Who's (more) at fault here?

[Veloo]

This was posted on a local cycling FB group.
I'm familiar with this area.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ju2voq/who_is_the_idiot/

I lay most of the blame on the cyclist.
- blows through a red light
- then rides in the middle of the road
- crosses the line into the left lane to make a right turn when he's not even going fast
- doesn't signal intention to turn
- don't know if the volume on the headphones was turned up


The moto guy
- does accelerate awfully fast
- ends up speeding - that street is not a 60 kph zone
- should've known a bit better than to pass like that

[ntb1001]

Danforth Ave!!

That’s a 40km hr zone...that motorcycle is doing at least double that.

Seems like they’re both idiots to me!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Pink]

Moto guy passing on the right. The biker was an idiot, too.

[yinzerniner]

70/30 cyclist/moto for reasons you mentioned, although I wouldn’t say passing on the right is a demerit against the moto since it was reasonable to pass there with the cyclist already vacated and no indication of the right turn.

But both are idiots for sure.

[Blown Reek]

Definitely the bike rider. Given, the motorcyclist seemed to accelerate unnecessarily fast (even doing a 1-2 shift wheelie), and it sure seemed that he wanted to blow by the cyclist to "teach him a lesson", but the right turn from the left lane from the bicyclist is unacceptable. Maybe if the motorcyclist wasn't trying to prove a point (the Harley rider told him he was wrong for passing on the right, and his answer was "dude, he came in front of me!") he wouldn't have run into the cyclist. But when it comes down to it, the bicycle rider was not in the right lane when he attempted to make the right turn.

If Mr. beginner-bike Ninja 400 rider wasn't playing passive-aggressive Safety Patrol, he wouldn't have been in the same space as the cyclist. However, right turn from left lane ain't cool, and that wasn't the motorcyclist's fault. If it wasn't for the cyclist actions, this wouldn't have happened. And that's why you don't ride your bicycle like this. It makes us all look bad.

[bicycletricycle]

both at fault.
Stay safe out there :)

[BobbyJones]

If you look at the actual incident, I would've thought the rider was going to make a left hand turn around the car in the left lane, taking the wide way around. Or at least get in front of the car.

I do this often. I dislike being stuck behind cars in that situation....I've been rear ended twice (in cars) in that scenario. Getting squashed between two cars on a bike isn't in my plan.

Maybe New Yorkers who ride Broadway on the UWS know what I'm talking about.

Good thing no one was seriously hurt.

[Tony]

Definitely the bike rider. Given, the motorcyclist seemed to accelerate unnecessarily fast (even doing a 1-2 shift wheelie), and it sure seemed that he wanted to blow by the cyclist to "teach him a lesson", but the right turn from the left lane from the bicyclist is unacceptable. Maybe if the motorcyclist wasn't trying to prove a point (the Harley rider told him he was wrong for passing on the right, and his answer was "dude, he came in front of me!") he wouldn't have run into the cyclist. But when it comes down to it, the bicycle rider was not in the right lane when he attempted to make the right turn.

If Mr. beginner-bike Ninja 400 rider wasn't playing passive-aggressive Safety Patrol, he wouldn't have been in the same space as the cyclist. However, right turn from left lane ain't cool, and that wasn't the motorcyclist's fault. If it wasn't for the cyclist actions, this wouldn't have happened. And that's why you don't ride your bicycle like this. It makes us all look bad.

I didn't see any wheelies?

[Tony]

This is mostly the cyclist fault. He caused the accident and it could have been much worse, running the red light, erratic lane change...

[vincenz]

Comments say moto was ruled not at fault, but seems 50/50 fault to me.

In any case, not sure what the cyclist was doing weaving back and forth and being in between lanes when there’s no traffic. All could’ve easily been avoided if he stayed on the right and rode predictably. Even if he had to “take the lane,” which he had no reason to, that’s no way to do it at all. Headphones on to boot..

[tuscanyswe]

This is mostly the cyclist fault. He caused the accident and it could have been much worse, running the red light, erratic lane change...

Running the red light has nothing to do with the incident tho its over and done with long before the biker chose to pass on the right.

I think the biker is 75% at fault and the rider 25% or something like that.
The rider is way to much to the left in his lane (may even had wandered into the left lane) to make a right turn without signaling esp since his body language does not make it appear as tho he is going to turn right. That said the biker cant overtake on the inside at a crossing. Its stupid and that was his choice wether the bikerider was going straight or turning doesent really matter. The way i see it passing him on the right was always going to be a big risk esp at the speed he chose to do so.

[Tony]

Running the red light has nothing to do with the incident tho its over and done with long before the biker chose to pass on the right.

I think the biker is 75% at fault and the rider 25% or something like that.
The rider is way to much to the left in his lane (tho still in the lane) to make a right turn without signaling esp since his body language does not make it appear as tho he is going to turn right. That said the biker cant overtake on the inside at a crossing. Its stupid and that was his choice wether the bikerider was going straight or turning doesent really matter. The way i see it passing him on the right was always going to be a big risk esp at the speed he chose to do so.

Of course, my point is the cyclist is blowing through red lights and doing so it could have been much worst for him then just side swiping the motorcyclist.

