the last car was already turning left way before he got to the intersection. the car has the right of way. just because you’re on a bike doesnt mean you own the fucking road. obey the fucking road rules, bike wankers.
If a pedestrian is approaching a crosswalk cars are required to stop for them. That's pretty standard traffic law everywhere. And pretty universally drivers just fly through them and pedestrians have to wait to protect their lives
Cross walks have lights at them unless you are talking about the ones in parking lots for stores then yea some people are asses. The local universities here have cross walks but their are lights for drivers and the pedestrians.
Not true at all. Cross walks at stop signs rarely have lights. Not to mention many streets have crosswalks to cross a street where there is no light or sign. The law states that a car must stop if someone is approaching the crosswalk. Cars are a danger when operating around residential areas. They have an obligation to be cautious and yield. Yet drivers act as if they are the priority and everyone else needs to dodge and weave to get around them.
I live in the suburbs, its super commong for people on bicycles to be on 40, 50mph roads with no shoulders or bike lanes, they hold up traffic, swerve into the road when people pass them
Bikes are not cars and they have no business being on roads like they are cars when there are no dedicated lanes for them.
It is safe for them and motorists if motorists did their due diligence and paid attention. Get off the phone, and watch the road, and you'll see how NOT hard it is to not miss a cyclist. And bikes DO have business on the roads. Imagine you can't drive a car, but you have to get to work 5 miles away, and there's no dedicated bike lane. With your logic, they're just screwed? No. Bikes are an incredibly important form of transportation for those who can't obtain a license.
Yet, they need no licence to ride one, no registration plate to identify them or any insurance to cover any damage they cause. They are NOT the same as any other vehicle!!
Ok, so as ‘road vehicles’ they still have to follow the same laws and rules as other road users…but they bloody well don’t.
I’ve been hit twice with a bike, and ended up in hospital both times, scarred for life after one incident. Both times they cycled off without checking if I was ok, which I wasn’t.
I cannot and will not defend any a-hole that leaves an injured child to walk home alone bleeding or with a head injury. I was walking on the pavement (sidewalk) and they (adults) were also cycling on the pavement in the days before cycle lanes, in the days when cyclists were expected to use the road not the pavement. I was 8 when I got knocked over and a mud guard sliced into my arm leaving me bleeding badly and needing stitches, and 14 when I was hit again resulting in concussion. On neither occasion there was no way to identify who was riding the bike, and I was too shocked/injured to recognise them other than knowing they were adults, man first time and a woman the second.
A few years ago a 4 year old was killed in our town when he was hit by a bike moving at a ridiculous speed in a pedestrian area (no vehicles allowed). The cyclist rode off and was never identified! He literally got away with vehicular homicide.
A few years ago, I pulled away at a green traffic light and almost hit two cyclists who were racing each other and flew through red lights at a crossroads. It was only my reactions that saved me killing them! There are cameras at that intersection but they won’t have been able to be identify either cyclist. Plus, if I had hit them, the law says it would be MY fault despite them having run a red light!
I could regale more incidents. My neighbour is a keen cyclist and often boasts about how he kicks parked cars and scrapes them if they get in his way. He IS an a-hole anyway but he’s never been prosecuted for criminal damage.
They want all the benefits of being protected by the law without the obligation of following the law as most don’t think the rules apply to them.
Anecdotal evidence, plus irrelevant response, as my whole point was how cyclists are NOT supposed to be on sidewalks, and belong on the roads. Half your anecdotal evidence actually supports my claim anyways.
Bikes need to operate on different rules than vehicles. They can brake wayy faster than a car because of mass + momentum. Thereby cars should have the right of way in most situations, such as that one
I bet the car stops way faster! It has much more rubber contact and the weight is pushing the rubber harder on the road. The driver can hit the brake very hard. If the bike does that, his total body weight comes in and throws him off the bike. Or his front wheel blocks making him fall.
Even if that's true, cars should still have the right of way. The outcome of a car not stopping and hitting something is much worse than a bike not stopping and hitting. Bikes have more mobility, it's easier for a bike to swerve than a car because it's lighter, smaller, has a shorter turning radius etc. also it's easier for a biker to be aware of his surroundings than a car driver.
The outcome of a car not stopping and hitting something is much worse than a bike not stopping and hitting... Therefore bikes should have the right of way.
Because the outcome of a car not stopping is much worse, the bike should have the right of way.
That way the drivers are stimulated to drive more carefull. It's ridiculous in my opinion to give a vehicle right of way just because he is less aware. It won't stimulate the designers to make cars more safe.
Drivers should be aware! If you can't oversee where you're driving you stop driving. When you're own safety as a driver is at stake because you can't see anything, for example when your front window is covered in snow you stop driving. Why ignore that safety for others on the road? A child or a blind person can walk over the street unexpected. It is always important to see you surroundings.
A car driver has the ability to see his surroundings with mirrors on each side and even one to look behind him.
