bike lanes save money/lives/health

[Wilber]

Uh...he avoided it. She was the one without enough situational awareness to even realize that she was breaking the law. The first rule of driving anything is to know what you're entering into. If your vision is obscured by hedges, stop and make sure it's safe to proceed before doing so. No court is going to side with you for driving like an idiot.

For you, it is cyclists are aholes and drivers can't be expected to know what's going on around them. A simplistic attitude that will kill those who get in your way.

I don't think cyclists are aholes, I give them all the room I can because I don't want to be involved with anyone getting hurt,no matter who is at fault. I'm not saying this woman was in the right. I do think people who use what they think is the right of way as an excuse to stop thinking are fools.

You think this guy is some kind of hero because the evasive action he took avoided a situation he could have easily prepared for, if he had been paying attention to what was going on around him. Regardless of who was in the right, he was dozing and it nearly cost him big time. The simple fact is, he was behind her and could easily see where she was and what she intended doing. Much easier than for her to see him.

[BubberMiley]

You think this guy is some kind of hero because the evasive action he took avoided a situation he could have easily prepared for, if he had been paying attention to what was going on around him. Regardless of who was in the right, he was dozing and it nearly cost him big time. The simple fact is, he was behind her and could easily see where she was and what she intended doing. Much easier than for her to see him.

if he was dozing, she would have hit him. It is a fraction of a second between the realization that this person is not behaving like a conscientious driver and impact. Any responsible driver would have stopped and let him pass, thereby following the law. There was no indication that she wouldn't do the same until she didn't. Fortunately, he wasn't the one not paying attention.

If you drive like her and just proceed into blind spots, stop driving now!

[Wilber]

if he was dozing, she would have hit him. It is a fraction of a second between the realization that this person is not behaving like a conscientious driver and impact. Any responsible driver would have stopped and let him pass, thereby following the law. There was no indication that she wouldn't do the same until she didn't. Fortunately, he wasn't the one not paying attention.

If you drive like her and just proceed into blind spots, stop driving now!

He was either dozing or assuming that sign was going to stop him from getting hit. Either way, he got a rude awakening. Bet he pays more attention in future.

She had her turn signal on, that should be a clue that she might turn.

You keep babbling about the law as though you expect it to be some kind of magic shield. Drivers sometimes make mistakes. Guess cyclists never do.

[Bonam]

Considering that we had a what, 100 page thread on whether stopping in the left lane of a highway was a good idea, and about half the people on MLW came in on either side, I'm guessing there's not gonna be any agreement in this thread either. Some people drive and follow the law, others do whatever the **** they feel like and make excuses, expecting others to make up for their blatant disregard for the law and the safety of others.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

You keep babbling about the law as though you expect it to be some kind of magic shield. Drivers sometimes make mistakes. Guess cyclists never do.

Generally, when people make mistakes we want them to take ownership, not make excuses. Also we want to learn from the experience and try to prevent it in the future. In this case that junction point had signs indicating vehicles must yield, plus a massive green square painted on the road. If drivers can't look over their shoulder with that kind of warning they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Defending the driver in this case is just plain ridiculous.

[Wilber]

Generally, when people make mistakes we want them to take ownership, not make excuses. Also we want to learn from the experience and try to prevent it in the future. In this case that junction point had signs indicating vehicles must yield, plus a massive green square painted on the road. If drivers can't look over their shoulder with that kind of warning they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Defending the driver in this case is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not defending anyone but I think I am the only one looking at this objectively. I also think there are some people on this thread who have a dangerous attitude. Dangerous to themselves.

[Bonam]

I'm not defending anyone but I think I am the only one looking at this objectively. I also think there are some people on this thread who have a dangerous attitude. Dangerous to themselves.

No. Obviously anyone riding a bicycle needs to be extremely aware of their surroundings, realize that drivers around them may behave unpredictably, and keep themselves safe in this context. It's just a matter of self-preservation.

But when a driver clearly and blatantly violates the rules of the road or posted signage, the fault is 100% on them. Of course a biker should watch out and make sure not to place themselves in a situation where one move by an idiotic driver may kill them, but that does not make that move by the driver any less idiotic or illegal.

Of course, when cyclists do take extra precautionary steps to reduce the danger they are in, drivers lambast them for that as well. Just take a look at the responses I got earlier when I suggested that cyclists need to ride in the middle of the lane, to avoid tempting drivers to pass them within a few inches.

