Cyclist in the river
 

My Beloved just pointed out some guy in L.A. refused to be rescued from a rain swollen river until his bicycle could be rescued also. As she put it, "Here's a guy after your own heart." I, of course, thoroughly understand where he's coming from, but came across a thread somewhere with unanimous dissing of him, first for being such a ******bag to get stuck in the first place and second for refusing to take a helicopter ride without his bike. Interesting the hostility cyclists can engender. But my REAL question is, does anybody know what kind of bike he was riding?;)

His behavior makes perfect sense to me.:innocent: Of course, we're preaching to the choir here.

Do you have a link?

I love my bikes as much as anyone, but for the guy to refuse the helicopter lift and force the rescue crew to swim across a flooded stream to rescue him was asinine. He deserves the criticism, imho. In fact, he deserves a fine. You don't endanger humans to protect your things.

+1 what a tool imo. Bikes can be replaced

As a working photojournalist I've been in situations like this that really raise ethical concerns.
Imagine, there you are on the bank. The water is pouring fast. You can save the guy, or save the bike.
You have to make a fast decision, and it has to be right. Do you:
1. Shoot with a wide angle lens and get the chopper in the background,
or
2. Zoom in on the face of the fellow clutching his bicycle for maximum emotional appeal?

Brutal.:p

On the serious side of this matter and after reading the link, you are both absolutely right. The guy is a schmuck.

Video is here:

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/loca...river-20091207

The guy was in serious danger.

Worse yet, he put others into danger.

Looks like he had a lot of gear strapped to that bike. Perhaps that is what he was trying to save?

Still, I would have stashed the bike somewhere on that island and come back for it.

I would also leave my car in the same situation and leave my house if a flood or fire threatened it.

Or after they rescued him, the cops should have been waiting to arrest him.

After I read my post, it sounded meaner than I wanted it to sound, so I deleted it.:D

Yes, you meant to say that they should have kicked his sorry butt.

I think a bill for services rendered of around $2500 would be appropriate.

And removal from the gene pool.

OK which brings the question to mind.....PCAD does a CF bike have enough boyancy to float?

Only if it weighs less than a duck

OK, I've read the story and watched the video. (Thanks Blues Dawg and Tom B.) While my initial reaction is similar to others in this thread, I can't help but wonder what the entire story is. Why was the bike so heavily laden? What was the guy thinking? Why wasn't a fine or fee attached to the rescue? Don't know if answers to any of those questions would change my initial reaction, but still would love to know.

I'm also wondering if there would have been an equal amount of hostility if it had been a shopping cart full of his personal possessions instead of a bike (filled with what we don't know). I pose this, because I suspect that there may be some anti-cycling sentiment possible in some of the hostility.

Moron.

Taking your bicycles, of course!!

Hmmm. Consensus, even here, is the stranded cyclist was dangerously irresponsible. Upon reflection, endangering others to save property is not the moral course of action (boy, could we open a can of worms with that one...think environmentalism as a start), but if you take an ambulance ride, you get a whopping bill for that. Would he have been charged for the helicopter ride?
Also, would reactions have been differently if it was a dog instead of a bike? Just wondering. Personally, I'm with Tom and would have stashed the bike and hoped to find it later, but then I only have a vintage steel fleet purchased at garage and estate sales, nothing of great value or irreplaceable.

Obviously he was transporting a load of coconuts.

I watched the video as well and I guess I am as not as negative toward the cyclist as others.

As I recall from my days in LA, the LA "river" is just a big concrete drainage ditch with a bike path on one side and a little bit of water trickling down the middle - until it rains. (You've doubtless seen the river in countless car chases or other scenes in any number of Hollywood moviews and TV shoes) The video mentions that he was stranded on some "islands" near Griffith Park, and it looks to me like he had a fully laden touring bike with full panniers, front and back.

I can't think of any reason why a cyclist would be out on one of these islands (or attempt to cross the LA "river" ) unless maybe he was "stealth" camping on one of the islands. So imagine if he was out spending the night on one of the islands, with his complete set of touring gear, and wakes up to find out that he's been cut off from the bank by the rising waters. Obviously, he needs a rescue, so he somehow attracts enough attention to attract a rescue crew.

In any other town in America they'd send out the fire department with a boat. But this is LA, so they show up with a helicopter. He's cold/stressed/confused, and worried about losing all his possessions 'cause he can't leave the bike and his gear on the island (which appears to be under water in the video). So he keeps asking them to send a boat instead so he can get his gear off the island. What you can't tell from the video is whether the rescuers were telling him that a boat was an option, so he waved off the helicopter.

If he didn't actually perceive that his life was in imminent danger, I can see why he wanted to save his gear. And it would be definitely confusing to ask for help, hoping for a guy w/a rope to show up, and instead you get a helicopter and camera crews.

To me the biggest problem with the guy is how he found himself down in the LA river in any case - as I said, I can't think of any reason why someone would be down *in* the LA river, though I don't know the exact spot where this occurred.

Like I said, I'd like to know what really was going on. One thing about news stories like this is that we only get what some editor in the news room wants us to get.