Bicyclists have started doing a new thing that makes me furious

[RampantAndroid]

An indicator light does not supersede all traffic laws. The driver is supposed to turn on the indicators and then come to a halt until the bike lane is clear

No, traffic laws are clear on that, the car being in front of the bikes was supposed to move IN FRONT OF THEM. The bikes were then supposed to go to the left into the lane to let him turn.

That's the problem with everyone today. I think it's now common that if someone sees another's blinker; instead of yielding they try can beat them at the pass. Also WTF is up with everyone today that wants to get into a lane trying to do it by passing first especially when there is room already to merge behind traffic.

You play these games on a bike and chances are you are going to lose.

Exactly - you don't play around when you're going against a nearly 2 ton steel cage that will barely notice you've hit it. In that video the car likely had paint damage. The cyclist had a ruined wheel and sadly didn't have some serious injuries to show for his absolute stupidity.

 

[HeXen]

You guys worry too much, I don't care what the fine print in law books say, what godlike moral choices you all think are holier than thou, whether you're riding a bike or in a semi truck, just do what you need to do in the safest way possible, pay attention and move on. If you get a ticket then life just sucks and deal.

 

[Ns1]

No, traffic laws are clear on that, the car being in front of the bikes was supposed to move IN FRONT OF THEM. The bikes were then supposed to go to the left into the lane to let him turn.

Please show me this super clear law on that.

Let's see what the CA DMV says....

When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bicycle lane only after ensuring there is no bicycle traffic, and then make the turn. Do not drive in the bicycle lane at any other time.

http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm

In that video, the situation would be synonymous with some doucher making a right turn from the center lane and cutting you off, causing a collision. But it's ok because he signaled amirite?

That's what happens, when the cyclists don't take the center of the lane, by the way. If he were in the center of the lane, he could've just swerved past the rear end, no problem. But as he was riding on the shoulder, the driver didn't consider him as legitimate traffic and ignored him.

so much this. hit me from behind or don't hit me at all.

 

[Ackmed]

I am no cyclist but you are so wrong. If a car driver is dodging bikes while doing 60 mph then he should slow down or fuck off the roads and use public transport. Roads are not for the exclusive right of cars and it seems specifically car drivers have this narrow minded god given right view.

A road user is anyone using the road. There are clear restrictions when certain types of road user are not permitted. As I said I am not a cyclist but if you are one who regular uses the road network good on you. But please, please the near side of a HGV, dont pass for your own safety.

You're fucking stupid. By your rules, someone skate boarding at 5mph can go on the interstate and not be held liable for causing a pile up. Or a cyclist going 5mph. Again, you're a fucking idiot.

Cars can get a ticket for going too slow (15mph in a 60), bikes should too. Impeding the flow of traffic that affects many people is selfish. I hate bicyclist, I would love to ram them off the road. Stick to green ways, or don't bike at all.

Go to the gym and peddle away all you want. Or a park, anywhere that is allowed without cars. Don't gimme that "I'm trying to stay in shape" shit either.

 

[tenpole]

You're fucking stupid. By your rules, someone skate boarding at 5mph can go on the interstate and not be held liable for causing a pile up. Or a cyclist going 5mph. Again, you're a fucking idiot.

Cars can get a ticket for going too slow (15mph in a 60), bikes should too. Impeding the flow of traffic that affects many people is selfish. I hate bicyclist, I would love to ram them off the road. Stick to green ways, or don't bike at all.

Go to the gym and peddle away all you want. Or a park, anywhere that is allowed without cars. Don't gimme that "I'm trying to stay in shape" shit either.

In the uk motorways are restricted to which road user can use it, ie no pedestrians, horse, bicycle and mopeds. The minimum speed is 30 mph.

If the USA law allow slow traffic on the interstate then tough you need to drive appropriate to the situation. I would guess the interstate has restricted traffic.

 

[Broheim]

You're fucking stupid. By your rules, someone skate boarding at 5mph can go on the interstate and not be held liable for causing a pile up. Or a cyclist going 5mph. Again, you're a fucking idiot.

Cars can get a ticket for going too slow (15mph in a 60), bikes should too. Impeding the flow of traffic that affects many people is selfish. I hate bicyclist, I would love to ram them off the road. Stick to green ways, or don't bike at all.

Go to the gym and peddle away all you want. Or a park, anywhere that is allowed without cars. Don't gimme that "I'm trying to stay in shape" shit either.

let's take NYC, you want all the cyclists to start driving cars instead? that means 200k extra cars on the road every day... how do you think that's going to turn out?

plus you seriously underestimate how fast your average cyclist travels.

