Cyclist taken out | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Cyclist taken out

Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
Interesting to see the discussion. I see some misinformation and assumptions stated as if it were facts. And that's how the cyclist gets blamed. There seems to be some info in the first post that was missed or ignored from some of the obviously wrong conclusions.

I find it important to note what was mentioned somewhat directly here earlier, that rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is wrong to quote other jurisdictional traffic laws, and often very misleading. It is also basic common sense that local traffic laws supercede other jurisdictional state and federal legislation prescriptions, and provincial/state/federal traffic laws are written in a manner that literally identifies and acknowledges that. That is why there are visible and enforceable speed limits above and below provincial and federal prescriptions, for example.

It is basic common sense to always follow the local posted signage. I have no idea why so many people refuse to do this and why that is the case. As mentioned before, there was a lot of local posted signage identifying the local laws and permissions where the cyclist was hit. Yet we continually see in comments on this story all over the internet where a significant number of people ignore this basic tenet of driving.

That is the root of much of the incorrect statements out there; people using a little knowledge and personal experience to guide their actions and feedback, to the point of literally overriding obvious local signage that prescribes the rules and laws!

A few notes as I have found from reading up on this event.

This road is a very well known cycling road in a national park, to the point of being a designated bicycle route with specific posted allowances, and it is especially crowded with cycling on weekends.
The accident happened on a Sunday.
The road has no transport function and no destination point for commercial traffic.
The speed limit on this national park road varies between 40 and 50 mph.
There is lots of posted signage on the road identifying that cyclists may use the full lane AND to change lanes to pass (passing on the double lines is permitted in this case. Literally look at the first post in this thread which has a picture of the signs!).

The local law enforcement clarified the rules of the road, which naturally agrees with the posted signs.
http://fox17.com/news/local/acting-...ice-clarifies-rules-of-road-for-bicycles-cars
Click to expand...

People often read and interpret information from their own perspective which can lead to a misstatement of the facts. It can happen to the best of us, right?

Btw, you might want to edit your post. The accident happened on Saturday, not Sunday.


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Rob MacLennan said:
In National Parks the park rangers are the law enforcement.* That's why they actually have Federal traffic laws in the US; because, among other things, they apply in the same way that local laws do when on Federal Reservations, like National Parks.

*Did my research after a Shenandoah National Park Ranger tried to entrap me into passing him at significantly greater than the speed limit for the area.
Click to expand...
Yup. In the end, simply following the local signage which clearly displays the rules of the road is the way to go.

Robbo said:
People often read and interpret information from their own perspective which can lead to a misstatement of the facts. It can happen to the best of us, right?

Btw, you might want to edit your post. The accident happened on Saturday, not Sunday.
Click to expand...

By all means. I wrote that post in a rush between things so some of it may not have come across as I intended. Managed a few edits recently.




FWIW, the National Park Service Police made the arrest, are conducting the investigation, and filed the report. The Williamson County Sheriff's Office is assisting in the investigation. The cyclist was not charged with anything.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

I still don't interpret may use entire lane, as equivalent to may ride side by each and chit chat, although there are signs and it's not excuse for hitting or even aiming at someone.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Baggsy said:
I still don't interpret may use entire lane, as equivalent to may ride side by each and chit chat, although there are signs and it's not excuse for hitting or even aiming at someone.
Click to expand...

Maybe a tweeter account should be made for such roads where drivers post their own personal rules. IE, stay the **** out of the way if you are going under 30KMh, your tires are over 21MM or you have a fixie. That's my interpretation of sharing the road.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Looks like Caboose & FMJ was out for a ride
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Doesn't matter if it's side by side or 1 rider in the middle of the lane.... They are allowed on that stretch of road way...in a park.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Riceburner said:
Doesn't matter if it's side by side or 1 rider in the middle of the lane.... They are allowed on that stretch of road way...in a park.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where that's written down. I could see if one bike is passing another, or a single bike is riding around puddles/debris, being over to the left; otherwise there's no need.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Baggsy said:
I'd like to see where that's written down. I could see if one bike is passing another, or a single bike is riding around puddles/debris, being over to the left; otherwise there's no need.
Click to expand...

