no Cyclist Rekt Thread? Cyclist Rekt Thread!

Two extremely original webms I've never seen before. Thanks op! Great thread.

>>1003965
>two

>>1003960
Damn, that truck driver is a piece of shit.

>>1003960
This one always gets me, those guys deserved it.

>>1006436
Go ride your bike on a busy highway too.

>>1006445
nah, he cut through a traffic line to try to get ahead of them

>>1006445
1) If it's legal, it's legal. He isn't wrong and has every right to be there, unless he posted it, because he helped build it with his taxes.
2) Never EVER do you pass on the right. Truck tired to pass on the right and didn't have enough room. Selfish, child, driver.

>>1006699
The bikes should have merged seamlessy into the right lane after the exit. Instead they stayed in the middle for too long and got rekt for it.

Have you every driven a car? You can merge seamlessy after those types of right lane exit only exits. The truck was was trying to avoid those retard cyclists in the middle by going to the outside lane.

But the cyclist obviously couldn't maintain the speed limit. Did you know going under the speed limit significantly creates a road obstacle and danger on highways? Did you know going under the speed limit significantly can put you at cause for an accident?

Don't kid yourselves, those bikers created that incident and are liable for it.

>>1006885
>The bikes should have merged seamlessy into the right lane after the exit
What? After the exit, that axe-head, they're in the right lane already by default. What the truck did was try and pass them on the right where he thought there was enough room, so he could be head of them in the same lane they were going to end up in.


>Have you every driven a car? You can merge seamlessy after those types of right lane exit only exits. The truck was was trying to avoid those retard cyclists in the middle by going to the outside lane.
Have YOU? I drive for a living.
Are you even watching the same video?

>But the cyclist obviously couldn't maintain the speed limit.
You can probably guess, but it's not posted, so we won't debate who was and wasn't speeding.

>Did you know going under the speed limit significantly creates a road obstacle and danger on highways?
Yes, which is way the cyclist looks as if he was on his way to the right side of the lane, where he's entitled to be, but this asshole thought it was a good idea to run up his right side and pass on the right, even though you never pass on the right.

>>1006891
>even though you never pass on the right
Not against the law.

File: nj.png (36KB, 664x436px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 664x436px

>>1006895
Alright, well, in my state it is. A quick google of 'pass on right' returns that most states have at least some law prohibiting passing on the right.

The cyclist was not making a left, but getting into the right most lane that would come after the axe-head of an exit there. What the truck did was drive up the shoulder and try and over take him from the right, really an untaking.
What part of this sounds safe, reasonable, or legal to you?

Truck should have slowed if needed, and erred left if needed.
It was not in the cyclist's best interest to cycle there, I don't think, but it's his right and motorists must not sperg out.

>>1006897
>it's the cyclists right to ride 40 miles below the speed limit

Let's just imagine this highway has a 60 mph limit, they were going like 15 mph. If a car was doing that they would get pulled over and get a ticket. Or the cop would tell the car to speed up or get off the highway.

>bitterest it's my right to drive 5 mph on a highway

>>1006899
Are you insane?

There's a good analogue here. For an incredibly large portion of the Black Horse Pike, there is more than enough room for the traffic to go full speed and over, with a speed limit of 35-45mph. However, there is a single bad spot on it where the high way mergers in, and the cyclist is suddenly expecting to merge with traffic as they try and get back to the right most lane, where they will immediately not be in the way any longer.
I imagine if the cyclist is there, it's a similar situation where he is.

You piss and fucking moan about someone under the limit for a FEW YARDS as they head back over to the right, where they are not a problem. Instead of flipping out and going MUH SPEEEED, you just see that the cyclist must get over logically, and account for it. Just slow a bit and let him over some.

>>1006900
>a little bit under the speed limit

They were going like 12 mph at best in a, what you claim but provide no source for, is a 35-45 mph highway.

Regardless, the minimum is 35, if you can't maintain the minimum then you can't be on that road.

>>1006902
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing wrong with riding along side traffic that is faster than you if there is enough room to do so.
As I've said with the Pike example, there's more than enough room that there's no problem until you must merge at one point.

You're very fixed on the speed, but the cyclist in reality is only underspeeding for a matter of yards, as they go right to the edge of the outer lane. Understand?

All anyone needs to do is control themselves for the time it takes for him to move right a bit.
It's not hard for an adult.
All the truck had to do was slow and err left rather than speed and try to undertake into that right lane.
He knew the cyclist had to get over there, but instead of using that info safely deal with him, he used it to think 'Hmmm, I can beat em!'

>>1006904
You're missing the point. You can't be on the fucking road if you can't maintain the minimum speed. I don't care and the law doesn't care for all these special snowflake rules you're trying to apply.

You can't be on the road unless you are on a road vehicle. You can't be on the shoulder unless your car or vehicle breaks. You can't drive on the shoulder going 5 mph the entire time whether you are a car, motorcycle or otherwise.

FFS

>>1006907
>You're missing the point.
No, I just live in the real world.

>You can't be on the fucking road if you can't maintain the minimum speed.
Then you better start writing tickets for nearly everyone who rides around town, because most people do not consistently ride 25mph as a casual.
I understand it's hard to not be at maximum speed at all times, but all someone needed to do to maintain a safe road condition to the best of their ability, was to calm down for a matter of yards and let the cyclist over. You need to stop being selfish and start being smart. Be less concerned with being right, and more concerned with being alive. It's not a hard lesson to learn. You'll get there one day.

>You can't be on the road unless you are on a road vehicle.
A bike is a road vehicle.

>You can't be on the shoulder unless your car or vehicle breaks.
Right, so what was that truck doing driving up the shoulder to undercut into the right lane?

>>1006907
You have no idea what you're talking about, kiddo

>>1006910
>HURRRRR I'M GOING TO IGNORE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION

It's a highway with what you said has a 35 - 45 mph speed limit. Minimum speed limits exist on highways. So again, you're special snowflake rules are imaginary, there are roads where bikes are welcome which are generally not always highways.

