Emphasis mine.
Cite for the two emphasized parts, please?
Police, jurors and DA’s are more likely to be drivers and more likely to be sympathetic to a driver than a cyclist. Simple fact. It results in a lot of injustice, such as No Justice for Cyclists page which was discontinued because the keeper found it was too depressing. Police are often too quick to blame cyclists even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the driver.
Let’s start by showing that your theory is kinda bullshit. Multiple studies have shown that drivers are more often at fault than cyclists, as much as 75% of fatal accidents the driver is in the wrong in NYC, a similar study in Toronto placed the blame at 90% (Can’t find the direct link at the moment), in England 60-75% caused by the driver.
But hey, if those anecdotes let you keep your prejudices, keep 'em coming, right?
The first step in recovery is admitting you have the problem.
you can do this Soul Brother number 2!!! I know you can!!!
Front or rear lights? Generally(state by state) if rear lights are required, they must be red.
Front red lights are not allowed as that marks your bike as a police vehicle. Also, red front lights can be confused with rear lights.
Run white lights up front.
I’ve never gotten a ticket (Calif.) for red tail lights.
For the first part read the article:
It is illegal to make left turns without yielding to oncoming traffic, but hey, maybe that’s legal in Canada. I dunno.
And while the driver might not have been actively trying to kill the cyclist, striking at cyclist does have a potential to kill them.
I bicycle a lot, but not where there are stop lights.
I believe that stopping at light when on a bicycle is a choice.
Yes… it may be against the law not to stop when the light is red, and in some areas there are police without better things to do that will issue a citation for this. Sooo, your choice gets a little more complicated…
That is all
Never mind. Mis-read “run red lights”.
Haven’t read the link to the story or read a vehicle code recently I see.
Read the vehicle code. Any vehicle code. A car turning left does not have the right of way. Period. End of discussion. Through traffic has the right of way. Again period.
So if you make a left turn and hit a vehicle traveling straight ahead in the opposite direction you are guilty of an illegal left turn.
Seriously, you had to ask for a cite for this? Do you have a driver’ license?
My bicycle weigh about 20lbs. A car weighs somewhere in the 4,000 lb. range. It’s called physics. You should study it some time.
Remember if the bicyclist screws up the bicyclist dies. If the car driver screws up the bicyclist dies.
It like bacon and eggs. The chicken is interested. The pig on the other hand is personally involved.
What is a “vehicle code”? An OBD-II diagnostic code? Perhaps you mean the Highway Traffic Act. Yes, I’m familiar with it. You, apparently, are not. If you make a left turn and hit a vehicle that has the right of way there are any number of things you might be charged with – making a left turn across path of approaching vehicle under s. 141(5) and/or s. 148(4) fail to allow room for bicycle, or alternately, failing to yield, proceeding when unsafe, or even careless driving. The one thing you would NOT be charged with is making an illegal left turn – unless it was explicitly prohibited by signage under s. 144(9), or against a traffic light, or otherwise expressly prohibited – and if you were so charged, the charge would be thrown out of court because that’s not what an “illegal” (prohibited) turn means.
Yes, I do have a driver’s license. Since you seem to be young enough to be a cycling enthusiast I would venture to guess that I’ve had a driver’s license longer than you’ve been alive, and must be doing something right because I’ve never once in all those decades been involved in an accident, ever. Despite the number of apparently suicidal cyclists around.
You car drivers are so cute when you try to act self righteous.
An OBD-II code oh you are so funny hardy har har.
Highway traffic act / vehicle code. You say to-mato I say to-may-to. You obviously knew what the fuck I was talking about.
So answer me this Sparky. If a driver makes a left turn a cross the path of a vehicle traveling in the other direction and is cited under s. 141(5) that driver has broken a law, correct? Specifically s. 141(5) right? So since he broke the law while making a left turn wouldn’t that be by definition an illegal left turn? :rolleyes:
Since you have cited 5 different ways the car driver could have been cited you obviously knew that the driver had broken at least one law when you asked for a cite in post 61. IMHO you did that just to be a jerk or worse.
