Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist apparently intentionally hit on Deer Creek Canyon this morning

http://303cycling.com/cyclist-hit-in-deer-creek-canyon
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/403564_10102414625053883_1879669632_n.jpg
It's just lovely around these parts. :notamused:

For a moment, I thought that you were referring to Deer Creeek Road, in the Santa Monica Mountains in Malibu--a road that I often ride on.

Regardless, that SOB ought to be dragged naked behind his pu truck, then tarred and feathered and finally hung from a tree.

I know, a bit drastic. But stories like this one really get me angry.

One moment you are minding your own business, enjoying a nice day of riding and then the next moment you are being dragged under a car driven by a murderous a$$hole. :notamused: :notamused: :notamused:

I can't find any news articles about this.
Was the driver cited?

I'm sure the police were involved. He should be charged with vehicular assault, at least, if not attempted manslaughter.

I'm surprised the other riders aren't up for attempted manslaughter charges. With another group of riders the driver might risk being beaten within an inch of his life.

Judging by the damaged corner of the truck and the taco'd wheel there was a good bit of impact force. At least there appears to be a good number of witnesses...

I'm surprised the other riders aren't up for attempted manslaughter charges. With another group of riders the driver might risk being beaten within an inch of his life.

This!

Good ol boy psychopath motorist.


Cycling in the USA, doot do, doot do........(my apologies Steve)

I'm surprised the other riders aren't up for attempted manslaughter charges. With another group of riders the driver might risk being beaten within an inch of his life.

Especially if the other group of riders were wearing black leather jackets.

Especially if the other group of riders were wearing black leather jackets.

Well, for better or worse, this seems to be another difference between bikers and cyclists. It seems like this guy didn't get the Tweet about the Dr. now spending time in jail for wanting to "teach the rider a lesson".

what city , state is this ?

CO, Southwest of Denver.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=deer+creek+canyon&hl=en&ll=39.549589,-105.141735&spn=0.126804,0.138187&sll=38.83115,-105.545654&sspn=8.196395,8.843994&hq=deer+creek+canyon&radius=15000&t=m&z=13

My money is on this guy being the perp.......

http://www.bikeforums.net thread Insane-Driver-who-obviously-doesn-t-like-people-on-bikes (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/847017-Insane-Driver-who-obviously-doesn-t-like-people-on-bikes)





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFM5QiAd3QA&feature=player_embedded

if not, this is a disturbing trend in colorado.

The cyclists in the above video were idiots for not pulling over. They obvisouly had an angry and irrational person piloting a 4000 lb weapon and they choose to stay in front of them and just make them angrier.

The cyclists in the above video were idiots for not pulling over. They obviously had an angry and irrational person piloting a 4000 lb weapon and they choose to stay in front of them and just make them angrier.

I have dealt with motorists', like that moron, before. I haven't moved on account of the motorist's horn. If there is an allowance in the state traffic code, that allows the motorist to cross the double-yellow line to pass a cyclist, then there is no reason for that kind of behavior from motorists'.

The look on the driver's face, from the picture the OP provided, says to me, the motorist could care less about what happens to the cyclists'.

I have dealt with motorists', like that moron, before. I haven't moved on account of the motorist's horn. If there is an allowance in the state traffic code, that allows the motorist to cross the double-yellow line to pass a cyclist, then there is no reason for that kind of behavior from motorists'.

There is just such a law in CO.
A few days ago I had some idiot laying on the horn trying to pass me in a roundabout!:twitchy:

I have dealt with motorists', like that moron, before. I haven't moved on account of the motorist's horn. If there is an allowance in the state traffic code, that allows the motorist to cross the double-yellow line to pass a cyclist, then there is no reason for that kind of behavior from motorists'.



It as nothing to do with the law. Its simple common sense that when a crazy person has a 4000 lb weapon behind you then you move out of the way.

It as nothing to do with the law. Its simple common sense that when a crazy person has a 4000 lb weapon behind you then you move out of the way.

I see that you bike scared. But I don't. Also, It has to do with the posted speed limit, and how fast you can go. If you are going 10mph, on a 50mph, you have no business being on that road.

I would have a hard time not beating the guy. But the best thing would be to start video recording him and ask him as many incriminating questions as possible that the prosecution can use against him. Considering this guy was already going off, should not be too hard.

Private citizens do not have to give suspects a Miranda Warning.

