If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boulder Daily Camera)   Man training to be an Ironman says a motorist suffering from road rage nearly made him a 6-million dollar man   (dailycamera.com) divider line 228
    More: Scary, Boulder County, Iron Man, double-yellow line, motorists, first pass  
•       •       •

10159 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2013 at 8:09 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 02:15:59 AM

Zeno-25: Cyclists... the scourge of anyone with no time management skills trying to get anywhere on time using the roads.


Fixed that for you.  Traffic happens.  They told you this at the DMV.  Always good to leave extra time.  If it wasn't a cyclist, it'd be something else, like some impatient jerk going too fast in the rain and causing a wreck on the expressway.  Or someone trying to beat a light, failing at it, and t-boning cross traffic.  It's not rocket surgery.  Any five year old with a watch can figure it out.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:32 AM

born_yesterday: Then it abruptly ends at a crowded stoplight, and is followed by painted signs on the road of a bike and arrows, indicating the bike lane continues further ahead (it doesn't).


Want to know how I know you haven't been keeping current on the latest road laws?  That symbol indicates that it's a designated bike lane open to motorists, not that there's a bike lane ahead.  If it's positioned correctly, it also indicates where in the lane cyclists should be riding.  If there's no or inadequate shoulder, that'd be the center of the lane or close to it.

You might want to crack open that driver's manual for a refresher course every year or two.  You're expected to do that anyway even if they don't test you on it.
 
2013-07-08 02:26:34 AM

Publikwerks: Bikes are inherently unsafe when on the road with cars.


More like motor vehicles are inherently unsafe when operated by impatient, incompetent or incapacitated people.  It's a logical fallacy to try to make excuses for any of those three things.  If it wasn't a bike, it'd be a pedestrian, a rock, an animal, a disabled motor vehicle...these things happen, and the most important safety feature is the one that is theoretically between the seat and the steering wheel.
 
2013-07-08 02:32:13 AM

balloot: //If you live in SF and you ever see Critical Mass, you will lose all ability to ever feel bad for a cyclist who gets nailed by a car


If you're in SF and you're driving in the first place, I don't really have much sympathy for you in the first place, since you're intentionally making your own life miserable by doing so.  Just admit you're a masochist and you get off on pain.  You'd fit right in down on Castro Street.
 
2013-07-08 02:38:30 AM

Shang-High: I just "buzzed" a bicyclist riding half of the way into the road, when there was a good 6 feet to his right for biking (and bike lane markings).  Sorry, I'm not going to cross the double yellow lines into oncoming traffic, "share the road" works both ways.


If the bike lane is covered in debris, it's not exactly a viable option.  Being a douchebag won't change the condition roadway.  Maybe you should call the city and ask for a sweeper to service the road.  Unless you're in Oregon, where such technology doesn't exist yet, in which case, sucks to be you.
 
2013-07-08 02:43:49 AM

phaseolus: Traffic law question:

Intersection, car in right lane wishing to turn right. Bicycle to his right in bike lane, going straight.

Bike yields to car, correct?


Nope, car yields to through traffic, then shoots the asshole traffic planner who doesn't know what a right turn pocket is.  Turning traffic always yields to any intermediate lanes, left or right.
 
2013-07-08 02:48:30 AM

blacksho89: Otherwise, as a cyclist is technically a pedestrian, he has the right of way if he is at the crosswalk..


Cyclist is technically a vehicle when operating above walking speeds or when on the roadway, as a pedestrian at walking speeds on a sidewalk.  Yes, this means you're guilty of "driving on the sidewalk" if you're riding on the sidewalk faster than walking speed.
 
2013-07-08 02:55:27 AM

ZAZ: Starting from a red light or in moving traffic? In moving traffic it should be a "yield" type situation where you aren't supposed to disrupt the movement of bicycle traffic to make your turn. Same as changing lanes in front of a car.


Half right, this applies at a red light situation, too, though.  Bad idea to proceed off a red light across another lane without at least making eye contact with other drivers, even if they're driving a bicycle.

