Bicycles on the road

[fallingoff]

Originally Posted by Rekd

Just like I've been saying since I started posting in this pisspot thread, cyclists are STUPID for forcing their will on cars in situations like this. I see it often where they do crap like this then get pissed of when the cagers don't yield to them. Day before yesterday I saw a situation almost exactly like this only reversed where the cyclist flew past a car in traffic to turn into a driveway and the cager had to skid to avoid the cyclist darting in front of him.

Stupid cyclist had to force the issue instead of patiently waiting for it to be safe to cross the lanes of traffic and proceed on his course. Dumbass got exactly what he deserved.

What's completely ironic is that the very same AdvRider who defends this very same behavior posted the video without even realizing the cyclist never signaled his intention to cross lanes while cars were assuming he would continue his leftward path.

Fucking priceless!

you really are a retard rekd, lol

any way all road users should watch out for all others

if it was a semi would the car do the same thing

though the the modern cyclist is pretty arrogant

we all make errors even retards

thats why in a proper society we watch out for each other

imho
2c
no offence meant
just in fun

[Forty Years Ago]

Originally Posted by bwalsh

So would it make any difference if it was another type of vehicle, say a moped or motorcycle going up the road in their lane and some jackass doesn't yield to a vehicle in the lane they want to occupy, or in this instance pass thru to get to a third lane?
You people accusing the bicyclist of being in the wrong should have to go back and reapply for your motor vehicle licenses because you obviously have no clue as to how to properly change lanes in traffic or who has the ROW while traveling up the road.

I wish you knee jerk fools would take the time to read. I never said the bicyclist was in the wrong or violating any law. As I stated, he was in a Dedicated bike lane. However, having the right of way is not going to keep you alive unless you ride with maximum awareness of your environment. Very poor riding skills. "Gee, I had the right of way just before he ran over me"

[Vertical C]

Originally Posted by alpinekeno

If the bike was a train, a semi or another car in the lane next to the driver, would we be having the same conversation?

I have seen plenty of examples, where the bigger vehicle, such as a car, has had to brake for a cyclist running red lights. They are simply avoiding collisions, even though they might have "right of way",

Every vehicle has the obligation to avoid accidents by taking some simple precautions, the cyclist in this situation, didnt take simple precautions,

[alpinekeno]

Originally Posted by Vertical C

I have seen plenty of examples, where the bigger vehicle, such as a car, has had to brake for a cyclist running red lights. They are simply avoiding collisions, even though they might have "right of way",

Every vehicle has the obligation to avoid accidents by taking some simple precautions, the cyclist in this situation, didnt take simple precautions,

I understand you must take action to a avoid an accident in the first place.
But don't assume in this case the cyclist saw what was about to happen. He may have been distracted or looked down at the road just at the wrong time, whose knows?. The cyclist had all right to expect the other drivers not to endanger his well being.

The car driver put the cyclist in danger when he broke the traffic regulations.

That's it.

"Sorry mate I didn't see you" is not an acceptable excuse.

[Vertical C]

Originally Posted by alpinekeno

I understand you must take action to a avoid an accident in the first place.
But don't assume in this case the cyclist saw what was about to happen. He may have been distracted or looked down at the road just at the wrong time, whose knows?. The cyclist had all right to expect the other drivers not to endanger his well being.

The car driver put the cyclist in danger when he broke the traffic regulations.

That's it.

"Sorry mate I didn't see you" is not an acceptable excuse.

Of course its not an excuse. I doubt the driver didnt see him indeed he probably did see him and saw his veer left to take the exit.

The issue that the collision was avoidable. The cyclist shouldnt be riding if he was distracted, its obvious, that a car might interpret a veer to he left as them exiting. The rider didnt indicate either way, nor did he headcheck before veering back straight ahead.

When the driver came past with the left blinker on the cyclist kept peddaling even though a collision was probable. That would be the same as closing your eyes and screaming "I have the green I have right of way" and killing a cyclist who made a simple mistake of running a red.

Just because you have right of way doesnt absolve you from taking steps to avoid the collision.

