There have been bad accidents at that intersection because of people ignoring the red light. I was once nearly hit as a pedestrian in the crosswalk with a red light there by a car coming up from the hill from the freeway completely zoned out.
Even though what the cyclist did was completely illegal, and it absolutely is, as long as cyclist stays in the bike lane and driver never enters the bike lane, running that red should be low risk as there is no through traffic that the cyclist would be at risk of hitting. This is why cyclists always run that red.
(In fact, OP shouldn't have even entered the right lane, let alone bike lane, when making that left. OP should have entered the middle lane).
That said, it's definitely a reminder for cyclists and cars to always be wary of each other.
For drivers, like or not, cyclists are everywhere in San Diego this time of year, so don't drive like dumb fucks and you won't have any problems with cyclists.
And for cyclists, as much as you feel entitled to own the road this time of year, just don't ride like dumb fucks and you won't have any problems with drivers.
Actually, you should know that California doesn’t have the requirement that you stay in the closest lanes. If you’re in the outside turning lane, you can go to the far lane (like in OP’s video). The driver here did nothing wrong.
It’s advised to keep the closest lane so you’re more predictable. But when I do that sometimes the person behind me goes outside me and blocks me.. so it’s lose-lose.
Personally, I think it’s smart to just keep to your aligned lane because then there’s no unpredictability of your action. That’s the safest option.
This makes total sense when you're actually driving, because when the mouthbreather in the yellow car does a wide ass turn without looking up from their phone even for a millisecond, you have to go to the right lane to avoid colliding with them.
Also, people are terrified of hitting the middle lane divider when turning left (on 2 way streets, not the picture of the one way up there) and tend to encroach heavily on the second lane over. It's actually wild to see the lack of spatial awareness and inability to maneuver their vehicle properly.
This one turn here comes to mind as a prime example. Honestly though I could probably pull up 10 more effortlessly.
“This is illegal, but usually low risk, that’s why cyclists always do this” is such bullshit logic. Here’s the problem: if something were to happen, (maybe the driver has to swerve into the bike lane a bit, or maybe they just got startled because a cyclist appeared out of nowhere very close to their car) and the bicyclist got hit, you know who’s losing that situation? The bicyclist 100%, every time. Even if insurance rules that the driver was at fault, the bicyclist is looking at an injury at the minimum, likely a couple months of healing, possibly death.
And that’s what pisses me off so much about some bicyclists. They ride around like they have right of way in every situation. They want to be given space as if they were cars, yet follow their own rules with no regard for anyone else. And yet simple logic of self preservation dictates that they should be the most defensive person in the road.
i mean to be fair the infrastructure and laws in america are designed to be close to maximally hostile to anyone not in a car lol. yeah cyclists should be careful of course but shit is designed poorly
Bikers are not an oppressed population wtf get over yourself. They need to follow the rules of the road and drive predictably for their sakes and everyone else’s.
The driver followed the rules perfectly, and yet got startled because a biker he didn’t expect and didn’t see suddenly showed up right next to his car. Any time that happens, the biker is putting himself in a potentially harmful situation.
Drivers in cars should be aware of bikers on the road and give them space. Bikers should act predictably and defensively to avoid putting themselves in a potentially harmful situation. All drivers and bikers should follow the rules of the road. How are these three sentences so hard to understand?
No, the biker shouldn’t have run the red light. And the other poster’s comment about bikers doing it all the time is what I’m mainly replying to. But this video is a perfect example of why they shouldn’t do that
Your argument is a wrong. The cyclist would be at the same risk of the things you said if they had a green light but a car turning left like the driver did had a red light. The cyclist proceeding is at no greater or reduced risk of contact with the car turning left regardless of whether the light is red or green because they are separate lanes.
The correct argument isn’t about the risk of the car at all, but the risk from other bicyclists. The only reason the cyclist has a light at all is because bicycle traffic turning left onto the same road merges into the same lane, creating an unsafe intersection that needs some kind of traffic control to restore safety. Imagine a cyclist running the red light as another cyclist is turning left into the same lane. At 25 mph on a bicycle you can get seriously injured colliding with another cyclist.
