Driver cuts off cyclist, then goes nuts

[GagHalfrunt]

or there was nothing to show and the rider doesn't want to upload 15 minutes of him riding around like a law abiding citizen. do you know why cyclists have gopros? to record asshole drivers and to help police solve his eventual murder via hit and run.

try riding a bike as a commuting vehicle for a while, you'll understand quickly that drivers are simply dicks.

Bullshit. Utter and completely delusional bullshit.


Did you even watch the video? The driver intended to cut him off and stop right where he did. He was charging out of the van before it stopped. Something else happened prior to the video and anyone with eyes and a brain knows that. So please come up with a plausible explanation about why the bike rider omitted that part because claiming there was nothing else to see is not going to fly. That video is most definitely not the complete story.

 

[DrPizza]

You can see that the minivan was wrong in the tiny fraction of the recording the guy on the bike wanted to show you.

What happened in the previous minute or two? That video was clearly only a part of the entire incident. The minivan driver cut off the bike on purpose and meant to stop right there. He was sending a message about something that happened earlier, why doesn't the guy on the bike want to show that part? Maybe, just maybe, he did something stupid and illegal, or even a series of stupid and illegal things that led to the escalation.

Is that the "two wrongs make a right" exception? (With some sort of pun hidden in there about the right turn.)

 

[Ns1]

Bullshit. Utter and completely delusional bullshit.


Did you even watch the video? The driver intended to cut him off and stop right where he did. He was charging out of the van before it stopped. Something else happened prior to the video and anyone with eyes and a brain knows that. So please come up with a plausible explanation about why the bike rider omitted that part because claiming there was nothing else to see is not going to fly. That video is most definitely not the complete story.

Yes, and as a cyclist I can tell you that people do that shit because cyclists are simply exercising their legal right to be on the road. You can search any ATOT thread regarding cyclists for this mentality.

Is it possible that the cyclist did something to antagonize the driver? Yes. It is the most likely reason the driver did what he did? No.

 

[KlokWyze]

He was at fault once he decided to drive a minivan.

 

[CountZero]

Driver was at fault.
But I hate cyclists.

This more or less.

 

[Ns1]

ok Gag, I LISTENED TO THE VIDEO this time and the other driver does not mention any type of previous encounter, his rage is entirely directed at the incident which occurs between 0:47 and 0:50 because the cyclist hits the back of the van.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Is that the "two wrongs make a right" exception? (With some sort of pun hidden in there about the right turn.)

No, just the point that two wrongs prove that both parties are idiots and the bike-huggers can get over their "every driver on the road is out to get us wonderful law-abiding paragons of road etiquette perfection" butt hurt.

Something else happened and the bike rider doesn't want anyone to see that part. A reasonable person would ask why.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Automobile drivers are usually people who eat poorly (probably to cope with the fact that they are evil horrible people with no redeemable qualities whatsoever) and do not exercise (they would rather drive,.. lol), so he probably has diabetes which explains his awful attitude.

 

[Ns1]

No, just the point that two wrongs prove that both parties are idiots and the bike-huggers can get over their "every driver on the road is out to get us wonderful law-abiding paragons of road etiquette perfection" butt hurt.

Something else happened and the bike rider doesn't want anyone to see that part. A reasonable person would ask why.

jesus christ man just listen to the audio. there is nothing supporting this assertion AT ALL.

 

[KlokWyze]

Automobile drivers are usually people who eat poorly (probably to cope with the fact that they are evil horrible people with no redeemable qualities whatsoever) and do not exercise (they would rather drive,.. lol), so he probably has diabetes which explains his awful attitude.

He was actually just furious that someone put their hands on his sweet ride.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

No, just the point that two wrongs prove that both parties are idiots and the bike-huggers can get over their "every driver on the road is out to get us wonderful law-abiding paragons of road etiquette perfection" butt hurt.

Something else happened and the bike rider doesn't want anyone to see that part. A reasonable person would ask why.

That is 100% conjecture on your part. As Ns1 has pointed out, the only thing the driver is yelling about is the incident in which he cut the cyclist off. I see no reason to believe that there was any other interaction relevant to what is shown on the video. You are speculating, based on zero evidence, that the cyclist has edited this video selectively - there is nothing to suggest that.

 

[glenn1]

Did you even watch the video? The driver intended to cut him off and stop right where he did.