>>1006913
Holy shit, dude, are you actually retarded?
Let's try another route:

Tell me what you think the trucker did correctly?

File: 88187676.jpg (39KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 420x420px

>>1006914
>Tell me what you think the trucker did correctly?
Hit the cyclist.

>>1006915
I am high as fuck right now and I know that's not right, senpai

Less bitching, more crashing.

Angry dad takes revenge for his dropped son out on the petelon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obAIthB4xhs

TT downhill lowside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpymMb2M4OE

Olympic midair BMX colision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yODTj-UK2Ro

A little bit of repost, from a race in Utah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyRqN7ukxrw

Bonus: Paraolympics wheelchair race crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQGfN9F1wXU

>>1006916
The trucker didn't even hit the cyclist. The cyclist rammed his bike onto the left side of the back of the truck.

I don't know what he was trying to accomplish, maybe get some money from an accident or try to kill the trucker but the cyclist could have not steered into the truck.

>>1006928
Don't you fuck with me

>>1006928 (You)
Made me chuckle, here's what you're looking for

>>1003960
Cycling on a multi-lane road without mirrors is fucking retarded

>>1006699
I'm sure being right helped him make a speedy recovery.

>>1006897
>Alright, well, in my state it is

That video is from a former Soviet country, so whatever laws you think apply probably don't.

>>1006928
This is correct. The cyclist stayed in the middle lane, and then drifted over into the right hand lane without shoulder checking or even a proper signal (lifting your arm up 15 degrees isn't a proper signal).

The cyclist sideswiped the truck.

>>1006915
Audibly laughed

>>1006953
The cyclist was simply staying as far right as safely manageable, as is the law.
The trucker made a fucking boneheaded decision to drive on the shoulder around the cyclists, rather than noting their presence and the danger he posed to their lives. I wouldn't be surprised if he was driving under the influence, considering the fact that anyone of sane and sober mind would make the obvious decision of slowing down as necessary and passing on the left, so as not to fucking kill somebody

>>1007132
This. He wasn't as far as as possible for a FEW YARDS because he was getting over.

>>1006952
Wonderful, doesn't mean the truck isn't a selfish cunt who isn't even acting in his own best interest.

File: good trackstand = good biker.webm (3MB, 876x546px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 876x546px

almost rekt. happened today

>>1007178
technically skilled but ocular deprived

>>1007178
That's a common mistake. I also once rode to the left after a car overtook me. And I didn't hear the car behind it because the sound of the first car overlapped it. Was close. I learned my lesson.

>>1007178
Who was at fault?

>>1007250
You're only allowed to deviate from your current path of it can be done safely and without undue inconvenience to your fellow travelers. You work it out.

>>1007250
The cyclist in the red shorts, obviously. Swerved across two lanes without checking; moved across the pedestrian crossing when the light was against him, too.

>>1007178
>good trackstand
I disagree; that was a pretty bad trackstand attempt. Too much movement shows that he never actually quite found a balancing point probably because he can't figure out how to trackstand with his wheel pointed left, which is especially disgraceful on a fixed gear. No need to comment on the rest on the rest of his riding as /n/ already knows how poor it is.

>>1003960
>signs to change lane
>doesn't look back, but start changing the lane
that one was the biker's fault

True cyclists never ever get hit by cars or crash.

if you have ever crash you are not good enough to be on a bike fyi

>>1009987
No. Cyclist logically had to get over, part of being a good driver is predicting traffic. Clearly, cyclist is doing what he needs to do, the trucker just thought he could undercut him by driving off the road, and he was almost right.

>>1007178
Cyclist so shit like this everyday, that's why they are all pieces of shit.

File: 1403991727354.webm (3MB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x450px

this is a good one

File: 1448042564648.webm (1MB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 736x552px

i actually enjoy riding bikes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7AVC1YCcO0
related and enjoyable for different reasons

>>1010053
smooth moves from that bus driver

>>1010050
Lmao I know the guy in DMR there.

>>1006891
>You can probably guess, but it's not posted, so we won't debate who was and wasn't speeding.
the bikes were slower than a car slowing into the turn, and three cars going straight.

Unless you can go the proper speed, stay off the road.

>>1006897
>What part of this sounds safe, reasonable, or legal to you?
Cyclists are in the lane that you are in.
They are going couple dozen mph slower than speed limit and flow of traffic.
You can either run them over, or move into a different lane.
Trucks don't belong on the left.
The truck moved into a different lane.
Cyclist was a faggot and changed lanes without looking in front the courteous truck.

It's not the truck driver's fault that the cyclist was suicidal.

>>1007132
>The cyclist was simply staying as far right as safely manageable, as is the law.
Yet he still chose to try to check the condition of the axles on the truck while it was moving...

>>1007250
The cyclist.

>>1010105
He was getting over. You don't slam into the back of cars slowing to get over into their exit lane.

>>1010108
Truck did not move into another lane. Truck moved into the shoulder, to pass on the right, when the cyclist was NOT making a left.
That's three wrongs. (Unless you live in a slav shithole, apparently.)

If I am driving in the right lane, and someone is slowing from the middle lane, or even ahead of me, to get into the exit, I do not say OMG, HE IS NOT DOING THE LIMIT, I MUST TRY AND ILLEGALLY AND UNSAFELY UNDERCUT HIM SO AS TO NOT SLOW DOWN OR THINK LOGICALLY FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND! I just, ya know, see that he's getting over and let him do it because I'm not a sociopath.

Cyclist was in the right most lane, and the right side of it, until he had to move over.
Literally, this man could have died for the matter of a yard or two that someone couldn't hang tight over.

>>1010110
He was undercut.

>>1010115
>He was undercut.
His fault. His overhead was probably too high.