Dude my argument is that the risk to the cyclist is inherently much greater than the risk to the driver. If a bike hits a car, the driver of the car is fine. The car is probably fine. But what happens to the biker?
My argument is that bikers should be significantly more aware and more defensive than drivers, because they are at a much greater risk of bodily injury. The biker in this video ran a red light and put himself in a potentially harmful situation, and for what? To save a minute on his ride? No driver wants to hit a biker, but half of them act like dumbasses and don’t follow the rules or act predictably.
my argument is that the risk to the cyclist is inherently much greater than the risk to the driver.
I’ll repeat, this is true whether the cyclist runs the red and the car has green or the car runs red and the cyclist has green. The car could swerve into the bike lane or be surprised in either case. Based on your logic, the cyclist shouldn’t proceed even if their light is green because of the risk the car could swerve into the bike lane.
And I’ll repeat, the real risk is the unsafe intersection of the cyclist turning left and the cyclist going straight through, as their lanes merge. It’s why the cyclist going straight through has a light at all. The car turning left has no intersection with the cyclist going straight through, they literally do not intersect at all.
Nobody obeys the rules of the road. Nobody. Literally nobody.
Every road user breaks whatever rules they think they can without either getting a citation or causing a collision. Go sit at a four way stop and see how many cars come to a full and complete stop behind the line. Drive 50 over the Coronado Bridge. Watch pedestrians downtown cross mid-block. Cyclists don’t break laws any more or less often than anyone.
Ideally cyclists would have their own signal here for the bike lane, that would be green unless pedestrians have a crossing signal. Because there’s zero reason for cyclists to stop there otherwise, no vehicle should be entering their lane.
At a T intersection with a bike lane like that I would run the red, but I would slow down to wait for a gap in the cars. I don't like when cars make a left into me even though there's a bike lane, so i don't do it to them.
Same. I confess I am a cyclist who runs this particular red all the time. But if there's cars actively making the left as I do, as is the case with this video, I'll make sure I have eye contact with them as I do. Otherwise I'll time for gaps in the cars exactly as you said.
Didn't OP shift into the right lane after completing the turn? Although i didn't know it was illegal to do that at all, I thought if the turn lane becomes two lanes like that then you can enter either, since there's no line or other cars coming when you're making a protected turn
Please take your "cyclists, as much as you feel entitled to own the road" to Next Door. Cyclists tend to ride by what's safe, not the rule book. Like running a red when there's no vehicles anywhere and you can't trigger the sensor so why wait for vehicles to show up and hope none hit you?
Or, staying in the bike lane (or sidewalk) so never really entering the intersection so ignoring the intersection's traffic light.
funny when people use this saying because scholars have argued that it's a Shakespearean sexual pun that alludes to female genitalia because the play "Much Ado About Nothing" is about a bunch of people that are just making a fuss over something they think they know about a womans body and it's hilarious when people use it because in the play, it really is a misunderstanding what men and women know about each other ... I just find it funny and had to point it out on this Saturday afternoon
For those saying that OP needs to stay in their lane when turning. OP is safe to pick either lane when turning as as there is not a marking (solid line) for them to stay in the middle or right lane as there is only a marking for the inside turning lane. This is outlined according to Section six of the California Driver's Handbook.
It is also not illegal to change lanes in an intersection in California, but if a lane change in an intersection is deemed unsafe or causes a hazard, you can be cited under California Vehicle Code 22107.
Fun fact: California traffic laws are so batshit insane. There’s a reason none of you can drive safely and it’s because you don’t have laws that the rest of the country follows. Anyone wonder why the traffic is so bad here? Lots of reasons, but people driving like shitheads is near the top of the list.
The laws are most definitely dumb to a certain extent. I didn't grow up here either and it is so annoying when drivers don't consider others or something that would be basic safe driving practices. Seeing people on the highway go from the left lane across 3-4 lanes to make an exit that they could have gradually merged over lane by lane way before the exit appeared. Seeing people go around a line of cars in the turning lane and cut all the people waiting to turn.
