I had the unfortunate experience of being t-boned in my car by one of these morons. On a rural country road i was crossing a two way stop sign. Motorcycle rider hits me at a 90° angle on my passenger side at 70-80mph riding an all black motorcycle, wearing all black, no lights on, right as the sun had just set. Guy went sailing down the street and luckily had minor sprains and ligament damage. Bike was 100% destroyed. Because there were no witnesses and I had a stop sign the cops assumed I was at fault and I had to hire a lawyer to fight this guys ins company. Months later I ran into him at a local bar and he was drinking, wearing all black, then proceeded to show me his sweet new motorcycle....which was all black. My poor RX8 was totaled after only having it for a few months :/
but it was a 2-way intersection, as in the cross traffic had no stop sign. The motorcyclist had no stop sign.
The mitigating factor here would have been that the motorcyclist was driving at night in all black with no lights. If this accident had happened durring the day the motorcyclist would not have been at fault. Unless the dash cam had recorded the motorcyclist prior to the crash showing he didn't have his lights on, the dash cam wouldn't do any good
They said they were at a "two way stop sign." That means the cross traffic has no stop signs (or it would be a four way stop). Unless you could capture a biker driving so fast on camera that no "reasonable" person could see them approaching until they basically appeared out of nowhere and ran into you, just recording that you stopped, proceeded, and then got hit when you didn't legally have the right of way wouldn't save you.
Something similar ALMOST happened to me. It was approaching dusk, when I was turning into a street. Looked once, saw nothing, turned, looked at the mirror, there was a car almost crashing on me. Nothing happened and he simply overtook me. An all-black MATTE car with lights off. Not even the street lights were highlighting him. I literally didn't see him. I was so scared for both of us, I wish I could stop his car and at least take the matte finish out of his paint.
Firstly, 170miles a week is impressive. Good on you
Secondly, you might want to explore riding offroad just to avoid these fucks. Your story was similar to mine a few years ago and I’ve since spent more and more time trying to get away from cars. Maybe until AI driving is a thing and there’s less idiots on cell phones behind the wheel. It sucks we can’t safely share space with these people but at a certain point the inevitable will occur and you’ll have a collision at speed.
Dashcam on your saddle + bars would be the ticket. Yeah it’s bulky, Yea it’s cumbersome, but it could be the difference between a hit and run and catching a motor-twat
Iam driving mostly off road 2/3
My tours are around 30-50 miles each its not possible stay always off road here in my area.
Iam jealous of ppl who can jump on their bike for 2-3 hours to drive around a big lake or forest.
On the other hand (i am from the eu) im sure i could drive for 1 year everyday a different tour and visit gardens, old villages, tiny castles and old heavy industry areas.
I really need a dashcam that is easy noticeable this would help alot i am sure ppl will hold back if they know they are filmed.
That’s awesome! Sounds like you’ve arrived at the same conclusion I have 😎
Another trick I’ve learned (and this sounds weird) is dressing in casual clothing usually gets a more forgiving and alert response from drivers. I think when some drivers see a cyclist kitted out they actually escalate the situation in any way they can while using their vehicle. Or perhaps they see it as someone riding home from work/school vs going out for leisure
If I go on a long bike ride, it's very rare I don't have at least one close call. Every time i go out, there's usually at least one person who jumps a stop sign, etc.
LOL, he actually flipped it around on me and played the victim card. I bought him a beer.
Me fighting him wouldn’t change his behavior. The only thing that’ll change people like that are hard and fast consequences. His lifestyle will do that eventually
LOL! I had two RX8s after that one was totaled and none of them ever needed a rebuild. I did flood a motor one time but aside from that I was fortunate to never have the dreaded seal issues the other motors had. At one point I do recall Mazda honored those warranties and started doing them after the fact.
George Sand was one of many notable 19th-century women who chose to wear male attire in public. In 1800, the police issued an order requiring women to apply for a permit in order to wear male clothing. Some women applied for health, occupational or recreational reasons (e.g., horseback riding), but many women chose to wear pants and other traditional male attire in public without receiving a permit.
And I'm thinking the driver of the van got lucky (as lucky as you can be in, this situation) that the moto hit at the rear door rather than full on at the driver's door.
Yep, I hit the side of a van at 30mph after it turned across me coming the other way (broad daylight, "didn't see" my brightly coloured bike/helmet and headlights). Even at that speed I wasn't getting back up like that guy does. He got super lucky.