The reality is the situation cannot be solved in any other way than completely separate infrastructure, which is what this thread is all about. As can be illustrated here, even "mostly separate" infrastructure seems to be insufficient, as some drivers ignore giant barriers and signs. Only completely separate infrastructure works. Mostly because drivers apparently can't be expected to obey signs, shoulder check, and otherwise follow the rules of the road. Perhaps the only other solution than completely separate infrastructure is enforcement of rules regarding bike lanes being taken as seriously as enforcement of driving while under the influence of alcohol, as the risk it places other people in is comparable.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bonam

[Wilber]

She was making a legal right turn she was not breaking the law. If she didn't see him, she didn't see him and cyclists have to be prepared for that possibility. That car wasn't that big and her butt probably wasn't much more than a foot off the ground. If she is fairly short, there is every reason to think she might not be able to see over the city's dumb ass hedge even with her seat cranked all the way up. The cyclist clearly could.

[Bonam]

She was making a legal right turn she was not breaking the law. If she didn't see him, she didn't see him and cyclists have to be prepared for that possibility. That car wasn't that big and her butt probably wasn't much more than a foot off the ground. If she is fairly short, there is every reason to think she might not be able to see over the city's dumb ass hedge even with her seat cranked all the way up. The cyclist clearly could.

I've been on that street man. My car is just as low as hers. You can easily see over the hedge. Furthermore from the place where you stop to make the turn, you can look back a considerable distance through the bike lane, without the hedge being in your line of sight. There's not even a question.

Your argument is not tenable.

It is breaking the law to move into an area where another vehicle is traveling, if you have a sign to yield to vehicles in that area. Pretty straightforward, really. The bike was easy to see, and the sign told her to yield to it. She simply didn't look, or didn't care.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bonam

[Wilber]

Then how do you account for not being able to see her mirrors at varius times, including the last stretch? I still say, the people who approved putting a hedge there deserve a severe ass kicking. Let's put a pretty hedge right where people need to see each other. Idiots.

[BubberMiley]

She was making a legal right turn she was not breaking the law.

Before you drive again, you should learn what yield signs mean.

[Wilber]

Before you drive again, you should learn what yield signs mean.

I learned to drive in Vancouver and haven't had a collision in 40 years. How about you?

[BubberMiley]

I learned to drive in Vancouver and haven't had a collision in 40 years.

Everybody around you must have been paying attention to their surroundings as you sailed blindly into traffic then.

[Bonam]

Then how do you account for not being able to see her mirrors at varius times, including the last stretch?

The mirrors are irrelevant. Last I checked, humans see with their eyes, not with their car's mirrors.

S-H-O-U-L-D-E-R C-H-E-C-K. Ever heard of it?

[Wilber]

The mirrors are irrelevant. Last I checked, humans see with their eyes, not with their car's mirrors.

S-H-O-U-L-D-E-R C-H-E-C-K. Ever heard of it?

Sure, shoulder checking the passenger side for something behind a hedge while trying not to be T boned by traffic coming from the left. Simple compared to a cyclist who had the impossible job of paying attention to what was in front of him. Edited August 8, 2014 by Wilber

[Bonam]

Sure, shoulder checking the passenger side for something behind a hedge while trying not to be T boned by traffic coming from the left. Simple compared to a cyclist who only had to pay attention to what was in front of him.

Uh, there is no reason to anywhere in the path of traffic coming from the left to T bone you. You shoulder check before that, duh. Also, you don't "try" to not be T-boned... you just don't get T-boned, because other people are also following the freaking rules. Lastly, shoulder checking isn't even something you should think about or try to do, it should be automatic, engrained in you, muscle memory, every single time you turn. Is that not the case for you?

[Wilber]

Uh, there is no reason to anywhere in the path of traffic coming from the left to T bone you. You shoulder check before that, duh. Also, you don't "try" to not be T-boned... you just don't get T-boned, because other people are also following the freaking rules. Lastly, shoulder checking isn't even something you should think about or try to do, it should be automatic, engrained in you, muscle memory, every single time you turn. Is that not the case for you?

Don't know about you but when I turn right, I'm always checking for traffic coming from the left. It's a wonder you have survived this long.

[Bonam]

[Black Dog]

Cyclists need to be aware of their surroundings as well. Plowing ahead and hoping for the best was exactly what that cyclist was doing. He could see that car signaling a turn, just assuming it had seen him and would yield was dumb, dumb, dumb.