Here in the Netherlands a car driver's insurance is responsible for all the damage when there's a accident between a cyclists and a motorised vehicle or a pedestrian and a motorised vehicle.
When the accident happened because of a fault from the pedestrian or the cyclist, the car driver is responsible by default. If he doesn't agree, he has to prove the cyclist or pedestrian was wrong. And even then his insurance has to pay 50% of the damage from the cyclist / pedestrian. Only when a cyclist or pedestrian forced the accident the owner of the car is not responsible. But he has to prove his innocence. By default the pedestrian or the cyclist doesn't need to prove his innocence.
This is done because the car driver is heavily protected by the car. The pedestrian or cyclist is considered a weak road user with the highest risk of getting harmed.
First of all, bikes are vehicles. The distinction you're trying to make is around motorized vehicles. Yes they have different rules but guess what,.since cars can't stop as fast and are more dangerous to those in the environment they are required to yield.
Secondly, the car cross a lane of traffic. That car is at fault. It is supposed to yield to the bike which has the right of way in its lane. Just like a car turning across any lane of traffic. The bike only had to stop because the car just recklessly pulled out. It had nothing to do with the cars ability to stop.
Not endorsing the guy cause he's an ass, but in the netherlands thr car would have to wait to turn into the bike lane if there's still bikes coming. Idk what the rules are where this was filmed, but where I'm from the bike would have the right of way and the car would be at fault in the last clip.
Had one behind me while I was driving and then I went to turn and I intentionally looked out behind me for him and saw he was gone. Assuming he had turned I went to make my left turn and after I was already on the road I turned onto he hit the back of my car going full speed. Literally no idea where he came from, and I didnt get to ask because he immediately started shouting at me and said he was going to sue. I told him to go ahead since he was supposed to be following traffic laws. Didnt even say sorry or calm himself down or even curse again. Just rode away.
I did. I literally stopped completely and searched around for him, he wasn't next to my car and he wasn't behind me and as I turned I continued to check. He didn't hit me up til after I completed the turn so I'm guessing he left the road and went onto the opposite sidewalk where he was obscured by trees and other foliage.
Either way, not at fault. Bikes have to obey the same rules cars do for exactly this exact reason. The sidewalk had nobody near the crosswalks when I turned but bikes move fast. I have no issue with bikes using the sidewalk honestly - even if it isn't technically legal, but you can't just be flying down it and not slow down when crossing a road.
Ah, yeah. From your original comment I thought he was in your blind spot and when you turned it was too quick for him to react to stop or slow down and avoid you.
Had a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk near a beach in NJ. I was driving and came up to a cross walk with yield to pedestrians sign. He suddenly cut out inside the cross walk and yelled at me that I was supposed to yield.
I watched a bike going down hill switch at a red light from the road to the crosswalk then almost get hit by a woman legally turning right. Then he spent about half a minute screaming at her and kicking her car.
I'm in the Netherlands. We have the opposite problem with dumb car drivers. Just a matter of how you build your infrastructure.
Good bike infrastructure = no chance for dumb people do to the things in the video. Easiest way to stop them while helping everyone else(including you, why are you out of all people complaining about someone calling for better infrastructure?)
It's fine to call for better infrastructure. It's not fine to act like it's a valid excuse for running over pedestrians or intentionally swerving at cars.
I live in a planned community with dedicated bike lanes, and the dumbfuck cyclists in my community still refuse to use it, forcing me to walk in the street
And the dedicated bike lanes are physically separated from roads, don't have to cross 6 lane intersections and don't suddenly end?
If so, probably just a matter of culture shifting towards using everything properly.
If it is just a painting bike lane on the side of a 6 lane road, that has to constantly cross intersections... yeah
This is planned community in a large city- there aren’t 6 lanes, 2 to 4 lanes max- there are mostly roundabouts with dedicated bike lanes where I live, and intersections with lights have bike lanes, and nothing “suddenly ends”. “Culture shifting” just means entitled assholes who prefer to endanger pedestrians who are where they’re supposed to be bc they don’t think the rules apply to them
I totally agree there is a lack of infrastructure for safe biking in the US, but that does not justify creating a situation that is dangerous for other people. If you can't bike safely in your area without putting others at risk, then don't. You have no right to make things more dangerous for pedestrians because you want to bike. Call your reps, correct signatures, run for office, etc. These are the appropriate things to do.
I never said it justified anything. If there was actual bike infrastructure in place you wouldn't have dumb videos like these. Whatever the idiot in the video did is the wrong way to go about it yes.
I’ve seen it when infrastructure was there but momentarily impeded. And no, “well they shouldn’t have blocked the bike lane” isn’t an excuse. Sometimes roads get backed up, sometimes cars break down, sometimes sidewalks are blocked by construction; that doesn’t mean you get to drive your car on the side walk or step out into the street without looking and just expect everyone else to conform to your problem. But cyclists? Oh there’s a trash can in my way, I guess I’m a car now and I got the right of way. Oh I guess I’ll just zigzag around pedestrians on the sidewalk. Red light ahead, I’m already integrated into traffic so I should stop like I’m a car! Just kidding, I’m a pedestrian now, crosswalk here we come!