>>1007178
impressive save

>>1010053
unless theres some law about needing the full lane or not going on the path, that was pretty dickish from the cyclist, i guess there wasnt much room to pass safely around him, but that bus driver made me so happy

>>1003960
>biking on a highway.........

Is this rape?

File: 1471937680289.png (863KB, 914x674px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 914x674px

>>1010287
The cyclist would have to walk his bike on the path as it looks pretty narrow.
Like, again, here is another example of a cyclist nearly dying because he inconvenienced someone in a car for a relatively short length of time. All the dude needed to do was slow a tiny bit for the length of a the bridge, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

File: 1978723_231234627223125_2753172601478908232_n.jpg (16KB, 274x206px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 274x206px

>>1006915

>>1010287
on a road like that taking the full lane is necessary
and since its a two lane road, its no inconvenience for cars, they just switch lanes

>>1010588
Exactly!
Why are cyclists such faggots that they can't walk their bike when it would decrease road safety?

>>1010594
>imminent turn
>just switch lanes
... Are you stupid?

>>1010880
no, not exactly that's terrible cager logic of "I'm in a car how dare you inconvenience me for 5 seconds. Read your friendly driver's manual for any help understanding the situation.

>>1009987
agreed

>>1010881
>imminent turn
>slowing down anyways
>having to slow down 15 seconds earlier is a major inconvenience

>>1010881
I could agree that this is too close a call to change lanes if we were talking about doing it where the bus blockaded the car, but they were a loooooooooooooooong distance from that point when the car hit the bicyclist. there was plenty of space to change lanes several times (i.e. it would've been possible to do some good old fashioned irresponsible weaving before hitting the intersection).

in a situation like that, unless the law says that the bicyclist needs to get off the road, it's understood that the bicyclist should take a full lane. i don't know of any places where a cyclist is expected to take less than that in a road with no shoulder (or rather, where the shoulder is behind a cement wall).

the rationale is simple: if you give drivers *legal* permission to try to sneak past a bicyclist on a bridge with no shoulders and basically no margin for error, cyclists will get killed. if nothing else, that disrupts traffic

>>1010588
>>1010287
what happened was that the black car was fed up with how slow the silver car was driving. the silver car was going slow because he was patiently waiting for the cyclist. the black car tried to pass and swerve around the silver car, not having seen the cyclist. He hit the cyclist as he tried to merge.

>>1010980

this makes sense, he's still a dick for not paying attention/trying to leg it

File: Pelotón de peregrinos polacos.jpg (94KB, 1200x518px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x518px

>>1010302
>37 Polish pilgrims caught biking on the freeway
from yesterdays news

File: 1474527379841.jpg (48KB, 660x481px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 660x481px

Quality of country's biker culture is heavily dependant on the quality of cager culture.

The worst offenders are of course bumbling retards from United States of School Shootings where everyone gets a cage at 16 and never leave them till they die from cardiac arrest.

Even in former Warsaw Pact countries the situation is better despite alcoholism being prevalent and road being of shit quality. Simply because everyone there at one point of his life was a biker be it due to not having a car, or bike being a cheaper more reliable solution to it.

>>1011022
why the spike in Finland? drunk cyclists passing out in the snow?

>>1011032
They're the country where people drive sharpened spikes into the bed of rivers/lakes just below the water level in places where folks frequently jump into the water so they'll impale themselves.

And of course razors glued to monkeybars on children's playground and wire stretched between walls at neck level in poorly lit bicycle tunnels

>>1011022
110% of trips are by bicycle in the Netherlands? That's some next level shit.

>>1011051
26-27%, are you blind?

>>1010973
>>1010881
Bus is obviously trying to trap the shitlord who tried to run away, the car behind him even scoots up to block him from reversing.

>>1010050
They're so cute

Who has the one from the olympics who goes right over the bars on a downhill turn?

I just almost did that myself today.

>>1010973
>the rationale is simple: if you give drivers *legal* permission to try to sneak past a bicyclist on a bridge with no shoulders and basically no margin for error, cyclists will get killed. if nothing else, that disrupts traffic
alternatively the cyclist could have walked the bike because he wasn't able to match road speed.
bicycles are vehicles, either be able to go the flow of traffic, or get off the road.

>>1010053
Bus Driver and the Car blocked him nice!
Very good move from bus driver.

>>1011512
No need to on such a short length and with two redidly available lanes.

>>1011803
As the cars having the brake heavily and swerve show, there is a need.

If you are moving at 10% of the speed of the normal flow of traffic, you are essentially a stationary object. It is as dangerous as standing in the middle of the carriageway.

>>1011889
>As the cars having the brake heavily and swerve show, there is a need.

Nope. There was plenty of room in the left lane. Black car should have seen the slow silver car and passed on left easily. And then stayed in left lane until it was safe to move right again. Plenty of room before the next intersection.

Guy in the silver car is also a bit of a moron. When you see a cyclist moving slow and you have a few hundred feet, move over to pass. That way traffic behind you has more time to react as well. Just running up behind the cyclist and then crawling along was a shit move.

>>1011950
He probably meant it in good will, at least.

>>1011889
You, however, have the same mindset as the black car.
You only run into problems when motorists are not paying attention, and while I know this this 24/7, it's not an actual problem inherent to what the cyclist is doing.

When you are driving, you must look ahead. And, I don't mean 'stare deadeyed into the horizon', I mean actually look ahead so you can make an informed decision about what to do next.
There's no problem with what the cyclist is doing.

>>1011803
>No need to on such a short length and with two redidly available lanes.
and yet the cyclist got hit because he decided he belonged on the freeway at 12mph instead of walking his bike, and as a result decreased road safety.

Sounds like it would have been a good idea for the cyclist to be considerate...

>>1011950
>>1011954
>changing lanes 100ft before a turn
Do you only own bikes?

>>1012167
lol, no sweatie. The cyclist almost died because an impatient motorist had a hissyfit and couldn't be bothered to look ahead.
The bridge obviously ends and you'll be able to use the road however you want after it, obviously.