I see that you bike scared. But I don't. Also, It has to do with the posted speed limit, and how fast you can go. If you are going 10mph, on a 50mph, you have no business being on that road.

I'm not sure I understand your last post Chris. Are you saying that, due to the speed difference of posted limit and actual cyclist speed, that the cyclists should not have been cycling that road?

It as nothing to do with the law. Its simple common sense that when a crazy person has a 4000 lb weapon behind you then you move out of the way.

She was asking for it! Did you look at that dress she was wearing? It's common sense that men are crazy and horny, and she should have worn a hijab.

She was asking for it! Did you look at that dress she was wearing? It's common sense that men are crazy and horny, and she should have worn a hijab.

He was asking for it. He was driving an expensive car and wearing a Rolex ... should've driven a Yugo and worn a cheap Timex.

(I get your point Kon, I can't stand these trolls who blame cyclists for the actions of every psycho out on the road.)

The look on the driver's face, from the picture the OP provided, says to me, the motorist could care less about what happens to the cyclists'.

Lynch him, eh? Convicted by an expert in paranormal investigative techniques.

He should be charged with vehicular assault, at least, if not attempted manslaughter.

Another Internet Columbo.

Good ol boy psychopath motorist.


And a third Internet accident investigator/psychiatrist chimes in with his investigative results.

The cyclists in the above video were idiots for not pulling over. They obvisouly had an angry and irrational person piloting a 4000 lb weapon and they choose to stay in front of them and just make them angrier.

Let's assume that the driver gave them plenty of warning by hitting his horn over several minutes, but yet, the cyclists stayed their course.

Then, due to frustration, you say that this driver is justified for using his vehicle as a weapon?

Why is it that certain people are justified using violence for their convenience?

The ONLY instance I can think of for using his vehicle as a weapon is if, somehow, he felt an immediate threat to his life (not his property) and he had to take action to save his life.
Did any of the cyclists point a weapon at the driver?

if states are going to enhance cyclists rights to the lane as Colorado has, the penalties for harassing or endangering cyclists needs to be upped significantly and to include civil suits being filed against drivers akin to California's new law allowing cyclists to pursue motorists with civil infractions much more easily.

this type of pyschopathic driving like this driver did has to have serious consequences. i'd suggest a mandatory prison term if a person is found guilty of using a car to willfully strike a vulnerable road user.

if states are going to enhance cyclists rights to the lane as Colorado has, the penalties for harassing or endangering cyclists needs to be upped significantly and to include civil suits being filed against drivers akin to California's new law allowing cyclists to pursue motorists with civil infractions much more easily.

this type of pyschopathic driving like this driver did has to have serious consequences. i'd suggest a mandatory prison term if a person is found guilty of using a car to willfully strike a vulnerable road user.

There are plenty of laws already on the books which could be enforced in situations like this. Imagine what charges driver would be facing if the rider was a bike cop.

I'm all for vulnerable road user laws--has any state passed one? I don't think they an easy thing, politically, and actually aren't that fair--why only vulnerable road users? Why not a similar law for all road users? Be easier to pass if the beneficiary includes pedestrians, cyclists, bikers, and mom and young kids in a mini-van...

I see that you bike scared. But I don't. Also, It has to do with the posted speed limit, and how fast you can go. If you are going 10mph, on a 50mph, you have no business being on that road.

In that case I can't ride my bicycle at all. The 50 MPH speed limits are EVERY SINGLE ROAD around me, starting 50 feet from my driveway.

Yet somehow I've been riding 8 years and pushing 30,000 miles now and have yet to have anything serious happen to me. I go entire years without anyone even honking at me and have never had a very close pass. I am not buying your theory.

Cycling in the USA, doot do, doot do........(my apologies Steve)

Somebody give me a cheeseburger!

She was asking for it! Did you look at that dress she was wearing? It's common sense that men are crazy and horny, and she should have worn a hijab.

Let's assume that the driver gave them plenty of warning by hitting his horn over several minutes, but yet, the cyclists stayed their course.

Then, due to frustration, you say that this driver is justified for using his vehicle as a weapon?

Why is it that certain people are justified using violence for their convenience?

