My KS18XL Trials, Tribulations, and Failures

[Smoother]

4 hours ago, Unventor said:

@Marty Backe wrote in earlyer coment, he state he had eye contact with the drive of the car, this makes the hole differance. 

Yes he did say that, but he didn't say when. The fact that the driver clearly jumps on his brakes as a response to an unexpected situation, indicates, the eye contact was not prior to that point EDIT, or if it was, the driver did not intend to stop at that point.  To add to what @travsformation said;  Because the car was rotating in a clockwise direction, in front of Marty, his/her direct field of view, directly through the windscreen, swept everywhere EXCEPT where Mart was.  Marty also points out his 10 foot selfie pole (7 feet in the air) was way out in front of him, but this is a small, unfamiliar target for the roving eyes of a motorist, looking out for cars, pedestrians and motorcycles (hopefully).  Asking a driver to stop because a hovering camera on a stick appears in their windscreen is a BIG ASK.

As @travsformation stated, this is not criticism of Marty, but a chance to discuss defensive riding, and what we can all learn from incidents we see in anyone's videos

Edited January 13, 2019 by Smoother

[travsformation]

7 minutes ago, Smoother said:

That's EXACTLY what I said.  Or, maybe I said " you should have yielded to that Honda".  OK, I WANTED to say what you said, but I couldn't be arsed to do all that typing.

You're starting to make a habit our of letting me delve into lengthy explanations and then claiming that was originally your idea but you couldn't be arsed to elaborate.

If you keep that up, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start charging you royalties

[travsformation]

13 minutes ago, Smoother said:

As @travsformation stated, this is not criticism of Marty, but a chance to discuss defensive riding, and what we can all learn from incidents we see in anyone's videos

OK, this time it was you who managed to summarize what I wasn't able to convey. We're even, and I won't be charging you any royalties....today

P.S. On the subject of sidetracking AND royalities, do bear in mind that the copyright for "Foot-Unicycle-Controller-Kickups" is mine and its use is subject to intellectual property rights

Edited January 13, 2019 by travsformation

[RockyTop]

15 minutes ago, travsformation said:

If you keep that up, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start charging you royalties

@travsformation Funny you should bring this up. We might have to start charging you for web space.  

[Smoother]

2 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Nothing more dangerous than silently yielding to people when you don't have to (this has nothing to do with EUCs, applies to anyone in traffic).

Forgive me but this statement does not apply to this situation.  The Honda enters the sidewalk drop curb a full 60 feet before Marty gets there.  Then for some unknown reason, the driver slows to a crawl.  At this point, Marty's camera (10 feet in front of him)  has just entered that section of sidewalk.  Marty continues to ride at the same speed even though a known forward moving vehicle is mostly blocking his path, and the his only practical course is to cross in front of it, Marty is still many feet away from the front of the vehicle, and the vehicle is occupying 90% of the sidewalk.  Marty is actually riding towards the right front fender, and would have to ride through the fender in order to continue his trip without deviation.  Once the car jerks to a halt, presumably because of the aforementioned eye contact,  Marty has to physically leave the sidewalk and drive  for a few feet on the black top of the driveway of the business that the drop curb was placed there for in the first place.  I agree that once the car came to a complete stop (presumably because of eye or camera contact) it was ok for Marty to proceed, but right up until that point the car had right of way, because it was crossing the sidewalk legally, at a more than safe speed, and the way was clearly free of pedestrians, etc.  I still maintain that prior to the car stopping Marty should have been preparing to yielded; not because "Nothing (is) more dangerous than silently yielding to people when you don't have to" but because the car had right of way and therefore HE HAD TO YIELD.

Besides all that, where is your data that "Nothing more dangerous...."?  I can count a dozen things more dangerous than yielding, rightly or wrongly.  Would you rather be wrong and alive or right and dead?

[Smoother]

3 hours ago, travsformation said:

I hadn't read @Marty Backe's comment on eye contact. My bad....Although I can't say I'm surprised...making a fool out of myself has always been one of my strong points...