Cry harder, literally baby.

>>1012168
No, I drive for a living.
It's not hard to look ahead, see a cyclist, and pop around him. (Or a car for that matter.)
I really do not understand the mindset of going as fast as you possibly can at all times.

That black car should have seen the bridge, hopefully the cyclist, or at the very least, the slower cars, and thought 'something might be up, so maybe I should slow down a bit just to be safe'. Stop being so concerned about being selfish, and start being concerned about being safe.

>>1012173
>Stop being so concerned about being selfish, and start being concerned about being safe.
Oh the irony...

>>1012174
Friend, I know it's going to sound weird to you, but there is a world outside of your mother's basement, and I live in it every day. Turns out there's other people out there too, and we all have to get along.

How does this shake out; 'Hey, man, just chill for less than five minutes as we cross this bridge' 'NO I GOTTA RUN OVER A HUMAN BEING, AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT HE LIVES, I WANNA GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!' Doesn't sound like adult behavior to me.
Literally, the only unsafe one here is the impatient and inattentive driver. It's nothing to do with the cyclist. It's a mile at most, friend.

>>1012186
>'Hey, man, just chill for less than five minutes as we cross this bridge'
>Stop being so concerned about being selfish,

>>1012204
>only cages have a right to the road
America is perpetuating so many awful, inconsiderate, murderous mindsets like this, nationalism, anti-intellectualism, and now even fascism!
Can we just get bombed into oblivion already? Such people have no place in civilized society

>>1012186
So let's get this straight: the cyclist moving at no more than walking pace on a two lane highway across a bridge is a fine upstanding citizen, but the driver who is inconvenienced by the stationary object in the carriageway is just a selfish babby who should chill?

So if I decided to hop down the center of a highway, it's everyone elses problem and they should just idle along behind me until I finish hoping?

>>1012219
Depends on the circumstances - If the side of the highway was full of bees, preventing you from hopping there, then it would make sense for you to hop down the middle of the highway instead.

If the hopper has a safe alternative to using the middle of the highway they should take it, but ultimately it's more important that people are able to reach their destinations safely than it is that people get where they're going without any inconvenience.

>>1012212
>murderous mindsets like this
Accidents happen. Accidents (between cars and cyclists, and cars and cars) are more likely when cyclists are cunts and act as a vehicle when they shouldn't (read: can't go within 5mph of flow of traffic).

>inconsiderate
The convenience of one cyclist vs the convenience of literally everyone else on the road.
You tell me who is being inconsiderate.

>nationalism
Are you trying to imply that no nation is better than any other nation?
Because you're wrong.

Are you trying to imply that being born of a specific nationality is not a valid reason to have pride?
Because you're wrong.

Are you trying to imply that ethno-nationalism isn't a legitimate movement? (Sorry Daan, america is for the anglo-germanic.)
Because you're wrong.
(I'm implying that being american and being an american citizen are distinct concepts, that are conflated accidentally by most people and deliberately by marxists)

>anti-intellectualism
This is not a bad thing. Being against pseudo-intellectuals and leftist/marxist intellectuals is not wrong.

>even fascism
The people exposing the things you attempted to portray as negative before are the exact opposite of the people asking for facism.
In America the left is fascist, not the right. Freedom is about is far as you can get from facism...
The right (in america) doesn't have totalitarians and statists...

>Can we just get bombed into oblivion already?
By who? Being top dog has its perks, stop trying to change that.

>Such people have no place in civilized society
There are certainly groups of people who don't belong in American society. And if I had to guess, you would be a member of one of those groups. (hint: they generally stand against america and her values)

File: 1473290696740.gif (372KB, 499x281px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 499x281px

>>1012238
>By who?
Just 50-100 bombs can send your shitty country into the stone age, and this guy has thousands of them. Even north Korea has their bombs, many countries have nukes, so your country is not untouchable.

File: butthurt.png (19KB, 470x652px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 470x652px

>>1012238
way tl;dr

Why would you ever ride your bike when 2 tonne death machines with idiots behind the wheel are all around, it's like a death wish.

I would rather get shot at in the Middle East

>>1012243
>Just 50-100 bombs can send your shitty country into the stone age
And why would he want to trade the modern existence of his country for mine?
A nuclear exchange only results in a stalemate.

Also after the radiation levels wer safe for all day exposure (3-6 months) we would be back on our feet within 6 months, and where we were before within 2-3 years
>so your country is not untouchable
We are for any realistic scenario.
An invasion is doomed to failure because of our navy and airforce and most impotrantly our people actually have rights.
Our missile defense isn't good enough to stop everything (no one's is), but we'll be fine.
Short of tunneling through the earth to pop up in DC at the state of union address ala GLA style, we are under no real threat.


>>1012245
>tl;dr
The cyclist was inconsiderate and willfully put himself into harms way. He paid the price of the risk he took.
(this does not mean he was at fault)
and
Better dead than red.

>>1012204
Yes, stop being concerned about being selfish.
If you ate 3/4 of a box of communal cookies like the cager fat ass you are, and I asked for one, I don't suddenly don't become the selfish one because I would like a share.

>>1012219
YES
Are you fucking retarded? If you cannot allow another human being to exist unmolested for the length of a little fucking bridge, you are a child and children are not allowed to drive.

>>1012225
This, especially since it's a fucking bridge.
Now, I can't get a good view of what it's spanning, but if bridges are involved, it's likely there are a limited amount of direct routes to take.

Selfish children.

>>1012238
Found the autistic poster again!

>>1012247
For some it's not a choice, for some it's a better choice.
I do not let the misbehavior of others impact my day to day life so strongly. Cagers want to kill me every day on my bike, to the point where I'm fairly confident it's how I might die one day.
When I'm driving, I see a close call every. single. day.

