Fu*king Cyclists

[doebedoe]

Legislators in Washington D.C. are looking to not just legalize the “Idaho Stop” for bikers, they also are considering a bill that would prohibit drivers from turning right on red.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...ed-idaho-stop/

Good. My friend was killed last month in DC when she was hit by a truck turning right.

[::: :::]

oh, that's awful! sorry to hear that!

[Gcooker]

Legislators in Washington D.C. are looking to not just legalize the “Idaho Stop” for bikers, they also are considering a bill that would prohibit drivers from turning right on red.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...ed-idaho-stop/

It works shockingly well in Montreal. Pedestrians aren't put in the line of fire and it's way easier to turn right without them in the intersection. Seems like a no brainer in the city cores....

[ex-powderbroker]

It works shockingly well in Montreal. Pedestrians aren't put in the line of fire and it's way easier to turn right without them in the intersection. Seems like a no brainer in the city cores....

NYC too. I am shocked whenever I'm in a city that allows right on red.

[old goat]

If the cyclist is in a bike lane, it's a lane of traffic and someone turning right across the lane must yield to traffic in the lane, same as with two cars. If there are no bike lanes and the cyclist is sharing the lane with car traffic, then obviously the car has no duty to yield and it would be dumb for the cyclist to pass on the right if the car ahead slows down. In that situation, hopefully the driver uses their turn signal, but we all know that's a crapshoot.

It makes no difference if there's a bike lane or not. If a car passes or nearly passes a cyclist and then turns right or moves to the right edge of the pavement in preparation for turning right and hits a cyclist or turns in front of the cyclist too close to give the cyclist time to slow or stop then the driver is at fault. If they pull to the right edge of the pavement to turn right and have to delay the turn for a pedestrian, as an example, and the bike has to slow or stop and can do so safely then the driver is legally in the right, but still a jerk who could have waited to let the cyclist pass.

You cannot turn in front of another vehicle--car, bike, cement truck, train--too close to allow the passed vehicle to avoid a collision. You cannot turn into another vehicle--which is the usual scenario when a cyclist is hit by a right-turning vehicle. The turning vehicle has not even gotten past the cyclist. The cyclist has the same right to be on the road and to not be hit whether there is a bike lane or not. I repeat--cyclists have the right to use the road and have the same rights of way whether there is a bike lane or not.

[oldnew_guy]

I love how this thread always devolves into bitching about poor bicyclist behavior and ignores the 100x occurrence of as bad or worse driver behavior that occurs with people driving vehicles that will kill any other user on the road at a whim.

Shit I see every single day without fail: red light running, speeding (often 20-30 mph over the speed limit on <45 mph signed roads, failure to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk (not thinking about getting into then crosswalk, in the crosswalk), texting, etc etc


There is an entire group of people that think the “public” in public ROW means “me and my vehicle”.

And LOL at Adiron. Pretty decent job fishing with that one.

[Grizz]

If the cyclist is in a bike lane, it's a lane of traffic and someone turning right across the lane must yield to traffic in the lane, same as with two cars.

Does a stop sign factor into this?

I passed a guy riding in the bike lane about 200 yards before a four way stop. I stopped, put on the right blinker, and proceeded to turn right. I had to lock up the brakes to avoid crushing the biker who had decided to run the stop sign going straight through. I knew he was there but expected him to stop and not Idaho it. I thought the Idaho rule only applied if no other vehicles were already at the signal or sign.

I know this is a different situation than what you were describing. I guess if I would have pinched over into the bike lane like OG is suggesting there wouldn't have be a close call.

[TBS]

I’ll raise you into the back of a minivan that overtook me, slowed to a halt for a right, I looked back to see if any other cars were coming and bam. Brand new Peugeot folded.

Not the wall of a minivan rear end, but I’ve hit the rear window of a sedan pretty hard when he did the same thing and only realized as he was cutting in front of me that he lacked space and jammed the brakes. Collapsed front wheel but frame/fork OK.

