What is Digg?200 Comments
- inactive, on 04/05/2008, -2/+75But can it hold an oversized rack of ribs on the side of it without tipping over?
- JaredXM, on 04/05/2008, -10/+82No ***** they got a ticket. Car's have to have turn signals, lights and all that stuff.
- Mardi, on 04/05/2008, -0/+66Cons: SLOW AS *****
- elosorusso, on 04/05/2008, -4/+58Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
- bossm4n, on 04/05/2008, -4/+56The cops obviously stopped him because no one under the age of 70 drives a Buick.
- jquipp, on 04/05/2008, -2/+48So the question is ... is this a car or an oversized bicycle?
- jordanlgta, on 04/05/2008, -1/+36This would be fun for about 8 minutes.
- Celeron, on 04/05/2008, -3/+37That Asian dude smoking is badass.
- technogreen, on 04/05/2008, -9/+33The benefits of this car:
1- You save on gas (especially these days with gas prices hitting the roof)
2- Environment friendly
3- Healthy, you practice as far as you drive.
4- Social, as you need more than one person to power it up, so car pooling is mandatory.
5- Cheap car, no maintenance cost.
But what I am not still sure about it is how the insurance company will charge for this car. - Chairboy, on 04/05/2008, -4/+28The actual news (this happened months ago) is that the ticket was just overturned:
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.asp ... - prefan21, on 04/05/2008, -2/+26The cops were polite, and entirely in line. It's a heavy steel contraption, completely untested, and the cops have no way to know if it's safe. If someone was maimed by this contraption, we'd have a totally different tone.
- supermajic, on 04/05/2008, -1/+20Aren't you screwed as soon as you encounter a slope - going up or down?
- inactive, on 04/05/2008, -5/+21It's legal to ride a Horse and Buggy (Amish on Public streets, etc) - but not a frikkin pedal powered car? RIDICULOUS!
- tnoy, on 04/05/2008, -0/+15No idea what it would be there, but in California, it would technically be a bicycle. Under the California vehicle code, its not a car.
V.C. Section 670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
V.C. Section 231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. - inactive, on 04/05/2008, -0/+14Don't most places have a minimum speed limit as well as a maximum? This "car" seemed to have been blocking other people who were intent on driving faster than 15 MPH. That's why they should've been ticketed, not because of safety precautions.
- Ebeniz, on 04/05/2008, -0/+14First of all this happened a year ago and they did go to court and the ticket got thrown out.
- Otnehs, on 04/05/2008, -1/+12It's just not mandatory to use them according to most peoples' driving practices.
- wageslaven, on 04/05/2008, -3/+14Not a car.
- hadak, on 04/05/2008, -6/+16Buried as inaccurate. If they were driving, they'd be talking on their phones.
- emptyo, on 04/05/2008, -0/+9It would be cool if, instead of pedaling, they were able to somehow automate it with some kind of "engine" device so it would be easier to propel.
- browwiw, on 04/05/2008, -1/+9I think you're thinking of the George Jetson car.
- nietzche, on 04/05/2008, -0/+8that's an unfortunately worded conclusion sentence.
- Nitrodist88, on 04/05/2008, -0/+8Is motorization inherent in the definition of a car?
- timorpheus, on 04/05/2008, -1/+8lets hope in another test drive, they don't run into any steep hills.
- bartofdahammer, on 04/05/2008, -0/+7Here is the link to the case, where the ticket was thrown out
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/410165 - cowsgonemadd3, on 04/05/2008, -1/+8Why not use a lighter car live a 4 door civic?
- computergod, on 04/05/2008, -3/+10I got to take this thing for a drive yesterday after the court case (thanks guys). It is remarkably well built: All four people can pedal at different speeds, you can shift gears, and it uses the original drum brakes so you can actually skid the tires.
It's surprisingly light and easy to maneuver. I'm sure it would hurt if it ran over you, but not nearly as badly as a real car as it weighs very little, it's very safe.