You hadn't read it because it was a response to the same video when it was simultaneously posted in the video thread.  Don't beat yourself up. This is an unexpected problem with double posting. Here is what I wrote, as you will agree; the short version of what you wrote. 

And, although I've said it before.  If I presented footage of my average ride, there would probably be plenty of incidents to "discuss". So this is in no way a criticism of Marty.  Just a discussion of safety in general

Edited January 13, 2019 by Smoother

[meepmeepmayer]

41 minutes ago, Smoother said:

Forgive me but this statement does not apply to this situation.  The Honda enters the sidewalk drop curb a full 60 feet before Marty gets there.  Then for some unknown reason, the driver slows to a crawl.  At this point, Marty's camera (10 feet in front of him)  has just entered that section of sidewalk.  Marty continues to ride at the same speed even though a known forward moving vehicle is mostly blocking his path, and the his only practical course is to cross in front of it, Marty is still many feet away from the front of the vehicle, and the vehicle is occupying 90% of the sidewalk.

No, it applies exactly to the situation. Couldn't be more exemplary

It does not matter when the car entered the sidewalk space. It does not matter why he slows down to a crawl there instead of just quickly+efficiently crossing into the parking lot. It does not matter that Marty had to evade the car partially blocking him.

What matters, when Marty was where the car is, he had the right of way. (Not the car! The cars job was to cross quickly enough to not block any upcoming right-of-way-"pedestrians", or not cross at all and wait til it could). So Marty took his right of way, as well as he could (evading). Which, except if it would have led to a dangerous situation, is exactly the right thing to do, because it's the predictable behavior there.

Imagine a pedestrian trying to cross a freeway (the access-controlled, Autobahn kind of one), climbing over the guard rail, etc. Should a driver brake and "yield" to that moron? So the unsuspecting freeway driver in the next lane runs the pedestrian straight over at 60mph? Does the pedestrian in the middle of the freeway suddenly have the right of way because a driver (a driver, not all of them) could see him being there far in advance (like Marty saw the car)? No!

Same idea here. Right of way rules are clear, simple and predictable, which makes observing and predicting traffic situations safe and easy for everyone. Take that away, and have people just make up their ad-hoc rules every time, and you'll only get more accidents and chaos on the streets, and complaints about unchecked crazy PEVs.

-

On the other hand, what exactly would have been the benefit of Marty yielding to a car in his right of way? Absolutely nothing except maybe a little courtesy or pointless confrontation-avoidance. But making the entire situation much more incalculable for everyone else.

What, for example, if some other driver (coming from the direction opposite to Marty's, so on the other side of the road) who wanted to go into the parking lot too, would have seen the car enter the parking lot, falsely assume it did because nothing is in the way? He might have run Marty, continuing after the car crossed, over; or might have had to slam on the brakes in the middle of the road (and in the opposite traffic direction lane to where he was coming from!) to prevent hitting the unexpected obstacle. Unexpected because people were not following the simple and clear rules.

-

That's my point, and it applies exactly to what is shown in the video. No reason to yield. Good reason not to. Especially if you want to get car drivers used to other, new traffic participants, which is a whole other topic.

41 minutes ago, Smoother said:

Besides all that, where is your data that "Nothing more dangerous...."?  I can count a dozen things more dangerous than yielding, rightly or wrongly.  Would you rather be wrong and alive or right and dead?

It's a figure of speech

People being hesitant and improvising, instead of just following the simple rules and taking their right of way (or whatever) safely but confidently is a well-known reason for crashes and near-crashes. From overtaking on the right, to yielding to someone nobody expects you to yield to, etc. It just creates a lot of possibly dangerous situations when suddenly something unexpected happens. You only need to be a car driver to observe this.

Of course your safety comes first. But not following the rules "just because" without good reason (like your safety) won't help anyone.

Edited January 13, 2019 by meepmeepmayer

[Marty Backe]

4 hours ago, Unventor said:

To me it seems you slip a bit a few times. If that is correct, is it due to a "new" wheel conditioning or that you ride faster than you use to do (maybe because of confident in protective gear)? Or just simply suprised by sandy condition?

