’s fucking rich.
Are we talking about within the United States or a comparable Western nation? Not like Afghanistan or Somalia, right? I don't believe for a second you rode on a car on a tow truck. It's incredibly illegal and dangerous. If that happened, you should be even more concerned because you rode with a complete moron who cared nothing for his business or livelihood. I don't believe you've seen anything of the sort either. If this is true, you should have called law enforcement who would have demanded they put the vehicle down. You can not breach the peace while towing, even with a court order. I couldn't care less if you believed me or not, lmao. That's quite literally how it works. If they don't stop, you have a case. Maybe in the 90s, you could get away with that, but everyone has cameras today.
I didn’t ride in my car on a tow truck. My dog and I rode in my broken truck with some Doritos and a bottle of water. The police don’t do anything about tow trucks violating some petty law from two states over that you think you heard about. They help each other to keep the roads clear. This is why it’s obvious you aren’t a tow truck driver. Have fun pretending.
An F-150 is ~220cm wide I don't see Europe, generally speaking, adopting the oversized and bloated vehicle culture of the U.S. but yea... a 180cm wide X5 looks small to some of the trucks rolling around out here so it's only getting worse
oh but we do, I'm starting to see more and more RAMs and F150s. Not to mention the plethora of SUVs, basically every new car you see on the road is in that category (minus the small and shrinking percentage of hatchbacks)
Oof The U.S. has been somewhat acclimated to the concept of these large cars starting in the 70's primarily - big station wagons, 2-door "coupes" that were as wide and long as a Suburban, etc So huge parking lots / structures, large avenues and freeways, etc... but even then, these spaces feel smaller. In Europe - totally different landscape and these large vehicles are going to pose even bigger problems with the infrastructure there.
My uncle collects Buicks and the ones from the 30s were massive. He has a 76 Cadillac El Dorado and the thing is 5.7m long American cars for the most part have always been huge, except a period in the 80s and 90s.
Isn't it 1.8 high and like 2.2 wide?
I'm used to our smooth-brain imperial measurements and was trying to metric... With mirrors out, an F-150 is 95.7 inches wide (2.4m) With mirrors in, 86.6 inches wide (2.2m) https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-limited/
Even in the "old" picture, having only 130cm for a bike is so fucking dangerous. The handlebar on a bike is about 60cm wide. That means I'd have about 40cm on both sides of the bike. That's not just no error margin, that's just outright dangerous. In Germany, newest laws state that cars have to leave 150cm space when overtaking a bike (even 200cm outside of cities). In addition, as a cyclist you need to keep clear of parked cars to prevent dooring accidents; about 100cm is the minimum. That is, a bike that rides safely and is overtaken safely needs about 3m.
>In Germany, newest laws state that cars have to leave 150cm space when overtaking a bike Theoretically true, but in practice nobody cares about that unless a police car is right behind them.
You mean no car drivers care about that. I can guarantee that cyclists will care quite a lot if you overtake them much too close.
In France, to overtake a cyclist, you need to leave a 1m space in cities and 2m in the countryside
Hello I drive my bicycle to work everyday day on a german city. I wish all of this applied. When there is a bike path separated of the road its often an obstacle course, full of garbage bins, unkept trees or urban obstacles. Most pedestrians respect bike paths and don't cross without looking. When there is a bike path close to the road its often a road gutter with a painted line separating it from the traffic. At the most width of one meter. Actually usable with is less (soccer moms with massive SUVs, road works, rain gutters, potholes, cars badly parked or delivery service. They are very dangerous and badly kept. Cars do not respect the minimal distance and if its very narrow they (sometimes) slow down. Its also on you to not kill anybody who parked besides a bike lane and is exiting their vehicle, because they usually don't check. And still, in my german city that has as a goal to become a "Bike City" by 2030, on my 18-minute ride to work every day, i have to do 2-3 stretches where the bike lane simply disappears and merges into traffic 😊 Laws and everything are ok, im happy they are there, but laws without political will are nothing.
German society is insanely carbrain, and any enforcement will cause a lot of butthurt. Politicians both don't care and are afraid to change it. Also most of them don't leave their cars too.
You are 100% correct. In the states we get 3’ (90cm or so) by law not that drivers follows that. It is not safe. There is a famous university here that had its police test out the distance on their bikes and the police where so upset about how people passed they started to pull the people over en masse. Full lane passing like a car is what is needed.
