Maelochs

Also ... the driver was pulling itno a large private health/fitness facility called The Boulvard Club. The Boulevard Club - Toronto, ON - Home We have no idea if the driver was a member or not. he could have been going to the club, had the collision, and thought he would drive away and hide ... but pulled up too far and couldn't get his ID out and into the scanner. Or maybe he didn't think it was a huge deal and was just going about his business at the Boulevard Club when the rider came up to his window screaming. None of us know.

It is interesting how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" plays out though ...

"Burn him! Hang him! Stone him to death!"

"And then let's see about gathering evidence to see what actually happened."

Hoopdriver

I appreciate you editing this quote. You did see that knowing that "bit" did change the way you would have read my original post. I probably should have just used "cyclist" instead of his odd YouTube name.

Yes absolutely right, and this is an important point. We all miss the huge body of information that we would gain through direct observation rather than through a short video seen through the subjective and prejudicial filters that our minds plague us with.

If you do feel that I overlooked any specific factual point, I am standing by for enlightenment.

mcours2006

Doesn't have to happen that way. Yesterday morning I was riding on a residential road doing about 30 kph and approach another side street. A car came to the stop sign. I rang my bell as I approached it trying to draw the driver's attention. He/She obviously didn't see me with my two 400 lm lights directed right at him/her. Nor did he hear me. Driver rolled through the stop sign and only saw me last minute did he stop, and then with half the car jutting out onto the road. So had there been a collision I would have been the one to hit the car. Not the other way around. The video would have shown the driver at fault for failing to obey a stop sign, but little consolation to me and my hypothetical mangled bike.

Thankfully, it's only a hypothetical crash as I took evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision..

Maelochs

Here is where we differ ... I might have slowed more when i saw the driver not noticing me ... if I could.

I have had drivers (seriously, not metaphorically) come within a few inches of me in that situation .... so if I cannot get what i think is absolute acknowledgement, I Expect the driver to try to hit me ... because he simply has no clue that I am there.

Yes, i understand that sometimes a car can pull in front of a driver. i mean seriously ... let's both put our e-peens away and try to talk like adults.

Likely both of is have tens of thousands of miles of road-riding experience. Both of us have seen all the stupid things drivers---and other cyclists--can do. Likely we both have had many, many close calls, and probably a few collisions. Likely we have each done a few stupid things ourselves, and learned from them.

If we have that amount of respect for one another ... then pointing out that in other situations other things can happen is sort of Captain Obvious Explains the Self-Explanatory to People who Already Know.

So, yes ... the fact that in Totally different things can happen for totally different reasons Is completely extraneous to this situation, and completely hypothetical as it pertains to This specific situation.

This was not a driver pulling in front of a cyclist who had the right of way. This is a case of a cyclist deliberately riding in front of a moving car---when he had every choice not to, and plenty of time to exercise that option.

I am not trying to prove you are wrong. I am simply saying that what happened in a completely unrelated situation has no bearing in this situation. The cyclist simply should have stopped and waited----he was last vehicle to the intersection, and the other vehicle was on his right. In the U.S. at least, the Driver had the right of way. The cyclist should have stopped.

turn it around .... if a car had cut across in front of a moving cyclist, trying to beat the cyclist through an intersection, and wiped out the cyclist (as the cyclist hit the car and bounced away) would you give the driver a pass? If a driver pulled in front of an Already Moving cyclist after ignoring a road sign admonishing the driver to slow down, and the driver blocked the cyclist and flattened him ... whose fault then??

mcours2006

Yes, let's keep the discussion relevant to the OP.

wphamilton

That, but more than that. Sometimes you hear in an argument arising from a collision or close call, "I had the right of way" as if it were a privilege granted by the traffic code. Or you see people driving, oblivious, staring straight ahead because they "have the right of way" thinking that anything that happens isn't their fault. But the reality is, both of them are wrong because they don't have anything added that they didn't already have. They don't have to yield to that person on the cross-street, that's all. Anything that arises from right of way pertains to the person needing to yield.

If a person refuses to yield to you, that's a transgression that's on them but you still don't get to just keep going just because you "have" the right of way, because you specifically are in the same situation whether or not he was supposed to yield. You still have to back off, or move over, so you don't run into him. It doesn't grant you anything extra.

Jim from Boston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

I think I see your point. A driver might yield to a cyclist trying to cross against a red light allowing him to run the red light. The cyclist can’t/won’t/don’t do so (legally), but that’s another topic of many threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wphamilton

That, but more than that. Sometimes you hear in an argument arising from a collision or close call, "I had the right of way" as if it were a privilege granted by the traffic code. Or you see people driving, oblivious, staring straight ahead because they "have the right of way" thinking that anything that happens isn't their fault.

