Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

Yes, exactly!

I thought this was obvious?

In the HSM1 example though, the bicyclist would still be liable for the damages he caused - you'd just have to go a different route to collect them.

The insurance companies would love more people being forced to buy insurance. I'm surprised life insurance hasn't been mandated.

Charges have been filed - 5 counts of second degree murder, 4 counts of reckless driving causing serious impairment.

http://wwmt.com/news/local/prosecutor-releases-list-of-charges-against-kalamazoo-bike-tragedy-suspect

Bloody hell. well then throw the book at him.

Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Toxicology may not be back yet. Should be a presser later on today about it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

I'm not against cyclists using the roads in general but I think there are definitely some roads where it's very dangerous to be cycling on them, in the path of traffic, at a speed that is significantly lower than the posted speed limit. I think it's just as dangerous in terms of potentiall causing severe accidents as when motorists drive at speeds that are drastically lower or faster than the posted limits.

Well that's why, as a motorist, one should be aware as well. Most cyclists will use the side of the road, as will most pedestrians just walking, or people riding horses, or tractors and other farm equipment (who move slower than cyclists at times)...

Oh, and Amish, we have Amish in the area and they operate horse and buggies which can be slower than a cyclist.

Alpharius wrote:In the HSM1 example though, the bicyclist would still be liable for the damages he caused - you'd just have to go a different route to collect them.

Maybe it's just my own insurance company, but in a hypothetical situation where I did that to HSM1's cousin's truck, my car insurance would have covered it (and gone up)


Though often times, it may be cheaper for the person with the damaged vehicle to make a claim under "uninsured motorists" because the deductible is less that way

Talizvar wrote:
The cyclist zipping along the right side of a bunch of cars cued up at a turn and I try to take a right and I think the guy is not stopping... irritating and dangerous for them.

When I lived in Clarksville, TN, I bought a house just off of Purple Heart Highway (those who have lived there know what I'm talking about). This road has MASSIVE shoulders, but I NEVER, EVER rode along that road, because I valued my life.

In the case of this road, donkey cave drivers felt that the bike lane was suitable for use as a turn lane.... Honestly, if I was near the front of the line stopped at a light, I'd be a bigger arse and pull over slightly so that they could not pull around me. Probably one of the most unfriendly for cycling communities I've ever had the displeasure of living in.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Can't imagine going for a nice bike ride with friends and having some tool in a truck plow through everyone.

Hopefully the survivng victims and families can recover and this idiot gets appropriate punishment.

Wait so the details of the event have been released and we know for a fact that this truck driver was at 100% fault?

Going by the story above there were nine cyclists that were hit from behind by a truck. I see nothing indicating the cyclists were doing anything wrong, and witnesses report erratic driving and a truck "flying" by and ending up in someone's yard. Police arrested the driver and have him in custody while they consider appropriate charges.

Seems to me the truck driver was in the wrong, but apparently everyone seems intent on gaking all over cyclists for some reason.

As a cyclist, I can tell you flat out that if you are riding in a group, there are provisions in numerous traffic laws to accommodate the group. I hope the driver gets due punishment for this.


As for why people here are all against cyclists... clearly, it's because we're all such badass rebels, flagrantly ignoring ALL of the laws.

No. From what I see, most of the criticism here is based on the principle of "a few bad apples spoil the barrel".


I've seen way too many cyclists ignoring laws, not paying attention, and suffering from the delusion that their Buck Rogers helmets and spandex shorts are proof against a multi-ton vehicle.

In my State, bicycles are considered vehicles. You don't have the right-of-way that pedestrians enjoy. Cyclists are expected to observe certain courtesies, and behave like they have some brains, when on public highways.

And no, I not gaking on you and your fellow cyclists. Plenty of cyclists on the road are pretty cool and safety conscious. It's the ones that are not, which have caused me (and my passengers, some children) to nearly wreck, and possibly being killed, on more than one occasion in the past, that I take issue with.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

And no, I not gaking on you and your fellow cyclists. Plenty of cyclists on the road are pretty cool and safety conscious. It's the ones that are not, which have caused me (and my passengers, some children) to nearly wreck, and possibly being killed, on more than one occasion in the past, that I take issue with.

As a cyclist, I'm right there with you. Every group ride that I've been a part of, if someone does something remotely unsafe (beyond the obvious of sitting astride 14 lbs. of carbon fiber, hurtling down the road with nought but spandex, a bit of styrofoam and a functioning inner ear), the group is very good about putting that person right, or ostracizing them, or even flat out telling them that they aren't welcome.

