Fucking drivers!!!

[Beaver]

A couple weeks ago I was riding up a hill on a bike path alongside the highway and I noticed a car brake and hang a right off the highway. Had I not hit the brakes I would have hit her. Fast forward 4 days. I pulled up to the stop line at a red light along side a sweet Pontiac Sunfire. The light turned green and off I went, I was almost through the intersection when the Sunfire passed me, about 150' later he drifts left and slows as if to make a left turn then cranks a right into the Canadian Wholesale grocery store. Well fuck me if he didn't smoke me. I'm pretty sure first contact was my hand hitting his mirror, then various bits of me (knee, foot, ribs) hit his car as I rolled over the hood and onto the ground. I scrambled out of the way so he didn't run my foot over.

The lady behind us pulled over and calls 911, I got an ambulance ride and lots of x-rays. Nothing broke, I figure my many years of crashing have taught me to crash well. I was about half a block from work so I called a coworker to come and grab my bike. He chatted with the guy that hit me who seemed to think it was my fault for riding too fast in a the bike lane. Fucking idiot. The cops showed up at the hospital to ask questions. ICBC (the insurance company) is involved so I'm getting some free massage therapy, physio & chiropractor visits. They told me to get an estimate to fix my bike and they'll cover that too.

A week later and my hand still hurts like fuck but mostly I'm in good shape. I can't pick anything up and can't do much with my hand without pain but considering I got smoked by a car it's pretty minor. I'm walking around like Chubbs Peterson.

[BCMtnHound]

Glad you are mostly alright and will be back on the road with a new whip soon. I loathe riding a bike anywhere near vehicles, suburbia and urbia especially. Drivers just do not see those on 2 wheels. Road to school in Edmonton daily in the early 90's, a nice small town like city where very few went anywhere fast, and got hit at least twice a school season over the 3 yrs I was on a bike there. Mostly from vehicles making right hand turns. They would almost pass the me doing about 10kph faster than I, and then make a hard right into side streets or garages/lots. I had mtn bars on the bike without end caps and left most with very deep gouges along the passenger side of their vehicles. Luckily I never went over a hood or worse.

Heal up fast!

[Jonny Snow]

Any time you get hit by a car, it's automatically your fault. Because the car weighs 3000+ lb and you don't.

[TBS]

^^^True dat.

Back in my road racing days I put down about 150 miles per week in the PDX metro area. In that 12 year span I got doored, spiderwebbed the back window of a car, went over the trunk of cars twice, went over the hood of cars at least twice. In every case, driver was at fault, but my body and bikes took the brunt.. And while its cool to get new wheelsets and all, it ain't worth the road rash and bruises.

[jono]

Who had the over on Highway Sanders being even dumber than previously thought?

Glad to hear you're recovering Beaver, GL.

[Dantheman]

Glad you're OK, Beav. The "pass to immediate right turn" move is such bullshit. Of course, drivers do it to other drivers all the time, too.

[plugboots]

My second car smashing was the exact same style. Dude swung his pickup left, to immediate right, to me flying over the hood. Anyway, I learned to be hyper cautious in that scenario, which is nice.

[Bruce Springskiin]

Glad you are healing up beaver. Be cautious out there.
On the counter I had a biker wearing headphones take a left turn in front of me once. No where to go but into the side of him. No signal no look over the shoulder. I had already seen him running stop signs and riding recklessly on my drive home. Odds are he was having a bad day, and just wanted to blast tunes and escape.
So while these right turns are dick moves on the drivers part. I always ride defensively on bicycles and a motorcycle. The risk is higher when you are not in the car.

[Danno]

Glad you're not dead, dude.

I do my best to only ride trails and bike paths, I just don't trust cars. They're driven by idiots and they can kill me.

[Dantheman]

I do my best to only ride trails and bike paths, I just don't trust cars. They're driven by idiots and they can kill me.

All true. But, I really regret not switching to bike commuting years ago. NFW am I going back to driving every day despite the risks. Road riding for recreation is still a hard pass.

[Rideski]

Humans r doomed

[Doremite]

I tried to beat a walk sign in downtown Boston today. I bike daily. Know the route and knew I’d picked the wrong intersection to punch. Light flipped just as I was approaching the intersection, had to jam the brakes in wet conditions, started fish tailing, jammed the front brake and over the bars I went. Luckily the car in the closest lane saw me and didn’t move. Picked up my bike , apologized and was fine. Minor scrapes and sore neck but was a stupid move by an experienced commuter. Just a warning to be smart out there. Consider myself super careful and smart about urban riding and almost put myself in a tight spot today. Fucking biker in this case but I see the horrid driving day in out. Glad you made it out safely op. Was mad at myself today as it was avoidable. Isn’t aways.