[fried bake]

The cyclist is entitled to turn right from the left part of the lane. Even the following motorcyclist acknowledges that. The motorcyclist passed a vehicle on the right of the SAME LANE! That’s not done. Running the light wasn’t smart but had nothing to do with the incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[josephr]

the cyclist here is 100% at fault. The speeding and blowing through the redlights here are irrelevant. He was in the left lane (barely) and then transitioned to the right lane without checking for traffic, thus entering the path of travel of the motorcyclist. Always look before changing lanes. Not really sure what the argument here is about passing on the right. Maybe he'd have heard the motorcycle if he hadn't had his earbuds in. :confused:

[weisan]

My question is...how the heck did he pick himself up so quickly from that fall and still able to argue with the moto guy...I would be sitting or lying on the side of the curb. :rolleyes:

[soulspinner]

I always look over my shoulder and signal the turn. The cyclist never took a look. And yes there are other things to consider but his own stupidity at not looking before swapping lanes.....

[Tony]

The cyclist is entitled to turn right from the left part of the lane. Even the following motorcyclist acknowledges that. The motorcyclist passed a vehicle on the right of the SAME LANE! That’s not done. Running the light wasn’t smart but had nothing to do with the incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without looking and with headphones on?

"I'M A VEHICLE YOU HAVE TO STAY BEHIND ME" I'm sick of these idiots!

[kiwisimon]

cyclist is an entitled twat and the bike rider is an entitled twat too. two idiots cancel each other out.

[yinzerniner]

Without looking and with headphones on?

"I'M A VEHICLE YOU HAVE TO STAY BEHIND ME" I'm sick of these idiots!

Seriously, how is what the cyclist pulled in this video different than what the car driver did in the Aethos accident? Both initially guided their vehicles in the opposite direction of their intended path of travel, then at the last moment pulled way across without even looking.

Only difference might be that the car driver was making a turn across a double yellow while the cyclist was at an intersection but their actions without signaling went directly into the established path of travel causing incident.

[ti_or_die]

No signaling, the wrong turning lane, and headphones on. The first two are against rules in Ontario Ministry of Transportation Driver’s Handbook if the cyclist is considering himself a vehicle. The cyclist is at fault. Headphones on while city riding is just a lack of common sense.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook

[buddybikes]

when your an idiot on your bike, your dead. Idiot in car - dents.

Be safe out there everyone

[Velocipede]

I was the 1st person to comment on this on reddit Public Freakout this morning. The cyclist is majority at fault. Not only did he run the one light, but then he tried to turn from the other lane, not the right most lane. Yes, the Moto rider was speeding and did it to be a dick since the cyclist was one before. But still, if the cyclist had kept the right most lane, it never would've happened.

[Ozz]

the cyclist here is 100% at fault. The speeding and blowing through the redlights here are irrelevant. He was in the left lane (barely) and then transitioned to the right lane without checking for traffic, thus entering the path of travel of the motorcyclist. Always look before changing lanes. Not really sure what the argument here is about passing on the right. Maybe he'd have heard the motorcycle if he hadn't had his earbuds in. :confused:
+1
Plenty of stupid to go around.....
don't care that cyclist blew thru red light (shouldn't have, but no harm done)
moto accelerates quickly ("going to teach this guy a lesson")....
cyclist move to left lane (why??) and then veers to right lane without checking for traffic.....then acts like the victim.
Don't put your safety in the hands of others........

Cool jersey though....is that a Cafe du Cyclist?? :cool:

[unterhausen]

Please, that motorcyclist should have his speed limited to 28mph like a class 3 ebike. Or lose his license. Are you kidding me?

No idea what the cyclist was thinking though, needs to control the lane, not leave it.

[parris]

Both of them in the video are dumb/stupid to different degrees. I'm putting the blame on the cyclist though. It looks like he's heading to make a left then when he swings to the right he not only doesn't look he doesn't signal.

Many of us have taken the lane in order to protect our positions and such but this at least from the video shown really looks like the cyclist is going to make a left at the intersection.

[Veloo]

That intersection is the SW corner of Danforth Ave and Main St in Toronto.
Main St is very wide there. Like 3 vehicles wide. You can hug that corner and still get around it safely at much higher speeds than what this guy was going.

And the lane he crossed into wasn't a left turn lane, just a straight one.

[Spdntrxi]

you can't pass someone on right is pretty much the end of the story.

[Tz779]

The cyclist is entitled to turn right from the left part of the lane. Even the following motorcyclist acknowledges that. The motorcyclist passed a vehicle on the right of the SAME LANE! That’s not done. Running the light wasn’t smart but had nothing to do with the incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is the correct answer. ☝🏻

[djg21]

Running the red light has nothing to do with the incident tho its over and done with long before the biker chose to pass on the right.

I think the biker is 75% at fault and the rider 25% or something like that.
The rider is way to much to the left in his lane (may even had wandered into the left lane) to make a right turn without signaling esp since his body language does not make it appear as tho he is going to turn right. That said the biker cant overtake on the inside at a crossing. Its stupid and that was his choice wether the bikerider was going straight or turning doesent really matter. The way i see it passing him on the right was always going to be a big risk esp at the speed he chose to do so.

I agree that the red light is not relevant.

The cyclist had already moved into the left lane of a two-lane road, behind a car that had slowed to take a left turn, presumably so the cyclist also could turn left. The cyclist did not look or signal before pulling back into the right lane, in what appears to have been an effort to go around the turning car.

While the motorcycle accelerated to 55-60mph initially in an area where the speed limit likely was much lower, he slowed down to about 40-45mph as he approached the cyclist and turning car. The motorcyclist was not passing improperly as it was a two-lane road, where it is anticipated that a car that has stopped in the left lane to turn left at an intersection can be passed by a vehicle in the right lane.

This was all on the cyclist. It’s also curious that the cyclist didn’t hear a sport bike overtaking him. The cyclist was wearing AirPods. It doesn’t matter whether he had the AirPod noise cancellation on or was just distracted — he was riding with earphones, and that was just stupid in an urban environment (its always stupid IMO). The motorcyclist was blameless.

