It’s state law to give cyclists at least 3 feet of space.

Just look at the speed that the RV was going! The driver was given a $500 ticket for almost killing 30 cyclists. Insane that they’re even allowed to drive after that.

  • Strangle@lemmy.world
    510·
    1 year ago

    You think you should lose your license for getting into an accident?

    That’s pretty extreme, and would likely tank businesses almsot everywhere. How many people do you think have never been in a cad accident? Not very many

    • sugar_in_your_tea
      11·
      1 year ago

      That depends on the severity of the negligence in the accident. But when there’s a huge power imbalance like a car and a bicycle or a pedestrian, I absolutely think the penalties should be more severe than between two vehicles.

      If you cause an accident, you should absolutely go to traffic school. Full stop. If you exceed some level of negligence, you should have your license suspended. And I think driving an RV at 45mph into a bunch of cyclists qualifies for license suspension, at least for a few months to really drive home the gravity of the mistake.

      I have never been in an accident in >15 years of driving, so I’m obviously a bit biased here. But my opinion is that if you cannot drive safely, your driving privileges should be revoked until you prove you can drive safely.

      • Strangle@lemmy.world
        23·
        1 year ago

        Why isn’t the bike the one who caused the accident? He was in the roadway, wasn’t to the side at all. They weren’t riding in single file, they were riding across each other.

        Take some responsibility for your own safety too. You know there are cars using the road, you shouldn’t assume that they will see you. Stay safe

        • sugar_in_your_tea
          3·
          1 year ago

          Because that’s Arizona State law, and similar laws exist in other states. Here’s some exerpts from the legal statute after a quick search:

          §28-101 Definitions

          1. “Vehicle”:

          (a) Means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway.

          (b) Does not include:

          …

          (i) Electric bicycles, electric miniature scooters, electric standup scooters and devices moved by human power.

          So bicycles are not vehicles, according to Arizona State law.

          §28-701 Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions:

          A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

          Note that bicycles are not motor vehicles as noted above in the definitions and thus exempt from this statute.

          §28-735 Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties:

          A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

          Bicycles must be given at least three feet of space when overtaking.

          §28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders:

          A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

          Bicycles have all the rights of a vehicle on a roadway or shoulder. So they absolutely belong there.

          §28-815 Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage:

          A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

          Quick note, the shoulder does not count as part of the roadway (see below).

          B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

          The cyclists were riding two abreast.

          §28-601. Definitions:

          1. “Roadway” means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two or more separate roadways, roadway refers to any such roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.

          So bicycles are allowed on the roadway, the roadway does not include the shoulder, and they are legally entitled to 3 feet of space from other traffic. I see no violations of the law in the video on the part of the cyclists, and I do see a violation from the RV here. The RV is 100% to blame here, the cyclists were actually probably too far to the right and should have occupied more of the roadway to push vehicles to change lanes to pass.

          So the bicyclists were acting safely and were well within the law. I think they could’ve been more safe if they took up more of the roadway, not less.

    • lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org
      81·
      1 year ago

      I absolutely think you should loose your license for being responsible for a crash.

      Maybe that means not many people should be driving. That would explain tens of thousands of Americans that die in car crashes each year.

      I think businesses would be fine now that we have a superior form of personal transportation: the ebike

      • Strangle@lemmy.world
        22·
        1 year ago

        It all depends on the circumstances. Driving down the road, and glancing away for a minute and not seeing a bicycle driving on the road until a second before you hit them isn’t really negligent.

        That’s why it’s an accident. The driver was within the lines of the roadway, the bicycle wasn’t on the shoulder, and it looks like the driver did not see the bicycle.

        That’s called an accident. If you’re negligent for any reason, sure punish the driver. But this doesn’t look at all like that kind of situation here.

        I know this crowd is very pro bikes and doesn’t think cars should exist, but you guys are the extreme

    • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
      42·
      1 year ago

      Drunk drivers who get into “accidents” get their licences revoked.

      It’s not extreme, its logical.

        • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
          41·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t matter. It shows that there is precedent for suspended licenses when there is a collision.

          You make it seem like they can’t take away your license for unsafe driving, for some fucked reason.

          Your arguments aren’t holding up.

          • Strangle@lemmy.world
            22·
            1 year ago

            Of course it matters. Driving drunk is not the same as driving stone cold sober.

            How could you think they are at all comparable?

            • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
              11·
              1 year ago

              Well, the US has laws about unsafe driving. Not all unsafe driving is when drunk.

              But losing your license is normal for unsafe drivers.

              I don’t know what you are arguing at this point.

                • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact that they were close to the cyclists that they hit them in an area that has a minimum distance law kinda disproves your argument.

                  Also you don’t have one on whether the licence being revoked as governments retain the ability to take your driving privileges.

                  So what are you actually arguing, because you see to be in a rut.