Hmmm. I don't remember any slipping. It is a sandy path and soft because of the recent rains. So the wheel didn't have the best traction ever, but I don't recall anything out of the ordinary. 

[Smoother]

6 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

No, it applies exactly to the situation. Couldn't be more exemplary

It does not matter when the car entered the sidewalk space. It does not matter why he slows down to a crawl there instead of just quickly+efficiently crossing into the parking lot. It does not matter that Marty had to evade the car partially blocking him.

What matters, when Marty was where the car is, he had the right of way. (Not the car! The cars job was to cross quickly enough to not block any upcoming right-of-way-"pedestrians", or not cross at all and wait til it could). So Marty took his right of way, as well as he could (evading). Which, except if it would have led to a dangerous situation, is exactly the right thing to do, because it's the predictable behavior there.

Imagine a pedestrian trying to cross a freeway (the access-controlled, Autobahn kind of one), climbing over the guard rail, etc. Should a driver brake and "yield" to that moron? So the unsuspecting freeway driver in the next lane runs the pedestrian straight over at 60mph? Does the pedestrian in the middle of the freeway suddenly have the right of way because a driver (a driver, not all of them) could see him being there far in advance (like Marty saw the car)? No!

Same idea here. Right of way rules are clear, simple and predictable, which makes observing and predicting traffic situations safe and easy for everyone. Take that away, and have people just make up their ad-hoc rules every time, and you'll only get more accidents and chaos on the streets, and complaints about unchecked crazy PEVs.

-

On the other hand, what exactly would have been the benefit of Marty yielding to a car in his right of way? Absolutely nothing except maybe a little courtesy or pointless confrontation-avoidance. But making the entire situation much more incalculable for everyone else.

What, for example, if some other driver (coming from the direction opposite to Marty's, so on the other side of the road) who wanted to go into the parking lot too, would have seen the car enter the parking lot, falsely assume it did because nothing is in the way? He might have run Marty, continuing after the car crossed, over; or might have had to slam on the brakes in the middle of the road (and in the opposite traffic direction lane to where he was coming from!) to prevent hitting the unexpected obstacle. Unexpected because people were not following the simple and clear rules.

-

That's my point, and it applies exactly to what is shown in the video. No reason to yield. Good reason not to. Especially if you want to get car drivers used to other traffic participants, which is a whole other topic.

People being hesitant and improvising, instead of just following the simple rules and taking their right of way (or whatever) safely but confidently is a well-known reason for crashes and near-crashes. From overtaking on the right, to yielding to someone nobody expects you to yield to, etc. It just creates a lot of possibly dangerous situations when suddenly something unexpected happens. You only need to be a car driver to observe this.

But you're conveniently ignoring that it wasn't his right of way.  That car entered the sidewalk (safely and legally) Before marty is even half way across THE OTHER ROAD 100 feet away! .  On no planet does that make it Marty's right of way. And that's my last word on this.  This is exactly why I let it rest after my initial observation yesterday.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Smoother

[meepmeepmayer]

22 minutes ago, Smoother said:

But you're conveniently ignoring that it wasn't his right of way.

No, Marty had the right of way.

Rules are simple. One direction (as in route, both actual directions) has the right of way, is higher in the hierarchy. The end.

In the case of entering something on the side of a street, anything and everything "on" the street has the right of way. Cars, bicycles, pedestrians, even an illegal wrong-way driver or cyclist or pedestrian!

So if you want to turn into something, it is your job to not block anyone in the right of way direction, aka "on" the street. You have to look and make sure that doesn't happen. By definition, if someone there has to brake or evade because of you, you took the right of way. Which the car did to Marty. It doesn't matter what he did 5 seconds ago, or 5 hours ago, or if there's a crossing somewhere in the vicinity. What matters is only: Marty was there, coming along on the sidewalk.

The car should have seen Marty coming and waited on the street until he passed. Simple as that.

