RareVos

Taken from the I-BOB list, worth a read:

https://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1597741.php

Raiyn

It's so nice to know that we are making such progress in having our rights recognized

TandemGeek

I'm sorry, was this an article written about road rage directed at responsible cyclists utilizing public roads for transportation or protestors conducting a "march" on bicycles with the intent of drawing attention by disrupting traffic?

This posting does not belong under bicycle advocacy or safety... perhaps not even in this forum.

ChipRGW

I thought the article pretty clearly stated that they WERE following traffic laws and not disrupting traffic. There were lanes open for the cars to go around them.
My bike club will ALWAYS take the entire lane, if there are 2 or more. We often get harrassed by motorists that do not know or understand a cyclists rights on the road. There've been a few close calls, but fortunately no collisions, yet.
What they were doing on the bicycles is irrelevant to thier right to the road.

bac

From what I can tell by the article, these cyclists were doing both. The issue seems to be more with the "driver" of the M/B SUV that intentionally ran into the cyclist and wasn't cited for anything.

So, why does this post not belong here? I don't understand your logic???

Raiyn

This post sure as heck DOES belong here.

TandemGeek

First of all, do you always believe everything you read and assume it to be 100% accurate, particularly when the one doing the reporting has an agenda? I would have to read several different accounts of this story from all the witnesses before I could even begin to speculate on the truth about what happened.

Setting that aside, given the extenuating circumstances and tie-in with protesting, civil disobedience and what sounds to me like there is at least equal responsibility for creating a hostile situation, I find little if any bicycle "advocacy" or "safe cycling" messages to be learned from this.

In-your-face protests that use malicious compliance with laws established to protect cyclists is counterproductive to legitimate safe cycling agendas and safe accommodations for cyclists on our nation's roads.

Just my .02.

SamDaBikinMan

Officer J. Heredia, #70, claimed that "a bicycle is a motor vehicle", which is why it was "an accident". He stated that otherwise, they would have to investigate every motor vehicle collission as an assault or attempted murder. Of interest, a study by Right of Way in New York City, comparing thousands of cases, found that around 90% of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities involved aggressive driving.

Can this idiot point out the motor on a bicycle? He should be fired and the woman arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Time for Cyclists in SF to have a trip to city hall en masse until this woman is arrested and jailed with no bail.

TandemGeek

Y'all are pretty quick to jump to judgement on a single, anonymous account of an incident... Thank goodness we have a jury trial system in the US.

Anyone else happen to check out the rest of the Web site that published the anonymous author's "article"? No implication beyond my original comment concerning objectivity, agendas and carefully considering all the evidence before jumping to conclusions.

https://sf.indymedia.org/


Again, I maintain that this is a stretch for the bicycle advocacy and safety agenda.

Raiyn

Is this an alternate dimension or something? I actually agree with Sam on something remotely political? Oh the HORROR!

Raiyn

What's wrong livngood? You got a problem with their politics or something? If so too bad. This isn't the Political forum and dismissing this post on the grounds that it contains an article written by someone who holds a viewpoint different than yours is irrelevant. The point of the post is to draw attention to the PROBLEM of uneducated drivers and the FACT that cyclists have to FIGHT for thier right to use the road as perscribed by law. Now if you want to jump on a political soapbox go to the Politcal Discussion forum. Don't do it here.

TandemGeek

No, I have no problem with their [SF.indymedia] agenda. However, I'll say it again. You're reading one person's view -- someone who will not attach their real name to the article -- and there is sufficent reason to believe they have an agenda. That should raise a flag to any objective reader who has an interest in understanding all of the facts before jumping to conclusions. Part of any fact-finding on the Web is to drill up to the host Web site. It's an additional data point IF you're interesting in establishing the credibility of the information.

You will not find anything in my posts on this thread that do more than question the integrity of the article given the surrounding, politically charged topics which make for a dubious tie in with a bicycle advocacy and safety message.

To make an analogy, if I hand a loaded gun to a 5 year old and he shoots his 5 year old playmate would I be justified in writing an "objective article" about the problems with gun control and the tragic consequences?

Sorry, I'm just not predisposed to believe everything I read at face value. This one pegged the meter for it's dubious value to this sub-forum.

SamDaBikinMan

I cannot respond to any of this objectively because as a cyclist I am biased towards my fellow cyclist. I cannot see the poor ole misunderstood motorists right to run over a bicycle and get away with it scot free as an accident.

HMMM does that make me anti-motorist?

TandemGeek

No, but it will impair your ability to successfully engage public officials and the general public on bicycle advocacy matters.

If you want to make others know that you feel passionate about something that's very easy to do. However, extreme passion is sometimes mistaken as fanatical or radical behavior and that's very easy to dismiss and therefore generally ineffective.

Therefore, if you want to make an impact and influence change you MUST set aside or at least keep emotions in check and base your arguments on sound facts and supporting data.

