HH, not making driver education one of your priorities is akin to not making firearm safety a priority, instead teaching victims how to dress gunshot wounds.
My version:
If gun safety laws were like bike safety laws it would be illegal to stand in front of a gun.

no, i'm not worried.

i bring this newsstory to A&S as counterpoint to the often parroted 'just act like a vehicle and the drivers smile and wave' nonsense that gets bandied about in this forum by eager acolytes of the 'act like vehicles' camp.
Ok, but if at any time you begin to feel this thread not a good idea because of the case, please PM me or one of the other moderators. Just say the word and we will remove it.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/337174_roadrage29.html

The motorist started his rage on me because "I was in the middle of the lane."

I wonder how it is that all the pontificating A&S armchair safety mavens that purport 'just act like traffic and the drivers smile and wave' don't encounter motorists like this jackstrap? I bet these motorists are out there in EVERY city, just fuming at bicyclists that take the lane.

I suspect the A&S head VC nanny must be riding around in packs of LCI groupies, or driving his car as if it were a bicycle. both would tend to insulate a 'bicyclist' from encounters with

.......the Ragin' cagers.

Its not that this never happens when you ride VC. Its that your safer. I would rather have some dumbass honk at me then right hook me.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/337174_roadrage29.html

The motorist started his rage on me because "I was in the middle of the lane."
I read the article, and there is no excuse for the motorist's behavior. Even the newspaper is on your side.

I'm sympathetic to your situation. I hope I never have that kind of experience.

Exactly. Lead by example. Act like a vehicle driver when riding your bike. okay, and I was, and the driver decied to totally disrespect my lane position and harass me with his vehicle.



But I think it's important to understand that the idea that we're not supposed to be "out there" is a widely held notion, and that good well-meaning people may think that way. Be understanding that they think they're being Good Samaritans when they honk and yell at us - from their perspective, they're teaching us an important lesson, a lesson that might save our lives. You don't have to agree with them to respect their right to be so mistaken in their beliefs.

So 'the notion' bikes are not supossed to be in the road is a widely held notion? correct. who's manifesting 'the notion'? the motorists, not me bicycling.

you think the driver was trying to be a good samaritan? what a load of crap. he was deliberatly trying to hit me with his vehicle. And I'm supossed to respect his mistaken belief about bikes in the road?

with all respect, head, you need to stop sympathizing with the motorists.

of course, it seems like you DO do a lot of motoring.

The notion starts with motorists and is perpetuated by the misstatements of law enforcement officers like Lt. Kruger. You should be glad Lt. Kruger wasn't one of the Seattle officers who responded to your incident, Bek, hopefully they treated you well?

Those of us who are ragin' cajuns are offended by your thread title.

le bon temps rouler, schumacher.

comparisions to cajun culture and raging motorists is pure artistic license and I mean no disrespect :D when I coined the phrase 'ragin' cagers'.

wasn't the Ragin Cajun one of Paul Prudhomme's restaurants?

le bon temps rouler, schumacher.

comparisions to cajun culture and raging motorists is pure artistic license and I mean no disrespect :D when I coined the phrase 'ragin' cagers'.

wasn't the Ragin Cajun one of Paul Prudhomme's restaurants?
Tongue firmly in cheek here, Bekologist. Indeed, as you leave the burbs, you discover our cagers are as ragin as anyone's.

For the motorist to follow you and intimidate you is clearly wrong . . . also wrong and ignorant for him to be honking and screaming from his car.

. . . but, just for my personal clarification, how wide was the lane? Is the bridge one lane in each direction or more than one lane?

Again, I won't challenge your right to take the middle of the lane, but, if it is of ample size that a car can pass you safely, I'm not certain why you would pick that fight.

Of course, OTOH, if it's really too narrow for a car to pass a bike, then, that is another story altogether.

Also, I'm curious as to how the police came to be involved. Did you call them, the driver, or a witness?

We still have heard little in the way of first person detail . . . with no explanation as to the reason(s) why?

Surely, it cannot compromise the possibility of legal action for you to state to us, Bek, that you are, by design, going to forgo sharing of your first person view of the events as they unfolded.

So, can you share or not . . . and, if you cannot share, I'm wondering why you posted the thread in the first place.

Caruso

our cagers are as ragin as anyone's.

:beer:

For the motorist to follow you and intimidate you is clearly wrong . . . also wrong and ignorant for him to be honking and screaming from his car.

