Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Truck Driver Could be Charged After Fight With Bicyclist (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/949515-truck-driver-could-charged-after-fight-bicyclist.html)

unterhausen 05-22-14 12:15 PM

there is no doubt that a lot of cyclists aren't defensive enough. I see this among cyclists I know that have tons of miles and should know better. That being said, it's really easy to armchair quarterback. A bike simply doesn't stop as fast as a motor vehicle. And if the motor vehicle gives the cyclist no room, the cyclist is going to hit something. A road user can't just cut another road user off and claim right of way, it doesn't work like that.

mconlonx 05-22-14 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16781456)
I personally ride further left...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 16781711)
I personally ride further right to discourage drivers...

Slow brain day and I'm not in one of those strange countries who drive on the left side of the road. Yes, further left to discourage motorists from doing dangerous things.

joeyduck 05-22-14 01:34 PM

@dynodonn and @FBinNY
I completly agree, he should have taken the whole lane, I would never put myself in that situation. If this is a regular route and technique, he has been asking for trouble.
And when given the chance I would move over and let him pass and pass it off as an ignorant driver.
@unterhausen
I do think that a bike can stop as fast if not faster than a car. I have never proven it, just personal experience.

I said a few weeks ago most people are not very good with situational awareness, nor common sense.

genec 05-22-14 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16782502)
This kind of stuff happens every day where I live. Mostly not motorist vs. cyclist, but motorist vs. motorist. The thing to keep in mind is that if someone cuts you off without causing an immediate crash, he's now in front and has the right of way. It doesn't matter how he got there anymore, you're the following vehicle and must accordingly.

nobody denies that there are jerks out there, but all road users have to decide where to go from there.

Sometimes life is like a football game. Player A commits a personal against player B, who retaliates. Who draws the penalty? 9 out of 10 it's player B, because the refs. weren't looking when it started.

As far as I'm concerned, if the worst thing that happens to me is getting cut off by a jerk in a pickup, I'm having a good day.

So in retaliating, what if it escalates... do we go to firearms and just clear the streets?

See this is why I hope this gets more coverage... and that the truck driver gets the ticket in the end... as he was player A and he was WRONG and the message needs to be out there that it ain't right.

FBinNY 05-22-14 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16782908)
So in retaliating, what if it escalates... do we go to firearms and just clear the streets?

See this is why I hope this gets more coverage... and that the truck driver gets the ticket in the end... as he was player A and he was WRONG and the message needs to be out there that it ain't right.

I think we agree that retaliation often leads to escalation. As I said, it takes two, and if one breaks off, that usually ends it.

BTW- yes the truck driver was wrong on multiple levels. There's no debate about that, and there's absolutely no debate on the malicious destruction of property, which was clearly intentional. Regardless of the traffic report, this needs to be pursued. I'm very old school "sticks and stones...." on this. Yell, curse, insult or whatever, all you want. That's free. But raise your hand, threaten with a weapon, or actually strike out against person or property and you've crossed the line and the state must make you pay.

I still don't understand the accident, even after watching the video a number of times. The truck definitely was in the wrong, and pushed the cyclist over. But clear of the bumper, and in the barrier zone to the right, the cyclist crossed back behind the truck. What confuses me is why would he do that coming to a stop sign? Had he not done that there wouldn't have been a collision.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-22-14 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16783074)
I still dont understand the acident, even after watching the video a number of times. The truck definitely was in the wrong, and pushed the cyclist over. But clear of the bumper, and in the barrier zone to the right, the cyclist crossed back behind the truck. What confuses me is why would he do that coming to a stop sign? Had he not done that there wouldn't have been a collision.

More on this incident at Driver assaults bicyclist, police ticket bicyclist: The video - Greater Greater Washington. In the comments sections several people reported viewing the bicyclist's Twitter feed, including one report:
"I looked at his Twitter feed, and as many noted in the last post, he often takes the opportunity to confront drivers over every and any infraction- there was debate over whether this was justified or in bad taste. I can't help but feel that the bicyclist was looking to get hit in order to reprimand the driver for cutting him off so dangerously. It's just a feeling and I wouldn't bet anything on it, but I'm wondering if others felt the same way. "
It would be interesting to see some of the video prior to what the bicyclist/photojournalist decided to post at Driver assaults bicyclist, police ticket bicyclist - Greater Greater Washington; his own choice language directed at the driver before the driver exited the vehicle does not make me think of the bicyclist as a blameless/innocent lamb in this encounter. His trip to an ER seems like a gratuitous attempt to dramatize the incident.

dynaryder 05-22-14 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsteepisit (Post 16781802)
I hope someone local can follow this to see if the video is used in court.

