Are cyclists just as bad as cagers?

>>1012676
What are the squiggly lines for?

>not defending a fellow roadie from some dickweed pedestrian.

>>1012679
I wouldn't associate myself with cunts.

Yes, but not for the reasons you'd assume.
All humans are shitty, and there's enough selfish, retarded, inattentive, retards on the road out there, no wonder some of them will be on bikes. It just so happens that the damage delt by cyclist is not as great as a motorist (Pretty much the only way they realistically damage is by spooking a car), and in the event they cause an accident, they're pretty much caught or crippled.

Honestly, I think pedestrians are the WORST of all, but they just don't deal damage.
Peds have the least amount of situational awareness, don't give a single fuck about crossing against a light when cars are coming, and feel as if they have the right of way 100% percent of that time, even when that right of way involves them wandering around my parking lot, with a knack for finding my blindspots.
Just today I had some old cunt nearly push her grandkid into traffic as she shook her fists at me for not stopping to let her cross. Yeah, she was inbetween two cars at a time at a towering height of five feet, but hey, I should have been able to look through solid objects and see her, right?

I would LOVE for this old man to get fucking decked, honestly.
He created his own problem. Fuck old people who think they're the boss of others.

You think it's wrong, you tell me, you don't hit others with your body and then block them.
I'm a little shit and he'd probably kick my ass, but the second that fucker made contact with me I would've tried to put him in hospice care.

>>1012685
He didn't hit anyone, you foamer.

>>1012689
I said hit with his body, and yes, he clearly stops his intended path, turns around, and with purpose walks INTO the cyclist. To make matters worse, he then repeatedly impedes the cyclists movement.

Imagine you're walking down the street and you drop the f-bomb. Old man here disagrees, so he turns around and walks into you, and blocks your path until you apologized. That would be absurd and would be grounds for some kinda charges.
This is not different.

Cyclist should have hung back, but the old man had no business doing what he was doing, especially when there would have been no issue without his meddling.
This is hardly an old man chasing down some asshole who hit a bunch of people without concern.

>>1012690
dropping the F bomb is completely different than completely disregarding the law and thinking you're above it and that it doesn't apply to you, so you break it.

>>1012691
No, calm yourself down. Before you start, do not blow this out of proportion.

I've give you a real world example
>busy road, know from experience it ain't good for biking
>shitty beater bike currently stuck in low gear
>decide to ride on sidewalk for short bit just to get home
>see old man approaching walking on his right
>I ride slowly on my right
>he b-lines for me so I get off
>GET IN THE STREET!
>we proceed to have a row until he walks off

Nearly exact same circumstances. It's against the law for me to be on the sidewalk, just as that cyclist can't run reds, however, I wasn't a danger to anyone until someone else couldn't mind their own business and MADE it a danger.
Old Man here saw his opportunity to have the moral high ground shield, and decided to 'teach him a lesson' and that's fucking childish bullshit. Old Man is a bully, armed with the protection of knowing the cyclist is legally incorrect and the assumption that no one would kick an old man's ass.

Sorry, but I don't approve of one-handed fights.
Good on the cyclist for just trying to remove himself from the situation. Takes a lot to be the bigger man.
If Old Man actually wanted to solve anything, he wouldn't keep going on as he did. How does doing what he did explain or prove anything?

It's simply antagonism.

>>1012692
I can run red lights in my car as long as I don't hit other cars?

>>1012676
>didn't just pedal into him and throw himself into the other dudes chest

act the fuck up get smacked the fuck up

>>1012693
Cars are not bicycles.
An obvious comparison, yes, but hardly a fair one. You can see it talked to death here >>>/n/thread/1007936/why-shouldnt-you-need-a-permit-to-own-and-ride-a

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd have punched that old faggot in the face while screaming "I WAS WRONG, I'M SORRY!"

>>1012702
Two old folks cut me off last week so I flipped them off. They followed me to my first delivery after cutting me off so I could only reverse away. They followed me to my second delivery, screaming at me in front of the customer and shit. When I finally called the police, they fled, to my store, I found out, where they were stopping customers from being helped until THEY could be helped.
Not even customers. They demand an apology, say they are a married 60 year old couple and """""CHRISTIANS"""" People next door at the restaurant hooting and hollering now like World Star. I will not apologize. They keep saying I have anger issues and that I need help, in fact, it's the last thing they say to me; that they would pray I get help for my anger.
Old fucking cunts.

Just like this old man here, they make their own problems and just want to antagonize.
Cunts.

fuck anyone who rides on a sidewalk for any distance. fucking assholes

my city is starting to feel like a 3rd world shithole with all the asian and mexican immigrants blasting down the sidewalks

>cyclists act like bitchy, self-righteous, entitled faggots in every conflict scenario
>wonder why everybody hates them so much

>>1012709
Who does this old man think he is?

They guy clearly took a step back and walked in front of the biker. I agree through, the biker was still close to the other guy.

>>1012677
squiggly lines indicate a ped crossing is imminent.

>>1012676
Not as bad as shitposters on the slowest board on 4chan is.

>>1012676
If he really needed to run that crossing, he could've at least slow down.

That's great. I couldn't count the number of times I've been hit or had near misses with cyclists on ped crossings, or even on lights when they skip them. I bet that cyclist will think twice before running a crossing again.

>>1012729

This.

Or, at a minimum, had the decency to stick with the dgaf route and give the pedestrian prick a good hard shove and going about his business instead of taking that treatment like a puss.

Do things that make sense over following the rules, don't be a cunt about it, but by God do NOT take people's shit who aren't police officers. If you're going to let people get physical with you like that, you're better off just braking and waiting with the rest of the good little citizens.

>>1012752

>If people try to stop you breaking the law, just use violence against them

Cyclists

>>1012685
>You think it's wrong, you tell me

He is telling him.

>you don't hit others with your body and then block them.
>hit others with your body

He didn't fucking bodyslam the cyclist. He stood on the crossing, as is legally allowed to do, while the cyclist rode into him, which he is legally not allowed to do.

tl;dr: Once again the lycra road warriors absolve all responsibility and imagine a blameless cyclist.

>>1012695
>Should cars be allowed to run red lights?
>Cars aren't bicycles! Super magic special laws should apply to cyclists! But only cyclists, and not any other form of transport, or pedestrians, because those aren't cyclists!

You are the reason literally everyone hates cyclists. Even other cyclists. And the reason I applaud that man in the video: not only did he upset that cyclist, he's got you all buttflustered too.

>>1012713
>They guy clearly took a step back and walked in front of the biker.

Which he is, legally and morally, entirely entitled to do. He'll, he could have spun on the spot and fucking moonwalked into the path of the cyclist and still be 100% legally right to do so.

There is precisely one person committing an offense in that video. It isn't any single one of the pedestrians using the pedestrian crossing.

>>1012677
lycracunts are

imagine walking around with such a chip on your shoulder

>>1012676
what a dick, both of them honestly.

However to answer your question the it depends where you are. A bike however wont inflict as much damage as a car however. And in cities with no actual bike paths what are you gonna do? ride on the road..?

>>1012761
Actually, pedestrians on the crossing are prohibited from stopping, running or stepping in front of moving vehicles.
Both dudes in the OP are dumb.

>>1012793
>Actually, pedestrians on the crossing are prohibited from stopping, running or stepping in front of moving vehicles.

Nope. In fact the highway code specifically tells you that

>Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.

I.e. you *must* step out in front of a vehical before they are obliged to stop (and likewise, vehicles are instructed that they should prepare to stop)

That's basically it, other than the general guidance:

>7e - When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run.
>18 - You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35

But the pedestrian was using the crossing correctly; he had stepped out, other traffic had stopped, and he wasn't running or loitering (and no, changing direction or even moonwalking across is not loitering, sorry)

>>1012798
one country

world wide

we are THE USA

>>1012799
> gov.uk
Can you read?

>>1012800
can you?

Im saying that im arguing from a US standpoint, then some guy brings up UK laws. If you're gonna discus non-US stuff go to /int/ or some other chan clone

>>1012798
The guy stepped out on a crossing unhindered and if he continued walking at his current speed forward, like pedestrians are expected to do on a crossing, the bike would simply pass behind him. But no, he saw the bike and instead decided to stop, turn around and stand there blocking the path.

>>1012799
>THE USA
>>1012799
>from a US standpoint

If you can't quite grasp the simple basic fact that the video is from the UK, you may be even more retarded than anyone previously could have imagined.

>>1012805
>But no, he saw the bike and instead decided to stop, turn around and stand there blocking the path.

Which he was entirely, legally and morally, allowed to do. And when he did it, and no matter what else he did on the crossing, the cyclist was in no way allowed to try to cycle across it while there were pedestrians crossing.

There was only one person who did anything wrong in that video, and it wasn't any single one of the pedestrians who were using the crossing.

That's weak sauce OP. That's not even critical mass level passive aggressive whining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAn8DCZQG3k

>>1012808
Theres nothing indicative of the video being from the UK, though I guess both people in it are such assholes, something common in the UK?