I don't think he intended to "cut him off," I think he presumed that once passed (even if poorly) the other person would slow down. It was clearly obvious to the cyclist that the minivan driver was turning right and had his signals on especially once he started moving right. And in most states the bicyclist is legally wrong also.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No, just the point that two wrongs prove that both parties are idiots and the bike-huggers can get over their "every driver on the road is out to get us wonderful law-abiding paragons of road etiquette perfection" butt hurt.

Something else happened and the bike rider doesn't want anyone to see that part.A reasonable person would ask why.

If you watch the video you can see the minivan pass the cyclist and nobody in the minivan is even paying any attention to the cyclist. I see nothing in the video to indicate there was a prior incident.

 

[Ns1]

And in most states the bicyclist is legally wrong also.

please elaborate.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't think he intended to "cut him off," I think he presumed that once passed (even if poorly) the other person would slow down. It was clearly obvious to the cyclist that the minivan driver was turning right and had his signals on especially once he started moving right. And in most states the bicyclist is legally wrong also.

Putting your turn signal on a second before you cut someone off doesn't absolve you of your shitty driving. The driver should have waited and merged behind the bicycle, not sped up to cut him off and turn.

 

[KeithP]

If I was on the bike in that situation, I would have slowed to let the minivan turn.

The driver of the van, based on what he said, is pissed because the cyclists intentionally hit his vehicle (or at least the cyclist did something that made the driver think that...the video isn't clear in that regard). That was stupid on the part of the cyclist.

By the letter of the law, I think the driver is at fault. And his reaction was over the top and uncalled for. However, I think there is no question that the cyclist is responsible for it happening.

I can also perfectly describe the mindset of the cyclist. He is one of these guys that bitches every single time a motor vehicle doesn't strictly follow the rules and road and happily posts videos such as this one. What you never see (unless you are on the road with him) is his frequent disregard for traffic laws when he decides it is easier for him.

-KeithP

 

[glenn1]

Putting your turn signal on a second before you cut someone off doesn't absolve you of your shitty driving. The driver should have waited and merged behind the bicycle, not sped up to cut him off and turn.

Agreed on both counts. But once that shitty driver completed cutting off the bicyclist, the cyclist had the obligation to yield and/or pass on the left if he was able to do so. You are not relieved of your responsbility to avoid a collision if you have any ability to do so. And yes, that means you may need to adjust or lower your own speed to meet Assured Clear Distance Ahead rules when another vehicle is in front of you, even if they cut you off to get there.

 

[Ns1]

By the letter of the law, I think the driver is at fault. And his reaction was over the top and uncalled for. However, I think there is no question that the cyclist is responsible for it happening.

HOW IS THE CYCLIST RESPONSIBLE?!! HE WAS RIDING IN HIS OWN FUCKING LANE.

jesus christ I don't even care if I'm being trolled anymore, this is fucking ridiculous. Van could have avoided the whole fucking thing by slowing down for 2 fucking seconds before right hooking the cyclist.

 

[glenn1]

HOW IS THE CYCLIST RESPONSIBLE?!! HE WAS RIDING IN HIS OWN FUCKING LANE.

It doesn't matter he was in his own lane, see the image I linked for the relevant California vehicle code for example. The bicycle lane is not reserved for the exclusive use of bicyclists, especially when a driver is making a right turn. Which is exactly what happened here.

Even if the driver had not been making a right hand turn, once someone is in front of you then you have an obligation to yield or you're at fault - even if they're in the bicycle lane. Some limited exceptions apply, such as:

• the lead driver reverses suddenly
• the lead driver stops suddenly to make a turn and fails to execute the turn
• the lead driver’s brake lights do not function, and
• the lead driver gets a flat tire, but does not pull over and does not engage the vehicle's hazard lights.

You're mixing up the minivan driver being a dick (which he was) versus having the right-of-way (which he did, by virtue of being in front of the bicyclist).

 

[Brainonska511]

Agreed on both counts. But once that shitty driver completed cutting off the bicyclist, the cyclist had the obligation to yield and/or pass on the left if he was able to do so. You are not relieved of your responsbility to avoid a collision if you have any ability to do so. And yes, that means you may need to adjust or lower your own speed to meet Assured Clear Distance Ahead rules when another vehicle is in front of you, even if they cut you off to get there.

And the cyclist did do that. He only tapped the back of his car because he doesn't have an air horn to let the driver know he was being an asshole.

From the looks of the video, you have a driver who is changing lanes through an intersection (which is generally illegal) and then is slowing down alongside the bike lane. To the biker, it could easily look like he's going to make a turn, but the slowing would indicate the bike will pass first. Instead, the assclown decides to cut the biker off in the process of making the turn.