I recently heard about ongoing experiments with "bike boxes" to try to improve safety at red lights. If you tell me where I misplaced my notes I'll transcribe them for you. The idea is you put bikes ahead of cars at the red light. Now Ms. Right Turner On Her Cell Phone is going to have to look at the pack of bicycles which are in her path. Maybe she will notice them. They didn't work as well as hoped.

That's not to say they're a total failure, they've made some significant improvements in terms of incidents and reducing traffic conflict where they've been placed.  Still funny when I see someone get popped for making a right turn on red across one, ignoring the driver's manual and typically at least three signs saying "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED EXCEPT BICYCLES" signs.  Or stopping in the bike box, ignoring a big green area with a bike logo, the stop bar with WAIT HERE painted in advance of the line, and a "STOP HERE ON RED EXCEPT BICYCLES" sign.
 
2013-07-08 02:57:33 AM

squegeebooo: phaseolus: Traffic law question:

Intersection, car in right lane wishing to turn right. Bicycle to his right in bike lane, going straight.

Bike yields to car, correct?

The car should move over into the bike lane and treat it like a right turn lane.


Only if it says that on the sign, ie " RIGHT LANE - BICYCLES AND RIGHT TURNS ONLY".  Otherwise, you stay out of the lane and turn across it when clear.
 
2013-07-08 03:00:40 AM

Ker_Thwap: Really Twowheeling Tim?  You're going to dump on the guy with the CDL who's driven responsibly for 9 years to earn a living delivering products that you have in your house, all the while taking care to keep inconsiderate cyclists alive?


He's not exactly making my job easier.  I'm a professional driver, and it's hotheads like him that gives the rest of us a bad name.
 
2013-07-08 03:03:02 AM

jurzdevil: If I am going straight and car is going to turn right I will slow down and let the car pass, even stop before the intersection.


Don't do this.  It's confusing and unpredictable.  Signal a lane change and fall in behind the turning vehicle, then move back over after the intersection if you're that concerned.
 
2013-07-08 03:07:42 AM

WRXminion: This means impeding the flow of traffic is a ticketable offence, but I've never seen a ticket given to a cyclist for this.


Probably because the laws regarding impeding state that you're not impeding if you're going as fast as you can, and you're using slow vehicle turnouts to let people by.  If they're doing the first, and there's no place to legally and safely do the second, then they're not legally impeding traffic.
 
2013-07-08 03:11:54 AM

Fallout Zone: squegeebooo: phaseolus: Traffic law question:

Intersection, car in right lane wishing to turn right. Bicycle to his right in bike lane, going straight.

Bike yields to car, correct?

The car should move over into the bike lane and treat it like a right turn lane.

I encounter this every day on the way to work, enough so that I actually took the time to look up the laws.  This is correct.


Not sure you got that right.  It's not the case in Oregon, Washington or Oklahoma, and such a move would be contraindicated by the US manual on uniform traffic control (the sign would have to say that's an allowed movement unless your traffic engineers just stopped giving a shiat about doing their job right).
 
2013-07-08 03:15:17 AM

Publikwerks: But if the bike is overtaking in the bike lane, I think the bike should yield. it may not be the law, but it's the smart thing - Bikes are hard enough to see, and if you are overtaking in his blind spot, you're asking for trouble assuming he's going to spot you.


Use your mirrors, signal, don't assume the cyclist is going to yield when you're the one entering his lane, not the other way around.  Smart money is letting the cyclist in the bike lane by regardless of whether you just passed them or they're about to pass you.  Shoulder check that shiat, man!
 
2013-07-08 03:22:20 AM

Mitrovarr: In my experience, 2/3 of bike lanes are unusable as places to ride due to being too narrow, too close to parked cars, too full of gravel and trash, too slanted, too uneven, or too torn up. They make you harder to see as well. I kind of wish they wouldn't make them; just make the road a bit wider with a good shoulder and have cyclists ride in the lane. It's actually safer to ride in the lane because drivers are more likely to see you there.


