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.

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.

@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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My point exactly.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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/

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

-mr. bill