Unless it's very different in the UK (or US), this is a clear cut case

Good to see we don't have an actual disagreement about the issue, just arguing about a detail that decides what the right thing to do (in both our eyes) is.

Edited January 13, 2019 by meepmeepmayer

[travsformation]

1 hour ago, RockyTop said:

@travsformation Funny you should bring this up. We might have to start charging you for web space.  

Fair enough. Brevity has never been one of my strong suits...

[Marty Backe]

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

Great video, @Marty Backe!  My 18XL will (FINALLY) be arriving this week! Thanks for feeding my impatient mind with quality footage during the long wait! You've been my "guardian angel" for the past month! (Although with your all-black armor, I'm not sure angel is the right term; "guardian demon", perhaps?)

Can I make a (constructive) suggestion on sidewalk riding and pedestrians crossings? I hope this doesn't come through as patronizing, it's not my intention (epsecially considering that I'm a new rider and you're much more experienced, Plus, you know I'm a subscriber and huge fan!). Also, I don't mean to sidetrack your post...just trying to provide my point of view about something I noticed in the video, in terms of safety (we need you in one piece!) 

<snip>

Thanks for your commentary and the follow-up commentary from @Smoother, @meepmeepmayer, @Unventor, and anyone else I forgot. Interesting reading.

I'll just add a few words from 'the guy that was there'.

The 10-foot selfie-stick distorts distances and speeds. As I was crossing the intersection I obviously saw the Honda making the u-turn into the driveway. I'm not going 20-mph so I could literally stop at any point with little effort. I saw the Honda start to slow-down (probably hard to detect that in the video) and then through the windshield I saw her looking at me, and she stopped. The camera, 10-feet in front of me, makes it look like I'm in front of the car while it's moving. Trust me, I never ride in front of cars that are still moving.

This nearly identical situation happens many times just about every time I ride around town. Most of the time the driver doesn't see me or slow down, and I just come to a stop and wait for them to pass. In this case her forward momentum was stopping so I knew I'd be able to continue on my way.

The situation was very fluid and fast and my sense was that we both were satisfied with the outcome 

[travsformation]

Your clarification, as "the guy who was there", @Marty Backe puts all doubt to rest (for this particular case). Didn't mean to question your judgement

For the sake of argument (this has turned into an interesting traffic-rules debate), let's suppose "the Honda event" occurs as it appears to on camera (Marty is in front of the car while it's moving), not as it really happened. In that scenario, I'm with @Smoother on the right of way subject. Although in principle, pedestrians have the right of way there, pedestriand don't always have the right of way (even on zebra crossings, for example). Their right of way is also subject to their own sense of responsibility and awareness of their surroundings. It's not the same thing to cross the street when oncoming cars have had plenty of time to acknowledge your presence and yield for you, as to cross when a car is only 3 ft from the crossing and doesn't hae enough time to react. Spanish law, at least (even if no one follows it...), states that "On pedestrian crossings, pedestrians have the right of way, but have the obligation of looking both ways and making sure, before they cross, that they're allowing oncoming vehicle sufficient time and space to stop".

As @Smoother said, if the car were (hypothetical) already occupying 90% of the sidewalk by the time the pedestrian/EUC/bicycle reached that spot, at that point the car has the right of way. If the pedestrian were there before the car, or they coincided at the same time, it would be a different story, but in this particular (hypothetical) case, the car would have the right of way.

@meepmeepmayer Your statement that "The cars job was to cross quickly enough to not block any upcoming right-of-way-"pedestrians" doesn't make sense to me. If we were talking about pedestrians instead of PEVs (which is what drivers are used to, and let's bear in mind that motorists still need time to adapt to the new variable that PEVs represent; we can't expect them to change their behavioural patterns overnight), a car's crossing speed is hardly a nuisance to pedestrians travelling on foot, so I don't think the need to cross quickly applies here (it would be another story if he were crossing oncoming motor traffic). In this case, based on Marty's account, the driver slowed down after seeing Marty, but had he just slowed down because there was a nasty curb, or for any other reason, he still wouldn't have been doing anything wrong.

