Advocacy & Safety - Salmon beaten in Vancouver road rage incident

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Cyclist+beaten+Second+Narrows+Crossing+path+rage+incident/7453814/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Cyclist+beaten+Second+Narrows+Crossing+path+rage+incident/7453814/story.html

Ah. :)

Nothing like a little positive reinforcement to encourage errant cyclists to ride on the right side of the street.

Sounds more like drug rage than road rage.

Of course, we only have the victim's story, so there may be more to this than we know right now.

That said, my position on salmon is they don't need to be beaten; They'll get themselves injured soon enough.

Sounds more like drug rage than road rage.

I agree. Especially since the perp put the salmon rider in a choke hold. The reaction from the start is over the top. But the choke hold sends the reaction into the stratosphere.

Nothing like a little positive reinforcement to encourage errant cyclists to ride on the right side of the street.Of course, this wasn't the street -- it was a sidewalk/walkway.

It looks like it was a totally protected walkway, so cars aren't an issue. Of course, cyclists coming at each other have the same problems that a car and a cyclist coming at each other have -- but the speeds are usually much lower and so it's a smaller deal.

And this is a pretty narrow walkway -- it looks just wide enough for one pedestrian to pass another, or a cyclist to pass a pedestrian. I guess the real solution, short of making it wider (probably very difficult) is just to ban cyclists ...

But if the victim's story is what really happened, and this really was about the salmoning -- the guy who did it really had no cause to do it. This would be the most mild sort of salmoning possible.

it's not the victim's story, the cops were speculating

Nothing like a little positive reinforcement to encourage errant cyclists to ride on the right side of the street.Of course, this wasn't the street -- it was a sidewalk/walkway.

It looks like it was a totally protected walkway, so cars aren't an issue. Of course, cyclists coming at each other have the same problems that a car and a cyclist coming at each other have -- but the speeds are usually much lower and so it's a smaller deal.

And this is a pretty narrow walkway -- it looks just wide enough for one pedestrian to pass another, or a cyclist to pass a pedestrian. I guess the real solution, short of making it wider (probably very difficult) is just to ban cyclists ...

But if the victim's story is what really happened, and this really was about the salmoning -- the guy who did it really had no cause to do it. This would be the most mild sort of salmoning possible.

Instead of banning anyone, as it is entirely possible that the bridge is the only reasonable way to get from point a to point b. Would be to launch a PSA campaign reminding cyclists which side of the bridge to ride on. Then have the local LEOs randomly patrol the bridge, first issuing warnings, and then issuing tickets.

what is salmon ?

Instead of banning anyone, as it is entirely possible that the bridge is the only reasonable way to get from point a to point b. Would be to launch a PSA campaign reminding cyclists which side of the bridge to ride on. Then have the local LEOs randomly patrol the bridge, first issuing warnings, and then issuing tickets.


Instead of penalizing the victim, LEO's need to apprehend the assailant, and occasionally patrol the bride walkway to help keep it safe for all users, whether they are salmon riders or not.

The situation is the same as 2 motorist coming head on, on a single lane one way street at low speed. The salmon knew he was wrong and he should have been on the path on the other side of the bridge, that is why he stopped and moved to the side.

The salmon deserves a ticket and the other guy deserves some jail time.

Instead of banning anyone, as it is entirely possible that the bridge is the only reasonable way to get from point a to point b. Would be to launch a PSA campaign reminding cyclists which side of the bridge to ride on. Then have the local LEOs randomly patrol the bridge, first issuing warnings, and then issuing tickets.


Instead of penalizing the victim, LEO's need to apprehend the assailant, and occasionally patrol the bride walkway to help keep it safe for all users, whether they are salmon riders or not.

If you go back and re-read the article other then the victim having been traveling in the wrong direction, we really don't know what instigated the "beatdown." It is possible that he said or did something to the alleged assailant that actually.started.the ball rolling as it were.

Also from the description, it sounds as if it's just barely wide enough for a bicycle.and a pedestrian, and not really wide enough for two cyclists traveling in opposite directions.