The bike lane is a lane, and the difference in visibility between riding in the same lane and the next lane over is negligible compared to the severe disadvantage riding on the sidewalk puts you.  That said, streets with bike lanes should at least have enough shoulder to put the curb and gutter pan, some cities really have idiots planning these things.  I don't give Oregon much credit, but they get props for this: Oregon holds the legal minimum width for a bike lane adjacent to motorized traffic in the same direction or any kind of traffic in the opposite direction at six feet, as measured from the edge of pavement, shoulder line or the outside edge of the gutter pan, whichever is closest to the center of the roadway, but recommends more (though sets a maximum at 9 feet, since 10 feet would be enough for two bike lanes, a 6 foot inner lane and a 4 foot outer lane).
 
2013-07-08 03:25:21 AM

mbillips: What part of "multi-use path" do you not understand? It's not a bike path, it's a walking/cycling/running/skating trail, and labeled as such.


There are some cycleways that are not MUPs, even in the US.
 
2013-07-08 03:27:40 AM

mllawso: The Googles Do Nothing: /When I ride my bike I stop at all the stop signs and lights and stay to the far right.

Lane position is something that comes up a lot when I'm teaching a Basic Rider's Course (for motorcycles). One concern I have with a far-right lane position is this: You get the moron that wants to pass you and either:

1. Doesn't get over far enough and clips you, or
2. Sees and oncoming car and figures he can squeeze by you without getting over and clips you.

I usually ride in the left or middle of the lane: that way if someone wants to pass: it discourages the second type, and gives you space to get over for the first type.


That's also why pretty much every state has language stating cyclists are to either ride in the center of the right lane or as far right as practical/practicible.
 
2013-07-08 03:29:55 AM

Eponymous: Quantum Apostrophe: But can we all agree that electric scooters don't belong on the bike path?

There's a reason I avoid bike paths in downtown Montreal.

No we can't agree....Let the scooters ride 4 or 5 abreast at 5mph and see how many of the bikers get a taste of road rage


Motor vehicle.  Not allowed where signs says "No Motorized Vehicles."
 
2013-07-08 03:35:48 AM

whfolsom4: For what it's worth I don't harass cyclists, and don't pass them illegally no matter how slow they are, but they don't pay taxes to maintain the highways and they don't belong there.


Yes, actually, they do pay taxes to maintain the highways.  Highways are maintained through income tax, or in Oklahoma, the sales tax.  Gas taxes don't even pay the interest on bonds made to maintain existing motorist infrastructure, and registration only covers the cost of maintaining the registration database, if it even fully covers that.  Motorists pay usage taxes on top of the taxes everyone pays into the highway fund whether they drive or not because motorists are actively destroying the highway just by using them with a heavy vehicle.  Even as a professional driver, I wish that the fuel taxes at least covered the additional damage motorists cause to the highways compared to non motorized modes or mass transit; not exactly fair to expect the public to subsidize my privately owned machine like that.
 
2013-07-08 03:38:59 AM

whfolsom4: He might be an upstanding citizen, but many (other) cyclists don't wear safety equipment, follow traffic rules or maintain their bicycles (or even sobriety!).  Get off your high horse, and off the road.


I've lived and travelled to a lot of places.  I can say with confidence that the difference in the rate of compliance between motorists and cyclists anywhere is exactly zero.  Which should scare you if you see a lot of cyclists doing this, because there's going to be the same ratio of motorists doing the same shiat.
 
2013-07-08 03:45:06 AM

born_yesterday: That's exactly what it is.  I had no idea that that is what it meant, and I bet most of the people around here don't know either.  I sure as hell wouldn't trust that sign as protection versus the idiots around here


It's shiat like this that makes me wish we had mandatory driver testing every other year in this country.  The sad thing is driving takes more responsibility than food safety and we expect the guy running the fries at McDo's to re-test to keep a food handler's card every other year...
 
2013-07-08 03:47:36 AM

Vector R: The largest they come in (last I checked on Amazon) was a size 40, which is still pretty small.


Please tell me that's not waist size...I weigh 200 pounds and 40 is still about a foot more than I need...
 