Once again, I'd like to quote the chief Barcelona's Accident Investigation Unit about road karma, and more importantly, the need to quit compartimentalising mobility issues (motorists defending nothing but motorists' rights; pedestrians being indifferent to cyclists, PEVs and motorists; PEV users adamantly makign a stand for PEV users' rights and nothing else, etc.). All public thoroughfares (roads, walkways, etc.) are shared spaces used by cars, motorbikes, bicycles, pedestrians, PEVs, etc. As a motorist, a cyclist, an EUC-rider and pedestrian, I feel we're all right sometimes, and wrong other times, but the key to safe and fluid coexistence is to take a few steps back, look at things from afar and take into account the specific factors and differences involved for all players. If we're able to put ourselves in other people's place, and out of respect to everyone involved, yield when it's reasonable to do so and have the right of way when someone else shows us respect by yielding for us (which is ultimately, the essense of traffic rules), coexistance would be much simpler.

And I'll leave it at that because I'm starting to sound like a damn hippie and beginning to worry that @RockyTop is going to start a poll about charging me for web space

No more coffee for me today...

[meepmeepmayer]

50 minutes ago, travsformation said:

@meepmeepmayer Your statement that "The cars job was to cross quickly enough to not block any upcoming right-of-way-"pedestrians" doesn't make sense to me. If we were talking about pedestrians instead of PEVs (which is what drivers are used to, and let's bear in mind that motorists still need time to adapt to the new variable that PEVs represent; we can't expect them to change their behavioural patterns overnight), a car's crossing speed is hardly a nuisance to pedestrians travelling on foot, so I don't think the need to cross quickly applies here (it would be another story if he were crossing oncoming motor traffic). In this case, based on Marty's account, the driver slowed down after seeing Marty, but had he just slowed down because there was a nasty curb, or for any other reason, he still wouldn't have been doing anything wrong.

The situation is very simple. A street, a parking lot to the side of the street, and a sidewalk. Everyone on the sidewalk has the right of way over everyone who turns into the parking lot from the street (or comes out). Whoever turns into the parking lot from the street (or exits onto the street) must make sure he does it in a way so nobody on the sidewalk is disturbed (see below what that means).

Right of way = someone has priority. Taking that right of way = someone with priority has to brake (or swerve, or whatever) to prevent a potentially dangerous situation or an accident. It's literally the definition as learned in traffic classes: if someone has to brake (or react in any unacceptable way) despite having priority.

So Marty had priority and would have had to stop to not hit the car, or evade (what he did), to continue going like there was nobody there, how it should have been in the first place because he had priority in the first place.

The car had two good options here: either wait on the street until Marty had passed, or drive into the parking lot quick enough so Marty would have never had to care about it (because he was still far away, never mind there wasn't enough time for that option). That's what I meant.

The car did neither and did the next best thing: stop in time so Marty could at least go by, despite having his right of way taken. Damage mitigation.

Not sure who had the right of way after everything went down the drain and the car was already stopped on the sidewalk, blocking Marty. But I'm pretty sure you can't just stop on a pedestrian crossing (for example) and go "eh, I'm already on it, so now I can just ignore it and the others gotta wait).

This has nothing to do with whether there was a pedestrian or PEV or elephant rider the sidewalk. This has nothing to do with considerateness in traffic. This is only about who would have had the blame according to the rules if there would have been a collision, and it would always have been the car. If traffic police would have been there, they could have cited the car for taking someone's right of way when turning into the lot over the sidewalk.

[Unventor]

This is getting hilarious. I doubt I ever seen this many long posts from one video. 

[Smoother]

1 minute ago, Unventor said:

This is getting hilarious. I doubt I ever seen this many long posts from one video. 

You haven't been around long enough, then. 

[Unventor]

3 minutes ago, Smoother said:

You haven't been around long enough, then. 

Probably not I guess... 

[meepmeepmayer]

16 minutes ago, Smoother said:

You haven't been around long enough, then. 

