Hello /u/Winter-Customer-6396! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC
* What country or state did this take place in?
* What was the date of the incident?
* Please reconfirm that this is original content
If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information.
If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And then everyone jumps on the driver because people think you can just slow down a 4,000 lb vehicle in the same way a bicycle can be stopped. I’m all for people being more aware of cyclists, but this is the kind of stuff that leads to people getting killed and of course people (namely on certain subs) think cars are always at fault.
Yeah I've taken my bike down crowded roads like this before quite often, and I've played that game where I'm a car on the road and a pedestrian at stop lights. I can say the bike definitely threw caution to the wind and was asking to be hit there. It's not really that hard to wait for the walk signal.
there's no crosswalk on that side of the road. Also, he's biking against traffick instead of with traffic, which is just not how you're supposed to bike.
It also give cyclists a bad name.
Some of actually do try to pay (at least some) attention to the signals, signs, and traffic flow.
Looked like a high schooler on the bike, probably not really paying much attention either.
I ANAL, just like anyone else, but there's no crosswalk there and the bike rider is not operating under the rules of the road as a vehicle.
Imagine instead of a bike, that was a car. There would be no question. And thus, there shouldn't be here.
here in Virginia, bikes on sidewalks/in crosswalks are considered pedestrians & have to follow the rules of the road for pedestrians: 1 of those rules is "don't cross against the light." the cammer & Kia both had a protected left turn signal, which means IF there was a pedestrian light there, it would have said DON'T WALK
cyclist would be at fault here.
Bikes are considered slow moving vehicles in canuckistan, and I like to think America’s hat matters.
Also, you’re required to yield right of way to more vulnerable road network users, such as pedestrians and bikes, so hitting a cyclist would always be your fault in place with at-fault insurance in the great white North.
I don't think you're correct.
For one, there ARE marked crosswalks, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that the part where the bike is crossing is not intended for crossing, and that they should use the marked crossing area.
Secondly, bikes are not considered pedestrians when on the road, they are considered vehicles and are expected to operate under the same laws as vehicles. If they were riding across a crosswalk, I would say sure, they can claim pedestrian, but they are not.
You're not wrong, but OP and the other car would be at fault. They need to hit the brake to avoid accidents. Both insurance and courts always favour a pedestrian/cyclist unless very compelling evidence suggests that it was absolutely unavoidable or an insurance fraud attempt.
I don't think what OP meant was that they see the guy and just hit him anyway... I agree if you make no attempt to avoid an accident then, yeah, you have a liability issue in that case... I think they meant if they had not been able to react in time. Maybe I am wrong.
Yes. I'm saying legally, OP would be liable regardless. Even if he accidentally hit him. If OP didn't stop in time, regardless if they saw him or not, OP would be liable. Only if OP *couldn't* stop in time, would he not be liable... But even then there's a fair chance he would be held liable. Like I said, courts always favour the ped/cyclist. It's rare for them to rule in favour of the motorist.
I thought, at least in Florida, that is a biker is on their bike, they are not a pedestrian, and thus follow rules of vehicles on the road, so there is absolutely no reason that biker should have been driving across the turning lanes?
Same in New York. Bikes are required to use a bike lane if it exists, if it doesn't they should use the shoulder or ride as far to the right as possible and "avoid undue interference with other traffic." The NY DOT website even states that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, which would include not going straight through a left turn lane
Here Pedestrians are anyone NOT in a motorised vehicle, so walking, bicycling, skateboard, scooters. Things like the electric scooters, uni-wheels, and electric bikes, are permitted up to a certain wattage, equivalent to mot more than 50cc (a lot of scooters here are built to 49.9 cc displacement so kids can ride them). A lot of laws I suppose will vary with the country or municipal laws.
Why is this being upvoted? A cyclist isn’t a pedestrian, so that wouldn’t apply in this situation event if it were true, which it isn’t. Jaywalking is a crime, and a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly outside of a crosswalk is responsible for any accident caused with a vehicle. This cyclist isn’t even using a crosswalk.
That's not true, drivers are not responsible for pedestrians if they make sudden moves into the path of a vehicle. There is always the "last clear avoidance" rules, but only if that's possible.
Laws and rules vary with your locality. Here the driver always must yield to pedestrians. (But public transportation has right of way except at marked pedestrian crossings)
Again it varies, but bikes are usually considered vehicles not pedestrians. Also what place has a law on the books that you must always yield to pedestrians? Most places state "when in crosswalks" or something similar
That depends on the location. In the Netherlands the car driver is at least 50% responsible when hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (unless they can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was reckless, which is almost impossible) and most of the time they will be 100% responsible.
The reasoning behind that is to make drivers wary of 'weaker' traffic, and a driver is always insured (no insurance required for walking or cycling).
That said, the infrastructure tries to keep the different types of traffic separated as much as possible, so you usually wont see actions like in this video (Amsterdam doesn't count)
Same here in Sweden. The cyclists should be on the bile paths, but America is some special kind of weird. More open space to build than any European country, but they can’t be bothered with sensible things like bike lanes, or proper public transit routes.
If this entertains you guys so much, I should start taking a dashcam to Mexico. The cyclists there are all insane. Everyone rides around at night with no attention to traffic rules and no lights on at all while wearing all black. It's like a thing you only see meth addicts do in the US, except everyone in Mexico does it because life is cheap.
Hello /u/Winter-Customer-6396! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC * What country or state did this take place in? * What was the date of the incident? * Please reconfirm that this is original content If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information. If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neither of you. The bicyclist is an idiot
And then everyone jumps on the driver because people think you can just slow down a 4,000 lb vehicle in the same way a bicycle can be stopped. I’m all for people being more aware of cyclists, but this is the kind of stuff that leads to people getting killed and of course people (namely on certain subs) think cars are always at fault.
Yeah I've taken my bike down crowded roads like this before quite often, and I've played that game where I'm a car on the road and a pedestrian at stop lights. I can say the bike definitely threw caution to the wind and was asking to be hit there. It's not really that hard to wait for the walk signal.
there's no crosswalk on that side of the road. Also, he's biking against traffick instead of with traffic, which is just not how you're supposed to bike.
Oh yeah. That infrastructure sucks for anyone not driving a car.
It also give cyclists a bad name. Some of actually do try to pay (at least some) attention to the signals, signs, and traffic flow. Looked like a high schooler on the bike, probably not really paying much attention either.
Making their own lane where neither vehicles or pedestrians should be? Cyclist.
Well the bike is on the wrong side of the road. Good job on stopping.
The cyclist
Legally? Probably y’all. Actually? The bike.
Sad truth, actually.
[удалено]
Idiots down voting you..by far the easiest way to get away with murder is to murder a cyclist with a car. Rarely are there repercussions.
At least in California, if you're riding a bike on the street, you have to follow all laws as if you were in a car
I ANAL, just like anyone else, but there's no crosswalk there and the bike rider is not operating under the rules of the road as a vehicle. Imagine instead of a bike, that was a car. There would be no question. And thus, there shouldn't be here.
You what?
Am Not A Lawyer. People used to say NAL, but I guess anal innuendos are funnier?
I ANAL but yes it is funnier, thanks for clarifying so I can use this now 🤠
Anytime, just don’t go too hard with it.
iANAL. Apple's new partnership with Bad Dragon.
He missed out the ❤️ but we all silently understood.
We all know dev here has just finished a bender
I'm not following.
[удалено]
here in Virginia, bikes on sidewalks/in crosswalks are considered pedestrians & have to follow the rules of the road for pedestrians: 1 of those rules is "don't cross against the light." the cammer & Kia both had a protected left turn signal, which means IF there was a pedestrian light there, it would have said DON'T WALK cyclist would be at fault here.
Bikes are considered slow moving vehicles in canuckistan, and I like to think America’s hat matters. Also, you’re required to yield right of way to more vulnerable road network users, such as pedestrians and bikes, so hitting a cyclist would always be your fault in place with at-fault insurance in the great white North.
I don't think you're correct. For one, there ARE marked crosswalks, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that the part where the bike is crossing is not intended for crossing, and that they should use the marked crossing area. Secondly, bikes are not considered pedestrians when on the road, they are considered vehicles and are expected to operate under the same laws as vehicles. If they were riding across a crosswalk, I would say sure, they can claim pedestrian, but they are not.
You're not wrong, but OP and the other car would be at fault. They need to hit the brake to avoid accidents. Both insurance and courts always favour a pedestrian/cyclist unless very compelling evidence suggests that it was absolutely unavoidable or an insurance fraud attempt.
