Advocacy & Safety - I had a run in with a ragin' cager, and it made the news

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.Er, I think you might have missed Bek's point. ;)

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."

Head, your attitude isn't even funny anymore, you need to seek professional help. You've admitted today that 1) you don't look for bicyclists while driving; and 2) swerving at cyclists is justifiable to teach them a lesson.

you need to see someone, serge. you're getting dangerous.

head has mentioned in other threads where he has acted like this motorist. Rolling down his window to 'educate' a bicyclist, close passing them if they don't ride according to head's liking, etc.

I wonder what head would do if he encountered a bicyclist that didn't back down to his little 'education' game.

Serge, you are really starting to worry me. start looking for bicyclists since you're always driving would be a good start, but going to see a psychiarist about your motorist superiority disorder would also be very appropriate.

You are dangerous, manevolent and a hazard on the road. I urge you to to seek professional help.

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

Well, you might have saved those 30 seconds if the OP had included that basic detail in his post.

We still haven't heard from him on any additional details, so, I'm guessing he's thoroughly enjoying the activity he stirred up as a result of this thread . . . which, in my view, is the underlying motivation behind his initial post.

Caruso

hey, I thought you'd bowed out, caruso. What? Chiding me for not sharing details? get over it.

My intent was clear. I had a run in with a ragin' cager, and it made the news.

This thread illustrates the fallacy bandied about in A&S by the 'act like vehicles' camp. you can bicycle like a vehicle, and the motorists don't all 'smile and wave'.

I see this must be something you need to defend - are YOU a foresterite or a LCI, caruso???

at least you're not as bad off as Head, who can justify a motorist swerving at-but not really trying to impact- 'trying to teach a bicyclist a lesson' :eek: (Head, you need to seek some professional help.)

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...

It is absurd, but not for head's lack of continuity.

Remember, Randy, Helmet Head is a starry eyed newbie to this traffic cycling business. Mabye a couple of years. And he has the gall to pepper this forum with his 'expert' advice :rolleyes:

And head's a real part timer at bicycling as well. I'm confident he rides in packs of LCI groupies more than solo commutes. He's always talking about driving here and driving there, not looking for bicyclists while doing so.

Can someone lend Head a clue?

Er, I think you might have missed Bek's point. ;)
I don't read every single post. Yours I read, hence my response.

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've been riding quite similar to how HH has described for several years. I've had ~5 aggressive honking incidents. That is so little out of the tens of thousands of other same direction vehicles that I have encountered as to be insignificant.

Not to long ago I esti-calculated that something like .004% of encounters I've had on narrow laned roads were not ideal (resulting in aggressive honking or yelling).

99.996% incident free encounters is essentially all. But if I describe the five less than perfect ones it can be perceived by readers here as a very problematic environment - it is all to easy to focus in and dwell on the minimal bad while ignoring the vast quantities of good.

Al

Al, I haven't done the percentage math, but when taking a narrow lane with same direction traffic present, I get honked, yelled, and swerved at far more often. Probably three or four times a month on very minimal distance.

And as I've mentioned before, the only times I've been contacted by a vehicle was (elderly) drivers "showing me I should over at the side" in their words.

Yeah, I get it a little bit more often than Al, more like ghettocruisers' estimate-

accrding to the sophist doctrines of helmet head, we must be taking the lane in the 'wrong' way. :roflmao:

And Al, by saying you ride like helmet head describes, do you mean you ride a couple of times a week during good weather- often with buddies on pleasure rides to help you cope with traffic- and on the weekends with a throng of LCI groupies on Saturdays and your kid riding manevolence defuser on the trail-a-bike on Sundays?

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.

But you (or any other driver) may be unqualified to determined whether the alternative is acceptable to the rider or whether the alternative is safer.

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.

EXACTLY.

I was assaulted once going across an intersection, light was green, taking the straight through lane. I did everything correctly, yet the deranged cager waiting to make a left turn was upset that I had right of way. And he assaulted me in front of his family in their minivan.

