@ToastNdefJam I think we've touched on a much bigger issue here! Perhaps we are already passed the point of no return, with the only solution being Wall-E style hoverchairs and Google cars, so we don't have to pay attention anymore... :( Hey, if everyone else is in automated cars, it will probably be easier to get around them all!
@ToastNdefJam So true. I pondered, over the weekend, if there is a correlation between inattentive bicycle riders and their driving habits. If one spends the day breaking the laws of the road on their bike, I wonder if they may unconsciously carry that over into their motorized vehicle driving.
If bikes are required to follow the rules of the road, perhaps they need to be tested and get a license, too?
That car driver was doing a fine job and is propably a cyclists himself. Only because you are in a different lane, doesn't mean you don't need to give cyclists room.
There can be objects in the street, wind or they can slip and make some sudden movement. If you are too close at that point you will run them over.
Too much in this case is better than too little, especially if there is enough room and time to do so.
I am a big fan of people who switch to a bicycle vs. car - it means more free space on the road for me ;)
The first concern I have about the being-too-close point you rise is that bicycle lanes were added to roads like this for just that reason. Does this mean the city did not mandate wide enough bike lanes? I don't know the details, do you?
What I see is a driver who has no idea of the size of their vehicle. (and no signal)
@bored2kGER I am actually from germany and here our laws say you have to give cyclists about 1,5 - 2 meters of room. So if you can't give the cyclist that amount of room while staying in your lane, you will need to get in the 2nd lane or the wrong side if clear.
When i am in the car i try to give them as much room as they need. Only thing i propably should do more is indicate, but i kinda feel it's unecessary when the person behind can already see what i am doing.
@bored2kGER 1.5 - 2 meters means you are on the other side of the road completely. That's not the case here in Vancouver. Leave some extra room, maybe... but I say the same thing about cyclists that you say about cars "i kinda feel it's unecessary when the person behind can already see what I am doing." As a cyclists, you should be more aware of what cars are doing since you are the smaller "vehicle". I don't think the cyclists cares as he believes the road belongs to him. Sigh.
@Phalanx217 I can only speak for my country, but i can't see anything wrong with leaving that much space. It certainly doesn't mean that cyclists own the road, but give vulnerable road users their space to be safe.
You wouldn't blast by a pedestrian at 30mph with barely any room to spare. At the end of the day a car is a weapon and driving is a privilege, that can be taken away.
@bored2kGER Leaving room to spare is not what this driver did... he left it so that another car can fit in between them. If they aren't careful there could be cyclists on the other side of the road who could potentially get frightened from a car heading towards them. As I said, just leave enough room for error, not full car length.
@Phalanx217 No offence, but if you put driving videos up you should at least have general knowledge about other road users and anticipate their movements. Naming and shaming doesn't really work, if you pick the ones that are not doing anything wrong. It's just throws the "FAIL" right back at you.
I'll give you a hint : door zone [watch?v=uHKASMiImP4]
@bored2kGER First, I didn't post the video, so you're wrong there. Second, Naming and shaming? When did I do that? The FAIL was in reference to the cyclists who decided that the white line on the left of the bike route, is a suggestion. Third, your "door zone" doesn't mean you ride outside the bike zone the whole time trying to anticipate the opening of a door. Here in BC, the person who opens the door is at fault if he/she is struck by an open door. It's already been to the courts and is set.
@bored2kGER First, I didn't post the video so maybe you should verify your accusations before you jump the gun. Second, Naming and shaming? When did I do that? Third, the FAIL is in reference to the time frame between 6 seconds and 9 seconds where the cyclists decides the white line on the left of the bike lane is a suggestion rather than a technical boundary. So the FAIL to understand is not mine. :) Anticipate the road users? Did you see a car on the right of the cyclist between 6-9 seconds?
@bored2kGER As a matter of fact, the cyclist goes outside the bike lane until he comes close to the cars in which case he stays closest to the left side of the lane (which is correct). So the door zone, I'm assuming is in effect when there are actual doors present. lol
@Phalanx217 You are actually correct, mixed your name up. Not sure really what your point is, because it took you 3 replies to make your mind up.
One cyclist was overtaking another and giving him room. Then shortly after they all moved over for the doors of the vehicle, it doesn't really get more obvious.
@bored2kGER my point is... don't overtake unless it's safe to do so. He didn't even look back to see if he could make it without the car coming that close to him. I made two replies because of the lag that I wasn't sure the post made it. It's two times I posted with the third being an apology for the double post. You don't seem to take proper note of what's happening which is why you probably ride your bike in this dangerous manner. A bike against a 2 tonne car... think about it.