But the reality is, both of them are wrong because they don't have anything added that they didn't already have. They don't have to yield to that person on the cross-street, that's all. Anything that arises from right of way pertains to the person needing to yield.

If a person refuses to yield to you, that's a transgression that's on them but you still don't get to just keep going just because you "have" the right of way, because you specifically are in the same situation whether or not he was supposed to yield.

You still have to back off, or move over, so you don't run into him. It doesn't grant you anything extra.

I still say, at least for the sake of simplicity and quick thinking:

Maelochs

All "right of way" is ultimately good for is assigning degree of fault after an accident.

"Rules of the Road" and plain common sense should be enough to prevent all accidents except mechanical failure (which are about 1 or 3 percent.) but .... people can be idiots. It is the one universal talent.

The simple fact that I have said or seen others say in various posts, that under no circumstances are we Allowed to run over one another ... the simple fact that a situation would arise where such a thing could be said seriously ... demonstrates the existence of the "moron" gene in pretty much every human being. ("What do you mean i can't hit him? I had the right of way!")

I think Jim from well east of Westhampton is saying that regardless of the law ... the actual right to physically occupy a given space inheres to the party willing to absorb the most damage. The law might say you can go .. but if I simply don't care if we wreck, or cannot formulate the simple idea that if I go and you go we go into each other .... then you have a legal right but not a physical way. Legally "right of way" is codified ... but on the road, it is determined by agreement--or not determined by disagreement (i.e. collision.) In ugly terms ... it is illegal for me to shoot you, but if I shoot you, you are shot.

In real life, "right of way" is actually a matter of consensus. (There used to be a YouTube clip of three cars colliding in an intersection because all three drivers were sure They had right of way.)

"Right of Way"is a legal fiction. It provides a person the ability to go where he will in the same way an overhead traffic light stops a car---i.e. not at all. The driver stops the car. The driver lets other vehicles go or doesn't.

In this case, the driver was an ignorant idiot lost in his own disconnected reality, and the cyclist was a self-entitled jackhole who truly seemed to believe that he was always right because he liked to bike.

Neither were particularly good "ambassadors" nor particularly "cultured." The only differentiation I make between them is that of "ignorance" versus "willful ignorance." I find the latter more offensive ... and both equally common.

njkayaker

I didn't claim it was "proof". It just seems unlikely that it was a coincidence.

My emotions aren't "stirred", by the way.

He knew to a fairly-high degree of certainty what direction the cyclist was going and that he could likely drive faster than the cyclist was riding (no "tracking" was necessary). The rest of it doesn't matter because there would have been no real cost not knowing the other stuff (it just would have been a "missed opportunity").

The driver left the second driveway in the opposite direction. That suggests it was possible that the driver was intending to turn right out of the first driveway.

"Ramming" (using a reasonable understanding of the meaning of that term) isn't what appeared to have happened.

But you are setting up a false dilemma. That it wasn't "ramming" doesn't mean it wasn't deliberate.

The creeping doesn't appear to be "a constant speed" either.

This doesn't make sense at all. The driver moved into the cycle path. How did the cyclist "know" the car was going to move into the cycle path?

njkayaker

Yes, saying "cyclist" or "driver" makes the roles easier to follow.

The driver wasn't stopped when the other two cyclists crossed.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maelochs

Seems you asked and answered yourself there.

Also watch the video or look at the stills in post 25. The car was in the bike path well before before the bike reached the car.

As YOU note, the car never stopped moving. The car was rolling forward slowly (even when there was a woman, a dog, and two cyclists in front of it) and never stopped … not much changed pace, that I can see.

The cyclist would have seen the MOVING car advancing towards and into the Intersection—let us be clear, it was the intersection of a driveway and a road, Not just an MUP at that point—and had all the time in the world to slow … but instead chose to blast through at undiminished speed into the path of an oncoming car.

Another point—it is impossible to be sure, but it looks as if the car’s front tires are aimed slightly left at 0:17, which might indicate that the driver did indeed intend to turn left.

Wonder why the cyclist let the guy go? I might have stood behind his car until the cops came—he was completely boxed in, unless he had an ID for the club.

Maelochs

Thought about this some while out riding.

What is comes down to, for me, is this: if I had children and was teaching them to ride, i would have taught them to go behind the car which was trying to pull out into traffic---safety and simple courtesy-- and I would have taught them to slow and then stop when they saw a moving car approaching the bike lane at an intersection where it had plainly been waiting to cross.

If any of my children had dashed across In Front of a Moving Car, and somehow they didn't get hit, they likely would have gotten hit by me once I caught them---just so they would Never forget that playing chicken with cars has consequences.