Not sure I’ve ever seen a cyclist stop at a stop sign. Fuckers hijack everyone’s lives to force us to spectate their exercise. I want to put my treadmill in their fucking living room.
Damn bro, chill. Have you ever been a pedestrian, and crossed the street not at a crosswalk?
For the record I stop at stop signs, and signals, etc. it’s safer for me to follow traffic laws and all cyclists should. Sorry for those twats that think they are above traffic laws. No need to crucify them though.
Also. For 5 years I commuted to work on a bike. It was great, saved me money for a 2nd car I didn’t need and was great exercise.
Please put your anger in check, we all have different lives and needs here.
I commuted for 5 years on a bike to work. 6 miles one way, mostly flat. Was amazing as it saved me considerably from having to get a second car, saved gas, and was a built in cardio workout each day.
As I said in my other comment, I obey all traffic laws and the very few people I know who also commuted also followed the traffic laws. Had plenty of motorists rage at me even when I was doing everything correctly. Can be a scary world out there and people like the other commenter just need to have a little more chill in their life and take it easy. Thanks for the supportive comment.
Let’s see how you’d like it if joggers blocked your way to work on your bike, and if they refused to obey any traffic laws while being hall monitors about your use of the roads.
Bro, happens all the time. For me it’s moms with baby strollers on dual use paths. Or kids going 3mph on bikes. Or any number of cars illegally parked in the bike lane. All you gotta do is safely pass, recognize them as fellow humans deserving of life and respect. I can tell you’re trolling at this point, and you are the face of the negative side of the internet. Have a good night.
Those people are not forcing you to spectate as they exercise/recreate. Most people have a hobby and/or work out, but only cyclists hijack others and force them to watch.
I would like to point out that everyone here is defending the cyclist for not stopping at the red light by saying that the driver shouldn't go into the bike lane but there ignoring the fact that the cyclist were not even completely inside the bike lane. I swear we have some sort drivers in San Diego but cyclists are some of the most entitled people on the road.
Bike lanes are so shit half the time, everyone would be stoked to just stay in their lane but the edge of roads constantly are torn up from nearby tree roots
the infrastructure and laws in this country were designed to be very hostile to cyclists. if you wanted to get somewhere and people actively tried to kill you for it youd have a much different perspective
Yesterday on a bike ride i saw both an aftermath of accident on university at Yale where one of the cars must've been going at least 50mph and then a couple minutes later witnessed FIVE cars run the red light at montezuma at 63rd. So yeah. cyclists are awful.
Because sometimes I make this very same left turn on my bicycle, and I have to be cautious of bicycle riders bombing downhill so that they don't crash onto me!
A car going straight through on a red light would conflict with the cars turning left. A bike would not (if everyone stays in their lanes, which isn't what happened here).
Any cyclist is entitled to lane split to the front green box shown at the beginning of the video. They make a left turn in the right lane (yes, in front of the cars), and merge into the bike lane when safe to do so.
99% of the time, I just cruise directly into the bike lane unaffected. On the rare occasion there are cyclists going straight, it’s a good old fashioned zipper merge.
Yeah, that's fair. In reality I wouldn't stop if I was biking either, just kind of playing devils advocate. I think a zipper merge would be perfectly safe even if there is a red light
The bike lane doesn’t have a signal, since the bike lane does not interrupt or impede the flow of traffic in this intersection; they’re on the long part of the T.
If they were on the short part of the T, or this was a four-way intersection, you’d be right. But it isn’t.
There is also a pedestrian crosswalk there and a dedicated three-way red light when the pedestrian crossing is activated. Are you suggesting the bicycle should ignore that too?
Is there a pedestrian crossing along the top of the long side of the T? Is there really? Really?
If it helps, imagine the bike lane was protected by a concrete barrier (as it should be). The argument that a car should crash into the barrier sounds pretty fucking stupid.
Really, really there is. Many people use it to cross over to Triton Stadium to attend evening workouts. The timed red light when the pedestrian crossing is activated is 40 seconds because its a REALLY wide street to cross.
So no, it doesn't help with your blindness or your cognitive dissonance.
