Advocacy & Safety - Berkeley berserker.

Just look at that mug. What a flippin' hothead (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=64903&tsp=1).

How is attack with a hand saw misdemeanor assault and not felony assault with a deadly weapon?

The fire trail is open to hikers but closed to bicyclists. Since there was no one else to protect the trails from the ravages of wheels, Mr. Vandeman, took matters into his own hands.

Cyclists considering attacks on errant cars and drivers may want to take note of how quickly the trail protecting Vandeman became aptly described as a berserker.

Oh, I didn't see that. Cyclists aren't allowed on that trail? Doesn't excuse attacks though.

Doesn't excuse the attacks, but it does explain them. Personally if I felt motivated to do something about it myself, I'd probably talk to the relevant authorities and ask them what would be sufficient evidence to levy fines. If they needed me to provide video of cyclists at the trailhead getting the bikes off their cars (with plate numbers) and going onto the trail, that'd be fine.

Unfortunately the cyclists probably are coming to the trail on the bike, so there's no way to identify them. And the authorities probably don't have the manpower to stake out the trail even if they know it's happening.

It would be interesting to know what kind of signage is on the trail head, that is, how clear it is that cyclists aren't allowed. Rather than crack down on cyclists, how about post a map to trails where bikes are allowed? It's a sad state of affairs when the only two options are to let the cyclists run roughshod over a trail, or having the police crack down on them.

Why do people hate cyclists so much? WTF

These are my first few days in the advocacy section and it's really just horrible

Michael Vandeman of Berkeley accosted one bicyclist in the summer of 2009 and punctured his tire with a sharp tool, authorities said. About six weeks ago, he allegedly brandished a handsaw at another bike rider.
...

Michael Vandeman? I know that name from rec.bicycles.soc and some other groups over on Usenet ...

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=author%3Amike.vandeman%40gmail.com&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Michael+Vandeman%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=

(Not sure why all hist posts aren't showing up, but that should give you a good idea of what he posts ...)

He's been quite the troll there for the last several years.

:popcorn

Why do people hate cyclists so much? WTF

These are my first few days in the advocacy section and it's really just horrible

The bikes are on trails where they're not allowed. There's probably a reason for that. Hiking trails that have not been specifically improved for bicycle traffic can be absolutely devastated by bicycle traffic. We have several very nice trails near my house that are improved, they have features buried in the track to keep it from getting torn up and scoured by rain, and the bikes don't bother them at all.

OTOH, I have seen trails that were there since before mountain biking was popular, and I walked them for several years and saw very little erosion (maybe 1/2 inch in several years) - but once people started riding mountain bikes, the entire trail system got all torn to hell and the erosion was devastating - I saw areas that had 3 feet of ground scoured out in a few months.

If a trail isn't built to handle bike traffic, they really need to stay off it - it really does cause a lot of damage. This doesn't excuse physical attacks, but it gives some idea of where a guy who really likes a trail comes from in really, really wanting to keep bikes off the trail.

This nut case has been around for years. He hates cyclist and hikers (but hates cyclist the most). He has stated that hikers should also be banned to save some snake and that he should be the ONLY person allowed to enter the woods and trails to care for wildlife. He claims he has a device to prove the amount of tire pressure bicycles cause on trails that causes severe damage. Frankly, I have seen as much and more damage from hikers on trails and horses are even worse long before anyone started mountain biking.
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/

"WARNING: It is probably impossible to understand my web page, if you own a car.
Or a mountain bike." Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

PS - He even claims cycling is one of his passions. But,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/boycott

It would be interesting to know what kind of signage is on the trail head, that is, how clear it is that cyclists aren't allowed.

I'm glad somebody mentioned this.

Several months ago, an old lady with gray hair yelled at me on a trail, saying "no bikes allowed" among other things. I was a bit confused. At the exit to the trail ( where she had entered ), sure enough, there's a sign saying no bikes. But at the other end of the trail, where I had entered, there's no such sign. I've always got off and walked by bike on that trail since ( or just avoided it ), but it was an honest mistake when I upset this lady.

I also have to agree with ItsJustMe. Bikes can be pretty hard on dirt trails that aren't meant for us, and can also terrorize hikers on the trails. It's not hard to see why someone who enjoys their neighborhood trail would be upset by this, and anger has a way of festering. It doesn't excuse violence or threats, obviously, but that probably gives us a little bit of insight into this nut case.

I guess even a PhD can be a raving idiot, and a vigilante.

I need to remember that this is how a motorist -- the type who does not realize that a buzz or hook is both illegal and basically a violent act-- might see me when I slap a fender or shout during the close call.

I'm the crazed vigilante to them. (IME, in the eyes of police as well.) And to me, they are the crazed vigilantes trying to run me off the road. A vicious cycle.

Why do people hate cyclists so much? WTF

These are my first few days in the advocacy section and it's really just horrible

Most people have a positive or neutral view of cyclists. Some A&S posters find it useful to provide news of the exceptions. Like most every forum you have to sort through some trash but there are treasures to be found here in the dumpster.