. . . but, just for my personal clarification, how wide was the lane? Is the bridge one lane in each direction or more than one lane?

Again, I won't challenge your right to take the middle of the lane, but, if it is of ample size that a car can pass you safely, I'm not certain why you would pick that fight.

Of course, OTOH, if it's really too narrow for a car to pass a bike, then, that is another story altogether.

Also, I'm curious as to how the police came to be involved. Did you call them, the driver, or a witness?

We still have heard little in the way of first person detail . . . with no explanation as to the reason(s) why?

Surely, it cannot compromise the possibility of legal action for you to state to us, Bek, that you are, by design, going to forgo sharing of your first person view of the events as they unfolded.

So, can you share or not . . . and, if you cannot share, I'm wondering why you posted the thread in the first place.

Caruso

Fremont Bridge is two lanes in both directions, if I am not mistaken. It's a drawbridge ( double leaf bascule, just in case anyone wants to know), so it does not have a solid base, but rather, deck grating. It's very dangerous, especially in wet weather, but the alternate choices are almost non-existent. I don't believe that it is legal to make lane changes on the bridge (I could be wrong, I haven't been on Fremont Bridge in many years). The lanes are very narrow, and it is not possible for a car to go around a bicyclist.

East Hill

The Fremont Bridge is two lanes, motorist began harassing me even before the bridge deck, he wanted me 'on the sidewalk'. I choose to ride the bridge deck (act like traffic) so I don't have to deal with merging into traffic from the sidewalks (hazardous), and peds and bikes on the walkway. It's legal to ride on the bridge deck. most bicyclists do use the walkway. - It IS possible for vehicles to go around a bicyclist on the bridge approaches, there are two full lanes-

Caruso, I HAVE shared. a road rage I was involved in made the news. Get it?

the particulars are not that important; I share this as counterpoint to the often parroted 'just act like traffic and the drivers smile and wave' nonsense that gets bandied about in this forum by acolytes of the 'act like vehicles' camp.

Now the problem here is that IMO driver certification in this country is borderline criminal. Drivers ed. is a joke, and pretty much any idiot with 2 brain cells can get a license. Heck my SCUBA certificatio was taken more seriously.

I agree with your general point regarding standards to obtain a license. My inclination is to support tougher licensing standards and stiffer penalties for driving without a valid license.

I recall that licensing standards--and their enforcement--across counties vary considerably. A few driving fanatic buds have described evidence concluding that better driver education does result in better driving--shocking, I know--and other positive externalities such as lower insurance premiums. I have never verified this on my own.

My understanding is that SCUBA can be quite dangerous. Particularly to the uninformed. That along with SCUBA being an activity of enthusiasts might explain the higher standards.

If this cager doesn't get at least a suspended license, the legal system is screwed up. The fact that witnesses confirm the cager was trying to assault him with a 4,000 lb vehicle is serious business. It could be attempted murder, although it looks like he didn't follow through with it. :D.

How did the news media get involved in this story?

Don't know. Somewhow, the reporter found out about it (not from me) and found it newsworthy. Seattle is in the midst of making the city more conducive to bicycling, and perhaps the new sharrows painted on a road- sharrows that pits bicycling advocates at odds with (some of) the property owners along Stone Way made it newsworthy.

the particulars are not that important; I share this as counterpoint to the often parroted 'just act like traffic and the drivers smile and wave' nonsense that gets bandied about in this forum by acolytes of the 'act like vehicles' camp.

I'm afraid I must be missing the point. Just because you act like a road user means you receive road rage?
o __o ?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/337174_roadrage29.html

I'm impressed. Around here, a 50 person protest against the war and calling to Impeach Bush barely got as much coverage.

okay, and I was, and the driver decied to totally disrespect my lane position and harass me with his vehicle.
I'm just saying he probably honestly felt you should not be there for your own good.



So 'the notion' bikes are not supossed to be in the road is a widely held notion? correct. who's manifesting 'the notion'? the motorists, not me bicycling.
The vast majority of cyclists out there support the notion in the way they ride and in the way they promote "the need" for segregated space for bicyclists.


you think the driver was trying to be a good samaritan?

I think it's likely that was part of his motivation, at least initially. I ask again: how did you react when he initially honked and yelled, "You're giving bicyclists a bad name"? Just those words alone indicate he was probably simply trying to get your attention to give you what he probably believed was good and relevant information.


what a load of crap. he was deliberatly trying to hit me with his vehicle. And I'm supossed to respect his mistaken belief about bikes in the road?