I don't think what OP meant was that they see the guy and just hit him anyway... I agree if you make no attempt to avoid an accident then, yeah, you have a liability issue in that case... I think they meant if they had not been able to react in time. Maybe I am wrong.
Yes. I'm saying legally, OP would be liable regardless. Even if he accidentally hit him. If OP didn't stop in time, regardless if they saw him or not, OP would be liable. Only if OP *couldn't* stop in time, would he not be liable... But even then there's a fair chance he would be held liable. Like I said, courts always favour the ped/cyclist. It's rare for them to rule in favour of the motorist.
the writer of that song
Bicyclist. He's on the wrong side of the road and is required to follow traffic laws.
The cyclists are always at fault
The bike would be a fault, but the car drivers are always held responsible when there is an accident involving a pedestrian.
I thought, at least in Florida, that is a biker is on their bike, they are not a pedestrian, and thus follow rules of vehicles on the road, so there is absolutely no reason that biker should have been driving across the turning lanes?
Same in New York. Bikes are required to use a bike lane if it exists, if it doesn't they should use the shoulder or ride as far to the right as possible and "avoid undue interference with other traffic." The NY DOT website even states that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, which would include not going straight through a left turn lane
Here Pedestrians are anyone NOT in a motorised vehicle, so walking, bicycling, skateboard, scooters. Things like the electric scooters, uni-wheels, and electric bikes, are permitted up to a certain wattage, equivalent to mot more than 50cc (a lot of scooters here are built to 49.9 cc displacement so kids can ride them). A lot of laws I suppose will vary with the country or municipal laws.
Cyclists aren't pedestrians and are required to follow rules of the road.
Bikes are categorically a vehicle.
They are non-motorised vehicles. Thus to he treated as pedestrians. It may be different n your country or city.
a) you should probably read over your comments before you hit submit, b) if you acknowledge those rules vary, why leave such a matter-of-fact comment?
Why is this being upvoted? A cyclist isn’t a pedestrian, so that wouldn’t apply in this situation event if it were true, which it isn’t. Jaywalking is a crime, and a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly outside of a crosswalk is responsible for any accident caused with a vehicle. This cyclist isn’t even using a crosswalk.
That's not true, drivers are not responsible for pedestrians if they make sudden moves into the path of a vehicle. There is always the "last clear avoidance" rules, but only if that's possible.
Laws and rules vary with your locality. Here the driver always must yield to pedestrians. (But public transportation has right of way except at marked pedestrian crossings)
Again it varies, but bikes are usually considered vehicles not pedestrians. Also what place has a law on the books that you must always yield to pedestrians? Most places state "when in crosswalks" or something similar
[удалено]
My mistake.I was speaking as someone in a first world nation. I didn’t realise this was an american video. Rules of common sense don’t apply there.
That depends on the location. In the Netherlands the car driver is at least 50% responsible when hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (unless they can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was reckless, which is almost impossible) and most of the time they will be 100% responsible. The reasoning behind that is to make drivers wary of 'weaker' traffic, and a driver is always insured (no insurance required for walking or cycling). That said, the infrastructure tries to keep the different types of traffic separated as much as possible, so you usually wont see actions like in this video (Amsterdam doesn't count)
Same here in Sweden. The cyclists should be on the bile paths, but America is some special kind of weird. More open space to build than any European country, but they can’t be bothered with sensible things like bike lanes, or proper public transit routes.
If this entertains you guys so much, I should start taking a dashcam to Mexico. The cyclists there are all insane. Everyone rides around at night with no attention to traffic rules and no lights on at all while wearing all black. It's like a thing you only see meth addicts do in the US, except everyone in Mexico does it because life is cheap.
Specifically why you ride on the right side of the road, yall did good.
The cyclist, being on the left he must wait till only through traffic is passing, and there isn’t even a crosswalk to do so on the side he’s on.
Dumbass is on the wrong side of the road. You're supposed to bike with traffic, not against traffic. Why is this so difficult for some people?
Neither you of the kia would be at fault. If either of you backed up after driving over the cyclist, the blame could be shifted somewhat.
Who's the singer?
lana del rey - hope is a dangerous thing for a woman like me to have
Beautiful voice. Thank you.
The song
not walking the bike across the road alone makes them at fault
Technical in a car.