Video: Teen Hit and Run driver hits bicyclist, flees, gets trapped by bus

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

It's very satisfying to watch that, especially after reading this thread.

The Chinese child?

[fsuhorizon]

Hit and run is bad, but what the hell was the byciclist doing on that road?

Exactly....

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Exactly....

[Air-over-water]

Exactly....

[AggvGtivr6]

Exactly....

x2

[pknopp]

This statement shows how poor of a driver you really are. You need more training, to be re-tested and you need a major attitude adjustment. Don't drive beyond the limits of your own two eyes. Slow down. A speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum speed you must maintain in all conditions.

I can see that you've never actually been behind a wheel while the car was actually running.

[pknopp]

I just love the 5MPH assumption that has been made more than once in this thread. Here's some info: Even the newest noob will always be going over 5MPH. And if you can't see over a hill, it's your responsibility to be prepared to deal whatever is on the other side.

On my ride the other day I came across a stalled semi just parked in the lane over a hill. Oh how I wish you'd have been there...

No, it's not my responsibility if someone clueless boob is on the road in an irresponsible manner. The person on the bike in the video wasn't going much over 5 mph.

[pknopp]

That's your fault, not the cyclist's.

Nope.

What if the road is out over the crest? What if there's a car broken down or there's been an accident? What if there's a cow or a moose just over the crest? Is that also not your fault if you plow into any of those things?

Fault is really irrelevant here. It's going to happen.

If you can't see what's in front of you, you have no business driving at a speed that makes it impossible to stop in time.

I can't see through a solid object. The speed limits are set with the understanding that there is not going to be an idle or slow moving object on the other side.

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Nope.



Fault is really irrelevant here. It's going to happen.



I can't see through a solid object. The speed limits are set with the understanding that there is not going to be an idle or slow moving object on the other side.

Wow, it's amazing how well you've proven how dumb and ignorant you are.

I hope you never do hit a cyclist, but I bet if you do you'll end up crying like the little b!tch that you are when they're snapping bracelets on your wrist.

And you'll weep and moan about all the illogical assumptions you have, and then you'll be standing before the judge who is delicately describing to you how you're butthole is going to be stretched out more than it already has been.

[Air-over-water]

Wow, it's amazing how well you've proven how dumb and ignorant you are.

He never ceases to amaze me in every thread he posts in.

[SpeedyD]

I can't see through a solid object. The speed limits are set with the understanding that there is not going to be an idle or slow moving object on the other side.

Basic rule: reasonable speed

"Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States this requirement is referred to as the basic rule. Lower speed may be required due to fog, heavy rain, and pavement conditions such as freezing or gravel, or where they are not able to stop in the line of sight. California Vehicle Code section 22350 is typical; it states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".

You lose, care to play again?

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Basic rule: reasonable speed

"Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States this requirement is referred to as the basic rule. Lower speed may be required due to fog, heavy rain, and pavement conditions such as freezing or gravel, or where they are not able to stop in the line of sight. California Vehicle Code section 22350 is typical; it states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".

You lose, care to play again?

You just don't understand his logic.

It says right there on the sign he can go 55. It does not say to slow down, turn, or apply breaks when necessary. So in his head, he reaches 55 and doesn't stop until he sees a stop sign or red light. No matter what's in his way, because the sign 55. So he has the right of way, because the sign said so. Obviously.

[Jader Pack]

Nope.

Yes. Legally and otherwise.

Fault is really irrelevant here. It's going to happen.

Then I hope for your sake you have a good lawyer. However, I would suggest that learning and following the law and not driving like a tool is the best defence.

I can't see through a solid object. The speed limits are set with the understanding that there is not going to be an idle or slow moving object on the other side.

The speed LIMITS are set so that you should be able to see and stop for any obstacles, such as those I mentioned, safely.

Also, as someone mentioned, they're LIMITS, not minimums. You are obliged to go slower than the limit where the limit is too fast for conditions. For example, going around a blind corner or over a crest in the road at such a speed that you would not be able to stop for anything on the other side is irresponsible driving and, if you ever hit someone in such a condition, you will be found at fault.

[DUSlider]

Anyone think that, in the same situation as a driver in a car behind this cyclist, to just throw the hazard lights on and play blocker for them, escorting them up the crest of the bridge until they could maintain a faster speed back down? To me would seem like a selfless thing to do to help a fellow human being out. At least for those not in such a hurry to spend an extra few minutes on their commute.

[Air-over-water]

Anyone think that, in the same situation as a driver in a car behind this cyclist, to just throw the hazard lights on and play blocker for them, escorting them up the crest of the bridge until they could maintain a faster speed back down? To me would seem like a selfless thing to do to help a fellow human being out. At least for those not in such a hurry to spend an extra few minutes on their commute.

Then some a$$hat would just swerve around the car traveling slow and cut back into the lane without looking. Thus mowing down the bicyclist as well.

