General Cycling Discussion - Shooting commentary

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/columnists/vassilaros/s_179321.html

I am grieved to know that I might be a bother to someone in a vehicle capsble of 120+ miles per hour while toooling along on my bike at 15-25. I hate it that they cannot find the ability to pass me properly with such awesome power under the hood.

Maybe I should start riding in the grass so I won't annoy those poor drivers.....

I'm sure many folks around here will take offense to that article, but I think he's hit the nail directly on the head. It's the few that give the many a bad image.

maby we should all mail to Dimitri in that article. Explain to him kindly that we who are on bikes are at a considerable disatvantage to those in there steel coaches! Rules of the road? I don't know about in PA but here in VA it is the car drivers that do not know the rules of the road. And in all fairness they don't know b/c they are not tought the rules. In VA a bike is considered a vehicel on the road. A car cannot leagally pass a bike or any other vehicle if there is the double yellow line!!! So when I am trying to stay to the right of the road and let a car pass I am being very considerate of the driver. So at least here in VA it's not "If more bicyclists would obey the motor vehicle laws of the commonwealth, there would be fewer road rage incidents similar to one recently in Monroeville" it's the damn motorists!

When the condescending ones act like the jerks they are, is it any wonder that drivers might find their arrogant manner annoying?.......

Riders demand that drivers obey the laws, even though the jerks on bikes do not. Some want to eat their energy bar and have it, too.

Drivers are not the only road hogs.




I agree with skiahh what this guy said is full of truth. I have butted heads several times on this site with exactly the type of rider he is talking about.

As for the incident the driver should not of turned around to come back after the rider and the rider should not of pulled a gun. When the driver chased down the rider, after he was shot, I do not blame him for that. I would of done the same thing if some clown pulled a gun and shot me.

Another thing he is right about is both people need to be held accountable for the actions.

And remember if they are going ot be jerks and idiots (cagers that is ) doesn't mean we have to stoop to their level.

Sent him this:
"Think of all the motorized vehicles you saw last week. How many drivers violated any laws -- other than going above the speed limit on the Interstate during rush hour? Chances are, almost everyone behaved."



Do you drive a car at all? Perhaps you are busy on your cell phone and are unaware of driver antics. From you photo it appears that you wear glasses, perhaps the perscription needs updating. You simply cannot see the blatant speeding, unsignaled lane changes, light running, people pulling out with no room, tailgating, eating, dozing, makeup application, phone talking, and screwing with the radio that goes on constantly during a typical commute. I know, you walk to work.

He most certainly did not hit the nail on the head.

"But could you blame the driver for thinking every bicyclist is as obnoxious as the condescending ones?"

Unsubstantiated generalizations and assumptions are far from convincing.

There are no excuses for anyone using or sharing the roadways to behave in the manner described in the article - the article does little but perpetuate excuses for people to demonstrate their ignorance by opening their mouths. This type of article does little but rationalize rude behavior and encourage that behavior to escalate to violence.

He most certainly did not hit the nail on the head.

"But could you blame the driver for thinking every bicyclist is as obnoxious as the condescending ones?"

Unsubstantiated generalizations and assumptions are far from convincing.


Only yesterday I had to brake hard right at the end of a ride to avoid a driver running a red light. Could you blame me for thinking that every driver is as obnoxious as that dickhead? I don't even need to read the article (nor do I intend to do so) to know the guy is a blatant troll. We're better off ignoring people like this and simply not giving them the hits to their website they are so obviously after.

Dimitri Vassilaros is one of those "columnists" that vents his pure ignorance of cycling on a resurgent basis. He is taking this one incident of a troubled cyclist and using it to paint us all as violent criminals. Mr. Vassilaros has an axe to grind and he hopes to use it against us cyclists.

Yeah Right! We break all of the laws. :rolleyes: Since I have been riding going strictly by the book. I have been cursed at, idoits banging on the side of their vehicles, chased by numerous dogs. And like another poster said motorist flying by at near mach speed dang near blow me of the road. What and idoit that columnist is. :mad:

Jeezuz. At least one attempted murder, maybe two, but all this columnist can focus on is how some bicyclists run stop signs. Car psychosis.

Suppose that a pedestrian had been walking along the sidewalk, and for no reason flipped the bird at a car driver. Then imagine the driver turned his car around, and drove at the pedestrian.

What would we say? An "understandable" response? Would anyone think it appropriate to write a column on the incident discussing the rudeness of pedestrians? On the tendency of too many people today to profanity and obnoxiousness?