The only thing I did wrong was not give him the beat down he so rightly deserved.

8.5mi commute each way during rush hour with 5.0 miles with narrow outside lane, average traffic volume 38k per day for that 5mi stretch
38k/24=1583
1583/2 = 792 (one direction)
Peak volume at rush hour is 2x average hourly volume = 1583/hr
15min duration = 396 same direction vehicles if I was standing still
my speed is 75%, so multiply by 25% = 100 passing vehicles
100*2 (commute is each way) *200 days per year = 40000 passing vehicles per year
3 years = 120000 passing vehicles
5 total honked aggressively
5/120000 = .004%

Al

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.
No one's blaming Serge, We're just pointing out that his personal dislike of bek has gotten in the way of his better judgement. Serge's gyrations and rationalizations resulting in a conclusion 180 degrees opposite of his usual opinion are actually quite amusing.

:)

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 haven't criticized him for how he was positioned in that narrow lane on the bridge. Kudos to Beck for that, if that's what he needs to hear (which I doubt, which is why I haven't bothered saying this).

My point in this thread, put in another way, is that he should reread and take heed of the advice in Robert Hurst's chapter on Blame Versus Responsibility (pp 64-67), in The Art of Urban Cycling. A key excerpt:From now on -- if some bast*rd breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. (p 65)I don't see any evidence of Beck following that sage advice while he was on the road, or afterwards starting and posting in this thread either.

at least you're not as bad off as Head, who can justify a motorist swerving at-but not really trying to impact- 'trying to teach a bicyclist a lesson' :eek: (Head, you need to seek some professional help.)
Nothing justifies what that motorist did, Beck, and I haven't written anything to the contrary. Learn to read.

Nothing justifies what that motorist did, Beck, and I haven't written anything to the contrary. Learn to read.

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


Actually, Bek can read, and so can I.

No one's blaming Serge, We're just pointing out that his personal dislike of bek has gotten in the way of his better judgement. Serge's gyrations and rationalizations resulting in a conclusion 180 degrees opposite of his usual opinion are actually quite amusing.

:)
For the record, I do not dislike Beck. To the contrary, I'm motivated by a desire to not learn of his early demise. To that end, I am simply urging him to adopt a more understanding and accepting attitude of the ignorance about cyclist rights and safety that is so prevalent out there right now. By "accepting" I do not mean to accept it for the long term, but to accept that that's where we are right now, and that we need to continue to work to change that. Do not be so quick to blame others, especially when they're operating 3,000 lbs vehicles right next to you, and seem agitated by your presence. An antagonistic response is likely to escalate matters, when they could probably have been defused.

Actually, Bek can read, and so can I.

HH's quoted statement does not imply that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.

EDIT: My sentence could be misinterpreted. That statement does not mean that HH wrote that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.

Actually, Bek can read, and so can I.
No you can't. The fact that he probably honestly felt Beck should not be there in the middle of the narrow lane for his own good does not justify him doing anything threatening to Beck, and I never wrote anything to the contrary.

HH's quoted statement does not imply that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.

EDIT: My sentence could be misinterpreted. That statement does not mean that HH wrote that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.
For the record, invisiblehand can read.

A key excerpt:From now on -- if some bast*rd breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. (p 65)

That's absurd.

That's absurd.
It may seem so at first glance, but remember that Robert is saying this in the context of self-responsibility, not legal responsibility.

I think it's interesting that nobody, including Bek, has suggested that he should have operated his bicycle any differently than he did: in the defensive-cycling manner that complies with vehicular cycling education programs, in the center of the narrow lane.

The arguments have been about what should be done about motorist harassment, and how relatively important it is. I generally tell my students that using the center of a narrow lane substantially decreases the likelihood of a collision compared to curb-hugging in return for a somewhat increased likelihood of horn honking or yelling. Nobody likes honking or yelling, but most people are more concerned about collisions.