>>1012250
No, dear, an impatient and inconsiderate motorist had a hissy fit when he found out he had to share the road for like a mile. To make it all the better, he couldn't even own up to his actions, and tried to escape.
Now, what part of that sounds considerate?
Cry.

>>1007178
this is why no one in nyc likes cyclists, especially if they're fixiefags

>>1012293
>children are not allowed to drive.
14.5 years old for a daytime license in some states...

test

File: ClMytnEXEAEqHbh.jpg (103KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1200x675px

>>1012445
looks like brazil

>>1012238
>Are you trying to imply that no nation is better than any other nation?
>Because you're wrong.
Define "better" in this context and then explain to me how that is supposed to matter in terms of what we think of and how we treat people from other countries

>Are you trying to imply that being born of a specific nationality is not a valid reason to have pride?
>Because you're wrong.
Your collectivism is showing. Pride in country is a mental cushion for those of meager intellect and need to have clearly defined, black-and-white categories for people in order to feel comfortable

You're seriously fucked up mate, I hope you get some help.

>>1012293
>If you cannot allow another human being to exist unmolested for the length of a little fucking bridge, you are a child

A cyclist who decides to be a human roadblock at the inconvenience of other road users is a spoilt selfish child.

>>1012473
Friend, please calm down for four seconds. People in cars literally try and kill people on purpose, if that's not inconviencihg, I don't know what is.
In this very video, you have a driver not paying attention, making a bad decision, hitting a living being, AND THEN TRYING TO RUN AWAY and you've made no mention of him.
No, you're more hung up on a cyclist being partially 'in the way' for the length of the bridge.

Tell me, do you also tailgate people driving slower than normal in the rain, or do you act like an adult and realize it's conditional?

>>1012473
I want you to read this very slowly and carefully.
Bicycles are vehicles. There is no "unless they can't keep up with the flow of traffic" clause. Bicycles are vehicles. You are denying facts if you don't think that cyclist belonged in the road, because, again, the bicycle is a vehicle. Vehicles are allowed on roads. That's it. If you believe otherwise, you are being irrational simply to support your belief that you are somehow superior to, or have more of a right to the road than a cyclist

>>1012499
>hurr, but my states draconian minimum speeds, durrrr
I can see his argument now.

>>1006897
In what country is it legal to ride your bike on a highway, I'm sure it's not in mine.

>>1012499
>muh bicycle is a vehicle so it's okay for me to be a roadblock in fast moving traffic.

A Formula 1 car is also a vehical, and you'd equally be an asshole if you tried to drive one on a road where everyone else was moving at 20% of the speed you were.

>>1012488
>In this very video, you have a driver not paying attention, making a bad decision

You also have a cyclist making a bad decision; namely choosing to mix with traffic moving far faster than they are moving.

As for the rest of your delicious tears: when did I say the driver wasn't an asshole? I've made no mention of him because it's fairly fucking obvious he's an asshole; it doesn't require comment. But unlike you, I'm not trying to deflect blame, or try to pretend that only one person is at fault in that video.

>>1012522
You didn't answer my question.
When it's raining, do you tailgate drivers who drive slower?

>>1012527
>When it's raining, do you tailgate drivers who drive slower?

No, because logically everyone should be moving at a slower average speed. I.e. the average speed is still within +/-10MPH.

But that cyclist wasn't moving at just -10MPH slower than the rest of the traffic. He was moving at 10-20% the speed of the rest of the traffic. If he was a slow moving truck, he'd require flashing lights and possibly a police escort. Because everyone but cyclists appreciate that being a slow moving object surrounded by fast moving traffic is dangerous.

I fail to see what's so complicated about this.

>>1012488
I saw a cyclist brake check a car, and then pretend to be innocent.

>>1012532
>I fail to see what's so complicated about this.
You're replying to a cyclist.

Bike only belong in (properly designed) bike paths/lanes and low density residential areas (read: suburbs or equivalent).

>>1012532
While CROSSING. A. BRIDGE.
Are you telling me you can't be bothered to pay attention for the length of a fucking bridge, dude?
How old ARE you?

>>1012534
You're saying that happened in the video or you just saw one one day?

>>1012537
>you just saw one one day?
this.

Cyclists are not what they would have you believe them to be.
No one makes the claim that cars are capable of no wrong doing, yet cyclists make that claim (through deflecting all fault in all situations).

>>1012540
>Cyclists are not what they would have you believe them to be.
What, people?

>No one makes the claim that cars are capable of no wrong doing, yet cyclists make that claim (through deflecting all fault in all situations).
Because in all the cases I've experienced, and a large sum of stories I've read/heard, could have been avoided through a motorist paying attention. Combine that with a very anti-cyclist cultural attitude, and yeah, it adds up.

If I see someone making a late left after the orange arrow and I t-bone him when I get the green, because I drove straight fucking into him because MUH RIGHT OF WAY I'm still an asshole because I didn't properly evaluate the road situation.
Defensive driving is very important. I firmly believe riding a bicycle makes me a better driver. You have to learn to think like a cager to beat cagers.

Regardless, you're little story is irrelevant.

>>1012542
>because MUH RIGHT OF WAY I'm still an asshole because I didn't properly evaluate the road situation.
>Defensive driving is very important.
Apparently not for cyclists. Cyclists should get to be aggressive 'drivers' with complete immunity according to /n/.

>>1012543
Most people here complain about drivers assaulting them, throwing things, shouting, trying to beat them out of their right of way, straight not looking, and shouting both to get on the sidewalk and also to get off the sidewalk.
Now I know you live in a fantasy land.

>>1012544
>Now I know you live in a fantasy land.
Actually I live in a properly planned city. Cyclists know their place.
The bike lane, walking their bike on the sidewalk, or pretending to be a vehicle working their ass off to constantly go 20-25mph with reflectors and proper hand signals.

>>1012537
>While CROSSING. A. BRIDGE.

Like I said; is it okay if I hop across it? Crawl? Everyone should just expect a squishy slow moving object because, I dunno, it's a bridge or some shit?