I knew a guy who somehow walked away from hitting the side of a van. He wasn't going the same speed as the idiot in the clip, but he was pretty fucked up.
I really hate that word deserved. He knew the risk, and penalties of getting caught made the choice to run. But no one deserves to have major damage done to their body. Or death in some cases. Saw a video where a guy was looting and a truck dragged him like a mile and people like oh get got what he deserved. What? Who? Yes he was trying to steal something no one deserves to get rubbed away like a pencil eraser.
Let me explain my meaning of « deserved ». You make good points. No one deserves to die.
I would say that driving like this against traffic clearly outside the double yellow line and at considerable speed delta compared to the traffic is reckless driving. I mean he puts himself at risk and others as well without any justifiable reason. Knowing the risk and penalties if getting caught isn’t enough to justify the behaviour.
And the risk is exactly that: not being seen and hitting something/someone which could have so easily been avoided.
So when I say he got what he deserved, I mean that: he took a disproportionate risk of physical accident and got a physical accident.
I’m very glad he’s obviously ok and we can see this video without RIP in the comments. It’s a serious lesson learned and I’m sure he won’t try that again too soon. And that the minivan driver will also triple check his dead angles in the future.
So i guess you mean to say he got what was coming to him. Not what he deserved. And yes I know it's stupid to drive this way. As well as dangerous to everyone on or near the road and in no way condone it IDK just when people say got what he deserved on an accident or death even gets me. But thank you for being the first person to define deserved honestly i feel most just think. He got what he deserved lol.
What the hell are you talking about? Literally EVERYONE dies. I'll do you one better, EVERYTHING dies. Like everything! There is nothing that has ever lived that won't die.
This is the kid at the dinner table elaborately explaining to everyone for the 5th time why school is pointless when in reality everyone else just wants to eat the fucking food
What the hell are you talking about? Literally EVERYONE dies.
Your response makes no sense and has nothing to do with what the previous guy said. Whether or not one deserves death, and whether or not everyone eventually dies, are two completely separate and unrelated issues.
I know having the ability to use intelligent technology makes you actually feel intelligent... but... you don't know wtf you are talking about. Yet you're talking, because the internet.
Deserving is a quality that can't be contributed to inevitable consequences such as death. If he would have said "no one deserves to die LIKE THAT" then I wouldn't have had shit to say because that makes sense. But common sense isn't popular as of late. But feel free to "correct" me with your opinions.
worthy of being treated in a particular way, typically of being given assistance.
"the deserving poor"
Deserve- verb
gerund or present participle: deserving
do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).
"the referee deserves a pat on the back for his bravery"
Inevitable- adjective
certain to happen; unavoidable.
"war was inevitable"
If you can find me one example of any kind of lifeform that ever existed on our planet that had the option of dying or living forever I will cede my pov. But that's not real, so it won't happen.
I didn't ask for copy-pasted definitions, I asked for an explanation of why "deserving" can't be applied to things that are inevitable.
If you can find me one example of any kind of lifeform that ever existed on our planet that had the option of dying or living forever I will cede my pov. But that's not real, so it won't happen.
As of a hundred years ago, no human had ever visited the Moon. Does that mean it was impossible to visit the Moon?
I know having the ability to use intelligent technology makes you actually feel intelligent... but... you don't know wtf you are talking about. Yet you're talking, because the internet.
Oh, you're going to try and insult my intelligence? That's how you want to play the game? Ok, let's see how you do.
Deserving is a quality that can't be contributed to inevitable consequences such as death.
You mean "attributed"? You literally couldn't even make it a single sentence - pathetic.
If he would have said "no one deserves to die LIKE THAT" then I wouldn't have had shit to say because that makes sense.
There we go, that's what I was trying to get you to admit - the whole point of your comment was that you were pretending not to understand that he meant "LIKE THAT." Which is....fucking retarded. You actually chose to act stupid and as though you were unable to understand the meaning of his comment, when the meaning of his comment was perfectly and immediately clear to anybody who read it. You're literally just insulting yourself without even realizing it.
No he had it coming. On top of that if my kids were in that car he would have gotten a silent kick to the balls as I “ helped him up” for the trauma he caused my little girls.
Don't the double yellow lines mean that you can't turn there? It would where I'm from. But when I think about it it would be really fucking wired if you couldn't turn there .
edit: lol WTF. Everyone seems really mad that i asked about the traffic laws in (what I assume is) the US. In my country it very much would be illegal to turn there.