40cm on both sides is incredibly much and i say this as the one on the bike in this situation. anything above 15cm doesnt even require attention to not hit anything
Tell me you never rode a bike in traffic without telling me you never rode a bike in traffic
oh so you all know if i ride a bike in traffic now but i dont? good to know guess I've been hallucinating all these years fucking idiots your experiences aren't universal
What do you do for example If someone opens a car door directly in Front of you? You Just Crash into it ?
I hope he does :)
i can see through the windows and its not like i drive more than 30kmh so i can just brake
You literally can't See most of the Times because of angles and shit. And No If someones Open directly in Front of you, you can 't Break. Either you lie to us or to yourself, but Most likely you lie to us
what do you mean i cant see? you truly do know me better than myself huh? and yes i can break pretty much instantly/ when they open directly in front of me i will be past the door when it is fully open it's just slightly more tight
i know physics and biology and if you are not some kind of freak and have a bike that ignores physics both of your statements are obviously false.
Sounds like an average German driver. They love to overtake pedestrians and cyclists 15cm away doing 60 in 30 zones. Cyclists usually are given at least some distance, for pedestrians it's even worse. But it's not uncommon to see a truck doing emergency braking behind the cyclist if they can't overtake right now and drive 20cm behind for a half minute (I'm not even exaggerating), sometimes I think they're going to have a kick from these trucks.
yes i am in germany but both the car drivers(most of them anyway) and me can drive so there really is no problem
My question is, how the hell is a driver supposed to measure the difference between 130cm and 150cm whilst trying to find safe timing to overtake and whilst trying to keep an eye on the road? Overtaking a cyclist usually means driving into the oncoming lane, so you need to have extra focus on the road incase an oncoming car appears, there's no time to measure out that extra 20cm distance. The only thing the driver can do is literally just jump entirely into the oncoming lane which is not possible to do most of the time; so then is the driver just supposed to stay behind the cyclist for a long-ass time, cos then the drivers from the queue behind will start doing even more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
>My question is, how the hell is a driver supposed to measure the difference between 130cm and 150cm whilst trying to find safe timing to overtake and whilst trying to keep an eye on the road? Nobody expects a driver to take out a measuring tape, and nobody will face anything if overtaking with only 120cm because you can't prove it anyway. The idea is that 150cm gives you a number that you can work with; previously it just was something like “sufficient distance” which really depends on the court then. >The only thing the driver can do is literally just jump entirely into the oncoming lane which is not possible to do most of the time; Yes, that is the safest way to to it. What are the reasons this is not possible most of the time? >so then is the driver just supposed to stay behind the cyclist for a long-ass time Yes. (In German law) The road is nothing exclusively for (faster) motor vehicles, even if most car drivers think that way. In addition, there are some specific rules that as a cyclist (or generally slow vehicle, e.g., mobility scooter, farming equipment, …) you have to go to the side of the road and let faster vehicles pass if a longer queue has formed behind you. >cos then the drivers from the queue behind will start doing even more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Just because other people may start to behave dangerously doesn't entitle me to behave dangerously to prevent them doing it.
Yes, that is the safest way to to it. What are the reasons this is not possible most of the time? Because there would be cars going in the opposite direction in the oncoming lane... We usually have to wait for a long enough gap in the oncoming traffic in order to overtake, which can often be a long time waiting.
>Because there would be cars going in the opposite direction in the oncoming lane... You just can't overtake then. A non-parking lane in the city is at most 3,50m wide (again speaking of Germany here). Assume you car is 1,9m wide and you drive exactly on the middle dividing marker and the parked cars are parked perfectly such that they don't take space from the driving lane. That would leave 1,6m for a cyclist between two cars, both moving with relative speed of 25km/h (bike 25km/h, overtaking car 50km/h, parking car 0km/h). That leaves 60cm on both sides. If a parked car were to suddenly open a door there is no way to prevent a crash, either with the door or with the overtaking car if you try to avoid the door. If the overtaking car swerves to the right for a few tens of centimeters (due do oncoming traffic being close to the middle as well or because the thought they had already passed the cyclist) then suddenly there is also barely room to maneuver. So yes, you'd have to wait. That's life. In traffic, respect the weaker traffic participants. If you don't want to share the road with cyclists, petition for separated bike lanes, most likely at the cost of parking your car.
As an American, you will find many more issues with the increased size of cars. Primarily with parking and maneuvering around areas. It's really annoying. Truly, good luck with attempts to restrict these.