The only issue with it is that it blocks traffic, but that's fine for a few reasons: One of the reasons it was made was to demonstrate that bicycles are in fact entitled to a whole lane. Anyone stuck behind it was more amused then anything, it's not much of an annoyance due to its novelty. When it was driven, it was rush hour, so it was keeping up with traffic just fine, and on side streets you can just pull over to let people pass. - TripcodeMel, on 04/05/2008, -0/+6Clearly, he needs to drive it on the sidewalk and/or in the bike lane. Then, we'll see what the police thinks.
- skellener, on 04/05/2008, -0/+6The question is, is it a car? It's not an automobile, because it doesn't have a motor. It would prbably be a good idea to put some lights on it though. At least brake lights. You can always signal turns with your arm/hand. Since it's slow, one of those "slow vehicle" symbols on the back might be good.
- Gir53457, on 04/05/2008, -3/+9*****. Buicks drive themselves.
- neFariou5, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5I don't remember the Flintstones using pedals.
- CynicSight, on 04/05/2008, -2/+7lol The cop asks if they could pop the hood. RU4REAL? Oh man, just, ya know, look under IT!
- d03boy, on 04/05/2008, -2/+7they're
- Zorkon, on 04/05/2008, -2/+7The case was thrown/laughed out of court today. See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/04/04/ ...
While the artist is from Montreal, this actually occurred in Toronto. - depro9, on 04/05/2008, -1/+6That is not a car but a bike. This is our future..
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Don't forget pimps: http://www.lonestarwebs.com/images/01BuickRegal.jp ...
- mark076h, on 04/05/2008, -4/+9That car would get you so many chicks even if you are a digger!
- a3r0, on 04/05/2008, -1/+6What happens if you get hit from behind? Does it rip up your legs?
- wolferz, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4actually the first question that needs to be answered is does it even matter...
The law in question is in regard to safety. Is the vehicle he was driving capable of providing safety for him on a road dominated by vehicles traveling much faster... and does the vehicle result in a increased risk for other drivers by blocking/hindering traffic. - thelastcivilian, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5Which you, if you had only just bothered to click on the link, would know was the headline of the article that submitted.
- tMANwi, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5Just like your mother
- thtroyer, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4In my area, they do now. That's really been in the last 5-10 years though.
(I'm talking about Old Order Amish -- just for clarification.) - OneLess, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5California: defining one-wheeled vehicles as bicycles since 1986.
- farboo, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4Why not walk?
- Anagrama, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4Dugg because I agree with the principle of your statement, but I for one wouldn't take a different tone if an accident were to take place. I would say to myself, "That victim is really lucky to be alive. If that car had a motor, they'd be dead."
- nicejai, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5"One of the reasons it was made was to demonstrate that bicycles are in fact entitled to a whole lane."
Uh, no they're not. Read the Highway Traffic Act. As a cyclist, I was unclear on this myself and other cyclists seem to believe something that resembles what you just said. The Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that anything classed as a vehicle (bicycles, motorcycles, cars, horses, etc) moving slower than "at speed" of regular traffic flow must keep to the right as safely possible.
Because of this, bicycles are *not* automagically entitled to a whole lane. - computergod, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4You are supposed to take up a full lane if cars cannot pass you safely. In the HTA a safe passing distance is defined as at least 1M (3').
The issue is that a lot of drivers seem to think that the right to take over a whole lane does not exist, when in many situations it is necessary. - Nerys, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3It also encourages companies to screw people since they can throw enough money at a case to win "often enough" to make it a financially ruining situation for any regular person to bring an otherwise perfectly valid suit against someone.
- inactive, on 04/05/2008, -1/+4you need insurence in case you get in an accident, not just because it's required by law.
- computergod, on 04/05/2008, -1/+4As someone who has driven a moped for a few years, I can say without a doubt that the police do target you if you are not driving something normal. If you try to explain to them that you don't legally need turn signals, speedometer, belt cover, etc. then they just take it as an insult and try to charge you with more stuff.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 