Advocacy & Safety - Interesing Road Rage Article

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

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

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by livngood
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.



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???

This post sure as heck DOES belong here.

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.

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.

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.

http://sf.indymedia.org/


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

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

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.

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.

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?

Originally posted by 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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Originally posted by RareVos
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.

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by livngood
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.

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.

Originally posted by Omalley21145
I think livngood is the crazy woman that ran into the biker

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.

Originally posted by 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.


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..

Originally posted by 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.

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.


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?"

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.


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

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.

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.

Originally posted by 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.

Please point out the phony arguments so that I might better understand your point of view?

By the way, I've been hit by motorists three times in the last 20 years -- none fatal.

Ladies and gentlemen, can we all take a moment to look at livngood's post objectively? The author of this article was clearly trying to push an agenda, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, or doesn't necessarily make it any different from any other news source (apart from which agenda they are trying to push), does it really give us an accurate reflection? It's funny how all of the anti-cycling articles from other media organisations mentioned on this forum end up being accused of bias - but nobody seems to think that it can happen the other way.

That said, I don't believe that somebody "holding up traffic" provides any excuse for using a car as a weapon. Whether the cyclists were protesting or even acting lawfully isn't the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. I, for one, get a little tired of hearing motorists take the law into their own hands in regard to cyclists, then blaming the cyclist for it. If I did that to somebody walking down the street on equal terms I'd get arrested immediately.

If this woman has a problem with the behaviour of these cyclists, she should call the cops and let them deal with it. It's not up to her to take the matter into her own hands and threaten/injure someone as a result.

Well said Chris!

originally posted by livngood
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?


Originally posted by Chris L


That said, I don't believe that somebody "holding up traffic" provides any excuse for using a car as a weapon. Whether the cyclists were protesting or even acting lawfully isn't the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. I, for one, get a little tired of hearing motorists take the law into their own hands in regard to cyclists, then blaming the cyclist for it. If I did that to somebody walking down the street on equal terms I'd get arrested immediately.

If this woman has a problem with the behavior of these cyclists, she should call the cops and let them deal with it. It's not up to her to take the matter into her own hands and threaten/injure someone as a result.
Unless I'm mistaken this was the WHOLE POINT behind RareVos posting this article. The fact that it was some peacenik who got hit is besides the point. As is the M/B SUV, and so is the fact that she was was a rich white woman. It could, just as easily, have been Ollie North getting pegged by an impoverished Puerto Rican male driving a Geo Metro. The fact that they were protesting shouldn't have anything to do with it. Would it make a difference to you if a Flag-waver got nailed?


again from livngood
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

A vehicle is a DEADLY WEAPON because it has the potential to kill. Striking someone with intent to do so (whether it causes injury or not) is ASSAULT. Add the two together and you get ASSAULT with a DEADLY WEAPON. Take your political views out of this [which by your post linvngood appears to be a motivation] and view it for what it is: an account of an incident that may well have occurred exactly as it was written. The fact is we'll never know because the cops in the article would definitely follow procedure CYA and make the whole thing disappear and also due to the fact that no "mainstream" media source would dare touch it, much less investigate further.

Would we doubt amerpie if he got hit in the same situation? How about Garbear? *

What makes people assume that because the author decided to remain anonymous that he's a liar? None of you here know MY name (except A2 and he only knows my nickname) and in the past I have been one anti-war, anti-SUV, leftist Libertarian SOB.

So, I am left to assume, that if I'm on a ride and my friend gets hit in a similar fashion to what's portrayed in the aforementioned article and I come HERE to my FRIENDS to vent, to make the story known and perhaps to educate those who are unfamiliar with the way things are supposed to work, I will be judged a LIAR? Because I'm all the things I've mentioned? Because I'm a cyclist and that fact makes me biased? Or is it simply because you don't know my name? This guy decided to speak out in a public forum how would it be different than me posting here?

*My apologies for using amerpie and Garbear as my examples. I needed two diametrically opposed personalities from this Forum that most of us would be familiar with.

Now that I've said what I felt I needed to say, those that don't like it feel free to hit the ignore tab but remember one thing, I don't care who you are if you get hit I'll listen.
edit: various typos and adding little snippets

posted by livngood in another thread
This is the same, baseless argument used by most motorists. Again, bicycles are allowed by law to use most public roads, excluding limited access freeways (with some exceptions, such as along I-5 past Camp Pendleton, CA) and motorists MUST yield right of way and may only overtake a cyclist when it is safe to do so. Cyclists are NOT obstructions, they are legal road users.
And yet here you are making a case that because these folks happend to be protesters THEY are automatically going to start fabricating stories.

I read the info on that link you posted it still doesn't change the fact that ASSAULT with a DEADLY WEAPON is illegal. Regardless of the cyclists political intentions the woman involved commited a crime, and for that she should be punished. If the protesters engaged in an illegal activity then they should have been removed / charged whatever based on a complaint from a third party.