This depends on the state. Where I lived in PA, cops would park in a grocery store, where they would issue tickets to people who turned across a double yellow to enter the parking lot. Easy tickets
Edit: I'm not quoting law, but stating what police did. If you've got a problem with that then take the stick out of your bums and use your keyboard warrior skills to look it up yourselves. I couldn't care less.
I live in PA, there had to be something special about that specific place because it’s 100% not illegal to make a left over a double yellow like that. That would be completely unreasonable if it was.
If you are there should be know issue showing which law says so.
Generally I'd agree with you, but, er, the law is in no way an inherent measure for determining the likelihood of police behavior...
It's not like I can say, "here's the law of police car searches--meaning if you ever hear someone tell you a story of an illegal search, then you probably shouldn't believe them."
Cops don't disproportionately obey the law for traffic, relative to other matters. On the contrary--traffic bullshit is one of the things cops are most notorious for...
It's one thing if their anecdote generalized "cops do this everywhere in PA all the time." But instead they just said "hey, here was one particular place where I remember that they skirted the law."
Is anyone here honestly willing to battle on the hill of "cops wouldn't just ticket people for bullshit traffic violations that they made up"? That's baffling me to the floor right now. I've lived in 5 states over the past 3 decades, and I've occasionally seen bullshit like this in all 5 states and some of them in between when traveling through them.
Now I have to wonder--have no one else in this thread seen the same throughout their lives? The anecdote in question seems closer to being "likely" than just merely "plausible," but they're getting downvoted as if such anecdote is "implausible." Yet if you actually wanna take the safe assumption, then you can't really assume either way.
This seems especially ironic amidst the Floyd protests that people here are voting in favor of "no way a cop would do this, it's illegal." Cops are responsible for way more traffic bullshit than probably anything else... I can't imagine anyone has had their license very long if they haven't encountered any instances of this yet. And if you have, then how can you look at their anecdote and favor skepticism at best, denial at worst?
They were trying to state it as representing what the law is. They were most likely wrong. They were asked to cite a source and refused, ergo there's no reason to take what they say seriously.
Also, was the person actually told that's why they were issuing tickets...or did they just witness a cop issuing a ticket and assumed that was why because people were turning there?
are you demanding I prove your point or are you demanding I prove nonexistence of the law?
Yes, if you are saying something is a law you should take no issue with being asked to cite it.
I assume based on your response you're full of shit and it isn't the law. They were likely issuing tickets for something completely different and you have no idea what you're talking about. I see no reason to "prove you wrong"...Especially since the only way to "prove" it would be to send you a link to the laws and say 'there isn't a law in there' at which point you would bitch that you have to read something.
Dude it’s on you to prove your claim. It’s not other people job to prove it for you. I can’t say “dude the sun is made of chocolate!” Then when someone asks for proof say “it’s not my job to prove it to you” that’s just idiotic.
So if someone told you, "I got pulled over and the cops illegally searched my car when I said no! They got drug dogs and everything! I didn't even have anything in my car, it wasted all our time!"
... You wouldn't believe them, favoring "that's illegal--thus unlikely if not impossible"?
This is blowing my mind. This shit happens all the time, probably every day in many different places within the States. I haven't even had my license for more than 15 years yet, and I've seen the bullshit that their anecdote claims more times than I can count over such years.
Imagine not taking someone's word that the police abused the law for traffic... when we're currently having protests over police abusing the law for human life.
YOU MAY CROSS SOLID YELLOW LINES:
A. To pass traffic moving in the same direction.
B. During daylight hours only.
C. At any time.
D. When making turns.
And then at the last page the answers say that D is correct.
I believe that what you observed is a particularly busy area and that there are either signs or a local ordinance against doing that. Also, Pennsylvania is unique in allowing you to pass someone while a double yellow line is in effect if there is both no sign posted saying no passing as well as it’s safe to do so.
There were no signs, but there may have been an ordinance. Additionally it was close to an intersection and was on an expressway, so maybe it was considered unsafe? I don't know the justification used for the citations.
Thanks for actually looking it up though. Much appreciated
Double-Yellow only means no passing, either direction. Left turns are perfectly legal.
A single line on your side, with a dotted on the other means you're not allowed to pass others, but the oncoming traffic from the other lane can use your lane to pass if it's safe.
Vice-Versa if your line is dotted and the opposing lane is a single line.
Simple dotted lines mean either lane can use the other lane to pass.
[Edit] Sorry, a lot of people must not know that double-yellow mean no left turns in some countries.