We'd call the incident what it was-- attempted murder.

So, that driver is surely criminal here. No question. But to fools like this columnist, the fact that the guy here was on a bike mitigates matters. Ugh.

Having said that, this cyclist needs a lawyer. Badly. Was his life in danger when he shot this driver? If it's really true, as the article said, that he ordered the driver out, and then "reached in" and shot the driver in the arm, he's going to have a hard time selling his actions to a jury, much less to the D.A.

It can't help him, but some free advice might do someone else a world of good. Stick your middle finger at drivers, or carry a gun-- but don't do both.

The editorial commentary has some of it right and a whole bunch of it wrong. If traffic law breaking cyclists aren't being ticketed, to whom do you look for the answer? I don't recall anyone issueing a free pass for traffic laws when I purchased my bike. Complain to the police if you want more cyclists ticketed. I for one would be in total agreement if police started cracking down on my fellow cyclists.

Now for the alleged rarity of traffic violations by motorists (other than for minor speeding) as noted by the editorialist. I will guarantee that I could follow any motor vehicle for 10-15 minutes in Shelby Country Tn. (Memphis area) and witness at a minimum one traffic violation. The most common that I see: failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, same issue but for making right turns on red lights, not stopping before transitioning from a private drive onto a public roadway, failure to signal lane changes or turns, a brakelight or turn signal lamp burned out, and lastly but the most dangerous in our area is the running of red lights. I conclude that a motorist that doesn't violate at least one traffic law every time they get out in the car for 10 to 15 minutes, is an anomoly.

Despite some really bad facts (especially about implying that bicycles can't be ticketed for running stop signs while cars can) and some typical anti-cycling undercurrents, one point is still valid: There are cyclists out there who don't have the slightest clue how to drive in traffic and are a major annoyance.

How the author thought that the Monroeville shooting tied into this is a mystery.

Now for the alleged rarity of traffic violations by motorists (other than for minor speeding) as noted by the editorialist. I will guarantee that I could follow any motor vehicle for 10-15 minutes in Shelby Country Tn. (Memphis area) and witness at a minimum one traffic violation. The most common that I see: failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, same issue but for making right turns on red lights, not stopping before transitioning from a private drive onto a public roadway, failure to signal lane changes or turns, a brakelight or turn signal lamp burned out, and lastly but the most dangerous in our area is the running of red lights. I conclude that a motorist that doesn't violate at least one traffic law every time they get out in the car for 10 to 15 minutes, is an anomoly.

Exactly. And oftentimes when a motorist complains about cyclists "not stopping at stop signs" it's an illusion that stems from their lack of understanding of different types of vehicles.

I'm not a rule ninny. In my car I often exceed the speed limit and never come to a full, brake locked stop at a stopsign (just like ninetynine percent of the rest of the car driving population) We all come to enough of a stop at a stop sign that's it's functionally identical to locking your brakes. If the world was full of people like us, there would be no problems at stop signs at all. The problem is from people who don't understand how multiway stop signs work, don't have the perceptional abilitys (or aren't paying attention well enough) to make the correct decision on when to pull out, etc. not from cars failing to lock their brakes.

What non-cyclist drivers often don't understand is that this is slowing to about 1-4 mph, the same slowing that I usually do on my bike before going through the stop sign. It just looks like less of a stop on a bike than it does in the car.

I've butted heads with Vasili before, Didn't he write
the cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the roads column
a little over a year ago?
Personally I think we've scored a victory here, albeit
minor, since he isn't screaming to the heavens that cyclists should be on sidewalks and not roads.
One step at a time people, thats how we get it done,
and yeah, much of what he said about the 2 types
of cyclists is correct. He isn't targeting all cyclists, and he isn't defending all drivers.

Marty

I've butted heads with Vasili before, Didn't he write
the cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the roads column
a little over a year ago?

Yeah, that was him. He's definitely showed marked improvement.

And I have the same questions as when he wrote his "cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road" column last year.

Who is this guy? Why does he get to publish his opinions in the newspaper (he's clearly not an exceptional thinker)? And why does anyone read him? (probably because he finds cheap controversial subjects like this to boost his readership)

Exactly. And oftentimes when a motorist complains about cyclists "not stopping at stop signs" it's an illusion that stems from their lack of understanding of different types of vehicles.

