Fwd: What an 11 Second Video Shows About Ignorance Over Basic Rules of the Road
Jim Baross
From: Principled Bicycling <principledbicycling...@substack.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 8:51 PM
Subject: What an 11 Second Video Shows About Ignorance Over Basic Rules of the Road
To: <jimb...@gmail.com>
What an 11 Second Video Shows About Ignorance Over Basic Rules of the RoadPushing some reality into the Clown Court of Public Opinion
Note: this post is graphics heavy and does contain an embedded video meaning that viewing in a browser or the Substack app is preferable to viewing by email. Dashcams are a modern marvel and make both a great “insurance” policy and educational tool. They’re cheap, easy to install, available for motor vehicles, motorcycles and even bicycles. X Account Community Notes & Violations posted a video with the question, “Okay, who do you think was in the wrong here?” The 11 second dashcam (or dashcam equivalent) video shows a two-lane road which per both the Avanti sign on the left hand side of the street and commenters in the thread is likely in the United Kingdom.
The video begins showing a bicyclist occupying what in the UK is called the secondary position, that is the bicyclist is not occupying the center of the lane. In US terms, this would be called “lane sharing” or “edge riding.” Shown also is a black Prius whose driver makes a sudden lane change with no warning or turn indicator as he or she approached stopped traffic in their lane. The bicyclist then towards the latter half of the video collides with the rear end of the Prius. As far as car-bicycle crashes are concerned, this bicyclist is utterly lucky he was not only able to recover from the crash but that he didn’t hit his helmet-less head on the car, his bike, the road itself, or the concrete curb. The video is reproduced below for those who don’t want to visit X, or cannot play the video without an account.  Responses have been naturally dumb and deceiving.
Refuting this nonsense facts do not require anyone to be a guru of traffic law. First of all, there are plenty of people who don’t like bicyclists, but this dislike of bicyclists does not make them automatically at fault in a traffic collision simply because they exist. Demanding they be licensed, plated, registered, yada yada and any associated perks claimed are well debunked. Anti-car hysterics, especially the Cluster B(ike) activists love to do the same thing but instead automatically assert the motorist is at fault. Woke-racists along with non-Woke racists to this with members of a different race. The Woke do this with (biological) males too. All are examples of tribal, imbecilic, and uncivilized “thinking” patterns often coupled with severe moral shortcomings. The reality in traffic collisions is that they’re often not this black or white. Often cases both participants contribute to legal fault. And no- the simple act of a type of road user on the road is in most someone-doesn’t-like-cases not and example of this. Let’s jump into answering the question originally posited though: both are at fault. And by “at fault” it’s not “the car” nor “the bike” as some suggested. Cars and bikes are inanimate objects. It’s the people operating them who are at fault or not at fault. In common every-day speech, making such an error may not be a big deal but if one is to insist how they strongly “feel” things “should” be in terms of traffic law, they better properly argue their case with the correct language. The Prius driver was clearly not paying attention to the stopped motor traffic in front and made an sudden and unsigned lane change without taking into account whether their movement affected any road users in the adjacent lane. In UK’s closest thing to traffic statutes is the UK Highway Code¹ and these elementary driving concepts are covered under Rule 103 and Rule 126. Similar requirements are in virtually every statue in other places as well so this is by no means specific to the UK.
The cyclist’s actions, as many have somewhat pointed out are also unlawful and citable under 126 once the Prius driver pulled in front of him. The bicyclist committed the same initial error as the black Prius driver by following too closely after the Prius driver braked after another motorist, this time the one in the right van who did signal, made a similarly sudden lane change. Now it should be noted that using a turn signal does not immediately grant one the ability to move into an adjacent lane - they too must ensure their movement doesn’t affect road users in the lane they’re moving to as indicated (pun not intended) in the Highway Code. Laws aside, this is Driving 101 stuff. Anyone who applies for a driving license is inherently signing an agreement with the government providing the license they they are not only aware of such laws but have legally stated will obey all relevant laws. (Bicyclists who are also licensed to drive motor vehicles don’t get a pass on this either.) The bicyclist took an unfavorable situation and made it worse too. The end of the video shows the bicyclist angrily confronting the motorist. Just because someone else does something wrong doesn’t mean you get a moral pass to escalate a situation. Now, the bicyclist could have been concerned the motorist would drive off and flea the scene of what is now a bona fide collision, also illegal in the UK, but this is the chance to call the authorities, note the license plate, make and model of the car, and a description of the driver. (Of course that assumes the UK police aren’t too busy busting “non-crime hate incidents” or covering up mass rape/grooming gangs.) He likely didn’t know the person behind, presumably another motorist had a dash cam and probably wasn’t thinking to look for witnesses such as the pedestrians on the sidewalk. Either way, being able to tone down one’s emotions is a key element to being an actual adult - something plenty of self-identified bicyclists and motorists alike lack. Several users went straight to blaming the bicyclist either completely missing out on or not acknowledging the lack of turn signal and sudden lane change by the Prius driver. How do people not see this? While the term “car brain” is the vast majority of the time a non-sensical label created by anti-car hysterics which really explains the anti-social and anti-cooperative behavior also exhibited by (some) motorists, perhaps the term here is apt to describe someone who can only see fault in one road user and not the other. Now onto addressing some of the other comments many which were already addressed in Ignorant Traffic People Online so apologies in advance for any repetition. First of all, motor vehicle registrations and other monies such as fuel taxes collected by governments seldom pay for the building or maintenance of roads nor do they grant the “right” for motorists to use roads over non-motorists. Most roads were originally built by private developers and handed off to the government in charge and even