2013-07-08 06:49:50 AM

Meesterjojo: Bicycles being moving vehicles, subject to the same laws as motor vehicles in most states in the U.S., and having been hit 9 times in 3 years, 4 in my current neighborhood, once ending up on the hood of a guys car for 2 blocks (and when he figured it out, stopped fast, knocking me off, then told me that he didn't need to give me insurance info because I appeared fine, and the police took 3 hours to get there)- I find this funny. Not just because I've been hit twice by people on bicycles, including once last month as some hipster woman ignored a stop sign and ran over my right foot (witnesses screamed and screamed at her to stop), but because the guy seems like a huge cry baby, douchebag.


Meesterjojo, if you have been hit that many times, you sir are a farking moron who needs to kill himself, or jump out in traffic and try again.

Im glad dude threw you off his hood after two blocks, jackass.
 
2013-07-08 07:16:52 AM

Baloo Uriza: born_yesterday: Then it abruptly ends at a crowded stoplight, and is followed by painted signs on the road of a bike and arrows, indicating the bike lane continues further ahead (it doesn't).

Want to know how I know you haven't been keeping current on the latest road laws?  That symbol indicates that it's a designated bike lane open to motorists, not that there's a bike lane ahead.  If it's positioned correctly, it also indicates where in the lane cyclists should be riding.  If there's no or inadequate shoulder, that'd be the center of the lane or close to it.

You might want to crack open that driver's manual for a refresher course every year or two.  You're expected to do that anyway even if they don't test you on it.


Thanks.  Someone already explained that to me, only they didn't feel the need to be an asshole about it.
 
2013-07-08 07:18:56 AM

Baloo Uriza: born_yesterday: That's exactly what it is.  I had no idea that that is what it meant, and I bet most of the people around here don't know either.  I sure as hell wouldn't trust that sign as protection versus the idiots around here

It's shiat like this that makes me wish we had mandatory driver testing every other year in this country.  The sad thing is driving takes more responsibility than food safety and we expect the guy running the fries at McDo's to re-test to keep a food handler's card every other year...


Over ten posts in a row.  Nevermind; you're exactly what FARK is looking for.
 
2013-07-08 08:12:04 AM

mark12A: As a runner, cyclist and driver, I can't stand people like you. It's good to be wary of cars and defer to them whenever possible, but dont break the law and be a dick to everyone else.

13 years. Oh, and by the way, 13 YEARS. 13 years I've been doing this, and if I was a dick I would have gotten my ass kicked loooong time ago by the good, but rough hewn, citizens of Philly. If what I was doing was dangerous, I would have been tagged years ago.

Is simples: Stay away from pedestrians when they're on sidewalks. And riding against traffic takes up NOT ONE SINGLE SQUARE INCH more space than riding with traffic. As for the oncoming motorists having less reaction time, that's OK, because now I HAVE REACTION TIME, unlike when I'm not facing traffic. So now I'm not completely vulnerable to an endless stream of total strangers coming up behind me.


You sound like the sort of person that used to argue that you're safer not wearing a seatbelt because it's better to be thrown clear of the car.

I recently read that a cyclist riding against traffic is ~3x more likely to be in an accident.  So on top of being illegal and a real dick move, it's also considerably more dangerous.

/Took up cycling recently.
//Steadily increasing my miles/week.
///Understand things from the cyclists' perspective much better than I did before.
 
2013-07-08 08:32:01 AM

Repo Man: And yet another reason to avoid MUPs. Leave them for small children, pedestrians, runners, skaters.


Amen.  As I said in a previous post, I recently started cycling and thought the extensive trail networks around here would be an awesome way to spend some time outdoors and improve my fitness.  But a few weeks into riding, I figured out that those paths are for biking, but cyclists belong on the road.  The cycling club I ride with avoids the paths.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:59 AM

born_yesterday: Baloo Uriza: born_yesterday: That's exactly what it is.  I had no idea that that is what it meant, and I bet most of the people around here don't know either.  I sure as hell wouldn't trust that sign as protection versus the idiots around here

It's shiat like this that makes me wish we had mandatory driver testing every other year in this country.  The sad thing is driving takes more responsibility than food safety and we expect the guy running the fries at McDo's to re-test to keep a food handler's card every other year...

Over ten posts in a row.  Nevermind; you're exactly what FARK is looking for.


Not my fault nobody else was posting at that time.
 
Displayed 28 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report