Guys like this are what gives diesel a bad name

[Sigarms]

If you’re on a pedal bike, for the love of god don’t try to block a lane... what if the driver is looking down at his phone? You’re dead, that’s it.

You can’t physically block a 4,000 lb car with your bicycle

My mother always told me that the cemetery is full of people who were right.

 

[Sigarms]

Progress?

Lawyer says teen who crashed into six Houston-area bicyclists was 'inexperienced' driver

Regardless of more severe charges potentially facing a 16-year-old who struck six...

www.houstonchronicle.com

That 16 year old is screwed, worse yet, his parents better hope that they have a good umbrella insurance policy.

Being that the truck in question is a pretty nice newer looking Ford, and it may be a safe bet his parents have the money for him to be driving that truck, they (parents) may get taken to the cleaners.

Civil suits will be coming for certain...

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Ever wonder where stupid kids come from???

 

[Topzide]

Many problems for the teen and his parents! Rolling coal will have the feds all over his truck since that's a violation of the clean air act. The lawsuits will be filed in due time. Bike riders do have right to road but must follow the same rules of the road as motor vehicles. I remember when I got my first bike, you had to take a class for riding on the road and got a license for your bike( a sticker for the class). Maybe that needs to be restarted again. JM2C.

 

[Torvy]

This is Texas, maybe his lawyer will get him off due to Affluenza. The only hope they really have is if there is solid information showing the bikes were breaking the law, too. It will not get him off, but it could reduce the penalty. Hopefully, none of the victims pass away. People will go nuts, but if he doesn't have any bad history, he could just get probation. Like others have mentioned, the parents are in a bad place. It is possible that good people have a jack wagon kid. In a way, I hope they are not good people. I hate to see good people get destroyed over one thing their kid did.

 

[CobyRupert]

Do you really believe that it would have made a difference? You cite one a-hole driver, then seem to use it as an excuse to be a jerk yourself.

Since you ask, yes.
If I had been riding in the main travel lane when he approached, as is my right, he would of had to follow me until I went through the intersection instead of passing me and immediately cutting me off. Or he could of passed me on the right shoulder and turned. Much safer.
What I’m saying is it’s safer for everybody if bikers use the travel lane to go straight through intersections, just like it’s safer to make left turns from the travel lane instead of from the right shoulder.

If you think me riding safer is being a jerk, so be it, I’m going to be a jerk every time.

 

[Torvy]

You are dreaming if you think riding your bike in the middle of the lane at a relatively slow speed is safer than on the shoulder. Just because a bike CAN take the lane does not mean a bike SHOULD take the lane. It doesn't matter if you are right if you are dead. Distracted driving is a problem even when you are in the relative safety of a car. On a bike in the middle of a road, you are a funeral waiting to happen. If you don't meet the legal expectations for taking the lane, the driver of the car may not even be punished. Just a tragic accident. But, you can die happy knowing you showed him. We need our TBN peeps on their tractors, not in pine boxes. Be safe.

 

[Jstpssng]

Since you ask, yes.
If I had been riding in the main travel lane when he approached, as is my right, he would of had to follow me until I went through the intersection instead of passing me and immediately cutting me off. Or he could of passed me on the right shoulder and turned. Much safer.
What I’m saying is it’s safer for everybody if bikers use the travel lane to go straight through intersections, just like it’s safer to make left turns from the travel lane instead of from the right shoulder.

If you think me riding safer is being a jerk, so be it, I’m going to be a jerk every time.

Never mind what we think, this is the law for your state. This clearly shows that it is NOT your right to ride wherever you please.

Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes
and bicycle or in-line skate paths. (a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle
or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line
skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been
provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a
usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue
interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left
turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it
unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to
be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or
person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side
within the lane.

Two wrongs don't make a right. By doing as you say not only will you be in violation yourself, but you will put yourself in more danger from people like the buckwheat who cut you off.

OTOH I understand why you got POed; I've had people pass me when in my pickup, only to cut me off and immediately slam on the brakes to make a turn.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

We have both kinds here, idiots in trucks rolling coal, and idiots on bikes blocking lanes.

It’s probably time to restrict bikes to 40mph max roads. They shouldn’t be on main roads.