>>1012544
>Most people here

You mean "Americans"

The rest of /n/ live in civilised countries, with proper respect for each other and proper cycling infrastructure.

>>1012553
>Everyone should just expect a squishy slow moving object because, I dunno, it's a bridge or some shit?
No of course not, there is a sidewalk for slow and squishy things just to the right of the bridge.

>>1012555
You know, if you stop being commies, you can own nice things instead of being leased shitty things.
Look into the whole capitalism thing, ok f@m?

>>1012522
Listen, bub. A bicycle is a road vehicle. It belongs on the road. Bicycles are limited in speed because they're human-powered, and this is a fact that other road users have to deal with and be aware of. A cyclist is not a roadblock, it is a fellow road user.
This is not a matter of opinion. I have given you all the facts and according to them you are wrong. Deal with it.

File: 6rvkGfZ.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>1012238
>mfw he is probably serious and not baiting

>>1012560
It's really disturbing, desu

>>1012559
>A bicycle is a road vehicle.
A bicycle is a vehicle...

>It belongs on the road.
False.

>Bicycles are limited in speed because they're human-powered
Which is why they shouldn't go where the speed limit is above 30, unless there is a designated bike lane.

> this is a fact that other road users have to deal with and be aware of.
It's not like there are faggots who would disregard the road safety of everyone else so that they don't have to walk their bike a little bit... That would be absurd.

>A cyclist is not a roadblock, it is a fellow road user.
So is a jaywalker...


>This is not a matter of opinion.
It actually was.

>I have given you all the facts and according to them you are wrong
...

>Deal with it.
You're a cuck.

>>1012559
>>1012562
Some bicycles are built for use... on the road.
Some bicycles are built for use not on a road.
Not operating within your limits is dangerous.

Unless you can agree to these concepts, then there can be no good exchange about where bicycles belong and what they do.

>>1012562
>is shown to be objectively wrong
>shuts down and starts whining "NO UR WRONG"
I bet you support Trump too

>>1012559
>Bicycles are limited in speed
>A cyclist is not a roadblock

Can't be both famalam.

>>1012559
>facts

>>1012582
Regardless of whether you choose to identify a cyclist as a roadblock or an individual attempting to use the road as a meas of travel, that won't change the fact that cyclists legally belong on the road

>>1012585
Oh man, you got me there. Your blatant denial of simple truth has bested my reasoning capabilities

File: road_warrior.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

>>1012601
>cyclists legally belong on the road

>>1012601
>Your blatant denial of simple truth

Unlike the disregard for the basic fact that the cyclist in that video was moving at a fraction of the speed of the other traffic and was therefore a liability to himself & others?

File: this_is_a_road.jpg (170KB, 640x364px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 640x364px

>>1012601
>cyclists legally belong on the road

File: these_are_all_cars.jpg (72KB, 529x378px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 529x378px

>>1012601
>cyclists legally belong on the road

>>1012606
>>1012609
If every city had paths like these, and they covered the whole city, we wouldn't be having arguments about this shit. But since they don't, cyclists legally belong on the road.

>>1012603
Yes, friend, cycling is less safe the slower you're going.
The man was still well within his rights and you're still exaggerating the potential danger of such behavior
Again, I must remind you that he is a vehicle, not a roadblock

>>1012619
>muh rights

Oh well that's okay then. Being right absolves all responsibility.

>>1012610
I'm sorry you're so angry that you have terrible infrastructure, but that doesn't mean you should take it out on other road users.

>>1012624
What part of my post made me seem angry? I wish every place had nice bike paths, they just don't, so I ride on the road where I'm supposed to.

>>1012553
Should we plow into cars literally stopped, motionless, in the road, while they wait to make a left?

>>1012556
No, you're expected to look ahead of you farther than the end of your hood

>>1012562
Again, it's only unsafe because you want 100% unrestricted road use, to your own ends of course, and can't be bothered to pay attention.

>>1012602
In my state, if the cops decided it was actually worth it, yes, I could be given a ticket for riding on the sidewalk as an adult.
Only children on tricycles belong on the sidewalk. Legally, I must never be on the sidewalk because, unlike yourself, I am not a child any longer.

>>1012609
>>1012606
Again, with your fantasy land.
Anyway, even if these exist, and they really don't around here, I am STILL not legally obligated to ride in them in my state.

>>1012624
lol, no dear. I know they're spelled the same way, but he's not 'right', he's saying it IS his right. Two different words, friend.

>>1012671
>Posts two pictures of actual physical cycle infrastructure
>WHARRGARBL THESE DON'T EXIST!

So if bikes can ignore the cycle infrastructure and ride on the road, can cars drive in the cycle infrastructure?

Your problem appears to be that you live in a shithole and instead of doing something about it you just whine and expect everyone else to pander to you.

>>1012563
>>Some bicycles are built for use... on the road.
>>Some bicycles are built for use not on a road.
>>Not operating within your limits is dangerous.
>>Unless you can agree to these concepts, then there can be no good exchange about where bicycles belong and what they do.

I don't know why you @'ed me. My post is in line with these statements.

>A bicycle is a vehicle...
>bicycles don't inherently belong on the road
>Which is why they shouldn't go where the speed limit is above 30, unless there is a designated bike lane.
>

>>1012566
Weird, I didn't know that claiming something to be objective or factual actually made it so...
Thanks for Correcting the Record™. You know, if you're short on cash you can just get a job instead of shitposting.

>>1012758
Legally, no. But even if there were 100% safe, maintained, and practical bike lanes around here, which there are not, I STILL would not be legally obligated to be in them. However, yes, you would STILL be barred from driving in the bike lane.dont like it, write your congressman

>>1012821
In the real world, when the road is wide enough, even 30 is fine.
25mph is the limit around here, everyone drives 35, most people bike Id say around 15.
Of course, it's only the bikes complained about, never the speeders, heaven forbid.

