dynodonn 

I still say that the three road users are not fully understanding the road markings in the particular lane that they are traveling in, and some informative education is in order. Reading the comments attached to the video, the cyclist is not the only person mistaking the road markings as a dedicated bike lane. If the motorcyclists had made a safer passing maneuver, and if the cyclist was more aware of the road markings meaning, I feel that this incident would not have taken place.

Dunbar

Why the green paint if it's not a bike lane though? Around Los Angeles they've started painting some dedicated bike lanes green. The combination of sharrows + green paint (+ bus lane???) could be confusing.

genec

What Green paint... what bike lane... neither one of these things exist in the OP where the cyclist is told that "cyclists are always wrong" by the local PD.

Frankly in the pic supplied above it should be pretty darn clear that it IS in fact a marked bike lane.

dougmc

Yeah, police often go to this sort of trouble to track down and cite somebody for an everyday moving violation or two they didn't personally witness, but have video of. Uh-huh.

(For the sarcasm impaired -- it's possible, and occasionally happens. But it's extremely rare.)

The barrel distortion of GoPro and similar cameras often makes it difficult to tell just how close something really is -- but I think this time it was close enough that there's not really any doubt that they were under 3' -- and probably under 1'. It looked to me like the motorcyclists were passing him extra closely just to be dicks (which would elevate this to actual assault) but I wouldn't expect this to be enough evidence to actually support such a charge. (But passing too closely? Yes. Not that the police would be likely to use it.)

That said, not realizing what the sharrow symbol actually means ... priceless.

Dunbar

I was responding to the discussion on this video where the motorcyclists got into it with the older guy on the mountain bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KUbnTpMb9pA

genec

The green paint in that vid is somewhat confusing to me... but the bike symbol is one of sharrows, which I understand simply mean a shared lane and a preferred path for cyclists. I think the cyclist is wrong in calling it a bike lane... but I also tend to think the motorcyclists are exhibiting far too much power in that curbside lane that seems to be set aside for parking, cycling, slow traffic (10MPH sign) and a bus waiting area (further down). It is NOT a bike lane, but neither is it a lane to zip along in... By design, it appears to be a very transitional space in which to use the utmost caution.

The lane in the pic you posted seems very well defined and is likely a bike lane (although I don't see any declarative signs as such)...

In any case, bike lanes are really not completely exclusive of all other traffic... often there are crossing zones at driveways, and the dashed areas are typically merge zones for all traffic, including cyclists. The solid line at the left edge of a bike lane does indicate no crossing... but it is only a line, not a curb, so some crossing movements may occur. The laws governing roadways seem to only prohibit the crossing of solid double yellow lines.

CB HI

Did you include my post to another BF member just to imply that I think the police would do anything? Straw man?

dougmc

Well, if you were saying "cyclist is toast" to mean that he was bread that was browned by radiant heat -- my apologies, I misunderstood you.

(Though you did previously say "Then the ranting cyclist had better hope the police do not watch the video and see him going though the crosswalk while he had a red light", so it should be pretty easy to see how I got the wrong idea.)

CB HI

Ok, I see, you are intentionally taking my post out of context so you have something to come at me with. It was a direct response to dynodonn thinking the motorcyclist would be easier than the cyclist to track down and nothing more than that. So cool your sarcasm jets.

CbadRider

Let's everyone cool their jets so this thread won't get locked. Thank you.

Siu Blue Wind

*comes in, looks around, gives discerning eye..................




leaves*

dynodonn 

Agree, on that it occasionally happens.


"As our Christmas gift to all of you we offer you the following advice: If you are going to drive at excessive speeds on any road or highway, you may not want to post it on YouTube. Thirty-year-old Cody Replogle of Oklahoma did just that and now he is facing two counts of reckless driving."

https://www.totalprosports.com/2010/1...youtube-video/

"Cops want to seize the 2006 BMW Z4 roadster that Adam Tang used to complete a record-fast predawn lap around the borough this past August."

" Tang, who posted a video of the stunt on YouTube, was charged in September with reckless driving and endangerment."

https://nypost.com/2013/11/04/nypd-wa...g-z4-roadster/

dougmc

I should point out that the case you brought up goes well beyond "an everyday moving violation" (the words I chose). I was thinking of a video that shows somebody running a red light, or going 67 in a 55 zone -- something like that. Going 195 mph ... yeah, the police are going to come get you. Especially if you've given yourself to them on a silver platter.

Reckless driving is generally a much more serious charge than most moving violations, and 195 mph certainly should qualify as such.

But sometimes the police will act on those "running a red light" (but with no collision or anything like that to aggravate it) videos too, even if they didn't personally witness the violation. Very rarely, but it can happen.

dynodonn 

I can understand your point, but my point is that it is not wise to post a video of oneself violating the rules of the road, regardless of how serious the nature, since one cannot be sure who is watching, and what consequences will come of posting the video.