And Grizz that stop sign running cyclist is a douchebag. That isn’t Idaho rules

[ghosthop]

Fucking mobile view is so bad

Riding a bike on the street in America is wild.

Washington DC is the best city I have ridden in, although I have never ridden bikes in Minneapolis proper. Part of the reason their infrastructure is good is because many of the cycling paths are at their own grade. Not surprisngly, the district has a large ratio of cyclists to population.

Whenever cost is mentioned, it's always important to remember that cycling paths need much less maintenance than motor vehicle roads even though cyclists contribute almost as much to the general funds used to maintain both. Motor vehicle user fees (e.g., gas tax) account for less than 10% of public road maintenance. Nevermind the long term benefits of healthier users and improved air quality in city centers.

To add on to the at grade comment, I almost never ride in a protected bike lane that is at grade and has motor vehicle intersections. I have been hit twice by car drivers who failed to check if the lane was occupied before pulling through the cycling lane out of a parking lot. It is much safer to be visible in the main road if you are riding at speed.

My final thought is that I spent much of my time during my three years in Baltimore riding in the Black Butterfly. It should come as no shock that those drivers were much more respectful than drivers in the white parts of town. The entitlement of drivers is real.

[dan_pdx]

Does a stop sign factor into this?

I passed a guy riding in the bike lane about 200 yards before a four way stop. I stopped, put on the right blinker, and proceeded to turn right. I had to lock up the brakes to avoid crushing the biker who had decided to run the stop sign going straight through. I knew he was there but expected him to stop and not Idaho it. I thought the Idaho rule only applied if no other vehicles were already at the signal or sign.

I know this is a different situation than what you were describing. I guess if I would have pinched over into the bike lane like OG is suggesting there wouldn't have be a close call.

I don't know the legal fine points about Idaho stops, Oregon phased in ours just before the pandemic, which is when I stopped bike commuting. But if you were stopped and signaling a right turn, it's a pretty bad idea to pass on your right and run the stop sign. Probably an inexperienced cyclist, someone with more experience would have seen you signaling, waited to make sure you were really turning right, then passed on your left. Yeah, I think moving over into the bike lane (when it's clear) in that situation would make sense.

[dan_pdx]

It makes no difference if there's a bike lane or not. If a car passes or nearly passes a cyclist and then turns right or moves to the right edge of the pavement in preparation for turning right and hits a cyclist or turns in front of the cyclist too close to give the cyclist time to slow or stop then the driver is at fault. If they pull to the right edge of the pavement to turn right and have to delay the turn for a pedestrian, as an example, and the bike has to slow or stop and can do so safely then the driver is legally in the right, but still a jerk who could have waited to let the cyclist pass.

You cannot turn in front of another vehicle--car, bike, cement truck, train--too close to allow the passed vehicle to avoid a collision. You cannot turn into another vehicle--which is the usual scenario when a cyclist is hit by a right-turning vehicle. The turning vehicle has not even gotten past the cyclist. The cyclist has the same right to be on the road and to not be hit whether there is a bike lane or not. I repeat--cyclists have the right to use the road and have the same rights of way whether there is a bike lane or not.

Oh yeah, we're in agreement. I was thinking of a bike overtaking a car in front of them while it turns. If a motorist passes a cyclist, they definitely can't / shouldn't immediately slam on the brakes for a turn.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Almost took one out yesterday--unevenly parked row of cars on a side street (one way) as I'm driving across town and suddenly a cyclist (going the wrong way, of course) pops out from behind one of them. Not sure if the guy came off the sidewalk or what, but just as I'm about to go past the car that's farthest out (other side had construction so no parked cars at that point on the block) the cyclist is staring me down, about to get hit. Slammed on the brakes and swerved as much as I could, fortunately no car close enough behind me to hit me, cyclist ends up leaning against a parked car when he stopped too. Really maddening as they don't acknowledge/recognize any problem with what they're doing. All these fuckers riding on sidewalks, going the wrong way against traffic, running lights, flying out into traffic from side streets knowing that cars will almost always give way...and cyclists wonder why they engender hostility. Was a few feet from a delivery guy flying through a crowded crosswalk last week who almost knocked over an old guy and came within inches of a few others, didn't even slow down as he threaded his way through the intersection (red light obviously doesn't apply to them). Hardly a rarity but still irritating.