Originally posted by Raiyn
Take your political views out of this [which by your post linvngood was a motivation] and view it for what it is: an account of an incident that may well have occurred exactly as it was written.

No, political views have nothing to do with it. Getting the story straight is because too many cyclists and friends have been hit by cars and contrived events make a mockery of responsible advocacy efforts to correct the conditions and attitudes that continue to be the cause of many of the accidents. Over the past 18 months eight friends or people who we have often times ridden with were hit by motorists; two of them were killed. They weren't doing anything wrong -- just riding their bikes on public roads following both the letter and spirit of the law.

-- Bruce & Judy were riding their tandem in North Carolina and sideswiped in Fall 2001 and have just now started able to ride a bicycle again.

-- Smith and Claude were riding their tandem in North Carolina and were rear-ended by a motorist on a phone last Summer and just began riding again in January: http://WeTandem.tripod.com/Photos/Wreck/Wreck.htm

-- Rodney was riding the southern Transcontinental route and sideswiped by a tractor trailer and spent a week lingering in critical condition before beginning a long and slow recovery.

-- Maureen was on a regular Thursday night ride and a car turned left in front of her. Her injuries were fatal and she passed from us several days later in a hospice.

-- David was Cat 1 Pro racer who was riding home from work and stopped along side the road to adjust something. A motorist who was DUI and on the phone swerved off the road at the very spot David was standing - he died at the scene.

-- John is a 16 year old Jr. racer on our local team. A motorist turned left into him while he was out on a training ride on November 18 and it is a miracle that he was not killed. His arm and leg were severly broken and he is still recovering.

There are far too many details in this account that don't add up to the conclusions you and many others are drawing from only one biased, highly motivated individual with an agenda and enough knowledge about the law to be dangerous. You assume there was an assault because that's how it was portrayed in one article. We'll lets look at just a few of the the possible scenarios:

1. The motorist was a crazed lunitic who just snapped and decided to ram a cyclist on purpose just as described by the writer.

2. The motorist was following too closely which does put them at fault; however, rather than raming the cyclist as the writer implies the cyclist locked up his brakes in an effort to "scare" the motorist and got more than they bargained for -- but bailed off the front of the bike once they realized it because they were looking backwards instead of forwards and could see it coming. Were there skid marks for both the front and back wheel just before or at the point of impact -- it's not mentioned but probably an unimportant detail.

3. The motorist was caught behind the group, trapped in the lane and trying to merge into the left lane which was clogged with traffic also trying to move past the demonstration and the rest of the events played out as outlined above while the motorist was distracted. Again, as in 2 above, the motorist is still be in the wrong for following too closely.



So, what I'm left with is at least a sense that there are enough missing details to raise reasonable doubt as to the behavior of the cyclist not being a significant factor in this accident -- and that's a lot different than what has happened to me and the people who I know or knew.


[i]Originally posted by Raiyn
A vehicle is a DEADLY WEAPON because it has the potential to kill. Striking someone with intent to do so (whether it causes injury or not) is ASSAULT.

No argument. But you don't have enough information from this incident to draw that conclusion unless you're predisposed to want to accept it as the truth and to otherwise ignore many other details that don't pass scruity -- like why the police would also fail to take action as asserted.


Originally posted by Raiyn
What makes people assume that because the author decided to remain anonymous that he's a liar? None of you here know MY name (except A2 and he only knows my nickname) and in the past I have been one anti-war, anti-SUV, leftist Libertarian SOB.

Because being anonymous means there is no accountability for what is being said or written.

Originally posted by Raiyn

And yet here you are making a case that because these folks happend to be protesters THEY are automatically going to start fabricating stories.

I read the info on that link you posted it still doesn't change the fact that ASSAULT with a DEADLY WEAPON is illegal. Regardless of the cyclists political intentions the woman involved commited a crime, and for that she should be punished. If the protesters engaged in an illegal activity then they should have been removed / charged whatever based on a complaint from a third party. [/B]

And all I've been trying to say is that no one has enough information to draw any of these conclusions -- but for some strange reason several of you want to jump on board and run with this incomplete story as gospel and have tried and convicted the motorist without any consideration of due process or due diligence surrounding fact gathering.

My postings are consistent and do not pick and chose which parts of the laws to cite or obey on any given day or in a given situation.

Originally posted by livngood
We'll lets look at just a few of the the possible scenarios:

1. The motorist was a crazed lunitic who just snapped and decided to ram a cyclist on purpose just as described by the writer.

2. The motorist was following too closely which does put them at fault; however, rather than raming the cyclist as the writer implies the cyclist locked up his brakes in an effort to "scare" the motorist and got more than they bargained for -- but bailed off the front of the bike once they realized it because they were looking backwards instead of forwards and could see it coming. Were there skid marks for both the front and back wheel just before or at the point of impact -- it's not mentioned but probably an unimportant detail.