My thoughts, exactly

[Marty Backe]

 

[meepmeepmayer]

If your msuper V3 started at 97%, it has the same problem that your dioded MSX has - the battery was not nearly full. Not the same as 97% on the KS which is a higher battery charge. So I still maintain the 10% difference can be explained by this.

But if you say the 18XL feels more efficient, I believe you. Experience beats theory with range considerations. So I'll shut up about this.

-

"Thanks again Jason for loaning this to me, let me have some fun with it." I think Jason knew exactly where this would go "Loaning", sure. More like test ride. Probably it will go the same way with the Nikola. I see a pattern how you're buying wheels from now on

[Flying W]

I guess we should all be thankful Jason doesnt "loan" all of us wheels 

[Unventor]

3 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

 

Nice video. Seems the dog didn't like the wheel as much as you. Glad you are ok after yet another dismount. I think ypu are slowly but surely moving into @Rehab1 test fate group. Please look after yourselves 😃 

So Marty is there any situation where you would pick your KS14S instead of the KS18XL? reason I am asking is i gave up on my V8 due to hidden strucual damages. So I lost my designated training wheel and to have in my car at all times. 

So I am considering a KS14D with small battery, due to cost, KS14S to keep range despite i might never need it, debating cost or KS16S to get a more all around wheel for any situation. Or KS18XL and habe the L to become training wheel. Or when released soon in EU a Z10 to use as training for reverse riding and get different 2018 generation wheel, more cost and more weight. Tuff choices.

 

Sidenote, the good news is I don't have to convince a wife. As longy cats get food they seem happy. They to a evel state once in a while not at the wheels when I come home. But I fixed that with headlights, now they don't seem to bother that much. And giving them their favorite food when comming home with the wheel.

[Unventor]

20 minutes ago, Flying W said:

I guess we should all be thankful Jason doesnt "loan" all of us wheels 

I am waiting for him to open a shop in Scandinavia.

Then planed trip ever 4-6 months with bag of thankyou cakes.

🤔 Hold on my hallway and basement storage is not US size...

🙄I might be able to fit 6-8 wheels and 5ish in the garage too. 1 in the car...so space for 12 more wheels. 😁😎

[Marty Backe]

1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said:

If your msuper V3 started at 97%, it has the same problem that your dioded MSX has - the battery was not nearly full. Not the same as 97% on the KS which is a higher battery charge. So I still maintain the 10% difference can be explained by this.

But if you say the 18XL feels more efficient, I believe you. Experience beats theory with range considerations. So I'll shut up about this.

-

"Thanks again Jason for loaning this to me, let me have some fun with it." I think Jason knew exactly where this would go "Loaning", sure. More like test ride. Probably it will go the same way with the Nikola. I see a pattern how you're buying wheels from now on

I really don't understand your 'math'. If the Gotway started at 97% and the KingSong was at 100% (3% difference) but at the end of the ride there was a 13% difference, what am I missing in your argument? 

[Marty Backe]

1 hour ago, Unventor said:

Nice video. Seems the dog didn't like the wheel as much as you. Glad you are ok after yet another dismount. I think ypu are slowly but surely moving into @Rehab1 test fate group. Please look after yourselves 😃 

So Marty is there any situation where you would pick your KS14S instead of the KS18XL? reason I am asking is i gave up on my V8 due to hidden strucual damages. So I lost my designated training wheel and to have in my car at all times. 

So I am considering a KS14D with small battery, due to cost, KS14S to keep range despite i might never need it, debating cost or KS16S to get a more all around wheel for any situation. Or KS18XL and habe the L to become training wheel. Or when released soon in EU a Z10 to use as training for reverse riding and get different 2018 generation wheel, more cost and more weight. Tuff choices.

 

Sidenote, the good news is I don't have to convince a wife. As longy cats get food they seem happy. They to a evel state once in a while not at the wheels when I come home. But I fixed that with headlights, now they don't seem to bother that much. And giving them their favorite food when comming home with the wheel.

I pretty much only use the 14S for errands. Kind of have to find an excuse to use it. Probably should sell it, but I have a kind of EUC hoarding problem that I'm trying to work through