As far as your driver’s license crack goes I’ve been riding a bike since I was 5 and driving sine I was I was 15. That’s 58 and 48 years respectively. Here I’ll save you the math, I’m 63 and will be 64 in December. So unless you are approaching 80 I highly doubt you have had a license longer than I have been alive.
Like I said if you want an example of a bike rider acting like a douche your point will be better made if you don’t pick one where the driver didn’t break the law and try to kill the guy on the bike first.
Pick some more nits, that pile of lice will really impress us!
Seriously? Dude I’m in my 40’s and a decent cyclists but there are cyclists 20-30 years older than me, several of whom can smoke me. What the hell is with this reverse ageism?
I would like to apologize to anyone that got sprayed with parts of wolfpup’s head when it asploded after I pointed out that a violation of s. 141(5) was by definition an illegal left turn.
Sorry folks.
Wrong. The specific laws the driver might be deemed to have broken would be, quite simply, the ones I named. Not the turn itself. Most of those charges would apply equally to going straight ahead, too, but you’re not going to get a cop writing a ticket for “illegally proceeding in a straight line” any more than you’re going to get him or her to cite an “illegal” left turn unless left turns were prohibited.
You made the ridiculous claim that the driver was making an illegal left turn, implying a turn against a light or against a posted sign, and then doubled down on the nonsense by claiming that he was trying to kill the cyclist. So I guess if you were a police officer you’d charge him with (a) making a prohibited left turn, and (b) attempted murder. You would have a very short career, punctuated by some sharp words from judges.
I’m done with this particular subthread – but apologies to the geriatric cyclists – no offense intended! 
I myself have a ten-speed in the garage but it hasn’t seen action in decades. My loss, I’m sure.
In my example the driver made a left turn and was guilty of violating s. 141(5)
You may call it what the fuck you want but the driver broke the law while making a left turn. In other words an illegal left turn. Anyone that has three or more brain cells can see that.
So stop playing semantic games and man up and admit you were wrong.
Oh and what happened to you have had a license longer that I have been alive?
According to your numbers you’ve been driving almost (but not quite) as long as I have. If you also have a completely accident-free record and the highest possible insurance rating with a lifetime non-cancellation guarantee, then we are more or less peers. Have a cookie.
Just watch out on the bike – I understand the place is full of homicidal psychopaths making illegal left turns specifically to murder cyclists. I think it’s some kind of diabolical cult.
-
You’re starting to be pathetic with your squirming efforts to admit you are wrong.
-
Do you recall that study a few years back where 90% of drivers rated themselves “above average”. You’re a classic example of that kind of mentality.
Try having someone in a car place his bumper a foot from your rear bike wheel while blasting his horn because he’s offended that you won’t let him race to the red light 50 yards ahead and your little quips and squirming won’t seem so funny.
But hey, I’m sure you’ll fish the internet for another anecdote to show us cyclists.
Really? Where did you see the self-rating? I would think that almost a half-century of accident-free driving is a factually objective point. My insurance company seems to think so. I don’t know why you want to bicker about it. I only brought it up because Rick seemed to question whether I possess a driver’s license, so little do I apparently know about traffic, according to Rick.
As a cyclist you would naturally see the world from a cyclist’s point of view. As a driver I see the hazards that many cyclists pose to themselves and others. Perhaps there is validity in both points of view. I thought I was clear in my belief that both sides could use some smartening up.
A driver sees a cyclist do something stupid that potentially endangers himself and the driver recounts it for weeks afterwards.
As a cyclist, I can see drivers do something stupid that potentially endangers my life twice on my ride home from work.
See the problem here?
This analysis ignores the fact that bike lanes use up valuable real estate. NYC, for example, has 250 miles of bike lanes. At an average width of 5 feet, and anaverage price/square foot of $1416, self-righteous cyclists cost NYC about 9 billion dollars. That’s an enormous amount of money to waste on a bunch of uppity hippies.
Show me a car that can use the 5 feet as an extra lane.
And that price of real estate is for buildable land, not roadways.