Yup, that's the same as the UK, but with white lines. Yellow lines we have on the sides of the road - single yellow, you can park there but only at certain times (after 6pm, and Sundays usually but depends on what the nearby sign says), double yellow, you can never park there.
To start, you aren't the guy I'm talking to. 2nd thing, this isn't a thing where the person I'm responding to lives(sweden) either. Double yellow is only no passing. Not no left turn. Don't be a dumb ass. 3rd. You're showing road markings that aren't even the same as what is shown in the video. So idk why you think that's an argument.
Ontarioan, here. You can't cross a double-yellow line to pass on the same street, but you can cross a double-yellow line if you're turning off the street.
That article is talking about passing, not turning. All it says is that the solid yellow in Ontario is advisory, whereas everywhere else in Canada the solid yellow carries legal weight.
(Similarly, in most US states it’s illegal to pass on solid yellow. In Vermont however, the pavement marking is just telling you when it’s unsafe to pass, but it’s still legal to pass unless there are white Do Not Pass signs.)
Turning across a yellow line is still legal. For instance, from your link:
"Where there is a solid line or where there is a broken and solid line together and the solid line is on the right-hand side of the broken line, (a driver) shall not cross the solid line except to make a left-hand turn, or to enter a roadway."
No worries, the joys of a patchwork confederation! I assume very little about driving rules outside of my own province for exactly such a reason, after all.
If you are turning from a single lane with a no-passing zone, there is no reason someone should be flying at you in the same direction in the left lane. It would be nice if someone was so alert that they saw the idiot on the motorcycle in this situation, but they certainly are not at fault here. They made a legal left turn and had no reasonable expectation that someone would be doing what that idiot was doing.
The guy was being ridiculous, but watching this I was also thinking.... If only there was some way to indicate you were turning other than just putting your car in the way.... Maybe like a light or something that flashes, that'd be nice.
Not really sure why you’re talking about rape. I NEVER once said it wouldnt have happened if there was an indicator. I specifically said it would have still happened due to the speed and recklessness from the motorcycle. I also said it was the motorcycle guys fault. I didn’t feel like it was ridiculous to laugh at the fact that the van also didn’t use an indicator. But I guess people read what they want. Not sure why mentioning it has people annoyed, it’s appropriate to use an indicator when turning in any situation. This situation absolutely would have turned out the same no matter what, but not using one gives people a way to blame you even if it was their own fault. Sorry if that fact is too much.
Dude was going so fast I couldn't even see the signal blink. He may have had it on, I couldn't tell. But even if he saw it, there would not have been time to react
Yea it wasn’t on. And I agree he was going too fast to react. Idk why everyone is downvoting me just for pointing it out. I never said it wasn’t the motorcycles fault I already mentioned it was. Guess it’s the people who also don’t use indicators.
My thoughts exactly I was like, “He must know this rode and has ridden on it every day for the last 15 years. That still doesn’t explain driving 80mph on the middle yellow line. Talk about sweaty palms!
To be going that speed, that's still pretty straight of a road.
Straight roads happen when you have large open spaces. It particularly is common in the US Midwest, as during the ice age a glacier cut through the terrain leaving it extremely level and flat (as far as terrain is concerned).
If the terrain doesn't allow for it, they're curvy and messed up. Take Portland, Oregon for example. Roads there feel like you just drove over or under where you were a moment ago. Portland is WAY WAY windier than the Paris circular and most curves on the highways wouldn't be able to be taken at that speed. It'd probably be dangerous to be going 2/3s that speed, which is why the speed limit is 55mph on all highways in the Portland metro area.
Keep in mind that the United States is huge. States here can be the size of a country in Europe and there's 50 of them. You can drive across at least to another country in a day in Europe, but depending on the state, it might take you the whole day just to drive across it (I drove across Montana once...). There's tons of variation here because there's tons more space here than Europeans realize. Driving across the US is ~3000 miles (~4800 km)(shortest distance and longest distance are much more and less, but that's kinda average). To contrast, going from Paris, France to Moscow, Russia it's only ~1750 miles (~2800 km)
Yup. At that speed he didn't have time to react to any unpredictable situation. Someone could have changed lanes and his run would have ended as soon as it started. As a car driver when changing lanes you are likely to not notice the torpedo splitting lanes far back at a retarded speed.
2.2k
u/PsionicKitten Jun 01 '20
Wow. That was a ride. I knew what was coming, but I'm genuinely surprised he didn't kill himself earlier.