Idiots + cars = LOL

As someone who rode racing bycicle, trust me, it isn't. Somehow you have way more grip than it may look like.

Oh and why should a car on normal tires come close to it's limit at 22mph in the rain ... ?
 
I think that too.

I asked if 22 mph in the rain for a bicycle is too much, because of the difficulties in braking/avoiding obstacles and the slim tyres. On the speed limit, many municipalities are thinking about reducing the speed limit for cars to 30 kph (19 mph, so below that bike's speed) in many areas. As a provocation, if that is considered too much for a car, why would it be ok for a bicycle? (I think the speed reducing politics acted towards car is mostly stupid, while I think bicycles should have some form of dedicated speed limit).

In any case, aside from the exchange with mitchi, I won't stop feeling the need to restate that:

---it's the car's fault, in that crash.---

(just to be sure with whoever comes and reads from just this point on).
 
Last edited:
"I just got my hands on the brakes" if you can't perform an emergency stop, you have no place in traffic!

They should forbid those racing bikes in urban areas. That's the second video in short time where I'm pretty sure if he was driving an MTB, there either wouldn't have been a crash, or he would've walked away without any damage
 
As a general rule, you cut speed in the wet by around 10 mph. In this case, he is going too fast for the conditions and not accounting for the fact that he must share the road with motorists. While I don't condone hitting them, cyclists must be aware that roads were intended for cars first.
 
Yes, but sharing the road means he, theoretically, has to abide by the same rules, making him an equal. Going straight gave him the right of way, regardless of his speed.
 
Cars first? In Norway, cars and bikes share the roads and bikes Are considered a vehicle and must follow the rules as cars.
 
Vette Boss said:
As a general rule, you cut speed in the wet by around 10 mph. In this case, he is going too fast for the conditions and not accounting for the fact that he must share the road with motorists. While I don't condone hitting them, cyclists must be aware that roads were intended for cars first.
Click to expand...

It's not wet, just a bit moist.

As for that general rule, that's the first time I've heard that.

As for sharing the road with motorists, the car turned into his path despite having to share the road with bicycles.



SirEdward said:
I asked if 22 mph in the rain for a bicycle is too much, because of the difficulties in braking/avoiding obstacles and the slim tyres. On the speed limit, many municipalities are thinking about reducing the speed limit for cars to 30 kph (19 mph, so below that bike's speed) in many areas. As a provocation, if that is considered too much for a car, why would it be ok for a bicycle? (I think the speed reducing politics acted towards car is mostly stupid, while I think bicycles should have some form of dedicated speed limit).
Click to expand...

That road likely had a 30mph speed limit, not 30kph. It doesn't look to me like an area that'd be a good candidate for a 30kph speed limit either, it's not a purely residential area with tiny streets and kids running around.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
It's not wet, just a bit moist.

As for that general rule, that's the first time I've heard that.

As for sharing the road with motorists, the car turned into his path despite having to share the road with bicycles.
Click to expand...

From video description Drizzly conditions and also - "cars first" needs to be backed up by a source of a law of some sort. Besides, the driver ended up being the one who took the blame.
 
SirEdward said:
I think that too.

I asked if 22 mph in the rain for a bicycle is too much, because of the difficulties in braking/avoiding obstacles and the slim tyres. On the speed limit, many municipalities are thinking about reducing the speed limit for cars to 30 kph (19 mph, so below that bike's speed) in many areas. As a provocation, if that is considered too much for a car, why would it be ok for a bicycle? (I think the speed reducing politics acted towards car is mostly stupid, while I think bicycles should have some form of dedicated speed limit).

In any case, aside from the exchange with mitchi, I won't stop feeling the need to restate that:

---it's the car's fault, in that crash.---

(just to be sure with whoever comes and reads from just this point on).
Click to expand...

I didn't misunderstood. 22 mph is managable on such a bike in the wet.

And what do you mean with "aside from the exchange with Mitchi" ... I DO think it's 100% the cars fault ... ? I think there's a slight misunderstanding here

- - - Updated - - -

bone said:
"I just got my hands on the brakes" if you can't perform an emergency stop, you have no place in traffic!

They should forbid those racing bikes in urban areas. That's the second video in short time where I'm pretty sure if he was driving an MTB, there either wouldn't have been a crash, or he would've walked away without any damage
Click to expand...

So just because a bike is fast, but still has a small visible area, it should be forbidden to ride such a bike in cities? Then the same should be applied to racing bikes etc. ...
 
Last edited:
^no, because he can't suddenly brake, and because a race bike isn't maneuverable enough to suddenly swerve when something crosses your path

and the same IS applied for racing bikes, you first have to prove you can perform an emergency stop, and swerve around an obstacle before you're given your license...

(shit, am i starting to sound like Spectre?)
 
Why isn't a race bike manouverable enough in that situation? Did you ride one? They are not more likely to have no grip in those circumstances than a normal bike, I can definately tell you that from first hand experience...

the situation reminded me of the one with the golf mk.iv where the guy literally had no chance to brake.

But yeah, I forgot, this forum hates cyclists...
 
At the Spa24h

10501789_575881155850216_3827554439471909196_n.jpg
 
LeVeL said:
I think it's no secret that as both a driver and a cyclist I think that cars rule the road and bikers need to stay out of their way, but in this case the car driver is a complete moron!
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that, I ride a pedal bike as well but I will give the cars all the space I can.
 
yes, I knew this would happen.

narf said:
That road likely had a 30mph speed limit, not 30kph. It doesn't look to me like an area that'd be a good candidate for a 30kph speed limit either, it's not a purely residential area with tiny streets and kids running around.
Click to expand...

There is a misunderstanding on your part.
1) I was sying that municipalities are going berserk and trying to slow down cars everywhere
2) I think a car might have stopped in time in that case from that speed, in those conditions (1 sec from when he screams to when he hits, that's just less than 10 meters at that speed)
3) If there is a condemnation of car speed, I can't see how a bicycle should not be pointed for being -faster- than the speed many people would want all cars to drive.
4) The fault in that crash is and stays with the car. (maybe I'll be third time lucky). That speed was not inconstistent with that road, the car should have noticed the cyclist and let him pass.

Mitchi said:
I didn't misunderstood. 22 mph is managable on such a bike in the wet.
Click to expand...

What would be the braking distance of that bike in that situation?

And what do you mean with "aside from the exchange with Mitchi" ... I DO think it's 100% the cars fault ... ? I think there's a slight misunderstanding here
Click to expand...

I think that too. (As you can see from the part of the message right above and as I have written two other times in the past 36 hours). But I know this forum: there are both some intransigent motorists and some very touchy cyclists (a bit like everywhere these times, actually...), and I don't like to start another sterile cycling war. I have my ideas, but I like to talk about facts. In this case, the facts are that the car is 100% at fault. The bicycle speed is a sidenote, as I think that a car might have stopped in time in that situation, thus avoiding the crash in the first place and saving him (and the other stupid motorist) lot of hassles.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top