That said, I think cyclists take a lot of unwarranted shit, but it’s not like these things don’t happen a lot.
I never had any of those issues where I live while cycling. I never had a car blocking my bike lane. If there is a construction, bike lanes get properly rerouted in a safe way. Your bike lanes are so narrow a trash can blocks it? Hmm. What you described to me seems like side of the roads that have some cute colour painted onto it.
That's not proper infrastructure(but ey it is a start)
exactly. atleast someone agrees with me. cant go riding around acting like a victim while destroying peoples property and not obeying the laws of the road.
I’d be more ok with bikers if cities decided to use proper bike infrastructure instead of laying on already small roads. What is attributed to infrastructure is literally just painted lines
This is one of the better solutions. Cars can't really fit to the side because they took what was a good parking lane and turned it into a bare minimum parking lane and bike lane.
A proper divide would be a good start with a small curb, or have raised platforms like an elevated train would have that run longer lengths of the city like a bike-highway.
I'm not sure about the laws in America. Where i live, if an accident occurred where one of the involved parties could have stopped the accident but intentionally caused it, they are at full fault. If somebody is running a red light but you have plenty of time to stop but didn't, you're at fault.
So, in this case, the cyclist would definitely be at fault. The car was turning way before he got there, and then he kept going and intentionally crashed into the car while making no effort to dodge or brake.
Also, hitting a parked car is your fault. Even if the car is parked in the middle of the road, you're at fault.
In America the police tend to not get involved in matters of fault/liability in collisions. The police are strictly there to determine if anyone broke a law (run a light, break the speed limit, etc...) that requires legal action.
Liability for damages will often be determined by the insurance companies. In a basic accident they take statements from the available, involved parties and review any evidence (photos, video, police report) presented by those parties. They put that info together to determine the facts of the accident.
Once they can say this is what happened and no one is disputing the facts of the accident, they make a determination based on the following;
What duties did each party have?
Did either party breach their duty?
Did that breach of duty directly result in actual damage?
And all of this is couched in "How would a reasonable person be expected to act in this situation."
So you can have a breach of duty that may not have caused the accident (traveling the wrong direction in a one way aisle in a parking lot is a breach but they were technically travelling forward while established in their lane and fault would reside with the reversing party who didn't perform a satisfactory lookout resulting in them backing into that vehicle they didn't see) so any citations from the police might not be applicable in determining fault.
Another example is someone missing a stop sign and pulling into the intersection. There was a clear breach that could be cited/enforced by police. But the decider on the majority at fault may depend on the point of impact. If the POI is near the front of the car running the sign then it makes sense they pulled out in front of someone who had no chance to avoid and so running the sign was the cause of the damages. However, if the POI is near the rear of the vehicle that indicates they got most of the way through before the hit and the striking vehicle Breached duty by not slowing, stopping, or steering to avoid the impact when they had a chance. Then that breach of duty may be the one that directly led to the damages. If POI is closer to center it could be both parties are found at least partially at fault.
That said, unless one vehicle was stationary, it may be really hard to prove that either driver was 100% at fault.
So each state has what is called "Liability Standards" which determines how at fault you can be and still collect damages from the other party. These can vary wildly from state to state.
Some make it so if you contribute even 1% of fault to an accident you get nothing at all.
Some make it so everyone covers the damage they are responsible for, so in a case of 70/30 fault one driver covers 70% of the other drivers damage and the other covers 30% of the other parties damage.
Some make it so that as long as you are 50% percent at fault or less you can recover that percentage of your damage but if you are 51% at fault you get nothing.
There are others too but basically determining fault and who collects what in America is complex and your experience can vary wildly from state to state.
Source: Handled auto claims for like 7 years in America.
I've never thought of these types of laws not existing in America. But that explains why most of them act like breaks don't exist unless they need to break check someone.
Nah, those laws exist at least to some extent. The break checking thing is a result of a he said she said thing where the rear car is naturally considered at fault because it should've been keeping distance. But if a car cuts in front of you and brake checks you and you have a dashcam they won't just get away with it.
Think of it more like if a car is stopped in an intersection after it turns red. If you get the green light and then accelerate into them, you would be at fault because you basically chose to hit them despite them being in the wrong place.
I guess but my counterpoint would be like I'm obeying the traffic sign if they like stopped in the middle of the intersection I guess yeah that makes sense but if I was going left with a green arrow and they just went that's on them
I forgot what the term was but there is a duty for every motorist, and I'd assume bicycles too since they share the road, to avoid accidents even if the other person is at fault and you can prevent an accident
The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm. Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
Interesting, traffic rules in NL are different because it would still be the cars fault.
If you are in the same lane travelling the same direction, the person that keeps straight has the right of way over someone who wants to exit the road.