Just saying, we really don't have any facts beyond one cyclist.traveling one direction, and another in the opposite,.meeting amend "beatdown" occurring.

what is salmon ?

It's a cyclist who is riding "upstream" or against traffic.

If you go back and re-read the article other then the victim having been traveling in the wrong direction, we really don't know what instigated the "beatdown." It is possible that he said or did something to the alleged assailant that actually.started.the ball rolling as it were.



From what I read is that the only action that the victim stated that he took was in his stopping and letting the other cyclist go by, without saying a word.

Prion disease from eating farmed salmon from the UK. On a realistic perspective - they need to get this sickie off the road.

it's not the victim's story, the cops were speculatingWell, it's both.

"The southbound man moved to one side and stopped to allow the other rider to pass, as is convention. But instead of whizzing by, the second cyclist stopped and allegedly punched the first man twice in the head. He then put him in a chokehold, according to police, and punched him six to eight more times before riding away." is the victim's story, and the idea that it was due to the salmoning was from the police.

Maybe I could have been more precise in my language, but "if the victim's story is what really happened" and "this really was about the salmoning" were intended to be separate statements that stand on their own rather than "if the first is correct then the second".

Personally, my guess is that there was more to it. Maybe the victim didn't move to one side and stop and he expected the other guy to stop. (It's always "I was just minding my own business, officer!") Maybe the victim insulted the other guy. Maybe they collided.

After all, if this path has much traffic, the odds are this wasn't the only salmon he encountered.

Personally, my guess is that there was more to it. Maybe the victim didn't move to one side and stop and he expected the other guy to stop. (It's always "I was just minding my own business, officer!") Maybe the victim insulted the other guy. Maybe they collided.



......and then it could just a case of pent up aggressions, and the victim just ended up be the focal point at the time.

If you go back and re-read the article other then the victim having been traveling in the wrong direction, we really don't know what instigated the "beatdown." It is possible that he said or did something to the alleged assailant that actually.started.the ball rolling as it were.



From what I read is that the only action that the victim stated that he took was in his stopping and letting the other cyclist go by, without saying a word.

The problem if think about it is that we only have the alleged victims side. Other then the report that the victim forms ride with a motorist, we haven't (if I'm not mistaken) heard from anyone who actually witnessed the beating.

We also haven't heard from the alleged assailant.

Don't you think that it's reasonable that the alleged victim is going to say whatever it'll takes to portray himself as an "innocent victim?" I'm not saying that that is what has happened here, just that it is possible.

it's not the victim's story, the cops were speculatingWell, it's both.

"The southbound man moved to one side and stopped to allow the other rider to pass, as is convention. But instead of whizzing by, the second cyclist stopped and allegedly punched the first man twice in the head. He then put him in a chokehold, according to police, and punched him six to eight more times before riding away." is the victim's story, and the idea that it was due to the salmoning was from the police.

Maybe I could have been more precise in my language, but "if the victim's story is what really happened" and "this really was about the salmoning" were intended to be separate statements that stand on their own rather than "if the first is correct then the second".

Personally, my guess is that there was more to it. Maybe the victim didn't move to one side and stop and he expected the other guy to stop. (It's always "I was just minding my own business, officer!") Maybe the victim insulted the other guy. Maybe they collided.

After all, if this path has much traffic, the odds are this wasn't the only salmon he encountered.

Doug,

I agree, there are a lot of details missing from this story.

I ride this bridge several times a week, and did so just yesterday.

The lane is really just a narrow sidewalk, it is not really possible for two cyclists to pass each other. When I encounter someone going the wrong way, I slow to walking speed and the salmon normally stops and hugs the railing as I squeeze by. It was obviously never intended for bicycle travel and is a bit of a sore spot for the local cycling advocacy groups. There is just no other reasonable way to travel by bicycle from Burnaby/Coquitlam or further, if you're going to North Vancouver.