 

[Newbian]

let's take NYC, you want all the cyclists to start driving cars instead? that means 200k extra cars on the road every day... how do you think that's going to turn out?

plus you seriously underestimate how fast your average cyclist travels.

There is a difference between having a bike on a interstate and having it on city roads especially in many cases they have bike lanes.

Bikes never should be on such fast moving roads and there is a reason bikes can get tickets for going too slow on even normal roads between towns if they don't let the cars past as they have laws for that.

 

[Broheim]

There is a difference between having a bike on a interstate and having it on city roads especially in many cases they have bike lanes.

he said he wanted bikes completely off the road, so I took the bikes completely off the road.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Snip

In that video, the situation would be synonymous with some doucher making a right turn from the center lane and cutting you off, causing a collision. But it's ok because he signaled amirite?





Snip

Or, someone is 50 ft ahead of, clearly signals, safely changes lanes, and as they slow down to turn you refuse to brake (or aren't paying attention to the road ahead of you) and intentionally ram them.


With video evidence, such as in this biker video, you would lose in court. Both traffic court and civil.

 

[nanette1985]

let's take NYC, you want all the cyclists to start driving cars instead? that means 200k extra cars on the road every day... how do you think that's going to turn out?

plus you seriously underestimate how fast your average cyclist travels.

NYC should severely limit the number of bicycles on the road. Things are dangerous for pedestrians there (especially us disabled pedestrians) I hate NYC bikers.

 

[Remobz]

Ok everyone here PLEASE watch this video that was shot from a guy in England. He has tons more videos like this on his channel.

Clearly the cyclist here was traveling well over 15mph (am I right?) and yet we see the dangers he faces and possibly cars as well.

And whether one here is for or against bikes on the road I can't help but surmise that the cyclist in the video will end up dead one way or another if he keeps it up.

So what are your opinions concerning the video or any others he has on his channel?


here is the video............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXHLPcxy5Q

 

[SpatiallyAware]

He's on a narrow, poorly lit road, at night, with dim lights on the bicycle that is about 1 foot off the ground.....?? Those cars are easily going 45mph+!!


Just because it's legal doesn't make him any less of a fucking idiot. In 45 seconds he loses his mind three times over getting passed..... He is the problem, not the the drivers. He's going to get run over and killed, purely due to his own stupidity.

 

[Venix]

Or, someone is 50 ft ahead of, clearly signals, safely changes lanes, and as they slow down to turn you refuse to brake (or aren't paying attention to the road ahead of you) and intentionally ram them.


With video evidence, such as in this biker video, you would lose in court. Both traffic court and civil.

Yes, fault in that situation would clearly fall on the trailing vehicle. I don't see how that's related to a video in which the car and bicycle were traveling in different lanes, the distance between the car and bicycle was 20 feet at the maximum, the car did not enter the bicycle's lane before making its turn, and the bicycle did not intentionally ram the car.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Yes, fault in that situation would clearly fall on the trailing vehicle. I don't see how that's related to a video in which the car and bicycle were traveling in different lanes, the distance between the car and bicycle was 20 feet at the maximum, the car did not enter the bicycle's lane before making its turn, and the bicycle did not intentionally ram the car.

I still contend that the bicyclist had plenty of time to stop. He's on a bicycle, why does he need 40-50ft to stop from 15mph? Even his buddy was screaming at him, trying to get his attention.


I think he's someone similar to the British guy, just 'looking' to be in a situation like this.

 

[Veliko]

I still contend that the bicyclist had plenty of time to stop. He's on a bicycle, why does he need 40-50ft to stop from 15mph? Even his buddy was screaming at him, trying to get his attention.

The car driver had plenty of time to wait until the cycle lane was clear.

 

[tenpole]

More like 30 mph plus

 

[Oyeve]

Ok everyone here PLEASE watch this video that was shot from a guy in England. He has tons more videos like this on his channel.

Clearly the cyclist here was traveling well over 15mph (am I right?) and yet we see the dangers he faces and possibly cars as well.

And whether one here is for or against bikes on the road I can't help but surmise that the cyclist in the video will end up dead one way or another if he keeps it up.

So what are your opinions concerning the video or any others he has on his channel?


here is the video............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXHLPcxy5Q

I would gladly run that asshole over, take his camera and film me kicking him in the head. He's a twatdouche.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The car driver had plenty of time to wait until the cycle lane was clear.