My point here is that I'm trying to tell those "one bad apple means the whole orchard is rotten" people, that that simply isn't the case.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

And no, I not gaking on you and your fellow cyclists. Plenty of cyclists on the road are pretty cool and safety conscious. It's the ones that are not, which have caused me (and my passengers, some children) to nearly wreck, and possibly being killed, on more than one occasion in the past, that I take issue with.

As a cyclist, I'm right there with you. Every group ride that I've been a part of, if someone does something remotely unsafe (beyond the obvious of sitting astride 14 lbs. of carbon fiber, hurtling down the road with nought but spandex, a bit of styrofoam and a functioning inner ear), the group is very good about putting that person right, or ostracizing them, or even flat out telling them that they aren't welcome.

My point here is that I'm trying to tell those "one bad apple means the whole orchard is rotten" people, that that simply isn't the case.

That's cool. I kinda figured you were one of those safe riders I mentioned, based on the wording of your previous post.

I'm also aware that motorists can be idiots. As a former motorcyclist, sometimes people in cars are only looking for other cars or trucks. Unfortunately, that hasn't changed thanks to on-road texting, and people seemingly getting their driver's licenses out of a Cracker Jack box, based on the way they drive.


For some laughs, here is a Disney driver's ed video :

 Talizvar wrote:
I took some time and read this: http://www.lmb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=38
So, other than the various beefs aside, I think the driver of the pickup truck had no business running over people on bikes or otherwise...
Even riding two abreast is allowable so no arguments there.
It appears the driver of the truck had some sobriety issues or at least something affecting normal judgement.

I on occasion ride a bike and tend to get a little upset by people on both sides who do not understand the law.
The cyclist zipping along the right side of a bunch of cars cued up at a turn and I try to take a right and I think the guy is not stopping... irritating and dangerous for them.
Lots of clearance is good, sometimes those potholes or crevasses around a storm drain could flip a rider so then need some room.

Creaming a bunch of cyclists is inexcusable, I do not care if they stopped to hold a campfire in the middle of the road.

In the UK cyclists are allowed to undertake like that.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Does Michigan not have the death penalty? If they do, and if can be proven that he did indeed run over those cyclists on purpose, he should be executed for that.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Does Michigan not have the death penalty? If they do, and if can be proven that he did indeed run over those cyclists on purpose, he should be executed for that.

I believe they do, but it is highly doubtful he will be executed. Executions are extremely expensive and as most states are finding out, the drugs to do it are almost impossible to get. Electrocution is pretty messy, still expensive, and very inhumane. As are firing squads, before anybody tries to bring that up.

Plus the appeals process will take forever. Causing way more costs.

Honestly, still shocked people are advocating for such a broken and inefficient system.

 treslibras wrote:
OK, so some cyclists got killed by a pick up driver from behind. And discussion in this forum is about a) what some cyclists do wrong, and b) where cyclists should go not to bother car drivers.

Seriously, people, you are fethed up.

As a society, our highest value is the car. Higher than our kids, certainly higher than other people's lives. Cyclists are assumed to not own a car (because why would they be cyclists if they had a car?) and that makes them sub-human and not subject to the same rights that car-owing humans have.

I am not being facetious in any way. This is my honest opinion as to why cyclists get treated this way. It has nothing to do with their behavior on the road. You can get cut off by a dozen fellow car drives and think nothing on it, but one bicycle gets in your way... he's the scum of the earth. I say this as someone who drives a van for a living but cycles to work.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Does Michigan not have the death penalty? If they do, and if can be proven that he did indeed run over those cyclists on purpose, he should be executed for that.

No, he should not. Now grow up.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Does Michigan not have the death penalty? If they do, and if can be proven that he did indeed run over those cyclists on purpose, he should be executed for that.

Michigan does not have the death penalty.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Can't imagine going for a nice bike ride with friends and having some tool in a truck plow through everyone.

Hopefully the survivng victims and families can recover and this idiot gets appropriate punishment.

Wait so the details of the event have been released and we know for a fact that this truck driver was at 100% fault?

Going by the story above there were nine cyclists that were hit from behind by a truck. I see nothing indicating the cyclists were doing anything wrong, and witnesses report erratic driving and a truck "flying" by and ending up in someone's yard. Police arrested the driver and have him in custody while they consider appropriate charges.