>>1012825
>In the real world, when the road is wide enough, even 30 is fine.
If it was a properly designed city with fuck huge (wider than freeway lanes (12+ft) ) lanes, I would agree that there would be more than enough room for cyclists and drivers to coexist with only moderate consideration for delta speed.


>25mph is the limit around here, everyone drives 35, most people bike Id say around 15.
Two problems.

Leisure/light biking should only be done in a bike lane, and if cyclists just went a little faster, they would be much safer.

And a 25mph limit is almost certainly unwarranted unless there are a large number of pre-teen activities nearby, heavy residential, or more than a few parking lots or shopping center entrance/exits (provided there are no suicide lanes).


>Of course, it's only the bikes complained about, never the speeders, heaven forbid.
It's like a school zone / children present speed limit, if a rule is absurd, it shouldn't be enforced.
Only faggot cops try to enforce school zone limits on weekends or at night, and only faggot cops try to claim that children indoors count as being present.

Or an alternative comparison, it's like going the speed limit on a highway anywhere other than the slow lane. It benefits everyone to go flow of traffic because the only important thing on a freeway is delta v.

or an alternate alternate explanation, de facto is more important than de jure. Don't be a fool, plan for de facto.

>>1012838
Wow, your cager allowances are astounding.

>>1012839
it's because when everyone goes relatively the same speed accidents are mild and relatively safe.
Where in a bike, an accident results in some major injuries and the cyclist denying any responsibility.

File: 1474612321189.jpg (34KB, 658x464px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 658x464px

>>1006915

>>1012842
In your made up scenario, yes.
In my day-to-day driving experience, I see a wild difference between those driving 25 and those speeding even up to 30.
Problem is, if the road has the lanes, stop sign amounts, and lack of lights of a 25mph road, it's not suitable to speed over.
It's not the speed that's dangerous, but the lower reaction time. (And the space to do it in.)

Cars sitting still in traffic, waiting to make a left, are a bigger danger than cyclists.

>>1012838
literally where the fuck do you see lanes that wide

most lanes in my area are like six, MAYBE seven feet wide

>>1013018
>literally where the fuck do you see lanes that wide
You don't...
Do you get my point?

>>1013219
That you prefer a fantasy land? We were already clear on that.

>>1013227
Try to actually think for once.

If condition that doesn't exist in 99.9% of cities,
then cyclists belong on the road.

>>1013398
Yes, cyclists do belong on the road, so now we're in agreement.

>>1013403
I wish I lived in a place where the cyclists knew their place.
In my state they are all inconsiderate faggots.

File: 14344060_979463255495571_5186877480844082705_n.jpg (72KB, 960x766px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x766px

>>1015962

>>1015963
The reply chain went:
If there was room in most cities, and cyclists could match traffic speed, then they belong on the road under those conditions.

I implied that those conditions didn't exist, and that cyclists are too uppity and should know their place. Which based on the conditions discussed, is the bike lane for about 99% of place.

File: 1406200913839.png (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>>1015964
>If there was room in most cities
There is room in most places, for the amount of cyclists we have.

>and cyclists could match traffic speed, then they belong on the road under those conditions.
Cool, but you're not the boss of me, senpai.

>I implied that those conditions didn't exist, and that cyclists are too uppity and should know their place.
In the street, where they're legally required to be? I agree.

>Which based on the conditions discussed, is the bike lane for about 99% of place.
""""""""""bike lanes"""""""""""

>>1015973
>""""""""""bike lanes"""""""""""
Maybe they're trying to send you a message and don't want non-stop traffic due to decreased flow in exchange for proper bike lanes?

>In the street, where they're legally required to be?
You can also walk a bike. But sure, pretending you are invincible and should share the road with people going 3-4 times faster than you is definitely a good idea... (I'm implying that cyclists are faggots that don't know their place)

>Cool, but you're not the boss of me, senpai.
Don't cut towards yourself, and never leave a flame unattended.

>There is room in most places, for the amount of cyclists we have.
I could see that being true at 2 am... Or if you live in a city with a population under 50,000.

>>1015976
>Maybe they're trying to send you a message and don't want non-stop traffic due to decreased flow in exchange for proper bike lanes?
Ugh, no. Some mayor is trying to seem concerned about their cycling population without actually having to do anything of value.

>You can also walk a bike.
You can also ride a bike, like I said, you're not the boss of me just because you're having a hissy fit.

>But sure, pretending you are invincible and should share the road with people going 3-4 times faster than you is definitely a good idea... (I'm implying that cyclists are faggots that don't know their place)
Why are the cyclists faggots who don't know their place, instead of the motorists being entitled babies who can't be bothered to pay attention to each other, let alone something other than a car? These are questions I'd like you to ask yourself.

>Don't cut towards yourself, and never leave a flame unattended.
Yeah, dude. Like, woah.

>I could see that being true at 2 am... Or if you live in a city with a population under 50,000.
Ugh, not really. Even here, residential streets aren't too wide and the 'big' streets aren't much wider at all, especially when you consider all the special things they afford cars, like having them park roadside. Even still, it only ever becomes an issue when a motorist becomes too impatient or is asked to pay attention.(Like a good example; a street around here, and a couple others, is wide and perfectly straight, except for very obvious 'bump outs' where the sidewalk gets twice as wide for the length of a couple yards. Instead of watching ahead, and realizing that cyclists do not fly through solid objects, and stepping back 5mph for the length of those two yards, I've seen motorists try and beat them, nearly hitting them, or just driving on as normal, pinch them in. Who really, I ask you, is the child in that scenario)

>>1015981
>Why are the cyclists faggots who don't know their place, instead of the motorists being entitled babies who can't be bothered to pay attention to each other, let alone something other than a car?
For the same reason that jay walkers are faggots.
They could just cross 200 feet down the road, but they decide that their convenience is more important then the safety of everyone else, and then act innocent when their stupid behavior gets themselves or others hurt.