The ONLY instance I can think of for using his vehicle as a weapon is if, somehow, he felt an immediate threat to his life (not his property) and he had to take action to save his life.
Did any of the cyclists point a weapon at the driver?
He isn't saying the cyclists were "asking for it" at all or that they should be in any way blamed, or that the motorist would be in any way justified for assaulting them (not sure where this even comes from, as pulling off the road is an action occurring after they were harassed; how is that a way of asking to be assaulted?). He's just saying that, in terms of their safety and their actions, they would have been better off pulling over rather than risking further enraging a person who is already obviously unstable and able to kill you with a few degrees motion in his foot and arms. The cyclists are of course completely in the right here... but that won't help them much if they're dead. It isn't a matter of rights, it's a matter of practically dealing with a dangerous situation. Especially when someone is acting like a maniac, it's valid to argue caution because he might act like a further maniac. Disagreeing that's the best way to handle it is valid, but trying to frame his point as one of blaming the victim is a total strawman.

There are plenty of laws already on the books which could be enforced in situations like this. Imagine what charges driver would be facing if the rider was a bike cop.

There is already plenty of "imagining" going on on this thread.

Don't need no cops, facts, investigation, or nuthin' to come up with the verdict. Heck there is a picture for heaven's sakes, and some anonymous comments from somebody on an Internet blog, what more is needed?

Guilty of all charges imagined by the A&S lynch mob!

He isn't saying the cyclists were "asking for it" at all or that they should be in any way blamed, or that the motorist would be in any way justified for assaulting them (not sure where this even comes from, as pulling off the road is an action occurring after they were harassed; how is that a way of asking to be assaulted?). He's just saying that, in terms of their safety and their actions, they would have been better off pulling over rather than risking further enraging a person who is already obviously unstable and able to kill you with a few degrees motion in his foot and arms. The cyclists are of course completely in the right here... but that won't help them much if they're dead. It isn't a matter of rights, it's a matter of practically dealing with a dangerous situation. Especially when someone is acting like a maniac, it's valid to argue caution because he might act like a further maniac. Disagreeing that's the best way to handle it is valid, but trying to frame his point as one of blaming the victim is a total strawman.

Horse crap. Assuming this happened the way described by the cyclists, and i-like-bikes is absolutely correct in saying that is an assumption, discussing what the cyclists did as stupid is implying that they behaved in a way that contributed to the attack. I wasn't there, and I'm not on the jury...but assuming the driver road raged out and struck a rider, or behaved in the way described, the cyclists behavior is immaterial and it's in poor taste to mention it.

I believe the post about the cyclists being stupid was in reference to the horn-honking incident in the video. I disagree with that post, but let's be careful what strawmen it is we are punching.

And a third Internet accident investigator/psychiatrist chimes in with his investigative results.

"Around 9:00AM our morning group ride was heading up S. Deer Creek Canyon Rd when a motorist pulled up behind us and began to honk his horn incessantly. Then he sped up and INTENTIONALLY rammed into one the cyclists smashing his bicycle and dragging him under the car. The man got out of his car, started swearing to no one in particular and then took the bicycle and threw it off the road. Notice the man's face as he doesn't have a care in the world. Not once did he apologize or seem to show any remorse."

If the motorist is not a psychopath, then his anger management abilities are sorely lacking.

Horse crap. Assuming this happened the way described by the cyclists, and i-like-bikes is absolutely correct in saying that is an assumption, discussing what the cyclists did as stupid is implying that they behaved in a way that contributed to the attack. I wasn't there, and I'm not on the jury...but assuming the driver road raged out and struck a rider, or behaved in the way described, the cyclists behavior is immaterial and it's in poor taste to mention it.
I think unterhausen is right, and you are referring to the OP while the comment you quoted was about the video. I think we're talking about two different things.

The same logic applies to both cases...though I did misread that comment as being directed towards the OP's case.

In the honking incident the riders behaved reasonably and were AFTRAP...would I have pulled over? Yes. Were they stupid for not pulling over? That's a stretch...and mentioning the cyclist behavior implies that they in some way had it coming. The honker was, justly, ticketed and has been roundly criticized as a meathead. I'll stand by the comment as applying to either of the incidents.

"Around 9:00AM our morning group ride was heading up S. Deer Creek Canyon Rd when..."

If the motorist is not a psychopath, then his anger management abilities are sorely lacking.

What did the motorist or police have to say about the incident? Or are both/all sides of a story unnecessary before handing down the verdict in the A&S court? Presumably you and your legal beagle brethren do not need to hear both sides of a story before making up your minds, especially if some person, posts something, somewhere that matches your own predetermined conclusion.

Get out the rope, eh?

BTW: My snap judgement is that the cyclist looks remarkably healthy for being hit and dragged under a moving vehicle. Must have been the helmet, eh?

What did the motorist or police have to say about the incident? Or are both/all sides of a story unnecessary before handing down the verdict in the A&S court? Presumably you and your legal beagle brethren do not need to hear both sides of a story before making up your minds, especially if some person, posts something, somewhere that matches your own predetermined conclusion.

Get out the rope, eh?

BTW: My snap judgement is that the cyclist looks remarkably healthy for being hit and dragged under a moving vehicle. Must have been the helmet, eh?

So since the cyclist survived, the potential offending motorist "who waited cause they knew they done wrong," should go scott free?

Boy your pendulum sure swings to extremes.

Somewhere in all this is at least a civil claim for damage to the bike and cyclists goods, and perhaps a criminal offence based on failing to yield right of way. No matter who was involved, all motorists HAVE A DUTY TO NOT HIT THINGS IN FRONT OF THEM. It is that simple and that basic. BTW just for the sake of argument, cyclists too have that same duty.

The same logic applies to both cases...though I did misread that comment as being directed towards the OP's case.

In the honking incident the riders behaved reasonably and were AFTRAP...would I have pulled over? Yes. Were they stupid for not pulling over? That's a stretch...and mentioning the cyclist behavior implies that they in some way had it coming. The honker was, justly, ticketed and has been roundly criticized as a meathead. I'll stand by the comment as applying to either of the incidents.
I'm not sure how you can stand by the statement though, it doesn't jive. He's criticizing their actions after they were already being harassed, so how can this be an "asking for it" argument???

If you just disagree that it was stupid, that's valid; criticizing his point as blaming the victim is, however, a strawman. That isn't what was said. All that was really said was a criticism of how they handled a bad situation... that has nothing to do with blaming them for said dangerous situation.

I'm not sure how you can stand by the statement though, it doesn't jive. He's criticizing their actions after they were already being harassed, so how can this be an "asking for it" argument???

If you just disagree that it was stupid, that's valid; criticizing his point as blaming the victim is, however, a strawman. That isn't what was said.

Saying that the cyclists were stupid after the initiation of harassing behavior (not pulling over) implies that they were somehow responsible for its continuation. The driver was ticketed for behaving improperly, criticizing the cyclists behavior is in poor taste, regardless of whether the person thinks they could, or should, have behaved differently. The cyclists behavior did not justify the honking incident, and calling that behavior stupid is implicitly blaming the victim and suggesting that the offending behavior could, or should, have been avoided.

At this point we're arguing semantics.

There is already plenty of "imagining" going on on this thread.

Don't need no cops, facts, investigation, or nuthin' to come up with the verdict. Heck there is a picture for heaven's sakes, and some anonymous comments from somebody on an Internet blog, what more is needed?

Guilty of all charges imagined by the A&S lynch mob!

No kidding... :rolleyes:


"Around 9:00AM our morning group ride was heading up S. Deer Creek Canyon Rd when a motorist pulled up behind us and began to honk his horn incessantly. Then he sped up and INTENTIONALLY rammed into one the cyclists smashing his bicycle and dragging him under the car. The man got out of his car, started swearing to no one in particular and then took the bicycle and threw it off the road. Notice the man's face as he doesn't have a care in the world. Not once did he apologize or seem to show any remorse."

If the motorist is not a psychopath, then his anger management abilities are sorely lacking.

So you got a statement from the victim that you are posing as the total truth of the matter. OK. Forget innocent until proven guilty.

Love all y'all eye-for-an-eye crowd. Didn't you hear? That kinda went out of style about the time Jesus walked the earth.

Bet those of you wishing ill will on the driver agree with the comment about the hope that he gets (g)raped repeatedly in jail, huh?

Saying that the cyclists were stupid after the initiation of harassing behavior (not pulling over) implies that they were somehow responsible for its continuation.
Well, that's certainly a convenient way to shelter against all criticism. Poor way to learn from experience, I'd say. You need to be able to look at how you handle things, even things that aren't your fault, to help you handle it better in the future. That's life.

It's pretty clear: Nobody is saying that they were responsible in any way for his actions; the point was just made that it may be safer to do what you can to disarm a situation where a clearly unstable person is acting dangerously. That's certainly a fair point to make, even if you don't agree, yeah?


The cyclists behavior did not justify the honking incident, and calling that behavior stupid is implicitly blaming the victim and suggesting that the offending behavior could, or should, have been avoided.

