howaboutme

Not talking about fault here. Just some common sense and not a sense of entitlement on the roads. I have found that if you respect the cars, they will respect you. I always do a wave to a passing car if I know they have done above and beyond to keep me safe.

work4bike

That's why it's important to practice your bunny-hopping skills

base2 

The footage looked to stable to be from a bicycle. Given the prevalence of dashcams and rear facing license plate cams, etc...That the footage was from a bicycle didn't occur to me.

Not concerned about wrongful rear end collision of a car. Acknowledging a scenario where rear facing license plate cam made sense.


How do you demonstrate respect to a road user that runs you down from behind in order to beg/garner respectful human treatment in their actions towards you? There doesn't seem to be a lot of opportunity presented to do so. Please do tell how a wave or friendly smile would have prevented this assault.

howaboutme

I guess you own the road when you're on your bike knowing that you are not on a mode of transportation that's on the top of the food chain? Let me guess, you also don't wave at other cyclists? Do you also not have insurance thinking "this won't happen to me"?

This incident is an extraordinary circumstance. Oftentimes, you can't use these types of circumstances and apply them to typical situations. (For example, plane's aren't built to defy gravity and not fall when there's a mechanical problem or a wing falls off. That's an extraordinary circumstance.) However, what you can do is use this as an opportunity to help make typical life better. Don't be an a$$ and take up the entire road when there are cars. There are certain things you can control. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or an aerospace engineer to know that cyclists traveling in a paceline, as close to the line as possible, will be safer then if they are were 2-wide in the middle of the lane.

njkayaker

You can see the rear wheel of the bicycle.

(It might not be exactly safe to follow a car at such a close distance anyway.)

This is a weird statement.

cranky old road 

Must not be rocket scentists:

Riding two abreast is safer when a group of riders are travelling on a road with one lane in each direction which are not wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass even a single rider while staying in the lane. When the driver already needs to move into the lane of oncoming traffic to make a safe pass, riding two-abreast will take up less distance on the road so once the way is clear the pass of a group of riders can be made quicker.

Is riding single file safer than riding two abreast?

njkayaker

Your problem is that your advice was't really germane to the thread topic. And the way you presented it implied you thought it was.

This isn't relevant and it's also gratuitous. It's possible the cyclists were doing exactly what you are recommending.

base2 

At issue here is you don't seem to think that a bicycle is an acceptable means of conveyance upon the roadway. I don't own the road. Neither do cars or car drivers. All persons have a right to the public thoroughfare. The car driver however poses a risk to others through negligent or unsafe operation of their vehicle. That is why the license exists.

I have a right to use the road. The driver has a license to use the road. That's the difference. If the driver is unwilling or unable to drive their vehicle in a manner that is respectful of the rights and liberties of others, he/she has no business operating a vehicle. Period.

These bike riders using the roadway is not an extraordinary circumstance. These cyclist had a right to be there. The same right as anybody else. What's extraordinary is the random assault they suffered at the driver's negligence.

No, I don't wave at others cyclists, or motorists for that matter. Means of conveyance does not make you special. Nor does it confer upon you any special privileges.

Stop making excuses for car derived supremacy. Start understanding human road users are human persons.

Mtracer

No reason for the bikes to ride single file in this situation. The lane is in use by the bikes, there is no shoulder or other place for them to be. The car had an entire other lane to use and very light traffic.

Had I been riding this by myself, I would have been in the middle of that lane, "taking" or "claiming" the lane. In this case, there was no shoulder at all, trying to ride to the far right simply invites cars to try to squeeze past. Much better to make it clear they have to change lanes to get around you.

As for the reported drunk driver, all bets are off in that situation.

JW Fas

Now you have.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...289398032.html

In this Fox source there are photos of the empty cans, and it's specified that the motorist drank Voodoo Ranger Juice Force, which is 9.5% ABV. I've had this beer before, and it will get you lit.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/benjam...n-dallas-texas

Wanting motorists to drive responsibly and not kill people is a heck of a bias.

njkayaker

The details of these sorts of incidents often doesn't all come out at first. You could have waited before you passed judgement.

One report stated that the road is part of "a popular circuit for group rides" (suggesting that it's legal to ride there). Speculating about a place you don't know anything about doesn't seem that valuable.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/benjam...n-dallas-texas

njkayaker

This is the approximate location (in the direction of the camera on the bike):

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uhaxz6GddNGrYqVS7

The speed limit is 45 mph.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/benjam...n-dallas-texas

cranky old road 

The entire thread seems to have presumed this occurred on a road with one lane in each direction, but I've thought they were riding in the right lane of a double-laned divided highway. The google maps link above seems to support this. Can anyone clarify?

njkayaker

No, you aren't paying enough attention. The thread isn’t doing the presuming you think it is

It’s a “divided highway@ with two lanes in each direction. Most people in this thread appear to have gotten that.