It's all over the local blogosphere:
Driver assaults bicyclist, police ticket bicyclist: The video - Greater Greater Washington
Video: Here's The Incident That Prompted Police To Ticket A Cyclist For 'Following Too Closely': DCist

The DCist comment section is comedy gold:
copperreddc
What kind of idiot uses only hand brakes?
No, that's what idiots who enjoy flying head over heels over the front have. You should have both types.

Jan
If you slam the rear brake, all you'll do is skid. If you slam the front brake, all you'll do is flip over. If you slam both, you'll flip over with a stopped rear wheel.

Pibber 05-22-14 04:54 PM

Dunno, looks to me as if the driver follows the line to the right and cuts off the rider, to me.

Dc drivers are horrible, and won't hesitate to drive that close to you and tell you what they imagine you're doing wrong. A week and a half ago I had two drivers in a row tell me I have to be in the bike lane while riding down a one way street on the left side. They didn't even think, for one second, that I may be taking the left at the next intersection. The second driver started yelling at me when I didn't just do as he said and swerved his car at me the drove off towards the red light where I passed him and hopped up the sidewalk because my nds crank arm was loose.

CB HI 05-22-14 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spivonious (Post 16782441)
It wasn't a brake check - he's stopped at a stop sign.

Of course it was a break check, the motorist cut the cyclist off and immediately hit the brakes hard. Why did the motorist end up right of the legal travel lane if he did not intentionally do a brake check?

If it was not a brake check, why did not motorist not just stop in a straight line to the left of the cyclist?

kickstart 05-22-14 11:06 PM

The comments were interesting to read for a while......

The one thing that has me puzzled, reaching out to touch a passing vehicle?
That seems incredibly stupid, it's just looking to get yourself hurt, or possibly even being misinterpreted by a motorist as a hostile act.

Don in Austin 05-23-14 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyduck (Post 16782751)
I do think that a bike can stop as fast if not faster than a car. I have never proven it, just personal experience.

That is false. A car has a low enough center of gravity that it will not roll end over end in a severe stop.

That endo factor severely limits a bicycle's stopping ability.

The car's stopping ability is only limited by traction. Long before you break traction on the front wheel of a bicycle you are going over the handlebars.

A recumbent might come close to a car's stopping ability.

Don in Austin

SevenSpokes 05-23-14 07:28 AM

Both the cyclist and the driver are aggressive. You've got a driver who seems to intentionally (or ignorantly) try to over run a cyclist, and then gets into a physical confrontation with the cyclist. Not nice, uncool. Someone needs some anger management and patience training.

On the other hand, you've got a cyclist who appears to be very aggressive in his quest to get motorists to stop passing him so closely. A look at the guy's Twitter feed and other Vimeo's shows months of ranting and videos of similar incidents that did not end so violently.

At the end there, he could have gone right, instead of left when he came in contact with the back of the driver's truck. Right or wrong, if some idiot buzzes me, I'm not getting any closer to him. A jerk of the steering wheel, and I could be under a wheel...

If you pick a fight with a bear (driving a car) enough times, eventually one is going to get out and bite you. Document, video, report.

dynodonn 05-23-14 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SevenSpokes (Post 16784470)

On the other hand, you've got a cyclist who appears to be very aggressive in his quest to get motorists to stop passing him so closely.

I had similar tactics some years ago, but after reviewing my videos I found that moving a few feet further to the left, depending on the situation/roadway that I was riding in/on, reduced a large number of close passes being made by motorists. An added note, my frustration/anger level diminished about the same amount as well.

spare_wheel 05-23-14 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spivonious (Post 16782441)
It wasn't a brake check - he's stopped at a stop sign.
Cyclist shouldn't be assaulted and have property damaged, but he also shouldn't have been so close to the truck.

The only mistake the cyclists made was not controlling the lane.

This cyclist was previously involved in a hit and run accident. Based on this experience I expect his behavior is based on a reluctance to be "human road kill".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/te...accidents.html

My typical response to raging by a wheel-sucking cager in a marked bike facility is to flip them off (often x2) and move right smack into the middle of the lane. Sharrows are their to indicate that cyclists *should not* cede their right of way. And cyclists who do so are, IMO, doing no one any favors.

FBinNY 05-23-14 12:10 PM

BTW- Something I was hoping someone would pick up and post about wasn't in the video, it was in the reporting. In summing up the "public education" about cyclists rights to the road, the reporter referenced the sharrows and said that these meant cyclists had the rights to the lane. Some could infer an "only" in that and not understand that sharrows or NOT, cyclists have he rights to the road anytime and anywhere except where it's clearly marked that they don't.

