By on March 11, 2013

My refusal to convict Oldsmobile driver Rod Kinkade on the testimony of a cycling team had the bike riders of TTAC howling for my blood. They won’t get it; I paid for eleven units of the finest junkie-and-derelict blood the last time I was struck by a motorist. It took three long, expensive days of ICU residence to get all that blood into me while they were Hemovacing the bad stuff out of a two-inch-diameter hole in my right leg. No soup for you, roadies.

You’ll have to be content with hating my guts, which were stuffed back into my abdomen during the same ICU stay, or wanting to kick my ass, which had to have a thick plug of muscle cored out of it so the femur implant could be inserted.

There is good news for the Chinese-frame-with-Italian-name crowd, however. Volvo has developed a system to protect cyclists from themselves. Naturally, the cost of this system will be borne by the motorist.

From our pal Jo Borras at comes some news regarding YADAVSS (Yet Another Dumb-Assed Volvo Safety System):

To that end, Volvo used its Geneva Auto Show stage to introduced a revolutionary new safety system called Cyclist Detection, which uses a combination of cameras, infrared radar, and advanced, fuzzy-logic software to identify moving objects “about the size and shape of a bicyclist” in urban bike lanes, and track their movements. The system alerts the driver with lights and sounds if it spots a biker tracking out of the bike lane and into traffic, and will even hit the brakes automatically if it detects a significant speed difference between the vehicle and the cyclist. Combined with the company’s Blind-Spot Detection System (BLIS), a Volvo driver would have to be actively trying to kill you (or really into that text message) to end up on top of you.

The cost of the cyclist detection system is an amazing bargain: slightly under three grand. Of course, that comes with a bunch of other new Volvo safety features, (probably not) including:

  • A radio that evaluates incoming signal for any Ted Nugent songs and/or Rush Limbaugh diatribes then mutes the speakers for the duration of any potentially offensive content, thus preventing the driver from suffering any heart palpitations and/or exposure to doubleplusungood crimethink
  • A dashboard-mounted information screen that provides handy politically-correct phrases for any situation, ranging from “Construction Worker Directing Me To Stop Appears To Be African-American” to “Need To Describe My Gardener Without Referring To Ethnicity”
  • Silenced door lock mechanisms to prevent passengers from being offended as vehicle crosses 110th Street going north
  • Tactile interactive “pokers” in seat remind the driver to nod periodically while that bitch from Wellesley he was frightened enough to agree to marry fourteen years ago harangues the last remaining drop of humanity out of his dessicated, bird-like chest

There’s a fair amount of irony in the idea that Volvo drivers need a system to keep them from hitting riders. Only Subaru has a more self-conscious relationship with the cycling community. I cannot recall a time I was even slightly concerned about the actions of a Volvo driver. It’s those Oldsmobile Auroras you have to look out for. Oh, who am I kidding. We all know the GMC Yukon Denali is the literal nemesis of anyone on two wheels. The sight of that stainless-colander grille on the approach is enough to make even Greg LeMond defecate shotgun pellets.

While we wait for this technology to be made mandatory on all 2019MY vehicles by some troll in Brussels, there’s still some fun to be had for BMX riders, freeride MTBers, and anyone else who doesn’t regard cycling, font choice, and food trucks with equal and non-ironic seriousness. Put a mirror on your left handlebar. Ride down the street. Wait for approach of 2014 Volvo with glassy sensor in grille. Swerve out in front of said Volvo briefly and watch as the car self-brakes to avoid you and the driver receives the full contents of their soy latte directly in their self-satisfied but querulous faces. This technique, if accidentally practiced with a 2013 Volvo, may result in you being struck by a moving vehicle, so make sure the rest of your team is ready and willing to pin the blame on the driver, mmmkay?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “If Only That Kinkade Guy Had Been Driving A 2014 Volvo...”

  • avatar

    This will be perfect for over-achieving students who tend to accidentally fall asleep for a few seconds whenever they’re sleep-deprived (for the billionth time) from taking 50-100 mg of (legally prescribed) mixed amphetamine salts the day before while stopped in front of a crosswalk where people are walking or where cyclists are cycling. I’m not sure if that sentence made sense.