How does someone deliberately trying to hit [a cyclist] with his vehicle fail to do so? Are you saying he tried to hit you, and missed? How does he do that when you're in the middle of the lane right in front of him? That's pretty incredible, Beck. I must be missing something. If so, what is it?

I've been thinking I should put a PA in my car, then when I see people biking, while I'm still far enough back it's not going to scare the ***t out of them, I can call out "on your left". Then they should be pretty sure they're safe. :D

Instead put your left turn signal on and stay well back. This is one of the best communication methods motorists give me to let me know they see me, desire to pass and want to be cooperative.

Al

I had aggressive rude drives treat me badly when I am going speed limit or less with excessive tail gaiting, honking and arm waving and finger signalling more times when driving a motor vehicle than a bicycle. I've also had more lifetime miles driving a motor vehicle. In a motor vehicle however I've never had a driver try to run me off the road.
Al

"Some businesses, though, are concerned about the loss of traffic in the area with the addition of bicycle lanes."

What???

Didn't you know that people that ride bikes are poor idiots who don't like to spend money cause they are too cheap.

"Some businesses, though, are concerned about the loss of traffic in the area with the addition of bicycle lanes."

What???
I think what they mean by "traffic" in this case is pedestrian traffic comprised of potential customers, and they are assuming that installation of bike lanes often removes onstreet parking, thus reducing customer traffic. They probably also believe that installation of bike lanes does not increase bicycling traffic, at least not enough to offset the loss in customer traffic due to the removal of the onstreet parking.

I'm just saying he probably honestly felt you should not be there for your own good.
Really?... Really???

How does someone deliberately trying to hit [a cyclist] with his vehicle fail to do so?
Bicycles are more maneuverable than cars.

Rednecks trying to hit animals in the road often miss.

Really?... Really???


Bicycles are more maneuverable than cars.

Rednecks trying to hit animals in the road often miss.
Sure, animals traveling perpendicular to the road can be challenging to hit. But a bicyclist riding along your course right in front of you in the center of your lane? And if he was deliberately trying to hit him, why bother instructing him first, with "You give cyclists a bad name"?

"You give cyclists a bad name, so I'm going to run you over." I'm sorry, but that version of the story is incredible.

And if he was deliberately trying to hit him, why bother instructing him first, with "You give cyclists a bad name"?
Only a fool looks for reason within the chambers of the human heart.

btw, Helmet Head, I think it's rather telling that you would dismiss two eyewitnesses' (cyclist, and bystander) account, in favor of your own imagination's ramblings.

btw, Helmet Head, I think it's rather telling that you would dismiss two eyewitnesses' (cyclist, and bystander) account, in favor of your own imagination's ramblings.
The only thing I dismissed was Beck's assumptions about the motorist's initial intent, since those assumptions contradict the rest of the account.

The only thing I dismissed was Beck's assumptions about the motorist's initial intent, since those assumptions contradict the rest of the account.
How do they contradict the rest of the account?

Deliberately "near-missing" someone, and deliberately trying to hit someone (but missing) are both the products of an irrational thinking, no? Why do you assume that the driver must be a logical decision-maker? Modern psychology clearly shows that humans do not operate logically. Add road rage to that, and you have no evidence to suggest that it is too incredible to believe that a driver would shout at you, and then try to hit you.

How do they contradict the rest of the account?

Deliberately "near-missing" someone, and deliberately trying to hit someone (but missing) are both the products of an irrational thinking, no? Why do you assume that the driver must be a logical decision-maker? Modern psychology clearly shows that humans do not operate logically. Add road rage to that, and you have no evidence to suggest that it is too incredible to believe that a driver would shout at you, and then try to hit you.

I've been trying to tell him that for 2 years... he still thinks logic works for motorists... motorists who more likely than not bought their vehicle based on emotion. ;)

Sorry, I'm bowing out of this thread. Something just doesn't seem right. We get reports of a news account covering the conclusion of this encounter, but the victim can't speak to sincere questions about the details leading up to it - 'cause the purpose of the thread is something other than the relating of the incident. I get it, Bek.

I'm a musician - I know all about counterpoint. As it relates to this incident and the "just act like traffic and drivers smile and wave" business. . . well, I am just not interested in that debate.