I'm not a rule ninny. In my car I often exceed the speed limit and never come to a full, brake locked stop at a stopsign (just like ninetynine percent of the rest of the car driving population) We all come to enough of a stop at a stop sign that's it's functionally identical to locking your brakes. If the world was full of people like us, there would be no problems at stop signs at all. The problem is from people who don't understand how multiway stop signs work, don't have the perceptional abilitys (or aren't paying attention well enough) to make the correct decision on when to pull out, etc. not from cars failing to lock their brakes.

What non-cyclist drivers often don't understand is that this is slowing to about 1-4 mph, the same slowing that I usually do on my bike before going through the stop sign. It just looks like less of a stop on a bike than it does in the car.

I could tell from your picture that you were of above average intelligence. Is it fair to conclude that an individuals tendency to be a scofflaw has less to do with what they ride or drive, than it has to do with their underdeveloped sense of responsiblility and concern for fellow citizens that share the road with them?

I could tell from your picture that you were of above average intelligence. Is it fair to conclude that an individuals tendency to be a scofflaw has less to do with what they ride or drive, than it has to do with their underdeveloped sense of responsiblility and concern for fellow citizens that share the road with them?

No, it has to do with a well developed enough intelligence to be able to work within the spirit of the laws. Following the letter of every law is for those who can't think for themselves and need things spelled out to minute detail.

Are you implying that you are one of these? That you never break any rules or laws?

I couldn't help myself, I typed up a response to this imbecile. But prior to firing it off, I thought I'd sound off you people first:

You are obviously an Imbecile!

I read your recent column: Uh-oh, another bike column (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/columnists/vassilaros/s_179321.html).

You postulate that more cyclists need to obey the laws! Do you really believe that you rarely see motorists engage in unlawlful practices other than occasional speeding? Then you, like most other drivers, aren't paying attention! Maybe if you and other drivers would actually observe and take notice while driving, I wouldn't be so mortified or terrified as a user of the road. And, of course, since you're probably thinking that I'm some sort of crazed crackpot on a bike that can't stand SUV drivers, blather, blather, yadda, yadda (I've heard it all before), I'll let you in on a secret: I also own and drive a great big SUV, buddy (Dodge Durango, Oregon license number, XXX 999 - you can verify the state records of ownership with my name below.)

You may probably put me in your "considerate" category as a cyclist - I obey applicable laws. But I also get shouted at, honked at, swerved at, and actually even hit quite often. But I continue to ride because I like it and because I don't want to grow as fat and lazy as everyone else I see, so maybe I am also "condesending." But don't think for a minute that the majority of auto drivers obey the law. I see people run red lights daily. I witness near collisions weekly. I see people nearly run down pedestrians, I see them driving with phones pressed against their unthinking head. I see them reading, while cruising. I see them eating with food wrappers enshrouding their heads. I just saw a guy this past week driving with an opaque, "For Sale" sign posted to the windshield of his car. I see people speed, drive the wrong direction on one-way streets, drive in bike lanes, park illegally, run controlled stops of all sorts, and brandish their vehicle as a weapon. I also see cyclists run stops, ride on the wrong side of the street, and ride on sidewalks. And I see all this from the perspective of both a cyclist and a vehicle operator.

The level of stupidity, inconsideration and maliciousness I see on the road does not change whether I am on a bike or driving a car. You obviously don't pay much attention yourself. In fact, I would say my experiences while riding a bike reflect just how much inattentiveness exists on our roads. I have had countless near misses as people pull out of sidestreets or driveways in front of me. I have had cars brush by me - and have actually had a metro bus sideswipe me while I was riding in a designated bike lane. I have had numerous cars pull around me only to immediatly make a right turn in front of me. Several of these "right hooks" resulted in collisions. I have also been just plain run down by a guy driving in the bike lane. In each of my collisions, the driver of the auto was at fault, and was ticketed by police. I merely had to replace a bunch of damaged stuff and wait for abrasions, bruising and a fractured hip to repair - no big deal, I guess.

Face it, many people engage in various levels of illegality while travelling on the roads, regardless of their method of transportation. I take exception to your blithe comment, "If a motorist runs a stop sign, he runs the risk of being ticketed by police. When a condescending bicyclists runs a stop sign, he risks nothing, other than being involved in an accident that he probably will blame on the motorist." While I travel in accordance with the law, I am, unfortunately, also at the mercy of those that don't follow the law. And when I'm on a bike, a majority of people engaging in lawlessness and recklessness are driving cars - that's a statistical fact. And based on my above-described experience, yes, I am the one that ends up bleeding on the street. Not because of any fault of mine, but because some idiot in an automobile was too fat, too lazy, in too much a hurry, and too inattentive.