Some cyclists believe that government education and enforcement programs are needed to reduce this harassment, while others believe that if enough cyclists ride in the center of narrow lanes, the public will habituate to it automatically. I promote a combination of both. Others may place a priority on providing increased road width to reduce the opportunity for territorial behavior to arise over limited resources. Here some people might debate cost versus benefits, but on busy roads between intersections few vehicular cycling proponents would have any objection and most would prefer such. Of course, it's unlikely that on-street parking will get ripped out where it sees high demand.

But in the end, arguments over changing cultural attitudes about cycling have little impact on how one should decide to ride a particular road with narrow lanes. If you're going to ride it, ride it using the best technique we know of.

It may seem so at first glance, but remember that Robert is saying this in the context of self-responsibility, not legal responsibility.

I understand defensive driving/cycling, I'm probably alive today because of defensive driving. But to imply that if you get hit or run over then it's 100% your fault no matter what the circumstances is absurd to me. I haven't read the book and the statement is out of context though.

I understand defensive driving/cycling, I'm probably alive today because of defensive driving. But to imply that if you get hit or run over then it's 100% your fault no matter what the circumstances is absurd to me. I haven't read the book and the statement is out of context though.
Yes, well, Beck has read the book, or at least he claims he has. Robert is prone to using hyperbole, but the meaning in this chapter is clear. Here is another excerpt, the last paragraph:

The urban cyclists' best chance is to gather all the responsibility that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers. --Robert Hurst, The Art of Urban Cycling, pp 66-67 Again, I don't see any evidence in the account of this incident or in this thread of Beck following this sage advice.

I understand defensive driving/cycling, I'm probably alive today because of defensive driving. But to imply that if you get hit or run over then it's 100% your fault no matter what the circumstances is absurd to me. I haven't read the book and the statement is out of context though.

The statement is quite out of context. Mr. Hurst uses this statement as a retorical device to emphasis the importance of defensive cycling and being aware of your environment. As you pointed out, it is quite absurd to carry this instruction out literally. No defense can be perfect.

I understand defensive driving/cycling, I'm probably alive today because of defensive driving. But to imply that if you get hit or run over then it's 100% your fault no matter what the circumstances is absurd to me. I haven't read the book and the statement is out of context though.

Meet HH, aka Mr. Quote Out of Context

The urban cyclists' best chance is to gather all the responsibility that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers. --Robert Hurst, The Art of Urban Cycling, pp 66-67

This is also retorical, not to be followed literally. It is to emphasis that one must learn to hone your situational awareness (and that it can be honed in the first place), and with each incident where the situation gets away from you, you must learn from it at improve your awareness.

He is also making the same point when he states that one must learn to love road rash. It's not literal; indeed, nobody on the planet loves road rash, it is painful in the most annoying way. You love road rash because it means that you've lived through a situation which got away from you; you lived through it, now you can learn from it. It is, again, a pep talk.

Also, note that Mr. Hurst is telling this as a command for you to hord responsiblity, for you to love road rash, so that you can learn from it. It is most definitly not meant as a free license for some third party smuck to come in and tell you that that which wasn't your fault now is because of your inadequate defense.

HH is twisting the meaning of Mr. Hurst's words. I'd suggest to Bruce_B and others that you go out and read the book for yourself. It is a good book.

The Art of Cycling (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Cycling-Bicycling-21st-Century-America/dp/0762743166/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1950532-2984835?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193856183&sr=8-1)
by Robert Hurst

I'd suggest John Forester's book too, but it covers mostly the same techniques in a bit drier and more technical fashion. If you read Mr. Forester's book, concentrate on his traffic cycling technique pages. Most of the rest is a bit politically extremist or about 30 years out of date.

The statement is quite out of context. Mr. Hurst uses this statement as a retorical device to emphasis the importance of defensive cycling and being aware of your environment. As you pointed out, it is quite absurd to carry this instruction out literally. No defense can be perfect.
That's part of it. More importantly, Robert's point is that to achieve freedom and maximize safety, the cyclist needs to personally accept full responsibility for everything that happens to him.