>Yeah, dude. Like, woah.
I don't think you understood the intent of my words.

>not in my city
And you're sure the population of your city isn't under 50,000?
If not, then fair enough. In my experience cities bigger than that don't mesh cyclists and cars very well.

>Who really, I ask you, is the child in that scenario
I would say the cyclist for expecting the right of way.
Just because you are in the right doesn't mean you should assume that people will respect that.
It's why I look both ways before crossing even at cross walks with pedestrian signals. Most accidents can be prevented by people stop being stubborn and acting blindly because they are in the right, and instead just acting cautiously and responsibly.

But to answer more clearly, the cars are in the wrong, but the cyclists are the ones who are creating danger unnecessarily because they are doing what is akin to crossing the street with your eyes closed.

>>1015987
>I would say the cyclist for expecting the right of way.
Then please call me when you graduate from middle school.

>but the cyclists are the ones who are creating danger unnecessarily
So it all comes down to might makes right then, huh? So, the people who are riding in the three feet of most usable roadspace, as afforded to them by right except when it calls to take the whole lane, which they are also afforded by right, THEY'RE the ones being dangerous, and NOT the cars who can't look forward five feet beyond the hood of their car? Who can't calm down for literally the length of a yard or two? Please.

>>1010050
>F-Zero GX in a nutshell

>>1015991
>Then please call me when you graduate from middle school.
I never got your number...

>So it all comes down to might makes right then, huh?
No.

>THEY'RE the ones being dangerous
Typically, yes. Refer to the jay walker example.

>NOT the cars who can't look forward five feet beyond the hood of their car?
That is correct. The one that disrupts typical road conditions is the source of danger.

>Who can't calm down for literally the length of a yard or two?
It's safer for everyone if the cyclist just knew his place, he should make sure it is safe to move into the street, or walk his bike.


And as I said, being in the right doesn't matter. Acting under the presumption that others will respect their being in the right is what makes cyclists dangerous and faggots.

>>1015994
>No.
How could you possibly disagree here?
Tennis wouldn't automatically become dangerous just because the football players come over and truck every one on the court.

>Typically, yes. Refer to the jay walker example.
Again, wrong. A jaywalker, I see how that causes issues.
A cyclist cycling on the side of the road is not some random event that no motorists could reasonably be asked to account for, they're fucking bikes and they've been mixed with traffic SINCE motor traffic at the very least.

I won't hear it.

>That is correct. The one that disrupts typical road conditions is the source of danger.
Listen. To. Yourself.

>It's safer for everyone if the cyclist just knew his place, he should make sure it is safe to move into the street, or walk his bike.
No, dear. Having someone remain ignorant is hardly the correct choice.


>Acting under the presumption that others will respect their being in the right is what makes cyclists dangerous and faggots.
Just want this repeated for those at the back of the class. Fucking READ this shit.
It's almost beautiful how smacked ass backward you can be.

>>1015996
>Tennis wouldn't automatically become dangerous just because the football players come over and truck every one on the court.
It would be if the tennis players insisted on building their court on the sideline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KppHCsD6hY

>Listen. To. Yourself.
The car that drives erratically is the source of danger.
The car with hazards on is the source of danger.
The car going slower than rest of traffic is the source of danger.
The truck with people sitting in the back is the source of danger.
The car that doesn't check its surroundings and instead just assumes that others will respect it's being in the right, is the source of danger.

There is no double standard going on.


>Having someone remain ignorant is hardly the correct choice.
Not being a cunt, legit don't see what you're trying to imply.


>Just want this repeated for those at the back of the class. Fucking READ this shit.
It's almost beautiful how smacked ass backward you can be.
Would you agree that people that peel out at green lights are dangerous and faggots despite being in the right?
There is a reason you wait and make sure that all through traffic is gone before moving on from a green light.

>>1015999
>There is no double standard going on.
That is what you're saying when you say the cyclist biking on the side of the road is the dangerous one, and not the car who hits him because he can't pay attention, as the cyclist should know that a motorist can't pay attention.

>Not being a cunt, legit don't see what you're trying to imply.
What you're is saying is that, because motorists are ignorant, we shouldn't try and claim what's rightfully our's, and as a step further, should be admonished for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, motorists stop being ignorant about other road users.
And this comes from someone who drives for a living, I'll repeat.


>Would you agree that people that peel out at green lights are dangerous and faggots despite being in the right?
Acceleration is regulated (My buddies found this out on their learner's permit. Thought they were fine so long as they didn't go over the limit and always dumped it for fun. The fun stopped once the tickets came.), and there are laws about being in control of your vehicle. If you're peelings out, you're not driving responsibly.

>There is a reason you wait and make sure that all through traffic is gone before moving on from a green light.
Yes, it's the same reason you look more than a foot in front of your vehicle and analyze the road situation.

>>1016002
>as the cyclist should know that a motorist can't pay attention.
Motorists know this. That's why motorists are cautious of motorists.
The cyclist should have known this.

>What you're is saying is that, because motorists are ignoran
I'm saying that because motorists are ignorant, you shouldn't assume that they would respect your being in the right, and should act accordingly.
Being in the right doesn't make it right.

Should motorists share the road with cyclists? Yes
Should they give them a wide berth because cyclists are a danger source? Yes
Should cyclists get off the road when they decrease road safety by going 1/2-1/4th the speed of traffic? Yes
Should motorists stay out of bike lanes (except turning)? Yes

>Yes, it's the same reason you look more than a foot in front of your vehicle and analyze the road situation.
Yes. Which is why the cyclist is also to blame for assuming that the motorists would just respect his being in the right and should have either confirmed that it was safe to merge into the street, or walked his bike a couple yards.
Both parties can be at fault simultaneously. It doesn't mean that one can't be more of a faggot.

>>1016007
The cyclist is just not at fault in your example, friend. This isn't an insult, but I feel like I'm talking to a crazy person here.