This is it in writing AFAIK...posted earlier.
safety-sign-med-1024x733.jpg
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

The sign shows a single bike and states may use full lane. Interpretations...?

Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Baggsy said:
I'd like to see where that's written down. I could see if one bike is passing another, or a single bike is riding around puddles/debris, being over to the left; otherwise there's no need.
Click to expand...

Your personal valuation of need doesn't really apply or matter. How about you show us where it is written down there that only specific circumstances apply to the permission of allowing cyclists to use the full lane.

There is nothing so far but evidence showing a broad allowance for cyclists to use the entire lane. The obvious lack of restrictions in the text of the law is telling. The signage does not prescribe any restrictions either. The road is a designated cycling trail as well. Further, law enforcement does not apply or communicate any restrictions (see the road rules link) and you have shown no reports or history of cyclists being charged for riding beside each other on this signed road (with permission to use the entire lane). Also, using the entire lane and riding bicycles beside each other makes it easier and safer for vehicles to pass as opposed to long lines of riders.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

I'm not sure why people are getting their noses out of joint.

I find it bad manners to ride side by side chit chatting and usually distracted, sometimes on sidewalks, with non-helmeted pedestrians needing to dodge out of the way.

Bicycles should be riding single file, same as motorcycles. Otherwise, you're limiting your ability to maneuver in the entire lane. In this case, if he'd been paying attention, and had the full lane to use, he might have been able to avoid the nut case trying to run him down. That by no means excuses the nut case, but I've never seen any rules allowing people to ride or drive side by side, and don't see any excuse for doing so. Just because someone else loses it, and screws up big time, doesn't make an excuse for all others to screw up a little.

Like I said before, many of the rules have to be made for people too stupid to know better.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Isn't this in a US National park? When in Prov parks I'll ride side by side with my kids sometimes. They are specifically allowed to use the whole lane. Specifically a cycle use trail. Don't think that would be stipulated if they intend single file only like on all other roads.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Renboy said:
The drivers would have to move part of their vehicle across the lines if the cyclists were single file, that's true. But, when they take up the whole lane the drivers now have to move their entire cars into oncoming traffic. And from the short clip it looks as though there are a lot of blind turns on that road. Clearly the driver of the Volvo has some serious rage issues, but if the cyclists had been single file then this wouldn't have happened. Law or no law, the road was paved for cars, and paid for by gas and other vehicle related taxes, so I do think the cyclists should realize they're a guest on the road and behave accordingly.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of entitled thinking that starts people down the path of road rage against cyclists.

First of all, the roads in general are mostly paid by different vehicle taxes, but that doesn't cover all of it. The roads are subsidized, at least in part.

Secondly, the roads are a public service, and the way public services work is some people pay more, some pay less, but everyone gets equal access to them. No one is a 'guest'! Otherwise the services can't serve the function they are intended to serve. If the road 'belongs' to those who pay, do gaz guzzlers get priority access? Or maybe tractor trailers? Are EVs 'guests' like cyclists? C'mon!

Thid, cycling causes about 1/1000 the wear on roadways that cars cause. Far less than the amount that non-vehicle fees make up for to pay for the roads. By your user-pay thinking, it could be argued that the roads are paved for cyclists and cars are their 'guests'.

Fourth, all that is looking strictly at road infrastructure cost, not any of the surrounding costs of a car-dependent society. Costs like injuries, physical health, pollution, sprawl, economic stratification. Case in point; what was the economic cost of the injury to this cyclist? Even if he had health insurance cover it, did it reimburse his lost wages and productivity? Multiply your guesstimate by how many hundreds of millions a year.

Keep that in mind next time you come across a cyclist in your car, even if it's another dimwitted one who thinks he owns the road. Because despite all the evidence above, the road remains a shared public resource, so you own it as much as he does. You are not a guest just because you drive a wasteful car.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Yes, it is a US national park and a designated bicycle route.



