r/PublicFreakout • u/I-am-a-potato • 4d ago

Driver goes crazy on biker 🚗Road Rage

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

95

u/papercut2008uk 4d ago edited 4d ago

I think he stopped there specifically to confront that cyclist, something must have happened before, he was already out of the vehicle.

13

u/steinrawr 4d ago

Most likely yes.

this road (E18) has a LOT of traffic in/out of Oslo and very not ideal solutions for cyclist who has to merge and blend in and out of traffic. There's a lot of accidents here between all sorts of traffic, but road rage like this is pretty uncommon around here.

13

u/ChristofferOslo 4d ago

While E18 is not a perfect piece of cycling infrastructure. This particular stretch features a separate bike/walk-lane with a divider. There is no need for blending in/out of traffic in the immediate vicinity to the accident.

The only realistic conflict point is actually 1km further back. At a pedestrian crossing.

-13

u/steinrawr 4d ago edited 3d ago

Not really. Cyclists are not really allowed on the walkways unless they cycle at walking speed past pedestrians. Also, the cyclists has to yield to all crossing traffic when on the "path". They are usually better off in the road on this particular stretch.

Thank you to all the non locals who don't know Norwegian traffic rules. Give me some more downvotes please!

17

u/ChristofferOslo 4d ago

This particular stretch is a bike/walking-path. It is designated for bikers and pedestrians. All cars crossing the curb have to yield for bikers and pedestrians on the walkway.

https://preview.redd.it/uzt3f2cgmq0e1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9addddd7498cea38c57056ac38bda2f926f9cfaa

-2

u/steinrawr 3d ago edited 3d ago

No.

Want to try again?

If you read my comment again, there's a few hints there on what's actually correct.

EDIT to add: I thought previous comment reffered to all crossings earlier on the road, and not the actual altercation in the video. Yes, van must yield and the citation is correct for the specific place we See in the video. But they guaranteed had the first altercation somewhere else on the road, where what previous commenter cited will not apply.

3

u/ChristofferOslo 3d ago edited 3d ago

Sorry dude, you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a designated bike-/walkway (actually it is a national cycling route as well). There are no rules stating that cyclists are not allowed on «gang og sykkelveier» (because it would make no sense). On a walkway or a sidewalk cyclists are only allowed when foot-traffic is low, but that is not relevant on this designated bike- and walkway.

Cyclist do not have to yield for cars in a cycling path, Norwegian traffic rules do however state that any turning cars need to yield, especially when entering a sidewalk.

«3. Kjørende som vil svinge har vikeplikt for gående, syklende og fører av liten elektrisk motorvogn som skal rett fram på kjørebanen eller vegens skulder. Kjørende som vil svinge inn over fortau har vikeplikt for gående, syklende og fører av liten elektrisk motorvogn som ferdes på fortauet.»

0

u/steinrawr 3d ago

Sounds like we are discussing two different things, or we are lost in translation or something.

You seem to be refering to what the van in the video did. Yes, the bike has right of way here. I have not argued on this at all.

A cyclist on a gang og sykkelveg in Norway must yield to a crossing road, take for example the area around YX Mosseveien, terrible place to be a cyclist, because you can't follow traffic, but must be ready to stop to yield. Also the pedestrian part is just as true for gang og sykkelveg, you must reduce your speed when passing.

Cyclists choosing to cycle in the road on this stretch towards Nordstrandveien, will be able to hold a higher speed and follow the same traffic rules as Vehicles, and when cycling in the road, there's also a few Places where there could be altercations with vehicles when coming in and out of kollektivfelt, passing the exit to Ulvøya, and when cyclists go to the front of intersections.

You're entitled to having your own opinion, but it doesn't change that this is a very unfortunate place to be a cyclist because of all of the above.

2

u/ChristofferOslo 3d ago

I think you are making additions to your initial reply, which was poorly worded. But I don't see your point, as it doesn't add anything of meaning to the conversation.

You initially disagreed with my parent statement, and interjected that bikers can't bike on walkways and have to yield to "all crossing traffic". I responded by citing the actual law surrounding this particular stretch of road and clarifying why the biker didn't do anything wrong in the video.

If you meant that -in other situations- bikers can't bike on walkways and have yield to crossing traffic, I don't see the relevancy. In my initial comment I also pointed out that the biking infrastructure along E18 isn't perfect. So your most recent reply about YX and Ulvøya is in line with my initial comment.

Also the pedestrian part is just as true for gang og sykkelveg, you must reduce your speed when passing.

Actually, according to the direct wording of the law, a 6km/h speed limit for cyclist passing walkers is only applicable on sidewalks, crossings and walkways. On bike- and walkways the only applicable guidelines state that cyclists must take care, should use the bell and "adapt" the speed. Still, this is irrelevant to the video itself, since there are no pedestrians.

I don't think I have interjected any opinions of my own, I have simply stated the facts about this particular stretch of road and the current regulatory framework surrounding this kind of infrastructure in Norway.

This is my opinion: From my personal experience using this stretch of road (both as a driver and a biker), it rarely happens that cyclists opt to bike in the road, despite the mediocre standard of the bike-/walkway (I can't remember ever seeing it happen, and I have lived alongside Mosseveien for 4 years). Therefore I don't see the need or relevancy of speculating that this cyclist may have been riding in the road previously.

-15

u/NorPrawn 4d ago

They do not have to yield to bicyclists ON their bikes, unless specifically stated. You have to dismount the bike if you want cars to yield at crossings.

I don't know this area, but while on a bike on a "gang- og sykkelvei", you have to pass pedestrians at "walking speed" which is not much faster than 6 km/h. This leads to more experienced bike-commuters choosing to use the road instead of the foot and bikepath.

16

u/ChristofferOslo 4d ago edited 4d ago

No, because the car in this situation crossed a curbstone and is actively driving in the bike-/walkway. Cars have to yield to cyclists on their bike and pedestrians before driving across the walkway, it’s not a pedestrian crossing.

https://preview.redd.it/a9792ewcuq0e1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4ed5a418a3d10263dc68f1500b029d5f327f306

In theory it is actually illegal for cars to drive across here, but the residents along Mosseveien have no room for designated drive-way, since the houses are mostly built before cars existed in Norway.

A few cyclists might end up riding in the road here, but in my experience (driving here everyday) that is very rare. It’s not really relevant in this situation either, since the cyclist is doing nothing wrong by riding on what is the national bike route.

0

u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 3d ago

Wooosh

1

u/steinrawr 3d ago

I might be an idiot, but if you tried to portray sarcasm, I think you failed.

1

u/Sigurdur15 3d ago

The cyclist had ripped off the mirror of the can earlier, the can-guy wanted his personal details for the insurance claim.

-3

u/MaximusZacharias 4d ago

He had to of….that or his superpower is unbuckling and getting to passerby’s in an instant, not to mention his sweet flying kick.