On the comical side have now seen two guys biking on the FDR (major highway) this year (one a month or so ago, another in the spring). Just had to laugh both times when I went by them. Don't think I've ever seen it until this year.

[old goat]

Does a stop sign factor into this?

I passed a guy riding in the bike lane about 200 yards before a four way stop. I stopped, put on the right blinker, and proceeded to turn right. I had to lock up the brakes to avoid crushing the biker who had decided to run the stop sign going straight through. I knew he was there but expected him to stop and not Idaho it. I thought the Idaho rule only applied if no other vehicles were already at the signal or sign.

I know this is a different situation than what you were describing. I guess if I would have pinched over into the bike lane like OG is suggesting there wouldn't have be a close call.

Oh yeah, we're in agreement. I was thinking of a bike overtaking a car in front of them while it turns. If a motorist passes a cyclist, they definitely can't / shouldn't immediately slam on the brakes for a turn.

These are examples of why cars are supposed to turn from as close to the edge of the pavement as possible. Don't leave room for the cyclist to pull up or pass on the right if you're turning right. Think of it as protecting the cyclist. (Even if the cyclist is Minneapolis man). If I come up to a red light on a bike I want to be on the left of any cars waiting to turn right and on the right of cars waiting to go straight. Hard to do if the right turning car isn't close to the curb.

And I doubt Griss had his turn signal on--doesn't seem likely the cyclist would have passed on the right if it was on, although there certainly cyclists dumb enough to do it.

[californiagrown]

I think CG has made it pretty clear that he agrees with that.

I was kind of pondering on the mentality many posses that they have the right to not be inconvenienced on the roads. Cars getting pissed at cyclist for slowing them down a few seconds, and cyclists thinking that they shouldnt have to use their brakes or yield to other road/path users at times. So, in a world of narcissistic attitudes, whose narcissism is more justified?

[Grizz]

And I doubt Griss had his turn signal on--doesn't seem likely the cyclist would have passed on the right if it was on, although there certainly cyclists dumb enough to do it.

Why would I lie? I always use my turn signals. In this case I specifically turned it on because I knew that fucker was back there and was trying to do right by him.

I've been considering bike lanes like the green boxes, my mistake. If I'm in front of cyclists I'll be driving next to the curb from here on out.

[californiagrown]

I've been considering bike lanes like the green boxes, my mistake. If I'm in front of cyclists I'll be driving next to the curb from here on out.

Correct. When possible, dont give people the opportunity to do something stupid.

[jono]

Correct. When possible, dont give people the opportunity to do something stupid.

Yes and no. Lane splitting (which can overlap this) is stupid, but it's going to happen and trying to prevent that with your car is next level stupid.

But a bike going straight and catching up to a car turning right will either wait or want to go around on the left anyway. There should not be any conflict here as long as you don't lurch right suddenly or half-ass it and just block the whole road.

[Dantheman]

I stopped, put on the right blinker, and proceeded to turn right.

Signal should go on at least 100 feet before you stop. Otherwise, the cyclist fucked up, should have moved left into the lane behind you or claimed the lane before you passed him.

Yes and no. Lane splitting (which can overlap this) is stupid, but it's going to happen and trying to prevent that with your car is next level stupid.

Lane splitting or lane filtering? They're different things. Filtering is legal here.

[dan_pdx]

But a bike going straight and catching up to a car turning right SHOULD either wait or want to go around on the left anyway. There should not be any conflict here as long as you don't lurch right suddenly or half-ass it and just block the whole road.

Fixed it for you. Cyclists are not immune to bad decisionmaking, and the rise of by-the-minute e-bike rentals has brought with it a whole new group of users who don't have a good handle on cyclist rights/responsibilities.

[jono]

Fixed it for you. Cyclists are not immune to bad decisionmaking, and the rise of by-the-minute e-bike rentals has brought with it a whole new group of users who don't have a good handle on cyclist rights/responsibilities.

Oh, they still want to go around on the left. Those ones just don't know it.

Lane splitting or lane filtering? They're different things. Filtering is legal here.

Both will happen of course, my point was just that there's a limit to how much you want to actively try to prevent stupid. To your point, the guy who makes it a habit to block people coming up from behind is going to do something dangerous against someone doing something perfectly legal when he thinks he's in the right. Driving with the mirrors instead of looking forward, etc.

[::: :::]

Does a stop sign factor into this?

I passed a guy riding in the bike lane about 200 yards before a four way stop. I stopped, put on the right blinker, and proceeded to turn right. I had to lock up the brakes to avoid crushing the biker who had decided to run the stop sign going straight through. I knew he was there but expected him to stop and not Idaho it. I thought the Idaho rule only applied if no other vehicles were already at the signal or sign.

I know this is a different situation than what you were describing. I guess if I would have pinched over into the bike lane like OG is suggesting there wouldn't have be a close call.

Idaho rule doesn't affect proceeding straight. Cyclist was an entitled douche, or had horrible cognitive-spatial skills (or both), to proceed & pretend the already stopped vehicles were just waiting for him to disregard the traffic signal (stop sign, in this case).

[correction] proceeding straight IS part of Idaho stop -- nevertheless, with other vehicles present, rolling it isn't a privilege unless intersection is safe/unencumbered by other vehicles

[TBS]

But a bike going straight and catching up to a car turning right will either wait or want to go around on the left anyway. There should not be any conflict here as long as you don't lurch right suddenly or half-ass it and just block the whole road.

The big problem I always experienced was when several cars wanted to turn right but - despite signaling - none would give me any space to get to between them and continue straight.

Or when car in front turns right, stops (blocking me off) because pedestrians are in the crosswalk, then another car pulls right behind the first and stops and blocks the lane.

So i get to hold my bike overhead and shuffle between bumpers to get out of the blockage. Or remain a sitting duck stopped in the street.

[old goat]

Why would I lie? I always use my turn signals. In this case I specifically turned it on because I knew that fucker was back there and was trying to do right by him.

My apologies. I read your post carelessly and missed that you signaled. I have no reason to think you lied.

[dan_pdx]

The big problem I always experienced was when several cars wanted to turn right but - despite signaling - none would give me any space to get to between them and continue straight.

Or when car in front turns right, stops (blocking me off) because pedestrians are in the crosswalk, then another car pulls right behind the first and stops and blocks the lane.

So i get to hold my bike overhead and shuffle between bumpers to get out of the blockage. Or remain a sitting duck stopped in the street.

In that situation I would usually take the lane with the cars.

[californiagrown]

In that situation I would usually take the lane with the cars.

Someone will be inconvenienced and get mad and think "fucking cyclist/motorist" and think that someone (not them of course) is being an asshole. When in reality, we are sharing the roads, and being inconvenienced to slow/stop for another user is just part of the game. The bike lane is a shared lane when motorists need to turn through it, and the vehicle lane is a shared lane when the bike lane is not there, or safe to use.

I cant remember who, but someone on here was whining about a motorist who almost hit him while bike commuting in what seemed like a fairly easy to avoid situation. When i asked why he didnt just hit the brakes, he responded that there is no way in hell he is riding all the way to work with his hands on the lower part of his drop bars by the brakes. Talk about entitlement.


Can we all at least agree that scooter'ers have no rights in this conversation? Has anyone actually seen a e-scooter rider that didnt ride it like an asshole?