And you know this how?

Most highway guard rails aren't more than three feet. Why do you need anything higher? Yes, let's please do deal with some reality here. The object is to make cyclists safer, not invisible to drivers.

There's nothing in the world that will make something visible to someone who is not actually looking.

The cars mirror was obscured by the hedge, The cyclist was waist level with it and his head was a couple of feet above it. Have you even looked at the video?

Which would have meant the cyclist's upper bits would have been visible to the driver, had the driver (1) yielded as per the posted signage, and (2) performed a shoulder check as per standard safe driving techniques.

I don't think cyclists are aholes, I give them all the room I can because I don't want to be involved with anyone getting hurt,no matter who is at fault. I'm not saying this woman was in the right. I do think people who use what they think is the right of way as an excuse to stop thinking are fools.

"I'm not saying this woman is in the right, I just refuse to acknowledge (and indeed, will even deny) that she might have done anything wrong."

Also, what's with this "what they think is the right of way" b.s. The cyclist had the right of way: there's no subjective opinion involved.

You think this guy is some kind of hero because the evasive action he took avoided a situation he could have easily prepared for, if he had been paying attention to what was going on around him. Regardless of who was in the right, he was dozing and it nearly cost him big time. The simple fact is, he was behind her and could easily see where she was and what she intended doing. Much easier than for her to see him.

Speaking of subjective opinions, there's one now. If the mirrors on the car were obscured, its reasonable to think the turn signal was as well.

She was making a legal right turn she was not breaking the law.

Except for the part where she drove down the bike lane first, failed to yield when instructed to do so by the signange and failed to ensure it was safe to proceed when executing the turn.

Sure, shoulder checking the passenger side for something behind a hedge while trying not to be T boned by traffic coming from the left.

Uh, if there was traffic coming from the left in this instance, this woman would have gotten smoked because she didn't yield and proceed when safe to do so.

Don't know about you but when I turn right, I'm always checking for traffic coming from the left. It's a wonder you have survived this long.

Don't know about you, but my head can turn both directions, enabling me to look right as well as left, sometimes even one after the other!

Edited August 8, 2014 by Black Dog

[Wilber]

And you know this how?

So a motorist turning right not only has to scan for vehicles coming from their left but with their vision partially obscured by their own vehicle and an obstacle conveniently put in their way by the city, instantly see and react to a rapidly moving cyclist coming from behind them on their right, while a cyclist sitting two feet higher with unrestricted vision can't be expected to see what is right in front of them.

There's nothing in the world that will make something visible to someone who is not actually looking.

Exactly, the cyclist obviously wasn't looking at what was happening in front of him.

Which would have meant the cyclist's upper bits would have been visible to the driver, had the driver (1) yielded as per the posted signage, and (2) performed a shoulder check as per standard safe driving techniques.

Maybe, The motorists vision will be restricted to the area between the top of the hedge to the top of their window opening. So the motorist now has to look up, as well as beside and behind.

"I'm not saying this woman is in the right, I just refuse to acknowledge (and indeed, will even deny) that she might have done anything wrong."

Also, what's with this "what they think is the right of way" b.s. The cyclist had the right of way: there's no subjective opinion involved.

I'm not saying she didn't do anything wrong, I think they both did.

Lets talk about that sign. I get the yield part but have never seen the other graphics before. Is this something the city just dreamed up and expected everyone to know by osmosis? I've looked at the BC Government Standard Graphic list of road signs but can't find it. Mind you, I might of missed it because there are over 900 of them. How many do you know? You can also go on to ICBC's website and do their practice road sign tests until you are blue in the face but you won't see it there either.

Speaking of subjective opinions, there's one now. If the mirrors on the car were obscured, its reasonable to think the turn signal was as well.

I could see them in the video and because the video was taken from the bike lane it is reasonable to assume the video was taken by another cyclist sitting at approximately the same level.

Except for the part where she drove down the bike lane first, failed to yield when instructed to do so by the signange and failed to ensure it was safe to proceed when executing the turn.

Let's talk about that. I don't know what she was doing in the bike lane but you assume every driver is a Vancouverite and knows where they are going. It is quite possible that someone who is unfamiliar with Vancouver streets and its bike lanes could make a right turn off a side street and a second later realize they had turned into a bike lane. In such a situation it would be much safer to continue and exit at the first opportunity than to try and back up into an intersection.

