Advocacy & Safety - buzzed by 2 identical cars and people !!

It has been a strange few days...

It seems that lately, very similar cars have buzzed me ...

Last week, friday, on the way to work - a lady smoking a cigarette in a white hyundai sonata (older model) buzzes me, I catch up to her at the light and it goes like this:

me: You need to give bicycles 3 feet of space when you pass.
lady: you were in the road.
me: there is no bike lane, that is where I have to be.
lady: you need to be on the right of the white line.
me: you don't have the right to kill people with your car.
lady: ignores me.
me: you need to respect bicyclists, and you need to give 3 feet when you pass, its the law in florida. - and I ride off.


fast forward to this morning...... on the way to work again .

Same model hyundai (gold colored) and another lady in the car... I am making a left turn and she comes around the same turn and screeches the tires and crosses over from the inside to the outside lane in one shot ... those kinds of turns always scare me.. lol ..

I catch up to her at the next light, and she is the 2nd car in line on the right side... I pass, nobody coming, I go past the red light..

about 1/2 a block down, the car in front passes me safely, gives me 3 feet - no problem. Here comes the golden girl ... my entire body lights up with her headlight glare, I see her front headlight in my peripheral vision so I knew she was CLOSE ... she buzzes me fast and just as she passes I slammed my palm against her rear passenger window..

She gives me the finger and I give it back, - she merges onto the highway ramp.


F_CK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you should not have run the red light. Pissing people off isn't going to make them respect you.

Michael

Maybe you should not have run the red light. Pissing people off isn't going to make them respect you.

Michael


That has nothing to do with this particular situation.

I already spotted the lady driving erratically 2 blocks earlier... it is clear that she was in a hurry and didn't care to give me 3 feet instead she buzzed me.

duh !

its the law in florida


I go past the red light..

You expect motorists to obey the law, but you don't feel the need to do so yourself?

You expect motorists to obey the law, but you don't feel the need to do so yourself?


I don't see it that way for a few reasons:

#1. A car has more potential to cause injury/death than a bicycle.
#2. The degree of responsibility for a car driver is higher than for a bicycle driver (see reason #1).
#3. I think that it is safer for me to cross an intersection where most cars are stopped... =)

From my vantage point, I can easily see if there are cars coming into an intersection and if it is safe for me to proceed even if my lane has a red light... How I treat a given intersection depends on the circumstances, I don't just run straight into a busy intersection when the light is red.. << sheesh.

I'm not a kamikazee cyclist like some other people out there...

I'm not a kamikazee cyclist like some other people out there...

I didn't mean to imply that you were.

As you suggest, what's safe and what's legal are not always the same thing.

However, I figure if I'm going to tell people to respect the law, I'll have much more credibility if they don't see me breaking the law two minutes later. I realize that this particular motorist likely wouldn't respect you either way. Still, as cyclists, I don't see how we can expect mortorists to comply with traffic laws when we use a cafeteria approach, picking and and choosing which laws we want to obey. I don't think we can have it both ways.

man, these stories always get my heart going.

man, these stories always get my heart going.


I agree !!!

I don't see it that way for a few reasons:

#1. A car has more potential to cause injury/death than a bicycle.
#2. The degree of responsibility for a car driver is higher than for a bicycle driver (see reason #1).
#3. I think that it is safer for me to cross an intersection where most cars are stopped... =)

From my vantage point, I can easily see if there are cars coming into an intersection and if it is safe for me to proceed even if my lane has a red light... How I treat a given intersection depends on the circumstances, I don't just run straight into a busy intersection when the light is red.. << sheesh.

I'm not a kamikazee cyclist like some other people out there...

But you still broke the law, too.

She had no right to buzz you.

You had no right to run the red.

I write the laws on an index card and hand them out. Seems more effective than telling them.

Of course yeah telling someone to respect the same laws you broke is well not a good thing.
Lastly becarefull these people might be commuters themselves and you will be getting a daily buzz.

