Google sponsored links
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.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
....and here comes the VC zealots with a perfectly 'constructed' explanation why it was all you fault. :rolleyes:
Bekologist, glad to know that you weren't injured by this lunatic. I would urge you in the strongest terms possible to take legal action against him for that swerve at you. That was an assault, and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
If you had read Forester's book, you'd know that the driver was providing an escort, and cheering you on, just like they do down in Sandy Eggo. ;)
Typical of how Bek tries to turn a JAM story into an anti-VC/HH rant. Just tell the story and leave the rest of your BS baggage out of it.
Crazies everywhere I guess. Good thing you weren't hurt.
So what happened? Did any citations get issued? From what I read,it sounds like you could've had the driver charged with assault.
I think I would have let him make contact with me, however slightly.
Then we can go for the whole assault and battery change.
I doubt you will get any legal satisfaction out of this, but keep us informed.
I don't know if the report states this as "fact" or just a claim by the cager, but it mentioned that you hit the vehicle with your hand...
A judge may take that the wrong way - perhaps the cager could claim that you hit him first !!!
You never know what these people are going to do or say in court.
"Some businesses, though, are concerned about the loss of traffic in the area with the addition of bicycle lanes."
What???
You had the run in and you can only give us the news report? How about the first hand report. Did the driver get a ticket? Whassup?
"Some businesses, though, are concerned about the loss of traffic in the area with the addition of bicycle lanes."
What???
I guess we know that "business" is more important than a few dead bikers...
Bek may not be able to give us a first-hand report because it's an active legal case. Bek - I'm glad you're ok. :)
....and here comes the VC zealots with a perfectly 'constructed' explanation why it was all you fault. :rolleyes:
Come on, the trolls don't need bait. They'll jump on the hook entirely of their own accord ;)
My personal feeling, based on my own experiences, is that taking the lane (in a narrow road) substantially reduces close passes from drivers who think they can edge past you...but every once in a while brings on far more driver rage than riding to the right. So far the worst I've had is honks and a couple of yells, but I attribute that to luck. So I guess the tradeoff is fewer close calls and more psychos.
In any event, I'm not willing to 'share' a 10 foot wide lane because you can't. Dunno if that makes me 'VC' or not, but not a zealot in any case.
Glad the OP had a witness for once. We hear stories all the time about these road rage incident that turns into 'he said/she said'. Any update on whether the guy got some sort of ticket? It's about time the cops stop treating this like a damned game and arrest somebody for assault when they actually have a witness.
Wow, that was you. I had just read the story in the PI, which had 45 reader comments at the time I read it. I am glad you are OK. Perhaps you should consider a civil lawsuit against the driver.
Typical of how Bek tries to turn a JAM story into an anti-VC/HH rant. Just tell the story and leave the rest of your BS baggage out of it.
+1
For a well versed cyclist you seem to have more than your fair share of run-ins. I wonder why that is? And I thought you lived in one of the more bicycle friendly areas of the country.
-D
it's a Bike Forums A&S masquerade that, if you take the lane and act like traffic, the drivers smile and wave. The smile and wave 'phenomenon' isn't mirrored in real life, just parroted in A&S.
Glad you're okay, Bek. Also glad you had a witness.
Bek may not be able to give us a first-hand report because it's an active legal case. Bek - I'm glad you're ok. :)
That is right ... my understanding is that written accounts on blogs and other forums have been used in court.
That is right ... my understanding is that written accounts on blogs and other forums have been used in court.
So you're worried about maybe having to change your story at a later date?
Seriously, you might want to jot down some private notes (i.e. not for public forum view) now and keep them for future reference since it could be a long time before any "legal" proceedings begin.
So you're worried about maybe having to change your story at a later date?
Seriously, you might want to jot down some private notes (i.e. not for public forum view) now and keep them for future reference since it could be a long time before any "legal" proceedings begin.
Personal accounts can be taken out of context and/or interpreted in many ways.
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.
Dang, Bek, and in Fremont, too? I liked the Fremont neighborhood when I visited, didn't know that there were raging cagers there :eek:
I thought Fremont was a friendly place for cyclists to ride, particularly since when I test rode a Surly Cross-Check from a LBS there, the bike shop didn't have a parking lot, so I ended up test riding it in the streets.