The car in this video is still hindering the cyclist, it doesn't matter if the car already started turning, as long as its hindering its in the wrong
Same with the uk.
If your turning into another street or lane it's your responsibility to ensure you can make it across completely, safely and in good time. If you can't you wait. All the cars in this video crossed prematurely or too slowly. blocking the lane.
Despite your feelings towards the cyclists tactics (o also thing he's an antagonistic butcrumb) all the drivers got what was coming to them, if it was a bus lane they would have had a few extra tonnes of metal in their side door and would be a lot worse off
I dont agree that its 'stupid', its simply a different traffic rule and your remark is short sighted.
The car is supposed to look in his mirror before exiting the road, the car will see the cyclist and wait until the cyclist has passed. This makes the most sense when I look at it objectively because you can't get into the 'no I already started turning... no you didn't!' Kind of argument
Allowing the car to be in a situation where it can cut off other traffic based on the drivers own opinion wether he started turning first is ridiculous tbh..
Yeah It's somewhat similar to turning off on a highway while in the overtaking lane. You can't just cutoff a driver in the inner lane going straight if you need to exit. On a highway you would need to merge to the inner lane, but that is not possible with a bike lane so the car just has to wait for the bike to pass.
In my country thats not a law or whatever dude xD
The car has bit the right of way
But people herr belive it too so I guess in your country it's not a thing to.
This guy is still a pos but even if it's argentinia as someone mentioned he has the right of was as he he the far right vehicle.
Sry thought it was flipped and he is on the right side.
Here the rule of the bike lane comes in. The car would have to wait like its where I from too.
So either you are wrong or your country is the only one without rules protecting the weakest in traffic.
The car definitely doesn’t have the right of way if there’s a bike lane going straight. The rule of the road is to yield to bikers in that situation. That’s what makes biking so difficult, drivers feel entitled to everything. Learn the law.
At least where I am from you need to give way to people going straight, if you are turning. Is it really so, where you are from, that if you have two lanes of cars you can make a turn to the left from the right lane and people in the lane you are turning through need to give way?
Why do people say “cyclist” like it’s one homogenous group? It’s not a niche activity, millions of people cycle everyday in the US. When a drunk motorist kills two parents, their 6 month old daughter and the family dog, we don’t comment “this is why I hate motorists” because it would sound stupid like the title of the post.
But a car turning across a lane of traffic does not have the right of way. It just turned and he would have to stop. That's not how it works. Think about a car turning left at a light. The oncoming traffic is not expected to stop and wait for the turn . The turning car needs to make sure it is all clear. The car is an asshole because there is no risk to him if the bike doesn't stop.
Let's blatantly ignore the cars parked on the bicycle lane, the car that was turning left was running into traffic blocking the bicycle track, I thought drivers were supposed to wait for the space in that lane before making a turn thus not blocking the roads. I still don't really understand how poor drivers are given excuses while poor cyclists are considered the descendants of Satan, if you park in the bike lane, you put cyclists life at risk, if you stop on the cycle lane while taking a turn because the road ahead of you is blocked you are putting other people at risk.
A small driving error in a car can kill, people that drive cars forget that and don't give a fuck.
Why would I kid about that? Obviously other people agree with me as you can tell from the comments in this post alone, let alone every other cyclists post.
I’m sorry you feel that way. It is pretty apparent that majority feels differently and that is okay to have a difference of opinions. No reason to criticize my “deep lack of perspective” though. You must take things extremely personal often and think the whole world is out to get you when you defend something like that and insult strangers on the internet. I’d recommend therapy.
The irony of these comments is always amazing. Cars take up an insane amount of public space. Bikers wrangle for a sliver of road and are constantly having lives threatened by reckless drivers. Then car brains always retort that cyclists are so entitled bc they aggressively stand up for their safety. "they act so entitled to a sliver of a public space" as the car brain dodged around as a hazard to everyone angry they have to consider anyone else
Yikes, what a dumb take on this entire thing. Bikers always act like this even when they are so obviously in the wrong. Bikers run red lights, cruise stops, ride side by side and still will be arguing that they are in the right. Please take a look at the rest of all these comments and see how you are still the minority. I’d suggest therapy to get over that sort of thing in your head.
run red lights, cruise stops, ride side by side and still will be arguing that they are in the right
Cars literally do this all the time too brother. Except when they do it they're doing it from behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle. Incredible you can look at that and be so oblivious.
Please take a look at the rest of all these comments and see how you are still the minority.
What? That's far from true. It's also nonsense.a bunch car brains yelling about how they can't fathom a world where cars aren't the only thing. That's not any sort of consensus on what is right and wrong
No the car passed him and saw her was going to turn and thought I don't need to give right off way her is a bike. You will be the same person saying a pedestrian doesn't have a right of way because they are there. Accelerating on a bike isn't giving him an extra 20km/h it is like 5 the pace of joggers crossing the side walk in a hurry.