>>1012812
They shipped the sickest cunts to Australia, but apparently there's enough left for shitty videos like this.

>>1012759
Literally wrong.
The old man stopped, turned around, walked himself into the cyclist, then blocked his path a couple more times.
Old man is not a police officer, old man has no right. Adults use their words.

>>1012809
Turning around and walking into people, not trying to cross to one end or the other clearly, is not proper use of a walk.
Whether her was trying to teach a stranger a lesson or not.

>>1012801
>>1012812
>discussing video that's clearly from the UK
>but muh US laws
Americunts just can't wrap their heads around the fact that their laws aren't global. Even if it wasn't the UK it's clear that it's NOT in the US because left handed traffic.

Both the pedestrian and cyclist are in the wrong here. The pedestrian is being a grade A cunt and the cyclist went in with way too much speed.

>>1012822
>clearly from the UK
nothing indicates this.

>>1012824
Except the UK style road paintings and hardware.

>>1012824
Road markings.

>>1012824
Also note everyone driving/riding on the left side of the road.

>>1012827
>>1012829
>>1012830
>UK is the only country that drives on the left
oh, now whos the hypocrite

>>1012831
Did you miss the road markings? Also how about the yellow rear plate in what could well be a black cab.

Point me a single other LHD country that fits all the criteria that's already been pointed out.

>>1012831
There's a black cab driving away you fucking mong.

>>1012833
>>1012834
none of these things mean UK though. If i posted an x from y country that didnt say it was from y country im not gonna go "oh thats y country"

>>1012836
>If I posted a picture of me in front of the Statue of Liberty, eating a cheesesteak, and hitching a ride on the back of a US-plated security vehicle under a 40 foot American flag, with NYC in the background, that doesn't mean I'm in the United States!

>>1012801
>If you're gonna discus non-US stuff go to /int/
Wow. Just wow. So wrong on so many levels that I took a screenshot. Well done. You made it into my collage.

>>1012836
>look left and look right in english
only the UK does this

>>1012676
The cyclist was going to imminently miss that guy, but that suitjacket jackass stopped, and changed his direction so he was in danger of getting run over.

I mean sure the cyclist should have maybe given him more clearance by slowing down and waiting up way before, but how do you have so little sense of self-preservation?

>>1012676
LYCRAFAGS BTFO

>>1012824
>>1012836
It's in Millbank, London, UK south of the Palace of Westminster you mong.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4974865,-0.1257351,3a,75y,186.15h,85.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF0zjnz4CgUnhUbPosYCptQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

>>1012860
fucking 0wned

>>1012676
If it was a cager, he'd be dead, so no.

Is there an actual law in the UK that says you have to wait for the crossing to be clear of pedestrians before you cross it?
Here in the beautiful motherland we have a rule that says you are obligated to let pedestrians pass unhindered and safely. Which the cyclist did, by going behind the last pedestrian. By swedish law the only one doing wrong would be the pedestrian.

>>1012819
>Only police officers have rights

LAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNDDD OOOFFFF THEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>1012895
>Is there an actual law in the UK that says you have to wait for the crossing to be clear of pedestrians before you cross it?

Not explicitly for Zebra crossings, but there are two rules which imply it:

>Rule 194 - Allow pedestrians plenty of time to cross and do not harass them by revving your engine or edging forward.
>Rule 198 - Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.

>>1012676
The way to deal with that is to pretend you can't see or hear him. Just keep looking around and ignore him completely.

>>1012682
>Yes, but not for the reasons you'd assume.
All humans are shitty, and there's enough selfish, retarded, inattentive, retards on the road out there, no wonder some of them will be on bikes. It just so happens that the damage delt by cyclist is not as great as a motorist

This 2bh

File: 1470364291864.jpg (11KB, 236x170px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x170px

>>1012898
I'm sorry, do you think normal citizens, without making a citizens arrest, should have the right to touch other people and block them from moving?

Don't fucking touch me unless you're taking me downtown.

that old man was probably a cagercuck

>real estate entitlement
>personal space
>arrogance

>>1012983
Be a fuckwit in public, expect to get fucked with.

>>1013024
That's retarded.
If he has a problem, he can drag his ass to the police academy and start writing tickets, or he can use his big boy words.

>>1012819
>Adults use their words.

And instead of yelling an obscenity as the cyclist fucking blew threw a crosswalk like a cunt, the pedestrian was just trying to have a civilized, adult conversation about why the cyclist felt the need to thread the needle at high speed through an occupied crosswalk, instead of stoping like a responsible user of the roadways.

>>1012812
>>1012824
>Theres nothing indicative of the video being from the UK
Are you literally retarded.

>>1013027
>the pedestrian was just trying to have a civilized, adult conversation
You have to be fucking joking, senpai

i have a feeling that bongland isn't the most cyclist-friendly place

>>1013031
learn to recognize cheeky sarcasm, famalam

>>1013038
learn to recognize statements of obvious facts, poodaloo

>>1013033
I've seriously noticed that too, and long before this thread. I think it's because the city streets are so narrow that there's no real way to accommodate both modes of transportation without them interfering with one another, and the faster will always become frustrated when impeded by the slower and that frustration builds over time.

>>1012901
>Not explicitly for Zebra crossings, but there are two rules which imply it:
None of that implies you can't sneak past a pedestrian on a crossing. It says you have to give way, and not bully. The cyclist gave way by letting the pedestrian pass unhindered, choosing to go behind him.
Legally he fulfilled his obligations.

I'm sure you have a rule about not purposely impeding traffic that you could hang the peddy with.

>>1013055
Zipping through an intersection without stopping (where cyclists are already stopped, waiting) with less than a foot of clearance is a dick move.

You can rule-lawyer all you want, but what the cyclist in the video tried to do is neither within the intent nor the spirit of regulations around crosswalks.

>>1013055
i agree that the pedestrian is a major arsehole who was antogonizing the cyclist but the cyclist initiated that conflict by passing too closely relative to his speed.

as a cyclist i expect to be given at least a metre of 'breathing space' by cars that pass me, and as a pedestrian i would expect be given similar space by cyclists who pass me, when i'm on foot.

it's really just basic common courtesy.

>>1012676
Yes and no. Lycrafags are scum, worse of the worst and should be belittled at every opportunity.

>Lycrafags are scum

I come to a bicycles board to insult bicyclists because I'm lonely and desperate for (You)s.

OBSESSED

>>1013055
>None of that implies you can't sneak past a pedestrian on a crossing.

>Give way to anyone still crossing

But more explicitly, the rules for a zebra crossing are that you MUST stop when there are pedestrians on it. There's no ambiguity. If there is a pedestrian using the crossing, you must stop until they are clear. And even if we're talking about "sneaking behind" the old man, there's another person crossing from the left who the cyclist absolutely MUST give way too, and did not.

>>1013077
You seem butthurt

>>1013077
But they are scum. Lycrafags tarnish the image of cycling and bicycle riders alike.

>>1013057
>Zipping through an intersection
Was not what he did. He moved all the way over to the other side of the lane and adjusted his speed appropriately. He also maintained a high state of readiness as demonstrated by the fact that he could brake and swerve in time, even with the pedestrian doing his best to cause an accident.
>>1013057
>what the cyclist in the video tried to do is neither within the intent nor the spirit of regulations around crosswalks
[citation needed]
He gave way. That is all the law requires and intends him to do.
>>1013098
>>Give way to anyone still crossing
But giving way means giving way. It does not mean you both have to give way, and also wait for them to complete their journey.
Also, you're taking that out of context, as it refers to your obligation to give way to any pedestrian still on the crossing, even if his or her light has turned red since stepping out, and yours has turned red.
>But more explicitly, the rules for a zebra crossing are that you MUST stop when there are pedestrians on it.
Oh, so there is such a rule in the UK? That's what I asked about, because there isn't in other parts of Europe but many (wrongly) believe that pedestrians have to be waited out on crossings when you're only obligated to give way. If your vehicle takes up the entire lane (car) you obviously have to wait for them to fully cross and probably come to a complete stop. If you're half a metre wide you can give way by positioning yourself appropriately and timing well.

Care to share the appropriate UK legalese?
>And even if we're talking about "sneaking behind" the old man, there's another person crossing from the left who the cyclist absolutely MUST give way too, and did not.
Of course he did. They were never within metres of each other. Please draw me a picture of where the cyclist interfered with his crossing of the road?
Giving way does not mean 'wait for him to fully complete his manoeuvrer and the arrival of a postcard from the destination'.

>>1013265
>and yours has turned red.
Turned green. Can't into proofread.

Ahh, when legality thinks it can replace logic and good courtesy, truly a hilarious outcome this thread is.

In real reality, the cyclist had ample time and space to cross. Until the suit's ego kicked in.

>>1013265
>That is all the law requires and intends him to do.
That's not how the law works here though.

>>1013275
I'm quite open to that possibility, but misconceptions to that effect are far too common for me to accept your word. Or, as they say, [citation needed].