[yinzerniner]

this is the correct answer. ☝🏻

This is wrong. Cyclist takes a direct and deliberate path into the other lane before making a sharp right into the path of the moto. The cyclist is at fault.

1698013108

[huck*this]

100% Cyclist fault, I think.... He broke the designated right lane by entering the center lane and then turned right.

The reason why I think... Usually at least in Connecticut, before an intersection there is a solid white line, not a broken line. Solid white line indicates no lane change. This solid white line avoids these types of situations from happening. What is questionable to me, there is a solid white line in the center lane but not one going into the right lane. At least that is what I can see from the photo above.

[joevers]

Who on earth sees this and thinks passing on the far right at 45 mph through an intersection is a remotely reasonable course of action?

[slowpoke]

Bicycle rider looks like he was maybe trying to carve a right turn fast by going outside-inside-outside, but it's a dumb move to pull on a busy street. Furthermore, by leaving that much space to your right, you're inviting idiots to (illegally) pass on your right. They did a poor job of blocking their lane.

Also, if they didn't have their earbuds in, maybe they would've heard the motorcycle behind them.

Hopefully they've learned a lesson, but the person doesn't look like the type.

[unterhausen]

it's not a busy street, that's why the motorcyclist felt safe going highway speeds on it. If you go speeds like that in an urban environment, someone's going to get hurt. That's the original sin here that made this happen. That determines fault, full stop.

I'm fine with saying the cyclist was at fault as long as the motorcyclist never drives again.

[yinzerniner]

Who on earth sees this and thinks passing on the far right at 45 mph through an intersection is a remotely reasonable course of action?

The screenshot you posted is way before the intersection, and if you roll the tape the moto rider only commits to pass in the right lane after the cyclist makes a beeline to the middle lane. I the video the moto actually switches from the right to the middle (previously the left) lane way before intersection and was never traveling in the same path of the cyclist. The cyclist literally turned right in front of the moto blindly.

1698013112

1698013113

1698013114

Yes if the Moto was going a bit slower then they wouldn’t have clipped the cyclist, but try switching places and ask yourself who would have been at fault. The answers obvious.

[slowpoke]

it's not a busy street, that's why the motorcyclist felt safe going highway speeds on it.

Yes, looks like a commercial corridor where it's not uncommon for cars to drive 15-20mph (~25 kph) above the posted speed limit. That's a "busy street" for me. As a bicycle rider, I try to avoid these streets if possible, but if I must ride on them, then I do my best to stay predictable, go with the flow of traffic, and stay alive, unlike Mr. Headphones.

Yes, it was completely wrong for the motorcyclist to pass on the right. But if I was a cyclist riding faster than this guy, I might've also passed on the right because I'm trying to maintain my momentum and there's the opening. Slower traffic, stay right.

[ntb1001]

it's not a busy street, that's why the motorcyclist felt safe going highway speeds on it. If you go speeds like that in an urban environment, someone's going to get hurt. That's the original sin here that made this happen. That determines fault, full stop.

I'm fine with saying the cyclist was at fault as long as the motorcyclist never drives again.




That is a very busy street. Danforth Ave is a main artery road. The speed was reduced to 40km to increase safety, so there is no way that the motorcycle is safe travelling at high speed on this road.
This road has high volume of traffic, as well as many pedestrian at that intersection as is also a transit hub...subway/bus/streetcar/Go Train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[duff_duffy]

I'm with you, 100% fault on cyclist in my opinion.
He was in left lane and turned into motorcycle is how I see it.

the cyclist here is 100% at fault. The speeding and blowing through the redlights here are irrelevant. He was in the left lane (barely) and then transitioned to the right lane without checking for traffic, thus entering the path of travel of the motorcyclist. Always look before changing lanes. Not really sure what the argument here is about passing on the right. Maybe he'd have heard the motorcycle if he hadn't had his earbuds in. :confused:

[joevers]

Yes if the Moto was going a bit slower then they wouldn’t have clipped the cyclist, but try switching places and ask yourself who would have been at fault. The answers obvious.

I mean I wouldn't be buzzing a cyclist at 45mph because they passed me at a red light so that's irrelevant.

I'm not saying the cyclist isn't to blame because that's really terrible riding but the screenshot I took 3 seconds before impact shows pretty clearly that the motorcycle could not safely make a pass and didn't care. They obviously both contributed to an unsafe situation but a cyclist swung out 3 feet to make a turn in the opposite direction and the motorcyclist surpassed 60 mph in a 25 mph road and tried to squeeze by a cyclist at an intersection. At least in PA you have to give a cyclist 3-4 feet to pass depending on the part of the state. There isn't a single screenshot as far as I'm concerned where the motorcycles intended path gives the bike more than 3 feet.

[Peter P.]

cyclist is an entitled twat and the bike rider is an entitled twat too. two idiots cancel each other out.

I'm inclined to agree.

The motorcyclist's rapid acceleration from the stoplight did not contribute to the accident. His speed was definitely faster than surrounding traffic leading me to believe he was speeding, but it too, was not a contributing factor in the accident. He stayed in his lane throughout. True, he should have stayed in the lane to the left of the cyclist, but as I watched the cyclist even I had no idea he was going to take the right turn. I thought the cyclist was going to occupy that second lane.

The cyclist was definitely inexperienced and self centered, and it reflected in his riding. He blows through two red lights. Then, prior to the right turn, he moves to the left side of the lane so he can cut the apex of the turn and maintain speed, never signalling his turn. His position in the lane prior to the turn and his cornering were just dumb, and the way he moved to the left of the lane led me to believe he was still going straight, although I couldn't figure out why he was occupying that lane. Of course, he probably wasn't expecting the motorcyclist to come up on him so fast. Deduct more points for the earbuds; if they weren't in, he might have heard the motorcycle approaching at a high rate of speed and raised his awareness/lowered his entitlement.