Frankly, if there is a walkway on which it is legal to ride, and if traffic was heavy, and if there is not the possibility of allowing cars to pass, and if this is a long bridge (most of ours around here are a mile or more long), I don't see much sense in dealing with the hassle that is bound to ensue when you back up traffic for that distance so you don't have to deal with the aspect of merging at the opposite side.

As a cyclist, even as a cyclist, I might, in my car, become outraged to be stuck behind a cyclist crossing a long bridge taking up the lane when an alternative path is available. Showing folks that I have the right to slow them down when other routes equally convenient to me are available is not the brand of advocacy to which I subscribe, and, in my view, harms our cause far more than not putting a foot down at a stop sign.

Around here, on the interstates, steep grades often have an extra lane for trucks to use since they cannot maintain speed up those grades. Those lanes aren't provided because faster drivers perceive that it is illegal for trucks to grind up hills at a slow pace . . . they are provided to enhance safety and accommodate different types of vehicles. Seems to me that the same sort of thinking would apply in this situation.

Take the lane when there is no other safe alternative. Be considerate and accommodating when alternatives exist that do not compromise your riding safety or experience. If you have other choices, why would you want to risk riding on metal grating in front of a long line of traffic (ok, maybe it wasn't a long line, perhaps the aggressor was the only car present)? To me, this is the wrong battle in the right war.

That said, nothing excuses the level to which the motorist allowed his anger to rise. Nothing.

Caruso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_(Seattle) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_%28Seattle)

Edit: Fixed the bad link. Sorry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_(Seattle)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fremont_Bridge-4.jpg

Uh, did you check the link... it is one of those incomplete pages from Wiki... Oh well.

How do they contradict the rest of the account?
There is no evidence that the initial contact (a honk and yelling "you're making cyclists look bad") was hostile.


How do they contradict the rest of the account?
Deliberately "near-missing" someone, and deliberately trying to hit someone (but missing) are both the products of an irrational thinking, no?

That was two streets after the bridge. What I wrote was: "The only thing I dismissed was Beck's assumptions about the motorist's initial intent, since those assumptions contradict the rest of the account." What transpired after the incident escalated some time later is another matter altogether.


Why do you assume that the driver must be a logical decision-maker? Modern psychology clearly shows that humans do not operate logically. Add road rage to that, and you have no evidence to suggest that it is too incredible to believe that a driver would shout at you, and then try to hit you.
Why do you assume that I assume that the driver must be a logical decision-maker? Ground squirrels are not logical decision-makers, yet we use logic and reason to study, analyze and understand their behavior. Same with ragin' cagers.

Whether he actually tried to hit Beck two streets later is another matter (which I doubt as well, for for different reason - mainly because he failed to hit Beck). My main contention has to do with what happened initially, while they were still on the bridge. There is no evidence that the driver tried to hit him there, and plenty of evidence that he did not try (the bulk of which is that it would be hard to miss if he were really trying).

Freemont was so much nicer before they built all those new fugly buildings along the waterfront on either side of the bridge. Did they build over the spot where the Freemont market used to be, also?!?!?

Uh, did you check the link... it is one of those incomplete pages from Wiki... Oh well.
The URL is incomplete (missing closing paren), not the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_(Seattle)).

I'm just saying he probably honestly felt you should not be there for your own good.

LOL. Can motorists do no wrong in your eyes? I don't know about you, but when motorists tell me I'm giving 'all cyclists a bad name', or any other indication that I shouldn't be riding where I am, I never get the feeiling it's out of a heartfelt concern for my safey.

The vast majority of cyclists out there support the notion in the way they ride and in the way they promote "the need" for segregated space for bicyclists.

It's amazing that you bring this old chestnut up yet again despite the fact that Bek was riding in anything but that fashion. What does go on in that little brain of your's, Head?

I think it's likely that was part of his motivation, at least initially. I ask again: how did you react when he initially honked and yelled, "You're giving bicyclists a bad name"? Just those words alone indicate he was probably simply trying to get your attention to give you what he probably believed was good and relevant information.

Your capacity for self delusion is really quite impressive. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Why is it so hard to consider the far more likely possibility that the guy was just another impatient arsehole?

What he should have done was move into the other lane to pass, or wait until he could, and kept his frikken mouth shut. A few seconds travelling at less than maximum allowable speed never hurt anyone.