[The SnowShow]

This dude is doing his best at fighting the stupidity of bad drivers:
https://youtu.be/AYwnnLNbJe8

[TBS]

Yup. That assclown's antics have been thoroughly documented in the Fucking Cyclists thread. He may be right (not sure how "slower traffic keep right" applies in MN), but his approach is gonna get him or other cyclists permanently hurt.

[Jonny Snow]

that guy is a dick and is gonna get smoked by karma

Who is going to post the video when he gets run over?

[TBS]

He will, with his GSA-like use of multiple go-pros

[Jonny Snow]

He will, with his GSA-like use of multiple go-pros

It's nice to put a face with the sociopathic behavior:

https://www.wrubrecht.com/photos.html

The thing that I find so unbelievably ironic about this is that Minneapolis / St. Paul is already one of the most bike friendly cites in the country.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

...along side a sweet Pontiac Sunfire.

Those are sweet. Was it the model with the small picnic table at base of rear window and was it teal green?

Glad to read it was not worse than what you got.

I commute 35km round trip daily to work in addition to all my road and mtn riding. I've been creamed twice, and each time walked away with some minor bruises etc in light of what should have been certain violent death. You may wish to PM me. Just because we are both in BC and dealing with our insurance provider was a very interesting experience and if I could do the last time over again I would do it a lot differently.

[Jonny Snow]

Ravings of a madman:

Awright motherfucker, let's do the dance.

Bicyclists must travel as close as practicable

Let's assume that there were not a "reasonable necessity" to avoid a hazard in this case, and that I am fully subject to riding as close as practicable to the right side of the roadway.
The roadway is defined thusly by Minnesota statute 169.011 subd. 68:
"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder [emphasis mine].
That means that I am only required to ride as close as practicable to the white line on the right that indicates the beginning of the shoulder.
So what counts as "as far right as practicable?" Well, let's take a look at where the two premiere cycling-safety authorities in the U.S. indicate a cyclist should practicably (safely) travel on the road.
CyclingSavvy
"Driving in the middle of the lane actually protects cyclists against the most common motorist-caused crashes: sideswipes, right hooks, left crosses, and drive-outs. A bicycle driver’s top safety priority is to ensure he or she can be seen by motorists with whom they might potentially be in conflict, and bicycling in the middle of a lane is one of the most effective ways to do that. Most overtaking crashes involve a motorist who attempts to squeeze past (illegally) in a lane that is too narrow to share."
League of American Bicyclists
"Ride in the right third of the right-most lane that goes in the direction you are going"
Now, of course, that assumes that no hazards are present on the road. However, one of the hazards present on the road at this time were moving objects - to wit, the motor vehicles all around me. The presence of moving objects are one of the many circumstances explicitly mentioned in the non-comprehensive list of exceptions to the "close as practicable" requirement under Minnesota statute 169.222 subd. 4(3)
"when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge"
Is it reasonably necessary for a cyclist to move further into the lane to prevent close passes - in other words, to avoid the hazard of moving objects?
We already know from the above-quoted language from CyclingSavvy that they explicitly believe it is, indeed, reasonably necessary. The League concurs:
"Ride in the middle of the lane if traveling the same speed as traffic or in a narrow lane"
Here we see another exception under the hazards lists come into play - narrow lanes.
As others have pointed out, "narrow lane" is not legally defined in Minnesota. However, "substandard width lane" is defined in the Uniform Vehicle Code as a lane in which a motor vehicle and a cyclist may not travel side-by-side safely. This is the most likely evidence that would be used if such a question ever came up in court, and based on other states, we have great reason to believe this standard would be accepted by a court in Minnesota.
Minnesota statute 169.18 subd. 3(3) states:
"the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the roadway shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual."
My backpack measures about 2.5 feet across. Given that the above guidance from the two premiere cycling-safety organizations in the country indicates I should be riding (on a lane such as this that is 10-12 feet wide) about three feet from the shoulder at all times, and the fact that a vehicle cannot pass any closer than three feet from me, and the fact that most vehicles are at least six feet across, there are no lanes in the Twin Cities metro area of which I am aware (though there probably are exceptions, just not on roads I use) wherein a motor vehicle operator and a cyclist could share a lane safely.
Given that fact that the lane is narrow, and the fact that I have a reasonable necessity to avoid the hazard presented by the moving vehicles passing me illegally closely, I am free of my obligation to ride as close as practicable to the right side of the road. I could, indeed, be riding along the left edge of the lane and be perfectly legal.
In any case, from a legal and cycling-safety perspective, there is absolutely no doubt in the question of whether my road positioning in this video was correct.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roadcam/com...pedes/dxtcl27/

I'd say that it's pretty unlikely that anyone would go to jail, were they to accidently hit and kill this guy, if they were otherwise operating their vehicle in a normal manner.