Some basic follow-up below.

Baggsy said:
I find it bad manners to ride side by side chit chatting and usually distracted,
Click to expand...
Again, personal attributions are irrelevant to the laws and legislation. It's a non-sequitur.


Baggsy said:
sometimes on sidewalks, with non-helmeted pedestrians needing to dodge out of the way.
Click to expand...
Even more irrelevant. A non-sequitur as well as a red herring fallacy.


Baggsy said:
Bicycles should be riding single file, same as motorcycles. Otherwise, you're limiting your ability to maneuver in the entire lane.
Click to expand...
Bicycles and motorcycles travel at very different speeds with much more foresight in front of a bicycle. With that foresight, there are also simple ways to ride abreast and still be able to adjust and have maneuverability in the entire lane when needed. As for motorcycles, see below.


Baggsy said:
In this case, if he'd been paying attention, and had the full lane to use, he might have been able to avoid the nut case trying to run him down.
Click to expand...
Wow. I won't even go there.


Baggsy said:
Like I said before, many of the rules have to be made for people too stupid to know better.
Click to expand...
This wasn't the cyclist's fault. More rules don't prevent people too stupid to follow the already-existing rules which are more than adequate to prevent what happened.


Baggsy said:
but I've never seen any rules allowing people to ride or drive side by side,
Click to expand...
It doesn't help if you don't look. Anecdotal evidence fallacy. A quick search shows what's out there.

Cycling side by side is allowed by law in a lot of places, various places in Canada, Europe, Australia and the US (39 states allow cycling two abreast). This is not some super obscure allowance, especially in the context of the state and the designated road.

And with a quick google search the initial results also show jurisdictions that allow motorcycle riding side-by-side. North Carolina, Virginia and Australia, for example. In fact, where this cycling hit and run occurred, Tennessee, it is also legal to ride two motorcycles side-by-side or abreast.


Baggsy said:
and don't see any excuse for doing so.
Click to expand...

Another irrelevant and non-sequitur personal attribution.




For whatever reason you seem to be adding your own attributions and personal preferences in interpreting laws and regulations. Just trying to point out that's not how it works. The laws where this hit and run occurred and what it permits cyclists to do are relatively straight forward and actually reasonably consistent with related laws and prescribed rules and directions.

Everyone has personal opinions on what they'd like to see or have wrt to traffic laws. It's just a separate discussion. And I'm sure many of us will be in agreement on some of it.


Rob MacLennan said:
In Ontario while there is law stating that bicycles are 'entitled to the entire lane', there is also law stating that cyclists must ride single file, to the right of the roadway, and that slower vehicles must turn out to the right in order for faster moving vehicles to pass. Those Tour de France wannabes you see on rural roads riding in a clump and blocking entire lanes are, in fact, breaking the law. That bicycle activist woman who rides around Toronto in the middle of the lane, screaming at cars that try to pass her, is breaking the law. (She likes to quote a particular HTA statute, but stops before the part which states she has to move over.) As with us motorcyclists, cyclists have to realize when they are making people angry enough to do something stupid. It's only in their own best interest.
Click to expand...
Found this City of Toronto communications piece on side by side cycling. Thought you might be interested.
https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=af6e0995bbbc1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
 
Last edited:
Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
Yes, it is a US national park and a designated bicycle route.

Some basic follow-up.


Again, personal attributions are irrelevant to the laws and legislation. Non-sequitur.



Even more irrelevant. Non-sequitur.



Bicycles and motorcycles travel at very different speeds with much more foresight in front of a bicycle.



Wow. I won't even go there.



This wasn't the cyclist's fault. More rules don't prevent people too stupid to follow the already-existing rules which are more than adequate to prevent what happened.



It doesn't help if you don't look.

Cycling side by side is allowed by law in a lot of places, various places in Canada, Europe, Australia and the US (39 states allow cycling two abreast). This is not some super obscure allowance, especially in the context of the designated road.