If you claim that only cyclists are breaking laws, then you obviously just don't notice those that do. And since you obviously aren't paying much attention, you will probably be the next moron that runs me down.

Jeffrey

Hell the cops break the law,running lights,speeding so the general public thinks,hey,cool,i can do that.Try driving the speed limit,it dont work.

Hell the cops break the law,running lights,speeding so the general public thinks,hey,cool,i can do that.Try driving the speed limit,it dont work. I work for the City govt here, and bike to work. A coupla years ago, as I pulled out of my driveway, the City's bicycle/pedestrian co-ordinator happened by (I'm on his commute route), so we rode in together. We took the bike path most of the way in. Some of the street intersections have "Stop" signs for the path, but many don't. As we approached one such intersection, a car coming from our left rolled through as if we weren't there. Arthur pointed out that legally, this is an "uncontrolled intersection", and traffic on the right (at the time, Arthur and me) has right of way, so the car should have yielded.

It was a City police cruiser.

No, he was not under lights or siren, not speeding off to a beating or the donut shop.

I've almost been hit four times by cars running red lights. Three of them were cop cars with no lights or sirens on.

But these rule ninnies kill me. As if when you drive 35 mph in a 35 mph zone you're the epitome of safety but the guy doing 36 mph is suddenly a danger to all around him.

I would like to post this article on a progun message board, can anyone tell me how to post this article? Never mond this I figured it out. But Please do check out glocktalk.com

You PRO GUN & Antis feel free to visit glocktalk.com We talk all guns and all discussions. Not only Glocks and guns.

But these rule ninnies kill me. As if when you drive 35 mph in a 35 mph zone you're the epitome of safety but the guy doing 36 mph is suddenly a danger to all around him.


Not necessarily, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. If doing 36mph in a 35 zone suddenly becomes acceptable, what's to stop someone doing 37? Or 38? Or 85 (like they do around here)? The simple fact is that we do not live in an enlightened society. People need laws to tell them how to behave. If it were not so, why are there even lines on major roads telling people where they should drive? Why not stop painting lines on roads and let people figure it out? Perhaps it might be because if people were left to figure it out, chaos would be the result.

I remember a friend of mine once saying that 90% of people have the IQ of a carrot. I think the only ones who could take offence to such a comment are carrots. Hence they continue to read crap like this "columnist" wrote, and continue to keep morons like that in a job.

Not necessarily, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. If doing 36mph in a 35 zone suddenly becomes acceptable, what's to stop someone doing 37? Or 38? Or 85 (like they do around here)?

Exactly. But intelligent people can admit there is an acceptible grey area. 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. Coming to a stop but not a wheel locked stop at stop signs, etc.

I posted this on glocktalk.com :D Cant wait to read their opinions ;) :p

Think of all the motorized vehicles you saw last week. How many drivers violated any laws -- other than going above the speed limit on the Interstate during rush hour? Chances are, almost everyone behaved.

I know it's been said/implied, but:
AHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Also, how do you go above the speed limit during rush hour? Driving on the tops of all the cars trapped in gridlock?

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a more ironic name than "rush hour".

In anycase, what does the "author" think violating the speed limit is, if it's not breaking the law?

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a more ironic name than "rush hour".


Someone I know calls it the "morning hate". Gives the proles something to rant about so they don't ask difficult questions. Very 1984.

Exactly. But intelligent people can admit there is an acceptible grey area. 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. Coming to a stop but not a wheel locked stop at stop signs, etc.
Maybe but then the person in wants to do 2 or 3 and the person in back of them wants a little more and so on.

So what's Dimitri been smoking? I'm sorry, but flipping someone the bird (I'm speculating, but my guess is that the recipient probably deserved it; however, the reason for the gesture is not explained) isn't grounds to attempt to run someone on a bicycle down with your vehicle.

And then Dimitri goes on to say that only bicyclists disobey traffic laws, and only a few drivers speed on the interstate. What unmitigated gall. Ask yourself how many motorists you've seen running traffic lights, rolling through stop signs, speeding through neighborhoods and failing to signal; let alone endangering cyclists. I've looked at Portland's crash statistics for the four year period 1998-2001, and motorists are responsible for about 60% of the crashes between motorists and bicyclists, and of course, the motorists involved in these accidents generally suffer almost no consequences.

And who's killing those 42K people each year on our nation's roads and highways, if all the drivers are so polite and careful???