"That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place". --Robert Hurst, p 65

Again, I don't see any evidence of Beck personally accepting full responsibility for everything that happens to him. To the contrary, he's quick to blame the cagers, exactly what Robert advices not doing.

HH is twisting the meaning of Mr. Hursts words. I'd suggest to Bruce_B and others that you go out and read the book for yourself. It is a good book.
No you are twisting the meaning of my words. How am I twisting the meaning of Robert's words?


Also, note that Mr. Hurst is telling this as a command for you to hord responsiblity, for you to love road rash, so that you can learn from it.
That's exactly how I interpret it, and what I mean when I say: "the cyclist needs to personally accept full responsibility for everything that happens to him."


It is most definitly not meant as a free license for some third party smuck to come in and tell you that that which wasn't your fault now is because of your inadequate defense.
This is where you twist my words, if you're trying to say that my words imply that I think Robert's words are "meant as a free license for some third party smuck to come in and tell you that that which wasn't your fault now is because of your inadequate defense." That's not what I said at all. Not even close. And if that's not what you're trying to say, then why say it?

Bek's been cycling for a long time; many more miles than you or I. I doubt he holds either of us in high enough esteem to tell us the inner lesson's he's learned. He has no motivation to do so, and I don't hold it as an obligation.

Incidentally, that's why experience is commended such high respect. I don't reveal the lessons learned from my mistakes. Most of my mistakes don't even surface as mistakes to the outer world. That Bek is experienced (and I know through donnamb that he is a real person with the experience he claims) is enough for me to know that he does learn from his own mistakes.

HH, forgive me for the harsh language, but you, in this instance, are the "third party smuck" who is trying to use Mr. Hurst's words to justify your "analysis" and criticism of a victim of vehicular assault.

Lay off; then I will consider that you understand Mr. Hurst's words as they are intended. I look at your retoric and it deviates from your stated intentions. Bek is the only one who knows what happened; he is the only one who is in a position to learn from it; he is the only one to know what lessons are to be gleaned from this incident. You know basically nothing about any of it. You should stop pretending that you do.

For a change, instead of criticizing someone else, tell us a little about your own personal experience with "ragin' cagers" and what lessons you've learned from those incidents. Bek might tell us about his experience, he might not. It's his perogative. None of us here holds any position to command him to explain anything.

(funny simultainious posting here, Pete)

That's part of it. More importantly, Robert's point is that to achieve freedom and maximize safety, the cyclist needs to personally accept full responsibility for everything that happens to him.

"That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place". --Robert Hurst, p 65

Again, I don't see any evidence of Beck personally accepting full responsibility for everything that happens to him. To the contrary, he's quick to blame the cagers, exactly what Robert advices not doing.

Robert pretty much pwns you every time you try putting your own wacky interpretations to his words. How about we let the guy read the book himself and address any questions he may have to the author himself (who actually participates here, for those who don't already know that).

As for Bek, who the frack are you to judge his personal acceptance of anything? Are you a mind reader who knows what's going on in Bek's head better than he does? I find it amusing how quickly you criticize others and question their actions and/or motives, yet when that same scrutiny is directed at you, it is dismissed out-of-hand and attributed to a lack of intelligence, reading comprehension or integrity of the source.

There is a section of roadway I used to ride into the city and I would get honked at approximately 3 out 5 times I road that during rush hour. I switched routes to avoid that section (and I found it to be faster) and now I am getting honks ~one every other month. I feel my riding style/body language is fairly consistent so I strongly feel that in some situations there is nothing you can do to reduce honks.

I'd suggest to Bruce_B and others that you go out and read the book for yourself. It is a good book.

I think I'll do that :beer:

There is a section of roadway I used to ride into the city and I would get honked at approximately 3 out 5 times I road that during rush hour. I switched routes to avoid that section (and I found it to be faster) and now I am getting honks ~one every other month. I feel my riding style/body language is fairly consistent so I strongly feel that in some situations there is nothing you can do to reduce honks.