 

[quicksandfarmer]

Where I live there is a major cycle trail built on an old RR right of way.
Most days the bikes cross the highway in a steady stream with no intention of stopping for vehicles even though they have large stop signs in both directions.
Making it worst the LEO's simply ignore that breach of the highway code that they are paid to enforce.

I know you're in Quebec, but if you were in the US there's be no section of the code for them to enforce.

Under the Uniform Traffic Code, cyclists have the rights and duties of operators of vehicles when operating upon a roadway. When operating upon a sidewalk or crosswalk they have the rights and duties of pedestrians. Where were these cyclists operating? In a crosswalk. Whose duties do they have? Those of pedestrians. What is the duty of a pedestrian at a stop sign? None. A stop sign is not a traffic control that applies to pedestrians. Pedestrians have right of way at crosswalks, although most states have a provision that pedestrians shouldn't enter the crosswalk unless cross traffic is able to yield. Which it was. They put the stop signs up at trail crossings because they don't want cyclists flying into the roadway but they aren't enforceable.

The larger point: people complain about cyclists not knowing the law, but almost nobody knows what the law is when it applies to cyclists. People often complain about cyclists doing things which are perfectly legal, like passing stopped cars on the right, riding two abreast, riding in groups and riding in a lane. The even larger point: traffic law is a mess when it comes to cyclists, because for the most part the people who wrote the law gave no thought to what cyclists are actually supposed to do. So the law says act like a pedestrian on the sidewalk and like a driver on the road, but what does that even mean?

 

[quicksandfarmer]

Never mind what we think, this is the law for your state. This clearly shows that it is NOT your right to ride wherever you please.

That section is directly from the Uniform Traffic Code, and it is one of the most misunderstood sections of the code.

First, the "Roadway" as defined in the UTC is the travelled part of the road, the lanes. The shoulder is not part of the roadway. So that section expects cyclists to be in the travel lane. You have to read all the way to the end to the exceptions. One of them is: "traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane." So the requirement to keep right only exists when the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and another vehicle to "travel safely side-by-side within the lane." Ordinary lanes aren't that wide. How wide should that be? Some states don't define it, some define it as the width of the passing vehicle plus six feet, some define it as 14 feet. It really depends on conditions.

 

[Torvy]

Clearly, as you very much misunderstand the law.

First, and foremost, is that there is no uniform traffic code for the US. Some states have them, but what passes for same in the US is effectively a private organization that makes recommendations.

 

[Sigarms]

This is Texas, maybe his lawyer will get him off due to Affluenza. The only hope they really have is if there is solid information showing the bikes were breaking the law, too. It will not get him off, but it could reduce the penalty.

Given how this "accident" occurred, using common sense, I can't see how the bicyclists were breaking the law.

Attorney: Texas teen who hit cyclists was 'inexperienced' driver

Police questioned and released the young driver without charges.

www.chron.com

Guess I'm naive, as I never knew what the term meant to "rolling coal" meant. Funny thing, it has happened to my wife and I walking on our rural road (somebody "rolling coal on us"). Instead of "rolling coal", I just called it "f***king a**hole syndrome".

I use to road bike a lot in my youth. We always rode defensively, and generally always single file trying to give cars the widest berth to pass us. I also use to run a lot on rural roads as it was easy exercise anywhere I lived. The reality is you will always have butthole drivers (thus the wisdom from my mother when talking to me telling me the cemetery is filled with people who were in the right .

I honestly can't stand the mentality of pack riders on bikes on rural roads where I live, but in all honesty, guys that "roll coal" piss me off more than bike riders who hog the lanes and make it a point that they "own the road" like a vehicle.

Given the internet age, even if that kid has a super lawyer and the parents spend big bucks and somehow manage to keep the kid out of a juvenile center, that kid's life is over. As someone else had point out here, and reading up on it, to "roll coal" generally involves some illegal modifications on the vehicle. I can see the feds getting involved with this to make this a poster case.