There are paths designed specifically to allow cyclists to access the correct lane of travel from whatever direction they're approaching from. There's really no excuse for salmoning here, and it is dangerous and annoying when people do so. I temper my own anger in these situations with the knowledge that the paths are not super clear, and I can understand someone encountering the the bridge for the first time getting confused...it doesn't help that there are other bridges in the area on which cyclists are directed to travel in a two-way bike lane. So you come up to them and you're thinking "hmm this can't be right...I'd be going the wrong way..." and then of course it makes sense when you get there, but until then...

This could all be avoided with proper signage in my opinion.

Well, it's both.

"The southbound man moved to one side and stopped to allow the other rider to pass, as is convention. But instead of whizzing by, the second cyclist stopped and allegedly punched the first man twice in the head. He then put him in a chokehold, according to police, and punched him six to eight more times before riding away." is the victim's story, and the idea that it was due to the salmoning was from the police.

Maybe I could have been more precise in my language, but "if the victim's story is what really happened" and "this really was about the salmoning" were intended to be separate statements that stand on their own rather than "if the first is correct then the second".

Personally, my guess is that there was more to it. Maybe the victim didn't move to one side and stop and he expected the other guy to stop. (It's always "I was just minding my own business, officer!") Maybe the victim insulted the other guy. Maybe they collided.

After all, if this path has much traffic, the odds are this wasn't the only salmon he encountered.

I have to say, when I meet salmons on this stretch who don't stop and move over, I start to see a little red myself. It would take only a little provocation in that situation to require a few deep breaths on my part.

It's a cyclist who is riding "upstream" or against traffic.

Now that's a new one for me... salmoning.

Sounds like that bridge isn't the most hospitable place to ride!

:(

No, that was not a salmon but rather a human. Dehumanization messes up our thinking and emotions.

If a story makes no sense at all, as in this case, there is some probability that the victim is hiding something. He may actually know why the person beat him and not want to say. It's possible that the assailant was not a cyclist, for example.

OTOH, there was a story recently about a guy that was beating people up on a mup for some transgression which I don't recall.

I have to say, when I meet salmons on this stretch who don't stop and move over, I start to see a little red myself. It would take only a little provocation in that situation to require a few deep breaths on my part.

Man, it's narrow. A perfect recipe for angry people to go postal.

http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy193/DerHuman/Lobster%20Pot/Narrow.jpg

If a story makes no sense at all, as in this case, there is some probability that the victim is hiding something. He may actually know why the person beat him and not want to say. It's possible that the assailant was not a cyclist, for example.

OTOH, there was a story recently about a guy that was beating people up on a mup for some transgression which I don't recall.

Again, I've got to agree, there are a LOT of details missing here.

That's a good point, we only have the alleged victims word that the alleged assailant was a cyclist.

It'd be interesting to learn if there are any independent witnesses to this incident.

I ride this bridge several times a week, and did so just yesterday.

The lane is really just a narrow sidewalk, it is not really possible for two cyclists to pass each other. When I encounter someone going the wrong way, I slow to walking speed and the salmon normally stops and hugs the railing as I squeeze by. It was obviously never intended for bicycle travel and is a bit of a sore spot for the local cycling advocacy groups. There is just no other reasonable way to travel by bicycle from Burnaby/Coquitlam or further, if you're going to North Vancouver.

There are paths designed specifically to allow cyclists to access the correct lane of travel from whatever direction they're approaching from. There's really no excuse for salmoning here, and it is dangerous and annoying when people do so. I temper my own anger in these situations with the knowledge that the paths are not super clear, and I can understand someone encountering the the bridge for the first time getting confused...it doesn't help that there are other bridges in the area on which cyclists are directed to travel in a two-way bike lane. So you come up to them and you're thinking "hmm this can't be right...I'd be going the wrong way..." and then of course it makes sense when you get there, but until then...

This could all be avoided with proper signage in my opinion.

You are addressing the issue that came to mind for me -- are there signs indicating the correct direction of bicycle traffic? Is it obvious that the path is one-way only, and that cyclists wanting to go the other direction need to be on the other side of the bridge?

I noticed the following passage in the news article:

The incident comes less than two weeks after cycling advocates drew media attention to safety issues associated with the bridge’s sidewalks. The paths, which are little more than a metre wide in places, are too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely, resulting from time to time in collisions.