How does someone deliberately trying to hit [a cyclist] with his vehicle fail to do so? Are you saying he tried to hit you, and missed? How does he do that when you're in the middle of the lane right in front of him? That's pretty incredible, Beck. I must be missing something. If so, what is it?

It's called maneuverability, newbie.

I don't think motorists that swerve at cyclists are necessarily trying to actually hit them, but rather just giving a little scare to 'teach you a lesson'. It doesn't leave much room for error though, and can easily go horribly wrong, and it certainly doesn't feel any less threatening, particularly if they're yeling out the window or blowing their horn. But it's all smiles and sunshine where you live, isn't it, so you've probably never experienced it. Doesn't stop you from blathering on about it as if you actually know something though.:rolleyes:

That's a whole bunch of "ifs"...

After 30 seconds of research I was able to determine that it is not a long bridge (approximately 90 yards long). As such, your "points" aren't germane to the discussion of this incident.

http://paradigmhosting.net/images/fremont.jpg

That's the bridge in question? It's 4 lane. Why couldn't the ragin cager pass?

The URL is incomplete (missing closing paren), not the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Bridge_(Seattle)).

Strange... the incomplete URL does lead to a page that has incomplete info.

Sounds to me like the driver was an aggressive jerk. It also sounds like the biker could have very easily diffused the situation if it weren't for a confrontational attitude.

While technically "right", it's also a good way to end up dead or maimed. I wouldn't provoke a pissed off jerk in a car any more than I would someone with a gun.

Sounds to me like the driver was an aggressive jerk. It also sounds like the biker could have very easily diffused the situation if it weren't for a confrontational attitude.

While technically "right", it's also a good way to end up dead or maimed. I wouldn't provoke a pissed off jerk in a car any more than I would someone with a gun.

I didn't see anything to indicate he provoked him.

I didn't see anything to indicate he provoked him.
Well, there is the "evidence" of Helmet Head's assumptions.

LOL. Can motorists do no wrong in your eyes? I don't know about you, but when motorists tell me I'm giving 'all cyclists a bad name', or any other indication that I shouldn't be riding where I am, I never get the feeiling it's out of a heartfelt concern for my safey.
Yes, well, the root of most human conflict is miscommunication, and traffic is no different. The easy tempting explanation is to write off "the other" as a jerk, ahole, etc. Of course, that's what Beck did with the driver, and what the driver did with Beck.


It's amazing that you bring this old chestnut up yet again despite the fact that Bek was riding in anything but that fashion. What does go on in that little brain of your's, Head?

Can you really not grasp that the widely held notion that bikes belong out of the way of cars, which is supported by meek cyclist behavior and advocacy for "separate space", is unlikely to be eliminated from the mind of a notion-infected motorist by seeing a single instance of one cyclist taking the lane? Although Beck was acting assertively in this one instance, that was almost certainly not enough to wipe the idea that he shouldn't be doing that from this motorist's mind.


Your capacity for self delusion is really quite impressive. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Why is it so hard to consider the far more likely possibility that the guy was just another impatient arsehole?

If he was just an impatient arsehole, why would he bother to roll down his window to let Beck know that he felt what he was doing was giving cyclists a bad name?


What he should have done was move into the other lane to pass, or wait until he could, and kept his frikken mouth shut. A few seconds travelling at less than maximum allowable speed never hurt anyone.

Of course that's what he should have done.


It's called maneuverability, newbie.

Have you looked at the pictures of the bridge? Where in the heck is Beck supposed to maneuver to avoid getting hit? Into the drink? And if he had maneuvered out of his way, then why didn't the guy pass him after he missed him because Beck was able to outmaneuver him? :rolleyes:

Besides, none of the account indicates he even tried to hit him on the bridge. Only two streets later after Beck allowed the situation to escalate did he do something that was interpreted as an actual attempt to hit him.

By the way, if someone is actually trying to hit you, are you going to bang on his window? What would be the point? "Oh, I was going to turn you over, but now that you're banging on my window with your fist, I guess I'll back off". :rolleyes:


I don't think motorists that swerve at cyclists are necessarily trying to actually hit them, but rather just giving a little scare to 'teach you a lesson'.
Thank you. Now youre' beginning to make some sense. That was exactly my point. But Beck insists: "he was deliberately trying to hit me with his vehicle."