>>1013265
>Lycrafag desperatly tries to lawyer his way out of it

Nope. There were pedestrians on the crossing. He MUST stop. There is no "but".

If you don't believe that is how the law works in the UK, you'd better start with http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/a-short-introduction-to-the-common-law

>>1012676
>tfw you've had multiple old cunts do this on several occasions.
Not sure why random middle aged men seem to have a chip on their shoulder regarding cycle commuters desu

>>1013491
The same people come to /n/ to post trains. It's true!

>>1012809
I'm not sure morally entitled, legally yes but laws don't define the limits of human action.

>>1012676
>pedestrian crossing
>other cyclists have to wait for right of way
>guy blows through
>gets BTFO by old man

He earned that.

>>1013487
I'm not going to research your claims about foreign law you cunt. That's your job. Make a claim, you support it. So far there have been zero references to any law showing all vehicles must stop if there are pedestrians anywhere on the crossing. There might be such a law. There might not be - like most of the rest of Europe. Put up or shut up.

>>1013522
pretty sure it's the law in Holland too, our traffic code rarely differentiates between types of vehicles so it's technically illegal to bike above the alcohol limit or under the influence of weed...

>>1012676
Holy shit, that ciclyst only thinks in keep riding, he barely looked at the guy, I'm sure it's one of those ´´gottagofast´´ strava freds.

>riding down street on way home from /epicsesh/ in woods
>father and son (maybe 11-12yr old) carrying some wood & diy shit down street
>son has at least 5-6ft of wood planks hanging out in road blocking lane, on coming lane is full with fast flowing traffic
>cars have to slow down and pip him to move them out of the way, then just swing them back out in road after, father gestures rudely at all of them.
>fuck this I'm not getting run over again
>slow down to crawl and mount curb to go between them, clear gap maybe 2 ft wide
>"excuse me pal can I slip past you m8?"
>YOU FUCKIN WHAT?! YOU SHOULD BE ON THE ROAD YOU FUCKING STUPID CUNT!
>"Hold on, I only asked if I could get past, your son's blocking the whole road"
>DON'T BRING MY SON INTO THIS YOU CUNT I'LL FUCKIN CUT YA YOU WANKER
>"don't start mate you'll he fucking battered infront of your son in a minute"
>he throws a load of nails at me
>GET FUCKED, I'VE SEEN YOU ABOUT I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE YA CUNT I'LL HAVE YOU FUCKING DONE IN YOU SLAG.
>start riding away
>"shut up you prick, kid, your dad's twat and your mum could do alot better"
>I'LL FUCKING HAVE YOU YA LITTLE BASTARD
>he runs after me and swings a hammer about a ft away from my head, could feel the air off it.
>dump bike and headbutt the cunt
>stomp him a few times & bust his teeth with my Dlock
>ride off while screaming son tries to get his dad off the floor

I was probably in the wrong but there was no need to kick off like that.

>>1013529
Damn dude, that /epicsesh/ in the woods must have really made you hallucinate.

Shrooms?

>>1013524
>pretty sure
Does not cut it. I'm "pretty sure" your law also requires you to yield to peds and nothing else. Did our pretty-sure cancel each other out now?

I'm also dead certain you lot have all-green and mixed mode rules where you're _supposed_ to weave through pedestrians and other bike traffic in all sorts of kamikaze ways.

File: Screenshot_20161003-111648.png (372KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1440x2560px

>>1013265
>>1013522
USA or UK, you cannot overtake (or pass in the USA) a vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk letting pedestrians cross.

>>1013542
To clarify, when I say USA, I mean Georgia's laws specifically, because that is what I have read, but I imagine the same law is copied-and-pasted in many other--if not all--states

>>1013529
Real story ends about half way.

You know you didn't do any of that and you're not fooling anyone.

>>1013549
Just because you're a pussy doesn't mean everyone else is.

>>1013522
>So far there have been zero references to any law showing all vehicles must stop if there are pedestrians anywhere on the crossing.

Oh you want spoon feeding? Okay

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

Rule 195
>Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
> o look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
> o you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

There you go. Now you can shut up.

>>1013575
And yet you've failed to reference a law that states vehicles must STOP if there are pedestrians on a zebra crossing.

>MUST give way
Give way != stop. You can give way to pedestrians crossing at a zebra crossing without stopping. You can even give way to them and go over the crossing while they're still on it. However the cyclist in OP tries to do this with way too much speed.

>>1012801
This is the exact point where anon realises they have been blown the fuck out, and engage maximum damage control

>>1012676
Assuming there is a red light, they are both wrong. The cyclist is required by law to stop at a red light. But the guy still has no right to stop him, he isn't a cop.

If it's a simple crosswalk without lights, the pedestrain is in the wrong. The cyclist only needs to give way to the pedestrain. He is by no means obligated to stop. If the pedestrian cleared his path, he was free to go. Also, you aren't allowed to obstruct the passage of another road user and should vacate the street as fast as possible at all times. So the pedestrain shouldn''t turn back on the street, but go forward and clear it as fast as possible.

>>1013578
>And yet you've failed to reference a law that states vehicles must STOP if there are pedestrians on a zebra crossing.

That is literally the law, right there.

>Give way != stop

Yes it fucking is IN BRITISH FUCKING ENGLISH YOU FUCKING MONG.

Look, I get it, you're upset and stupid, but it isn't my problem that you can't understand the fucking words that are right in front of your fucking face.

>>1013590
Your argument is entirely, 100%, utterly incorrect. This was filmed in the UK. British law applies. The cyclist MUST stop.

>>1013591
>Yes it fucking
No, it isn't you dolt. Your understanding of english is as bad as you teeth, bong. To give way does not mean to stop. It means to give way. As in change your course or speed to let someone else move unhindered. Stopping is one way of giving way, when required. It is not a requirement.
The cyclist in OP is not even it the path of the pedestrian.

File: Screenshot_20161003_204715.png (48KB, 657x515px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 657x515px

>>1013591
>IN BRITISH FUCKING ENGLISH
Please read pic related.
>I get it, you're upset and stupid, but it isn't my problem that you can't understand the fucking words that are right in front of your fucking face
Rarely has the ironing been this strong in bongistan.

File: wewlad.gif (174KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 300x300px

>>1013593
>To give way does not mean to stop. It means to give way. As in change your course or speed to let someone else move unhindered.

That's not giving way, that's evading you fucking dumbass. "Give way" in traffic laws means STOP if there's anyone in the way, period. It's the fucking same thing as a STOP sign except you don't have to stop if there's nobody there. Everyone knows this even if you don't drive a car, and it has been like that for literally thousands of years.

The cyclist was about to pass real close to the pedestrian. In fact, the ped stopping in his path unexpectedly causes the cyclist to drive right into him, which clearly goes to show that the cyclist was in no way """"""giving way"""""" AT ALL, which is the least you can expect from a cyclist be it at a red light or a crossing without lights.

>HURR WE NEED 1.5m SAFE SPACE FROM CAGERS WHO OVERTAKE US DURRR
>proceeds to not leave that same 1.5m when """""""""""""""""giving way""""""""""""""""" to a pedestrian

unironically kill yourself lycra scum

File: 1468017095561.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>1013595
Yielding is not stopping it's....yielding.

>>1013596
You have been provided [citation]. To continue tilting at windmills, please provide refutation with [citation] and [citation] for argued position. Simple refutation sans argument is not an acceptable level of discourse. Thank you.

>>1013596
>In road transport, a yield or give way sign indicates that each driver must prepare to stop if necessary to let a driver on another approach proceed. A driver who stops or slows down to let another vehicle through has yielded the right of way to that vehicle.
>who stops or slows down to let another vehicle through has yielded the right of way
>stops or slows down
From the fine wiki on the yield rule.

This ties in neatly with the dictionary definition of the concept that defines giving way as letting others pass before your direction of travel before you pass theirs.

File: 1473878609693.jpg (124KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1280x720px

You all are bitching and getting pedantic over what "give way" means, yet the bicyclist clearly offended the code by overtaking and passing through a crosswalk where vehicles were stopped for pedestrians.

see
>>1013542
>>1013542

>>1012755

>a de minimis traffic violation
>shoving off some cunt who puts their hands on you
>LAW-BREAKING AND VIOLENCE! THE NAP HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!!!

Get your test levels checked.

>>1013593
>>1013595
There is literally nothing I can tell you that will make you happy. So, even leaving aside the subject of whether the old man was clear and the cyclist was going behind him:

1. There is a pedestrian crossing from the left and the cyclist MUST stop for him.
2. You may not overtake traffic that is stopped at a crossing.

So the cyclist STILL committed two offences (but he committed three).

>>1013609
>1. There is a pedestrian crossing from the left and the cyclist MUST stop for him.
Not unless the cyclist would hinder his passage, m80. And there is no way he would. Right about not overtaking though, but that has bearing on this specific situation and not the general discussion about giving way to pedestrians. And if we're limiting ourselves to this particular incident and the little altercation, let's not pretend it was the overtake that the hipster acted out for.