How can a path be "too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely"? Seems to me that we are blaming infrastructure, when cyclists are responsible. We expect motorists who drive on very narrow roads to slow down (and even stop) to avoid collisions with other motorists and cyclists, regardless of how narrow the road is. Why should it be any different for cyclists on narrow paths?

I noticed the following passage in the news article:

The incident comes less than two weeks after cycling advocates drew media attention to safety issues associated with the bridge’s sidewalks. The paths, which are little more than a metre wide in places, are too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely, resulting from time to time in collisions.

How can a path be "too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely"? Seems to me that we are blaming infrastructure, when cyclists are responsible. We expect motorists who drive on very narrow roads to slow down (and even stop) to avoid collisions with other motorists and cyclists, regardless of how narrow the road is. Why should it be any different for cyclists on narrow paths?

Interesting in an academic sense perhaps, but I don't think that anyone who had ridden this path would consider it acceptable.

Interesting in an academic sense perhaps, but I don't think that anyone who had ridden this path would consider it acceptable.

Sounds unacceptably narrow to me. I would prefer to ride on a more spacious path. However, I think anybody can ride on it and slow or stop as necessary to prevent collisions.

This reminds me of the excuses given by the "Motor vehicle operator who was convicted of passing too close" to digger. "The road was too narrow. I couldn't slow down because I was towing a trailer. He swerved in front of me." Lame.

I noticed the following passage in the news article:

The incident comes less than two weeks after cycling advocates drew media attention to safety issues associated with the bridge’s sidewalks. The paths, which are little more than a metre wide in places, are too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely, resulting from time to time in collisions.

How can a path be "too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely"? Seems to me that we are blaming infrastructure, when cyclists are responsible. We expect motorists who drive on very narrow roads to slow down (and even stop) to avoid collisions with other motorists and cyclists, regardless of how narrow the road is. Why should it be any different for cyclists on narrow paths?Way too many assumptions in your endless efforts to blame cyclist for nearly all things wrong. In a large number of collisions between cyclist and pedestrians, the cyclist does everything right (slows, warns, moves far left to pass) and the pedestrian still steps right in front of the cyclist at the last second causing the collision.

I guess we will just need a new acronym, JAC... And this story is great since the term applies to both of the cyclists in the story.

Way too many assumptions in your endless efforts to blame cyclist for nearly all things wrong. In a large number of collisions between cyclist and pedestrians, the cyclist does everything right (slows, warns, moves far left to pass) and the pedestrian still steps right in front of the cyclist at the last second causing the collision.

Way too many assumptions in your endless efforts to blame motorists for nearly all things wrong. In a large number of collisions between motorists and cyclists, the motorist does everything right (slows, warns, moves far left to pass) and the cyclist still swerves right in front of the motorist at the last second causing the collision.

Nope, just as stupid when I say it as when you say it.

I guess we will just need a new acronym, JAC... And this story is great since the term applies to both of the cyclists in the story.Old news.

There is no justification for another rider to physically assault someone. It's a police matter, not a infrastructure issue as some imply - but assault & battery. Sure, it's narrow, but you don't go putting your hands on someone just because they slowed your motion, or were on the wrong side. I hope they catch the --ucker who bet up the 49 yr old guy and put him in the slammer.

Way too many assumptions in your endless efforts to blame motorists for nearly all things wrong. In a large number of collisions between motorists and cyclists, the motorist does everything right (slows, warns, moves far left to pass) and the cyclist still swerves right in front of the motorist at the last second causing the collision.

Nope, just as stupid when I say it as when you say it.The only motorist I blame for wrongs, are the <1% that do the wrong thing and are the cause of 65 - 90% of the collisions with adult cyclist.

Several studies show that for adult cyclist, collision fault lies with the motorist between 65 - 90% of the time. Hawaii study was 70%, Australia came up with 90%. But of course you wish to include kids in your numbers to blame cyclist. Seriously, if motorist cannot watch out for the kids in residential areas then there is something even more wrong there even if the collision fault falls on the kid.