@bored2kGER It's not my funeral and it won't matter who's fault it is if you get into a serious accident. It's much safer to assume that the driver doesn't know what their doing and be more careful. Nothing is more obvious than what I stated. You seemed to think that he moved over because of the cars and now you've changed your mind. Attention to detail before you post.
@Phalanx217 You can not see if the cyclist looked nor can you know how i ride my bike if i do. You seem to jump to conclusions without properly using your brain.
The cyclist also was already out of his lane before the car overtook, everybody was left enough room to be safe and they all were cautious. Your point was "don't overtake unless it's safe to do so", it was infact safe to do so. On a sidenote being arrogant does only work if you actually know what your talking about.
@bored2kGER Actually, if you look close enough you don't see his face so unless he has eyes in the back of his head. He didn't look. He only looked after he got near the truck to make sure there's enough room for him. Arrogant, no, observant, yes. :) When I say you probably ride your bike like this... I mean that you see nothing wrong with it so why would I assume otherwise. You sound defensive...
@Phalanx217 Frankly i do both and seem to know a little more about it than you. On a bike your head does not need a big angle to check behind you, therefore you will never see his face.
It would be observant if you judged the situation correctly, but as you have very little understanding of cyclists in general you can not be. Nobody says you need to try riding a bike, but your lack of comon sense makes your imcompetence quite painful.
@bored2kGER You always go back to the insults but never answer my observations as correct or not. In second 12 he looks back with a full head turn. Why is that different than what you say he did before (which by my understanding, is to use some sort of sixth sense to see behind him). It's obvious you don't like anyone actually grasping the situation other than the way you see it and this has become pointless. You choose not to see the situation objectively and that makes you unreasonable.
@Phalanx217 You can respond to this in your oblivous manner but I'm done with this thread. Hopefully I don't see you around Vancouver because I'd surely hate to see you in the hospital and me footing the bill for your incompetence. Cheers.
@ToastNdefJam I think we've touched on a much bigger issue here! Perhaps we are already passed the point of no return, with the only solution being Wall-E style hoverchairs and Google cars, so we don't have to pay attention anymore... :( Hey, if everyone else is in automated cars, it will probably be easier to get around them all!
HNTDVancouver 5 months ago
@ToastNdefJam So true. I pondered, over the weekend, if there is a correlation between inattentive bicycle riders and their driving habits. If one spends the day breaking the laws of the road on their bike, I wonder if they may unconsciously carry that over into their motorized vehicle driving.
If bikes are required to follow the rules of the road, perhaps they need to be tested and get a license, too?
HNTDVancouver 5 months ago
Oops replied twice but made different points. You need to read through fully and re-watch the video to understand.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
That car driver was doing a fine job and is propably a cyclists himself. Only because you are in a different lane, doesn't mean you don't need to give cyclists room.
There can be objects in the street, wind or they can slip and make some sudden movement. If you are too close at that point you will run them over.
Too much in this case is better than too little, especially if there is enough room and time to do so.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Thanks for your comments!
I am a big fan of people who switch to a bicycle vs. car - it means more free space on the road for me ;)
The first concern I have about the being-too-close point you rise is that bicycle lanes were added to roads like this for just that reason. Does this mean the city did not mandate wide enough bike lanes? I don't know the details, do you?
What I see is a driver who has no idea of the size of their vehicle. (and no signal)
HNTDVancouver 9 months ago
@bored2kGER I am actually from germany and here our laws say you have to give cyclists about 1,5 - 2 meters of room. So if you can't give the cyclist that amount of room while staying in your lane, you will need to get in the 2nd lane or the wrong side if clear.
When i am in the car i try to give them as much room as they need. Only thing i propably should do more is indicate, but i kinda feel it's unecessary when the person behind can already see what i am doing.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER 1.5 - 2 meters means you are on the other side of the road completely. That's not the case here in Vancouver. Leave some extra room, maybe... but I say the same thing about cyclists that you say about cars "i kinda feel it's unecessary when the person behind can already see what I am doing." As a cyclists, you should be more aware of what cars are doing since you are the smaller "vehicle". I don't think the cyclists cares as he believes the road belongs to him. Sigh.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 I can only speak for my country, but i can't see anything wrong with leaving that much space. It certainly doesn't mean that cyclists own the road, but give vulnerable road users their space to be safe.