    Anyways, I think people are just inventing new crap and gizmos to invent a need so people will trade in their old cars for new ones. Just make cyclists wear high visibility jackets and give road-raging impatient auto drivers free klonopin or something.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah I used to help my friend with said medications, my gf at the time had found a doctor to prescribe some un-godly amount. Watched him walk in one day, ask for a glass of doctor pepper, pop 180mg and then head out of the door. Was then and there that I realized I was giving a speed freak massive amounts of speed and it probably wouldn’t end well with my number or text being one of the last on his phone (nothing like a good ole’ police investigation). When I called and told him I couldn’t do it anymore and why, he actually thanked me.

      • 0 avatar

        180mg?! Holy sh$t in a box and call it a buritto, Batman! You’re not “giving a speed freak” anything. That’s killing a man. Glad you cut him off, though. I’m one of the lucky ones (sarcasm) that didn’t “grow out of it” and I’m still prescribed the pills at 28. I go in every 3 months for a check up. Not because I need it, but my Dr says that how he likes to keep tabs. And I thank him for that too. Because, to be quite honest, addy’s scare the f^#%$in’ sh$t out of me. Seriously.

  • avatar

    On the risk of my sarcasm detector malfunctioning, I do think that Volvo’s rationale behind all this is right: no one should need to pay with his life or limbs for mistakes in road traffic.

    I do realise that there is marketing involved here: the appeal of these systems to people feeling better about having a car that cares for its environment. But that strikes me as a win for all parties involved: Volvo, the car buyer and his environment.

    Systems like these becoming mandatory by law because they are available is no news. The same thing happened to seat belts and airbags and I’ve never heard anyone complain about that.

    Fact of the matter is, if you hit a pedestrian or a cyclist with your car, the odds of him or her dying in the accident are really quite significant. I’ve heard enough drivers saying hitting a person at 30 mph would render them no more than some bruises. In reality, chances of death are near 100%. No matter how many measures are taken to soften the blow on the side of the car (raised bonnets, airbag around the front window), the thud on the tarmac will almost certainly kill or maim you.

    I know that some of the discussion is rooted in the question if we, the people driving cars, should protect pedestrians and cyclists against their own actions of stupidity. To me, that is the same as asking if anyone should be sentenced to death for the act of jaywalking.

    In a perfect world, anyone (including 8-year olds) would know the ramifications of a collision with a vehicle. Then these systems would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. I drive buses for a living and I see people making the most irrational decisions in traffic on a daily basis. Some even seem to gamble on the idea that I will do everything in my power to avoid an accident, even if it is them disobeying traffic laws. In my country, the pedestrian or cyclist always gets his damage paid even if the motorist was not to blame (unless of course recklessness could be claimed). I’ve heard this as a rationale for cyclists or peds to run a red or similar things because the other party ‘would need to pay up anyway if I get hit’. Even they don’t realise chances are those expenses would need to cover a coffin and some nails.

    So yes, I do applaud Volvo’s efforts in this.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s called natural selection. If someone can’t get it through their head that a 150 pound bike will always loose against a 3,000 pound car, then they shouldn’t be polluting the gene pool.

      The cyclists I usually see commuting are complete idiots, and reckless to a fault. I’m sure there are many out there who follow the rules, and do it right, but they’re far outnumbered by the asshats.

      Everyone always gets flapping their arms and hollering about watching out for bikes. Well, I’ll start watching closer when I start seeing bikes do things like. . . stop at stop signs, or obey traffic lights. You know, basic things the rest of us have to do to survive.

      The last thing we need is another computer making decisions for us. Making us even more stupid, slow and irresponsible than we already are.

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        150 lb bike? Jeez, what’s it made of? Granite? Not only will it “loose” to a 3000 lb car, I’d imagine it’d “loose” to a 3-year old on a tricycle. While eating his Cheerios two-fisted. Backwards. Uphill. Blindfolded.

      • 0 avatar

        Well, put your money where your mouth is. Next time you see a cyclist failing to yield at a stop sign, help the evolution of the human race and run him over.

        There is no ‘natural selection’ in a road traffic environment. People make the same mistakes in traffic over and over and over again ever since we had the means to get from A to B without having to resort to our own legs. Even if you’d teach every driver what to do if you steer off tarmac with two wheels, 99% would still lunge into the tree on the other side of the road because what is necessary is not the same as what our instinct is telling us to do.

        Our ‘natural selection’ has given us eyesight that tricks us into believing that we see everything we think we see. If a motorcyclist is out of your perception, chances are you’ll miss him or her even in broad daylight. Most people are unable to estimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle.

        Ever since the car was conceived, engineers have tried to make cars easier to handle, upped the chances you’d live through a crash, and now even prevent a crash. Because we are useless at driving cars safely, we have developed technology to increase the chance you and others actually get home alive. And there you are, the rate of deaths in US road traffic when compared to vehicle miles travelled drops every year.