Seems to me the truck driver was in the wrong, but apparently everyone seems intent on gaking all over cyclists for some reason.

As a cyclist, I can tell you flat out that if you are riding in a group, there are provisions in numerous traffic laws to accommodate the group. I hope the driver gets due punishment for this.


As for why people here are all against cyclists... clearly, it's because we're all such badass rebels, flagrantly ignoring ALL of the laws.

No. From what I see, most of the criticism here is based on the principle of "a few bad apples spoil the barrel".


I've seen way too many cyclists ignoring laws, not paying attention, and suffering from the delusion that their Buck Rogers helmets and spandex shorts are proof against a multi-ton vehicle.

In my State, bicycles are considered vehicles. You don't have the right-of-way that pedestrians enjoy. Cyclists are expected to observe certain courtesies, and behave like they have some brains, when on public highways.

And no, I not gaking on you and your fellow cyclists. Plenty of cyclists on the road are pretty cool and safety conscious. It's the ones that are not, which have caused me (and my passengers, some children) to nearly wreck, and possibly being killed, on more than one occasion in the past, that I take issue with.

*Sigh* Some people are arses regardless of what mode of transport they use, and it's something that needs to be tightened up. Most people feel they can break the law on the road because they are likely not going to be caught and the penalties aren't stiff enough (at least here in the UK) to deter them.

Using the road in theory is very simple - share it, pay attention and give way to more vulnerable road users than you. Problems occur when people are impatient, selfish and don't pay attention.

 treslibras wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Surpising that he was sober or not impaired enough to be charged with DUI/DWI. That's a horrific degree of reckless driving for a sober person. It may not be much consolation to the families that lost loved ones but at least he'll spend the rest of his days in prison if they can get convictions on all the charges.

Does Michigan not have the death penalty? If they do, and if can be proven that he did indeed run over those cyclists on purpose, he should be executed for that.

No, he should not. Now grow up.

We have a death penalty thread. Take if over there.

Don't ruin this perfectly good biking safety thread with either of your BS.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Electrocution is pretty messy, still expensive, and very inhumane.

What if they went solar.... Or hell, like that old ESPN commercial... power the chair via a dude riding a stationary bike

 ProtoClone wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

I'm not against cyclists using the roads in general but I think there are definitely some roads where it's very dangerous to be cycling on them, in the path of traffic, at a speed that is significantly lower than the posted speed limit. I think it's just as dangerous in terms of potentiall causing severe accidents as when motorists drive at speeds that are drastically lower or faster than the posted limits.

Well that's why, as a motorist, one should be aware as well. Most cyclists will use the side of the road, as will most pedestrians just walking, or people riding horses, or tractors and other farm equipment (who move slower than cyclists at times)...

Oh, and Amish, we have Amish in the area and they operate horse and buggies which can be slower than a cyclist.

Most of the roads around me are narrow enough that the paved shoulder is only a few inches wide. There is literally no way for a cyclist, jogger, walker, horseback rider, tractor, etc. to not be directly in the path of traffic. The roads that aren't safe for cyclists around here really aren't safe for anyone not in a car.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Electrocution is pretty messy, still expensive, and very inhumane.

What if they went solar.... Or hell, like that old ESPN commercial... power the chair via a dude riding a stationary bike

Finally, a fitting punishment for Lance Armstrong and his cheating ways!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

I'm not against cyclists using the roads in general but I think there are definitely some roads where it's very dangerous to be cycling on them, in the path of traffic, at a speed that is significantly lower than the posted speed limit. I think it's just as dangerous in terms of potentiall causing severe accidents as when motorists drive at speeds that are drastically lower or faster than the posted limits.

Well that's why, as a motorist, one should be aware as well. Most cyclists will use the side of the road, as will most pedestrians just walking, or people riding horses, or tractors and other farm equipment (who move slower than cyclists at times)...

Oh, and Amish, we have Amish in the area and they operate horse and buggies which can be slower than a cyclist.

Most of the roads around me are narrow enough that the paved shoulder is only a few inches wide. There is literally no way for a cyclist, jogger, walker, horseback rider, tractor, etc. to not be directly in the path of traffic. The roads that aren't safe for cyclists around here really aren't safe for anyone not in a car.

What you mean is the drivers drive in an unsafe way. No road is inherently unsafe, it's the road users that are unsafe, and if other road users are in danger from the cars then it's the drivers that need to change or be removed, not the cyclists.