I detect a case of " closet cager ".

LOL

I detect a case of " closet cager ".

LOL
I am not laughing. More like your looking for a fight.

... F_CK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup yup... feel for ya...

Still, as cyclists, I don't see how we can expect mortorists to comply with traffic laws when we use a cafeteria approach, picking and and choosing which laws we want to obey. I don't think we can have it both ways.

Wow, you really took me back, Chocula. When I was 15, I attended a Mass given by John Paul II, who said basicially the same thing about American Catholics. He gave me all the encouragement I needed - I got the heck out!

That said, I do agree with you regarding picking and choosing traffic laws. Then again, I am a Rules Fetishist. ;) I don't think it at all related to Closet Cager Syndrome.

It has been a strange few days...

It seems that lately, very similar cars have buzzed me ...

Last week, friday, on the way to work - a lady smoking a cigarette in a white hyundai sonata (older model) buzzes me, I catch up to her at the light and it goes like this:

me: You need to give bicycles 3 feet of space when you pass.
lady: you were in the road.
me: there is no bike lane, that is where I have to be.
lady: you need to be on the right of the white line.
me: you don't have the right to kill people with your car.
lady: ignores me.
me: you need to respect bicyclists, and you need to give 3 feet when you pass, its the law in florida. - and I ride off.
Moron Cager. You can train a chimp to drive a car. Some people lack that intelectual capacity.


fast forward to this morning...... on the way to work again .

Same model hyundai (gold colored) and another lady in the car... I am making a left turn and she comes around the same turn and screeches the tires and crosses over from the inside to the outside lane in one shot ... those kinds of turns always scare me.. lol ..

I catch up to her at the next light, and she is the 2nd car in line on the right side... I pass, nobody coming, I go past the red light..

about 1/2 a block down, the car in front passes me safely, gives me 3 feet - no problem. Here comes the golden girl ... my entire body lights up with her headlight glare, I see her front headlight in my peripheral vision so I knew she was CLOSE ... she buzzes me fast and just as she passes I slammed my palm against her rear passenger window..

She gives me the finger and I give it back, - she merges onto the highway ramp.


F_CK !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good on ya' for slapping the car. +1 I've been known to do that on my old commute. After I moved here, I've never felt the need to do that. Maybe now this pinhead knows to stay at least out of reach of cyclists.

Lastly becarefull these people might be commuters themselves and you will be getting a daily buzz.
If you get buzzed regularly by the same people, multiple calls to the authorities supplemented by evidence ain't a bad idea.

Pretty much without fail every conversation I have with someone about sharing the road with cyclists will come down to the fact that a lot of cyclists run stop signs and red lights. While I don't disagree with the reasons folks have for doing that, I do feel that it sends a message to drivers that we expect them to obey traffic laws but we don't have to do the same. And that perceived attitude makes it hard to have a constructive conversation about cyclists rights. No matter how strong of a point I feel I am making, the person I am talking to can't seem to get past the fact that some cyclists run red lights. So when it comes to traffic laws and there are people in cars around I do my best to follow the law. I imagine myself an ambassador of sorts. And that way I am hopefully decreasing the chances of someone using that dumb argument on me in the future.

Pretty much without fail every conversation I have with someone about sharing the road with cyclists will come down to the fact that a lot of cyclists run stop signs and red lights. While I don't disagree with the reasons folks have for doing that, I do feel that it sends a message to drivers that we expect them to obey traffic laws but we don't have to do the same. And that perceived attitude makes it hard to have a constructive conversation about cyclists rights. No matter how strong of a point I feel I am making, the person I am talking to can't seem to get past the fact that some cyclists run red lights. So when it comes to traffic laws and there are people in cars around I do my best to follow the law. I imagine myself an ambassador of sorts. And that way I am hopefully decreasing the chances of someone using that dumb argument on me in the future.

