PSA from a legit pissed off legit cyclist.

"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond) 07/06/2019 at 12:40 • Filed to: None

3

32

farscythe - makin da cawfee! > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 12:54

1

well... you shared it... so i guess hes dead now

anyhoo... he’s not wrong

law over here is that pretty much always the car is at fault

is that fair...well..no...but it does work

atfsgeoff > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 12:58

1

Visibility IS really important on a bike. Black cars still have running lights.

I always wear a high-viz vest when I’m riding on the road, and use a headlight and tail light when it starts getting dark. NO, I shouldn’t have to. But it doesn’t matter who’s in the right when you’re dead.

His Stigness > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 12:58

2

The saddest part about this video is that the comments wherever this is posted will not talk about how right he is, but instead what assholes cyclists can be. It’s amazing what damage a few cyclists can be while there are millions of motorists every day driving unsafely and putting everyone in danger.

But yeah, let’s continue to villanize the guys on two wheels who don’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

Grindintosecond > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 13:02

1

Point of order: Look at how many cars don’t come to a complete stop at signs. Just saying, because I see it.

Nick Has an Exocet > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 13:07

0

Just saying, it’s probably about 5% of all cars and 85% of all bikes.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > atfsgeoff 07/06/2019 at 13:10

0

Why shouldn’t you have too? Bikes are sold with reflectors cars are sold with headlights AND taillights. If you are on the roads it is your responsibility no matter what you are driving to be visible at a reasonable distance to anyone coming up behind you. Hell even Amish buggies have lights and reflective triangles 

His Stigness > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 13:16

1

Oh bullshit it’s only 5% of cars. It’s more like 99% of cars. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen another motorist actually come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign. 

His Stigness > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 13:18

1

Oh so do I, which is why the argument is utter bullshit.

The other thing people fail to realize is how much momentum is lost and the fact that you have to dismount the bike to come to a full and complete stop on a bike. Should you stop? Yes. But are you endangering anyone’s life when you roll up to the stop, balance for a second to make sure it’s all clear and then go? Nope.

Now, how about a two-ton car? Are the endangering someone when they fail to come to a complete stop and look both ways before proceeding? YUP! I’ve almost been hit as a pedestrian because the motorist only looked at oncoming traffic and failed to yield to me, the pedestrian.

His Stigness > My X-type is too a real Jaguar 07/06/2019 at 13:20

1

That’s a discussion to have when a cyclist is killed in the dead of night. But this incident this guy is talking about was in broad daylight, where he could be seen.

nermal > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 13:26

3

This is why mountain biking is superior to road biking. It’s a win-win-win, you get better fashion, no cars, and no wankers like this.

Nick Has an Exocet > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 13:29

6

“I was riding here on Little Tejunga Canyon...”

(Clearly we’re talking sport cycling or whatever so we can leave all the commuter cyclists out of this conversation)

Should people be passing on double yellows? No. Driving should be cited if caught.

Having just driven this road for the first time less than a week ago, my thought immediately goes to: when are cyclists are going to own the danger that they put themselves in? Little Tujunga Canyon is a road with no shoulder, almost exclusively blind turns, and canyon wall on one side and a 500 ft drop on the other. I know that you think that the road is fun and technically you have the right to be there but YOU are taking the risk by taking a bike on that road.

You’re engaging in a “ sport” where you intentionally put yourself on dangerous roads with 3-5 thousand pound commuter death machines. You’re an adrenaline junkie who complains when things get dangerous. Switch to free climbing or sky diving and go complain about the mountain or the aircraft or the air or something . This gets me to my other issue with the video and a lot of cyclists - the unbridled entitlement of the way they talk. “I’m a professional with years of experience I was riding a VERY EXPENSIVE BIKE WITH DISC BRAKES AND A CARBON FIBER FRAME THAT COSTS MORE THAN YOUR HONDA.” blah blah blah. I get you - you’re better than me because your feet click into your pedals.