Several months ago, an old lady with gray hair yelled at me on a trail, saying "no bikes allowed" among other things. I was a bit confused. At the exit to the trail ( where she had entered ), sure enough, there's a sign saying no bikes. But at the other end of the trail, where I had entered, there's no such sign. I've always got off and walked by bike on that trail since ( or just avoided it ), but it was an honest mistake when I upset this lady.

My son and I were walking our bikes from the bike trail to the campground along a hiker only trail and someone went all berserk with yelling "no bikes allowed" and called the park ranger on us. The park ranger was nice enough but still I won't use that campground again.

Portland's Forest Park is almost completely closed to cyclists despite being in one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the US. Park 'supporters' continue their efforts to keep cyclists out. As a result, cyclists poach trails there all the time.

http://bikeportland.org/2010/06/03/advocate-cries-foul-at-city-clubs-forest-park-report/

My son and I were walking our bikes from the bike trail to the campground along a hiker only trail and someone went all berserk with yelling "no bikes allowed" and called the park ranger on us. The park ranger was nice enough but still I won't use that campground again.

Ahem ... I've always taken some "poetic license" when I see those signs, and interpreted them to mean "no riding of bikes allowed." It just seems too draconian to believe, that the mere presence of a bike would be such a problem that people would ban them outright. That, along with the way people tend to shorten the text on signs to the point of absurdity...

I guess even a PhD can be a raving idiot, and a vigilante.

Why does this surprise people, it happens a lot with obsessives(which many PhD people are). We do remember another man with a doctorate who retreated into a cabin to write explosive letters every once and a while. Don't we?

Hey as a PhD I represent that comment. Ok, maybe we are a bit obsessive.

My son and I were walking our bikes from the bike trail to the campground along a hiker only trail and someone went all berserk with yelling "no bikes allowed" and called the park ranger on us. The park ranger was nice enough but still I won't use that campground again.

In your case does "no bikes allowed" really pertain to bikes being walked? I don't blame you for not wanting to use that campground again. What did the ranger say to you? What did he say to the "irate" person?

In your case does "no bikes allowed" really pertain to bikes being walked? I don't blame you for not wanting to use that campground again. What did the ranger say to you? What did he say to the "irate" person?

The Ranger said he got a complaint that we were riding our bikes on the trail and I clarified that we were walking our bikes back to the campground. And he just said OK. I asked if he would mind letting the person know who complained that it was OK to walk bikes as they really scared my son. And said something about just letting it go.

The funny thing is a few months later a "irate" Prius driver pulls along side me and says this (35mph) road is a highway and bikes are not allowed and that he is doing more for the environment with his Prius then what I will ever do with my bike. And I am thinking is this the same jerk as the campground? He really looked and acted similar. Anyway I told him; you must be lost, the bike free highway is just a couple miles west, it's called I-83, you can't miss it.

These hikers who cut tongue at cyclists are hypocrites. If they really wanted to protect the land then they should be leaving any trail to deer and other game. The selfish truth is they just don't want to see or deal with bicycles or for that fact other people during their commune with Nature.

Everybody damages the trail when they use it.

These hikers who cut tongue at cyclists are hypocrites. If they really wanted to protect the land then they should be leaving any trail to deer and other game. The selfish truth is they just don't want to see or deal with bicycles or for that fact other people during their commune with Nature.

Everybody damages the trail when they use it.

:thumb: +1

The Ranger said he got a complaint that we were riding our bikes on the trail and I clarified that we were walking our bikes back to the campground. And he just said OK. I asked if he would mind letting the person know who complained that it was OK to walk bikes as they really scared my son. And said something about just letting it go.

The funny thing is a few months later a "irate" Prius driver pulls along side me and says this (35mph) road is a highway and bikes are not allowed and that he is doing more for the environment with his Prius then what I will ever do with my bike. And I am thinking is this the same jerk as the campground? He really looked and acted similar. Anyway I told him; you must be lost, the bike free highway is just a couple miles west, it's called I-83, you can't miss it.

The Ranger should have said something to the complainer about how they accosted you and your son. As well as about whatever penalties there are in that park for filing a false complaint.

Sounds like it might have been your "friend" from the campground. You should have asked him to show you the signs that said that you weren't suppose to be on that road. As well as pointing out to him that not all highways are "bike free." There's a major highway in Tampa called Dale Maybry Highway that cyclists ride on all the time. And are never stopped by the police and told to get off of it.

The really sad bit are people that are so smug in there one way of doing things they can't see anything else. The fact that the guy could pull along side me and take the time to talk because he was in such a "hurry" and I was "delaying" him by making him change lanes, all the while nether of us were holding up traffic (one lane was still clear of the two lanes we were using and traffic was light at that point.) What an ID-10-T error.

Sorry, I would rather see a Hummer that car pooled then a single occupancy Prius.

