bike lanes save money/lives/health

Wilber · August 7, 2014

Here is the exact intersection where the driver turned right:

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.277844,-123.131077&spn=0.000001,0.000871&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=49.277844,-123.131077&panoid=OJqf04lj2qTJg-ZrDm580w&cbp=12,231.09,,0,7.14

Note the YIELD to cyclists sign and the hedge that really doesn't impair the vision of a driver.

Use your head. You think you should be able to blunder along straight ahead and drivers are supposed to have eyes in the back of theirvheads in order to stay out of your way when they are making right turns from the right lane. You are a idiot if you are counting on them seeing you. You can put "THE SIGN SAID YIELD" on your tombstone.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

Here is the exact intersection where the driver turned right:

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.277844,-123.131077&spn=0.000001,0.000871&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=49.277844,-123.131077&panoid=OJqf04lj2qTJg-ZrDm580w&cbp=12,231.09,,0,7.14

Note the YIELD to cyclists sign and the hedge that really doesn't impair the vision of a driver.

Do you still think the driver was in the right?

The yield sign is also clearly visible in the original video.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

Use your head. You think you should be able to blunder along straight ahead and drivers are supposed to have eyes in the back of theirvheads in order to stay out of your way when they are making right turns from the right lane. You are a idiot if you are counting on them seeing you. You can put "THE SIGN SAID YIELD" on your tombstone.

No one expects drivers to have eye in the back of their heads. That's why the goddamned yield sign is there.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Black Dog

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

Use your head. You think you should be able to blunder along straight ahead and drivers are supposed to have eyes in the back of theirvheads in order to stay out of your way when they are making right turns from the right lane. You are a idiot if you are counting on them seeing you. You can put "THE SIGN SAID YIELD" on your tombstone.

So what exactly are you arguing here? Should bikes stop at all intersections despite the fact that they are allowed to proceed in case an ignorant driver ignores a red light or a yield sign?

Do you think cars should never have to yield? What about to other cars? Or are you arguing that the size of the vehicle determines whether you should yield? bikes<cars<trucks<semis

I am not getting your argument.

Do you stop at all green lights in case someone runs a red? That would be traffic chaos if people did that!

Do you think the driver did the right thing in that video and the cyclist was in the wrong?

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

Wilber · August 7, 2014

No one expects drivers to have eye in the back of their heads. That's why the goddamned yield sign is there.

You have to be able to see what you are yieding to. This is the only situation I know of where you have to yield to traffic from behind when you are turning from the correct lane.

guyser · August 7, 2014

Huh? I think you used the wrong quote.

NO at all.

What I was trying to convey is the fact that right turns, in the video, was done illegaly. Darwin award or not, we are talking about the law.

The mirrors thing is a misnomer, those mirrors are plenty high enough to see down that saide, not to mention a turn not done in safety is a ticket for the driver.

Dont be blaming the hedge for stupidity now.

But I do agree , ride in safety cuz no bike ever wins against a car.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

You have to be able to see what you are yieding to.

You know what helps you see what you're supposed to be yielding to? Actually stopping to look. If the driver had obeyed the sign, the cyclist would have clearly been visible.

This is the only situation I know of where you have to yield to traffic from behind when you are turning from the correct lane.

Yes it is unusual. Hence the signage telling drivers to yield.

Wilber · August 7, 2014

So what exactly are you arguing here? Should bikes stop at all intersections despite the fact that they are allowed to proceed in case an ignorant driver ignores a red light or a yield sign?

Do you think cars should never have to yield? What about to other cars? Or are you arguing that the size of the vehicle determines whether you should yield? bikes<cars<trucks<semis

I am not getting your argument.

Do you stop at all green lights in case someone runs a red? That would be traffic chaos if people did that!

Do you think the driver did the right thing in that video and the cyclist was in the wrong?

So drivers ignoring red lights should yield to cyclists running red lights?

Cars have to yield to all kinds of things Cyclists, apparently not.

I check both ways in case it looks like someone might be running a red, and they do, I don't just keep going.

I'm saying that a cyclist who just keeps going when a car is signalling a right turn and is on the verge of staring that turn, is using very poor judgement.

guyser · August 7, 2014

I'm saying that a cyclist who just keeps going when a car is signalling a right turn and is on the verge of staring that turn, is using very poor judgement.

Completely backwards.

The driver of the car is committing an offense <--- there lies the complete problem.

The bike rider is merely enjoying his ride in his lane and obeying the law.

The bike rider of course realizes that stupidity reigns in most car drivers so he goes on alert and ...voila, avoids a collision for which the car driver would be 100% completely at fault.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

So drivers ignoring red lights should yield to cyclists running red lights?

What kind of intersections have red lights in both directions?

Cars have to yield to all kinds of things Cyclists, apparently not.

:rolleyes:

I check both ways in case it looks like someone might be running a red, and they do, I don't just keep going.

So you slow down every time you approach a green light?

I'm saying that a cyclist who just keeps going when a car is signalling a right turn and is on the verge of staring that turn, is using very poor judgement.

The poor judgement here is on the part of the driver who ignored the signage posted and failed to ensure the way was clear before attempting to execute the turn. If she had hit that cyclist, the driver alone would have been responsible.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

"Sure the guy that hit me was driving the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights on and was drunk, but I really should have been anticipating that. And now I'm dead and it's all my fault."

