Chris516

It had to have been thrown from the driver-side door. Because, At speed, if he had tried to throw it out the passenger-side window from the driver's seat, it would have ended up spilled in the front passenger's seat.

As for the broken window which is also not specifically mentioned as to which one, unless the driver's criminal mindset could have cared less about broken glass all over the driver-side front seat, it had to be the window to the passenger door directly behind the driver seat. Because the driver got back in the vehicle and drove, after the window had been shattered.

frantik

i'm not sure i'm following.. it could be thrown out the passenger side window but it would have to be some pretty good aim. but at speed the shake would be moving at the same speed as the car so it wouldn't hit the seat unless the guy had bad aim. it would start to slow down once it went out the window due to drag but not inside the car.

but based on the article there isn't enough information to say. I would assume the riders would be in the right lane and the driver passed on the left, but the article doesn't provide enough information.

i hadn't thought about this but that makes sense. I was imaginging him holding this woman with his hand through the broken window but another article I read said specifically "open window", so perhaps it was the rear driver's side window. Or the guy was just that nuts.. either one is pretty plausible unfortunately

howsteepisit

Perhapes the prescient CB can shed light on all the open questions relating to just how the incident happened. My best guess isn that the driver had thrown the milk shake at the cyclist while the cyclist was on the left side of the truck. ALso guessing, that the driver grabbed the cyclist while she was passing on the left, while the truck was stopped. It's boggling that the driver could have reached out and grabbed the victim while both were moving, but equally boggling that the driver was able to grab and hold a moving cyclist while stopped. CB, could you please explain just what happened, I am obviously too dense to figure it out. And why does it matter? The only possible educational value of this story is for other cyclists to be able to understand the evolution of the situation to minimize the possibility of a similar event. Without understanding the events as they unfolded, its just a useless rant against a news article relating to a unnecessarily violent world.

-=(8)=-

CB appears to be the bike forums doppelganger of the Pick-truck driver in the OP.
A very angry guy randomly throwing milkshake on posts because he hates bike riders.
Irony is a cruel master . . .

alhedges

The reason that I object to the comparison to the black civil rights movement is because that fight wasn't against "hate crimes" or discrimination by neighbors who didn't like blacks. That fight was against legal suppression of blacks by the government.

Rosa Parks didn't have to sit in the back of the bus because of a racist bus company. She had to sit in the back of the bus because the law at the time required blacks to sit in the back of the bus. The bus driver could not have legally allowed her to sit in the front even if he wanted to. The same is true of the sit-ins at restaurants with Whites Only and Colored Only sections: there weren't two sections because the restaurant preferred it that way; there were separate sections because restaurants were legally required to have two sections and the owner could be arrested and shut down if he didn't provide two separate sections.

The civil rights movement was, primarily, about dismantling a legal and political system that had had - for hundreds of years - the purpose of legally treating blacks as second class citizens. They were not legally allowed to attend the same schools, to exercise their right to vote (and, to a greater or lesser extent, other rights). They were not legally allowed to attend the same schools as whites, or allowed to sit in the same restaurant, use the same bathroom, drink from the same water fountain. They could be - and usually were - legally prohibited from living in the same neighborhoods as whites.

The black civil rights movement was designed to bring down this centuries old structure of apartheid.

And that's why I think that comparing this titanic struggle with the fact that a bunch of yahoos don't like cyclists is incredibly misplaced and shows either a bizarre sense of entitlement or (much more likely) a lack of understanding of history.

I do think that it is a problem that some part of the population has an irrational dislike of cyclists and that it is even socially acceptable to express this. Like almost anyone who rides on roads, I've been harassed by drivers. But I think this problem should be addressed on its own terms and not compared to the civil rights movement or the fight against the Nazis or the American revolution or whatever.

FBinNY 

There is absolutely no comparison between cyclist issues and the civil rights movement. First of all cyclists are NOT a minority who are hated and persecuted by motorists. This myth persists despite the fact that the vast majority of cyclists are drivers themselves.

Also, cyclist's rights and needs have a long history of being respected by most people and he government, which sort takes the debate out of the civil rights category.

What's at issue is legitimate difference of opinion about how best to accommodate the large increase in cyclists into the traffic mix. This debate won't end because there are valid arguments on all (not just 2) sides of the debate.

Part of the reason the debate is so heated is that parties have different worldviews and goals. On one side are what I'll call Urbanists. These people are concerned with the urban environment, and see increased cycling as good for cities in general. Their goal is to increase participation by increasing the perception of safety and comfort to attract those reticent otherwise.

On the other end are are more experienced cyclists, less concerned with attracting newcomers, as they are with actual cycling conditions and preserving their rights to ride on public roads.

Add in things like actual safety vs. the illusion of safety and you get complex and subtle arguments about cycle track design, and to the extent they should be built in the first place.