I spread the stupid at 75% cyclist, 25% motorcyclist.

[yinzerniner]

I mean I wouldn't be buzzing a cyclist at 45mph because they passed me at a red light so that's irrelevant.
That’s not what I meant. Imagine if the cyclist was behind the moto and the moto took a direct line from the right lane into the middle lane at the intersection , then made a sharp right turn directly into the established path of the cyclist. This happens all the time with cars taking sharp turns into cyclists going straight because they don’t look when they’re turning and you know darn well who’s at fault in that situation.

At least in PA you have to give a cyclist 3-4 feet to pass depending on the part of the state. There isn't a single screenshot as far as I'm concerned where the motorcycles intended path gives the bike more than 3 feet.

This is factually incorrect. Take a look at this screenshot right before the cyclist makes the sharp turn. The moto is at least 2/3 of the way to the right of the lane and the cyclist is well inside the solid white paint, and even if it’s 10’ wide lane, which is rare given most public streets have lanes in excess of 12’ wide) that’s well over 6’ of distance between the moto and the cyclist.

This was not a “buzz” by any measure

1698013116

[djg21]

I'm inclined to agree.

The motorcyclist's rapid acceleration from the stoplight did not contribute to the accident. His speed was definitely faster than surrounding traffic leading me to believe he was speeding, but it too, was not a contributing factor in the accident. He stayed in his lane throughout. True, he should have stayed in the lane to the left of the cyclist, but as I watched the cyclist even I had no idea he was going to take the right turn. I thought the cyclist was going to occupy that second lane.

The cyclist was definitely inexperienced and self centered, and it reflected in his riding. He blows through two red lights. Then, prior to the right turn, he moves to the left side of the lane so he can cut the apex of the turn and maintain speed, never signalling his turn. His position in the lane prior to the turn and his cornering were just dumb, and the way he moved to the left of the lane led me to believe he was still going straight, although I couldn't figure out why he was occupying that lane. Of course, he probably wasn't expecting the motorcyclist to come up on him so fast. Deduct more points for the earbuds; if they weren't in, he might have heard the motorcycle approaching at a high rate of speed and raised his awareness/lowered his entitlement.

I spread the stupid at 75% cyclist, 25% motorcyclist.

Watch again and watch the Speedo. He did accelerate to around 55 mph initially, and he was down to maybe 35mph when he was passing the turning car and got hit by the cyclist. The motorcyclist may have been exceeding the speed limit and acting like an idiot on a sport bike, but his actions had little to do with the collision and the cyclist acted unpredictably and unreasonably when he abruptly pulled into the right lane without signaling and without yielding to the passing motorcycle.

[Ralph]

I really dislike the attitude of cyclists like him who think the rules of the road don't apply to him. Running stop lights, weaving around, not signaling, etc. I see it a lot. The moto guy, obviously pissed at cyclists road behavior, got a little carried away. There could have been a death there. That's what happens when cyclists ignore the laws.

[Peter P.]

Bicycle rider looks like he was maybe trying to carve a right turn fast by going outside-inside-outside, but it's a dumb move to pull on a busy street. Furthermore, by leaving that much space to your right, you're inviting idiots to (illegally) pass on your right. They did a poor job of blocking their lane.

Also, if they didn't have their earbuds in, maybe they would've heard the motorcycle behind them.

Hopefully they've learned a lesson, but the person doesn't look like the type.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[Peter P.]

Watch again and watch the Speedo. ... without yielding to the passing motorcycle.

Obviously I wasn't clear in my post. I fully agree with your assessment.

Under the circumstances in the video, I would NOT have expected the cyclist to yield to the motorcyclist-in most locations, passing on the right is illegal (and unsafe and unexpected) and the cyclist probably had no awareness the motorcycle was coming up on the right, and as such a high speed.

But the cyclist pulled so far to the left, and for a long enough period of time, that even I thought he had made a lane change vs. set up for a right turn. The motorcyclist probably thought the same thing. The cyclist's right turn from his lane position was stupid, as was wearing the earbuds; without them he might have heard the approaching motorcycle and amended his turning plans, or at least peaked over his shoulder. Blowing the two stoplights was merely a cementing of his personality and thinking.

[Peter P.]

Watch again and watch the Speedo. ... without yielding to the passing motorcycle.

Obviously I wasn't clear in my post. I fully agree with your assessment.

Under the circumstances in the video, I would NOT have expected the cyclist to yield to the motorcyclist-in most locations, passing on the right is illegal (and unsafe and unexpected) and the cyclist probably had no awareness the motorcycle was coming up on the right, and as such a high speed. While the motorcycle was definitely traveling fast, I don't think it was a contributing factor.

But the cyclist pulled so far to the left, and for a long enough period of time, that even I thought he had made a lane change vs. set up for a right turn. The motorcyclist probably thought the same thing. The cyclist's right turn from his lane position was stupid, as was wearing the earbuds; without them he might have heard the approaching motorcycle and amended his turning plans, or at least peaked over his shoulder. Blowing the two stoplights was merely a cementing of his personality and thinking.

[Seramount]

cyclist owns this incident, start to finish.

blatantly blows the red (without even a tap on the brakes, which creates a little road rage for the moto driver) and stupidly uses both lanes to execute a right turn.

then he has the gall to be huffy about the whole thing...get a clue, bro.