And with a quick google search the initial results also show jurisdictions that allow motorcycle riding side-by-side. North Carolina, Virginia and Australia, for example. In fact, where this cycling hit and run occurred, Tennessee, it is also legal to ride two motorcycles side-by-side or abreast.



Another irrelevant personal attribution. Non-sequitur.





Found this City of Toronto communications piece on side by side cycling. Thought you might be interested.
https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=af6e0995bbbc1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Click to expand...

LOL - the quiet residential street where all of the cars are parked facing the wrong direction - typical GTA info.

Anyways, read it again. "Ontario Highway Traffic Act Sections 148(2) and 148(6) require vehicles to "turn out to the right to allow the vehicle to pass" when being passed by vehicles travelling at a higher rate of speed."

In any case, I personally prefer to share as much as possible with everyone.
That means when driving I pull over as far as I can.
When biking or motorcycling I discourage people from riding beside me and preventing faster traffic from passing.

I'm not sure what the real intention is in that park, if vehicles cannot pass on a double solid, and bikes are encouraged to ride two abreast.
Pull in behind and cruise along for hours at 15 mph? Wouldn't that be a little distracting to the bikes?

For the GTA: Why can't we all just get along and hate on the TTC, which is getting the lion's share of support from Metro City Hall.
It seems that the war on the car, and the bike has been in full swing for a long while now.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Driving with courtesy seems to be getting rarer and rarer. Wish more did it. I too find TO city hall and provincial actions often interesting.

Baggsy said:
Anyways, read it again. "Ontario Highway Traffic Act Sections 148(2) and 148(6) require vehicles to "turn out to the right to allow the vehicle to pass" when being passed by vehicles travelling at a higher rate of speed."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes there is that ON requirement, but the hit and run in this thread did not happen in ON. Many areas also have that requirement, but many others don't. This reinforces the reiteration to always follow local posted signs and prescribed rules. It's like red light right turns; ON allows right turns on red lights, but that won't help you in QC.


FWIW, in that TN park on the designated cycling road it is permissible for vehicles to pass cyclists on double solid yellow lines when done safely. It is also legal to do a safe pass on double solid yellow lines in ON, though that's not the case for other places.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

Baggsy said:
I'm not sure why people are getting their noses out of joint.

I find it bad manners to ride side by side chit chatting and usually distracted, sometimes on sidewalks, with non-helmeted pedestrians needing to dodge out of the way.

Bicycles should be riding single file, same as motorcycles. Otherwise, you're limiting your ability to maneuver in the entire lane. In this case, if he'd been paying attention, and had the full lane to use, he might have been able to avoid the nut case trying to run him down. That by no means excuses the nut case, but I've never seen any rules allowing people to ride or drive side by side, and don't see any excuse for doing so. Just because someone else loses it, and screws up big time, doesn't make an excuse for all others to screw up a little.

Like I said before, many of the rules have to be made for people too stupid to know better.
Click to expand...

If you're riding single file on a motorcycle, you're doing it wrong. Staggered formation provides far better visibility, ability to be seen, and ability to manoeuvre within the lane.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

kwtoxman said:
Found this City of Toronto communications piece on side by side cycling. Thought you might be interested.
https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=af6e0995bbbc1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Click to expand...

As so much that is produced by the City of Toronto that's extremely heavy on the responsibility of drivers and not so much on the duties of cyclists. The one thing clearly stated for cyclists is that they must use hand signals. I haven't seen a cyclist on the road use hand signals in more than 5 years.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

theres lot of talk about hand signals, single file, bike trails, which is connected to cycling. however this cyclist in the video is riding in a park, where bike traffic should be expected, and its encouraged. and a car that clocks him then speeds away. Look pretty criminal.
 
Re: Cyclist hit and run

daught said:
The sign shows a single bike and states may use full lane. Interpretations...?

Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The defining statement at the end leaves no room for interpretation. It is explicitly telling motor vehicle operators to change lanes in order to pass. This means there is no duty for a cyclist to turn out to the right and let faster vehicles pass, in this particular location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom