Advocacy & Safety - Typical attitude

I was just perusing the 'Memory' sticky, when I came across post #69 on page 3: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/309958-In-Memory-Of-Cyclist-Memorial-Statements/page3

The post that was quoted, had a link to the story posted in the San Jose Mercury News. Since I couldn't find it at the specific link given, I decided to look through the paper's archives. What has happened since then, is pathetic. While these are only blurbs to the actually stories, I have them listed chronologically without the dates, just to show how the 'system' dropped the ball. This is what I found:


TRUCKING FIRM BLAMES ROAD FOR BIKER'S DEATH

A trucker involved in a fatal crash with a bicyclist near Portola Valley last November and his employer want San Mateo County to pick up the tab if they lose a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the woman's family. Claim seeks to have San Mateo County pay judgment in wrongful death lawsuit

In a claim the Board of Supervisors will consider at its meeting Tuesday, Gabriel Manzur Vera and Castroville-based demolition company Randazzo Enterprises are seeking indemnity from the suit.


FAMILY ALLEGES POOR ROADS LED TO DEADLY CRASH

The family of a Los Altos Hills woman killed Nov. 4 when her bicycle collided with a big rig on Alpine Road near Portola Valley has filed a claim against San Mateo County that alleges dangerous road conditions contributed to the crash.

According to the complaint, the roadway that Lauren Ward, 47, died on was negligently designed, constructed and maintained. In addition, it was inadequately marked for traffic.

"As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous conditions.


DRIVER IN FATAL CRASH AND HIS EMPLOYER SUE COUNTY

A big-rig driver involved in a fatal crash with a bicyclist near Portola Valley last fall and his employer have sued San Mateo County to indemnify themselves against a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the woman's family. Man and his employer seek to be indemnified against family's lawsuit.

Gabriel Manzur Vera and Castroville-based demolition company Randazzo Enterprises named the county as a cross-defendant in court documents filed this month.


CYCLIST RULED NOT AT FAULT IN COLLISION THAT KILLED HER

Following an investigation that spanned 10 months, the California Highway Patrol said it no longer believes bicyclist Lauren Ward, of Los Altos Hills, was at fault for the Alpine Road collision that killed her late last year.

A CHP Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team concluded through additional forensic testing and a reconstruction of the Nov. 4 crash in which the left front end of Gabriel Mansur Vera's 26-wheel rig struck the right rear portion of Ward's

The worst of all those stories, is that the CHP was blaming the dead cyclist right from the very beginning. Before they had done any investigation.

Dig a bit deeper if you want to be really depressed. I believe this trucker has been involved in two prior deaths. One was a motorist who allegedly swerved into him and the other was a classic right hook where the cyclist was, surprise, found to be at fault based solely on his killer's statements.

Dig a bit deeper if you want to be really depressed. I believe this trucker has been involved in two prior deaths. One was a motorist who allegedly swerved into him and the other was a classic right hook where the cyclist was, surprise, found to be at fault based solely on his killer's statements.

Thank you for the updated info.:thumb: What I posted, was what showed up on the archive search.

The trucker's prior behavior, just adds to the hostility from the CHP.:notamused:

I was just perusing the 'Memory' sticky, when I came across post #69 on page 3: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/309958-In-Memory-Of-Cyclist-Memorial-Statements/page3

The post that was quoted, had a link to the story posted in the San Jose Mercury News. Since I couldn't find it at the specific link given, I decided to look through the paper's archives. What has happened since then, is pathetic. While these are only blurbs to the actually stories, I have them listed chronologically without the dates, just to show how the 'system' dropped the ball. This is what I found:









The worst of all those stories, is that the CHP was blaming the dead cyclist right from the very beginning. Before they had done any investigation.


Dig a bit deeper if you want to be really depressed. I believe this trucker has been involved in two prior deaths. One was a motorist who allegedly swerved into him and the other was a classic right hook where the cyclist was, surprise, found to be at fault based solely on his killer's statements.

As has been asked numerous times how the bloody hell can the LEOs do a through and complete investigation if they've:

a) made up their mind that the cyclist was at fault (usually simply for having committed the "crime" of being a cyclist)
b) never talked to ALL parties involved
c) never talked to the witnesses who could back up the cyclists side of things

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

It is almost as if, LEOs' look for a reason to blame a cyclist.

It is almost as if, LEOs' look for a reason to blame a cyclist.

Maybe the LEO is just expressing his opinion that the road is the type of place where some idiot in a truck will run into you. Maybe the LEO is correct. There are roads that I avoid, and I have expressed my opinion about them to fellow cyclists.

Don in Austin

Maybe the LEO is just expressing his opinion that the road is the type of place where some idiot in a truck will run into you. Maybe the LEO is correct. There are roads that I avoid, and I have expressed my opinion about them to fellow cyclists.

Don in Austin

A motorized vehicle can run into/over a cyclist on any road. But if the cyclist feels confident enough to ride on a given road, they don't need an LEO, telling them it is dangerous. Because it is indirectly tantamount to telling a cyclist 'get off the road'.

Even bike paths are dangerous, but the general public thinks they are just fine. Just recently, there was a head-on collision between two cyclists, where one was passing some pedestrians on the trail, but didn't give audible notice and the cyclist just ahead of the pedestrians collided with him.

A motorized vehicle can run into/over a cyclist on any road. But if the cyclist feels confident enough to ride on a given road, they don't need an LEO, telling them it is dangerous. Because it is indirectly tantamount to telling a cyclist 'get off the road'.I disagree with your conclusion that the cop is indirectly telling the cyclist to get off the road. There is a difference between telling someone not to do something, and warning them about the dangers. Sometimes I warn my wife about slippery road conditions, but that doesn't mean I'm telling her (even indirectly) not to drive.

Maybe the LEO is just expressing his opinion that the road is the type of place where some idiot in a truck will run into you. Maybe the LEO is correct. There are roads that I avoid, and I have expressed my opinion about them to fellow cyclists.

Don in Austin

Don,

If you go back over the Trotwood v Selz (http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/) case you'd see that that was the same "logic" that that officer used when she pulled over Mr. Selz. She in her judgement felt that the road was "too dangerous" for a person on a bicycle to be riding. And even after she had the law explained to her she said that if presented with the same situation that she'd do the same thing again.

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?

To the mods what is wrong with the word ****? That it gets filtered?

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?

To the mods what is wrong with the word ****? That it gets filtered?

You may ask questions like that by using the report triangle.

I disagree with your conclusion that the cop is indirectly telling the cyclist to get off the road. There is a difference between telling someone not to do something, and warning them about the dangers. Sometimes I warn my wife about slippery road conditions, but that doesn't mean I'm telling her (even indirectly) not to drive.

That is why I said 'indirectly tantamount'. It comes down to(just you used your wife as an example), not only how(and if), the LEO would say the same thing to motorist. But if they even want to say something to a motorist. While a bike weighs a lot less than a motorized vehicle, lack of weight n' size, pursuant to addressing bikers, could essentially be applied to motorists prior to their respective encounters with 25-ton 18-wheelers, 10-ton box trucks, and 10-ton garbage trucks.

That is why I said 'indirectly tantamount'. It comes down to(just you used your wife as an example), not only how(and if), the LEO would say the same thing to motorist. But if they even want to say something to a motorist. While a bike weighs a lot less than a motorized vehicle, lack of weight n' size, pursuant to addressing bikers, could essentially be applied to motorists prior to their respective encounters with 25-ton 18-wheelers, 10-ton box trucks, and 10-ton garbage trucks.You lost me...

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?

To the mods what is wrong with the word ****? That it gets filtered?

That word gets used in titles for P&R threads, and it sets off filters at some people's workplaces. We had some complaints about it, so it was added to the censor.

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

And I should avoid downhill roads, bright daylight, 40mph, and...fresh green lights >.<

Why spoil the fun :(

That word gets used in titles for P&R threads, and it sets off filters at some people's workplaces. We had some complaints about it, so it was added to the censor.

Those companies are asinine. As it is also a popular seed found in bird seed mixes.

You lost me...

What I was getting at is, the LEO not only preferring to say something to the cyclist, instead of the motorist. The officer treating the person with the smaller vehicle, almost as if they are inhuman, an annoyance, a bother.

That is what I meant with my analogy regarding rigs, box trucks, and garbage trucks. They will prefer to say something to the motorist, instead of the commercial driver.

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?


It's a 35 mph two lane road mostly, but near I-280 it becomes a divided road. The truck would have had to merge into the on-ramp line by doing a normal lane change to the right. The cyclists would be riding along the right side of the road, and have to merge to the left a bit. I haven't been up there lately, but the through lane is wide and narrows to one lane, leaving cyclists a wide area to ride in between the through lane and the on-ramp lane. Even if they painted bike lanes through there, the problem is drivers and cyclists not paying attention before they make their move right or left. There are no other witnesses. If she was out in front and moving to the left, the truck might not have slowed down to wait to cut over. Many large truck drivers don't seem to want to reduce their forward motion unless they absolutely have to.

What I was getting at is, the LEO not only preferring to say something to the cyclist, instead of the motorist. The officer treating the person with the smaller vehicle, almost as if they are inhuman, an annoyance, a bother.

That is what I meant with my analogy regarding rigs, box trucks, and garbage trucks. They will prefer to say something to the motorist, instead of the commercial driver.

Could it be that the officer was offering truly "friendly advice"? Maybe he wasn't treating you as inferior, but actually was concerned for your well being.

ummm, nahhh.....

What I was getting at is, the LEO not only preferring to say something to the cyclist, instead of the motorist. The officer treating the person with the smaller vehicle, almost as if they are inhuman, an annoyance, a bother.

That is what I meant with my analogy regarding rigs, box trucks, and garbage trucks. They will prefer to say something to the motorist, instead of the commercial driver.OK, I understand now. I still disagree that it's an effort by the LEO to tell a cyclist not to ride there, but more of a warning to be mindful of real dangers. In an ideal world, the LEO would stop lots of motorists and equally warn them to be safe around cyclists, but in practice it's just easier to warn the cyclist.

Random thought: You ever think LEO's know they can't get us off the roads but are tired of having to peel fellow humans off it and not be able to arrest the "killers"?

OK, I understand now. I still disagree that it's an effort by the LEO to tell a cyclist not to ride there, but more of a warning to be mindful of real dangers. In an ideal world, the LEO would stop lots of motorists and equally warn them to be safe around cyclists, but in practice it's just easier to warn the cyclist.

Do you realize what you just said?:eek: You invariably said that, while it easier to warn the cyclist in this situation, it is also easier to blame the cyclist in a bike-motorist collision.

I know they are two different situations, but the continual behavior would be somehow always addressing the cyclist instead of and/or the motorist.

Could it be that the officer was offering truly "friendly advice"? Maybe he wasn't treating you as inferior, but actually was concerned for your well being.

ummm, nahhh.....

I would entertain that thought, IF, really wanted to make a concentrated effort for the cyclist's safety. LEO's don't pull over motorists to tell them to be careful when they are next to rigs, box trucks' n' garbage trucks. An LEO pulling someone over for a bit of 'friendly advice'.........nope.

Random thought: You ever think LEO's know they can't get us off the roads but are tired of having to peel fellow humans off it and not be able to arrest the "killers"?

That's a given.

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

+1!

Do you realize what you just said?:eek: You invariably said that, while it easier to warn the cyclist in this situation, it is also easier to blame the cyclist in a bike-motorist collision.

I know they are two different situations, but the continual behavior would be somehow always addressing the cyclist instead of and/or the motorist.No, that's NOT what I said. That's what YOU are reading into what I said.

Like I said before, if I warn my wife that the roads are slippery, I am not telling her not to drive on them. I have simply given her information (or possibly just reminding her) so that she can proceed as safely as possible. Now, if I thought she shouldn't be driving on them and I told her so, then that's a different situation.

No, that's NOT what I said. That's what YOU are reading into what I said.

Like I said before, if I warn my wife that the roads are slippery, I am not telling her not to drive on them. I have simply given her information (or possibly just reminding her) so that she can proceed as safely as possible. Now, if I thought she shouldn't be driving on them and I told her so, then that's a different situation.

So once again we see that it's okay for you to either twist things or read things into what they wrote, but when it happens to you, you get all upset over it. Very interesting.

No, that's NOT what I said. That's what YOU are reading into what I said.

Like I said before, if I warn my wife that the roads are slippery, I am not telling her not to drive on them. I have simply given her information (or possibly just reminding her) so that she can proceed as safely as possible. Now, if I thought she shouldn't be driving on them and I told her so, then that's a different situation.

You warning your wife about the road conditions, would be far different, from an LEO saying the same thing to an ordinary cyclist.

The difference would be, you would be warning your wife out of love, compassion, and concern.

Whereas an LEO would be saying the same warning out of frustration and consternation.

Two entirely different sets of emotion, to the same statement, due to the key people involved in the respective situations.

So once again we see that it's okay for you to either twist things or read things into what they wrote, but when it happens to you, you get all upset over it. Very interesting.
Upset? I'm not upset. That's you being wrong. Again. Now, go change out of your Star Trek pajamas and get ready for work.

You warning your wife about the road conditions, would be far different, from an LEO saying the same thing to an ordinary cyclist.

The difference would be, you would be warning your wife out of love, compassion, and concern.

Whereas an LEO would be saying the same warning out of frustration and consternation.

Two entirely different sets of emotion, to the same statement, due to the key people involved in the respective situations.How on earth do you know what the emotional state of the LEO is???

How on earth do you know what the emotional state of the LEO is???

When have you ever come across an LEO, that made a stop on a cyclist out of love, compassion and concern, unless they were a cyclist themselves. I highly doubt you will find one making a stop on a cyclist for those reasons.

When have you ever come across an LEO, that made a stop on a cyclist out of love, compassion and concern, unless they were a cyclist themselves. I highly doubt you will find one making a stop on a cyclist for those reasons.You didn't answer the question. You're assuming you know the emotional state of all LEOs who offer cyclists warnings.

I don't doubt that some of them are jerks, just as some cyclists are jerks, but I don't share your assumption about their emotional state. I think it's fairly rational and reasonable for a cop to warn a cyclist about dangers without reading more into it than face value.

You didn't answer the question. You're assuming you know the emotional state of all LEOs who offer cyclists warnings.

I don't doubt that some of them are jerks, just as some cyclists are jerks, but I don't share your assumption about their emotional state. I think it's fairly rational and reasonable for a cop to warn a cyclist about dangers without reading more into it than face value.

Then how do you explain the off duty traffic homicide cop who pulled me over several years ago and started out with"

"You and your clubs need to learn. . ."

Only to change it to:

"I'm sick and tired of cleaning your brains off of the roads."

He started out adversarial and it went downhill.

What I want to know is where is John Forester in this conversation... why isn't he telling these LEOs that "cyclists fare best... bla bla bla?"

Apparently these LEOs believe that cyclists fare best at the side of or off the road.

Then how do you explain the off duty traffic homicide cop who pulled me over several years ago and started out with"

"You and your clubs need to learn. . ."

Only to change it to:

"I'm sick and tired of cleaning your brains off of the roads."

He started out adversarial and it went downhill.Yes, Star Trek boy, we all know that your catalog of personal anecdotes are an accurate representation of how the majority of people think. Thanks for your "informed" input once again.

You didn't answer the question. You're assuming you know the emotional state of all LEOs who offer cyclists warnings.

I don't doubt that some of them are jerks, just as some cyclists are jerks, but I don't share your assumption about their emotional state. I think it's fairly rational and reasonable for a cop to warn a cyclist about dangers without reading more into it than face value.
That would be a fair assertion, if experience didn't get in the way.

That would be a fair assertion, if experience didn't get in the way.And we all have our own experiences, to be sure. I would just caution anyone reading the A&S that the experiences posted around here tend to be quite extreme and not necessarily representative of cycling in general. I remember the first few times I came here - I was almost afraid to ever get on a bike again!

And we all have our own experiences, to be sure. I would just caution anyone reading the A&S that the experiences posted around here tend to be quite extreme and not necessarily representative of cycling in general. I remember the first few times I came here - I was almost afraid to ever get on a bike again!

I hope your not implying that, those with supposedly 'extreme' experiences should join the CM crowd?:notamused:

Doesn't getting passed on the road by a motorized vehicle by less than what the law allows(3-5ft. in certain jurisdictions) bother you? Yes, Reactions may seem extreme, but what do you expect when a cyclist has a right to be on the road, yet the motorist certainly doesn't think so and the motorist behaves almost intent on causing the cyclist to crash. Also, If the same motorist does cause the cyclist to crash(and maybe even get killed) guess what, the motorist won't care. Then that is compounded by law enforcement not caring, even to the point of blaming the cyclist even after the cyclist has died as a result. Then the emotional coup de grace' is the motorist claiming they didn't see the cyclist. Yes, Both motorists' and/or cyclists' get lost in a motorist's blind spot. But show where more than 50% of the time, motorists' are profusely apologetic to a cyclist, and about hitting them with their motorized vehicle, regardless of who's fault the accident was.

Yesterday I was 'taking the lane', going at a good speed(20-25mph), when a motorist behind me suddenly honked obviously wanting me out of their way so they could speed. When they could have easily passed me in the passing lane, without honking in the first place.

Now, Sure I can just emotionally brush it off as another dumb motorist. At the same time, am I not supposed to feel any ounce of disgust?

Put it in perspective. If someone shoots a gun at you, but thankfully the bullet ONLY goes by your ear, wouldn't you be thankful to still be alive, yet, mad at the person that shot the gun at you.

Read your local laws and think about your right to bike on the road.

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?

To the mods what is wrong with the word ****? That it gets filtered?

It was a two lane 45mph non-divided highway. I only had to be on that road for about a half mile before I would detour into a housing development with minimal traffic. The driver's excuse was he didn't see me until the last second. Apparently he was tailgating a car and when that car passed me he ran right into me.

I wasn't seriously injured. Bruised butt, bruised calf, minor abrasions. Cracked helmet was kind of scary. It's sort of miraculous, actually.

What did I learn from the incident? Two things. First, always wear your helmet. I don't know what impacted my helmet, or what my helmet impacted, but it was enough to crack it. My skull would have taken the hit otherwise. Second, always take the lane. I was being a timid rider and sitting too far to the right. I gave the arsehole driver who passed me before the hit too much opportunity to make a stupid move. Now I control the lane no matter what. My safety comes first.

I hope your not implying that, those with supposedly 'extreme' experiences should join the CM crowd?:notamused:

Doesn't getting passed on the road by a motorized vehicle by less than what the law allows(3-5ft. in certain jurisdictions) bother you?
I guess it depends on the speed. Where I am most often passed in close quarters, cars are probably going anywhere from 20 to 40 mph, so I don't mind a couple feet at those speeds.

My bigger concern is actually when cars get backed up behind me because it increases the odds that someone will get impatient and do something stupid. I quit riding on one road in particular because more than once multiple cars got backed up and then all of them tried to pass and the last guy came too close (for my standards, at least) to a head on collision in the other lane. It would have been his own fault, of course, but I would still be involved and I just don't want that on my conscience so I don't ride there anymore.


Yes, Reactions may seem extreme, but what do you expect when a cyclist has a right to be on the road, yet the motorist certainly doesn't think so and the motorist behaves almost intent on causing the cyclist to crash.
If a motorist is trying to drive unsafe, that's a situation I don't want to be involved in. I would try to get out of the way ASAP by pulling over, taking a different road, etc. I believe in my right to be there, but I'm not going to die over it.


Also, If the same motorist does cause the cyclist to crash(and maybe even get killed) guess what, the motorist won't care. This is where I have to disagree with you. I doubt that most people who kill others on accident don't care about the tragedy. And, I don't believe there are a bunch of motorists out there hell bent on running down cyclists and killing them just to prove a point. People like that are crazy, and like I said, I don't think most people are crazy.

I guess it depends on the speed. Where I am most often passed in close quarters, cars are probably going anywhere from 20 to 40 mph, so I don't mind a couple feet at those speeds.

My bigger concern is actually when cars get backed up behind me because it increases the odds that someone will get impatient and do something stupid. I quit riding on one road in particular because more than once multiple cars got backed up and then all of them tried to pass and the last guy came too close (for my standards, at least) to a head on collision in the other lane. It would have been his own fault, of course, but I would still be involved and I just don't want that on my conscience so I don't ride there anymore.

I would rather be in a ton of metal, than passed too close, regardless of their speed. I don't want to be like the guy in the All State car insurance commercial where the car is in a spin and the guy is hanging on to the car from outside, but with his back to the car.

As for someone getting impatient and/or stupid just because they are behind me. I have encountered that numerous times. Every time I have encountered motorists' like that, I shake my head and/or, tell them to shut up. Because if they are in such a rush, they should get in the passing lane. That is what it is there for.


If a motorist is trying to drive unsafe, that's a situation I don't want to be involved in. I would try to get out of the way ASAP by pulling over, taking a different road, etc. I believe in my right to be there, but I'm not going to die over it.

Trying, and doing, are two different things in this situation. One requires intent, while the other only requires stupidity but not intent.


This is where I have to disagree with you. I doubt that most people who kill others on accident don't care about the tragedy. And, I don't believe there are a bunch of motorists out there hell bent on running down cyclists and killing them just to prove a point. People like that are crazy, and like I said, I don't think most people are crazy.