[tuscanyswe]

cyclist owns this incident, start to finish.

blatantly blows the red (without even a tap on the brakes, which creates a little road rage for the moto driver) and stupidly uses both lanes to execute a right turn.

then he has the gall to be huffy about the whole thing...get a clue, bro.

amazing how differently one can view the same things in life .)

Running a red on a bike going straight with no oncoming traffic from the right is imo not that dangerous compared to going the speeds the moto was going and esp passing on the right in the speed he still carried at that point. It always amazes me that running a red light seem to be this huge nono but speeding in your vehicle is basicly not that big a deal since most do it anyways (and it kills ppl every year a lot more so than bike riders running red lights).

Its so convenient for drivers to see it only through their lense. Sure i was speeding a little but he ran a red light 2 blocks back..

[gdw]

amazing how differently one can view the same things in life .)

Running a red on a bike going straight with no oncoming traffic from the right is imo not that dangerous compared to going the speeds the moto was going and esp passing on the right in the speed he still carried at that point. It always amazes me that running a red light seem to be this huge nono but speeding in your vehicle is basicly not that big a deal since most do it anyways (and it kills ppl every year a lot more so than bike riders running red lights).

Its so convenient for drivers to see it only through their lense. Sure i was speeding a little but he ran a red light 2 blocks back..

Wow. So you're ok with ignoring the basic traffic laws, stopping at red lights, when riding on your bike?. It's so convenient for cyclists to see only through their lense. :rolleyes:

PS - both the cyclist and motorcyclist in the video made poor decisions but the cyclist's failure to signal his turn and check his surroundings caused the accident.

[Robot870]

cyclist owns this incident, start to finish.

blatantly blows the red (without even a tap on the brakes, which creates a little road rage for the moto driver) and stupidly uses both lanes to execute a right turn.

then he has the gall to be huffy about the whole thing...get a clue, bro.

this^^

[mark.m.draper]

I haven't read closely every single post in the thread, but I'm pretty sure that once the cyclist leaves the left lane, and he does clearly, he's now required to yield to get back into it. The motorcycle is not "passing on the right", he's riding in his lane and happens to be overtaking vehicles that are in the center lane. The cyclist fails to yield when he moves back into the right lane and is very lucky to not be seriously injured.

Edit: If the cyclist had never left his lane, and his maneuver had been completed entirely within the right lane, then the fault would **** 100% to the moto rider.

[weisan]

To get a "complete" picture, don't just look at the events leading up to point of impact or just the impact itself but...pay attention to the human responses and the body language recorded at the aftermath....sometimes that's more "telling" and gives us a better indication of what they were thinking or feeling inside...a lot of times you can actually pick up the..."Oh fcuk, I really mess up on this one " that they already confessed to themselves inside but it's just not telling you openly due to liability, pride, ego, adrenaline rush etc etc....:D

[zap]

Cyclist at fault-not signaling and pulling into left lane then executing turn......ear buds....

Bloke on the motorcycle should have chilled......and not pass on the right.

So, 100% cyclists, not legally but, as cyclists are most vulnerable road users.... should be in control by being in the proper position and signaling.

[old_fat_and_slow]

I haven't read closely every single post in the thread, but I'm pretty sure that once the cyclist leaves the left lane, and he does clearly, he's now required to yield to get back into it. The motorcycle is not "passing on the right", he's riding in his lane and happens to be overtaking vehicles that are in the center lane. The cyclist fails to yield when he moves back into the right lane and is very lucky to not be seriously injured.

+1

Accident is 100% bike rider's fault. Running the red light is a dick move, but totally irrelevant, (except it shows he thinks he's an entitled pr*ck).
Cyclist is in left lane. Moto is not passing on right. Moto is overtaking a vehicle in left lane. Cyclist should never be in left lane unless he is turning left. Cyclist is lucky he didn't get T-boned and killed.

[tuscanyswe]

Wow. So you're ok with ignoring the basic traffic laws, stopping at red lights, when riding on your bike?. It's so convenient for cyclists to see only through their lense. :rolleyes:

PS - both the cyclist and motorcyclist in the video made poor decisions but the cyclist's failure to signal his turn and check his surroundings caused the accident.

Im not okay with anyone breaking any rules of traffic. im saying speeding is so normal for most drivers that they dont really consider it breaking the law. Or this was the point i was making.

And its far more dangerous and a much bigger problem than a bicyclists running a red light.

The only reason i brought it up was because many did bring up the redlight as that was something terrible whilst the moto speeding is meh since he had lost most of his speed anyways when the actual accident happend. The redlight has less to do the accident than the moto speeding does so does seem weird to bring up one while ignoring the other.

Apart from speeding beeing dangerous in general i wouldent be suprised if the cyclist thought noone could possible be there as he knew the speed he was carrying and figured (subconciously) that noone could have cought up with him to that intersection.

[Toeclips]

I blame the cyclist, first he didn't even acknowledge his two wheel brethren a simple nod would suffice

Then he's all over the road, some one else other than a motorcycle would have taken him out

Ride a straight line is a safety factor that should not have to be implied unless your split laning and when wasn't

[ntb1001]

Unfortunately Toronto is becoming full of entitled twats like this.
(Could apply to either cyclist or motorcyclist)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djg21]

Obviously I wasn't clear in my post. I fully agree with your assessment.

Under the circumstances in the video, I would NOT have expected the cyclist to yield to the motorcyclist-in most locations, passing on the right is illegal (and unsafe and unexpected) and the cyclist probably had no awareness the motorcycle was coming up on the right, and as such a high speed.