[aoj2108]

A speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum speed.

Dude, The VAST majority of people in this country simply do not understand that. They believe that if the number 55 is posted, then they must at least travel at 55 and no slower. Europe has BOTH Maximum and Minimum speed limits posted

[MrMook]

I simply cannot believe the things being said in here. I am a cyclist, a driver, and a pedestrian, and I respect others no matter how I chose to travel that day. When I ride, believe it or not, I stop at all signals and ALWAYS yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. when I drive, I always check my mirrors and give everyone the benefit of the doubt since I'm the one with the worst lines of sight, and the most potential to damage others.

Bikes are allowed on public roads. They adhere to, and are protected by the same laws as motor vehicles. Unfortunately enforcement tends to fall short. Somehow damage to a vehicle or an inconvenienced driver are more important than a human life on foot or on a bike.

[pknopp]

Wow, it's amazing how well you've proven how dumb and ignorant you are.

I hope you never do hit a cyclist, but I bet if you do you'll end up crying like the little b!tch that you are when they're snapping bracelets on your wrist.

And you'll weep and moan about all the illogical assumptions you have, and then you'll be standing before the judge who is delicately describing to you how you're butthole is going to be stretched out more than it already has been.

Again, a lot of words while saying absolutely nothing because nothing is all you have.

[pknopp]

Basic rule: reasonable speed

"Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States this requirement is referred to as the basic rule. Lower speed may be required due to fog, heavy rain, and pavement conditions such as freezing or gravel, or where they are not able to stop in the line of sight. California Vehicle Code section 22350 is typical; it states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".

You lose, care to play again?

A safe speed with bicycles in the middle of the road going 5-10 mph would be 5-10 mph. That is of course not reasonable or expected. It does little good to post some rule without thinking the rule through.

[pknopp]

The speed LIMITS are set so that you should be able to see and stop for any obstacles, such as those I mentioned, safely.

No, they are not set with the expectations of very slow moving vehicles on the road.

Also, as someone mentioned, they're LIMITS, not minimums. You are obliged to go slower than the limit where the limit is too fast for conditions. For example, going around a blind corner or over a crest in the road at such a speed that you would not be able to stop for anything on the other side is irresponsible driving and, if you ever hit someone in such a condition, you will be found at fault.

Those conditions have speed limits posted for those conditions. They are never set at 5 mph.

[pknopp]

Anyone think that, in the same situation as a driver in a car behind this cyclist, to just throw the hazard lights on and play blocker for them, escorting them up the crest of the bridge until they could maintain a faster speed back down? To me would seem like a selfless thing to do to help a fellow human being out. At least for those not in such a hurry to spend an extra few minutes on their commute.

He could have maintained a faster safer speed all on his own.

[pknopp]

I simply cannot believe the things being said in here. I am a cyclist, a driver, and a pedestrian, and I respect others no matter how I chose to travel that day. When I ride, believe it or not, I stop at all signals and ALWAYS yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. when I drive, I always check my mirrors and give everyone the benefit of the doubt since I'm the one with the worst lines of sight, and the most potential to damage others.

Bikes are allowed on public roads. They adhere to, and are protected by the same laws as motor vehicles. Unfortunately enforcement tends to fall short. Somehow damage to a vehicle or an inconvenienced driver are more important than a human life on foot or on a bike.

Taking your time across the bridge was not being respectful of others using the road. I'm not saying you would do this but all users have to be considerate of others using the road, not just those in a car.

[Air-over-water]

Again, a lot of words while saying absolutely nothing because nothing is all you have.

A safe speed with bicycles in the middle of the road going 5-10 mph would be 5-10 mph. That is of course not reasonable or expected. It does little good to post some rule without thinking the rule through.

No, they are not set with the expectations of very slow moving vehicles on the road.
Those conditions have speed limits posted for those conditions. They are never set at 5 mph.

He could have maintained a faster safer speed all on his own.

Taking your time across the bridge was not being respectful of others using the road. I'm not saying you would do this but all users have to be considerate of others using the road, not just those in a car.

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, idiot.
Enjoy the lawsuit and jail time if/when you hit someone you think should not be on the road or someone you think should be going faster.
Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[MrMook]

Taking your time across the bridge was not being respectful of others using the road. I'm not saying you would do this but all users have to be considerate of others using the road, not just those in a car.

Bicycles move slower. Especially when climbing a bridge.
What ever happened to courtesy? Are you familiar with the unspoken rule that, on a narrow street, you always yield to the car climbing the hill? It's not a law, but it's called not being a dick. You have the more convenient position, so why make the other driver stop a (then manual transmission) car on a hill? The same courtesy should extend to cyclists and pedestrians.

That rider earns every mile he pedals. He's physically climbing a grade, so you can give him the courtesy of waiting until it's safe to pass. What are you really giving up? 10 seconds at most?