There is still the 'hit and run' crowd. For one, the doctor out in California who intentionally caused the accident with the two cyclists that rear-ended him. There are many more like him.

As for someone getting impatient and/or stupid just because they are behind me. I have encountered that numerous times. Every time I have encountered motorists' like that, I shake my head and/or, tell them to shut up. Because if they are in such a rush, they should get in the passing lane. That is what it is there for.

Yes, IF there is a passing lane, of course, but the situation I'm describing is a two lane road without much of a shoulder. I can legally ride there, but I choose not to.



Trying, and doing, are two different things in this situation. One requires intent, while the other only requires stupidity but not intent.
I thought you said the motorist intended to cause an accident. I now see that's not exactly what you meant.




There is still the 'hit and run' crowd. For one, the doctor out in California who intentionally caused the accident with the two cyclists that rear-ended him. There are many more like him.People leave the scene of an accident because they don't want to get in trouble. That doesn't mean they don't care about what they've done to others, it just means they care about themselves more than others.

Yes, IF there is a passing lane, of course, but the situation I'm describing is a two lane road without much of a shoulder. I can legally ride there, but I choose not to.

I know.


I thought you said the motorist intended to cause an accident. I now see that's not exactly what you meant.

I was referring both, to those with intent, and those with just plain stupidity that weren't paying attention.


People leave the scene of an accident because they don't want to get in trouble. That doesn't mean they don't care about what they've done to others, it just means they care about themselves more than others.

But just as there are those that will stay at the scene, there are those that don't care.

It is safer to assume a motorist won't care, than would care. Because of the hostility towards cyclists and their respective right(s) to the road.

But just as there are those that will stay at the scene, there are those that don't care.
Yes, there are people who simply don't care if they harm or kill others, but I'm pretty sure that is far from normal.


It is safer to assume a motorist won't care, than would care. Because of the hostility towards cyclists and their respective right(s) to the road.A civil society is based on the premise that people are ultimately civil and care enough about themselves and others to get along civilly.

If you really are assuming a motorist doesn't care about killing you, you'd be an idiot for riding a bike because it would be like playing long-term russian roulette. Since you do ride a bike, you must not really mean what you're saying.

Yes, there are people who simply don't care if they harm or kill others, but I'm pretty sure that is far from normal.

In a civilized society, that is definitely far from normal. But when a person gets' behind the wheel, 'normal' transposes into 'free-for-all', because of the ever prevailing wind of the 'me first' attitude motorists suddenly project.


A civil society is based on the premise that people are ultimately civil and care enough about themselves and others to get along civilly.

Exactly! But when a person gets behind the wheel, their whole attitude, their whole demeanor changes. From the friendly 'How can I help?' attitude, to the 'get out of my way!' pomposity.


If you really are assuming a motorist doesn't care about killing you, you'd be an idiot for riding a bike because it would be like playing long-term russian roulette. Since you do ride a bike, you must not really mean what you're saying.

Yes, It is like playing russian roulette. But I find it worse, to not ride in the road.

Sorry, but I don't share your views on massive psychological shifts when people get behind the wheel.

Sorry, but I don't share your views on massive psychological shifts when people get behind the wheel.

Think of the 'Share The Road' signs that exist. It is not unreasonable to say, that the majority of motorists(who are not also cyclists) think 'Share The Road' means that they don't need to follow BEHIND a cyclist, but that they can be even with a cyclist in the same lane.

How does that apply to the 'psychological shift' upon getting behind the wheel. Those same individuals that are nasty behind the wheel, may be a person that is very charitable when not behind the wheel.

The doctor out in LA who went to prison for intentionally backing into the two cyclists, may have been wonderful with his patients. But when it came to his being behind the wheel, he became another person.

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Essentially what the cop told me in the ER after a woman made a left turn in front of my GSX1100G. When it comes to police bias, bicyclists take a second place to motorcyclists IME - but others may differ.

You warning your wife about the road conditions, would be far different, from an LEO saying the same thing to an ordinary cyclist.

The difference would be, you would be warning your wife out of love, compassion, and concern.

Whereas an LEO would be saying the same warning out of frustration and consternation.

Two entirely different sets of emotion, to the same statement, due to the key people involved in the respective situations.
Another basic distinction SBRDude is incapable of making. What else is new ....