No it's not. I'm not saying they should get on his tail and stop. Stopping behind the truck means they see him at a light they stop well back of him.
Originally Posted by sudo bike
Words are a response and if he heard them since he the driver was an idiot.....
By "not responding", I meant didn't physically respond to physical action by the driver.
I've made it clear that back off means stop on the road and let the driver drive off or to turn down another street or to turn around. Back off means don't get close to the driver.
Define "back off". If they were being harassed, and they didn't harass back, that sounds like "backing off" and trying to take the high road, to me.
That's the high road....
Except in this case the cyclists made it obvious they realized that he had done it on purpose.
Cyclists get buzzed. A lot. If I suspected every person who buzzed me was a lunatic getting ready to exit their vehicle and attack me, I wouldn't get very far. Throwing objects is thankfullt not common here, but it is in some locales, apparently.
Apparently not since the cyclists still rode towards him after he threw something at them and then stopped his vehicle and got out.
Indeed not, but when you are actually in the situation, you can usually read it better than someone reading sparse facts after-the-fact.
That's why I said it's all in how you write your statement. ;)
That's an assumption. For all we know he could've swung at the guy and hit the window. It could also be, as I noted, some people just have no experience with violence, and have a very hard time making themselves engage in even when necessary. People get panicky and do weird things.
"The man tried to grab me off my bike so I swung at him with my lock but I missed and hit the window of the truck."
No one stood up to him. He only got arrested later on because apparently someone managed to get his tag or someone knew who he was.
OTOH, a dangerous felon who has repeatedly attacked cyclists is now put away because someone stood up to him. He'd still be out there.
It's good that he's in jail and hopefully he will go away forever under the three strikes law but no one stood up to him. He almost got away with killing someone.
No. You're wrong. When it comes to the cyclists.
Look, for me, what this comes down to isn't should or shouldn't. It's who was at fault and who wasn't. Clearly, regardless of any of the decisions made by cyclists and how optimum they were, the driver is at fault. Full stop. Explaining away the drivers actions as being partially instigated by the cyclists is silly. All situations are, of course, a culmination of decisions and circumstance on either side... but that doesn't make a lick of difference when it comes to assigning fault for an incident. In this case, it is clearly the drivers fault, and that's really all there is to it.
The driver is at fault 100%.
But that doesn't excuse the cyclists making bad decisions that night.
I wish there was a better article on what happened and what the cyclists did or didn't do. We will probably have to wait for the court case.