[Dantheman]

X-post from the other thread: It's too bad his name isn't Walter, because he's not wrong (mostly, I haven't watched that much of his stuff), just an asshole.

[mcski]

In the way Cops aren't technically wrong for writing j walking tickets , just annoying assholes

[Jonny Snow]

From Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roadcam/com...pedes/dxtgw8a/

I understand why people feel this way. This is how I generally try to explain my attitude to people like yourself who seem more interested in the actual answer to the question rather than just using it as a way to excuse shitty driving.
I grew up in a hunting family. I've been handling guns since I was twelve, and I've been getting instruction on safe gun handling since well before that.
At every step of the way, I was told that safe gun handling is something that must be made into a habit. It is not enough to think, "Oh, I'm holding a gun right now, I must make sure not to point it in the direction of any persons." Rather, I was expected to simply make it muscle memory to keep my muzzle pointed away from any persons, even if the weapon was unloaded, the action open, and the safety on. If someone moved in front of my muzzle, it became a habit for me to adjust the gun to compensate for their change in position.
When shooting, I was told that I must be absolutely certain of the target and everything that lay beyond the trajectory of my shot. This was also expected to be made into a habit, so that when "buck fever" took hold of me, I didn't have to think about the potential consequences of my shot or weigh any statistical risks or any of that jazz - it just became a natural part of lining up a shot to process, unconsciously, everything that lay beyond my target and to not take the shot if I couldn't be sure my bullet wouldn't do any harm to persons or property.
In many, many cases, waggling the muzzle of a gun towards a person is of no real consequence, because the gun is unloaded, and/or the action is open, and/or the safety is on, and/or your hand doesn't happen to slip such that your finger activates the trigger. Nonetheless, waggling the muzzle of a gun towards a person is a deeply irresponsible thing to do, not specifically because of the level of danger introduced by any given incident, but because it indicates that one lacks the sense of responsibility appropriate for handling that much lethal potential - that one has not spent the time, effort, and attention necessary to make safe handling of that lethal potential a habit.
When a driver crosses the limit line, whether or not they actually put any persons in danger with that action, they are displaying the same lack of sense of responsibility towards the lethal potential they are handling as an irresponsible handler of a gun - and considering cars kill more people than guns by a healthy margin, even counting suicides, it could be argued that their moral failure is even deeper. Stopping behind the limit line should simply be muscle memory. Habit. One should not be thinking, "Well this is a pretty empty intersection, so it doesn't really matter if I roll through this one." One should simply stop. Every single time.
This is why I get angry. I get angry because people treat machines that kill 40,000 people a year with the same level of concern that they treat their refrigerator. Because most drivers on the road casually break the speed limit, casually roll through stop signs and rights on red, casually park in bike lanes, and a long litany of other irresponsible behavior that I see every day, all day long. The chances of any given incident of such behavior leading to actual injury or death is low, but the aggregate failure of the driving population to treat their cars like the deadly machines that they are kills a hundred people a day in the U.S.
If people behaved so unsafely with a gun, absolutely no one would think I was overly aggressive in yelling at them. They would think, "How dare that irresponsible fuck behave like that with such a deadly machine. Good on that guy for giving him the business." There is no moral difference between a gun and a car vis a vis safe handling - the only differences between the two are a) the function they play in most people's lives and b) their level of commonplaceness in our everyday lives.
This is why I frequently talk about the "culture of car violence" - we are so used to the presence of cars in our lives, and so used to handling their lethal potential, that it erases from our mind the fact that we're in control of machines that kill. We get lazy. We think of unsafe behavior as something "everyone does," and in our minds, that excuses our unsafe behavior. We have been encouraged in this by the intervention of corporate interests - for example, the successful effort by car manufacturers to coin the term "jaywalker" and to put the presumption of blame for a pedestrian-motorist collision on the pedestrian.
We need to shake people out of that mentality. We need to fight back against the culture of car violence. We need to start making a big fuss about people not treating the driving of cars with the respect, attention, and effort the activity deserves.

No question, the guy has a good point here. That people should be as concerned about cars as they are about guns is particularly salient in today's political and geopolitical climate.

[mcski]

The bike vigilante asshole spends most of his videos yelling at parked cars so meh

[The SnowShow]

Drivers are so buried in their phones while driving these days that I’m terrified to bike on streets. Driving also makes me nervous. I look around and fucking EVERYONE is on their phones texting and staring down while moving. It’s unbelievable.

[gravitylover]

Drivers are so buried in their phones while driving these days that I’m terrified to bike on streets. Driving also makes me nervous. I look around and fucking EVERYONE is on their phones texting and staring down while moving. It’s unbelievable.

I've about had it with missing head ons by seconds as they just barely pull back onto their side of the road in time. It's also more than just frustrating that stop signs really have become optional for most people.