UniChris

Utterly False.

And strongly suggestive of the possibility that you've never seen a road bike.

The video is clearly framed by the "brifters" of a pair of drop style bicycle handlebars.

Begone, troll!

bikelif3

Doesn't matter.

CROSSWALK WAS GREEN BEFORE CYCLIST WAS EVEN ON THE SCREEN.

bikelif3

wow...

Siu Blue Wind

Oh stop it you guys. Geeze.

bikelif3

Oh, I see the handlebars now. Funny thing is it kind of supports my case. What if the cyclist filming decided to jump the green or time a forward move exactly on the green? And didn't see the whizzing right turner behind them?

3alarmer 

.
...did he shout out, "On your left" ? Here, where I live, that apparently absolves the passing cyclist from any negative results.

cellery

I'm getting the sense that the introduction of dashcam equivalents on bikes has created a large number of safety karens that allow the smallest of scofflaws to live rent free in their heads; we live in a society that is so devoid of meaningful challenges to daily human survival that we're here stirring up irrational indignities of the percieved slight of a cyclist by another cyclist that OP may likely never see again. Are bikes cars? No? Then why the insistence on treating them as such only when convenient to justify your moral outrage? CMV.

UniChris

My own sense is that OP was more "amused" than "slighted"

Speaking in terms of other videos it's interesting how many of the "can you believe what someone did to me" examples that get posted (especially on sites dedicated to that) show a mix of non-strategic or downright improper operation on the part of the camera owner which may practically overshadow what they're trying to complain about. Sure though, cameras due sometimes capture egregious, unilateral misbehavior. And there are times when I wish I'd been running one. But those are other situations, not this video by this poster.

I thought the clip was shared as much out of amusement as to complain. I'm not sure the passing cyclist is setting a quite commendable example, but the fact is they have a great view of the situation, they're passing with a wide margin, and there's pretty much no way anyone in OP's stationary position could have accelerated from a stop fast enough while being passed to create a conflict, (at least short of suddenly trying to make a left turn from that righthand position.) Had OP started moving on the leading pedestrian interval (allowed elsewhere but probably not there) the overtaking cyclist would have seen that and taken it into account. It's the fact that OP was visibly stopped which made the maneuver work.

3alarmer 

...if you think it's bad here, take a look at Next Door some time.

bikelif3

"It's OK to harm people, just as long as you never see them again" lol...

YES, pretty much, if they're going 15mph plus. Actually, I would even lower that to 10mph.

retswerb

Welp, didn't have that reply on my bingo card. A 10 mph bike is... a car to you?

UniChris

Riding at 10 mph is amply fast enough to break the safety of designs premised on pedestrian movement - even 6 mph can be when you consider the in-place maneuvering limitations of a bike relative to walking.

As is running at that determined but achievable speed - though the jogger has a better chance of stopping short or using their arms to absorb some of the impact if they realize what is happening. They can also jump sideways or reverse if they realize the rear wheels of a truck are tracking inside where the front went, which is harder to do from a bike even if both users are equally stationary.

So yes, if you roll at 10 mph, the nature of your task of avoiding collisions is in fact very similar to what it is when driving a car - or even more hyper-awarely moreso if you're in a position not traditional for movement at such speed, though this cyclist's position was approximately traffic-normal for their movement when balanced against traditional bike assumptions.

More importantly the whole sub-argument you are joining is irrelevant to this thread: the cyclist could clearly see that no pedestrians were present. While they cut closer to OP than ideal, OP was not in fact moving - had OP's been attempting to begin doing so, that is a process with visual cues easily read by another cyclist - lifting the body to use weight for those initial pedal strokes, etc.

I'm not worried about a driver who does something in front of me. I'm worried about a driver who does something I need to react to, without giving me enough time to.

bikelif3

When you're a 1 year old kid just learning how to walk, YES.

jon c. 

This thread has become somewhat surreal.

UniChris

Had pedestrians been present, that would indeed be true.

But everyone but you can see that the cyclist had a wonderful view of the fact that there were no pedestrians on the scene at all.

The only party the cyclist had to contend with as a possible conflict with that turn was OP on a bicycle: OP stationary on a bicycle, and not even jostling the mounted camera with attempts to begin moving with a degree of acceleration that could be remotely conflicting.

Crosswalk law does not require stopping or even slowing for people who simply are not there: its requirements to yield to those in the crossing or (in many states) wishing to use it only requires that the approaching road user have sufficient visibility to verify that is not the case. This road user clearly did.

bikelif3

At anytime the cyclist, OP, whatever, could have moved to the left side and gotten rammed by the right turner. Maybe they realized they were going the wrong direction and decided to turn around without looking, who knows?

My point is, don't assume someone might not suddenly move sideways in front of you for no apparent reason.

UniChris

Not if they hoped to survive in a world full of cars

Yes, they physically could have (in fact I did already mention that possibility up the thread) - but just as in the physically similar movement of "dooring" such an act dangerously without regard for other traffic would be ruled the fault of the party suddenly moving sideways to obstruct travel.

In your desperation to find some "charge" to bring, you overlook that if the stopped party where to suddenly move sideways, they'd be risking a collision with through traffic, not just turning traffic. And because OP was not positioned to exclusively occupy the traffic lane, they left open the invitation for other users (car or bike) to legally pass them using it.

If I arrive at an intersection alone, I'll often position myself to exclusively occupy the lane. If I see in my mirror as I'm coming to a stop that a car behind me has a right turn signal on, I'll move enough left that they can turn right behind me (tough for them if they wait until stopped to turn it on). If instead I for whatever reason of situation or whim position myself to the right to wait for the light as OP did, then I realize that I need to consider the movements and intentions of anyone to my left before I start up. Usually that someone to my left is a driver... (quite often one who will suddenly put on their signal only as the light goes green and immediately turn) but it could equally be a cyclist.

Once I've left space for another road user, I have to assume a user of either type may fill it

bikelif3

Cyclists too often closely pass others at high speeds assuming the person they're passing won't suddenly turn sideways into them. Same thing with people blindly jumping onto an MUP without looking at all. And yes some people open their car doors without first looking to see if a cyclist is approaching, pray tell. It's dangerous. I see it all the time. Don't care whose fault it is.

The way I ride, I try to minimize the threat of these possibilities.

UniChris

This was not a MUP, and it was not a pedestrian being passed, nor a MUP cyclist.

It was a cyclist on the road, being passed at a speed actually on the low end of common road passing speeds used by cars.

You're just letting the fact that the person doing the passing was on a bike rather than in a car skew your expectations.

Maybe, just maybe, the most productive use of your thoughts would be to stay focused on the way you ride...

... rather than continuing to brainstorm new ways to attack others.

Homebrew01

Welcome to A&S

bikelif3

Nahhh...I think I'll continue to have opinions and say what's on my mind. You should stop lecturing people. Also, stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Siu Blue Wind

bikelif3 and UniChris Did you guys see post 29? If not, I'll repeat:

stop it

bikelif3

Nah...I'll continue to have a voice, even if you don't like it. You stop it. Stop telling people what to do without contributing anything meaningful.

Homebrew01

Closed

Homebrew01

Not in this thread.