I'm certain for the most part, even from my own personal experience myself in my own youth driving, and having one son I'm still wondering about, there are a lot of young, inexperienced, maybe borderline stupid young drivers who think they are invincible and can't see themselves making a mistake. Best case scenario you do something stupid driving and no one gets hurt, no property or vehicle damage occurs, and perhaps by the grace of God only you know what stupid stunt you pulled. This 16 year old in Texas hit the grand slam of stupid stunts. Given that he stayed at the scene, there is a part of me that sincerely feels sorry for him and perhaps he is just stupidly ignorant. That said, if I were one of the bicyclists he hit, or a relative of one of those bicyclists, I'd probably have different feelings for that young driver.

At first I felt very sorry for that boys parents, BUT I can see the father of that boy getting into a ****estorm himself because HE has to be the one who authorized the modification of the truck to cause this accident in the first place, by letting his son drive that truck. I can see the father getting thrown under the bus and run over more than the kid.

 

[Torvy]

Sorry, I don't know how I messed up that quote so badly.

 

[Sigarms]

Sorry, I don't know how I messed up that quote so badly.

Simple, I most likely left off "not" per "were not", added the fact that I generally never use the term "ie" when writing which leaves me kind of scratching my head on that second quote of mine you posted.

The reality is when riding a bike, it is NOT illegal to ride two abreast on the road, although I may think it could be stupid to do so.

I looked back on my own posts per this thread, where did I state "If they were riding in a pack, ie, more than 2 abreast, they were breaking the law. It will not get him out of trouble, but a good lawyer will use any mitigating factor to reduce the charges or lessen the penalty."? or did you actually change my quote yourself or did you just respond by mistake on your end implying that's what I wrote when you actually wrote it?

 

[Torvy]

That is what I messed up...I said that, but it shows like you said it. My point was that when they are in a pack, it is more than 2 abreast and thus illegal.

I went back and just deleted my part. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Jstpssng]

That section is directly from the Uniform Traffic Code, and it is one of the most misunderstood sections of the code.

First, the "Roadway" as defined in the UTC is the travelled part of the road, the lanes. The shoulder is not part of the roadway. So that section expects cyclists to be in the travel lane. You have to read all the way to the end to the exceptions. One of them is: "traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane." So the requirement to keep right only exists when the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and another vehicle to "travel safely side-by-side within the lane." Ordinary lanes aren't that wide. How wide should that be? Some states don't define it, some define it as the width of the passing vehicle plus six feet, some define it as 14 feet. It really depends on conditions.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I quoted that directly from the NY Senate legislation page... which for several reasons I should have stated in my previous post.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

 

[Sigarms]

That is what I messed up...I said that, but it shows like you said it. My point was that when they are in a pack, it is more than 2 abreast and thus illegal.

In Texas only if the lane is less than 14' wide with no designated bike lane from what I've read. How wide was the lane?

End of the day, it won't matter if the bikes were breaking the law by riding two abreast. What this kid did was intentional. What makes it worse is the truck most likely had illegal modifications done to it. The more and more I think about it, the parents of this kid will be blessed if they don't end up in the poor house over his stunt.

 

[Torvy]

In Texas only if the lane is less than 14' wide with no designated bike lane from what I've read. How wide was the lane?

End of the day, it won't matter if the bikes were breaking the law by riding two abreast. What this kid did was intentional.

2 abreast is sometimes OK. The problem is that many of these groups are riding in bunches like they see on the Tour. Those bunches are 3-5 abreast. That is 100% illegal in Texas unless you have a permit and access is controlled, meaning cops and cones.

 

[Oaktree]

Not to be rude, but unless you live around my area, I wasn't stereotyping, or lumping your kid into the group. As around here (as I originally stated), it is EVERY 16-18 year old high schooler that has a diesel.

Go to pick up the daughter or take her to school, every student truck in the parking lot has the 5 gallon bucket exhaust, tires twice as wide as stock with improper backspacing so 75% of the tire sticks out past the fender wells.

Kids that age have no common sense, we didn't at that age either. Anyone else grow up in the "muscle car" era, where it was cool to put shackles in the rear springs so the back end was jacked way up, wide tires on the back, skinny tires on the front and cherry bomb mufflers? Looked stupid, was stupid. Made the cars of that era handle even worse than they already did to begin with.
Then again, when I was a teen most teens didn't have their own car nor did Mommy & Daddy take us to school...we walked (20 miles thru a snowstorm) if you lived in town or (gasp!) took the bus.