At any rate, it is clear you failed to note that this thread is about two cyclist and in a prior post, it seems you were unable to comprehend my statement:


The salmon deserves a ticket and the other guy deserves some jail time.

Several studies show that for adult cyclist, collision fault lies with the motorist between 65 - 90% of the time. Hawaii study was 70%, Australia came up with 90%. But of course you wish to include kids in your numbers to blame cyclist.

Couple of problems with that statement. First, it is entirely possible that the 'statistic' is biased since collisions with cars (as opposed to other bikes or pedestrians) are far more likely to be reported in accident data. Further, simply restricting the issue to 'collisions' will further skew the 'statistic' since many bicycle injuries do not involve collisions at all. And the latter really don't get reported at all. For instance, in the OP scenario, if a collision had occurred, it would not have made it into the accident database. Indeed the only reason this made it into any police database at all was because it was an assault... And none of that addresses the potential bias in assigning blame to either the cyclist or motorist in the studies you mention. That is something that is far harder to do without the researcher's bias having a strong influence...

So, in short, neither you nor Daves_Not_Here have any real basis for your assumptions, not that such petty details should interfere with your debate...

Couple of problems with that statement. First, it is entirely possible that the 'statistic' is biased since collisions with cars (as opposed to other bikes or pedestrians) are far more likely to be reported in accident data. Further, simply restricting the issue to 'collisions' will further skew the 'statistic' since many bicycle injuries do not involve collisions at all. And the latter really don't get reported at all. For instance, in the OP scenario, if a collision had occurred, it would not have made it into the accident database. Indeed the only reason this made it into any police database at all was because it was an assault... And none of that addresses the potential bias in assigning blame to either the cyclist or motorist in the studies you mention. That is something that is far harder to do without the researcher's bias having a strong influence...

So, in short, neither you nor Daves_Not_Here have any real basis for your assumptions, not that such petty details should interfere with your debate...You instantly run into left field on almost every response you give. Your post is way off base since Daves_Not_Here simply wanted to troll claiming I always claim motorist are at fault in a thread about cyclist on cyclist. So you jump in to troll against some specific studies dealing only with motorist cyclist collisions claiming they are not valid because they only dealt with motorist cyclist collision.

Seriously myrridin, try to get a grip rather than constantly trying to troll against me.

You instantly run into left field on almost every response you give. Your post is way off base since Daves_Not_Here simply wanted to troll claiming I always claim motorist are at fault in a thread about cyclist on cyclist. So you jump in to troll against some specific studies dealing only with motorist cyclist collisions claiming they are not valid because they only dealt with motorist cyclist collision.

Seriously myrridin, try to get a grip rather than constantly trying to troll against me.
Myridden and Daves_Not_Here:
Being another poster who CB HI loves to hang the troll label on when he is at a loss for an intelligent response, consider it a badge of honor coming from that source.

Myridden and Daves_Not_Here:
Being another poster who CB HI loves to hang the troll label on when he is at a loss for an intelligent response, consider it a badge of honor coming from that source.The troll convention is on, with none of them adding any worthwhile post to this thread.

The three of you crossing thread just to troll. Poor form on your part.

You instantly run into left field on almost every response you give. Your post is way off base since Daves_Not_Here simply wanted to troll claiming I always claim motorist are at fault in a thread about cyclist on cyclist. So you jump in to troll against some specific studies dealing only with motorist cyclist collisions claiming they are not valid because they only dealt with motorist cyclist collision.

Seriously myrridin, try to get a grip rather than constantly trying to troll against me.


Paranoid much? Despite your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote, I simply said that neither you nor Dave... have any actual objective data to support your assumptions... And YOU did make assumptions in your statement.

Please use private messages for your personal quarrels.

This could have been a useful thread discussing the affects of substandard infrastructure on its users state of mind, and the process of advocating for better infrastructure. Instead it's devolved into a thoroughly idiotic argument mostly made up of points that were raised in other threads, between a handful of posters who seem to just follow each other around and yell at each other.