Glad to hear you're ok, at least.
The driver denied to an officer that he intentionally tried to hit the bicyclist. He only yelled, he told the officer, because the bicyclist occupied the middle of the road.
Somebody better tell that motoring idiot that bikes CAN occupy the middle of the road... and that it is NOT up to the driving public to "enforce" the laws as they make them up.
the motoring public en masse needs to be told that bikes can occupy the middle of the road- the 'act like vehicles' camp fallacy that bicyclists doing so is adequate 'education' falls far short of what is needed in public perception of bicyclists' use of the roads.
the motoring public en masse needs to be told that bikes can occupy the middle of the road- the 'act like vehicles' camp fallacy that bicyclists doing so is adequate 'education' falls far short of what is needed in public perception of bicyclists' use of the roads.
Somehow the education camp feels that cyclists on the road will "educate" motorists.
Of course they never looked at the other side of the equation... that motorists would try to re-educate cyclists while using both mass and power... and that most cyclists would react by cowering at the curb, thus reinforcing the motorists, and pretty much wiping out the few hours of "evangelical" education.
Oh sure there are a few LCIs and Alpha dog cyclists that will stand their ground, but they are in the minority, as are trained cyclists in general... so motorists generally win and continue their rein.
Unless motorists are properly informed and the laws are enforced... motorists will do what they can get away with. (always have and always will)
Just out of curiosity, are the sharrows painted way out in the lane? We have one road with sharrows out here and the sharrows are way out in the lane much further than I would normally want to ride.
Anyway, that driver sounds like a maniac. Swerving to your right into the shoulder. What an ass. I hope he punctured his tires on the pine needles or glass over there.
it's a Bike Forums A&S masquerade that, if you take the lane and act like traffic, the drivers smile and wave. The smile and wave 'phenomenon' isn't mirrored in real life, just parroted in A&S.
Actually, I try to smile and wave on my bike. Until some cager f***s with me. :D
"Some businesses, though, are concerned about the loss of traffic in the area with the addition of bicycle lanes."
What???
We had something similarry dumb arguements when a local road that has lots of restaurants was being changed from 4 to 2 lanes with a turning lane. The lanes were extreamly right and the drivers in the right had lanes were were 100% in the "door zone"... funny how even people in cars found it uncomfortable to ride in that lane and most move naturally to the left encroaching on the left lane traffic. The local merchants were up in arms over the road change. Once done, the road is much calmer and everyone LOVES the results. I think this just shows that people in general are affraid of change. I the average motorist freaks when there are car lane changes... adding bike lanes... those must be from Mars or something.
Happy riding,
André
Remember if they honk they see you… in their target sight.
Glad to hear you are ok.
... the 'act like vehicles' camp fallacy that bicyclists doing so is adequate 'education' falls far short of what is needed in public perception of bicyclists' use of the roads.
I never understood the VC argument as an "absolute truth". Given that we are talking about populations and a large number of trials/observations, the discussions usually revolve around probabilities and likelihoods. Moreover, I have no memory of someone writing that public education or an awareness program would produce no positive results or is completely unnecessary.
Then again, we know how these threads grow ...
We all understand that there are some lunatics out there--some more crazy than others--but your unfortunate incident is an extreme event.
EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, perhaps "necessary" is a key word in the discussion. So my earlier statement might be wrong ... memory is still fuzzy. However, I find it hard to believe that there would be strong opposition to driver education and public awareness programs.
the motoring public en masse needs to be told that bikes can occupy the middle of the road-
They won't care. For most motorists, anything in their way is a problem and they don't know or care what the laws are. They just want to get around whatever it is as fast as possible. And the longer it takes the madder and more reckless they get.
They won't care. For most motorists, anything in their way is a problem and they don't know or care what the laws are. They just want to get around whatever it is as fast as possible. And the longer it takes the madder and more reckless they get.
True. But in the case of most other vehicles, there is not the vulnerability that cyclists have, to idiot mistakes.
Twice this morning I saw drivers either making turns around other vehicles that were "not moving fast enough" in the mind of these irate motorists. One was a motorist making a right turn from the center lane around a bus that was on the right; the bus was just starting to move, but the motorist was too impatient to check or wait for that nonsense.