To be clear: I give cyclists a wide berth, don’t pass dangerously, and respect that when encountering a cyclist it’s my job to keep them alive. Ultimately, we need infrastructure for commuting cyclists to keep them out of traffic but I think this recreational stuff needs to be banned from roads. If it’s that dangerous and you know for a fact that you’re going to be hurt doing it, stop putting yourself in that danger.

Nick Has an Exocet > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 13:37

1

I’m not talking about rolling up, balancing, then continuing without putting your feel down (or the car equivalent). I’m talking about full on blowing straight through the stop sign. I’ve come to the point driving in the bay area that I expect cyclists to ignore all 2 and 4 way stop rules entirely. Especially in the entitled hipster capitol of America: San Francisco.

His Stigness > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 13:38

3

First off, he did not in any way insinuate he’s “better than you” because he has an expensive bike. The reason he mentioned the disc brakes was to point out if it was someone else riding without such a new bike they might have been killed, and he’s absolutely right. The second time I was hurt on my bike was because someone turned in front of me and I wasn’t able to stop in time because brakes on carbon wheels suck. If I had had disc brakes I may have very well avoided the crash.

Second, why should cyclists be prohibited from enjoying the same roads that we enjoy in cars? It’s a simple answer: they shouldn’t! If you’re observing the speed limits on these roads and PAYING ATTENTION there is no risk to these cyclists. A good example is Deer Creek Rd in Malibu. It’s technical as hell in a car, and on a bike. I’ve gone up in a car and on my bike. Even going the speed limit in my car I would be able to stop in time and avoid hitting a cyclist who is going to be going at a snails pace going up that steep road.

The slogan is called “Share the Road” for a good reason. You’re not entitled to anymore than a cyclist is. And this guy did not insinuate that in any way. He’s just saying he has a right to ride these roads and not be killed by a careless asshole. 

His Stigness > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 13:56

0

And those dipshits can’t complain when they’re hit.

But this kind of comment is exactly what I was talking about in my original comment. Instead of having a moment of reflection as vehicle operators, people will instead blame the cyclists they see as idiots. But the guy in the video is clearly not one of them. Instead everyone is going to point to that one asshole cyclist they saw one time. I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate being lumped into the same category as this reckless asshole ? So why and the fuck is every cyclist lumped into the same category? 

gettingoldercarguy > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 15:05

0

Aren’t cyclists lumping all motorists into a group? I give cyclists a lot of room but I fucking hate when they don’t come to a full stop. If it’s too hard to follow the fucking rules, don’t ride.

Then there’s the issue of the danger cyclists present to pedestrians on recreational trails. Having lo st a friend in Dallas by a cyclist going way too fucking fast on Katy trail I started at yelling at every cyclist who passed me blindly without calling “on your left” and at way too fast of a pace for a shared trail.

I am searching for his video lambasting cyclists for this, but can’t find it. Can you help me out?

Nick Has an Exocet > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 15:10

0

I’m complaining about all the asshole cyclists I saw on a daily basis commuting in SF. In fact, the joke I had with a coworker went something like this:

Me: What’s red and has 8 sides?

JC: Not sure, I’ve never seen one!

There’s two problems here: First - as a driver, I have to divert extra attention to people who seemingly only obey traffic rules when convenient . I’ve had plenty close calls with cyclists blowing stop signs at full speed and riding on the sidewalk/crosswalk. That should never happen. Second, cycling is not like walking or driving or taking public transit - it’s undeniably elective to the point where there’s a subset of extra annoying people who drive their road bike to a location just for the sake of riding their bike somewhere else then complain about cars on a road built entirely for cars. In the US, b ikes are just Bird Scooters without electronics. They are an optional form of transportation that are inherently annoying to the majority of people. I don’t even have a perfect answer for why that is. 

Nick Has an Exocet > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 15:26

0

I have a bike with disc brakes that work horribly but I think that’s besides the point. There’s a thing with cyclists (and you just did it) where there’s always an obnoxious humble brag like “because brakes on carbon wheels suck”. No non-cyclist cares what your wheels were made out and it doesn’t make a lick of difference to the story. In the video, you can hear it in the way he mentions his superior experience and superior bike.

