Dreaded cyclists

Exactly one of my points.

Beyond all legally relevant questions (had he right to be riding on that lane giving that the rest of traffic had just stopped?), how could the driver see the cyclist anyway? That's not who has right to pass, that's physics. That's too fast for a bike, for the situation, for any vehicle to see the bike coming. -Too fast- any other legal right he might have had. If law forbids him to do that, he is an idiot, if the law allows him, he's a stupid because he doesn't care for his own safety and the law is very badly designed.
 
I'm guessing the bike technically may have had the right of way, but he certainly wasn't approaching the intersection in a smart way.

Imagine those were two lanes of cars. The right lane of cars is stopped, leaving a gap for the towing car. The left lane of cars is empty, with a car approaching in the distance. Tow car makes the turn, crashes with car proceeding in its clear lane. I'd guess in that situation you'd all say it's obvious that the straight-going car had the right of way, and that the turning car should have made sure there's nobody coming in the second seemingly empty car lane. That situation happens quite often in Russian dashcam videos :dunno:
 
I'm guessing the bike technically may have had the right of way, but he certainly wasn't approaching the intersection in a smart way.

Imagine those were two lanes of cars. The right lane of cars is stopped, leaving a gap for the towing car. The left lane of cars is empty, with a car approaching in the distance. Tow car makes the turn, crashes with car proceeding in its clear lane. I'd guess in that situation you'd all say it's obvious that the straight-going car had the right of way, and that the turning car should have made sure there's nobody coming in the second seemingly empty car lane. That situation happens quite often in Russian dashcam videos :dunno:

Without knowing if there are specific laws about right-of-way and the bicycle lane in Australia, I agree. It's not the fact that it's a bicycle that's the issue, but rather that the person controlling the bicycle did not adjust for the limited sight distance of both himself and the other traffic. It seems like the turning traffic could have used a bit more caution in their turn, as well.

I face this fairly regularly on my way home. There's a line of stopped cars blocking visibility of a cross street. When I'm on the motorcycle, I can generally stand up and look over the tops of the cars to spot hazards, but when I'm in the car, all I can do is approach slowly and prepare to dodge. I have right of way, but that doesn't change the laws of physics.
 
The cyclist clearly had the right of way, but he acted stupid by not slowing down for an unclear traffic situation. Legally, the car driver is at fault (or at least he would be over here), but even I won't excuse the biker's speed in this situation.
 
The cyclist clearly had the right of way, but he acted stupid by not slowing down for an unclear traffic situation.

I agree

Legally, the car driver is at fault (or at least he would be over here), but even I won't excuse the biker's speed in this situation.

I agree on that too, but then I am puzzled.

I mean, if that bike would have been a motorbike or a car at an adjusted speed (brakes and vehicles possibilities are different), and admitting he had an empty lane where he could ride/drive, the law would have problably put both at fault in some way, at varying percentages (50/50, 70/30, 60/40, whatever), because a motorbike or car is always required to slow down in case something is wrong and set their speed according to the situation (which in this case we all agree didn't happen).

In lack of any regulation of this kind for bikes, and in lack of any speed limit, the car will be probably (any Australian that might tell us what wil happen is welcome) given 100% fault.

Isn't that unfair, given the fact that the bicycle was clearly going way too fast for the situation and that the car did have a terrible line of sight anyway?

Overtaking a car stopped in the middle of the road at an intersection is dangerous. If the car was another bicyle, or a pedestrian (assuming that was a place where they could cross legally), the bike could have been 100% at fault. If the two vehicles were just swapped, again 100% fault for the car. How is it possible to have such an extreme difference in evaluation, depending only on the vehicle you are operating?
 
Last edited:
If the two vehicles were just swapped, again 100% fault for the car. How is it possible to have such an extreme difference in evaluation, depending only on the vehicle you are operating?

How? If a bike goes past a yield sign and is hit by a car proceeding normally in its lane, there's no way 100% of fault would be put on the car.
 
I think that's mostly a very badly designed intersection. Giving cars making that crossing right of way once the car with the dashcam is stopped there (hence the road markings keep clear) but then giving cyclists right of way without accounting for that is just asking for conflicts of that sort. In the Netherlands, I think the bike path would be on the left of the lane for left-turning traffic, to avoid mixing up cars and cyclists like that. This mixing up of traffic never works.
 
I agree on that too, but then I am puzzled.

I mean, if that bike would have been a motorbike or a car at an adjusted speed (brakes and vehicles possibilities are different), and admitting he had an empty lane where he could ride/drive, the law would have problably put both at fault in some way, at varying percentages (50/50, 70/30, 60/40, whatever), because a motorbike or car is always required to slow down in case something is wrong and set their speed according to the situation (which in this case we all agree didn't happen).