 

[Brainonska511]

HOW IS THE CYCLIST RESPONSIBLE?!! HE WAS RIDING IN HIS OWN FUCKING LANE.

jesus christ I don't even care if I'm being trolled anymore, this is fucking ridiculous. Van could have avoided the whole fucking thing by slowing down for 2 fucking seconds before right hooking the cyclist.

Yep, in this case, the driver should have slowed down (I've had this crap happen to me). But I can see the frustration people have. When I ride in the summer, I see all sorts of crap in NYC (obviously, it's not everyone; there are just individuals among all road users who are dangerous and stupid):

Drivers:
Illegal parking in bike lanes
Turning across bike lanes without checking for oncoming traffic
Turning across bike lanes by speeding up to cut off bicycles

Pedestrians:
Crossing the street without looking, especially against the light.
Thinking the bike lane is a sidewalk.
Thinking the bike lane is a curb extension where you can wait to cross the street.

Bikers:
Wrong-way riders in bike lanes and on streets.
Some that blow through intersections without checking for cross traffic.

 

[Ns1]

You're mixing up the minivan driver being a dick (which he was) versus having the right-of-way (which he did, by virtue of being in front of the bicyclist).

txt

A right-turning car is supposed to move into the bike lane before the intersection — anywhere from 200 to 50 feet before — first signaling the lane merge, then merging right to the curb lane, and finally making the actual turn once it’s deemed safe (CVC 21717).

The guiding principle and law is to always make a right turn from the right lane — or “Turn from the Curb” (CVC 22100). Turning across lanes is a big no-no, since it can result in crashes and near-crashes, especially “right hook” collisions. According to 2011 data from SFPD, “Unsafe Turn without Signaling” was the top cause of injury crashes for SF bicycle riders.

A bike lane is a travel lane, like a standard travel lane — and you should always turn from the lane closest to the curb. To make a right turn, any vehicle (bike, car, truck, etc.) is supposed to be in the right lane, so a motor vehicle needs to safely merge into the bike lane (yielding to any traffic already in that bike lane), before making the turn. That’s why bike lanes are dashed when approaching an intersection. Dashed lanes tells drivers they can merge before turning right.

21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.

CVC 22100 a says:

“Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a
right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway…”

 

[Exterous]

Reeeer! Whir! Whir! Hummmmzzz BUzzzzz!

I don't know why but this made me laugh

Yes, and as a cyclist I can tell you that people do that shit because cyclists are simply exercising their legal right to be on the road.

Honestly my dislike for cyclists stems more from a consistent disregard for the laws of the road except when it suits them. It bothers me more than idiot drivers because the risk of serious harm and legal considerations starts at a much lower level

Putting your turn signal on a second before you cut someone off doesn't absolve you of your shitty driving. The driver should have waited and merged behind the bicycle, not sped up to cut him off and turn.

I wonder how this would have turned out in Michigan. I know for general rules of the road the driver of the car behind the other vehicle is generally considered at fault in an accident even if there is not enough room to stop in a given period of time. IANAL but my singular experience with this was when I was decided to be at fault for a fender bender. Even though the car in front of me cut me off and stopped suddenly leaving me with not enough space to come to a complete stop I was found at fault by the officer. This was despite a my having a 3rd party witness to the collision. (No points or ticket though so I shut my mouth and didn't argue)

 

[Ns1]

Honestly my dislike for cyclists stems more from a consistent disregard for the laws of the road except when it suits them. It bothers me more than idiot drivers because the risk of serious harm and legal considerations starts at a much lower level

I hear this a lot and my retort is cyclists should be ticketed for breaking traffic laws (such as running stop signs) just like drivers should be ticketed for breaking traffic laws (such as speeding)

 

[Humpy]

txt

I quickly watched the video again to confirm that the driver cut across a lane to make his turn (he did 100%) but all I was left with was how hilarious those short little arms and clenched fists were. Combined with the buzz-cut and minivan we have a perfect demonstration of manlet rage.

Honestly my dislike for cyclists stems more from a consistent disregard for the laws of the road except when it suits them. It bothers me more than idiot drivers because the risk of serious harm and legal considerations starts at a much lower level

I don't really understand this. There is very little chance of damage or injury to a driver from bicyclists. If you are doing everything right what is the big worry? I don't believe there are a greater rate of frivolous lawsuits from bicyclists than from any other part of life.