[alpinekeno]

Originally Posted by Vertical C

Of course its not an excuse. I doubt the driver didnt see him indeed he probably did see him and saw his veer left to take the exit.

The issue that the collision was avoidable. The cyclist shouldnt be riding if he was distracted, its obvious, that a car might interpret a veer to he left as them exiting. The rider didnt indicate either way, nor did he headcheck before veering back straight ahead.

When the driver came past with the left blinker on the cyclist kept peddaling even though a collision was probable. That would be the same as closing your eyes and screaming "I have the green I have right of way" and killing a cyclist who made a simple mistake of running a red.

Just because you have right of way doesnt absolve you from taking steps to avoid the collision.

Yeah this is going nowhere.

I see that the cyclist did nothing wrong in this incident and some bloke put his life in more danger.
Now if the cyclist was drunk, in dark clothing, no lights riding in the dark & swerving all over the road I may see things from another angle.


I'm just over people endangering my life for no reason other than they just couldn't be bothered.

[Rekd]

Originally Posted by alpinekeno

I understand you must take action to a avoid an accident in the first place.

...

The cyclist had all right to expect the other drivers not to endanger his well being.

Wow. Just wow. All in the same post and everything.

[Gummee!]

Originally Posted by jjahp

Listen i put in over 3k miles on my [Klay]PEDAL[/Klay] bike yearly and as i also put 8k plus on the moto.bikes in the summer....there are D bags in every segment...i was riding in a century ride....100+ miles and there was a team of cyclists in the same spandex that rode 4 across "guarded" by a Hardly riding team....had a 30 car backup behind them...me? I would have stuck a stick in every rider's wheel if i could.... I know both sides and.its not.one or the.other.....its D bags on the fringe of both sides so lets not generalize ....now lets talk about the diesel dualies dirt bags...or the 4Ds

fixt that for you. Peddle is what you do on ebay. PEDAL is what you do on a bicycle.

M

[Gummee!]

Originally Posted by Vertical C

I have seen plenty of examples, where the bigger vehicle, such as a car, has had to brake for a cyclist running red lights. They are simply avoiding collisions, even though they might have "right of way",

I don't like people on bicycles running lights any more than you do. Pisses me right the eff off. ...but for another reason: every stinkin time someone else runs a light, I'm tarred with that brush.

Every vehicle has the obligation to avoid accidents by taking some simple precautions, the cyclist in this situation, didnt take simple precautions,

So splain to me what 'simple precautions' one should take if one has the ROW? Its to be expected that someone turning there will wait till the occupying vehicle clears the intersection before turning. Right?! That didn't happen in the video. If it was a car going straight, the car with the trailer would STILL be in the wrong for cutting across the car's that's going straight's nose like that. Probably with bigger consequences!

M

[Forty Years Ago]

Originally Posted by Gummee!

I don't like people on bicycles running lights any more than you do. Pisses me right the eff off. ...but for another reason: every stinkin time someone else runs a light, I'm tarred with that brush.


So splain to me what 'simple precautions' one should take if one has the ROW? Its to be expected that someone turning there will wait till the occupying vehicle clears the intersection before turning. Right?! That didn't happen in the video. If it was a car going straight, the car with the trailer would STILL be in the wrong for cutting across the car's that's going straight's nose like that. Probably with bigger consequences!

M

You folks still don't get it. You have assaulted us with pages and pages of very boring posts about "Who was right" and "who was wrong" IT DOESN'T MATTER. Theoretically, this is a motorcycle forum. We tell each other every day "ride like you are invisible and that every vehicle on the road is a threat to our safety and that we SHOULD BE AWARE OF OUR SURROUNDING at all times and always have a plan. You cannot rely on traffic laws to protect you.

[Vertical C]

Originally Posted by Gummee!

I don't like people on bicycles running lights any more than you do. Pisses me right the eff off. ...but for another reason: every stinkin time someone else runs a light, I'm tarred with that brush.