3. The motorist was caught behind the group, trapped in the lane and trying to merge into the left lane which was clogged with traffic also trying to move past the demonstration and the rest of the events played out as outlined above while the motorist was distracted. Again, as in 2 above, the motorist is still be in the wrong for following too closely.


Exactly... in all 3 scenarios the motorist SHOULD have recieved a citation for failing to give assured clear distance or failure to control. There are no circumstances that allow for a motorist to strike another vehicle. That being said...



No argument. But you don't have enough information from this incident to draw that conclusion unless you're predisposed to want to accept it as the truth and to otherwise ignore many other details that don't pass scruity -- like why the police would also fail to take action as asserted.


Maybe the police in this situation make a distinction between the tandem riders in cutesy matching spandex and:

Originally posted by livngood
protestors conducting a "march" on bicycles with the intent of drawing attention by disrupting traffic?


If we can agree that there are no circumstances in which a car should strike a cyclist... can we then agree that the Bike Not Bombs website is irrelevant? Honestly I think you have displayed some fairly prejudicial views concerning this event based soley on the fact that these cyclists were involved in a demonstration. And suggesting that a cyclist would contrive an event to be struck by a car is not only ridiculous but offensive.

I read the accounts of your friends that were struck by cars. As a cyclist I offer condolences. I can relate. I don't need 2 objective sources and corroboration because none of it happened like any of the accidents I've been in. I just hope that the next time you or I are hit by an agressive motorist that there are plenty of objective witnesses and journalists that meet your standards.

Actually, I'll just be happy if all the debris chucked at me this year misses... so far so good


:)

Let me start by stating that I believe we're closer to violent agreement on the issue of cyclist's rights than not, but still working through the noise level because of the "why" associated with this accident.


Originally posted by RareVos
Exactly... in all 3 scenarios the motorist SHOULD have recieved a citation for failing to give assured clear distance or failure to control. There are no circumstances that allow for a motorist to strike another vehicle.

If we can agree that there are no circumstances in which a car should strike a cyclist...

Almost, but not quite. If another motor vehicle or bicyclist fails to follow the rules of the road or otherwise operates their vehicle in an unsafe manner that results in an accident they can have shared or even sole responsibility for the accident. By all means, motorists should yield sufficient room and moderate their speed to allow for a reasonable amount of "what if" space to move if necessary. The latter is one of the things that hasn't been quantified in the story although it can logically be assume there wasn't enough room because there was a collision.


Originally posted by RareVos
can we then agree that the Bike Not Bombs website is irrelevant? Honestly I think you have displayed some fairly prejudicial views concerning this event based soley on the fact that these cyclists were involved in a demonstration.

To be clear, it's not relevant WHY they have chosen to act: I wouldn't care if it was to protest the war, fossil fuel consumption, voter rights or higher taxes. The only relevance of the BNB Web site is the open request for cyclists to "bring their anger and their bicycles" to intentionally disrupt traffic by using their bicycles as an instrument for civil disobedience -- a practice that is inherently dangerous. So, yes, you are correct that I am not a fan of this type of behavior BECAUSE it intentionally creates an unsafe condition for cyclists AND motorists.


Originally posted by RareVos
And suggesting that a cyclist would contrive an event to be struck by a car is not only ridiculous but offensive.

It's no more ridiculous or offensive than assuming the motorist intentionally ran down the cyclist. Not all people who ride bicycles are skilled cyclists or necessarily smart ones any more than all motorists are skilled drivers or stellar thinkers, so I cannot assume either was more at fault than the other without the facts to establish what actually happened and that is the very reason I offered the altenative and equally inflamatory scenarios.

If it could be proven the motorist intentionally ran into the cyclist I would agree that further action would have been expected from the police and would encourage the cyclist to pursue a civil action for aggravated assault. Likewise, if it were proven that the cyclist was operating their bicycle in an unsafe and reckless manner that ultimately contributed to the accident -- in part or in whole -- I would hope they'd be cited and held accountable as well. But, lacking sufficient information, I am unable to draw any conclusions on either's conduct or the appopriate consequences that caused the motorist and/or the cyclist to receive citations other than being viewed as "off-setting penalties". Police action does not mean the cyclist is without recourse -- civil actions are available IF they have a case.

Bottom Line: If the woman intentionally hit the cyclist she should suffer the consequences prescribed by law. If the cyclist created or contributed to the accident he should share in the consequences as prescribed by law. We don't have enough information from different points of view to know what happened and, therefore, are in no position to pass judgement.

As a personal observation on life, if you come across a story that enrages you or other wise causes a violent emotional response carefully consider the source and look for opposing views. I don't care if it's CNN, FOX, PBS' NewsHour, ABC or Al Jazier, the LA Times or WSJ. None of these outlets has a monopoly on the truth any more than your local paper or news outlets. Search for the truth, even if it doesn't make you happy or meet your expectations. If nothing else, taking time to do the research will also give you time to more clearly consider the issue and your points.

Peace

"By the way, I've been hit by motorists three times in the last 20 years -- none fatal." -livngood

....