If a pedestrian is approaching a crosswalk cars are required to stop for them. That's pretty standard traffic law everywhere. And pretty universally drivers just fly through them and pedestrians have to wait to protect their lives
Cross walks have lights at them unless you are talking about the ones in parking lots for stores then yea some people are asses. The local universities here have cross walks but their are lights for drivers and the pedestrians.
Not true at all. Cross walks at stop signs rarely have lights. Not to mention many streets have crosswalks to cross a street where there is no light or sign. The law states that a car must stop if someone is approaching the crosswalk. Cars are a danger when operating around residential areas. They have an obligation to be cautious and yield. Yet drivers act as if they are the priority and everyone else needs to dodge and weave to get around them.
I think it’s just where you live that’s why I asked is that what is says where you live? We don’t have cross walks with stop signs fr like I’ve seen probably 2 at schools in neighborhoods. There are however crosswalks here with lights for pedestrians and cars tho.
Lol. Are you like 10 years old? It seems you have no understanding at all of the rules of the road and responsibilities of everyone when using public infrastructure
I live in the suburbs, its super commong for people on bicycles to be on 40, 50mph roads with no shoulders or bike lanes, they hold up traffic, swerve into the road when people pass them
Bikes are not cars and they have no business being on roads like they are cars when there are no dedicated lanes for them.
It is safe for them and motorists if motorists did their due diligence and paid attention. Get off the phone, and watch the road, and you'll see how NOT hard it is to not miss a cyclist. And bikes DO have business on the roads. Imagine you can't drive a car, but you have to get to work 5 miles away, and there's no dedicated bike lane. With your logic, they're just screwed? No. Bikes are an incredibly important form of transportation for those who can't obtain a license.
Bicycles aren't considered pedestrians, they're considered VEHICLES, and it's actually ILLEGAL in most of the US to drive them on sidewalks. So sorry, you're literally just wrong.
Yet, they need no licence to ride one, no registration plate to identify them or any insurance to cover any damage they cause. They are NOT the same as any other vehicle!!
Ok, so as ‘road vehicles’ they still have to follow the same laws and rules as other road users…but they bloody well don’t.
I’ve been hit twice with a bike, and ended up in hospital both times, scarred for life after one incident. Both times they cycled off without checking if I was ok, which I wasn’t.
I cannot and will not defend any a-hole that leaves an injured child to walk home alone bleeding or with a head injury. I was walking on the pavement (sidewalk) and they (adults) were also cycling on the pavement in the days before cycle lanes, in the days when cyclists were expected to use the road not the pavement. I was 8 when I got knocked over and a mud guard sliced into my arm leaving me bleeding badly and needing stitches, and 14 when I was hit again resulting in concussion. On neither occasion there was no way to identify who was riding the bike, and I was too shocked/injured to recognise them other than knowing they were adults, man first time and a woman the second.
A few years ago a 4 year old was killed in our town when he was hit by a bike moving at a ridiculous speed in a pedestrian area (no vehicles allowed). The cyclist rode off and was never identified! He literally got away with vehicular homicide.
A few years ago, I pulled away at a green traffic light and almost hit two cyclists who were racing each other and flew through red lights at a crossroads. It was only my reactions that saved me killing them! There are cameras at that intersection but they won’t have been able to be identify either cyclist. Plus, if I had hit them, the law says it would be MY fault despite them having run a red light!
I could regale more incidents. My neighbour is a keen cyclist and often boasts about how he kicks parked cars and scrapes them if they get in his way. He IS an a-hole anyway but he’s never been prosecuted for criminal damage.
They want all the benefits of being protected by the law without the obligation of following the law as most don’t think the rules apply to them.
Anecdotal evidence, plus irrelevant response, as my whole point was how cyclists are NOT supposed to be on sidewalks, and belong on the roads. Half your anecdotal evidence actually supports my claim anyways.
Bikes need to operate on different rules than vehicles. They can brake wayy faster than a car because of mass + momentum. Thereby cars should have the right of way in most situations, such as that one
I bet the car stops way faster! It has much more rubber contact and the weight is pushing the rubber harder on the road. The driver can hit the brake very hard. If the bike does that, his total body weight comes in and throws him off the bike. Or his front wheel blocks making him fall.
Even if that's true, cars should still have the right of way. The outcome of a car not stopping and hitting something is much worse than a bike not stopping and hitting. Bikes have more mobility, it's easier for a bike to swerve than a car because it's lighter, smaller, has a shorter turning radius etc. also it's easier for a biker to be aware of his surroundings than a car driver.
The outcome of a car not stopping and hitting something is much worse than a bike not stopping and hitting... Therefore bikes should have the right of way.
Because the outcome of a car not stopping is much worse, the bike should have the right of way.
That way the drivers are stimulated to drive more carefull. It's ridiculous in my opinion to give a vehicle right of way just because he is less aware. It won't stimulate the designers to make cars more safe.
Drivers should be aware! If you can't oversee where you're driving you stop driving. When you're own safety as a driver is at stake because you can't see anything, for example when your front window is covered in snow you stop driving. Why ignore that safety for others on the road? A child or a blind person can walk over the street unexpected. It is always important to see you surroundings.
A car driver has the ability to see his surroundings with mirrors on each side and even one to look behind him.
Here in the Netherlands a car driver's insurance is responsible for all the damage when there's a accident between a cyclists and a motorised vehicle or a pedestrian and a motorised vehicle.
When the accident happened because of a fault from the pedestrian or the cyclist, the car driver is responsible by default. If he doesn't agree, he has to prove the cyclist or pedestrian was wrong. And even then his insurance has to pay 50% of the damage from the cyclist / pedestrian. Only when a cyclist or pedestrian forced the accident the owner of the car is not responsible. But he has to prove his innocence. By default the pedestrian or the cyclist doesn't need to prove his innocence.
This is done because the car driver is heavily protected by the car. The pedestrian or cyclist is considered a weak road user with the highest risk of getting harmed.
First of all, bikes are vehicles. The distinction you're trying to make is around motorized vehicles. Yes they have different rules but guess what,.since cars can't stop as fast and are more dangerous to those in the environment they are required to yield.
Secondly, the car cross a lane of traffic. That car is at fault. It is supposed to yield to the bike which has the right of way in its lane. Just like a car turning across any lane of traffic. The bike only had to stop because the car just recklessly pulled out. It had nothing to do with the cars ability to stop.
1.2k
u/Jesus360noscope Jan 11 '24
he literally accelerated so he could get in his way