If a cyclist is run down by a cyclist it's wrong. If a cyclist creates a situation in which they intentionally cause themselves to be hit by a motorist it becomes a different story. We don't know enough about what happend in SF to determine what actually happened.

See and read my previous discussion on the merits of what we have been presented with.

SamDaBikinMan

Mark, I do understand your position and respect it. I'd vote for you to represent us cyclists any day. I'mm too much of a bar room brawler type to handle the job. I'd just drag em out of the car and break bones to make my point.

TandemGeek

A little bit more about this "movement" from the BNB Group's Web site:
https://www.indybay.org/news/2003/03/1587194.php

RareVos

This thread wasn't about the "movement." This thread was about a cyclist getting hit from the rear by a car and the impotent, prejudiced handling of the event by the responding officer. Implying that the cyclist deserved it, or invited it... is paramount to saying a **** victim asked for it by wearing seductive clothing or just did it for the attention. Regardless... if you have an opinion about the movement it doesn't belong in this thread or forum.

TandemGeek

And you've been able to corroborate these facts from an unbiased, objective second source?

Well, I'll yield. Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I just have a narrow and isolated view on a cyclist's rights and responsibilities relative to integrating the operation of their bicycle with the US transportation infrastructure.

Please let me know if this approach to "bicycle advocacy and safety" ever succeeds in doing anything but driving an even larger divide between the average citizen and cyclists.

ChezJfrey

I believe that livngood's point is that the article was written from a tainted view and can not necessarily be taken as fact. We don't know if the cyclist was accidently hit from the rear by a car or if they swerved intentionally into traffic to "bring it to a standstill," as the movement evidently calls for. And we don't know the facts pertaining to the police response or whether they conducted, "impotent, prejudiced handling of the event."

The article may be entirely truthful and unbiased, but given the source, I tend to doubt it.

Omalley21145

I think livngood is the crazy woman that ran into the biker

RareVos

Your snobbery isn't lost on me. The contempt in which you hold the cyclists of this article was evident in your earlier posts. So really the patronizing wasn't necessary.

As the "bicycle advocacy and safety" Ambasador is this how you are working to unite the tribes of the cycling world? Or better yet... how far do you get in closing the divide between the cyclists and non when you refer to them as "average citizens?" Just curious...



I'm only asking since you have decided to advocate for some bicycling rights and safety monopoly of which I was unaware.

TandemGeek

Really? What have you gleaned from reading my thoughts on this serious subject that would lead you to that conclusion?

Please elucidate as to why:
1. You have concluded the woman mentioned in the subject article is "crazy"?
2. Why this crazy woman would list a man's name and locale near Atlanta, GA as their place of residence an even participate in this list?
3. Why you thought your post added value to the discussion?

Nothing personal, but if you can't respond to those questions in a cogent manner then I suggest you refrain from interjecting sophomoric quips in serious discussions and stick to the more light hearted topics.

RareVos

I would have liked to have seen this story on CNN Headline News. But, sadly, I don't think they are interested in covering that kind of story. I don't know why the Independent Media Center has to been portrayed as "tainted" beacuse they DO want to cover this kind of story. I know none of my local papers would care if a cyclist got rear ended by a vindictive driver who left unpunished. Maybe someday Viacom and TimeWarner will deem that newsworthy and then maybe it will be considered accurate and unbiased..

TandemGeek

It's not snobbery or contempt, it's a belief that there are two sides to every story and somewhere in between lies the truth. If you choose to see it as snobbery or contempt that's fine. I have read all of the material that the article had to offer and followed the suggested reading links. I stand by my observations based on what I have read. I have not offered any opinions that aren't substantiated by what the BNB has provided me with in terms of their instructions, photographs of their behavior and my knowledge of the motor vehicle laws of California where I lived for 10 years.

I do not claim to represent any views beyond my own and only offer suggestions regarding the nature of making persuasive arguments that can achieve some effect. I do not have any interest in uniting "tribes" since they all have different agendas. I have limited my discussion and views to the conventional dialog associated with bicycle advocacy as it relates to integrating safe accommodations for bicycles into the US road system. One of the tenants of that goal is that cyclists have a responsibility to operate their bicycles in safe and predictable manner and abide by the same of the rules of the road as all other "motor vehicles" with some exceptions relative to safety equipment (turn signals, brake lights, seat belts and rear view mirrors) and prohibited access to limited access freeways where so marked.

Average citizen -- which is not a derogatory or divisive term as I used it -- refers to the overwhelming majority of motorists who don't ride bicycles with whom we share the roads.

That you don't agree with me is fine. That the way I choose to express myself causes you to think I speak for a larger audience than one I can't help. I'm merely stating my views which have been pretty consistent for the last 30 years or so. It happens, you get old and you get set in your ways.

ParamountScapin 

When 'livingood' gets run into by a motorist I think I will be able to agree with all his phony arguments above about his particular accident. Please make sure you let us know if/when that might happen.