While I too also follow the law when it comes to traffic devices... the argument to take back to those motorists that rant about cyclists is two fold:

1. ask them if they indeed come to a complete stop at stop signs... and mention that most drivers do not actually stop... they can observe that behaviour at any local stop sign.

2. ask them just how much damage a cyclist running a red light is going to cause... compared to a motorist in a car.

They will probably then fall back on the road tax argument... "cars pay for the roads... " This too is not true. Homeowners pay for the roads.

They will then probably fall back on the argument that roads are designed for cars... The first roads were paved for bikes.

It goes on and on.... motorists have a thousand excuses, and most of them are just rumor and conjecture... and generally wrong.

1. ask them if they indeed come to a complete stop at stop signs... and mention that most drivers do not actually stop... they can observe that behaviour at any local stop sign.

I have hundreds of examples in video footage of motorist not stopping where required by law, some moving well over 15mph
Al

While I too also follow the law when it comes to traffic devices... the argument to take back to those motorists that rant about cyclists is two fold:

1. ask them if they indeed come to a complete stop at stop signs... and mention that most drivers do not actually stop... they can observe that behaviour at any local stop sign.

Excellent point. Valid.



2. ask them just how much damage a cyclist running a red light is going to cause... compared to a motorist in a car.


Irrelevant if we are talking about obeying laws. I have heard this argument before and it does not hold any water at all. The law does not read "red lights and stop signs are for those who might cause damage if they run them; those who think they cause none may feel free to run them." I ask you, how much damage does a cyclist cause to a pedestrian when they collide vs two pedestrians colliding? What causes damage is a matter of perspective.

A cyclist who rants about motorists breaking laws and breaks them himself is a hypocrite. A cyclist who wishes to rant about motorists being dangerous and then is safe himself is not. If the OP did not wish to appear a hypocrite, he should have informed the buzzing motorist that they were UNSAFE and ignored the aspects of the law that were broken by the motorist. This at least would have been consistent. I am aware that I am merging two separate instances, or at least talking about them together, but that is how they were presented to us here.



They will probably then fall back on the road tax argument... "cars pay for the roads... " This too is not true. Homeowners pay for the roads.

They will then probably fall back on the argument that roads are designed for cars... The first roads were paved for bikes.


or roman foot soldiers..... or someone even further back, NOT bikes.

What I don't get is why the heck does it matter to these people. All they have to do is go around you. Problem solved. Why they need to risk a brain aneurysm over such trivial matters is beyond my comprehension.

I detect a case of " closet cager ".

And you just displayed your true colors. Don't come out cry-babying about the big bad cars not playing nice when you can't display the same respect for the law that you expect from them.

And in the second incident, way to escalate a childish situation.

Irrelevant if we are talking about obeying laws. I have heard this argument before and it does not hold any water at all. The law does not read "red lights and stop signs are for those who might cause damage if they run them; those who think they cause none may feel free to run them." I ask you, how much damage does a cyclist cause to a pedestrian when they collide vs two pedestrians colliding? What causes damage is a matter of perspective.

The argument that a cyclist can cause very little harm may be true but the motorist,with the legal right of way, who the cyclist did not see when they ran the light, can cause a lot of damage when swerving to avoid taking out the cyclist. I'd sure hate to be the reason that a pedestrian got run over.

1. ask them if they indeed come to a complete stop at stop signs... and mention that most drivers do not actually stop... they can observe that behaviour at any local stop sign.

Here is what will happen, they will think back to all the stop signs they rolled through, then absolutely deny it. They will tell you they stop completely for all the stop signs.


2. ask them just how much damage a cyclist running a red light is going to cause... compared to a motorist in a car.

Look logic usually won't work in this cituation. They will sitll argue it's against the law, and if they have to do it so do the cyclists.


They will probably then fall back on the road tax argument... "cars pay for the roads... " This too is not true. Homeowners pay for the roads.

