Chris516

I was 'taking the lane' on a rural road that was two-lane blacktop with a double yellow line. As I approached a a small hill that had a bend, to the right, the female driver behind me honked, despite the obvious double yellow line. As I came over the small hill, the woman called me an a******. What's next.

politicalgeek

Turn the other check and keep on riding.

crhilton

I like those better than the ones where they try to inform you of the law. At least the people who call you names are obviously too stupid to be able to express themselves in a cogent way.

The ones who inform you of something just seem so obnoxious to me. There's something inside me that feels I have to respond, but my wit isn't nearly quick enough .

StrangeWill

Grenade through the window.

zonatandem

Just wave and pedal on!

frymaster

that's a total overreaction!


caltrops.

I-Like-To-Bike

1. Water to Blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats
4. Flies
5. Livestock Diseased
6. Boils
7. Thunder and Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the Firstborn

Any other questions?

Pig_Chaser

Death, Taxes, Ignorant motorists... accept it

As someone already said smile and wave is possibly the best response.

Longfemur

When you "take the lane", you better have a good reason to do so. Unless they happen to be cycling enthusiasts, drivers have never heard of this taking the lane concept. Taking the lane is good in theory, but it's only practical in traffic where the cyclist can go almost as fast as the cars can. I'm not sure a rural road would qualify. In some cases, if it's a narrow situation, you're safer to just wait until the traffic passes.

StephenH

You know, it's easy to complain about ignorant motorists, but I'm not aware of ANY on-going efforts to change the situation as a whole. Bicycle advocates work at it, but mainly reach cyclists. But I've never ever seen anything relating to safe bike riding or driving cars around bicycles except on bicycle websites or in literature given out at bike rides. They need to start putting bike-related safety info in with the water bills, on the driver's license test, maybe as a test to RENEW a lcense, even; put commercials on TV, whatever. But the message is simply not going out to the vast majority of non-cyclists, and it's no wonder they're ignorant of bicycle laws.

politicalgeek

Funny that the only slow moving vehicles expected to move over are bicycles. You don't see farm equipment pulling over, nor do you see Amish buggies pulling over. I don't disagree that you should have a good reason for taking a lane, but who are we to judge an individual's action when we aren't in the situation ourselves.

hunyak

Stephen,
You are unfortunately correct. We mostly "preach to the choir"...

genec

+1000.

I heard a series of commercials the other day on the radio... started with "save the water," "don't drink and drive, " and ended with "safe boating." Not once in my life have I heard, or seen anything that even suggests that cyclists have rights to the road. Even "share the road" signs are misinterpreted as being directed at cyclists...

Blue Order

You're implying that you were in compliance with the traffic laws, and she either doesn't know the traffic laws, or doesn't care what the traffic laws are.

The question is, were you complying with the traffic laws? Or was her assessment accurate?

st0ut

no thats not in question at all Blue.

Blue Order

Why not? If the OP was in violation of the law, the motorist was right. If the OP was following the law, the motorist was wrong.

It's the only question there is, actually.

st0ut

lets assume for the sake of argument your jurisdiction. (and the vast majority of laws are for cycelist to be on the road with some exceptions)

then the augument is did the motorist action result in a threat to the cycelist.. in which i would say yes.

Lets stop calling road rage, road rage and call it by what it really is assault with a vehicle with deadly intent.


When can another vehicle come along side another vehicle on a two lane road with a double yellow? that means the motorist crossed the double yellow. which is driving wrecklessally.

Rex G

I get some of these IGNERNT reactions from motorists when I am driving in my Jeep, simply because I believe in things like speed limits. For some unfathomable reason, motorists are much less ignernt when I am driving a white Crown Vic with big blue letters on the sides. "Ignernt" is a word down here in Texas, separate from ignorant.

Blue Order

You think a horn honk is assault with a vehicle with deadly intent?



Now, I won't say a honk can't be threatening, because it obviously can be, depending on the circumstances. But without something more than a push of the horn, you would get absolutely no traction on your "novel" legal theory, in any jurisdiction you choose.

By the way, last week i was taking the lane because the road conditions on that block made it unsafe not to take the lane. A car came up behind me, followed me for about half a block, then passed me and the driver gave a honk as it passed.

Was that "assault with a vehicle with deadly intent too"?

What exactly does the question of whether the motorist made an unsafe pass (or, for that matter, any of what you wrote above) have to do with my statement, which you take issue with? (Hint: absolutely nothing.).

Blue Order

Oh yeah, after he passed me, he got back in my lane and then flipped me off. Maybe I should have filed a complaint with the police about that bird, too.

Tabor

Every time you take the lane, people get more used to see cyclist taking the lane.

st0ut

You asked if the bicycelist or the mortoist was in violation of the law.

it is apperent that since the motorist crossed the double yellow line she was at fault. When there is NO evidance of the cycelist being in violation of any law. Yet you ask anyway

funny how you ignore certain facts to support your point.

st0ut

I ride with my son on the TAB. if a motorist uses there HORN or in anyway attempts to disturb the navigation of my bike by use of horn or simple physics and causes my son to to fall. I guess that is my fault? There should be no charge against he motorist?

In this case had there been another vehicle on the other side of the hill, would you then seek out the cyclist for 'causing' the accident?

Blue Order

It's apparent? Where did the OP state that the driver crossed the double yellow line? The post could certainly be taken to mean that the motorist crossed the double yellow line. It could also be taken to mean that the motorist passed after the no-pass zone. Either version is supported by the OP, because the OP is ambiguous, and yet you state as a "fact" that the motorist crossed the double yellow line. Interesting. Especially in light of your next comments:

Ignore "facts" that you've manufactured in your own mind? Guilty.

As you've said, there's no evidence that the cyclist violated any law. There's also no evidence that the cyclist was in compliance with the law. All we have is an ambiguous description of an encounter between a cyclist and a motorist. The cyclist could be in compliance with the law, or the cyclist could be in violation of the law. From the OP's description, we just don't know. Sure, we can fill in the blanks and make assumptions about what happened, based on our individual prejudices, but those assumptions aren't "facts."

So my questions still stand: Was the cyclist in compliance with the law? If so, the motorist was wrong. Was the cyclist in violation of the law? If so, the motorist was right.

Feathers

and if the driver had honked at three other cyclists that same day, it means that you would have survived a close brush with an almost-mass-murderer!