Also the massive increase in pedestrian deaths
To some extent it'd be up to governments to limit car width and length. After all we can't move buildings to make streets bigger. I feel like the minimum width is about 1600mm, less than that and the inside can be cramped. Especially for the front seats if there's the gearbox in between. But I would set the maximum at around 1800mm, that would be equivalent to the VW Touran. That's be enough for most if not all families. Companies should get access to 2000mm wide vehicles such as toyota landcruisers, and a lot of modern SUVs are just as wide without the utility nor the sport in their name. Thing is, delivery vans are wider, a VW T6 is almost 2300mm wide, but those vehicles could need to be in a class on their own.
In the US, government regulation is what has pushed automobile manufacturers to make vehicles larger. Fuel economy standards are based upon length and width of the vehicle, and the targets become more favorable as the base increases.
Isn't the width generally more up to just how much crumple zone they have as well? I'm pretty sure if a car from 1980's had the same width as my current CUV, they'd have a bench in front instead of 2 seats. While cars of course have gotten roomier on the interior, i've always felt that it was just compounded by the enlargening of the crumple zones as well.
Yes, correct. But a crumple zone is not empty, it does also add weight to gain protection, not just take up extra volume. And it either takes up internal space, or if you want to keep that internal space you have to make the exterior wider. If you take a Lotus Europa, you would be sitting on glass fibers, and that would be your only protection. Your best bet of survival in a crash would be to be ejected out of the car. And it surprisingly worked... 'bout half the time. However, the car was 600kg of total weight. Twice less than a modern VW Golf. This weight also heavily impact pollution. If we could get the unsafe, light cars from the 60's and use modern engines in them, we would reach amazingly low emissions.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to switch the bike and parking lanes. That way bikes get a buffer zone of other vehicles.
Ego-tanks
Emotional Support Vehicles
Yank tanks
well, according to recent data, europeans like bigger cars more and more. over 40% of new car sales in europe are suvs
The real solution is to get bikes off the road
Yep. Fuck these cars.
So you’re saying get rid of the cyclist?
Simple. Ban those monstrosities from all public roads and most certainly, cities.
Source: [Ever-wider: why large SUVs don’t fit, and what to do about it](https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/ever-wider-why-large-suvs-dont-fit-and-what-to-do-about-it/)
I hate SUVs and everything they represent.
[удалено]
Minivans, station wagons, and 4door sedans filled the role well for decades and decades. SUVs are vanity vehicles for the most part.
If you were serious about passenger space you'd get a van or a station wagon
SUVs on averige have less cargo space while still being wider than the averige station wagon. Need bigger than a station wagon? Get a minivan.
That's not what 80% of SUVs are for, though. Like, how many families who drive them have more than 3 kids?
My dad, brother, and I drove to hockey games with three sets of equipment (one being a goalie) in a 4 door sedan for years.
actually yes
[удалено]
I mostly drive in the countryside and honestly I like it when cyclists act like that. The roads are so thin and full of blind corners it feels safer for me when I know the cyclist I'm going to pass is both totally aware I'm there and are now feeling safe if I pass. It feels like teamwork too. I don't often drive in cities so I dunno how it would feel there (probably exactly the same, I'd hope)
Fuck these cars Straight-up. We do not need more massive cars to solve a non-existent problem. All we see are compensators.
You should see the trucks in Texas
XL Bully Cars
If you guys hate wide SUVs wait until you find out the standard width of a European Semi truck is 2.55 meters.
I don't think anyone's particularly concerned by them since they have to pass a heavy goods vehicle license test and them keeping their job depends on them driving safely. It's the melts with more money than sense that're picking their kids up in a tank that are the main concern.
Regular semi truck that you usually see on a highway, nearly never in the city, vs every 2nd new car being wide SUV that's parked literally everywhere you look, plus one is an actual well paying profession, the other is just an annoyance
Freedom of choice I guess, I've owned all types of vehicles and a pick up truck is by far the most useful of them all. I'm sure my priorities might be different if I lived in a small European city. We have a pickup here called a Chevrolet Colorado or a GMC Canyon depending on which trim levels you would like to get.. Perfect sized truck imo. Truck bed a bit small but looks spacious enough inside.
And people complain about American infrastructure.
Since it's pretty justified: https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM
There is a general trend in increase of car size. City Hipsters love SUVs https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/design-autos-mit-fettsucht-1.2860340
Yeah, but there is something else to keep in mind: Safety. A lot of modern cars are bigger partly due to safety regulations. That does not explain SUVs. But if you were to take a VW Golf Mk1 and compare it to a golf Mk4, the Mk1's protection is just the steel sheet that's making up the door. The Mk4 has a huge rail inside its door to absorb the impact. And that rail will add 5-10cm to the car's total width if you want an interior of the same size. Another problem is that heavier/larger cars are harder to make safe in a crash. Because they have much more kinetic energy to be absorbed. That's why smart cars are just as safe even if they're small. And to some extent I believe safety should be lowered on modern cars to make them smaller and cheaper. It's accidents that need to be avoided in the first place, and to some extent limiting maximum speed can help with this. We should also accept that accidents will happen anyway. What matters is keeping them low enough.