>>1012676

>commute
>full gear

What?

>>1013626
Why not? In cities with poor bike infrastructure the few braves who do cycle tend to be cyclists in the proper sense. Why not wear kit? Also, the ones who do have long, long commutes by bike. Jeans and crocks are not an option even if they wanted to.

>>1012676
>>1012679
>>1012681

That cyclist had every right to cycle through and it's exactly what he should have done

If I were him I would have smacked that pedestrian square in the fucking nose

>>1012689
>>1012759

Faggots detected

>>1012685

Tru dat my friend, shoulda smacked him in the fucking face

>>1013612
>Not unless the cyclist would hinder his passage, m80

You need to go back and read the Highway Code famalam.

Rule 195
>Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
> o you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

There is a pedestrian on the crossing. You must give way.

>Right about not overtaking though, but that has bearing on this specific situation

Apart from the fact that the cyclist did it.

>let's not pretend it was the overtake that the hipster acted out for.

Let's not pretend this thread isn't full of lycrafags absolutely desperate to pretend that the cyclist did nothing wrong. Cyclist are the dindunuffins of the road.

>>1012676
I just ran through a school bus stop sign and got yelled at lmao

>>1013670
Yeah you should get yelled at. What makes you think that's okay or even funny?

>>1013682
Because I wasn't even close to harming anybody.

>>1013658
>must give way
Which means that you have to let them cross unhindered. Unlike a cage a bike can still go through a crossing when there are people on it and not in any way block the pedestrian. If you were to watch the video in OP you can clearly see that the pedestrian coming from left had plenty of space left for him and didn't in any way suffer from the cyclist crossing. Other than probably being triggered because he can't do that in a cage.

File: retard_alert.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>1013602
>implying the pedestrian had "gone through"
>implying the bike wasn't about to pass right next to him
>implying the bike slowed down at all

>>1013730
>plenty of space
>cyclists runs right into pedestrian
>B-BUT M-MUH 1.5m OF SPACE WHEN BEING OVERTAKEN BY CARS REEEEEE
I hate cyclists so fucking much

>>1013752
He left plenty of space to the pedestrian coming from left. I've stated multiple times already that the cyclist tried to pass the pedestrian, that decided to be a cunt, too close and with too much speed.

>>1012676
>Are cyclists just as bad as cagers?

It's the Lycra. You are no longer using a bicycle to get from point A to B. It's all about course times or whatever. Same thing happens to people who drive the ricemobiles on the road and think they are real life incarnations of Initial D.

woah, this board exists...

>>1012676
Cyclists always want to be treated like cars until they have to follow car rules.

>>1013783
Yeah, from my experience, the people who exclusively ride lycra (aka, as a hobby), are completely oblivious to all the traffic laws as soon as the sun glasses come on and the SPDs clip in.

Whereas someone who commutes with a bike, is much more sensible, even when riding his 2000$ weekend bike.

I went for a few rides with a bunch of guys who only bike recreationally and there were moments where I waited for cars (who had the right of way) to pass and one of the faggots screamed at me for "taking too much time" and not cutting the cars off.

>>1013730
>Which means

No. It doesn't. It means you stop.

>Unlike a cage a bike can still go through a crossing when there are people on it

The law says you can't.

And the cyclist still wasn't allowed to overtake the stationary traffic waiting at the crossing. Cry harder.

File: kek6.jpg (23KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 450x320px

>>1013776
>He left plenty of space
>being this delusional

How many people did bicycles kill lately. Checkmate murder coffins

>>1013846
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pedestrian-died-following-collision-with-cyclist-on-old-street-5742315/

http://globalnews.ca/news/2750499/84-year-old-in-hospital-after-being-hit-by-cyclist-on-pedestrian-path/

>>1013846
In my city we're up to about 5-6 deaths by bike per year, and that's considering that bikes have a modal share of about 2-3%.

>>1013854
if only they were wearing their helmets, you know low speed collisions are really where you're going to benefit from that day-to-day helmet use that we need to be preaching to pedestrians and runners/joggers

if those two pedestrians had been wearing a nice helmet on their daily walk, they probably wouldn't be in such bad shape now

>mfw even when I ride "lycra" I let the peds thru 90% of the time

>>1013858
>I-it's ok I'm only an asshole 10% of the time.

>>1013860
>an asshole
Hardly, I always slow down, am careful and ONLY do that when peds are not paying attention to what they're doing.
Cheers.

Good cyclists are cunts

>not punching him in the face

Am I just a rageful person or what? As much as I hate lycrafags he doesn't deserve that. Suitfag goes out of his way to repeatedly impede an innocent cyclist who wasn't hurting anyone.

>>1012682

I think peds are the second worst. Both peds and cagers are phone-addict zombies but a ped isn't hurting anyone but himself. Every fucking cager thinks it's a great time to check fagbook and play pokegay while they're manning a half ton hunk of steel at 60 mph through a city.

But god damn I hate peds. They're walking, I've already plotted a path around them, and then they fucking stop like deer in headlights, or a phonezombie walks in front of me, or one stops and suddenly turns 180 to go the other way. In my entire life of cycling I've only hit one ped because the phonezombie fuck changed directions suddenly, and I still managed to brake enough where we only bumped at half a mile an hour and neither of us were injured. But damn do they try. They're the deer of the human world.

Meanwhile how many cages have almost murdered me? ... We all know cagers and peds are both scourge, but cagers are more destructive. Cyclists dindu nuffin.

>>1013892
>half ton
Try 1.25-3 tons for most modern cars

>>1013893

FANTASTIC

Cars get heavier, attention spans get shorter... Cager scum should burn, I hope OPEC rapes their assholes once they gain oil monopoly.

>>1013529

>bashing chavs in the face with a bike lock

You're a hero m8. Wish I could have mine accessible and not stowed in my pack. Fantastic job friend!

>>1013892
>hating on pedestrians, literally urban bottom feeders
wow that's some next level autism

>>1013903
It's not 'hating', my middle school friend, it's just pointing out retarded shit peds do.
I don't really care, cause like that guy said, all they're really gonna do is spook me, where a car would kill me, but still.
I can't tell you how many times a day I see a pedestrian wait around and decide at the exact moment the light changes, that's when they're gonna cross.

>>1013903

>disliking annoying things is "autistic"

montoya.jpg

File: autism-intensifies.jpg (14KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 502x417px

>>1013915
>>1013916
>getting angry because pedestrians stop walking at random instead of only stopping at designated stopping points

>>1013941
Hi, sorry, are you retarded?
You're telling me it's totally cool if someone just stops dead in their tracks in front of you and you must, or nearly must, collide with them?
Really the pot calling the kettle autistic here, friend.

;^)

>>1013941
>mfw a chubby soccer mom looked me in the eyes and started to walk out in front of me from 15ft away before suddenly stopping and taking a step back and saying "Oh!" like she was surprised I wasn't stopping for her
I'm a fucking vehicle going 16mph what the hell are you doing? In what world does your jaywalking have the right of way? There wasn't even anything behind me she could have just waited a second and then crossed the street from her SUV.

>>1013984
>jaywalking

lol

>>1013985
>"cross or walk in the street or road unlawfully or without regard for approaching traffic."
Checks out

>>1013985
It's there to discourage retards who are emboldened by the notion of pedestrians always having the right of way from walking out between cars and becoming pavement smears.

It's on the books here, but they've never ever enforced it.
It's an ass-covering thing.

>>1013944
How autistically close to other people do you walk for this to be an issue? People sometimes stop walking, deal with it. What do you do if you pass a restaurant and want to look at the menu? If your cell phone rings and you look for it? If you drop something? If you suddenly notice your walking in the wrong direction?
There's literally 6 gorillion reasons for pedestrians to suddenly stop walking and your a mouth breathing autist for having a problem with that.

>>1013987
>>1013988
"Jaywalking" was invented by the US car companies who wanted to create the concept that motorcars were "superior" to everyone else...and irony of irony, here's a cyclist complaining about "jaywalkers".

>>1014024
Jaywalking was lobbied into creation by car companies, tard. I don't think it's that crazy to complain about people walking directly into your path when you're going an excessive rate of speed when you're confined to the bike lane.

>>1014024
>>1014038
I've seen Adam Ruins Everything, too

>>1014002
Friend, have you never been to literally any city?

As for your retarded, examples, I wouldn't stop on a dime or juke somebody out, I'd step aside.
You're exaggerating my feelings on the matter, anyway.

I wonder if Picasso over there would have done the same to a car.

Cyclists are more butthurt than cagers, or they would not have created the term "cagers" in the first place.

>>1014119
How little you know, Cpt. Dipshit.
The term originated with motorcyclists.

File: 1462299995937.png (65KB, 600x506px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x506px

>>1012836
>but where is proofs??? cyka

>>1012676
>Are cyclists just as bad as cagers?

Cyclists are shit. How could anyone like a bunch of self-righteous numales?