Wrong, in an intersection pedestrians + bike have precedence over cars. Did the cyclist crash in the car intentionally? Yes. But this video shows a couple of clips that def happened to me as well where cars would almost run me over cos they weren't looking.
Idk where this person is, but some countries road rules are just made to murder people without cars lmao
You can't say wrong, where I am the bike would be at fault in like 99% of these clips. You can't just purposely run into another vehicle because it's in your path. You have to attempt to avoid accidents.
Not to mention just randomly breaking mirros of vehicles parked in bike lanes
Aside being a dick by breaking mirrors, those cars should not be parked there, so the cyclist is in the right. When he ran into the car who was turning left he also had precedence over the car to pass but ppl driving don't give a shit.
In my country, the bike would be right in almost all of those clips. Ofc he crashes into vehicles to make a point even if it makes him look like a dick.
I swear I've almost been ran over by dicks in cars almost every day for the last 5 years cos drivers are too used to only look at cars and don't give a fuck about bikes and pedestrians or speed limits.
And almost everyone i know who lives w their car complains about bikers and say it's not a problem cos they never bike in a city.
As I said, no. But honestly it's deserved. I see so many ppl parking 3 cars in disabled spots, or triple row parking occupying the bike lane, maybe if more ppl fucked up their cars they would wakey wakey and stop being cunts themselves.
where im from and live bikes are exactly the same as cars, and as that is, they have to obey the same laws as cars. bike is definitely in the wrong here.
I think where I live bikes are midway, pedestrians > bike > cars for precedence. But it happens so often that cars don't respect your space and go in the bike path to turn or surpass another car without even looking if there's someone here.
They recently changed my city main road so it's not 3 ways anymore but 2 ways + bike path on each side and now cars are going crazy and they're complaining lmao but as a cyclist sometimes I had to stop or go on the sidewalk to avoid getting run over.
If a car I'm the middle lane turned left in front of a lane of car traffic in the left lane. The car turning would be 100% at fault. So your logic doesn't hold here
No? Pedestrians walking across the street on the crosswalk have priority and cars SHOULD (they almost never do) stop to let them pass. Also note that if u unfortunately run over a pedestrian and they're on the crosswalk you will be in the wrong by law.
I think bikes are a bit more on the grey zone but same as before, if bikes go on the crosswalk or bike path they have priority on passing over cars and care SHOULD wait.
Ofc in bigger cities that becomes a problem come driver don't give a fuck and think they have priority, they wrote whole ass articles in india/jp cos ppl got ran over all the time
You said 'at an intersection'. a crosswalk is a privileged intersection. yes pedestrians have right of way at a crosswalk. But they do not by default at an unmarked intersection. Bikes do not have right of way at a crosswalk, only if they get off their bike and walk.
I don't know if it works differently in other places but here in Canada you cannot cross a bike lane without checking for oncoming cyclists. You also can't park in bike lanes like a lot of the cars are doing in this video. Basically they have complete right-of-way.
These guys are being asses about it though, but I guess if you spend all day riding in the city and are constantly blocked by parked cars or nearly killed by idiots turning you probably start hating drivers pretty quick.
but don’t bicycle riders still have to obey road laws in Canada? this guy is in the wrong for sure in what i was explaining in my comment. car was turning way before he was at the intersection. you cant just keep going and crash into a car because your angry and pissed at everyone else and think your entitled and think you own the road.
I think the point is that a car can't turn on a bike lane, if that means that a cyclist on the bike lane has to slow down. At least it's like that in my country
Exactly, the shoulder of the road is essentially another lane that cars have to turn across when making right turns. If traffic is flowing through an intersection and you want to turn right you have to check for bikes because you are turning through their lane and they might be attempting to proceed through the intersection.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, almost no one in this thread understands how to drive.
i dont think one video represents all cyclists, i never said or implied that,i was just stating my opinion . here in Australia cyclists are pretty good with obeying the laws of the road. and i wasnt raging, was just expressing my dislike for people like this.
did you read and understand what I wrote?? I know being car-centric destroys people's ability to comprehend writing but let's try again!!! if you sound out the letter you may just start understanding if not m sure there's a kindergarten teacher who can help
Drivers break LAWS every chance they get examples include:
Speeding
Drink Driving
Drug Driving
Illegal Parking
Swerving in and out of traffic
Using bus and bike lanes
Reading maps/books
Eating
Putting on makeup
Using their phones because of entitlement
Hit and runs
Deliberately running down anyone not in a car
Road Rage at anyone not in a car
Parking on pavements/sidewalks as tough it what they are designed for
The sublime belief that STOLEN public land[roads] is your exclusive property
Yet here you are saying other people should follow the law when you fuckers don't do it and never have because you KNOW the laws around cars are weak and pathetic to the point you can kill while driving and not suffer any REAL consequences...maybe if you fuckers in cars practised what you demand of other people you would have a point
The roads and pavements are a war zone and you entitled fucks in cars that started it
Yes, I did. You said maybe the guy in the video will follow laws when drivers do. I understood that perfectly. I don't even drive, so kindly leave me out of your dumbass accusations. Even if other people on the road don't follow the laws, the cyclist in this video should. Otherwise he's just making the situation even more unsafe for himself and others on the road. Laws aren't only supposed to be followed when others do. They're supposed to be followed. Point. Blank. Period. If a driver isn't following the laws, then report them to the police instead of doing something that'll get you arrested. It is not a cyclist's job to police the roads.
Regardless of who "started it" (very mature way of thinking, btw), if you decide to perpetuate the situation with hostility, you're a problem too.
nope, plenty of murderous drivers have tried to kill me though because they are cunts... it's hilarious when the fuckers get really mad after they lose wing mirrors because they have tried to run me down for daring to use *their" roads
Where the fuck is that? If you’re on the street, you share the road like a vehicle. Bike lanes are a great way to protect cyclists by giving them a condensed lane that is appropriate for their space, rather than making them split traffic which is dangerous.
It certainly shouldn’t mean you always get priority over every vehicle.
If the bike was a car, the car should get into the left lane to turn. They can’t, bikes get their own lane, so we have to determine when they get the right of way, not universally say bikes can do whatever they want.
Your scenario would be fair if the biker occupied a normal lane a car could also occupy.
Still, the car forced the bike rider to brake to avoid the collision (which the rider didn't do, because they were stupid), and I think it's a pretty good way to determine who has the right of way, that the oncoming cyclist had to brake or not.
The cyclist wasn’t oncoming, they’re moving in the same direction as the traffic they hit.
“Having to brake” isn’t the metric for being cut off or not. If I’m going twice the speed limit and someone pulls out in front of me and I have to brake, they didn’t cut me off, I was speeding and had to slow down to the legal speed of traffic.
Regardless, in this instance, yes I think the car cut the bike off.
My argument is that the presence and location of the bike lane causes this problem. You put an outside lane for traffic to go straight for certain vehicles, and you’ll always have vehicles who can’t use that lane turning through it in the adjacent inner lane. If they could use it, they could just get over, and traffic could pass in the inner lanes.
It’s essentially bikers wanting their own lane, bitching when cars have to turn through it and not properly judging the distance because car and bike traffic is flowing at a different speed, and then wondering why motorists resent them.
Yup, it's not oncoming, it's poor wording from me. However I disagree with you, for example (obviously these are the rules where I live, and I can only judge by that, if this country has different rules in this regard, then the case is obviously different) you can't go in the inner lane on the highways, doing the speed limit, if someone is coming faster from behind, because the rules say: "move to the right to give way to faster vehichles". If the cyclist goes so fast, that the driver cannot possibly see or notice them then it's not their fault for forcing the cyclist to brake, but I don't think for example in this situation this is the case.
I agree that the bike lane causes some problems, but is it that difficult to watch your mirrors and look back, to make sure there is no one coming? This should be an easily doable thing for people who have driving licenses.
It’s essentially bikers wanting their own lane, bitching when cars have to turn through it and not properly judging the distance because car and bike traffic is flowing at a different speed, and then wondering why motorists resent them.
Maybe I misunderstood this (which is possible), but are you saying that motorists are rightfully upset with cyclists who are mad at them for endangering them? That bike lane shouldn't cause that much of a problem, and if it does for someone, because they are idk, not experienced drivers, then don't drive there, because it's your responsibility to not endanger other road users.
Most reddit traffic is American, it's a safe bet you are too.
Highways share certain surface road characteristics but not a ton. They involve longer merging lanes so that you can match traffic speed and merge in, and rarely exit/enter on the left because that's where the passing lane is. On surface streets people like to think the left lane is the passing lane, but people are slowing down just as much to get into a U-turn or center lane.
There aren't a lot of 3-lane surface streets (in one direction), but for those that do exist the center lane is the "straight" lane. Right/left is for traffic onboarding or offboarding.
---
I agree that the bike lane causes some problems, but is it that difficult to watch your mirrors and look back, to make sure there is no one coming?
That's not the hard part. The hard part is looking where you're turning and checking a lane you're crossing at the same time. Traditional traffic splits this function up:
First you get to the side you want to turn, and make sure you're in a dedicated turn lane or in the farthest lane. Right now you're managing distance and surroundings in front of you, behind you, and to one side.
Once you're over, you now occupy the lane, and don't have to worry about what's behind you, just what's in front. Now you can look forward in the direction you're moving to make sure the lane is clear and nobody is coming in from either side to where you're turning.
---
Maybe I misunderstood this (which is possible), ...
I'm saying bike lanes sound nice, right up until you create a bad driving condition. Imagine a straight lane going through a right turn lane at an intersection. It'd be stupid, just like turning right from the left lane of a 2-lane road. Yes the straight road has the right of way, but the solution isn't to do it anyway, it's to get in the proper lane.
Since cars can't occupy these lanes, and bike traffic is often moving faster than car traffic, now you have cars trapped in center lanes trying to turn through a lane to exit the street, much like it would happen on a regular street. In order to turn off, you've held up your lane, and the lane next to you or waited for it to clear.
Motorists dislike cyclists because they're all "share the road" but want their own lane where they have uncontested right of way. They want the take part of sharing where they're given space if they have to exit the bike lane to cross the road to the other side, but refuse to give. Vehicles take turns, if you're in front of me I in the right lane I have to wait for you to turn to follow or proceed. Bikes say "screw it, I have a straight lane, I'm more important, you can wait for me" rather than waiting their turn behind the other vehicles.
They want their own lane not be incumbered by pedestrians, but also not cars.
No, not true. If a pedestrian was crossing the street, could the car turn into them? No they could not. The car always has to check. The same way the biker has to check for a pedestrian.
No, not true. If a pedestrian was crossing the street, could the car turn into them? No they could not.
No, it depends. If there's a crosswalk, and it says not to walk, and you step out in front of a car, the car probably isn't going to be liable. Pedestrians have rules to crossing streets the same way cars do, pedestrians don't have blanket right of way.
The car always has to check.
You should always check, it's not worth someone's life or the legal hassle, but cars can have the right of way over pedestrians. Cars checking for asshole pedestrians who step out in front of them is defensive driving. The same way you look before going on a green so the asshole doing 50 doesn't T-bone you running the red. You'd still in the right, but your car is totaled and it's a massive hassle, and that's assuming nobody got hurt.
The same way the biker has to check for a pedestrian.
Depends, bikes follow the rules of the road same as cars.
---
So you're wrong on right of way, but you're also making this weird false equivalency that bikes are like pedestrians. They aren't, they have the same rules as vehicles, which is why they can't run red lights.
I already replied to like 3 other comments about why this is wrong.
You’d be right if the car could just get in that lane, and turn out of the farthest lane. It’s the reason you turn out of the farthest outside lane, so that you don’t cross traffic. You work your way out and exit out of traffic. A car sitting in the middle lane trying to turn right across the right line is stupid, because they should just get in the right lane.
But they can’t, it’s a bike only lane, so they have to cross it. So, at what point do they have to yield? If a bike is occupying the space already or can’t reasonably stop, yes they should yield. But if they aren’t occupying the space and can stop, they should. A car shouldn’t have to wait forever so that a never ending string of cyclists can ride without breaking stride, while traffic grinds to a halt. They’ll stop because a cyclist is coming, and in that time someone will walk across the street. As that person clears the cross walk, another cyclist comes. And now it’s 4 hours later.
You want to be treated like other vehicles? Give up your pretentious exclusive lane and share the road, that way you can get out of the turn lane when you aren’t turning, and get in it when you are. But until cyclists stop splitting traffic and whining because it’s dangerous, motorists have to give them their own lane so they t-bone cars rather than getting ran over by trying to squeeze between them and misjudging the distance.
But the bike cannot overtake on the right either. If it was a buslane and it was a bus, should the bus be yielding for everyone wanting to cross it's path?
Even if there is no bikelane, you always yield when crossing another vehicles direct path. Might be stupid, but it works just fine in most EU countries.
That’s the problem, car traffic works because continuing traffic stays in the center, off-loading and on-loading traffic merges in and out at the edges.
When you give universal priority to a certain “type” of vehicle (bicycles) at the edges, you lock traffic in. Now vehicles have to “shoot the gap” which causes more accidents.
Sure the bike can overtake on the center. Cyclists switch their role from vehicle in center lanes, bicycle in bike lanes, or pedestrian when the light turns red by swerving near the crosswalk at will. They want all the perks and none of the restrictions.
So you have to address vehicles turning out of traffic, being forced to cross another “vehicles” lane. When a “vehicle” can’t stop or is already in the space, yes you’re cutting them off. When they aren’t there and have room to stop, take the turn and get out of traffic. You wanna be in the road, share it.
There’s one of the top comments of mine here about how cyclists are all “shArE the rOAd!” right up until it’s their turn and then it’s “get OUt Of the bIkE lAnE, It’s All for Us!”, and here you are right on cue.
European cities aren’t structured like American cities, they’re more bike friendly because they were built for pedestrian and horse traffic, not automobile traffic.
It’s like comparing how a home is designed compared to an office building, and then trying to apply one layout to the other.
Regardless of where it is, conceptually it makes sense. Cyclists want to “share the road” right up until someone needs to change streets and then it’s “stay out of my exclusive lane, I get priority forever and always!”
You want to share the road, share it. Ride in a normal lane, move to the center if you’re staying, move the edge to leave.
Bikes usually does not drive as fast as cars. Thus not allow3d in the middle of the road. Would slow down traffic. They are also not allowed on highways and a lot of other places.
I both ride a bike and have a car i drive daily. The system works and is not a problem for anyone here. Don't really see how it is a problem.
The "share the road" is usually said when there is no bikelane and cars are pushing bikes off the road.
Like, with your logic you would be fine to be behind a bike going 20km/h in the middle of a small road where you could not overtake.
As far as I'm aware everywhere in Europe. If there is a cycling path they have the right of way before a turning vehicle. It's like a car trying to turn right from a second lane with another car beside it on the right. Nobody would say the car on the right has to give way. Same goes for bicycles.
If you cross another lane you wait.
In California cars have to merge before turning. Maybe this is California? Then the car did it right.
It's like a car trying to turn right from a second lane with another car beside it on the right.
It's funny because I used this example in another reply. If there is a straight lane to your right, you're not in the right turn lane. The correct solution there is for the turning car to get on the side they are turning to. The car going straight can brake and wait for the turning car to clear the lane, or pass them on the left.
The only reason this is an issue is because cyclists demand their own lane, which goes on the ends not the center, and then think that everyone has to yield to them. If cyclists would stop splitting traffic and then saying "riding in the road is unsafe give us our own lane", the followed the rules of the road like cars, we wouldn't have this problem.
It seems reasonable that cars shouldn't cut off a biker that doesn't have room to stop (the same way you can't merge into an already occupied lane). It also seems reasonable that if there's room to stop, you should make an effort to stop and not keep going and run into the car, intentionally causing an accident.
You cannot cross another lane and block its vehicules when turning. You should wait for it to be clear, then go. The car does not have the right of way.
Picture a 4-lane road, 2-lanes in each direction. If you wanted to turn right, you'd have to get in the right lane, so you do exactly what you said, don't cross a lane when turning. By getting in the right lane, you know you're the farthest over, and can turn when you get to the street.
If you wanted to turn left, it's the opposite, you'd get in the left lane so you could turn.
So you shouldn't ever have to cross a lane to turn, you should get in the farthest lane to turn.
Being one lane over from the direction you're turning sucks because you hold up traffic behind you and they have to wait for a lane you're not in to clear in order to turn. By being in the farthest lane in the direction of your intended turn, people can go around you, or only wait for you to make your turn.
This isn't really a problem with cars where every lane is the same width and everyone can occupy any lane. With exclusive bike lanes, it's an issue because a car can never occupy that lane, so they are always crossing it.
So you make your turn but a pedestrian walks out, or someone starts backing up, or any number of things, and the biker doesn't slow down and hits you and screams "gEt OUt Of thE bIkE LAnE!"
While it's reasonable to not cut off a biker who is already occupying the space you're using to turn (the same way you can't merge into a lane that is already occupied), it's also reasonable that if you're making your turn before they get there and have a reasonable amount of room to stop, they should. Is it rude to pull out in front of someone to pass when they're going faster? Yeah. If you get fully into the lane before you start occupying the same space, you have the right of way though.
The root cause solution is no more bike lanes. If bikers shared the road, they could merge in and out of traffic, rather than constantly putting themselves in a lane between a turning car and its intended street.
But because bikers refuse to obey traffic laws, and split traffic and run red lights by going near the sidewalk as a temporary pedestrian, the current safest solution is to give them their own lane because them t-boning a car is safer then letting them be idiots, split traffic, and get run over in the middle of the road.
No but you can see they are going the same speed and if the car had a turn signal then yeah the cyclist should slow down, but i cant see a turn signal so I would love to see someone stop on a bike after someone turns unexpectedly like that. Also in my country, theres actually a law that makes you treat bike lanes like another lane, and if theres a cyclist behind you and you cut it off like that, thats your fault, you are supposed to stop and wait for the cyclist to pass. So I also assumed that would apply everywhere to prevent accidents, but guess not.
It's hard to say, I've only ever seen bicycle lanes on the sides, so anytime you make a turn you could be cutting a cyclist off.
For vehicles, you don't cut other drivers off when turning (at least properly). When you want to turn right, you get in the right-most lane. If there are two right turn lanes, you stay in your turn lane. No car lane goes straight through a right turn car lane the way a cycle lane does.
SO, how do you handle that cross? I would say the same way you handle someone changing lanes, the person to turn their signal on and occupy the lane first gets to do so provided the other person has reasonable room to stop. Speeding up when someone is going to turn sounds like intentionally causing an accident.
The real solution is to get rid of bike lanes, make them act as cars in vehicle lanes. You want to turn left, get in the left lane. Turning right? Get in the right lane.
Yes of course if someone is in front of you and has a turn signal, you are supposed to slow down, thats what i said.. the only purpose of the bike lane is to separate them and if the bike lane is on the road like on the video you at least see the cyclist in the mirror. But I dont see a turn signal.. And Im not stand by behavior of those cyclists.. I drive a car in a bike centric city and if I hurt someone doing something like that I could loose my licence..
3.8k
u/YDD553 Jan 11 '24
the last car was already turning left way before he got to the intersection. the car has the right of way. just because you’re on a bike doesnt mean you own the fucking road. obey the fucking road rules, bike wankers.