It doesn't leave much room for error though, and can easily go horribly wrong, and it certainly doesn't feel any less threatening, particularly if they're yeling out the window or blowing their horn.
I agree with that, but how Beck felt about it doesn't determine whether the motorist was actually trying to hit him.

I agree with thatYes, but do you agree with this (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5549567&postcount=25)?

Yes, well, the root of most human conflict is miscommunication

Maybe for you, Mr. Wordsmith.

Although Beck was acting assertively in this one instance, that was almost certainly not enough to wipe the idea that he shouldn't be doing that from this motorist's mind.

Which, I believe, was exactly the point he was making with this thread in the first place. Well done.

If he was just an impatient arsehole, why would he bother to roll down his window to let Beck know that he felt what he was doing was giving cyclists a bad name?

I never said he was an intelligent impatient arsehole. They rarely are.

I've had people actually pull over to give me a serve about how I 'delayed' them. Logic isn't their strong point.

Have you looked at the pictures of the bridge? Where in the heck is Beck supposed to maneuver to avoid getting hit? Into the drink? And if he had maneuvered out of his way, then why didn't the guy pass him after he missed him because Beck was able to outmaneuver him? :rolleyes:

Besides, none of the account indicates he even tried to hit him on the bridge. Only two streets later after Beck allowed the situation to escalate did he do something that was interpreted as an actual attempt to hit him.

Indeed. Once off the bridge there's any number of possible escape routes. I wouldn't even discount moving into the oncoming lane to get away from a particualrly persistent maniac.

Thank you. Now youre' beginning to make some sense. That was exactly my point. But Beck insists: "he was deliberately trying to hit me with his vehicle."

Allow the guy a little hyperbole, Head. You didn't take that literally, did you?

I agree with that, but how Beck felt about it doesn't determine whether the motorist was actually trying to hit him.

By their fruits you shall know them, Head. It doesn't matter what the driver was trying to do, the fact remains that he acted in a threatening manner. I see any driver that tries to infringe on my space on the road, even if it's just a shout or a honk*, as at the very least a potential threat, and act accordingly, usually by holding my line, or moving even further into the lane, and sometimes, yes, by replying in kind.

*for horn honks, I do at least wait until they pass to see if it's someone I know greeting me before interpreting it as aggressive, but I do warn them when I see them that I may interpret unecessary horn honks (which are illegal by the way) as aggressive, and will most likely give them the finger for it. Nothing personal.

This whole thread has a sort of absurdist quality to it, since bek was riding exactly how Serge has been telling us for years we are supposed to ride...

This whole thread has a sort of absurdist quality to it, since bek was riding exactly how Serge has been telling us for years we are supposed to ride...I think that's what's got Bek so confused. He was expecting the kind of appreciative parade in his honor-- complete with friendly waves, accolades, and thank you kisses at the podium-- that he's heard so much about from Serge.

Instead, he was stalked and assaulted. Go figure.

When is read stories like this.....I try to think I am in the car....I am in a hurry..I need to get somewhere fast....so fast that I will sacrifice someone else's health.....

That is where it always breaks down....

At the point of the yelling it has broken down to no one caring really...it is all principal at that point....I am right or you are right..and at this point each other health is not a concern....

SO....still I go back to am I really in a hurry? Do I need to get somewhere....not really....most places I might not want to get there....lol the second part....is do I need to be right? Not really.....it is not worth being right...if I can I move to that right......give a few feet if I can.....I get passed close...last Monday way to close....they guy did not care about me at all and he even went faster and blew by me...but in a min he is gone....I am still on the road and fighting my 175 HR going in to the wind....that is what I try to focus on...not yelling at him...

I am not placing the blame on anyone...and in the end of the story there is more than one at fault but to me it is important to be alive in the end....and I want them to be alive too....if not I am not less careless than they are...

I think that's what's got Bek so confused. He was expecting the kind of appreciative parade in his honor-- complete with friendly waves, accolades, and thank you kisses at the podium-- that he's heard so much about from Serge.

Instead, he was stalked and assaulted. Go figure.
This is dishonest.

Bek is a seasoned rider with probably more experience than Helmet Head. Now Blue Order is saying that "Bek is confused because he followed Helmet Head's advice."

It is what it is, nothing more: Bek was targeted by a lame-ass idiot who needs serious psychiatric help. Don't spin it beyond that.

I ride all the time without that crap--but it could happen tomorrow. If it does, I won't blame Serge, or anyone else except the medication-desperate motorist.