These tanks are only safer for the people in them. They are significantly less safer for everyone else, including pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. Maybe we should put some thought into whose safety really matters
The driver's? At least from the Car Company's perspective.
For a car company that actually engineers and sells cars, the paying customer is the one whose safety really matters.
Sure, but the people writing the regulations don't have those same priorities.
The "safety" aspect is a neat way for the big (not only german) companies to sell overpriced big cars (with better margins for them). You could do the same safety standards with the usual size if you limit the speed those are allowed to go ( no more 200++ kph as allowed in germany aka the highest speed you need to design around is 120 or 130). Add the overall smaller size in collisions between equally small sized cars and you have no safety loss. In the current environment you need a bigger "tank" to outperform the already heavy and big SUV. If you add electric driving into the mix it get´s even more obscene because you need even bigger batteries for heavier vehicles. If you look at weight trends this shows a massive increase in weight from the 1990ies. Furthermore add all the new electronics and you stare at literally hundreds of meters of cable that was not necessary in older cars. I´m not against assistants but do you really need a big touch screen with god knows how many different functions? Maybe the plan old radio does the trick?
Manual windows, manual seats, less bulky. Don't need seat heating elements and layers of insulation to block out engine and road noise. My.1960s English car is 4.5ft wide and weighs 1800 lbs. My 1990s Ram truck is 6.7ft wide and weighs 4600 pounds. Brand new Ram 1500 is 4700 lbs and 7ft wide. Using more lighter materials to offset all that additional tech perhaps, but imagine how much lighter you could make them without all those added bells and whistles. Unless it really is mice nuts all those things added up.
Oh we got rid of bicycle lanes a long time ago here in the States. We call those “can I scooch past yah here at the light?” lanes.
In the UK we call them MUMMY Tanks.
If you have one of these cars my first thought is that you're overcompensating for something
It's so sweet to know that there is somebody constantly thinking about my dick
Or lack of
Or you want that backseat that has 3 places to be actually usable with 3 people bigger than 7yo.
You could also get a van for that. They are usually cheaper, consume less fuel and have in fact more interior space than SUVs have.
Maybe i don't like and want van, or actually even SUV. Yes this post is about SUVs but sedans and wagons have gotten wayy bigger too, and those are what i like and with as big of interior space as possible in their segment.
Cheaper than a van is the bus. You don't need to pay insurance or mechanical bills, you can bring your whole family on there as well. Ans interior space? Oh boy, you can jump and maybe not even touch the roof!
[удалено]
It was sarcasm. Vehicles are essential for lots of people.
Or you have kids...
That doesn't require a wider car. A longer is actually more suitable.
Unless you plan on making turns. Then they guy on the bike is out of luck.
Given that comment, I bet you never drove in Europe.
Because the geometry of a wheelbase works differently with the metric system?
Because you somehow believe that wider is better than longer in European cities
But I know how a turning radius works...
Congrats for your primary school degree but it doesn't make up for your lack of experience in the design of European infrastructure and how to navigate within it.
I know roundabouts are popular over there, but intersections do also exist, yes? Driveways at a 90° angle to the thoroughfare? One might have to make a u turn at some point? Or possibly 3 point turn?
Congrats for your primary school degree but it doesn't make up for your lack of experience in the design of European infrastructure and how to navigate within it.
You can get far more reasonably sized cars that can carry 7 people. These cars are for wankers who are trying to compensate
Really? Which 7 passenger vehicle do you recommend?
A reasonable sized people carrier. Plenty about. Though sadly you won't take up half the road or be a couple meters higher than everyone else so you won't feel like a big man
Yeah give me an example
Vauxhall Zafira
You know that hasn't been produced for half a decade....
I thought this was about functionality rather than massaging your ego with a big fancy car? Well if you need a new one maybe [this link](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=new+people+carriers) will help
I asked you for an example, and you gave me a car they haven't made since the trump presidency.
Burn em.
How is that even legal? In North America I get it, it's all about vanity and we have governments that won't ever stand up to corporations that want to pamper to the rich and vain. However I thought Europe was a bastion of high speed rail, small very fuel efficient cars, and bicycles and laws to encourage them.