The other incident involved a motorist making a left around a large step/delivery van from a middle lane. The light had just turned green, but the van was taking a moment to move, so the auto driver just whipped around and made the left turn, forcing the van to suddenly slam to a halt again, stopping the motorists behind the van... so the one selfish motorist could get their way. :rolleyes:
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.
Clearly this guy was way out of line, but there are ways to mitigate risk in situations like this, and ways to antagonize the JAMS. It started like this:
It started around 1 p.m. Friday as a Seattle man in his late 30s was pedaling a bicycle northbound across the Fremont Bridge, when he heard honks and cries from a man driving a maroon 2006 Nissan Murano.
"You are giving bicyclists a bad name," the driver reportedly yelled.
What did you do at that point, Beck? Smile, wave and nod? Flip him off? Ignore him?
it's a Bike Forums A&S masquerade that, if you take the lane and act like traffic, the drivers smile and wave. The smile and wave 'phenomenon' isn't mirrored in real life, just parroted in A&S.
And you reach this conclusions based on having one relatively rare exception incident? :rolleyes:
I never understood the VC argument as an "absolute truth". Given that we are talking about populations and a large number of trials/observations, the discussions usually revolve around probabilities and likelihoods. Moreover, I have no memory of someone writing that public education or an awareness program would produce no positive results or is completely unnecessary.
Then again, we know how these threads grow ...
We all understand that there are some lunatics out there--some more crazy than others--but your unfortunate incident is an extreme event.
EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, perhaps "necessary" is a key word in the discussion. So my earlier statement might be wrong ... memory is still fuzzy. However, I find it hard to believe that there would be strong opposition to driver education and public awareness programs.
I think you got that right, IH.
I don't oppose driver education or public awareness programs. What I oppose is any significant amount of very limited cycling advocacy resources devoted to these causes, because I believe these finite resources would be much better spent on other fronts, like improving cyclist detection at traffic signals, and cyclist education (and publicizing the need for it).
Clearly this guy was way out of line, but there are ways to mitigate risk in situations like this, and ways to antagonize the JAMS. It started like this:
It started around 1 p.m. Friday as a Seattle man in his late 30s was pedaling a bicycle northbound across the Fremont Bridge, when he heard honks and cries from a man driving a maroon 2006 Nissan Murano.
"You are giving bicyclists a bad name," the driver reportedly yelled.
What did you do at that point, Beck? Smile, wave and nod? Flip him off? Ignore him?
Now according to your past responses HH, you would have ignored him. Probably not even heard the honk.
So let's see what Bek did that was different from what you would have done.
For the record, in such a case like this, if I could have a moment to talk to a motorist like this... I'd give him a card with the laws that apply to cyclists.
VCers have never opposed motorist education. We have simply said our own efforts have a greater effect if spend educating cyclist. Some VCers have even worked on handouts for motorist, driver manual information and have pushed for cycling questions on drivers test. Bek has chosen to twist this position to deride VCers. Bek has often criticized cyclist education as some sort of wacko VC conspiracy.
Now according to your past responses HH, you would have ignored him. Probably not even heard the honk.
So let's see what Bek did that was different from what you would have done.
For the record, in such a case like this, if I could have a moment to talk to a motorist like this... I'd give him a card with the laws that apply to cyclists.
If the guy yelled and/or honked, then passed me, yeah, I would ignore him. If he remained behind me, i would not ignore him. Note that his first communication was not threatening, and it escalated from there. Of course, Beck did not have an obligation to try to defuse the situation, but I think I would have tried to do so.
Somehow the education camp feels that cyclists on the road will "educate" motorists.
Of course they never looked at the other side of the equation... that motorists would try to re-educate cyclists while using both mass and power... and that most cyclists would react by cowering at the curb, thus reinforcing the motorists, and pretty much wiping out the few hours of "evangelical" education.
Oh sure there are a few LCIs and Alpha dog cyclists that will stand their ground, but they are in the minority, as are trained cyclists in general... so motorists generally win and continue their rein.
Unless motorists are properly informed and the laws are enforced... motorists will do what they can get away with. (always have and always will)
check the quotes by the police officers in this article (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1193466354179340.xml&coll=7&thispage=1)
check the quotes by the police officers in this article (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1193466354179340.xml&coll=7&thispage=1)
What are the responsibilities of a cyclist when the bike lane they're in ends?