You wouldn't blast by a pedestrian at 30mph with barely any room to spare. At the end of the day a car is a weapon and driving is a privilege, that can be taken away.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Leaving room to spare is not what this driver did... he left it so that another car can fit in between them. If they aren't careful there could be cyclists on the other side of the road who could potentially get frightened from a car heading towards them. As I said, just leave enough room for error, not full car length.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Also, you never said anything about the second cyclists who decided that the bike lane isn't big enough. That is worthy of a FAIL.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 No offence, but if you put driving videos up you should at least have general knowledge about other road users and anticipate their movements. Naming and shaming doesn't really work, if you pick the ones that are not doing anything wrong. It's just throws the "FAIL" right back at you.
I'll give you a hint : door zone [watch?v=uHKASMiImP4]
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER First, I didn't post the video, so you're wrong there. Second, Naming and shaming? When did I do that? The FAIL was in reference to the cyclists who decided that the white line on the left of the bike route, is a suggestion. Third, your "door zone" doesn't mean you ride outside the bike zone the whole time trying to anticipate the opening of a door. Here in BC, the person who opens the door is at fault if he/she is struck by an open door. It's already been to the courts and is set.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER First, I didn't post the video so maybe you should verify your accusations before you jump the gun. Second, Naming and shaming? When did I do that? Third, the FAIL is in reference to the time frame between 6 seconds and 9 seconds where the cyclists decides the white line on the left of the bike lane is a suggestion rather than a technical boundary. So the FAIL to understand is not mine. :) Anticipate the road users? Did you see a car on the right of the cyclist between 6-9 seconds?
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER As a matter of fact, the cyclist goes outside the bike lane until he comes close to the cars in which case he stays closest to the left side of the lane (which is correct). So the door zone, I'm assuming is in effect when there are actual doors present. lol
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 You are actually correct, mixed your name up. Not sure really what your point is, because it took you 3 replies to make your mind up.
One cyclist was overtaking another and giving him room. Then shortly after they all moved over for the doors of the vehicle, it doesn't really get more obvious.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER my point is... don't overtake unless it's safe to do so. He didn't even look back to see if he could make it without the car coming that close to him. I made two replies because of the lag that I wasn't sure the post made it. It's two times I posted with the third being an apology for the double post. You don't seem to take proper note of what's happening which is why you probably ride your bike in this dangerous manner. A bike against a 2 tonne car... think about it.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER It's not my funeral and it won't matter who's fault it is if you get into a serious accident. It's much safer to assume that the driver doesn't know what their doing and be more careful. Nothing is more obvious than what I stated. You seemed to think that he moved over because of the cars and now you've changed your mind. Attention to detail before you post.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 You can not see if the cyclist looked nor can you know how i ride my bike if i do. You seem to jump to conclusions without properly using your brain.
The cyclist also was already out of his lane before the car overtook, everybody was left enough room to be safe and they all were cautious. Your point was "don't overtake unless it's safe to do so", it was infact safe to do so. On a sidenote being arrogant does only work if you actually know what your talking about.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Actually, if you look close enough you don't see his face so unless he has eyes in the back of his head. He didn't look. He only looked after he got near the truck to make sure there's enough room for him. Arrogant, no, observant, yes. :) When I say you probably ride your bike like this... I mean that you see nothing wrong with it so why would I assume otherwise. You sound defensive...
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 Frankly i do both and seem to know a little more about it than you. On a bike your head does not need a big angle to check behind you, therefore you will never see his face.
It would be observant if you judged the situation correctly, but as you have very little understanding of cyclists in general you can not be. Nobody says you need to try riding a bike, but your lack of comon sense makes your imcompetence quite painful.
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@bored2kGER You always go back to the insults but never answer my observations as correct or not. In second 12 he looks back with a full head turn. Why is that different than what you say he did before (which by my understanding, is to use some sort of sixth sense to see behind him). It's obvious you don't like anyone actually grasping the situation other than the way you see it and this has become pointless. You choose not to see the situation objectively and that makes you unreasonable.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Pray that you don't do that crap while in front of my car or better yet my SUV. :) You probably wouldn't see it coming. lol
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@bored2kGER Oh, and for the record, I do ride a bicycle here in Vancouver I I'm doing just fine. Thanks.
Phalanx217 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 yet
bored2kGER 9 months ago
@Phalanx217 You can respond to this in your oblivous manner but I'm done with this thread. Hopefully I don't see you around Vancouver because I'd surely hate to see you in the hospital and me footing the bill for your incompetence. Cheers.
Phalanx217 9 months ago