It's not like the car driver intentionally hit the turdciclist. It was an accident, caused by either the cyclist looking for a confrontation (just like the british moron) or his inattentiveness.

Like it or not, legal or not, bicycles will always be the minority on the road. You have to drive defensively. Being offensive, taking lanes, refusing to allow people to pass, cussing at and physically confronting drivers will get you killed. Again, being legally correct won't mean much when you're in a traction bed for 6 months.

Motorcyclists get it. They ask to be seen and ask for respect without being asshats and the vast majority get along fine on the road.

I guess certain personalities are attracted to wearing leotards and intentionally holding up everyone's day. Basically real-life trolls.

 

[Venix]

I still contend that the bicyclist had plenty of time to stop. He's on a bicycle, why does he need 40-50ft to stop from 15mph? Even his buddy was screaming at him, trying to get his attention.

The other cyclist began yelling less than three seconds before the collision. The leading cyclist had already stopped pedaling and was slowing.

The car completely entered the right lane approximately 20 feet before the intersection and four seconds before the collision. Its actions prior to that point suggested that it was simply changing lanes, not intending to turn right at the intersection. Even when the impending right turn was obvious, the driver's intent to illegally cut across the bicycle lane was not until a moment before the collision.

And none of that even matters because the car broke the law. You cannot turn across another lane, particularly when it's already occupied by a vehicle. The collision doesn't magically become the cyclist's fault because he didn't successfully evade in the few seconds he had to react.

 

[Veliko]

It's not like the car driver intentionally hit the turdciclist. It was an accident, caused by either the cyclist looking for a confrontation (just like the british moron) or his inattentiveness.

Like it or not, legal or not, bicycles will always be the minority on the road. You have to drive defensively. Being offensive, taking lanes, refusing to allow people to pass, cussing at and physically confronting drivers will get you killed. Again, being legally correct won't mean much when you're in a traction bed for 6 months.

Motorcyclists get it. They ask to be seen and ask for respect without being asshats and the vast majority get along fine on the road.

I guess certain personalities are attracted to wearing leotards and intentionally holding up everyone's day. Basically real-life trolls.

Are you still bitter because a cyclist shagged your sister before you did?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Snip


The collision doesn't magically become the cyclist's fault because he didn't successfully evade in the few seconds he had to react.

It happens all the time. Like I said, if a car changes lanes (or turns) you have a duty to brake to avoid a collision. You cannot simply continue at the same pace and choose the ram the person, whether you're in a car or on a highly maneuverable bike.

He had plenty of time to react. A car would've been able to easily avoid that. His buddy, who was going the same pace, avoided it without any trouble at all. He even had time to yell at the moron too slow down.

That bicyclist wanted to make an example out of the car turning. Just like the british moron, he thinks he owns the road and wants to be a troll to make a point. That's all great and good until they're underneath a tire.


Plenty of things are legal. It's legal to stand outside a doorway and blow smoke at people walking out. It's legal to picket soldiers funerals. There are all sorts of things you can do which are legal but intentionally obnoxious, and the way some of these bicyclists choose to ride falls squarely in those categories.

You can share the road and not be a douchebag. You cyclists would be much better off trying to improve the behaviour as a group and shun some of these riders rather than expect the rest of society to cater to your childish and unrealistic expectations.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Here's my take on the video.

From a legal perspective, the motorist is clearly in the wrong and despite all of SpatiallyAware's emotional claims to the contrary, the cyclist would win that case in court all day long and thrice on Sunday. The motorist broke the law, plain and simple.

This is purely conjecture from here on out:

I do believe (italics because it cannot be proven) the cyclist could have stopped. Furthermore, I believe he deliberately allowed contact to occur.

The kicker is that I understand why he did it, though he needs to make sure it's not tire-on-tire contact, which is why he flipped over his bike. I myself would not take on that kind of risk, but he saw an opportunity to make a point with minimal risk (though he miscalculated the execution of it).

Now before anyone jumps my ass, he wasn't making a point just for the sake of pounding his chest. He figured he could get a careless/ignorant motorist cited and maybe get a blip on the evening news. Incidents raise awareness, and a lack of awareness is at the root of the problem both in the video and in general.