And then there's this article in the daily from the other Pennsylvania metropolis, which has exactly the opposite message from Dimitri's, which is that motorists are dangerous and they are killing and injuring children in neighborhoods near schools:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/7853826.htm

Portland's daily paper has a columnist with the same attitude towards cyclists as Dimitri, her name is S. Renee Mitchell, and here's some examples from her columns:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/renee_mitchell/index.ssf?/base/news/1065269062154690.xml
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/107253045111210.xml?oregonian?ylccsrm

One thing you can do is find out who the ombudsman or public editor at the Pittsburg Tribune Review is and complain to him or her about Dimitri's columns and how the message and tone doesn't benefit the community at large. The local cycling community has tried this with Renee, and the answer we usually get back is that these columns are opinion and not news, so the columnists are given more latitude to 'express themselves'; nonetheless, I think keeping the paper's feet to the fire puts the senior editors on notice and some of the more egregious columns of this nature might get pulled before they see print.

Lets face it,we are second class people,cyclist i mean.Are there anything else besides cars on the freeway,no.Skating rink has skates.Pools has swimmers.But i ride on a bike path here in so cal thats seperated from cars,its onto of the storm drains that lead to the ocean.Two lanes,one for each way and divided by a broken line.It says on the signs bike path and has stick poeple on bikes along the path but can i ride on it without joggers,inline and reg skates,walkers,baby strollers,everything you can think of and who is expected to move out the way,me.Who is on either the wrong side of taking up both lanes are better yet,going in and out of both,they are not me but i'm the one they give the,get the hell out of here or way are you here or,well you know the look.Yep,second hand people we are.I also read about a month age of a extra tax on all bikes above 500 bucks for the upkeep and adding more of the paths everybody else uses but we are in the way.

Another approach to use with folks like Dimitri and Renee might be to challenge them to use a bike for their daily transportation activities for a week, or for a month. If you're a member of a local bike org or advocacy group, and you have the time and equipment available, you might even offer to loan them a bike and all of the accessories they need to begin commuting by bike, and accompany them on their early rides and/or offer them instruction.

I know that there is probably a greater than 90% chance they will decline, but you never know...

I suggest this because I think that many folks like Dimitri and Renee have absolutely no experience bicycling in an urban environment, and likely think that we are crazy for either wanting to do so or enjoying it, especially if we are successful enough to afford not to (e.g. only poor people ride bikes because they can't afford cars...). Furthermore, most motorists will occassionally ride transit - more likely if it involves trains rather busses - and all motorists become pedestrians once they park their vehicle, so all motorists have experience with these two modes, but not necessarily with bicycling.

Another suggestion would be to share information regarding safe cycling with Dimitri and Renee. There's plenty of information out on the web, which many cyclists are familiar with, but most motorists are clueless about (for example: http://bicyclesafe.com/ ). So when cyclists are riding legally in a manner that is safest for themselves, motorists often become irate because they think the cyclist should be doing something else, like riding on the sidewalk, or in the gutter, or on another road altogether - the threads on this website are full of examples of this type of motorist ignorance, and the consequences. We need to get a different message out to the motorists, and our local bike orgs and our local governments should be on the front lines of motorist reeducation.

And the media needs to be held accountable - either they are fostering cooperation and coexistence on our public roads, or they are fanning the flames of resentment and hostility between cyclists and motorists. If they are doing the latter, then I believe that the owners or publishers have some culpability and liability for future incidents in which bicyclists are harassed and endangered by motorists. Being an 'opinion' columnist really isn't an excuse for contributing to the endangerment of cyclists by motorists, and the owners and publishers of these papers and other media outlets (like the Clear Channel radio DJs) need to be held accountable for what they publish or broadcast.

No, it has to do with a well developed enough intelligence to be able to work within the spirit of the laws. Following the letter of every law is for those who can't think for themselves and need things spelled out to minute detail.

Are you implying that you are one of these? That you never break any rules or laws?

Not exactly. I said that from your picture, you look intelligent. I then said that what we drive or ride isn't a predictor of whether or not we foolishly and dangerously disregard the traffic laws. All of us at one time or another supplant some traffic law or rule with our own good judgement. The problem is that in many cases our judgement isn't as good as we would like to think. My entire comment represented a disagreement with the editorial that exonerated car drivers (they never or rarely break the traffic laws), and directed the blame towards cyclists alone. Nowhere in my comment did I claim to never violate traffic laws.