This is much like a section of roadway I use quite often... Nothing is going to convince motorists that I am right and they should just back off. Motorists get reinforcement for their thinking by the number of bicycle riders that use the sidewalks in the area... so therefore all bike riders should use the sidewalks. There is no alternate road as this section of road is the only through road around all the finger canyons in the area.

But about every 3rd or 5th time on that road, during either lunch or rush hour... the horn honkers and "yellers" show up. On my faster road bike, while in full kit, I tend to get a few less honkers... but on my commuter, loaded down... they really lay it on.

HH's quoted statement does not imply that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.

EDIT: My sentence could be misinterpreted. That statement does not mean that HH wrote that the motorist was justified in assaulting Bek.

I stand corrected.

It should be readily apparent to anybody who has half a brain, that this incident had more to do with an irate and irrational driver, then how the cyclist was riding. VC or not VC, the driver is still dumb.

The most amusing thing to me at least, is that instead of thinking about how he might have been injured or killed by a road raging arse-hole, Bek seems to have thought his exploit would be the perfect thing for starting an argument with people on the internet.:p (eh, I guess he was more or less right on that)

(edit: BTW, have any of you thought, perhaps that maybe it wasn't they way he was riding, but maybe the road rager just didn't like the color of his bike? Or maybe he was wearing an absolutely infuriating hat?)

HH, forgive me for the harsh language, but you, in this instance, are the "third party smuck" who is trying to use Mr. Hurst's words to justify your "analysis" and criticism of a victim of vehicular assault.

Lay off; then I will consider that you understand Mr. Hurst's words as they are intended. I look at your retoric and it deviates from your stated intentions. Bek is the only one who knows what happened; he is the only one who is in a position to learn from it; he is the only one to know what lessons are to be gleaned from this incident. You know basically nothing about any of it. You should stop pretending that you do.

For a change, instead of criticizing someone else, tell us a little about your own personal experience with "ragin' cagers" and what lessons you've learned from those incidents. Bek might tell us about his experience, he might not. It's his perogative. None of us here holds any position to command him to explain anything.
I still don't see how I twisted his words, or have taken something out of context. If the shoe fits...

Robert's sage advice is not meant to be some abstract concept with no practical value; I'm sure you agree. It has application in the real world, in the minds of real bicyclists, including Beck. I'm just saying I don't see his advice reflected in Beck's behavior or words. Slamming his fist on the ahole's window is hardly an example of hoarding responsibility and avoiding blaming others.

And I recognize Beck has a lot of experience. But he also seems to have a chip on his shoulder when he's riding in traffic, and I don't think that's conducive to his safety.

As to my experiences with ragin' cagers, I linked to my thread about my last experience in my reply to you earlier in this thread. Did you not see that? By the way, I didn't see you complaining about the advice and critique offered to me in that thread, by people who weren't there, people who basically knew nothing about it. I don't see why you hold me, and only me, to this standard. Of course, if you held everyone to the same standard, we wouldn't have much to talk about here.

HH - can't you ever just say a few simple words like: 'sorry, I was wrong' or 'I must have misinterpreted what I read'?

Of course, self analysis has practical value. Note the term self... analysis.

Generally, if people want advice, they ask for it explicitly. Note the term explicitly.

It should be readily apparent to anybody who has half a brain, that this incident had more to do with an irate and irrational driver, then how the cyclist was riding. VC or not VC, the driver is still dumb.
It should be readily apparent to anybody who has half a brain, that there is not one post in this thread about whether Beck was riding VC. Not one. Steven even made a post noting this.


The most amusing thing to me at least, is that instead of thinking about how he might have been injured or killed by a road raging arse-hole, Bek seems to have thought his exploit would be the perfect thing for starting an argument with people on the internet.:p (eh, I guess he was more or less right on that)

(edit: BTW, have any of you thought, perhaps that maybe it wasn't they way he was riding, but maybe the road rager just didn't like the color of his bike? Or maybe he was wearing an absolutely infuriating hat?)
I don't know. It seems like a classic case of escalating road rage to me.