Regarding the road use - it’s simple: Little Tejunga was not designed with bikes in mind. It’s supremely dangerous. If you’re going to allow bikes on canyon roads, then the road should be designed by a civil engineer with that in mind. If so many people actually get hurt (I don’t have the data but almost every cyclists I meet claims it exists), then cyclists should either not be allowed on those roads or are knowingly waiving some amount of safety for a thrill.

I agree with sharing the road. I have no problem with this - particularly in cities where a bike is a commuting option . I do have a problem with the idea that canyon road cycling is ever going to be a safe activity. It’s inherently dangerous and implying otherwise is negligent. I think what’s so annoying about the video is that it’s the pot calling the kettle black. It’s calling out drivers for unsafe activity when the cyclist is putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation on purpose. Again, there’s no reason for cars to be crossing double yellows - that kind of behavior should never be tolerated, but the source of the message is not credible in my eyes.

Nick Has an Exocet > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 15:29

0

By the way, I fully respect that you’re going to have a different opinion on this. Haha. I am who I am and while I own a bike, I am not a cyclist. I will probably never agree with a cyclist on this.

His Stigness > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 15:48

0

As you’ve already admitted you have formed your opinion and no amount of discussion will change that I’ll only address one thing.

It's not a "humble brag" when I say brakes on carbon wheels suck. That's just a fact. As you said, no one even knows what carbon wheels are, so why would they be impressed by that statement? 

Grindintosecond > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 16:09

0

The cycling on that road is as safe as the drivers of the cars let it be. There are simple facts in this:

-bikes have the right to the roads just like cars do. There is zero argument allowed on that point. If a bike is capable of handling the road, then it’s considered safe.

- Telling cyclists that a road isn’ t safe fo r them is doing even more of the victim shaming that he was pointing out in the first place . Quite a few d rivers are idiots and texting and doing illegal things and it’s his fault for going up that road and getting hit? It’s not safe for him? The road is safe - the drivers on the other hand?

-and as for pointing out his own superiority, well, h e is very good at what he does and was the US #1 ranked cyclist, a full on pro until he re tired , and was recently training for a bid at the ‘20 olympic team pursuit event, doing all of that clean . So, yeah he can definitely state he is better than average just like any mid-level indy- car/nascar driver can state the same and be correct about it.

Grindintosecond > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 16:12

0

85%? taking myself out of the position of driver/cyclist - that argument is demographically variable. Go to buffalo and you’ ll see 50% of the drivers running red lights and even turning left at the same time. It was an epidemic when I lived there for six years. Come out to Colorado and you’ ll see way less cyclists running the lights like that, and theres probably a fair am ount that just got caught with the yellow. (With that last comment said, the cycling clubs are huge promoters of the  one-foot-down at all intersections/stop signs)

sony1492 > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 16:36

1

It seems the story about the scion nearly killing him is only relevant to the fact that some people drive poorly, as he mentioned if he were in a car he wouldve been dead so it dosent seem to be a cyclist story that makes much since in this context.

One that would better prove his point is if he were rounding a blind corner and a car came up behind him and slammed on its brakes narrowly missing him as it understeering into the opposite lane. Then the only point to make is that people in cars should drive slower to decrease the speed differential in order to make cycling(and driving) safer.

C yclist should be treated with respect(given space, passed appropriately), but driving on a road with blind corners and no runoff, they should acknowledge the position they are deciding to enter.   Even though people shouldn’t be speeding they will be, the only way to cope with that reality is to be faster or accept it. Obviously if a person was speeding when a cyclist is hit then they should be at fault, but if they are following all road laws there may not be an at fault party.( save for saying the cyclist was driving under the speed limit or flow of traffic, but since they are road legal that’s not reasonable)