So splain to me what 'simple precautions' one should take if one has the ROW? Its to be expected that someone turning there will wait till the occupying vehicle clears the intersection before turning. Right?! That didn't happen in the video. If it was a car going straight, the car with the trailer would STILL be in the wrong for cutting across the car's that's going straight's nose like that. Probably with bigger consequences!

M

1. As I said before he should have stayed right and let the car turn behind him. His swerve to the left made the driver think that he was exiting. When he swerved back right not to exit the collision occured.


2. Before swerving back right he should have headchecked to see of any cars had mistakenly thought he was exiting.

3. When the car that hit him came past he should of braked or at least stopped accelerating. The car had their indicator on which should of been a danger flag.

I am not absolving the car from responsibility for the collision but the cyclist could have reduced the risk of this collision but did not.

[Homey]

Originally Posted by Vertical C

1. As I said before he should have stayed right and let the car turn behind him. His swerve to the left made the driver think that he was exiting. When he swerved back right not to exit the collision occured....

You know, your arguement is exactly like saying "it was her fault she was raped. If she hadn't walked home by herself..."
We have no idea what either driver or rider was thinking and to guess is a waste of time. In this case, the guy/gal in the car was at fault, period.
Your arguement that we should all be aware of our surroundings and do what we can to mitigate dangers is very valid and sound advice but ultimately this incident is/was zero percent the riders fault. Could he have possibly done something to mitigate the situation, sure but that's easy for us to do from our keyboards. Hindsight is often 20/20.

[bwalsh]

Originally Posted by alpinekeno

don't assume what either the driver of rider was going to do

^^^This^^^
If I was the cager I would have assumed the rider was returning to his bike lane after leaving the construction zone and slowed to go behind him.

Originally Posted by Vertical C

Of course its not an excuse. I doubt the driver didnt see him indeed he probably did see him and saw his veer left to take the exit.

So the cager just assumed what was going to happen instead of slowing to match road conditions, a slow moving vehicle, to see what was actually going to happen.

The issue that the collision was avoidable. The cyclist shouldnt be riding if he was distracted, its obvious, that a car might interpret a veer to he left as them exiting. The rider didnt indicate either way, nor did he headcheck before veering back straight ahead.

All collisions are avoidable. Distracted? Who hit who? How would you indicate you were going straight, in your lane?

When the driver came past with the left blinker on the cyclist kept peddaling even though a collision was probable. That would be the same as closing your eyes and screaming "I have the green I have right of way" and killing a cyclist who made a simple mistake of running a red.

How many cars tow trailers?

Just because you have right of way doesnt absolve you from taking steps to avoid the collision.

Cyclists doesn't have eyes in the back of their heads. No rear view mirrors. No side view mirrors.

Just like the signs at highway construction sites in Virginia say..."Construction workers, give them a brake"...Insert Bicyclist instead of Construction workers.

[Vertical C]

Originally Posted by bwalsh

Cyclists doesn't have eyes in the back of their heads. No rear view mirrors. No side view mirrors.
.

There is no law preventing them having them, and they are available on the market. I don't think that they are necessary in this case though as a head check would have seen the danger.

Originally Posted by Homey

Your arguement that we should all be aware of our surroundings and do what we can to mitigate dangers is very valid and sound advice but ultimately this incident is/was zero percent the riders fault.

Agree he wasn't at fault.....but that doesn't really help the cyclist if he was killed.

[bwalsh]

Originally Posted by Vertical C

There is no law preventing them having them, and they are available on the market. I don't think that they are necessary in this case though as a head check would have seen the danger.

There is no law saying they are required either. Do you really want to go down that slippery slope of more stupid laws?

Agree he wasn't at fault.....but that doesn't really help the cyclist if he was killed.

So? Shit happens everyday. Anyone of us could get hit or die tomorrow in a traffic accident. A semi could change lanes into that cage(or you) and run it(you) off the road? Who would be at fault there?
That statement which has been used by others in this thread is really not "THE" issue here. The title of the thread is "Bicycles on the road", not "Should bicycles be allowed on the road" or "Should bicycles stop on the shoulder of the road until the coast is clear".
It still doesn't relieve the cager's responsibility to drive defensively, which he/she obviously did not do.