        There’s natural selection for you.

        • 0 avatar

          And yet they still manage to kill over 40,000 people a year. That doesn’t include maiming etc which using battlefield death:injury ratios would be about 300,000.

          And there you are pissing about a guy running a stop sign. My guess is you ran one while texting your blog entry – you just didn’t know it.

      • 0 avatar

        “Following the rules” for bicyclists is pure folly as far as safety goes. And even worse as far as free flowing traffic goes. Traffic laws are written to regulate the behavior of cars, and secondarily motorcyclists. While some laws regulate pedestrians. As far as I know, nowhere have anyone bothered looking into how laws should be different for cyclists, despite them being very distinct from either of the above groups.

        According to laws, cyclists should ride around pretending to be motorists. Which does nothing but aggravate everyone. Ever tried to turn right at an intersection where cyclists are “holding to the right” of the lane despite not turning? Why are they not moving t the left so cars can turn in behind them? And, if you are on a bicycle, there is no safer place than where there are no cars. Which in busy cities are exactly on the other side of an intersection where cars are held up by a red. So why are they not hopping across when it is safe to do so? That way, they are not holding up cars, who are infinitely faster accelerating than some guys futzing with getting into pedals while cars are stuck doing 0 to 20 in 34 seconds.

        Just like motorcyclists ought to split lanes despite “being no different than cars to the law”, cyclists ought to just move as well. They pose minimal threat to anyone but themselves; hence have every incentive to “get it right.” By far the most appropriate way to treat them, is to assume car laws are for them advisory, rather than mandatory. The laws tell them what is permissible for the cars to do. Then they get to work around that as best they see fit. And if they do run a red and get killed; well, stuff happens. Life goes on without that particular one…

      • 0 avatar

        You never will see bikes start to do the things you described because like everyone else you are subject to a confirmation bias.

        I can just about guarantee for every cyclist you see behave irresponsibly there are many, if not hundreds, of cyclists obeying the law that you never notice. Why would you? They didn’t do anything to get your attention. We all do it one way or another, my personal favorite bias is that RX400h drivers are the slowest least aware of any driver on the road. Every time I get stuck behind one I’m more sure than ever that my hypothesis is 100% correct.

    • 0 avatar

      Actually, people protested VERY LOUDLY about both seat belts and airbags. And also when three point belts became standard, not just lap belts. And again with pretensioners.

      I know for a fact that in at least two of his cars, my grandfather CUT the seatbelts out and attached the clasp (so that the “godforesaken buzzer” wouldn’t go off).

      Personally, I’d prefer a driver that respects the fact that they are in a two-ton bullet, learns how to drive, and is aware of his situation (including cyclists that COULD drift into traffic). These systems make WORSE drivers because the driver can just “rely on the system”. And when this relationship (driver, self-aware car, hapless victim) goes awry, who’s to blame?
      The driver? Because they are THE DRIVER afteral.
      The car? Being the one who has really done the driving.
      The maker? For not building a better system.
      The government? For mandating these systems and making the bad drivers.
      The government? For not mandating more of these systems.
      The government? For not mandating separate systems for the cyclist.
      The governemnt? For not removing the cyclist from the equation with their own roads in the first place.

      • 0 avatar

        “Personally, I’d prefer a driver that respects the fact that they are in a two-ton bullet, learns how to drive, and is aware of his situation (including cyclists that COULD drift into traffic).”

        Welcome to the real world. No one, not even a professional driver, is 100% alert 100% of the time. No one is driving 100% according to the law 100% of the time. People make irrational decisions, sometimes at the detriment of others, when behind a steering wheel. Fact of life.

        All those ‘nannies’ on board are there to help you, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, some people might need those assistants more than others. All of Volvo’s nannies are designed in such a way that the driver will always be warned first before the car itself jabs the brakes. It is NEVER a replacement for your own disattention. Most systems use a sort of ‘pre-brake’ as it actively invites the driver to slam the brakes himself. And even then, not all incidents can be prevented. But that is not the point.

        Re: the seatbelt stick: I know people that don’t wear the belt out of fear they won’t be able to get out of a car quick enough if they’d drive it into water. Chances are they would never survive the hit on the water in the first place with no seatbelt on. You see? People, irrational decisions…

        • 0 avatar

          My favorite line after somebody has been in a serious accident: “If they had been wearing their seat belt they would have been killed”. I usually reply “I had a very dear friend die because they choose not to wear a seat belt, you were very lucky, now go thank whatever god you beleive in and go get a lottery ticket”.