In lack of any regulation of this kind for bikes, and in lack of any speed limit, the car will be probably (any Australian that might tell us what wil happen is welcome) given 100% fault.

Isn't that unfair, given the fact that the bicycle was clearly going way too fast for the situation and that the car did have a terrible line of sight anyway?

Overtaking a car stopped in the middle of the road at an intersection is dangerous. If the car was another bicyle, or a pedestrian (assuming that was a place where they could cross legally), the bike could have been 100% at fault. If the two vehicles were just swapped, again 100% fault for the car. How is it possible to have such an extreme difference in evaluation, depending only on the vehicle you are operating?
At least by what I know for here in Texas, this is flawed.

First, we don't have partial percentages for fault. The insurance companies can fight out who's going to pay how much based on what lawsuits they think they would win if it went to that. Police officers can choose to ticket or not for any violations. But there's not a legal partial percentage of fault at least until after a lawsuit determines one (and a lawsuit that goes that far is rare).

Second, speed limits apply to bicycles. Bicycles are vehicles, and must follow all relevant laws unless they are impossible for the vehicle type or unless there is an exception in the law. There is no speed limit exception for bicycles in the law, so bicycles must both follow the posted speed limit and the "reasonable speed" requirements. If a bicycle is moving under the posted speed limit but is moving faster than safe for conditions, they can receive the same ticket a car would if the car is under the posted speed limit but moving too fast for conditions.

Obviously, I can't speak to the situation in Australia, but I can at least explain how it works here and where my thoughts on the situation come from.
 
I think that's mostly a very badly designed intersection. Giving cars making that crossing right of way once the car with the dashcam is stopped there (hence the road markings keep clear) but then giving cyclists right of way without accounting for that is just asking for conflicts of that sort. In the Netherlands, I think the bike path would be on the left of the lane for left-turning traffic, to avoid mixing up cars and cyclists like that. This mixing up of traffic never works.

The car making that crossing doesn't have the right of way, there's a "give way" triangular sign where he enters the intersections. The "keep clear" markings are there to avoid gridlock.
 
At least by what I know for here in Texas, this is flawed.

First, we don't have partial percentages for fault.

Interesting. I live where partial percentage are quite usual and common. But you only have insurance rate increase with 50% or more.

The police may ticket you anyway if they found you have broken any laws or regulations.

Second, speed limits apply to bicycles. Bicycles are vehicles, and must follow all relevant laws unless they are impossible for the vehicle type or unless there is an exception in the law. There is no speed limit exception for bicycles in the law, so bicycles must both follow the posted speed limit and the "reasonable speed" requirements.

It is the same here, but I can see two problems (and though I am sure that the first one applies in Texas too, I hope you are not bothered by the second one). The first is easy: bicycles and cars are very different vehicles and should have different speed limits (like it happens with cars and lorries).
The ssecond is: in theory the reasonable speed requirements should help solve most of the cases, but I live in a place where you normally need a judge (and years of bureaucracy, and a lot of money) just to determine what is "reasonable speed" for a certain situation, so it's almost like the law isn't there. Unless it is so blatant that the cops are able to fine you on the spot.

If a bicycle is moving under the posted speed limit but is moving faster than safe for conditions, they can receive the same ticket a car would if the car is under the posted speed limit but moving too fast for conditions.

If it works, it's nice. Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen in Texas in this case?

Obviously, I can't speak to the situation in Australia, but I can at least explain how it works here and where my thoughts on the situation come from.

Of course. Besides, my thoughts come exactly from what would happen here in a similar case.
 
Last edited:
It is the same here, but I can see two problems (and though I am sure that the first one applies in Texas too, I hope you are not bothered by the second one). The first is easy: bicycles and cars are very different vehicles and should have different speed limits (like it happens with cars and lorries).
Well, most of the time, cars and trucks, semis, etc. have the same speed limits, here. There are a few exceptions, but in general, the vehicle's operator is expected to know if that vehicle isn't able to maintain the speed limit safely. They shouldn't have to tell you (which is ridiculous given our non-strict licensing, but). Some areas do have a "truck speed limit" on the freeway, but most don't. The second one plays into this a bit, though...