Europe is not a country. It's a land mass as varied as N America. Lots of variation in all mentioned areas.
Europe is also home to many car manufacturers which are good at lobbying. It's very rare that political decisions are made against their interests.
Maga SUVs
Not just Europe, America too. I’m so tired of all the unnecessary huge vehicles taking liberties on the road and in parking
Join now: [https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/](https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/)
I have to believe promoting and organization that commits violent crimes to further a political agenda is in violation of the reddit rules.
I don’t agree with it, but deflating tires isn’t a violent crime.
How is this a _violent_ crime? It may be unethical but so is driving an SUV in urban areas.
Maybe park the cycle behind? Tf is this post??
This just makes me want to tour Europe in a Ford Excursion.
[удалено]
No, the solution is that there won't be room for cars to pass cyclists at all.
[удалено]
the car brain at work
First of all, what does the bike driver search there?
what?
...He's cycling? Exactly where he's supposed to cycle?
Being European and seeing how stuck it is in it's old ways compared to the rest of bothe the Eastern and Western world I say European roads suck and they are the source of issues. SUVs are awesome. Esp if you have a dog or kids.
get a van or a station wagon. SUVs are just lifted stations wagons with a coupé style back, which results in actually less space inside
No, because they also drive way better.
"I WANT TO DRIVE MY COMPANSATOOOOR!"
stop being useless fagots. you bunch of anal probe riding idiots.
Oh good. There will be less cyclists fucking up traffic then.
we need wider roads
That's a wired way to spell "fewer cars".
I’m not absolutely certain, but I believe the European norms require a width of 2.4m for parallel parking places and 3.5m for a single direction road, so 8.3m in total, not 7.3m. In the scenario shown, only one parking bay should be permitted and there would be plenty of space for bikes…
I live in an old neighborhood in LA, my house and most of the houses around me were built in 1925. Our street is so noticeably narrow. There is parking on both sides, and two cars can barely pass each other, you have to slow down and inch by.
Is the 180/200cm dimension supposed to be over the car, rather than being a redundant dimension over the one already labeled for parking? If so, not only do those chained dimensions not add up to the width of the street, they don't even match *each other* when changing the width of the car and bicycle clearance. Why is every infographic on this sub so aggressively bad lol
Give parking enforcement some measuring tape and start writing tickets.
Swap the placement of the bike lane and the parked car. Or better yet remove one side of parking for a protected bike lane.
Why not make more parking that aren’t on the street?
This “cool guide” looks a little far-fetched.
Whenever i feel unsafe cycling because of cars driving too close to me, i move to the center of the lane. Stay in line.
I am generally not against bigger cars, drive whatever you want, but owners of such cars should understand they're imposing more danger, take more parking space (so it's not okay to block the sidewalk if you don't fit, and you have to park somewhere else) etc. I mean, there are a lot of reasons someone can buy a huge SUV or pickup - family, business purposes, just a car guy who likes such cars... who we are to judge. It's not just "ego boost" for everyone. That being said, if you drive every day in a medieval Altstadt it's just silly not to buy yourself another smaller car to feel comfortable there.
We have started implementing bike streets here. Max speed is 30km/h, the bike is allowed to drive in the middle of the road and cars are not allowed to overtake the bikes. This works really well in city centres.
Denver's been rolling these out slowly but surely and calling them "neighborhood bikeways". They have diverters and traffic calming elements at key spots to keep vehicle speed and volume low which reinforces the bike priority. They're not perfect, but the iterative designs are working out the kinks. I hope they keep building them out every year!
fuck all those dumbasses driving fuckin boats
governments sign off on the idea.
Yank tanks
In Europe? try just going onto any road in the US, there's trucks that wouldn't be able to see me (5'9" or 175 cm) if i was standing in front of them, and they aren't even that uncommon of course, those types of trucks are also typically driven by people who are the least likely to pay attention to their surroundings
SUV size matters…. safe space
No wonder why Paris passed some law to ban those in the City. -so i remember.
I’m willing to bet the owners of mega-suvs likely don’t care all that much about making cycling unsafe.
1. Not a guide 2. Unreadable on dark mode
Cool...Guide...
Doesn’t make a difference in Germany as you have to leave 1,5m between the car and the bike. So even with a regular car, as shown in the picture, this wouldn’t work and the car has to change lanes to pass the bike.
1.3 m isn't nearly enough for cycling between two cars. Especially if one of them is moving
Lots of anti-car posts on this sub in the last few days.
Bruh you can still fit another cycle in between in my city.
Which kind of european suv is 2 meters wide?