RedPir8Roberts > His Stigness 07/06/2019 at 17:16

1

Wearing black is an issue in “broad daylight” also. On the back roads I frequent, you are moving in and out of sunlight into shadow from the trees , sometimes wearing sunglasses, and it can take a fraction of a second to adjust (I often leave off my sunglasses on those roads for that reason, but not everyone does) . Of course cyclists can do as they please as far as what they wear , but I have wanted to shout “you know you’re basically invisible?” when I pass them, because I don’t think they realize that not wearing any sort of high visibility or even just non-black color fades them into the background, because from their perspective, it all looks OK . On a road with a 30-50 mph speed limit, and tons of blind corners, the car coming up behind you has a couple of seconds if that to pick out a very small silhouette. Bikes are just far different from from cars in terms of visibility, so it’s to everyone’s benefit, especially the biker’s, if they are more visible. I think the same is true of cars; small sports cars are better in high visibility colors for safety reasons. Malcolm Bricklin made  his car in bright “safety” colors; the cyclist’s comparison here about there being black cars doesn’t hold up, they are less visible (and they do have lights and are bigger than a bike ) . And silver, white and black cars fade into the fog more easily, as studies have shown. It was a running joke on the MazdaSpeed.net forum that t he titanium colored MazdaSpeed Miatas were “pavement gray” and therefore anecdotally suffered a higher rate of accidents than their Velocity Red twins. It’s why I run with headlights on all the time, every bit of visibility helps when someone’s looking to change lanes. The absolute last thing I want to do is hit a cyclist, and I think they are risking a lot to be on the roads without shoulders and lots of corners, it’s their choice but if they’re going to be on them, they should take some precautions for everyone’s sake.

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 17:51

0

Sounds like this road is pretty dangerous to drive on...making people should stop driving on it.

See how inane that comment is to you as a automobile operator ? That’s what it sounds like when you tell a cyclist like myself (who also happens to be a quite capable automobile operator) something similar...like you just did.

Nick Has an Exocet > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 19:05

0

Yes, it’s entirely subjective. That’s why I qualified it with my location. YMMV. 

Nick Has an Exocet > Grindintosecond 07/06/2019 at 19:13

0

I can argue any point I’d like until there’s a law or oppo rule that says otherwise.

That’s a twisted definition of victim shaming. I don’t want anyone to die in accident and if that means barring cyclists from roads deemed unsafe then I’m for it. The fact is that cyclists routinely go too fast, have an incredibly small contact patch, can’t stop fast enough, and provide a dangerous speed differential between themselves and traffic while going uphill.

Yes, I have 0 idea who this person is. He sounds like every other cyclist  I’ve ever met.

Nick Has an Exocet > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media 07/06/2019 at 19:13

3

This is my problem with cyclists. No matter how many times I say that this person

or this person

didn’t design the road to safe for you, you ignore me and go “but I’m capable!” or “but I’m allowed” or “but my bike has brakes made from unicornium!”.

This road was engineered for bikes:

This one was not:

Every wonder why they make bike paths...

but not car paths? Because we call those roads.

Grindintosecond > Nick Has an Exocet 07/06/2019 at 19:19

1

Hmm. I’m hearing certain guns are dangerous so certain people shouldn’t be allowed to use them. Certain roads are dangerous so cyclists shouldn’t be on them? It’s the users that make them dangerous, all have a right to use them. It’s how they’re used.

Next argument please cause barring a user from the product is ignoring the problem.

Dont like cyclists? You still have to follow the law and give room where required and watch for them. 

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Nick Has an Exocet 07/07/2019 at 03:18

0

The problem that you have with cyclists is not actually the cyclists fault. It’s your perception as to what roads are for. Roads are for t he movement of vehicular traffic. Vehicular traffic is not limited to passenger cars and trucks but also motorcycles, buses, sports cars , horse drawn carriages and, blow me down with a feather, bicycles. Unless they are specifically described as not being allowed...which is rare.

Your problem is not with cyclists but with common law...best you get used to it. 

j.davism5 > Grindintosecond 07/07/2019 at 05:16

0

I’m not here to shit stir and I get your point.

So here goes...

I’m Australian, so laws here are a bit different to over there. So I can only relate to the experience here, but there are no doubt, parallels that can be drawn.