The ssecond is: in theory the reasonable speed requirements should help solve most of the cases, but I live in a place where you normally need a judge (and years of bureaucracy, and a lot of money) just to determine what is "reasonable speed" for a certain situation, so it's almost like the law isn't there. Unless it is so blatant that the cops are able to fine you on the spot.
The officers are able to ticket you for whatever the legal equivalent of unreasonable speed is at their discretion. This isn't used often unless there is a crash, but if there is a crash and speed seems to be a contributor even though speed was under the limit, there's a reasonable likelihood the ticket will be given. While we're supposedly "innocent until proven guilty," in a case like "reasonable speed", the cop's word is trusted and the individual's word isn't. So we effectively have the opposite - if a police officer says that was unreasonable speed, it may take years of bureaucracy and lots of money to show it wasn't.

If it works, it's nice. Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen in Texas in this case?
I suspect the car driver would be at fault and their insurance would be responsible for any medical bills and repair bills the cyclist had. While the cyclist's speed was certainly a contributory factor, the car made a clear violation of the law by proceeding with a turn when traffic wasn't clear (and proceeding at a rate that prevented him from seeing if traffic was clear). If police arrived at the scene, the car may get a ticket or may not - that would largely depend on their attitude. The cyclist would be very unlikely to get a ticket as he's been in a crash and injured (even if the injuries are minor) - he's already been punished for his contribution. In a low speed collision like this, the officers seem to prefer to avoid the paperwork unless someone pushes them. That said, they wouldn't hesitate to point out to the cyclist that his speed was a contributing factor, and if the cyclist insisted it wasn't, they'd likely point out the potential for a ticket.
 
The officers are able to ticket you for whatever the legal equivalent of unreasonable speed is at their discretion. This isn't used often unless there is a crash, but if there is a crash and speed seems to be a contributor even though speed was under the limit, there's a reasonable likelihood the ticket will be given. While we're supposedly "innocent until proven guilty," in a case like "reasonable speed", the cop's word is trusted and the individual's word isn't. So we effectively have the opposite - if a police officer says that was unreasonable speed, it may take years of bureaucracy and lots of money to show it wasn't.

It should be the same here, theoretically. If a police officer gives you a ticket, it may take a lot to cancel it. But if the officee doesn't issue a ticket, it may be complicated anyway, because one of the two parts can object to something, and the the fact of not having been issued a ticket isn't enough ground to rule out the possibility of an unreasonable speed. Determining that can be awfully long, and some times insurance companies simply go on relentlessly when they believe they have the advantage in the end (and they CAN wait). The opposite might happen: you may be right, but the insurance company closes the case against your position, for all the possible reasons, so you are then stuck with proving something that is difficult, and since there is no police ticket, things get even worse.

I suspect the car driver would be at fault and their insurance would be responsible for any medical bills and repair bills the cyclist had. While the cyclist's speed was certainly a contributory factor, the car made a clear violation of the law by proceeding with a turn when traffic wasn't clear (and proceeding at a rate that prevented him from seeing if traffic was clear). If police arrived at the scene, the car may get a ticket or may not - that would largely depend on their attitude. The cyclist would be very unlikely to get a ticket as he's been in a crash and injured (even if the injuries are minor) - he's already been punished for his contribution. In a low speed collision like this, the officers seem to prefer to avoid the paperwork unless someone pushes them. That said, they wouldn't hesitate to point out to the cyclist that his speed was a contributing factor, and if the cyclist insisted it wasn't, they'd likely point out the potential for a ticket.

ok, thanks.
 
The 5 borough bike tour is happening today, which means lots of road closures and traffic in places that never seen traffic. BLARGH!!! And I work Sundays and drive to work...
 
- - - Updated - - -

The 5 borough bike tour is happening today, which means lots of road closures and traffic in places that never seen traffic. BLARGH!!! And I work Sundays and drive to work...

2012-dodge-ram-2500-meyer-lot-pro-plow-after-2.jpg


Make sure you angle the blade so that the blood ends up in the gutters, don't want any cyclist gunk soiling our roads......
 
Last edited:
- - - Updated - - -



2012-dodge-ram-2500-meyer-lot-pro-plow-after-2.jpg


Make sure you angle the blade so that the blood ends up in the gutters, don't want any cyclist gunk soiling our roads......
Well they sadly don't mix with traffic and have police escorts, its just that they close some of the roads or portions of roads causing massive traffic to build up. It's not like this is the largest city in the US with the greatest population density....

What's worse is that there were a ton of out of towners driving their cars in with bikes on the back, so not only are they confused by the grid system of NYC and the heavier than they are used to traffic they are also idiots in other ways. Like one of the best spots by my work was taken up by some old couple from CT, who were sitting in the car... Mind you it took me a half hour to find a spot, they were still sitting in the car... Why are you taking up a parking spot if you are not going to leave the car?
 
Last edited:

Utter cunt, I could have got a bus through there.


(Reversing backwards not cool)
 
Last edited:
Top