??? Why isn’t the link enough? It’s supposed to be the clarification.

It’s easy enough to match elements in the link to the video.

howaboutme

Appreciate all of the response. We are talking about opinions. Even the Canadian article seems to be based on anecdotes (it doesn't reference any study or other data). However, I do agree with much of what was written. My statements (opinion) is closely based on the 2nd part, where it may not be appropriate to do 2 wide. Like all opinions, you can't prove one opinion wrong with another opinion. That said, I respect everyone else's thoughts.

My last points on this that nothing can excuse drunk driving or other form of reckless driving. The driver is clearly at fault. However, I disagree (again, an opinion) with the notion that we cyclists are worth the same as cars. If we get hit, we may be dead. If a car gets hit, there is a good chance you will survive. As a result, I chose to always err on the side of caution even if I feel like I deserve more room or the right of way. To purposefully take the entire lane if you are a lone cyclist just begs for road rage.

The comments on this forum seem to be so negative and charged up and I got caught up in that.

njkayaker

You are basically assuming everybody here (and the cyclists in the video) are clueless idiots. And that you are the only person who has figured everything out.

There are times when taking the lane (even when solo) is the better option.

If you really want to eliminate road rage, your only option is to stay off the road.

You are coming across as advocating being overly conciliatory to drivers.

howaboutme

Man, calm down. It's no use responding to you. Do you wake up on the wrong side of the bed every morning?

njkayaker

You should probably give up the internet. It’s definitely more than you can handle.

vol

A step-through would be good for that.

He's lucky to be wearing a helmet. He hit his head.

base2 

I understand you are being conciliatory so I'm not going to badger you. What I did say were facts based on law. But, I'm giving you a mulligan on account of A) You don't have a lot of post history, and B) This incident further highlights the need for non-car-centric infrastructure and the infrastructure we do have should seperate out traffic by mode.

The take away here is unnecessary modal conflict by way of poor road design caused catastrophic consequences. You are correct that the root cause is the intermixing of cars with just about everything else. The solution is not removing bicycles. It is curtailing the unfettered freedom, impunity and disproportionate favorable treatment afforded to motor vehicles at the expense of everything else.

These cyclists are victims of car-dependency, poor government policy (on a variety of levels) and inadequate infrastructure. However much the individual actions of the driver factored into the collision, the stage was set for failure by local government the road engineer, and his engineering manuals. This is unacceptable.

Chistophe516

This is more than a hit-n-run. Because the driver ran over one of the cyclists. While it wouldn't qualify for ATTEMPTED MURDER. It could certainly meet the standard for FELONIOUS ASSAULT.

Duragrouch

Blood alcohol reported as over 0.15: Gosh this is decades ago, but I thought I recall an article in Car & Driver where they actually set about doing a test on a closed skidpad, and I think by the time they got to (if my memory is correct) 0.08 which is the limit in many states, the test subjects were bombed, the conclusion of the article was that 0.08 limit is too high. Now, neither of the test subjects were heavy drinkers, but 0.15 sounds really high. Not doubting it, just that seems to me super bombed. I guess muscle memory allowed them to unlock their car, put the key in the ignition, and shift into drive. Witnesses following the car and alerting police, very high probability they saved others from harm. Bad enough, but could have been worse. And as implied above, American Airlines will investigate, and if not, the Transportation Security Administration, as this may revoke the driver's airport security clearance.

Paul Barnard

Uh, that's because cyclists are entitled. It's not a feeling either, it's the law. They are entitled to the road and are just as entitled as motor vehicles.

Paul Barnard

You should read this with an open mind. How many accidents types can the risk be mitigated by being out in the lane? Really, answer that question. https://www.bicyclesafe.com/

It didn't take me long riding in traffic to realize that if I routinely relegated myself to the right edge of the road I had more close calls than I did when I rode out in the lane. Out in the lane is generally my default position, I'll gravitate toward the right when the circumstances warrant it.

CAT7RDR

Let us not forget that according to the NIH 1.2% of the US population are psychopathic in a general sense but most are not actively looking to run down cyclists with 3 ton SUVS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374040/

As for me, I just try to limit my exposure that would put me in harms way.