My point is this. In order to operate a car on the road, some conditions must be met. First, the vehicle must be in roadworthy condition. The degree and frequency of this varies state to state, but it is a primary condition of being able to legally use a vehicle on the road. Secondly, it must be used by a licsensed operator. This operator will be of a minimum age, will have completed a level of training and past a testing regieme to show thier competence.

Motorcyclists here go through more training and testing to be liscenced as do Truck drivers. There are varying levels of truck liscences based on the weight, size and gearbox of the vehicle, as they present more risk to other road users. Motorcycles and trucks require roadworthy conditions in order to achieve registration.

There is registration paid for these vehicles on the following basis:

Road construction and maintenace

Provision of saftey systems and asociated infrastructure(traffic lights, barriers etc)

Third party personal injury levy- if you are injured or you injure someone else, a governent insurance agency will cover the cost of your hospitalistation and recovery, and settle any personal comlensation based on your level of disability post crash.

Trucks pay more as they enact more wear and tear in using the infrastructure, there are more of them, and are more likely to cause serious injury. Motor cyclists pay less as there are far less of them, they cause minimal damage, however they still pay based on the fact that they are more likely to be injured. Cars are in the middle.

Cyclists pay none of this, are not subject to any liscensing or training, and are held to account on minimal legal grounds in the event that they break the rules.

If you break the law in a car, you not only get a much larger fine, you lose demerit points. In australia, we have a maximum of 12. Lose a point on a motorbike, you lose it on your car and truck liscence also. Lose enough, you lose the right to use the vehicle on the road. Get busted doing something really stupid, and here they will take your car for an extended holiday. Without you. Injure, or kill someone, there are specific laws, and they are harsh. Terms in prison, heavy fines and the like. Add drink and drugs, and you get a bonus multiplier for your fine and jail term. And the person you injure is covered by the government insurance scheme, and will be compensated for any permanent impairmemt regardless of the culprits ability to pay repairations.

On a bike, you are only subject to limited legal ramifications. Even though you are riding on the road, you can’t lose your liscence for any other form of transport, and fines are substantially less. Recent law changes have tried to bring this in to line here in victoria, but it is rarely enforced, and easily legaly challaged( not my experience, but a friends, so i don’t speak on that from a high ground ) Hit and injure, or kill (yes, it has happened here in victoria a few to many times in recent years) and the ramifications are only civil. Far less fines, less scope for punishment (jail terms, comunity service orders etc) and even worse, the victim has no failsafe government backed insurance scheme to cover the cost of thier hospitalis ait on and ongoing recovery costs. They can only sue the person guilty of the action, and if they can’t pay out, hard luck.

TLDR: Yes you have the legal right, but the law is not always right, well developed or appropriate. That is why it is subject to review/change. And in terms of liscencing and registration, I think it would solidify cyclist position and right to be on the road, and fund development to make it safer for all. Your 4wd can drive down a railway, but you don't do it because it's unsafe, a massive mismatch in size and drivability and it's illegal for that reason. I know that is not a great analogy, but none the less, it works. Sorry for all the misspelling. 

j.davism5 > j.davism5 07/07/2019 at 05:39

0

Also, if you asked the purveyor of the video that if he was to pay a proportional registration fee if it meant that: Future roads and infrastructure better acounted for cyclists, existing networks were upgraded(over time) based on usage, cyclists were liscensed and trained to know thier rights and responsibilities including bike maintenace, and public liability insurance scheme that ensure if he is injured by his own actions or injures someone else then all parties are covered... What do you think his response would be? He pays it for EACH car he has, why not for a bike to recieve those benefits? I’d reckon if he was serious about all parties doin g the right thing, he would be on board. Riding a bike in the bush is still free....

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Grindintosecond 07/08/2019 at 11:39

0

There are roads I will straight up not ride due to traffic or unsafe conditions. I’ve had close friends hit and nearly killed by cars and the irony was it wasn’t even in a location like this, it was in a town and it was a driver who just turned left in front of the group. I’ve been run off the road by an angry driver before too. It’s just not my thing to risk dangerous roads anymore, combined with dangerous drivers that’s a bad out come for the cyclist .