But the cyclist pulled so far to the left, and for a long enough period of time, that even I thought he had made a lane change vs. set up for a right turn. The motorcyclist probably thought the same thing. The cyclist's right turn from his lane position was stupid, as was wearing the earbuds; without them he might have heard the approaching motorcycle and amended his turning plans, or at least peaked over his shoulder. Blowing the two stoplights was merely a cementing of his personality and thinking.

I’m less critical of running the stoplights. There was no traffic. But I did wonder if the cyclist did anything to make sure that there were no pedestrians in the crosswalk, and he seemed a bit reckless there.

I will often go through stoplights if I can see that there is no traffic and it’s safe, or if I’m in the right side of a road at a 3-way intersection where another road merges from the left. I don’t like having cars accelerating from a stop behind me and think it’s safer to get out of the way. I spent far too much time riding in NYC where cabbies think nothing of driving through you to be the first to a fare.

I also don’t think that passing on the right was an issue on a 2-lane road where the left lane serves as a turn lane at intersections. At least here in NY, you are permitted to pass in the right lane when a vehicle is stopped in the left lane to turn left.

[yinzerniner]

Im not okay with anyone breaking any rules of traffic. im saying speeding is so normal for most drivers that they dont really consider it breaking the law. Or this was the point i was making.

And its far more dangerous and a much bigger problem than a bicyclists running a red light.

The only reason i brought it up was because many did bring up the redlight as that was something terrible whilst the moto speeding is meh since he had lost most of his speed anyways when the actual accident happend. The redlight has less to do the accident than the moto speeding does so does seem weird to bring up one while ignoring the other.

Apart from speeding beeing dangerous in general i wouldent be suprised if the cyclist thought noone could possible be there as he knew the speed he was carrying and figured (subconciously) that noone could have cought up with him to that intersection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're comparing the running of the red light by the cyclist vs the speeding of the moto, and IMO that's a false equivalency - the comparison should be between the speeding and blind reckless right hand turn.

The speeding of the moto definitely contributed to the crash as did his illegal maneuver trying to pass the blue car on the right, but the cyclist making the blind, across a full lane sharp turn without signaling or checking his surroundings was the main instigating factor.

And while speeding is dangerous in general, I'm willing to bet that poor awareness with surroundings, in combination with reduced visibility and increased distraction are bigger issues when it comes to the increase in vehicle fatalities across the board - cycles, motos, cars, and even pedestrians.

[Red Tornado]

Plenty of fault to go around on both sides. This was a bad series of events that could have been stopped if either one, or both, had exercised some common sense.

Cyclist: 1. Wearing ear buds, stupid decision. 2.Blows through red light, thereby starting the chain of events. 3. Changes lanes (without looking or signaling), then changes lanes again (w/o looking or signaling). The second change was timed so perfectly that the moto rider literally had no time to react. 4. Shows that he thinks the road belongs solely to him, by his reaction after the incident.

Moto Rider: 1. IMO allows road rage to get the better of him at first intersection (thereby perpetuating this series of unfortunate events). 2. Breaks speed limit to catch the cyclist. 3. Approaches intersection at close to the max speed (35 in a 40 IIRC?) 4. Doesn't give himself any room to maneuver of something goes awry.

Both acted like careless, entitled brats IMO. Both got off lucky IMO, as well. This thing could have ended up a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, I don't believe either learned their lesson.

Be careful, be aware, ride defensively and in a manner appropriate for the conditions you're in.

[joevers]

And while speeding is dangerous in general, I'm willing to bet that poor awareness with surroundings, in combination with reduced visibility and increased distraction are bigger issues when it comes to the increase in vehicle fatalities across the board - cycles, motos, cars, and even pedestrians.

I mean this is why motor vehicles going through red lights and stop signs is an incomparable problem to bicycles. The whole reason cars are unable to negotiate literally every intersection without some form of control is unsafe speed and poor awareness of surroundings. There is also a disproportionate amount of harm that motor vehicles can cause compared to cyclists and pedestrians based entirely on speed and weight. I don't see any reason why they're held to similar standards. Bicycles can do some stupid **** but can't cause nearly the harm that motor vehicles can and do cause.

Was this a terrible rider that absolutely contributed to an unsafe situation, yes of course. But that's not the point, the motorcycle went 2 1/2 times the speed limit for no justifiable reason. That speed limit exists because that's the speed required to navigate that road safely. Even at the moment of impact the motorcycle was 10mph over the speed limit. Aside from that being a really poorly executed pass at best the motorcycle was passing someone that seemed to be going the speed limit.

[Spdntrxi]

motorcyclist was going to pass on the right regardless of what the cyclist was going to do.. all bad. Cyclist was going to get buzzed no matter so motorcyclist had ill intentions from the outset.

[old_fat_and_slow]

... (snippage)

I will often go through stoplights if I can see that there is no traffic and it’s safe, or if I’m in the right side of a road at a 3-way intersection where another road merges from the left....

I've never understood this philosophy at all???

If cyclists expect to be protected by traffic laws, then cyclists need to abide by all laws that apply to other moving vehicles. A stop sign means stop, stop light means stop... end of story. "Not ... well I assessed the situation, and deduced I could blow through the red light safely."

[benb]

Yah they're both stupid.

Cyclist should go to a training class and learn how to ride. Lots of cyclists seem to need to do this. Especially when the cyclist tries to pull that's he's being an "Effective Cyclist". He's miles away from Effective Cycling, which is a lot like Moto riding.

The Motorcyclist needs to go back to school too.

Cyclist:
- Blows the red light
- Using headphones
- Not paying attention to surroundings
- Multiple lane changes without signalling
- Fully prepared to take a right turn from the left lane without a signal at all
- Thinks he needs two lanes to make a right turn, he could have made the turn at that speed from the right hand 1/3 of the right lane
- Did not look before turning

Motoryclist:
- Gets some points for at least stopping at a light
- Fails to recognize dangerous cyclist is a hazard to be near when he sees him run the light
- Jackrabbit start (he'd get a ticket for this even without speeding with some cops)
- Misses shift, shows he doesn't know how to ride. Note missing a shift is REALLY hard on a sportbike. You can shift that thing without the clutch and it'll be smoother than what he did.
- Exceeds the speed limit
- Approaches intersection too fast
- Decides to pass on the right (very dangerous on a Moto)
- Fails to recognize cyclist is acting erratically, doesn't back off. Slowing down is almost always 95%+ the correct option on a Motorcycle in these situations
- Doesn't haul on the brakes when contact is imminent

This motorcyclist has a good chance of stacking up a big accident in time.

Even with your protective clothing you're barely more protected than a cyclist.. he could have easily crashed in the collision with the cyclist and broke a leg or something. Super stupid to try and play tough guy in this situation. Motorycling demands the same mentality as cycling, active decision making to be as safe as possible and constant assumption all the other vehicles are always about to do the stupidest and most ridiculously dangerous things they could from their position.

Reddit mentions the moto rider submitted a claim to his insurance.. maybe ridiculous until you consider if the cyclist scraped up the body panel or cracked it the damage is likely > $1000. The body panels on sport bikes are absolutely outrageous.. hard to repair and the insurance/shops will usually just replace them. They're low volume items so they totally outrageous. Amateur racebikes often just use flat white unpainted aftermarket panels that super inexpensive instead of the nice painted OEM ones. They're usually held on with a bunch of metal brackets that can be bent easily as well and might need to be replaced. You can literally drop a lot of those bikes at a stop and if you insist the panels stay perfect a shop/insurance would bill it up > $1000 of damage.

[duff_duffy]

May have been mentioned elsewhere but in some states you can overtake and pass vehicles on the right if multiple lanes exist going in same direction (ie can't pass on shoulder but can in case like this). Not saying you should but not illegal everywhere.

Bicycle rider looks like he was maybe trying to carve a right turn fast by going outside-inside-outside, but it's a dumb move to pull on a busy street. Furthermore, by leaving that much space to your right, you're inviting idiots to (illegally) pass on your right. They did a poor job of blocking their lane.

Also, if they didn't have their earbuds in, maybe they would've heard the motorcycle behind them.

Hopefully they've learned a lesson, but the person doesn't look like the type.

[yinzerniner]

I mean this is why motor vehicles going through red lights and stop signs is an incomparable problem to bicycles. The whole reason cars are unable to negotiate literally every intersection without some form of control is unsafe speed and poor awareness of surroundings. There is also a disproportionate amount of harm that motor vehicles can cause compared to cyclists and pedestrians based entirely on speed and weight. I don't see any reason why they're held to similar standards. Bicycles can do some stupid **** but can't cause nearly the harm that motor vehicles can and do cause.

Was this a terrible rider that absolutely contributed to an unsafe situation, yes of course. But that's not the point, the motorcycle went 2 1/2 times the speed limit for no justifiable reason. That speed limit exists because that's the speed required to navigate that road safely. Even at the moment of impact the motorcycle was 10mph over the speed limit. Aside from that being a really poorly executed pass at best the motorcycle was passing someone that seemed to be going the speed limit.

100% in line with paragraph 1. If you're piloting a vehicle that can cause maximum damage due to weight and speed you must practice the utmost care and attention.

But abdicating responsibility from the cyclist because of someone else's stupidity is completely off base. The cyclist has a responsibility to know his surroundings and check all areas around him before doing any type of maneuver, if for self-preservation alone. Also if it's an issue for the moto going faster than the prevailing traffic then the cyclist is at fault as well - before wandering into the middle lane in the seconds before the crash the cyclist is going well faster than the blue car. So the cyclist was speeding as well!

Also just an FYI most speed limits were never about safety but initially about fuel efficiency, then about enforcement and violation fee collection.

[verticaldoug]

It's why you don't ride with earbuds. He definitely would have heard that bike coming up behind. I always hear motor vehicles coming up behind, and when I hear the speeding car or motobike, I definitely get cautious. EVs can be more problematic as the sneaky cyclist passing you too close.

Both cyclists and motorcyclist were accidents waiting to happen. I am glad they found each other and not some innocent bystander/pedestrian etc.

I'd go 75% motorcyclist and 25% cyclist. The Cyclist is a bad rider who just swerved out wide before turning. I see bad drivers, riders of all vehicles do this. It is a bad habit. If the cyclist had not swerved across the white line, I'd say it is 100% the motorcyclist. He is overtaking from behind at unsafe speed and not in control of his vehicle.

D

Everything that happened prior to the accident is irrelevant except in showing both are morons.

[yinzerniner]

I'd go 75% motorcyclist and 25% cyclist. The Cyclist is a bad rider who just swerved out wide before turning. I see bad drivers, riders of all vehicles do this. It is a bad habit.

So you're ignoring the cyclists lack of signaling, or of checking over his shoulder, or the 200' plus coast, wander and slowdown into the lane on his left? That's not a "bad habit" but just willful and obvious dumbassery.

Both cyclists and motorcyclist were accidents waiting to happen. I am glad they found each other and not some innocent bystander/pedestrian etc. .....
Everything that happened prior to the accident is irrelevant except in showing both are morons.
Amen to that.

[dgauthier]

Watching these two boneheads makes me, for the first time in my life, ashamed of being born in Canada. Most Canadians are not like these tools, believe me...what a couple of hockey pucks!

[zap]

I've never understood this philosophy at all???