"Waa im superior becuse im environmentally friendly and getting excercise"

>Ride in the middle of the street
>Run red lights
>Run stop signs
>Cry when they get hit
Cyclefags are complete shit.

>>1013533
My 'pretty sure' is based on living here most of my life and passing multiple traffic code exams, whereas yours is made up.

Fair enough, you made me google this shit again. The main difference between cars and bikes is art. 185 WVW, the famous clause stating that in an accident between a motorised and a non-motorised vehicle (e.g. train, house, bike) the motorised vehicle is always liable for at least 50% of the damage. There's a few small differences with cars in other laws, like being allowed to cycle two-abreast, and passing cars on the right. The vast majority of the traffic code applies to both cars and bikes. Cycling above the alcohol limit is illegal, as is cycling on pavement or running a zebra path like the idiot in OP. Stop making shit up. Feel free to translate Reglement Verkeersregels en Verkeerstekens 1990 and Wegenverkeerswet 1994 if you're bored.

>>1014038
>Jaywalking was lobbied into creation by car companies, tard

Nice violent agreement.

Fuck all of you. The old man is clearly demonstrating what can happen if you decide to disregard traffic laws. What if someone had dropped something and turned around to pick it up? Their head would get creamed by the bars. When the lights are flashing, indicating that the pedestrians have the right of way, they have no responsibility to move in any predictable fashion while they are on the crosswalk. Any argument otherwise is petty rationalization by people who have a toxic "us vs them" mentality. The rules are there for everyone's safety, not just to protect you from cars.

>>1014223
you know it's true :^)

>>1014361
>all this text and still cant demonstrate if bikes and cars, no matter if they're under the same regiment, are obligated to _give way_ to pedestrians on the crossing or _stop_
You wrote so much text. And none of it relevant to the issue at hand. The feels - they're mostly pity.

>>1012676
The cyclist was wrong but you know what would've happened if the guy had just kept walking like a normal fucking person and not a huge cunt? NOTHING. Nothing would've happened and everyone would've gone about their days in a much better mood. He was the instigator, which is much worse than a guy breaking a law that wasn't going to hurt anyone.

>>1013026
Sounds like you're just a pussy
Enjoy being a pussy, pussy.

>>1014554
Oh, boy. You got me!

File: 1473965572002.gif (2MB, 399x171px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 399x171px

Biker is a huge fag and did the normal thing of not yielding in a crosswalk

This is nothing new.

>>1014541
>He was the instigator

He was just crossing the road. The cyclist instigated it as soon as he violated three rules from the Highway Code.

>>1012681
You are participating in discussion on 4chan though

>>1014573
Okay pussy

>>1014591
No, friend. Old man changed his course to harass the cyclist.

>>1014611
>No! The cyclist must be blameless!

We've been over this. The cyclist had no right go through the crossing. The old man could have moonwalked across for all the difference your impotent rage makes. It wasn't harassment; the pedestrian had every right to be there, the cyclist had no right to be there. It is literally that simple.

>>1014728
> It wasn't harassment
No point in further conversation if you actually believe this is true

>>1014728
Yes we've been over this multiple times. The cyclists should've stopped, he did the wrong thing. He isn't blameless. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person in this thread claiming that the cyclist did no wrong. However that still doesn't change the fact that the old man instigated the entire incident.

Had the old man turned around after noticing he's going the wrong way and let the cyclist pass after the initial situation then it would have been entirely on the cyclist. However we can clearly see from the rest of the video that the old man did this only to harass the cyclist.

>>1012676
I like crosswalks in Germany.
When a pedestrian so much as approaches or stands near a crosswalk, any car, bicycle or other vehicle on the road MUST stop, the only exception being emergency vehicles like police cars with their siren on.

When I went to America, and my girlfriend drove us to Virginia Beach, I kept cringing over how many crosswalks she drove over when there were clearly people waiting to cross. Like what's the point of the crosswalk?
She claims if someone walks on the road she would have stopped, but I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. You'd have to slam the brakes.

>people actually defending the cyclist

It's one thing to be pro-bike, but you've still gotta call out someone for being a shitbag.

>>1014834
>let the cyclist pass

The pedestrian was under no obligation to let the cyclist do anything.

>the old man did this only to harass the cyclist.

Oh that poor cyclist. What a mean nasty pedestrian, using the crossing as he's entirely allowed to!

>>1014834
the problem is that the old man had the choice of either communicating to the bicyclist that he had done something wrong OR not communicating it.

we all want justice, but what the bicyclist did hadn't been codified as wrong, so the pedestrian had to decide whether to implicitly affirm the bicyclist's behavior or ruin the bicyclist's day.

except, not even day. it might even be exaggerating to say this might've ruined the cyclist's hour.

>>1012676
The cyclass should have stopped and the old douche shouldn't have turned vigilante and tried inflicting harm. Jerks ride a variety of vehicles AND walk.
>>1012708
People do this all the time where I live, nobody's ever gotten hurt or upset.
I mean, even the most basic situational awareness prevents issues.
Do you people have super narrow sidewalks so no one can pass eachother, are the people wide?
Does everyone zigzag?
Do drunks stumble about and cycle somehow?
Are the cyclists putting chains on their tires and wrecking the sidewalk? Is everyone looking at their phone at all times?
Who just wants to bump into other people?

>>1014895
not him, but this got me
>Do drunks stumble about and cycle somehow?
there's a very wide spectrum of competence in bicycling between "just barely able to keep the bike upright" and where you evidently think you are.

i live on a college campus with lots of bicyclists, lots of roads suitable for bicycling (heavily restricted against cars, so full width 2-lane roads become de facto bike roads), and inexplicably i still occasionally see people biking around on the sidewalks. basically, it's 3 things:

1) pedestrians tend to move too slow for most novice (or even reasonably competent amateur) bicyclists to stay balanced forever (and these people are either bad at judging that until it's too late, or something else is happening)

2) cyclists seem pretty bad at navigating around pedestrians with much granularity. you can see someone crossing the street and confidently estimate that you won't clip the pedestrian, but if he's sort of aimlessly meandering and you're already in close quarters, it gets much harder to determine if you need to course correct or not.

(this is in part due to the fact that...)

3) pedestrians are skittish and unbelievably erratic. i honestly feel less nervous around horses, and horses are notorious for freaking the fuck out when something happens abruptly.

>>1014897
>pedestrians are skittish and unbelievably erratic. i honestly feel less nervous around horses, and horses are notorious for freaking the fuck out when something happens abruptly.
In my experience, when there's a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians (like around a lake), normal adults are fine.
But children....fucking children.. They never watch where they're going, and they'll randomly walk in front of me, and sometimes they'll walk right into my bike while looking at me. I fucking hate children. When I see one, I slow down to walking pace until I get past them.
They're so judgemental too.
>mom, why is that man riding his bike barefoot
Because I just came from swimming at the lake and my feet are dirty, fuck you.

>>1014897
Some good points, different circumstances for different places, but as far as point 2 is concerned- if you think you're going to even maybe clip someone/something it's best to slow down or stop. How would anyone not slow down or stop with an obstacle in front of them?
Nobody with the slightest sense goes fast enough to lose maneuverability and clip anyone when in a crowded, pedestrian ridden area, cyclists, automobile or otherwise.
I don't really understand not being able to maintain balance when slowing or just walking the bike if it's not possible to bike through somehow and a "collision" at that speed would be silly.
The cyclists on your campus sound like special needs asshats, sorry you have to deal with that.

>>1014899
i can't tell you the number of adults i've seen who have started crossing the street (without looking in the first place obviously), saw an oncoming bike, and very suddenly took a step back, or (with roughly equal frequency) suddenly started walking faster.

none of these things is helpful. a bicyclist can extrapolate and figure out where a pedestrian will be if they simply keep the same direction and speed, but if they suddenly change those things (and especially in the last second or two before the cyclist reaches the pedestrian) it leaves too little room to course correct.

>>1014903
you described
>Nobody with the slightest sense goes fast enough to lose maneuverability and clip anyone when in a crowded, pedestrian ridden area, cyclists, automobile or otherwise.
which sounds like you just didn't understand what i was saying.

i'm talking about people who have to go *slower* to avoid colliding with someone, who realize too late or with too little space to swing their feet over the top tube that they need to dismount.

the best analogy i can think of is when you see someone who's trying to track stand at a stop light and clearly failing. and being near the edge of a sidewalk can be a perilous place to dismount if you're not a very competent rider because if your bike rolls over the edge you'll definitely eat cement.

i'm not going to the "university of cycling enthusiasts" here. i'm going to a university where cycling happens to be the best way to get around. that means thousands of people who are about as proficient riding a bike as you could expect people to be if they only rode for like 20 cumulative minutes a day, 5 days a week.

these aren't people with special needs or anything - it's actually one of the top universities in the world - it's just that we're inundated with a lot of relatively novice bicyclists packed.

it's a testament to how important it is to get familiar with biking in hairy situations.