I have no idea id the driver deliberately hit the cyclist or the cyclist deliberately got hi by the driver for that matter.

I sure know what safe,, smart, survival-oriented cycling looks like, and I didn't see any from the cyclist.

I know what heads-up urban driving looks like, and i didn't see any from the driver in the actual collision encounter. i see nothing he did wrong at the first encounter.

Not my monkeys, not my circus.

CB HI

Or maybe the motorist decided he needed to go back home to get his fancy new car and proper private club required clothes to meet the dress code for his day at the spa. He might had thought 'how much easier it would be to back up making a three point turn rather than just a normal U-turn after the gate. Then the motorist leaves the scene entirely.

For others, right about 1:07 the car was at a full stop for a fraction of a second. Odd how that slow crawl and a fraction of a second stop, made the timing just right for a T-bone maneuver.

njkayaker

No. You are being inconsistent. If the rider had the opportunity to get in the path of the car, the driver had the same opportunity to get in the path of the cyclist.

"Blast"??

The car shouldn't have been in the MUP at that point. He shouldn't have been creeping.

I'm not saying the cyclist didn't do things he shouldn't have.

You can't really tell at that point.

It is clear that the driver went right after the second intersection.

The driver should have seen the cyclist.

Again, with "blast".

njkayaker

The cyclist might have been a bit of a dope too. It seems he could have avoided the collision.

I-Like-To-Bike

But then the camera wielding cyclist would have missed out on some prime electrons to post on YouTube. And possible a payday too!

"#^%^^ You're going to jail!"

Milton Keynes

Sorry, this is utterly ridiculous. The bike was way in front of the car when it got hit.

sirkaos

I may have missed it, but did anyone notice the tinting on the drivers side window? It is not as dark as the rear windows, which is completely blacked out. But it is dark enough that it would be real hard to see if the driver made eye contact at all.
I feel like in Southern California, the window tint law is almost never enforced. If I cant see the driver, I stop, which is a real pain in the but when your going along at 18 mph. It would be nice to see the drivers face staring directly at the cyclist prior to impact. That would carry a lot of weight in my own opinion in a court of law to prove intent. Does anyone else see that??

Maelochs

That is insane.

What you said is that since this guy got his windows tinted very dark maybe a few years ago, that proves he deliberately hit this cyclist however many years later?

That is so for beyond merely illogical as to be insane.

I don't like not being able to see a driver's eyes ... but hey, i ride at night a lot so I can never see a driver's face. Stopping is not that great a nuisance compared to getting hit. So, yes ... excessive window tint is athing ... but not a really serious thing ... pretty sure the driver could see the cyclist if he had looked.

However .... getting tinted windows on your car (or as i did it i got a car as a gift which had tinted windows) doesn't equal plotting vehicular homicide.

That is just insane.

CB HI

Maybe, but I did not see the cyclist commit an intentional battery.

njkayaker

That's why I was more interested in the driver.

Anyway....

That the driver may have committed an intentional battery doesn't mean the cyclist wasn't a bit of a dope.

The two things are separate.

The cyclist can't control the behavior of the driver. All he can do is avoiding being a bit a dope.


​​​​Since this is a cycling forum, it's useful to talk about things the cyclist has control over.

02Giant 

The driver pulled into the path of the cyclist. The driver is at fault.

sirkaos

Ah, ok , let's dial it down just a bit. 4th cup? might want to cut back....

As far as I could tell in the video, let me double check, Ahhhhh yes, it is daytime. Ok. So the first thing I am going to check when I come riding up on that situation is "What is his intentions"?? He is stopped for the other cyclists, is he focused on them, is he looking at me, is his head down checking urgent effing text messages? What are HIS INTENTIONS?? If I cant even make eye contact with him, BECAUSE HIS WINDOWS ARE TINTED, I cannot be sure, then I have to make the best decision I can. I am not going to fault the cyclist at all. He made a judgement call with good reasons. For me, I would make a decision based on my own speed, angle and best judgement.

Also think about this.... suppose he doesnt have his windows tinted, and the driver is looking directly at the rider as he drives right into him. Oh, I can imagine the looks from the jurors as they think to themselves, well that is good news, I am going to be home this weekend cause that Asshat driver is guilty as sin, cause I can see him looking at the camera. That driver intentionally drove into that cyclist. Guilty!

Tinting can absolutely create several problems. You dont want to believe that, cause you have tinting on your car. Dude, check your shoes before you walk into your house, cause you just stepped in a big steaming pile, and it reeks!

You funny guy!

KraneXL

Yes, he could have stayed home. Really Timmy? You're being influence by bad reasoning. The cyclist is on the MUPs, it doesn't get any safer than that.