Edited August 7, 2014 by Black Dog

Wilber · August 7, 2014

NO at all.What I was trying to convey is the fact that right turns, in the video, was done illegaly. Darwin award or not, we are talking about the law.The mirrors thing is a misnomer, those mirrors are plenty high enough to see down that saide, not to mention a turn not done in safety is a ticket for the driver.Dont be blaming the hedge for stupidity now.But I do agree , ride in safety cuz no bike ever wins against a car.

Look at it again, for the last 15 or 20 ft her right side mirror is almost completely obscured by the hedge. Those idiots in city hall want drivers to yield then plant shrubs that obscure their vision.

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

I'm saying that a cyclist who just keeps going when a car is signalling a right turn and is on the verge of staring that turn, is using very poor judgement.

You definitely have it backwards....

The cyclist used great skill avoiding a collision that he was in no way at fault of!

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

Look at it again, for the last 15 or 20 ft her right side mirror is almost completely obscured by the hedge. Those idiots in city hall want drivers to yield then plant shrubs that obscure their vision.

Check the street view I posted... It's a clear view at that intersection and well signed.

So you are saying the car was in the right?

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

guyser · August 7, 2014

Look at it again,

I did.

for the last 15 or 20 ft her right side mirror is almost completely obscured by the hedge.

No it isnt. Watch earlier, the pedestrian? Her ass is taller than the hedge, and so are the cars mirrors.

Those idiots in city hall want drivers to yield then plant shrubs that obscure their vision.

They could cut them down a bit. So what?

With your thinking wilber, a car making a right turn around a semi parked on a corner ** is ok to mow down pedestrians....couldnt see them for the truck....right? That IS your argument you realize.

(**or any other obstruction like scaffolding,advertising,bus etc )

Wilber · August 7, 2014

What kind of intersections have red lights in both directions?

So you slow down every time you approach a green light?

The poor judgement here is on the part of the driver who ignored the signage posted and failed to ensure the way was clear before attempting to execute the turn. If she had hit that cyclist, the driver alone would have been responsible.

I thought we were talking about turns. A driver turning on a red, can't interfere with a cyclist unless the cyclist is running the light.

I sometimes do slow when approaching an intersection on a green. Having a green is no guaranty someone isn't going to move in front of me.

Poor judgement is getting yourself killed because you insisted on having the right of way. She might have been held fully responsible and maybe not. A good lawyer would pick up on the hedge and quite possibly the city would bear dome responsibility.

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

I did.

No it isnt. Watch earlier, the pedestrian? Her ass is taller than the hedge, and so are the cars mirrors.

They could cut them down a bit. So what?

With your thinking wilber, a car making a right turn around a semi parked on a corner ** is ok to mow down pedestrians....couldnt see them for the truck....right? That IS your argument you realize.

(**or any other obstruction like scaffolding,advertising,bus etc )

Wilber's position is completely bizarre and untenable. It is arguing for arguments sake because he seems to have a problem with cyclists. Even cyclists who are obeying the law perfectly well vs. cars that are clearly breaking the law and driving dangerously! It's a bizarre position to take...

Edited August 7, 2014 by The_Squid

Wilber · August 7, 2014

You definitely have it backwards....

The cyclist used great skill avoiding a collision that he was in no way at fault of!

Great skill, that's wonderful. There is an old pilot saying that goes somethng like this. Many pilots are very skilled, but really good pilots never put themselves in a position where they need to fully demonstrate those skills.

Black Dog · August 7, 2014

I thought we were talking about turns. A driver turning on a red, can't interfere with a cyclist unless the cyclist is running the light.

We weren't talking about turns.

Poor judgement is getting yourself killed because you insisted on having the right of way. She might have been held fully responsible and maybe not.

How does someone "insist" on having the right-of-way? Either you have it (like the cyclist) or you don't (like the driver). If someone who doesn't have the right of way takes the right of way and causes an accident, that person is responsible.

A good lawyer would pick up on the hedge and quite possibly the city would bear dome responsibility.

A good lawyer would also spot the 10-15 feet from the end of the "hedge" to the actual intersection (clearly visible in the google earth link posted by the Squid), note the clearly posted "yield to cyclist" signage, and walk away or cop a plea.

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=49.277696,-123.1313&spn=0.00001,0.006968&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=49.277772,-123.131185&panoid=dhFd9_5eMWrwTvxBncHkhw&cbp=12,278.58,,0,12.96

This is what the car looks at. A large, clear intersection with plenty of space and good visibility to check for cyclists, as the sign says to do.

Wilber · August 7, 2014

Wilber's position is completely bizarre and untenable. It is arguing for arguments sake because he seems to have a problem with cyclists. Even cyclists who are obeying the law perfectly well vs. cars that are clearly breaking the law and driving dangerously! It's a bizarre position to take...

I don't have a problem with cyclists, I have a problem with fools.

The_Squid · August 7, 2014

Great skill, that's wonderful. There is an old pilot saying that goes somethng like this. Many pilots are very skilled, but really good pilots never put themselves in a position where they need to fully demonstrate those skills.

Your analogy is a crappy one.