Slamming his fist on the ahole's window is hardly an example of hoarding responsibility and avoiding blaming others.

Seriously, HH, there are situations where people **** with you. And you feel like you are fighting for your life. Indeed, sometimes you are. Hording responsiblity comes later, when you are safe in your own home, glad that the day is done.

If you've never felt that commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war, then you don't have the experience necessary to connect with some more seasoned bicycle commuters and messengers. We aren't lying about our experiences. And we don't need a noob double guessing our actions.

If you've never felt that commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war, then you don't have the experience necessary to connect with some more seasoned bicycle commuters and messengers. We aren't lying about our experiences. And we don't need a noob double guessing our actions.

:beer:

and it's even worse when it's the motorists double guessing our actions

Of course, self analysis has practical value. Note the term self... analysis.

Generally, if people want advice, they ask for it explicitly. Note the term explicitly.
Well, if your beef is with me providing unsolicited advice, then say that, rather than taking issue, without basis, for the content of what I'm saying (arguing that I'm twisting words when I'm not, etc.).

The first unsolicated advice offered in this thread came in post #14, from Mr. Underbridge. I don't see you telling him that was inappropriate.

The idea that someone would post about a negative cycling experience in a forum like this, especially a regular like Beck, and for unsolicited advice to be inappropriate, is absurd.

HH - can't you ever just say a few simple words like: 'sorry, I was wrong' or 'I must have misinterpreted what I read'?
Of course I can say I was wrong, or admit I may have misinterpreted something, and I do, when that is the case. For example:

Fair enough. It was a mistake to refer to your approach as antagonistic. ...

That was from yesterday, by the way, so it's not like I had to dig back a few months to find an example of me admitting an error.

But in this thread I don't see where I said anything that was wrong, or where I misinterpreted something that I read.

Seriously, HH, there are situations where people **** with you. And you feel like you are fighting for your life. Indeed, sometimes you are. Hording responsiblity comes later, when you are safe in your own home, glad that the day is done.
You need to reread Robert's book, or at least that chapter. The whole point of hoarding responsibility is the value of doing so before disaster strikes, not after, "when you are safe in your own home". The whole point is to avoid the incident in the first place. The application in this case is to not blame the driver, not challenge him, and to back off. To take responsibility in such a situation means to take measures that defuse matters, and avoid behavior that escalates the rage.

There is no evidence of Beck doing anything to defuse matters. The fact that the situation persisted for several streets after the bridge, indicates quite the opposite. And Beck has had plenty of opportunity to correct us on this.


If you've never felt that commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war, then you don't have the experience necessary to connect with some more seasoned bicycle commuters and messengers. We aren't lying about our experiences. And we don't need a noob double guessing our actions.
I've been riding a bike on streets for almost 40 years! Why you persist with this ridiculous newbie argument about me is beyond me, but it's moot anyway. As I've explained countless times, experience only has relevance in these debates when someone makes a claim that is based on his or her personal experience. I try to avoid doing that precisely because doing so requires others to take my word for whatever it is I'm basing on my experience.

Anyway, since you raised the issue, of course, I've felt like commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war. I've felt that way about traffic while driving a car. But that's all history for me now, since I've adopted defensive driving principles and attitudes in my driving and cycling. That's the point. And that's the point Robert makes in much of his book too, by the way, in case you missed it.

It is inappropriate from you, HH, because you expect your advice to override the experience of the person who was actually there. And when the OP questions your take on things, or contradicts one of your assumptions, you accuse him of hiding something or making stuff up or escalating the situation or some other such non-sense rather than backing down and having a simple conversation. You have a most annoying habit of assuming that your 3rd or 4th or 5th hand take on things are more factually correct than the first hand description from the person present.

Yes, HH, my beef is primarily with you giving unsolicited advice. You are antagonistic and your approach to "giving advice" is more of a power play to project yourself as the expert that you think you are.

i saw this thread a little late (and didn't read pages 2-6) ... i just thought i'd say that i'm glad you're not hurt Bekologist.