if those monies do go directly towards paying for the roads, they seldom cover the complete cost. Road maintenance is covered by local taxes such as property taxes, debt in the form of bonds, or money provided by non-local governments. Furthermore if this “payment of X, Y and Z taxes or fees = right to use public roads” thought experiment were taken to its ultimate extreme the imbeciles who fall for it would need to consider which motorists are: The ones with more expensive vehicles? The ones with multiple vehicles? The ones who drive more and thus use more fuel? What about local motorists versus motorists visiting from another area? Do I, as someone who just bought a brand new car and accordingly had to pay higher registration fees than motorists driving used or less valuable cars, have a greater “right” to use the roads? Does someone who bought a brand new car more expensive than mine have an even greater “right?” Taking this absurdity to extreme would ask the real question of who should have more of a “right” to use the public roads over others. Furthermore, would pedestrians have to pay some sort of show tax for their “right” to walk on sidewalks? Pro segregation (i.e. “protected” bike lane) bicycle activists also fail to think through this correctly too as do those in support of New York’s cordon tax and the criminals behind the CA High Speed Rail in their demands to “redistribute” wealth from motorists to fund their pet projects. It’s no wonder others demand they pay their fair share. Licensing also does not grant one a right to the roads either. It grants a revokable privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. While anti-car hysterics bitch and moan over an alleged “epidemic of traffic violence,” they are correct in some sense that motor vehicles can be utterly dangerous items if operated incorrectly and are responsible for deaths and serious injuries. Using bicycles improperly too can lead to death or serious injury but their impact on the overall scale of issues on public roads are almost infinitesimally minor relative to motor vehicles. The facts behind why motor vehicle driving became subject to additional restrictions is covered in The Marginalization of Bicyclists and is also discussed in the Traffic Violence Epidemic Series. It’s also well established in the UK, just as it is in the US and Canada, that bicyclists on public roads have the same rights and duties as other vehicle drivers They’re allowed to use any public road that does not specifically prohibit bicycle (and other non-motorized vehicles) use such as limited access expressways, freeways, motorways, etc. Sorry, but this is just fact and no feelings based on a dislike of bicyclists do not change that. While it’s true many bicyclists ride purely for pleasure or sport, their bicycle is not a “toy” in the eyes of traffic law either. Again this is imbecilic thinking that if taken it its extreme could be applied too to any motorist who owns a car the use specifically for pleasure and non-transportation needs would need to think through to its ultimate conclusion. There’s a reason sports car enthusiasts call them “toys,” but that doesn’t diminish their ability to drive on public roads either for pleasure. Also many transportation cyclists “dress for the bike,” especially ones who travel at high speeds or long distances. It’s become an old and obnoxious saying to whine about bicyclists in tights or “dressed like Lance Armstrong,” but this clothing is comfortable and practical for cycling. Just because a bicyclist is dressed in athletic attire doesn’t mean they’re riding simply for pleasure. The right to use the public roads also is not limited to people going somewhere for purposes other than pleasure. On the flip side, anti-car hysterics, who plague the bicycling “community” often make the same comments about motorists deeming their trips “non-essential,” or “wasteful” for the planet. Both groups really are made for each other but should get their own room instead of taking their fights to the civilized world. When bicyclists bitch and whine about motorists not knowing these things, they have a point although many bicyclists love to make up their own traffic laws or “feel” things “should” be different are not not helping their cause. That’s been the topic of plenty of posts here. Yes the bicyclists need to know what they’re doing too, and since most adult bicyclists also possess a driving license, that gives them less of an excuse to be ignorant of their rights and duties. Bicycling doesn’t require any education or licensure for access to the roads but driving a motor vehicle does, and part of the licensure process is supposed to ensure the motorist is aware of the rules of the road. Bicycling education does exist but in much of the bicycling “community” is discouraged because the greater bicycling “community” has been completely parasitized by woke victim moralism/ideology and anti-car hysteria. At the end of the day, everyone, regardless of what they’re operating is trying to get somewhere. For what reason, purpose, or mode is their own business. But ensuring both safety and civility for all road users requires understanding and obeying the relevant rules with a dose of defensive driving skills as well as cooperating civilly with others. Neither party here held up to the deal and most of the commenters over on the X thread indicated they too would likely not do out in the real world. 1 John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, a popular “bicyclist ed” book in the UK notes that the UK’s Highway Code’s contents do not contain what US and Canadians would consider hard statutes but nevertheless the Code can be used against parties in an accident. The Highway Code is likely used, even the “non-legal” parts in insurance disputes - so in the example of this bicyclist, if he were to try to recover the loss of his bicycle or bodily injury from the motorist, he’d likely face an uphill battle. The use of the verb should however is an indicated both the codes cited above likely carry some legal thrust. “The Highway Code is an important document containing a lot of sound advice about sharing the roads. You should use it to become familiar with the traffic regulations and the meaning of road signs and markings. Only a minority of the rules contained in the Highway Code have the force of law (where the word ‘must’ is used), but its other advice may be taken into account by a court when trying to establish blame for an incident. The Highway Code is a generalist guide, dominated by consideration of motor traffic, and it does not always reflect a good understanding about cycling. As a result, its advice for cyclists is sometimes simplistic, impractical or controversial. You should bear this in mind and not regard it as a definitive summary of best practice.” -John Franklin in Cyclecraft You're currently a free subscriber to Principled Bicycling. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2025 Principled Bicycling
|