>>1014860
Why walk across the street, when you can drive, Hans?

>>1014921
>swing their feet over the top tube
All of my Costanza.jpg.

File: angry_pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

ITT:
>WHY WON'T PEDESTRIANS MOVE IN A PERFECTLY MECHANICAL AND PREDICTABLE FASHION REEEEEEEEEE
>WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN USE THE SIDEWALK AND STOP WALKING SUDDENLY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1014879
I would not be allowed to stand in the cross walk, fucking around like the pedestrian is doing. No.

>>1014937
Oh, you again. Still haven't been to a city, huh?
When you don't live out in the sticks, and you don't live in a retarded place like Pittsburgh, people stay to their right and walk behind one another.
If your stupid ass thinks it's accetaple to suddenly stop, or turn around, without considering others, you're literally autistic

>>1014987
>I would not be allowed

You would be if you were in the UK

>>1015017
Point out where it says you can fuck around in the road, in the crosswalk, when you're not attempting to cross.

>>1014921
If they're already slowing/going slow then they should be able to stop, why would anyone dismount because someone crossed them at slow speeds. Pardon my comprehension but the more you describe it, the more it sounds like these people just touched a bike for the first time in thier lives. I see children who have more dexterity and basic decision making than what you're describing.
Do the bikes all have pretend brakes?
If they don't know how to stop, they have no business without training wheels.
Not knocking your uni but these things are not only the most basic concepts of traveling but a far cry from pro level skills. No college course needed to activate brakes and not blindly hit slow obstacles while also going slow.

>>1012682
>don't give a single fuck about crossing against a light when cars are coming, and feel as if they have the right of way 100% percent of that time

at least in my state, pedestrian does have the right of way 100% of the time, even while jaywalking

File: deathcorner.png (2MB, 1119x767px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1119x767px

>>1015051
That's literally what he's saying; these people ride like shit.
You've seen them before, they slow down then start jerking the bars back and forth *SKRITCH!* *SKRITCH!* ing until they have to put their foot down, and inevitably tumble over, at least a bit, in doing so.

>>1015057
Who actually has the right, it's not the point.
It's just not fucking safe, and it's becoming deadly.
>pic related

While traffic A is making a right or left onto Haddon, traffic B is stopped and traffic C is stopped. (It is alright a one way)
There's clearly an arrow, as the fucking traffic light has more than three lights on it, so it should be obvious.
If you looked where I've drawn the arrow, there's always cars there, so it's impossible to see anyone in the cross walk until you are literally on top of it and yet time after fucking time, I will see people step out as soon as we get the arrow. EXCUSE ME WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ARROW IS FOR???
Now I know to look, I'm there a lot, but there's a lot of idiots who think this will be a short cut and when they get that arrow, because you really do have to wait so long if you miss it, they jump the gun and start speeding immediately on making their right, and too many pedestrians have been hit there for me to count.

You can tell cagers not to cage all they want, and they should be fucked by the law as hard as they possibly can, but holy shit, peds, why aren't you scared?
At least most cyclists here I feel have a healthy fear that translates to being aware and not taking risks, even if you're lawfully correct in doing something. Peds just fucking don't.

>>1015064
>tl;dr
Pedestrians, to me, just act like cagers without a cage.
They do not act as if they are aware of the realities of being outside a cage, and when removed, behave with all the same entitlement and selfishness.
Aside from your bussboys on their way to work or a DUI special, I don't see the same behavior from cyclists. Hell, even those guys are better than peds.

>>1014988
Fucking this. People around here are completely oblivious to cyclists. Like on the bike trail they will literally walk 4 abreast and get all pissy when I yell at them to move so I can get by.

>>1015018
>All rights not explicitly granted are forbidden

Sorry Comrade Stalin, that isn't the case.

>when you're not attempting to cross.

The old man is attempting to cross.

>>1015093
The old man isn't not attempting to cross, obviously. He stopped his path of motion and harassed the cyclist until the end of the vid. He was hardly attempting to cross after that decision.

>>1015064
it still baffles me why there arent simple bridges or tunnels for peds.

>>1015125
bridges and tunnels are expensive, paint is cheap

>>1015125
What's funny is that we actually did have a bunch of those, at least around the railroads, but they closed up all the underground ones and left the above ground ones to rust away in the name f safety.

>>1015125
I have 2 tunnels I use on my 12 km commute. And I pass around a dozen tunnels that I don't use.

I've lived most of my life in a suburb that used to be right next to the largest highway around here before they rebuilt it in a different location for a bigger highway. We still have the god tier cycling and pedestrian infrastructure that was designed with the highway in mind. Means that all bike paths that go over the old highway are tunnels, all bike paths are fully segregated from the highway, there is a bike path to pretty much everywhere so that bikes and pedestrians didn't have to use the highway. A lot of this is to do with being in Finland and in US the same place would be a nightmare for cyclists.

Cycling anywhere else is always a small culture shock because I'm so used to the infrastructure we have that anything less than it feels weird.

>>1015125
It still baffles me why the entirety of car traffic isn't put underground, making walkable, human friendly, aesthetically pleasing cities that are also pollution free.

>>1015123
>The old man isn't not attempting to cross
>He stopped his path of motion

He stopped WHILE CROSSING you chucklefuck. He was entirely, 100%, utterly, entitled to stop. He was entitled to turn around and move backwards, moonwalk, do a handstand, hop or anything else he fucking liked because he was using the crossing legally.

>harassed the cyclist

Dat poor widdle cyclist! Waa! Why can't the mean pedestrian leave him alone to ignore three different traffic laws! Ablublublu!

>He was hardly attempting to cross after that decision.

If your lycra clad road buddy there hadn't ignored three different traffic rules, the old guy wouldn't have stopped and would have moved off the crossing a lot quicker.

>>1012691
>the law
>mattering

rule of law is for the developmentally disabled. it was invented to keep morons and individualistic autists in line, while real people worth keeping alive never needed it. without it, we would have morons fucking dogs and driving the wrong way down the road. on the other hand, we could just get rid of the morons.

>>1015239
>implying there's something wrong with fucking dogs

>>1015237
Dude. You've completely lost your composure. This isn't /o/. There's no call to lose your shit like that.

>>1015237
>He was entitled to turn around and move backwards, moonwalk, do a handstand, hop or anything else he fucking liked
You should do that and see what happens. If you're lucky you'll just get a fine for jaywalking and impeding traffic. If you're a minority American you could get yourself killed that way.

>>1014225
>Ride in the middle of the street
If by that you mean in the middle of the lane then we have every right to. I don't think I ever see people riding down the midline.

>>1015239
>I'm above the law!
>WAAAHHH WHY WON'T CARS RESPECT ME WAAAAAAHHHHHH
your post made me cringe sofa king hard

>>1015241
>spout some completely retarded autistic bs about pedestrians having to move CONSTANTLY or otherwise being assholes somehow
>anon gets triggered at such a display of autism and psychosis
>DOOD DONT LOOSE UR COMPOSTURRR
and you fudgepacking faggots still wonder why everyone hates you

>>1015064
>That's literally what he's saying; these people ride like shit.
basically exactly this. these are people who can get on a bike, ride it in a straight line surrounded by other people, take turns without tumbling or coming to a dead stop all the time, etc... but they're not *skilled*. the median cyclist here probably spends less than 30 minutes a day on their bike. and unless they encounter situations like these all the time they're not going to be good at balancing at slow speeds (or at no speed), nor are they going to be good at determining that they need to dismount up ahead because they won't be able to sneak past an upcoming gaggle of pedestrians.

none of this would be an actual problem if either
- pedestrians behaved more consistently and less like horses, easily spooked and quick to change direction or bolt in some random direction, OR
- all of the bicyclists learned how to maneuver more safely.

the problem is that cyclists everywhere are notorious for doing something shitty or retarded and then speeding off faster than anyone can chase after them. like the OP image would've illustrated if that old man hadn't been a dick.

a couple of cops just hang out at an intersection on campus randomly every week or so for a day and they just hang out and hand out tickets to bicyclists that roll through the stop sign. they're not even slightly hidden. you see them standing across the street in the bike lane with their cars parallel parked right next to them. i want to emphasize that they're about as obvious as they could get without flashing their lights non-stop. and still, they seem to hand out a dozen or more tickets every hour (i run by on the way to the gym and they've literally always got a queue of bicyclists waiting to be scolded and ticketed).

>>1015265
Calm down

>>1015249
>If you're lucky you'll just get a fine for jaywalking and impeding traffic

Well as we're all talking about the UK, where that video was filmed:

1. It's legal.
2. "Jaywalking" isn't a thing.

>If you're a minority American you could get yourself killed that way.

3. We're not heavily armed savages.

>>1015277
>I have no arguments

>>1012676
worse

If there are people on the pedestrian crossing, regardless of what stage they are at, or whether you can cross it before they get in your way, or whether you're Big Cock Lycraman and all roads everywhere belong to you and nobody else, you have to stop. It's the law. It's basic consideration. It's what you do if you're not a massive shitcunt. You want to keep traveling with no concern for other road users, I want to push you over and stomp on you until there's no distinction left between bike and man. Let's both exercise a little restraint.