The Ranger said he got a complaint that we were riding our bikes on the trail and I clarified that we were walking our bikes back to the campground. And he just said OK. I asked if he would mind letting the person know who complained that it was OK to walk bikes as they really scared my son. And said something about just letting it go.

The funny thing is a few months later a "irate" Prius driver pulls along side me and says this (35mph) road is a highway and bikes are not allowed and that he is doing more for the environment with his Prius then what I will ever do with my bike. And I am thinking is this the same jerk as the campground? He really looked and acted similar. Anyway I told him; you must be lost, the bike free highway is just a couple miles west, it's called I-83, you can't miss it.


Also how did he figure that by driving a Prius that he is/was doing "more" for the environment than someone who is riding a bicycle?

Also how did he figure that by driving a Prius that he is/was doing "more" for the environment than someone who is riding a bicycle?

Good Prius advertising = the most energy efficient vehicle ever made. You never been to an open meeting about bike trails and had a OCPD environmentalist talk about the evils of bikes and trails and how bad they're for the environment? They have to take down some immature trees and lay down an environmentally unfriendly impervious surface to accommodate these two wheel hooligans who run red lights :eek: while roads for cars do not destroy any trees and all the water run off is piped away so it does not harm the local environment (or some such bunk, that has too many errors per minute that I can't track.)

Good Prius advertising = the most energy efficient vehicle ever made. You never been to an open meeting about bike trails and had a OCPD environmentalist talk about the evils of bikes and trails and how bad they're for the environment? They have to take down some immature trees and lay down an environmentally unfriendly impervious surface to accommodate these two wheel hooligans who run red lights :eek: while roads for cars do not destroy any trees and all the water run off is piped away so it does not harm the local environment (or some such bunk, that has too many errors per minute that I can't track.)

Hmm, correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't some kind of fuel have to be burned to make the electricity to charge the batteries? Can't say that I have, or rather the only one that I've been to was to save the Pinellas/Hillsborough County Friendship Trail. And I had to kind of laugh at all of the support that keeping it received yet these same people who claimed to use it on a day-to-day basis obviously were not supporting it by making their daily donations to use the trail.

And somehow I think that it is safe to say that deers, and other wildlife and naturally occurring wildfires take down more immature trees than are cleared to make the trails.

Yeah, it does sound like their argument is full of holes.

I loved the South Park episode about Prius owners and the Smug clouds.

I loved the South Park episode about Prius owners and the Smug clouds.
haha yah and how they love the smell of their own farts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9jhGiIAFM

Hmm, correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't some kind of fuel have to be burned to make the electricity to charge the batteries?

I'm still amazed my 66 Volkswagen got better gas mileage then today's Prius, advanced technology my foot. And remember boys and girls to be safe on today's roads you need more mass to make sure you do more damage to them then what they do to you. Yep, like that's creating a real safe road environment. :rolleyes:

A "better" South Park clip: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104282

Hmm, correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't some kind of fuel have to be burned to make the electricity to charge the batteries?

Hybrids take advantage of two facts:
1-cars in general waste a lot of energy, particularly when braking. Every time a car stops, all the energy that went into accelerating the car gets just dumped as heat. Hybrids recapture a lot of the energy and use it to recharge the batteries.

2-car engines have to be sized to deliver the maximum amount of power that the driver might want; this means that you need a 130 horsepower engine and all the weight and inefficienty that means, even though on average the car only needs maybe 20 horsepower to keep it going down the road at speed. Also, engines are at their peak efficiency only at a specific running speed (RPM), so whenever the engine is running slower or faster than that, it's not as efficient as it could be. Instead, hybrids use much smaller and more efficient engines, running at their ideal engine RPM, to charge batteries or provide some power directly, and use the electric motor to either take some of that engine power and charge the batteries, or to boost total powertrain power in order to accelerate quickly.

I'm still amazed my 66 Volkswagen got better gas mileage then today's Prius, advanced technology my foot.Um, what VW is that?

Car engines haven't really gotten much more fuel efficient, that much is true. (They've gotten moderately better, but not much better.) And the cars themselves usually aren't much more aerodynamic or anything like that (again, moderate improvements when we try) -- so mileages are typically only moderately better. Cars today also tend to be a good deal heavier (for the same sized cars) than cars 30+ years ago were due to the way they're designed to be safer in an accident.

However, I'm not aware of any 44 year old VW that beats the mileage of a Prius. My 81 VW Rabbit Diesel came pretty close -- it was rated at about 45 mpg, but the 2010 Prius is rated at 51 mpg/48 mph. And even this comparison isn't quite fair (to the Prius), as diesel fuel has more energy per unit mass and diesel engines are fundamentally slightly more efficient than engines with spark plugs.

(And the Prius likely performs a lot better than my diesel Rabbit did -- the Rabbit's engine was rated at 48 hp! It did 0-60 mph in 45 seconds -- seriously!)

But even if the Prius only needs 10 hp to maintain speed -- that's still around 70x as much as a bike takes!