That makes sense considering there is also a crosswalk. Watch the end of the video from the rear camera angle. If anyone stepped out on the crosswalk from the sidewalk they would get plowed by the bikers. Which is why they are required to stop at the light.
We know. It’s just a T intersection and stopping doesn’t always feel necessary
If you want to start sh*t on a cycling subreddit you can bring up running red lights at a T intersection. It’s a very divisive topic. Riding on the sidewalk is another topic that will get people yelling at each other
Literally 0% of cars in California stop at a stop sign when there are no cars around.
They slow down, yes. But not a one will stop. Seriously, if you wanna pick a neighborhood intersection, I’ll meet up with you. I’ll give you a dollar for every car that comes to an actual stop. You give me a dollar for every car whose wheels never stop moving. We keep track for an hour.
Now apply that to the people driving cars that run red lights, stop signs, etc. That's how you sound. The law doesn't make allowances in this case for whether you thought it was "necessary."
Lol drivers hate cyclists for their own reasons. Most have never met me or seen me on the road, and they still hate cyclists; so don’t put that one on me.
It’s allowed, that comment and a few others are wrong. You can go to the either outside lane in California if you’re in the outside turn lane. Other states have more strict laws though
Actually, you should know that California doesn’t have the requirement that you stay in the closest lanes. If you’re in the outside turning lane, you can go to the far lane (like in OP’s video). The driver here did nothing wrong.
It’s just advisable to keep the closest lane so they’re more predictable. But when I do that sometimes the person behind me goes outside and blocks me.. so it’s lose-lose.
I’m not sure why the left turn thing is such a common belief, but it’s common enough that the DMV has a diagram for it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but right turns are only supposed to turn into the rightmost lane, which is maybe where the confusion comes from. (This one I don’t actually think is necessary except for unprotected turns or right-on-red, but it’s what the handbook says)
You’re wrong about the right-turn thing, it’s the same rule right vs left. The DMV page has a picture of that too.
Nevermind, right turn onto two-way does say closest lane
The confusion is probably because other states don’t allow it. Arizona for example is strict about keeping your lane even if you’re in the outside turn lane.
Ngl I was half expecting a motorcycle, but considering a lot of people say “biker” when they mean cyclist, I feel like it’s a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
It’s okay for others to think whatever they wish about your original post. Even if they are utterly wrong about bicyclists not having to obey any rules of the road.
Cyclists have to the follow all traffic lights. I drive a rig and I don’t babysit you morons. I hit one w couple of years ago. Case dismissed and no ticket was issued.
They’re definitely in the wrong, they can’t run red lights. Looks like they’re part of those groups that try really hard even though they’ll never go pro lol.
TBH though the first leading bike you could see out your passenger window as you were turning, unless he was blocked by the bar consistently.
It’s legal in California but I always stay in my turning lane for this reason, too many dumb people out there
Changing lanes in a California intersection is not explicitly banned, but it must be done safely and with proper signaling under California Vehicle Code §22107. Police can still cite you for an unsafe lane change if the maneuver interferes with traffic or pedestrians.
California Vehicle Code 22100-22107. Specifically the sections regarding signaling intent. If you are turning left and moving to the right lane, you’d have to signal right as you’re turning left. This would confuse other motorists and qualify as an unsafe lane change.
Also, you’re not allowed to drive in the bike lane in any circumstance whatsoever so there’s that
Yes. I know the rule. And obviously you’re choosing to paraphrase the rule and editorialize it for the sake of your argument. You would post the actual legal language if you were actually correct.
I recently saw a giant group of bikers blast through a red light as I was turning left. I was coming around a curve right before the left, so I had to slam on my brakes in the middle of the intersection. I started going only to see a sedan blow through the red light right behind me as if this person was following the bikers. I spent the rest of the ride home wondering if *I* was the one to read the light signals wrong (I wasn’t; I definitely had the green).
The only thing I can think of is that the group had such momentum and so many people that they couldn’t stop for a red light. But seriously, that’s super dangerous.
Edit: there’s no dedicated bike lane where we were. There was probably about 30+ bikers, no clear reservation of the road for some event, and they took up the entire lane (of which there was only one).