It's only implicitly blaming the victim when you have your defensiveness shields set to full blast. All it is trying to do is examine a situation and see how it might be better handled, so we can all learn from it. Like I said, disagree that is correct if you will, but building this straw man of a blame the victim argument is a lame cop out.


At this point we're arguing semantics.

Semantics is the arguing over meanings. You're just drawing a completely unsupported implication out of a simple statement.

Has anyone seen *any* local news articles about this incident?

BTW that honking video posted earlier resulted in the following charges against the driver:
(2) counts harrassing cyclists.
(1) count impeding traffic.
(1) count improper use of horn.

I would have a hard time not beating the guy. But the best thing would be to start video recording him and ask him as many incriminating questions as possible that the prosecution can use against him. Considering this guy was already going off, should not be too hard.

Private citizens do not have to give suspects a Miranda Warning.

Private citizens would be wise to stay as far within the law as they can in cases like this. It make prosecution more likely. There may be an urge to do violence on this knucklehead, but in the long run, that's a loosing strategy.


I see that you bike scared. But I don't. Also, It has to do with the posted speed limit, and how fast you can go. If you are going 10mph, on a 50mph, you have no business being on that road.

A trolling we will go. A new addition to the ignore list.

Well, that's certainly a convenient way to shelter against all criticism. Poor way to learn from experience, I'd say. You need to be able to look at how you handle things, even things that aren't your fault, to help you handle it better in the future. That's life.

It's pretty clear: Nobody is saying that they were responsible in any way for his actions; the point was just made that it may be safer to do what you can to disarm a situation where a clearly unstable person is acting dangerously. That's certainly a fair point to make, even if you don't agree, yeah?


It's only implicitly blaming the victim when you have your defensiveness shields set to full blast. All it is trying to do is examine a situation and see how it might be better handled, so we can all learn from it. Like I said, disagree that is correct if you will, but building this straw man of a blame the victim argument is a lame cop out.


Semantics is the arguing over meanings. You're just drawing a completely unsupported implication out of a simple statement.

Horse dung. This is a casual internet forum, not a scientific journal or a treatise on Kierkegaard. I have no interest in drawing a Venn diagram prior to a posting. Pomposity disguised as intellectualism.

The poster's claim is very analogous to "look at that dress, she was asking for it," and you can make that same argument, i.e. that saying she was asking for it isn't justifying the offender's behavior.

Example -

"She was stupid, she shouldn't have worn that dress." Offensive and implies shared responsibility because the result might have been avoided had the poster's criticism been followed.

"The cyclists in the above video were idiots for not pulling over (shouldn't have worn that dress). They obvisouly had an angry and irrational person piloting a 4000 lb weapon and they choose to stay in front of them and just make them angrier." Offensive and implies shared responsibility because the result (three minutes of obsessed honking resulting in a ticket) might have been avoided had the poster's criticism been followed"

It's called nuance and reading comprehension.

Has anyone seen *any* local news articles about this incident?

BTW that honking video posted earlier resulted in the following charges against the driver:
(2) counts harrassing cyclists.
(1) count impeding traffic.
(1) count improper use of horn.
DP just popped up:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21931912/bicyclist-injured-by-pickup-truck-deer-creek-canyon

DP just popped up:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21931912/bicyclist-injured-by-pickup-truck-deer-creek-canyon

Cited only for "careless driving"??? WTF???

Cited only for "careless driving"??? WTF???

Colorado Careless Driving – Laws & Penalties

You may be charged with careless driving if you drive in a careless manner “without due regard” while on the roadways. Typically careless driving is aClass 2 misdemeanor offense and is punishable by up to one year in jail as well as fines ranging from $250 to $1,000.

If, however, while driving carelessly, an accident occurs that results in bodily injury to another (including death), the charge is elevated to a Class 1 misdemeanor. If this is the case, you could face up to 18 months in jail and fines of $500 to $5,000. Ref: CRS 42-4-1402

------------------------

Not enough...? You know the situation better than the cop who issued the citation...?

In the last traffic I was in I was cited for "reckless driving" because a kid passed me on the right, sideswiping me in order to try to race me out of the gas station. The cop on the scene bought his story that I tee-boned him, even though there was no damage on the front of my car, but damage on the side. So I am not a good person to ask about the validity of what the cop on the scene thought. I put a lot more stock in what the other cyclists saw.