I wonder how many motorist viewers in that area now have the mistaken impression that they shouldn't expect cyclists on non-sharrow roads.

Metal Man 05-23-14 12:16 PM

Most news reports have errors in them. When speaking of sharrows it should be said that they are only there to remind road users of the rights of cyclists or to remind that the lane is too narrow to share.

FBinNY 05-23-14 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal Man (Post 16785506)
....When speaking of sharrows it should be said that they are only there to remind road users of the rights of cyclists or to remind that the lane is too narrow to share.

My point exactly.

Doohickie 05-23-14 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16782376)
And for those of you saying the cyclist could have done more to prevent this... sure... possibly... but bottom line is why should he have to?

So he can live peaceably with those around him. Just because someone else starts behaving badly doesn't mean you have to.

As for the cyclist getting a ticket? He did, in fact, rear-end the truck. A cop will give a ticket to a driver that rear-ends another vehicle 123% of the time. It's not an anti-bike thing; it's an anti-following-too-close thing.

Shawn Gossman 05-23-14 12:22 PM

I live in a very rural area where farmers and coal miners rule. We have a cycling paradise though so I am usually always to be found on rural highways roading it up... The biggest motor vehiclist problems I have is with semi-truck drivers... They will either get really close when they have plenty of room to give me space or they honk. I counter their actions now by having a big grin and waving at them as if I know them. One stopped and when I pulled over to see why, he closed his door and drove off... I guess objects appear smaller in his mirror before he sees a 6'5" redneck behind him :p

But now I smile and wave at all the road trolls. It really pisses a lot of them off but what are they gonna do? Hit me? lol

CB HI 05-23-14 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doohickie (Post 16785523)
So he can live peaceably with those around him. Just because someone else starts behaving badly doesn't mean you have to.

As for the cyclist getting a ticket? He did, in fact, rear-end the truck. A cop will give a ticket to a driver that rear-ends another vehicle 123% of the time. It's not an anti-bike thing; it's an anti-following-too-close thing.

By now, cops should know what a swoop and squat is. There was no justification for the cop writing a ticket before even talking to the cyclists, especially when there was video evidence available. Cop did a half-assed investigation and now the entire department gets to suffer the embarrassment.

CB HI 05-23-14 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16785191)
The only mistake the cyclists made was not controlling the lane.

This cyclist was previously involved in a hit and run accident. Based on this experience I expect his behavior is based on a reluctance to be "human road kill".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/te...accidents.html

And many here insisted that he should have been riding in the parking lane, weaving in and out, for that intentional hit and run.

Washington DC cyclists have my deepest sympathy. Even the most polite legal cyclist there get coffee, beer cans thrown, brake checked and repeatedly buzzed.

spare_wheel 05-23-14 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal Man (Post 16785506)
Most news reports have errors in them. When speaking of sharrows it should be said that they are only there to remind road users of the rights of cyclists or to remind that the lane is too narrow to share.


ODOT bike Manual:
Quote:

The symbol in the graphic to the right is a sharrow. it’s provided to show bicyclists where to ride on streets without bike lanes and to indicate to motorists where to expect bicyclists.
In every state I've lived in sharrows are positional indicators that are specifically meant to invalidate AFRAP laws.

dynaryder 05-23-14 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16786025)
There was no justification for the cop writing a ticket before even talking to the cyclists, especially when there was video evidence available. Cop did a half-assed investigation and now the entire department gets to suffer the embarrassment.

Why should he be embarrassed? He's just keeping it real in DC:
Cyclist Hit By Car, Issued Ticket in Rosslyn | ARLnow.com
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...u-are-a-biker/

mr_bill 05-23-14 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16786093)
ODOT bike Manual:


In every state I've lived in sharrows are positional indicators that are specifically meant to invalidate AFRAP laws.

We don't have AFRAP laws, *and* we have sharrows.

-mr. bill

Gothic Sunshine 05-26-14 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynaryder (Post 16783173)
copperreddc
What kind of idiot uses only hand brakes?
No, that's what idiots who enjoy flying head over heels over the front have. You should have both types.
Jan
If you slam the rear brake, all you'll do is skid. If you slam the front brake, all you'll do is flip over. If you slam both, you'll flip over with a stopped rear wheel.

What? It may just be my inexperience talking, but I haven't seen any bikes with both coaster and hand brakes on one frame. I typically use just hand brakes (yea, I know that's odd for a cruiser rider like me), and my rear wheels never come anywhere close to leaving the pavement, regardless of whether I trigger just one or trigger both at the same time.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.