>>1015342
You don't have to stop, you have to give way.

>>1015352
>I'll bring up this argument again. It worked so well the last time!

Are you Donald Trump?

>>1015352
He's a foaming cager and doesn't realize that a bike can go over a crossing even when there are people crossing it without hindering them in any way.

>>1015382
>a bike can go over a crossing even when there are people crossing it

Not according to the law it can't. Please cry harder.

>>1015386
Yeah, you've yet to prove that. All he had to do was give way and he clearly did.
As for the others waiting? Why should he wait just because they're doing something incorrectly.

>>1015387
They're not doing it incorrectly. They're waiting for the pedestrians to pass, as they're supposed to. They're giving way too. The last guy just didn't have to stop to give way because the stream of pedestrians had all left his side of the road and he could give way by positioning instead.

>>1015394
>They're not doing it incorrectly.
You've yet to prove this.
If a car is waiting to make a left with his blinker on, and the car behind him is sitting right behind him on his ass, and I go around that car, it's very similar. Just because someone wants to do something incorrectly, waiting behind instead of safely going around on the right, I don't have to be drug down to his level of stupidity.

>They're waiting for the pedestrians to pass, as they're supposed to. They're giving way too.
'Too'? So, you admit it, then. The cyclist gave way as well, and that's all he needs to do, give way.

>>1015402
I was not the retard you were arguing with, senpai. I agree that he gave way. I disagree that the stopped cyclists are doing anything wrong. They don't have room to pass, so they are obligated to stop.

>>1015404
You don't know that, they're sitting when the vid starts.
Had they each given way, and all gone through, that would have been 'right'.
I'm just saying, because anon up there was saying it's illegal to pass people stopping to 'give way', doesn't matter if they should be there in the first place. Just as I'm not wrong taking 'right of way' that doesn't belong to me at a 4-way, when some jerkoff isn't leaving his sign or waves me through.

Cyclist did all he had to do, and the pedestrians changed his path to bully him.
End of story.

>>1015409
>You don't know that, they're sitting when the vid starts.
Let's assume they didn't just stop in the middle of the road for shits and giggles like that old fart, shall we? They're not pedestrians. They should be given the benefit of doubt.

>>1015426
But if at that moment that cyclist could give way, as he did, that likely means they might have been able to as well.
They're really irrelevant here aside from this mention: >>1013542
But if there was no need to stop, there's hardly any reason for you to not pass them, as they 'shouldn't' be there anyhow.

>>1015437
>But if at that moment that cyclist could give way, as he did, that likely means they might have been able to as well.
And had they all been over on the "wrong" side of the lane, at least a few of them might. Remember, bongs drive on the left side. The guy who gets blocked by the geezer has purposely moved over from the left to the right to make that overtake and avoid the pedestrians. The rest of the guys still have people walking out into the road from the left, and a steady stream of pedestrians still crossing in front of them.

>>1015439
Wonderful, like I said, I'm only mentioning it because anon did, and that's a very tenuous wrong at best.

Full video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815343/You-stop-s-LAW-Angry-pedestrian-blocks-cyclist-gives-earful-tries-speed-zebra-crossing.html

Fine for the cabs to blow through while there's people on the crossing but the guy has a problem with cyclists.

>>1015448
>A Metropolitan police spokesman told Mail Online: 'A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration) but must "accord precedence" i.e. allow a pedestrian to cross first unless the pedestrian is on the opposite carriageway and there is a central island.
>A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian
In other words, there is no obligation to stop. Only to give way. A big thank you to the police for clearing that fact up. So, I was right all along then, eh?
Eat shit, you who persisted that "the law" required you to stop if there were pedestrians on the crossing. No wonder you couldn't find law text to back it up.

>>1015402
>You've yet to prove this.

Read the thread.

The only way to satisfy you that "Give way" means what I say it means is to come to the UK and take a driving test. Because it means what I say it means, even if you don't believe me.

>>1015409
>the pedestrians changed his path to bully him.

ablublublublublu

WHY IS LIFE SO UNFAIR!

>>1015453
>A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian

He's passing in front of the pedestrian crossing from the left.

>>1015453
I dunno, you still struck me as rude as fuck through that whole debacle. Like, you were just waiting for an excuse to call the other guy names or tell him to eat shit. Local cyclists around here are stirring shit with behavior that isn't technically illegal and then baiting cagers into behaving poorly and then breaking shit on their cars. They're making cycling around here a much worse experience for me, because I'm now getting cagers I've never seen before starting shit with me just because I'm on a bike. Like, the cyclists aren't technically breaking laws but they're being massive fags about it and making my life hell. You were arguing like this too, being technically right but being a fag about it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while you had a great point, in the end, you had very little dignity getting to it. Like when an anon gave you a link, and you said 'I'm not reading that lol'. Like telling an English teacher that they should be expected to read the books out loud to you because they're the one who is supposed to educate you. You have a duty in that relationship to put in some legwork too, but you showed no initiative to do so.

Treat yourself with a little more self-respect in the future and try to put effort into a discussion like this. You may have had the chance to tell someone to "eat shit" in the end but there is no dignity in acting that way. No more so than a cager that harasses a cyclist.

>>1015239
Fucking dogs is perfectly legal in 16 states.

File: 1473925220042.jpg (21KB, 460x258px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x258px

>>1015537
Which ones?

For research purposes, of course

>>1015499
Nope

>>1015500
His behavior is indefensible. If he wanted to let things go, he should have. If he wanted to actually change anything, doing what he did wasn't going to do that.
Instead, he just had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to be the boss of someone he knew he had the advantage over and took it.

Kill the elderly.

>>1015501
Had he been unharrased, it would have been less close.

> Cyclist clearly in the wrong
> Other cyclists defending him anyway

Yep, that's about what I expected. London is just awful as a pedestrian because of cyclists. Never once had a problem with cars driving on the pavement or going the wrong way down a one way street or cutting red lights.

>>1015595
Believe me, I wouldn't be doing it so hard if not for the old man's hissy fit.

File: 9000 hours in mspaint.jpg (48KB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x260px

Any questions? Didn't think so.

t. A responsible and respectful cyclist.

>>1015629
And there would have been well over a meter between them when they crossed if the pedestrian hadn't suddenly reversed course and leaped into the cyclists path. It is more obvious in the stills than in the video.

Just like you don't get to play the victim of a close overtake if you suddenly swerve out in the road and nearly into an overtaking lorry that would have been meting the legal requirement if you held your course.

>>1015595
>there is a taxi failing to give way in the very video of the incident
Bias much?

>>1015622

I dunno, its nice to see someone get sick of the shit dickbag cyclists do.

>>1015631
>meter
*metre

You're completely wrong anyway. The simple fact is that the pedestrian got spooked when he noticed the cyclist approaching at speed.
What you fail to notice is that the cyclist was initially going to attempt to pass in front of the pedestrian and then changed course to go behind the pedestrian.
He initiated that conflict.

>>1015634
Please have a look at the stills. Also, to be able to stop a bike within a few feet you're hardly 'at speed', senpai.

>>1015636
speed, in this case, is relative. to a pedestrian he was approaching at speed.

running is faster than walking, etc.

think before you speak, etc. stop trying to justify your own antisocial bevaviour, etc.

PROTIP: don't be an apologist for a shitty cyclist. he makes us all look bad

>>1015560
>it would have been less close.

The law doesn't set a distance; he passed to the left of the centre island, in front of the pedestrian from the left. So even in the situation where "Give way" means "Pass behind a pedestrian" the cyclist was STILL breaking the law.

File: scumbag-cyclist.png (1MB, 1446x822px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1446x822px

>>1015631
>And there would have been well over a meter between them when they crossed if the pedestrian hadn't suddenly reversed course and leaped into the cyclists path

Here is a grab of the exact moment the pedestrian stopped and the cyclist entered the crossing. His right foot is precisely where it was at the moment he saw the cyclist enter the crossing; in a couple of frames the cyclist is now a good 0.5m onto the crossing; he is moving at speed. The pedestrian would have had to do a long jump to clear 1 metre before the cyclist passed him.

>>1015652
He is not obstructing the pedestrian from the left. He is giving way. That's what that means. To not get in the way of and let pass unhindered.

>>1015653
Those zebra lines are roughly half a metre wide. He would only have to complete the step he was already in the middle of taking, and initiate another to be a metre clear. He had ample time to do that, and was walking at a brisk pace before he stopped and threw himself back in the cyclists path. The cyclist is, contrary to your previous statement, also using the centre island to give him even more space.

>>1015658
unwritten rule is that if a ped is on one of those fat lines then a vehicle should also be on that line. did you grow up in a cave?

>>1015681
>a vehicle should also be on that line.
*NOT
>a vehicle should NOT be on that line.
fuck me that's a bad typo to make. sorry.