If cyclists expect to be protected by traffic laws, then cyclists need to abide by all laws that apply to other moving vehicles. A stop sign means stop, stop light means stop... end of story.

Getting rear ended while stopped (cyclist) at the very least sucks. Not uncommon to see cars run red lights...blow through ss....go straight in lanes that become turn lanes.....

So, cyclists have to be really aware and that includes recognizing that some traffic laws need to be broken to better personal safety.

[rallizes]

moto chasing the cyclist to make some point

moto doesn't do this, nothing happens

[zap]

Watching these two boneheads makes me, for the first time in my life, ashamed of being born in Canada. Most Canadians are not like these tools, believe me...what a couple of hockey pucks!

I got my drivers license in Montreal........great place to learn aggressive motoring moves like bumping pedestrians in crosswalks out of the way. Just be prepared to defend yourself out of the car.....:fight: Man, while driving I have seen things in Montreal that I have not seen anywhere else.

Toronto, in terms of motoring, has become the Canadian city most like any cityUSA.

[Ozz]

I've never understood this philosophy at all???

If cyclists expect to be protected by traffic laws, then cyclists need to abide by all laws that apply to other moving vehicles. A stop sign means stop, stop light means stop... end of story. "Not ... well I assessed the situation, and deduced I could blow through the red light safely."

Big difference between "blowing thru a stop sign" and slowing down, looking to see if clear and proceeding thru....

For me personally, if I am riding in traffic, yeah...I come to a stop cuz I know my actions reflect on all cyclists.

When I am riding at 6:00 AM and the streets are deserted...I am not coming to a complete stop, and am rolling thru the neighborhood stop signs. But yes, I do still slow down to make sure it is clear.

[gdw]

moto chasing the cyclist to make some point

moto doesn't do this, nothing happens

The accident was avoidable and caused by the cyclist's unpredictable behavior. If he had any situational awareness the incident could easily have been avoided.

[djg21]

I've never understood this philosophy at all???

If cyclists expect to be protected by traffic laws, then cyclists need to abide by all laws that apply to other moving vehicles. A stop sign means stop, stop light means stop... end of story. "Not ... well I assessed the situation, and deduced I could blow through the red light safely."

It all depends on the circumstances. I gather that you have never been hit from behind while waiting for a light to change or after a light changes?

[old_fat_and_slow]

...So, cyclists have to be really aware and that includes recognizing that some traffic laws need to be broken to better personal safety.

Good luck explaining that to a judge someday. I would be willing to bet if you get hit by a car while doing this, the car driver's insurance won't pay you a dime.

[Seramount]

Everything that happened prior to the accident is irrelevant except in showing both are morons.

if the cyclist had stopped at the red light, he'd have been behind the moto once it went green and the incident wouldn't have happened.

[Spdntrxi]

if the cyclist had stopped at the red light, he'd have been behind the moto once it went green and the incident wouldn't have happened.

if the motorcyclist decided to take the bus the incident wouldn't have happened. :bike:

[old_fat_and_slow]

if the motorcyclist decided to take the bus the incident wouldn't have happened. :bike:

Touche !

[djdj]

motorcyclist was going to pass on the right regardless of what the cyclist was going to do.. all bad. Cyclist was going to get buzzed no matter so motorcyclist had ill intentions from the outset.

That's correct!

[barnabyjones]

+1
Plenty of stupid to go around.....
don't care that cyclist blew thru red light (shouldn't have, but no harm done)
moto accelerates quickly ("going to teach this guy a lesson")....
cyclist move to left lane (why??) and then veers to right lane without checking for traffic.....then acts like the victim.
Don't put your safety in the hands of others........

Cool jersey though....is that a Cafe du Cyclist?? :cool:

I thought the jersey and helmet were the biggest violations.

[barnabyjones]

moto chasing the cyclist to make some point

moto doesn't do this, nothing happens

Hellahummus doesn't bomb a 12% hill, nothing happens to that poor Honda.


Not really sure what the argument here is about passing on the right. Maybe he'd have heard the motorcycle if he hadn't had his earbuds in. :confused:

This.


CA Vehicle Code


21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
(b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.
(c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.
(d) Upon a one-way street.
(e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.
The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a slow moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 491, Sec. 39. (SB 1318) Effective January 1, 2011.)

21755. (a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety. In no event shall that movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a bicycle in a bicycle lane or on a shoulder.
(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 491, Sec. 40. (SB 1318) Effective January 1, 2011.)

[tomato coupe]

Who's (more) at fault here?

The cyclist is at fault – he tried to make a right turn from the center lane.

On edit: It's ironic the cyclist made the "I'm a vehicle, you can't pass me on the right" argument, even though he clearly "wasn't a vehicle" when he blew through the red light earlier.

[Ozz]

I thought the jersey and helmet were the biggest violations.
The helmet was weird, but I kind of liked the jersey. :cool:

PS - hey, check your PMs

[pdonk]

From our HTA

Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).

Same
(6.1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle on a highway who is overtaking a person travelling on a bicycle shall, as nearly as may be practicable, leave a distance of not less than one metre between the bicycle and the motor vehicle and shall maintain that distance until safely past the bicycle. 2015, c. 14, s. 42.

So while the cyclist may be partially responsible, the motorcyclist was also wrong.

With respect to red lights - there are a few in my area that I stop at, wait a reasonable amount of time then ride through - they will not turn without triggering the sensor and I can't trigger it.

[m_sasso]

Taking into consideration some of the statements of opinion comments and discussion in this post there are some pretty dangerous cyclists here. Lets all be careful out there, we don't need to see anyone hurt or lose anyone.