Cyclists are required to ride as close as practical to the right shoulder unless they're turning left, Kruger says. They can ride as close as practical to the left shoulder on a one-way street within a city.
A better answer is to say that a cyclist in a bike lane that is ending has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver in a regular traffic lane that is ending, and that requires him to merge with adjacent traffic. In particular, he must yield to them.
it's a Bike Forums A&S masquerade that, if you take the lane and act like traffic, the drivers smile and wave. The smile and wave 'phenomenon' isn't mirrored in real life, just parroted in A&S.
I'd have to say the above is split 50/50 from my limited riding, however, that is not important. I treat riders like I want to be treated, with respect and care. That is what is important. I cannot control what other drivers do, however, I can lead by example. Maybe some will follow; hopefully that will be one less of us at risk anywhere.
What are the responsibilities of a cyclist when the bike lane they're in ends?
Cyclists are required to ride as close as practical to the right shoulder unless they're turning left, Kruger says. They can ride as close as practical to the left shoulder on a one-way street within a city.
A better answer is to say that a cyclist in a bike lane that is ending has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver in a regular traffic lane that is ending, and that requires him to merge with adjacent traffic. In particular, he must yield to them.
Kruger demonstrates his rather complete ignorance of several critical sections of the law, ORS 814.420 and 814.430, the former when bike lanes are present and the latter when they are not. A key to cyclist safety are the exceptions to each of these sections, as codified into law. Kruger chose to completely ignore the exceptions and conveniently stated the general case only.
I'd have to say the above is split 50/50 from my limited riding, however, that is not important. I treat riders like I want to be treated, with respect and care. That is what is important. I cannot control what other drivers do, however, I can lead by example. Maybe some will follow; hopefully that will be one less of us at risk anywhere.
:beer:
Exactly. Lead by example. Act like a vehicle driver when riding your bike. You won't educate everyone, but maybe a few folks will be reached. The more cyclists that do that, the more educating of motorists we'll have.
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. Do what you can to straighten them out, but don't be an ahole about it.
:beer:
Exactly. Lead by example. Act like a vehicle driver when riding your bike. You won't educate everyone, but maybe a few folks will be reached. The more cyclists that do that, the more educating of motorists we'll have.
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. Do what you can to straighten them out, but don't be an ahole about it.
I can agree with that. Especially the last sentence.
I need to come out there and teach you my cosmic, telepathy shiite, Bek, once I figure out how I do it myself. ;)
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. :rolleyes: IMO, the person operating the deadly weapon is the one most in need of education.
Note that his first communication was not threatening, and it escalated from there.
You realize you are taking a very basic media posting of this story at face value concerning the cronology of events and actual wording used right?
And to correct you, the first communication (if we believe the reporting to be 100% acurate which you have done) was "honks and cries", which can be taken as threatening or non-threatening. And we/you have no idea what took place between the innitial "honk" and the first phrase quoted (is it really a police report quote??) in the story. Only Bek knows that answer.
Bek has often criticized cyclist education as some sort of wacko VC conspiracy.
Can you show me the threads that he has done this in please?
I'd have to say the above is split 50/50 from my limited riding, however, that is not important. I treat riders like I want to be treated, with respect and care. That is what is important. I cannot control what other drivers do, however, I can lead by example. Maybe some will follow; hopefully that will be one less of us at risk anywhere.
OMG this is probably one of the best, most thoughtful posts I have seen in A&S (you must be new :D)
I drive my car as well as bike in the same manner. And trust me that I have some great driving conditions (IT Consultant, dealing with the Balitmore/Washington DC, NoVA corridor). There are some a-hole drivers, and cyclists out there. I choose not to play their game.
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. IMO, the person operating the deadly weapon is the one most in need of education.
Sorry Chipcom, but i think this is a flawed comparison. It would be closer to say it is like teaching gun safety to regular folk (cyclists) vs. law enforcement (drivers). The reason being that the second group already get education. Drivers already have to go through an education process to get a license. Nobody gets any training to ride a bicycle in traffic.
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.
-D
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.