There are dickhead cyclists out there just as there are dickhead motorists out there. But speaking to the problem that good cyclist face with bad motorists, it boils down to one or two things:

1. An irrational hate toward cyclists and a sense that one's desire to get from A to B without anyone else on the planet hindering their progress trumps all (SpatiallyAware)

2. Ignorance of the law

#2 is the problem I personally encounter the most. Hell, I'm ignorant of it, too. While my area doesn't have many bike lanes at all, I had no idea that you were required to pull into the bike lane to make a turn. I didn't know that until I read this thread. If I came upon such a scenario in a car, I would have kept my ass out of the bike lane until I actually had to make the turn, checking that it was clear first, of course.

On one hand, cyclists are told "you are a vehicle on the road; you have the same rights and responsibilities as any other". On the other hand, no one else fucking knows this. It's never communicated or taught. Most motorists think they're just being nice when they don't mow down a cyclist. They have no idea that they're actually breaking the law when they pass a cyclist with oncoming traffic, or that if they pass with < 3 feet distance, or that they're required to enter the bike line in certain circumstances.

A lot of of the problems just boil down to people not knowing any better. You see this with the implementation of roundabouts too. Cities put them in but then don't educate the driving population. If a city is going to go gung-ho with bike lanes, they have an obligation to bring the public up to speed on the implications.

Now, I live in a somewhat rural area and I seek out back country roads for my cycling needs. But people who bitch about cyclists in urban areas are fucking retarded. Do you have any idea what would happen to your commute if you got what you asked for, and they all started driving? Yeah, you might have to slow down now and then right now, but imagine increasing traffic by x%. Get a grip.

 

[Venix]

It happens all the time. Like I said, if a car changes lanes (or turns) you have a duty to brake to avoid a collision. You cannot simply continue at the same pace and choose the ram the person, whether you're in a car or on a highly maneuverable bike.

He had plenty of time to react. A car would've been able to easily avoid that. His buddy, who was going the same pace, avoided it without any trouble at all. He even had time to yell at the moron too slow down.

That bicyclist wanted to make an example out of the car turning. Just like the british moron, he thinks he owns the road and wants to be a troll to make a point. That's all great and good until they're underneath a tire.


Plenty of things are legal. It's legal to stand outside a doorway and blow smoke at people walking out. It's legal to picket soldiers funerals. There are all sorts of things you can do which are legal but intentionally obnoxious, and the way some of these bicyclists choose to ride falls squarely in those categories.

You can share the road and not be a douchebag. You cyclists would be much better off trying to improve the behaviour as a group and shun some of these riders rather than expect the rest of society to cater to your childish and unrealistic expectations.

He didn't "continue at the same pace" or "choose to ram" the car. He expected the car to stop and wait for him to pass as it was legally required to do, and as its behavior until the last second suggested it was going to do. It didn't, his attempt to slow and evade failed, and they collided.

I believe he should have ridden more defensively and expected the car to cut him off. That doesn't excuse the car driver's blatantly illegal and dangerous behavior, or make him a "moron" or "turdciclist."

I do believe (italics because it cannot be proven) the cyclist could have stopped. Furthermore, I believe he deliberately allowed contact to occur.

It looks more like a lack of skill in evading than an intentional crash. If you watch the slow motion video, it appears that he loses traction on his back tire (probably due to excessive braking), reduces the angle of his turn to compensate, and then runs into the car.

 

[BikeJunkie]

It looks more like a lack of skill in evading than an intentional crash. If you watch the slow motion video, it appears that he loses traction on his back tire (probably due to excessive braking), reduces the angle of his turn to compensate, and then runs into the car.

Definitely a possibility :thumbsup:

That brings up one thing that's very difficult to see in the video and understand if you haven't experienced it firsthand, which is that your bike goes where your eyes go: once he fixated on the car, he was destined to hit it. If traction wasn't an issue, the reduced angle could have easily been caused by this.

The effects of this cannot be overstated or overestimated.

 

[_Rick_]

No way he deliberately sought contact.
He was too fast to stop in a straight line, and tried to turn with the car. Doing this under braking is extremely difficult - anyone who ever braked mid-turn on a two-wheeled vehicle will know this. The back will always step out, and if you're unlucky you may get understeer as well - which on a bike means you end up on the ground.
This is exactly what happened in that video. Back stepped out, needs to let go of the brakes to correct rear slip angle, and therefore doesn't make a clean, tight turn. Not that I believe that from the moment the driver broke the law, to the moment he crashed into, that was possible. Zero intent, and I also doubt target fixation had anything to do with it. The space he had to avoid by turning with the car was simply too tight for the turn angle and approach speed.