Sounds unacceptably narrow to me. I would prefer to ride on a more spacious path. However, I think anybody can ride on it and slow or stop as necessary to prevent collisions.

This reminds me of the excuses given by the "Motor vehicle operator who was convicted of passing too close" to digger. "The road was too narrow. I couldn't slow down because I was towing a trailer. He swerved in front of me." Lame.

I don't understand how a lane that is actully too narrow, reminds you of an idiot making excuses about a normal road? I'm not making excuses for the attacker, but I think a JAM who doesn't understand the rules of the road isn't really the same thing as a crazy person who attacks some guy over a slight provocation.

This could have been a useful thread discussing the affects of substandard infrastructure on its users state of mind, and the process of advocating for better infrastructure. Instead it's devolved into a thoroughly idiotic argument mostly made up of points that were raised in other threads, between a handful of posters who seem to just follow each other around and yell at each other.

The situation in the OP was not related to any potential infrastructure 'deficiencies'... It was an individual with entirely too much pent up anger. Two civilized individuals could easily have passed each other with no issues what-so-ever. What we have here is a violent confrontation between two JAC's, thats all. No lessons learnable, other than controlling one's temper.

The situation in the OP was not related to any potential infrastructure 'deficiencies'... It was an individual with entirely too much pent up anger. Two civilized individuals could easily have passed each other with no issues what-so-ever. What we have here is a violent confrontation between two JAC's, thats all. No lessons learnable, other than controlling one's temper.

You consider a road that requires a user to come to a complete stop to allow another by, travelling at walking pace, to be acceptable? You don't think this situation could cause the temper flare up in the first place?

You consider a road that requires a user to come to a complete stop to allow another by, travelling at walking pace, to be acceptable? You don't think this situation could cause the temper flare up in the first place?

But this isn't a road that this occurred on, is it? It is for all intents and purposes a SIDEWALK! Also, you you seem intent on misunderstanding, let me be perfectly clear. THIS SITUATION was a result solely of one (or two) individuals who lost their temper...




And let me address just a few of your MANY assumptions...


You consider a road that requires a user to come to a complete stop to allow another by, travelling at walking pace, to be acceptable?

First, according to the OP's article this was a one direction facility, so it was not designed to allow two bicycles going in opposite directions to pass. THAT IS NOT A DESIGN FLAW! THAT IS A RESULT OF AN OPERATION ERROR on the part of one of the cyclists.


You don't think this situation could cause the temper flare up in the first place?

No road obstacle, justifies physical assault. PERIOD! Or do you think those motorists that run cyclists off roads are justified FOR THE VERY SAME REASON--INDIGNATION OVER HAVING TO STOP/SLOW DOWN?

But this isn't a road that this occurred on, is it? It is for all intents and purposes a SIDEWALK! Also, you you seem intent on misunderstanding, let me be perfectly clear. THIS SITUATION was a result solely of one (or two) individuals who lost their temper...




And let me address just a few of your MANY assumptions...



First, according to the OP's article this was a one direction facility, so it was not designed to allow two bicycles going in opposite directions to pass. THAT IS NOT A DESIGN FLAW! THAT IS A RESULT OF AN OPERATION ERROR on the part of one of the cyclists.



No road obstacle, justifies physical assault. PERIOD! Or do you think those motorists that run cyclists off roads are justified FOR THE VERY SAME REASON--INDIGNATION OVER HAVING TO STOP/SLOW DOWN?

You're arguing points I'm not making. Of course it's a sidwalk. It's a sidewalk vehicles (bicycles) are forced to use. Call it whatever you want.

And what is it with people on BF insisting that everyone they're arguing with are simply 'misunderstanding' everything? Do I have to point out the blatantly obvious to prove to you that I understand the situation?

This is a one direction facility, yes. There are also no signs whatsoever saying this, and no signs directing cyclists on how to actually access the other side of the bridge...which is not so obvious depending which direction you approach from.

Your last sentence is just ridiculous. No one is saying this.

this story is really sketchy, so everyone seems to feel free to make up their own facts. Closing before the internet explodes