>>1013632
>That cyclist had every right to cycle through

Except he didn't. When pedestrians are crossing a zebra crossing you wait until it is clear then go. Same as for cars. You don't just swerve around them if you see a gap. What if that guy legitimately wanted to turn around?

>>1012690

>verbal language vs possible physical injury

Sure- great analogy kid.

What if the guy had dropped his wallet on the ground and had to turn back to pick it up? Instead of trying to stop the bike guy for a talk, that is? Would his obstruction of the biker be any more acceptable?

Who would be in the wrong then?

>>1015722
>Would his obstruction of the biker be any more acceptable?
Yes.
>Who would be in the wrong then?
No-one. Assuming the biker stopped/evaded in time. If he hit the pedestrian he would obviously be at fault.

>>1015681
Unwritten rules are not written.

>>1015710
He had to give way and he did.
You'll notice that with a complete, childish turn around, the cyclist STILL didn't hit him, the old man still had to make that contact. So, had he really needed to do something similar, it would have been fine.

>>1015711
Excuse me?

>>1015657
>He is not obstructing the pedestrian from the left.

Doesn't matter.

>He is giving way

No, he is not. Like the nice policeman said; it is okay for a cyclist to go BEHIND a pedestrian on a crossing. Not in front.

>>1015773
He gave way, just not in your little opinion.

File: cabbage.jpg (13KB, 174x192px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 174x192px

>>1015758
Prove it.

File: grasped.jpg (2KB, 83x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 83x125px

>>1015773
>Like the nice policeman said; it is okay for a cyclist to go BEHIND a pedestrian on a crossing. Not in front.
>Not in front.
He said no such thing. He said that passing behind even though the pedestrian was still crossing was fine. In no way did he say or imply that you're not allowed to pass before a pedestrian that is still on the other side of the road/lane. Especially as said pedestrian hadn't even entered the crossing proper before the cyclist passed the holding line, and even with the geezer preventing his passing in no way obstructed the gentleman from the left.
Pic related. It's what you're doing.

I'm a lifetime cager, so there's something I don't get here.

Why would you bike in an urban area if you weren't prepared to beat the shit out of someone?

Like, it seems like the inevitable outcome.

>>1015828
We're not children.

>>1015647

> PROTIP: don't be an apologist for a shitty cyclist. he makes us all look bad

Too late for that. This thread is almost 300 posts of cyclists making themselves look bad.

>>1015851
Yeah, but people are going to throw shit at you and try to run you off the road.

At least here in burgerland, cyclists carry cans of spray paint with long range nozzles so they can tag fuckheads cars as they drive off.

If you want to use the road, you're going to have to fight for it.

>>1015808
>In no way did he say or imply that you're not allowed to pass before a pedestrian that is still on the other side of the road/lane.

He doesn't need to state that: because it's written in the Highway Code, which has been quoted extensively in this thread.

>Pic related. It's what you're doing.

There's some fucking irony right there, my desperate lycra clad friend.

>>1015782
>He gave way

Nope.

>just not in your little opinion.

The Highway Code isn't my opinion. It's the law.

>>1015857

If only they'd enforce the road laws on lycrafags, then maybe that poor guy in the OP wouldn't have to take matters into his own hands and cyclists wouldn't be such self-important douches.

>>1015861
Pot calling the kettle black.

>>1015868
>cyclist assuming everyone else drives a car
kill yourself

>>1015878
I'm saying the old man is clearly a self-important douche.

>>1015879

I don't think arguing that road users should obey traffic laws is being a douche.

>>1015883
That's hardly an accurate description of the old mans actions.

>>1012676
Worse, cagers aren't a threat when you're not on the street. Cyclists on the other hand are always inconsiderate, even in pedestrian areas.
Bicycles don't belong on campus. Either put a baseball card in your spokes or ride down the big hill slowly.

tl;dr cyclists are even more annoying when you aren't driving.

>>1013491
Because they're faggots who pretend to be vehicles only when it suits them.
If cyclists knew their place and did as they should, no one would have a problem with them.

tl;dr cyclists are the same type of person who lane splits with a difference in speed of 30mph.

>>1014541
>cyclist dindu nuffin
>he wuz a good cyclist goin to the bike store ev'reh sunday
>tryin tuh turn his pedals around

>>1014895
>nobody's ever gotten hurt or upset.
... unless its a population of 5,000 , that's bullshit.

>Do you people have super narrow sidewalks so no one can pass eachother,
the standard sidewalk is 2.5 people wide.
We have enough of a problem with inconsiderate faggots who don't want to break their conversation for 0.1 second and move behind a person to let people by.
If you can't successfully pretend you are a vehicle and go vehicle speeds, then WALK your bike. There is no excuse.

>>1013797
/thread

>>1015960
>If you can't successfully pretend you are a vehicle and go vehicle speeds, then WALK your bike.
No.
>There is no excuse.
I don't need one. Law is on my side.

>>1015967
This is what I mean by cyclists are faggots.

The law is on my side to cross cross walks without looking for traffic. It doesn't mean it's not my fault if I get hit.

The law is on my side if I decided to press the crossing button and then just stand in the right turn lane.
It doesn't mean that I should.

The law is on my side if I have the right of way, that doesn't mean I just floor it with my eyes closed.

>>1015979
>pedestrian intentionally walking into cyclist is a cock
>hurr durr law is on his side
>law is on side of cyclist
>HURR DURR CYCLISTS ARE FAGGOTS
Fuck off, retard. You're done here.

>>1015980
>breaking the law and being a faggot
>obeying the law and being a faggot
I'm noticing a trend with cyclists.

>>1015983
What part of "fuck off" was unclear, you gibbering imbecile?

File: postingono.jpg (98KB, 1608x1120px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1608x1120px

>>1015983
>riding in the street is breaking the law

>>1015985
running through a red into a crosswalk with pedestrians using it is...

"
>pedestrian intentionally walking into cyclist is a cock
>hurr durr law is on his side
"

>>1015988
Why are you still posting, retard?

File: castanza 1445889970921.jpg (127KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 300x400px

>>1015990

>>1015382
>being considerate of other people using public space properly=being a cager

kill yourself

>>1012759
>He stood on the crossing, as is legally allowed to do

no it is not legal to "stand" in a crossing

in fact it is the opposite

>>1012793

>>1016023
You just linked to a post who was talking about US law, and applying it to the UK.

The actual post you wanted was >>1012798

The pedestrian was well within his rights.

>>1015631
>there would have been well over a meter
*metre
You realize that a metre is about three feet, right?

>>1014541
Just to be clear, if I were one of the 5 or 6 cyclists who /stopped at the crossing/ and saw this go on in front of me I'd've been cheering the ped on. Or a driver seeing this. Or a pedestrian.

The only guy who would have been pissed off here is the cyclist twat who tried to sail over the crossing too fast.

I don't think anyone was even really delayed beyond the hero in the suit and the cyclist.

>>1016095
Old man is a meddling cunt and nothing more, hardly more by your own admission of him causing his own issue.

>>1016106
>Old man is a meddling cunt

The cyclist would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't the meddling old man!

Let's who that cyclist *really* is!

>>1016095
/thread

>>1016118
>there wouldn't have been a problem if the meddling cunt didn't get triggered and create a situation out of thin air
The old man isn't a cop. It's not his business to harass others, even if they are breaking the law. If he wants to act like a cop and ticket cyclists he should sign up at the police academy and become one.

>>1016134
>Only cops should care about the law!
>Only cops can enforce laws!

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNDDDDDDDD
*breath*
OFFFFFF
THEEEEEEEEEEE
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Oh wait it's the UK none of your weird police fetish applies.

>>1016088
>*metre
>>>/int/

>>1016147
What? Yes, of course that's how it should be.
Random Joe should not be the fucking boss of me, hell, cops should hardly be the boss of me.
It's not as if the old man was making a citizens arrest, as you can tell from his actions. Again, from his actions, he isn't attempting to explain or reiterate anything to the cyclist, so that isn't helping anything.
He's simply an old man throwing a hissy fit with a fight he knows he can't possibly lose.

Again, wish he picked the one guy outta a hundred that would knock this old man the fuck down.

File: 4chan n.jpg (225KB, 1291x724px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1291x724px

>>1016167
>he thinks that a board listed under Japanese Culture is for Americans only
You can't be this sad.

>>>/1chan/

>>1015275
Whenever I want to do some shitty manoeuvre that could land me a ticket, I double check if there's any fuzz nearby.
Not that I am doing lotsa shitty manoeuvres, mostly just running (as in riding on them instead of dismounting and walking - there are some parts of the bike paths that end right before a street crossing and, legally, would need a cyclist to dismount in order to get to the other side; man, fuck that) ped crossings or getting on streets thru those.

>>1016020
>>being considerate of other people using public space properly=being a cager
No, it's called "posing as a self-appointed street sheriff", nigga. Call me when you start being considerate about other cars not respecting the speed limit.

>>1012676
i saw a pedestrian looking for a fight.