Uh, if there was traffic coming from the left in this instance, this woman would have gotten smoked because she didn't yield and proceed when safe to do so.

According to you, the driver has to look left, right, above and behind at the same time while the cyclist can just motor along wearing blinders in complete disregard for the fact his bike lane shares intersections with other traffic.

Don't know about you, but my head can turn both directions, enabling me to look right as well as left, sometimes even one after the other!

Don't forget above and behind and bear in mind, motorists don't have other cars passing them on the right when they are turning right and cyclists are traveling a lot faster than pedestrians. That cyclist was going a lot faster than the one taking the video and he didn't slow down at all for the intersection. A Darwin winner in waiting.

[guyser]

So a motorist turning right not only has to scan for vehicles coming from their left but with their vision partially obscured by their own vehicle and an obstacle conveniently put in their way by the city, instantly see and react to a rapidly moving cyclist coming from behind them on their right, while a cyclist sitting two feet higher with unrestricted vision can't be expected to see what is right in front of them.

Yes.

The stroked out part is immaterial.

Heres the law wilber...and we all know you know it.

Make the turn in safety or get a ticket. Whatever that takes.

[Wilber]

Deleted

Edited August 8, 2014 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Yes.

The stroked out part is immaterial.

Heres the law wilber...and we all know you know it.

Make the turn in safety or get a ticket. Whatever that takes.

So tall people can't see over things easier than short people. Who knew.

Fine. Motorist gets ticket, you get a Darwin. Have a nice day.

[BubberMiley]

Lets talk about that sign. I get the yield part but have never seen the other graphics before.

I don't believe you when you say you "get" the yield part. Your whole argument to this point is that the driver shouldn't have been expected to yield because it would be too much trouble to make sure the hedge wasn't obscuring potential victims before proceeding.

[Black Dog]

So a motorist turning right not only has to scan for vehicles coming from their left but with their vision partially obscured by their own vehicle and an obstacle conveniently put in their way by the city, instantly see and react to a rapidly moving cyclist coming from behind them on their right, while a cyclist sitting two feet higher with unrestricted vision can't be expected to see what is right in front of them.

The car wasn't directly in front of the cyclist, but off to the left and itself partially obscured, a fact you continue to ignore. Oh and the bit about having to watch for traffic from the left? Where exactly would that traffic come from?

Exactly, the cyclist obviously wasn't looking at what was happening in front of him.

Must have been since he was able to brake and avoid the car that swerved suddenly into his path.

Maybe, The motorists vision will be restricted to the area between the top of the hedge to the top of their window opening. So the motorist now has to look up, as well as beside and behind.

Oh and now the side window is obscured too! Interesting plant in that divider that can grow so rapidly in the course of a single comment thread. It's clear from the video that the side window is not obscured. And its clear from the google street view images posted that the "hedge" ends several feet before the intersection itself (another fact you ignore). Anything else?

I'm not saying she didn't do anything wrong, I think they both did.

Except you've focused all of your energy on denouncing the person who was minding his own business with nary a word about the person breaking the law and basic safe driving practices.

Lets talk about that sign. I get the yield part but have never seen the other graphics before. Is this something the city just dreamed up and expected everyone to know by osmosis?

Oh so now the driver is too dumb to figure out a pretty basic sign. But that's the city's fault. OK,

According to you, the driver has to look left, right, above and behind at the same time while the cyclist can just motor along wearing blinders in complete disregard for the fact his bike lane shares intersections with other traffic.

This is a complete strawman. Pathetic.

Don't forget above and behind and bear in mind, motorists don't have other cars passing them on the right when they are turning right and cyclists are traveling a lot faster than pedestrians.

Which makes it kind of important to stop and look when you are crossing a goddamned bike lane.

That cyclist was going a lot faster than the one taking the video and he didn't slow down at all for the intersection. A Darwin winner in waiting.

Maybe the cyclist was going a bit too fast, maybe he saw the driver signalling and wrongly assumed that the driver would obey the posted sign or at least note the presence of bikes in the actual bike lane. None of that changes the fact that his failures in this incident pale to insignificance next to the multiple errors and violations committed by the driver, who most certainly have been held legally responsible if the incident had been more serious. yet you continue to make excuses for her dangerous driving. Why?