They will then probably fall back on the argument that roads are designed for cars... The first roads were paved for bikes.

It goes on and on.... motorists have a thousand excuses, and most of them are just rumor and conjecture... and generally wrong.
Yeah this is true. My favorite one was when some dumb ass honked at me. Then stopped few hundred feet in front blocking traffic. Started to scream at me saying I was stupid for ridding on the roads that it was too dangerous. Then somehow it got to the point of him threatening ot run me over if I get in front of his car again. Funny how these things work. I reported his ass to the police, I doubt anything came of it.

What I don't get is why the heck does it matter to these people. All they have to do is go around you. Problem solved. Why they need to risk a brain aneurysm over such trivial matters is beyond my comprehension.

Same here... I have a hard time comprehending the problem... even though I have seen it taken to the very extreme of someone very aggressively passing me with two car lengths to go... so they could get to a stop light just miliseconds faster.

I just don't understand the motivation or mentality that drives some of these motorists.

Excellent point. Valid.



Thank you



Irrelevant if we are talking about obeying laws. I have heard this argument before and it does not hold any water at all. The law does not read "red lights and stop signs are for those who might cause damage if they run them; those who think they cause none may feel free to run them." I ask you, how much damage does a cyclist cause to a pedestrian when they collide vs two pedestrians colliding? What causes damage is a matter of perspective.

A cyclist who rants about motorists breaking laws and breaks them himself is a hypocrite. A cyclist who wishes to rant about motorists being dangerous and then is safe himself is not. If the OP did not wish to appear a hypocrite, he should have informed the buzzing motorist that they were UNSAFE and ignored the aspects of the law that were broken by the motorist. This at least would have been consistent. I am aware that I am merging two separate instances, or at least talking about them together, but that is how they were presented to us here.


OK technically I fully agree with you... and it does piss me off to see cyclists (especially experienced cyclists) do this... it sets up a dichotomy of law abiding cyclists and law breaking cyclists. That dual image is just not good for the cycling community at large, as it allows motorists to "cafe pick" all the bad stuff and point at all of us.




or roman foot soldiers..... or someone even further back, NOT bikes.

Uh, I don't believe the roman roads were "paved" in the same fashion we now view as a "paved road." The roads were technically paved in that they were covered with a material, but that material would be quite unsuited for anything but fat tire bicycles:



...but when available, the roads are paved at least with gravel (Margary 21). Flint and other small, broken stones are also used to pave the road (Margary 21), and Adam says that sometimes slabs of stone are used (277), though this did not appear before the beginning of the second century B.C. (Adam 278). “A text of Livy gives precise information that in 174 B.C. roads had to be paved in towns, but simply surfaced with sand or pebbles on country sections” (Adam 278).

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/transport/Adam_Pawluk/Contruction_and_Makeup_of_.htm#Construction



The first road to be paved with asphalt was in Babylon between 625 and 604 B.C.

http://curbstone.com/_macadam.htm



The deplorable conditions of the nations roads became a great public concern in the late nineteenth century with the invention of the bicycle and later the motor car. In the early 1890's bicycle clubs in the United States pushed hard for road improvements. These efforts brought about the "National League for Good Roads" in 1892. Continued dissatisfaction with the conditions of the nations roads resulted in the creation of the "Office of Road Inquiry" by Congress in 1893.

ibid http://curbstone.com/_macadam.htm

Perhaps it is best to say: "The first roads in America were paved for cyclists... " obviously Babylon did not have bikes in 625 B.C.. :D

What I don't get is why the heck does it matter to these people. All they have to do is go around you. Problem solved. Why they need to risk a brain aneurysm over such trivial matters is beyond my comprehension.

*applause*

Perhaps it is best to say: "The first roads in America were paved for cyclists... " obviously Babylon did not have bikes in 625 B.C.. :D


LOL yep. But then, by now, you know that I am prone to being a smartass?