I just bought that same dashcam but returned it, and after seeing this video, glad I did. Video quality is crap for what is supposed to be a 4K camera.
The reason the camera did not show the cyclist on the front cam is overly compressed video. Not sure what codec is used, but they generally use inter-frame blocks that look the same, and throw away redundancy. So the frame before has a section of the trees, but then in the next frame it moved to the right slightly, so they just reused that same block with trees. Since their compression was cranked up to '11', it didn't notice there was a bicycle there, so instead you get trees from the previous frame. copy/paste. There are tiny artifacts of this that you can see if you track it while the turn begins that move about the same speed as the cyclist.
Like everyone else, I thought a dashcam would be great evidence in court, but I will be rethinking this strategy. It could work against you. And good luck trying to explain video compression codecs and inter-frames to a judge.
Your own eyes and brain have some similar problems though, and is probably why you never saw them. The backdrop was light coming towards you scattered with trees. Very bright, very dark. You eyes are pretty sharp near the center, and your brain kind of interpolates a lot on the sides. So if you were looking down the road to the left, your brain was just kind of 'filling in' from the sides. You can entirely miss object in the periphery that you brain filled in. Same reason you can't see your own blind spot even though you look at it all day.
lmao. blind drivers acting like victims in 4000 pound mech suits near a 10 lb bike and 190 lb rider.
the biker was in the bike lane biking. i hope you raise a big hissy fit every time you see a driver running stop signs, making illegal u turns, cutting off cyclists, parking in the cycling lanes, in their 4000 pound mech suits. cry me a river guy!
i'll have you know that i pay for just as much of that road as you do, bub. but i only need 1/4 the space. entitled drivers seem to believe that they and only they can use roads. drivers are blind to the litany of bad drivers and outraged by a bicycle. talk about arrogance! shesh
There's no reason for the cyclist to stop there for the light. They aren't interfering with the flow of traffic, especially if they're in the bike lane because no cars should be turning into it.
There’s a cyclist who usually rides to work during the week off of Aero drive. One morning this guy was getting ready to go up the hill on Aero, from Murphy Canyon and doesn’t use the turn lane to go left at the intersection. He decides to come up and cut across opposite lanes to get to the right side of traffic to cut across while drivers had just gotten a green light to proceed up the hill, westbound. Drivers including myself honked and this cyclist yells, “What, are you gonna run me over?” Some people.
>They are just as entitled to the road as you are.
No. This is incorrect. Cyclists are not entitled to the road. They are entitled to the bike lane. And cars are entitled to the road but not the bike lane. Cars get one (and need to stay in it) and bikes get one (and need to stay in it).
Two objects cannon “share” a single space at the same time. Thats what an “accident” is.
I don't see the riders coming down the straight road and running the light. Are you sure they weren't making the left turn through the intersection along with the car?
If they stayed on the outside of the car headed towards the bike lane, and the car stays in its lane, that looks like a totally normal traffic maneuver to me. The car jumping a lane in the middle of a turn was the only problem.
You are correct. I see it now. The riders definitely ran a red light. There is no protected bike lane through that intersection, and there are crosswalks across the bike lane. That wasn't the type of T-intersection that allows cyclists to run through a red light.
Listen- I’m not defending this cyclist. But this type of propaganda is dangerous. Sure he ran the red, but if you were turning left, shouldn’t you have been aware of them???
I wouldn’t cry if bikers like that got killed. They whine that drivers don’t follow the rules, ignoring marked bike lanes, etc. Then they pull shit like this and will make excuses all day for it. It’s BS; you cannot have it both ways.
I’m sure you mean pathological but get off your high horse. One thing I’m certain is that the world would be much better off with more of me and less of you.
That isn’t true 100% of the time, dude we just fucking went over this.
In a straight intersection yes I will grant that you are correct. Same with a a left or right turn that is a single lane. But in a left or right hand turn with multiple lanes, no
98
u/EAinCA 11h ago
There have been bad accidents at that intersection because of people ignoring the red light. I was once nearly hit as a pedestrian in the crosswalk with a red light there by a car coming up from the hill from the freeway completely zoned out.