If you see someone struggling to carry several heavy items, do you help? Yeah, you do. You don't knock them over and say "you're not strong enough to be carrying those items!" You just help out, especially if you're stronger. So extend that common courtesy to other people on the road. We cyclists have a right to be on the road, so don't knock us over and rage on.

Roads were originally for non-motorized travel (remember horses?) and adapted for modern vehicles, including bicycles. You are a user of a public road, not the owner of a private race track.

[Air-over-water]

What ever happened to courtesy?

He is a child, he does not know any better.
At least I hope he is just a child.

[EuroOEM]

1. bikes get small license plates for identification
2. required insurance for bikes, similar to cars
3. bike-tax (not too high, enough to finance street signs regarding bikes)
4. putting up said signs for shared lanes for pedestrians/bikes and (where appropriate) bikes/cars
5. extra speed limit for bikes (different for sidewalk and street)
6. helmets are required
7. cyclists stop being aggressive, ignorant and intolerant egomaniacs
8. profit!

it's that simple. there's even no '?????' before 'profit'.

[freedomgli]

He is a child, he does not know any better.
At least I hope he is just a child.

He is not a child. He is a moran. And he is trolling all of us. And he should die in a fire.

[Air-over-water]

it's that simple. there's even no '?????' before 'profit'.

You forgot anything about dealing with teaching idiotic cagers the RULES of the ROAD.
That is where you need to start, teaching the cagers how do drive.
Once those fools learn then the other stuff with me worth doing, but until then it will be pointless.

[freedomgli]

it's that simple. there's even no '?????' before 'profit'.

Your ideas are regressive. Tell me one country where bicycles must have license plates and their operators must carry insurance and pay extra taxes? And what kind of insurance do you think they should be required to carry? Liability insurance in case one of them scratches your car? The economics don't support that.

[pknopp]

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, idiot.
Enjoy the lawsuit and jail time if/when you hit someone you think should not be on the road or someone you think should be going faster.
Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You dispute nothing I say you just rely on name calling.

That is known as a failed arguement.

[pknopp]

Bicycles move slower. Especially when climbing a bridge.
What ever happened to courtesy? Are you familiar with the unspoken rule that, on a narrow street, you always yield to the car climbing the hill? It's not a law, but it's called not being a dick. You have the more convenient position, so why make the other driver stop a (then manual transmission) car on a hill? The same courtesy should extend to cyclists and pedestrians.

That rider earns every mile he pedals. He's physically climbing a grade, so you can give him the courtesy of waiting until it's safe to pass. What are you really giving up? 10 seconds at most?

If you see someone struggling to carry several heavy items, do you help? Yeah, you do. You don't knock them over and say "you're not strong enough to be carrying those items!" You just help out, especially if you're stronger. So extend that common courtesy to other people on the road. We cyclists have a right to be on the road, so don't knock us over and rage on.

Roads were originally for non-motorized travel (remember horses?) and adapted for modern vehicles, including bicycles. You are a user of a public road, not the owner of a private race track.

As I noted, courtesy goes both ways. I have no problem with the cyclist being in the street. He was making no attempt to be courteous and stay up with traffic as best as possible.

That does not give one an excuse to hit him but it's going to happen sooner or later when you are as unconcerned with your surroundings as the cyclist was here.

[Air-over-water]

You dispute nothing I say you just rely on name calling.

Because nothing you have said has any baring on reality.
It might make sense in your pathetically miniscule mind, but to everyone else it is pointless.
So there is no reason to dispute failed 'claims'.
But then again, you are to moronic to know the difference.

[Kylen721]

This thread has run its course it seams.

I will say though that it has gotten so much easier to read now that a few spots in my ignore list have been filled.

[euro4-DoOr]

honda driver's

[EuroOEM]

You forgot anything about dealing with teaching idiotic cagers the RULES of the ROAD.
That is where you need to start, teaching the cagers how do drive.
Once those fools learn then the other stuff with me worth doing, but until then it will be pointless.

Well, seeing what vocabulary you use to describe car drivers, I imagine you to be one of those yelling, lane-squeezing, car-hating bike couriers. Sure, everyone has to play by the rules, there are more idiotic car drivers than bicyclists, simply because there are more cars. I guess in percentage that figure might look different.

Why aren't there as many incidents with motorbikes as there are with bicycles? Because with a license plate you are traceable. You can be held responsible for your actions, even after you disappear behind the next corner.
Right now cyclists can do whatever they want to, simply because no one can identify them afterwards.

Your ideas are regressive. Tell me one country where bicycles must have license plates and their operators must carry insurance and pay extra taxes? And what kind of insurance do you think they should be required to carry? Liability insurance in case one of them scratches your car? The economics don't support that.

Alright, scratch the required insurance part, and the tax could be collected though the license plates, as it was already proposed in NY last year: http://www.wkbw.com/news/video/LICEN...117204918.html

Yea, there seems to be no other country that has such a law, but why shouldn't america be a pioneer in that case?