          • 0 avatar

            A woman in a bar once told me that she didn’t where seat belts because she believed in God and when her time comes that is it. I asked her “If what you say is true, why does safety equipment save lives?” She looked at me like my Golden Retriever does when I ask her if she wants to play ball. I cut my losses and walked away.

  • avatar

    All I know is that my dear son’s chi-chi neighborhood in Portland has a bike-for-car ratio that automatically changes the dynamic. In my normal rural marine setting, a bike is someone going to the parts store to avoid riding next time. In G’s area, fifty in a pack one by one stretched out for a mile is a common rush hour sight. So, I liken it to a speed trap or construction – something you cope with on your journey. Worth $3000? The marketplace will speak. Or Brussels. p.s.- the video was shot in front of the old Multnomah stadium about 1 mile from his house.

  • avatar

    Is there a point where all the gizmos do more harm than good? I would prefer the driver be focused rather than depending on a gizmo. Perhaps better driver training is in order.

    As a Soldier I got to see this in the evolution of the war in Iraq and MRAPs (Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected Vehicles). We started clearing routes in soft skinned HMMWVs…bad as people tended to shoot through them. Then we got up armored. That begat the IED which begat the V Hull which begat the Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP IED) which begat more armor that blocked the little tiny windows making it nearly impossible to see an IED in the first place out of the now ridicously high, top heavy vehicle that was just waiting to tip over and drown you in a canal or burn you to death because some Fobbit mandated you wear the 37 point harness in said vehicle over the 50 pounds of armor. And when they did set off the IED the damn truck was too big and heavy to go chasing the bad guy through the streets so if he didn’t get you that day he’d take another crack at you later that week and my job devolved from finding IEDs to driving around in something that was big enough to be fairly likely to take the blast most of the time and waiting to get hit which did not inspire a safe feeling in me personally as I’d rather find the device pre detonation.

    Anyway, I wonder if all these gizmos in cars (not talking seatbelts and airbags, but rather things like lane departure systems and active cruise and things like this Volvo system are making the cars safer at the expense of making us more lazy as drivers.

    • 0 avatar

      Popular Mechanics published an article several years ago about that exact topic. The scientic evidence is that yes, safety features cause safety atrophy, and that true safety comes from genuinely safe actions & attitudes. (The most memorable quote is from a car designer who said that if you really want to improve safety, remove the air bag and install a steel spike in the steering wheel.)

      The suggested solution was to add safety features that both protect you and make you feel at risk. An example is a playstation-esque buzzer/vibrator for the steering wheel or seat when the traction has to control kick in–it still saves you from losing control, but you become immediately aware in an uncomfortable way that you’ve gone too far.

  • avatar

    And I might pay for that radio if it could be modified to filter out music I don’t like. Sort of the anti-sync (“Don’t play artist Ke$ha”).

    • 0 avatar

      A guy hacked his TV to do basically that. He extraced the closed captioning feed, ran it through a program that looked for offensive content like the words “Bieber” or “Kardashian.” When if found an offensive word, it would mute the TV. The mute would continue for 30 after the last offensive word was found.

  • avatar

    What happened to Principal/EducatorDan?

  • avatar

    Nobody hates you, Jack. You maybe just went a little too far with the conjecture about what sounds like it was a pretty serious incident.

    “Chinese frame with Italian name crowd” — he shoots, he scores!

    Re technology, it was a sad day when I realized that most car reviews (including many on this site) discussed a car’s technology BEFORE its driving dynamics.

    Fun cars — get ’em now, while you can!

  • avatar

    Around these parts, it’s rednecks on scooters. They are alky’s and after losing their drivers license,they go buy a scooter. Now, this doesn’t stop the drinking, it’s just now if they run into anything it makes it easier for nature to clear out the shallow end of the gene pool. You ever follow a drunk on a scooter, on a narrow back road with a passing zone every 5 miles or so? I’m thinking about training falcons or something to take them out.

  • avatar

    Wait until teens on bikes figure this one out. How to cause an accident. Spot a 2014+ volvo, turn your bike in front of it,
    watch volvo brake,
    watch volvo get rear ended….
    Post video on YouTube…

  • avatar

    Sounds like you owe those junkies and derelicts big time. Do you donate blood yourself?

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    “Silenced door lock mechanisms to prevent passengers from being offended as vehicle crosses 110th Street going north”

  • avatar
    Freddy M

    Where I live, for some inexplicable reason (to me anyway as I’m not a cyclist) at perfectly functional stoplight intersections, they’ve apparently installed “Cyclist” traffic signals (complete with “Cyclist Signal” signs).

    To the best of my observation, they are merely redundant traffic stop lights, displaying the exact same light that’s on the main intersection light, except smaller and offset over the edge of the road/sidewalks.

    To me, this says 2 things, of which are equally probable. 1) We have stupid city Councillors just wasting our money. 2) The cyclists in our area are so out to lunch, as other people have already commented, that they feel the regular traffic light doesn’t apply to them, even though in theory they are bound by the rules of the road like motorists. So therefore the solution is to point out to them that they need to obey a signal directed specifically at them.


    • 0 avatar

      You wouldn’t be talking about Dearborn Avenue in Chicago, would you?

    • 0 avatar
      Domestic Hearse

      Many city and traffic planners around the world have figured out, for some inexplicable reason, that bikes are not, in fact, cars. They are not the same. At all. The spacial requirements, the mode of movement, the infrastructure necessary, are completely – get this — different when you compare cars to bikes.

      In fact, if moving people throughout your city efficiently, quickly and as smoothly as possible is the goal of your city’s planners, then anything they can do to facilitate that is a good thing.

      Oh, sure, it looks like bikers are getting unfair rules. Look: They don’t have to stop here, here and here! And look, they can cut through this ally. Oh, no fair…they even have free parking spots!

      Don’t believe me? Travel to Amsterdam. And Brussels. And other uncivilized, unfair cities where cyclists, which equal the number of drivers by the way, get preferential treatment. Only it’s not…preferential. It’s treatment based on the fact that riding a bike is not – not- the same as driving a car. Completely different experience, in fact.

      If that still feels unfair, here’s the solution: Get a bike. Join the anarchists! Pay no fuel taxes. Use the machinery of your own body to get from point A to point B. I know, crazy talk. But try it. Join the dark side. You’ll get an appreciation for both driving and riding. And that both can coexist quite easily (which is the case just about everywhere in the world but here in North America.)

      • 0 avatar
        Freddy M

        Thanks for clarifying the difference between a car and a bike for me. The only point in your response that addressed my comment is:

        “…if moving people throughout your city efficiently, quickly and as smoothly as possible is the goal of your city’s planners, then anything they can do to facilitate that is a good thing.”

        The redundant Cyclist Signals I mentioned above do nothing to improve the traffic flow at said intersections, motorized or otherwise. They are simply redundant. It’s not like bikers get an advanced green light ahead of all traffic to get them up to speed faster. That would conceivably be a good use for them. But that’s not the case.

        So again, it boils down to one of two things in my view: Wasted spending, or an attempt to get cyclists to actually obey the traffic signals. One, the other, or both.

      • 0 avatar

        Yeah, because biking 30 miles one-way to work every day is clearly something I can do.

    • 0 avatar

      can’t speak to the cyclist aspect, but what you’re describing sounds like a very common traffic light configuration in Europe

      auxiliary, low-mounted traffic lights are broadly useful if you’re behind a tall vehicle or if the intersection is set up in such a way that the high-mounted lights are “above” your windshield when you’re at the front

      i haven’t cycled in European cities, so I can’t tell you what benefit they have for cyclists.

  • avatar

    As far as I can tell there are remarkably few “regulated” safety features on a car. Most electronic features are nice to haves and not specifically enforced. What happens is the car goes through a regional safety test (NHTSA) and gets a safety rating. A one star car can still be sold, so long as it has the minimum requirements, but no one would buy it and that… Is a free market system.

    • 0 avatar

      Why are seat belts and related buzzers mandatory? Why are horns and turn signals mandatory? Why are air bags mandatory? Why are tire pressure monitors mandatory? Why are night time running lights and third tail lights and brake lights mandatory? Why is the government thinking of making back-up cameras mandatory? Until the 1950s, only the horn was mandatory, and that mandate was only a couple decades old. Even turn signals weren’t generally in use until then (you were supposed to stick your arm out the window and make hand signals, including when you were going to stop). That’s a lot of mandates. If the government doesn’t even trust you to check the air in your tires, can you really call it a free market system?

      • 0 avatar

        The government can’t trust you to check the air in your tires – roughly 25% of all passenger cars and 33% of all light trucks had under inflated tires (8 psi or more which makes alot of them severely under inflated) prior to the inclusion of TPMS.

        Fortunately tire and vehicle manufacturers are aware of this and design accordingly.

      • 0 avatar

        You are failing to understand my point. Many feature on a car are mandatory but not all of them. Air bags are mandatory but you don’t need 10 of them but cars with 10 air bags get better safety ratings and therefore sell better.
        I for one would NOT buy a car with no turn signals or break lights, neither would you. I could not care less if it was law or not, no break lights is just plain stupid. Law or not its still a free market because you and i would both choose to have the safety features.

        • 0 avatar

          Or would people. Say safety standards became optional. Initially most would likely want most of the safety gear because having it is kind of ingrained in our expectations. But say a few companies chose to eliminate most of them and just kept the structural elements and belts but ditched the bags, electronics, etc and cut the price by $3K. A pretty sizable group would likely opt for “saving” the money….

  • avatar

    No one workers harder to feel safe, without actually being safe, than bicyclists.

    $2500 carbon-fiber drag racer? Check.
    Zero-friction crash-tastic tires? Check.
    Useless plastic skull cap? Check.
    Exercise lingerie? Check.
    $250 aerodynamic shades? Check.
    Attitude? Check

    Let’s go play in some bicycle-safe traffic!!

    Between the baby-boomers and the bicyclists this is probably the best decade ever to become an undertaker.

    • 0 avatar

      shades keep the eyes free of wind (tears) and dirt

      helmet reduces the severity of head trauma

      afaik, road bike tire “tread patterns” are essentially cosmetic – hydroplane speeds given weight/contact-area are much higher than a cyclists could achieve

      “lingerie” is to reduce chafing from the working limbs. not useful for 5-mile rides, but pretty much a required for 15+

  • avatar

    What I find funny about this is that just this weekend I was out in my Volvo and it already can detect bicyclists pretty well, or actually the driver can and use the brakes.

    I do feel sorry for bicyclists though, not that long ago I saw one almost get run over by a Smart.

  • avatar
    Spencer Williams

    Much akin to many Italian racing frames, the SE Racing bicycles brand was purchased by a Chinese company. The memories of wanting a PK Ripper in 1985 were so strong that I still bought a bike from them. Nostalgia is powerful stuff.

    • 0 avatar

      And Cannondale cheaped out and moved their manufacturing to China. So the Cannondale road bike I own will be the last product from that manufacturer that I will ever buy.

    • 0 avatar

      China? I should be so lucky. Bought a Specialized over the weekend (pint sized for the kid) and it’s made in Cambodia. China is officially too expensive for a bike.

  • avatar

    I have been cycling for the better half of my life (16+ years). Bike paths on hybrids, road cycling (including races), and all manner of MTB (DH, AM, XC, etc.) I have crashed on road and off. I have been tagged by a car, hit and run, on a training run on a very wide shoulder. The driver was texting, broke her mirror off on my back, then drove off “because it was her boyfriend’s wife’s car and she didn’t know if she was insured.”

    I have seen all manner of stupid. Cars act like cyclists have no right to the road. Cyclists acting like they are “just like a vehicle” and clogging twisty narrow back country roads, where traffic usually goes 50-60, but is instead stuck behind a two-wide bike train, and any attempts to pass may result in a head-on collision unless you can go from 20-60 in less than 2 seconds.

    There is no common sense on both sides, but I have to throw out a caveat. If your stupid, careless, texting, eating, makeup-applying, driving distracted a$$ tags me in my work truck, you’ve inconvenienced me with repairs, rental vehicle costs, insurance calls, etc.

    If you tag me on a bike, it’s anything from second degree burn road rash, paralysis, lost limbs, or a gruesome death under the the wheels of your unecessarily big mommy mobile… so I have to side with the cyclists.

  • avatar

    I just want the driver to have plenty of insurance if I am ever hit again. This column is a lot better Jack.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • C5 is Alive: Except that the ES250 was introduced two model years after the last Cimarron infested Cadillac...
  • Jeff S: @jmo2–Much easier to work on a 70s car than a present day car because there were no computers. As for...
  • Jeff S: @Corey–Thank you looking forward to your piece on the Imperial.
  • NormSV650: Because Lexus offered a similar badge engineered ES250 based off of Camry at the time.
  • JaySeis: I’m totally up for “Back Alley Brawler”, Urban Kombature”, Rurban Rocker”, and the like. This off road crap...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber