Fu*king Cyclists

[BigDaddy]

^This... although because of all the vehicles parked on the left side, it appears to be a two way street. Bus driver was totally in the oncoming lane, so biker got toasted.


And MG, are you riding thru traffic with your dog on a leash?

[mtngirl79]

no, I was riding on a relatively quiet county road for a very short distance from the parking lot before turning on a quieter road to get to south side Galbraith with my dog on a leash because dogs are suppose to stay on leash until the gate.

We are good at leashing and riding now, though.

The bus/bike video above was on Billy frank jr st (indian st). The bus was heading into campus and was in the other lane to go around the gate to keep traffic from driving through campus. Thats what all the buses do all day long. The road is two way traffic, and bikes are encouraged to use the traffic lane because there are no bike lanes for that direction and its downhill so they go pretty fast. The bike ran the stop sign from the side road and it was ruled non preventable, the bus driver not at fault.

[::: :::]

is the bus aiming to continue on in a dedicated lane ahead?

[edit]nevermind: answered above

[BmillsSkier]

What a terrible powerslide. Dude needs to work on his form if he wants to pick up that Red Bull endorsement.

[summit]

How did I miss this? Yay! Gasoline for the fire!

studies that showed that helmets are not of a benefit to riders. Cars drive closer to cyclists wearing them.

Actually, that isn't so. That is a misleading as you are implying that wearing a helmet makes an accident more likely and there is ZERO evidence for that. There is incontrovertible evidence that a large majority of cyclist fatalities were NOT wearing a helmet, but only a minority refuse to wear helmets!

In addition they are only particularly useful for falling at relatively slow speeds from a bike, not getting crushed at 35mph

That simply isn't true. What matters is actual impact vector/deceleration of the head. Cars and bikes brake, bikers attempt to protect their head, and blows are not always direct. Yes, double your speed, quadruple the energy. Above a certain speed, nothing matters. That certain speed is higher with a helmet on!

SCENARIO: Digitaldeath's goons are about to mow you down in their hummer, but you don't know the speed of impact.
QUESTION: Would YOU rather have a helmet or not?

Then, if you really cared, motorists should also be required to wear them

No way we could retrofit every headrest in existence to be helmet compatible. But that is why modern cars have front and side airbags, crush zones, seat belts, and more... Bikes do not and bikes rarely have passengers.

You are doing a perverse form of victim blaming as if every cyclist was asking for it.

It is easy to blame a drunk cyclist (or driver). I can even throw some blame towards those who choose not to wear a helmet or who ride in particularly adverse environments/conditions (or drivers who don't wear seatbelts doing 90 in the snow). But it is are easiest of all to blame people who advocate not wearing a helmet or riding side-by-side up mountain passes at 2mph for "safety" INSTEAD of interventions that actually would save lives.

Oh my god, two abreast, mow them down!!!

Mow them down? Of course not. But cars overtaking cyclists account for a tiny percent of cycling accidents period.

Most of the time I've seen cyclists get hit locally, in nyc, where I've been talking about, drivers are not charged with anything because cops do not care. These were not riders making a show of their rights, but people going back and forth to work. How does that fit into your drunk cyclist worldview? Do you not care? Even when drivers break inadvertently break a law and then aren't charged because it was an "accident"?

If a driver is at fault they should face the consequences!

The median cyclist fatality is an unhelmeted cyclist riding in the dark and chances are decent he is legally drunk. BUT 3/4 of the dead cyclists aren't drunk and 1/2 of them die during the day. It wouldn't be a leap to assume the majority of the drunk fatalities are at night. So make all riders wear helmets, fluorescent vests, and always-on-lights if you actually want to reduce cyclist fatalities.

[mtngirl79]

is Rog back?

[BmillsSkier]

Was rog a road biker?

[TomCrac]

Biker (no helmet) blows a stopsign.
It looks to me like the bus as pulled into the opposing (bike) lane?

Unable to determine fault...

Looks like dude had a helmet. He just was wearing it like all the other cool kids. Not buckled on. Kind of like wearing a seat belt with out buckling it in, brilliant.

I don't have too much of a problem with him blowing the stop sign in that scenario. IF he saw that the intersection was clear and was making a right hand turn, vs. straight or left, then not such a big deal. Unless of course there is a city bus coming up the wrong side of the road. It would also help to be really good at riding with one hand while all of this is unfolding. What a dope.

[summit]

I don't have too much of a problem with him blowing the stop sign in that scenario. IF he saw that the intersection was clear and was making a right hand turn, vs. straight or left, then not such a big deal. Unless of course there is a city bus coming up the wrong side of the road. It would also help to be really good at riding with one hand while all of this is unfolding. What a dope.

He would have plowed into a stopped delivery vehicle too. In that case I would have definitely blamed the biker.

This goes to my earlier point that I don't think intersection laws have a point if there is no traffic... but humans (cyclists) seem to exercise poor judgement about when/how they disregard intersection laws.

[BigDaddy]

is Rog back?

Do dogs have fleas?

[::: :::]

How did I miss this? Yay! Gasoline for the fire!

Actually, that isn't so. That is a misleading as you are implying that wearing a helmet makes an accident more likely and there is ZERO evidence for that. There is incontrovertible evidence that a large majority of cyclist fatalities were NOT wearing a helmet!


That simply isn't true. What matters is actual impact vector/deceleration of the head. Cars and bikes brake, bikers attempt to protect their head, and blows are not always direct. Yes, double your speed, quadruple the energy. Above a certain speed, nothing matters. That certain speed is higher with a helmet on!

SCENARIO: Digitaldeath's goons are about to mow you down in their hummer, but you don't know the speed of impact.
QUESTION: Would YOU rather have a helmet or not?


No way we could retrofit every headrest in existence to be helmet compatible. But that is why modern cars have front and side airbags, crush zones, seat belts, and more... Bikes do not and bikes rarely have passengers.


It is easy to blame a drunk cyclist (or driver). I can even throw some blame towards those who choose not to wear a helmet or who ride in particularly adverse environments/conditions (or drivers who don't wear seatbelts doing 90 in the snow). But it is are easiest of all to blame people who advocate not wearing a helmet or riding side-by-side up mountain passes at 2mph for "safety" INSTEAD of interventions that actually would save lives.



Mow them down? Of course not. But cars overtaking cyclists account for a tiny percent of cycling accidents period.


If a driver is at fault they should face the consequences!

The median cyclist fatality is an unhelmeted cyclist riding in the dark and chances are decent he is legally drunk. BUT 3/4 of the dead cyclists aren't drunk and 1/2 of them die during the day. It wouldn't be a leap to assume the majority of the drunk fatalities are at night. So make all riders wear helmets, fluorescent vests, and always-on-lights if you actually want to reduce cyclist fatalities.

i'm sure you agree that part of the notion of personal responsibility is that it extends to everyone

[TomCrac]

I've seen plenty of vehicles pull a rolling stop on right on red.

He would have plowed into a stopped delivery vehicle too.

Source?

[frorider]

I've seen plenty of vehicles pull a rolling stop on right on red.



Source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

[powdrhound]

Do dogs have fleas?

Mine don't.

[TomCrac]

Except that is not what I was asking for a source on.

[ex-powderbroker]

Except that is not what I was asking for a source on.

Agreed.

This seems to be a case with shared responsibility, but the cyclist is the one that would get flattened if the situation was worse.

I think the bus was making a left there and was cheating into the opposite lane because the driver was speeding. Tough to tell in that video, but that was my read. Obviously the cyclist did not expect fast moving traffic in his lane after making the right. And yea, he does look like a douche.

[BigDaddy]

Mine don't.

Mine either.


It's kind of a hint, bro.

[joetron]

no, I was riding on a relatively quiet county road for a very short distance from the parking lot before turning on a quieter road to get to south side Galbraith with my dog on a leash because dogs are suppose to stay on leash until the gate.

We are good at leashing and riding now, though.

The bus/bike video above was on Billy frank jr st (indian st). The bus was heading into campus and was in the other lane to go around the gate to keep traffic from driving through campus. Thats what all the buses do all day long. The road is two way traffic, and bikes are encouraged to use the traffic lane because there are no bike lanes for that direction and its downhill so they go pretty fast. The bike ran the stop sign from the side road and it was ruled non preventable, the bus driver not at fault.

It sucks that the bus was on that side of the road at that point. It's in the bike lane, seems like it'd be a better move to transfer over in the intersection, but I'm not a bus driver.
In the rider's weak defense, it looks like he was at the stop sign and probably making braking decisions in front of the stop sign while the bus was obscured from his vision. If he doesn't see it, he's gonna go light on the brakes and roll through a right turn to a bike lane, not a crazy notion. The thought of a bus (or any vehicle)oncoming in a bike lane would be one of the last things I'd worry about. Possibly literally, apparently.

[::: :::]

Sorry, but that cyclist got the results of poor decisions...

Life is hard sometimes...he's actually lucky it wasn't worse

[BmillsSkier]

I agree. He was probably thinking about the latest Decemberists album entering that intersection.

[summit]

Source?

That bus could just as easily have been a stopped delivery vehicle as it was not moving very fast. In that case, I'd blame the biker. But it was a bus pulling into the opposing lane so I think they are both at fault.

The biker clearly had a view to his left and ahead, saw no one approaching the intersection, didn't have good sight-line right for his speed (or did not look right, certainly did not slow down until the collision was unavoidable). That is poor human judgement on when it is OK to outthink the rules.

It also highlights the problem of putting human powered traffic along side motorized traffic. Cyclists want to conserve momentum; they have a huge incentive not to stop repeatedly on their trips and have to pedal back to speed each time. Motor vehicles have far less incentive, shaving seconds, because they have a motor. That incentive overwhelmed judgement here for the cyclist.

If you meant something else, I am not sure what you want a source on?

i'm sure you agree that part of the notion of personal responsibility is that it extends to everyone

Yes

[garyfromterrace]

...
if you ride regularly, odds are that you will be in an accident that is not your fault, and, for those of you who ride in NYC, those odds are exceptionally high

So on the drunken bike tour of bars in Brooklyn and Queens that ml242 gave me, we were exceptionally lucky?? Thought so.

[mtngirl79]

The bus was not making a left. The bus was going straight, but had (has) to go into the left hand lane to get around the gate to keep cars (try to, anyway) out of campus. There is not room in the intersection to move over and get the tail end of the bus around the gate, so the bus did what he had to do, and every other bus also does in that spot more than 4 times an hour all day long every day.

There is a stop sign where the bike was coming from. The bike did not even slow down.

Also, note that the lane was not a dedicated bike lane, but a shared traffic lane, and the bike was going down a pretty steep hill and had no real need to "conserve momentum".

[FLS]

Sorry, but that cyclist got the results of poor decisions...

Life is hard sometimes...he's actually lucky it wasn't worse

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Wearing an unbuckled helmet is just stupid. Entering in to a turn, downhill at that, with 1 hand, is also a dumb move. If you're gonna make that right hand turn rolling thru that stop sign (overall, under those conditions I don't have a big problem with), at least have both hands on the wheel. Particularly if its somewhat obstructed. You never know when someone or something may just be in your lane.

I thought the bus was in the left, oncoming lane in order to make the right? Or was he going straight and took the oncoming lane (prematurely?) to get around the gate on the other side of the intersection?

Either way, Not a closed course, be ready for anything and give yourself room to do so.

edit...just saw mtngrls post.

[::: :::]

So on the drunken bike tour of bars in Brooklyn and Queens that ml242 gave me, we were exceptionally lucky?? Thought so.

Do it regularly and get back to me