Here's a sample of why the debate can be so heated. Some, including myself, are concerned that the shift toward cycle specific infrastructure will ultimately lead to separate but unequal rights of way, with cyclists increasingly banned form many roads. On a recent thread I raised that point, and was rebutted by someone saying that the fears were ungrounded, and only 7 out of 50 states have any such laws. That doesn't seem so bad, until you consider that that's 7 more than there were 30 years ago, and so may be the leading edge of a trend.

What saddens me, isn't that we all disagree. I expect and respect that. What saddens me is the vehemence and tone of the discussions, which seem more like how unionists feel about "scabs", or how members of a minority often feel about those within their group who don't share the group view (I won't list the various terms used).

To those who feel that we're some kind of persecuted minority, and those with a rosier view, I suggest that we all try to be a bit more civil, and stop hurling metaphorical milkshakes at each other.

kalliergo 

Overall, a good post, FB.

However, I believe the above assertion is seriously inaccurate. I can think of several states that have repealed MSP laws in that time frame, but I can't think of any that have adopted new ones. Citations, please.

FBinNY 

Since I don't consider myself a bicycle advocate in the modern sense, I don't track law changes that closely.

Off the top of my head, thinking back 30 years or so, I don't believe there were any state laws prohibiting riding the public road when there was a parallel bike lane or path. If such laws existed they didn't matter since such tracks were rare. I don't know when NY adopted it's current law, and again it didn't matter until NYC built bike lanes and started enforcing it. I believe the Missouri law is relatively new (or proposed, if not yet law), and suspect that Oregon's is also.

Regardless of my opinion of bike lanes (generally, but not categorically opposed) I feel that cycle track advocates are short sighted in not seeing that these can become a trap, and once built will become mandatory. To be that would be a poor trade off. I understand that many feel that my fears are ungrounded, but I expect that once city planners and motorists see that we can be placed out of the way, they won't be able to resist the temptation to do so, and will use the tried and true rational that it's for our own safety.

-=(8)=-

☝
This.


It is a reason Im sure we have absolutely no lobbying power and are not taken seriously overall.
What I find sad and interesting at the same time, is that the organization ABATE mobilized motorcycle riders and was able to lobby different states to get legislation for something that was dangerous and costly to society ?!?!?! Motorcycle riders are goofed on regularly in these forums, but they have been able to do things we never have, I feel, simply by being unified. In any advocating organization Ive subscribed to, it seems the loudest voices come from people who are pushing a single-item agenda, like round-a-bouts or cycle track, etc . . . multiply that 100x, and here we are. Nowhere relatively speaking. ITs gotten better, but our anger at each other has clearly hurt our cause.

spare_wheel

I have been cycling on a near daily basis for about two decades and I have not one backed away from a single confrontation with a motorist. Moreover, quite a few of these confrontations were at least somewhat positive (including more than a few apologies).

spare_wheel

The carnage on our roads deserves a lot of anger. In fact, I hope this anger will only increase and lead to some real change in how we fund and plan our transportation choices.

FBinNY 

With all due respect, What cause?

The assumption of what is out cause, as you put it, or even whether there is a cause is axiomatic to whatever debate follows. I don't believe that cyclists form a single class and shares any common cause. Rather, the only thing that cyclists have in common is that they ride bicycles. After that all other considerations are as diverse as the population and geography of the country. To engage in a class struggle without having an identifiable class won't get anyone anywhere.

You spoke of motorcyclists, but I'm not aware that they've asked for or gotten any special treatment, except possibly the repeal of helmet laws in some states, and I'm sure there are many here who wouldn't consider that a victory.

What carnage?

Study after study has shown the the single biggest factor (sometimes over 50%) in bicycling fatalities is cyclist error, specifically failure to obey lights and signs at intersections. While cars and drivers do kill cyclists, accidents caused in passing on parallel paths are not a dominant factor. Based on that data, it would seem that the most effective way to reduce the so-called carnage is through education, not by building cycle tracks that still cross those same intersections.

Can cycling be made safer? Of course, and cycle tracks may be a part of that, but to build them while disregarding the causes of the greatest number of deaths is a form of murder by slight of hand. Unfortunately, speaking about cyclists themselves being the problem is like waving a red flag in front of the cycle advocacy community.

spare_wheel

I think motorvehicle speed, prioritization of motorist right of way, legal liability, and motorist education might also have a little to do with this:

USA:
ped fatalities per 100 million trips: 17
cyclist fatalities per 100 million trips: 21

Germany:
5
8

Netherlands:
1
2

I remain very angry that my ped and cyclist brothers and sisters in the USA are being killed at a rate 11-20 times higher than in the Netherlands.

-=(8)=-

I guess I didnt elaborate correctly. The points I was trying to make are not how they are being interpreted.
But, I feel this thread has gone off-course into some areas of negativity that dont really serve any purpose.
I will say MY 'causes' are not tangible ones. It is one where cyclists arent a big deal, accepted and things
like "he swerved into me" arent legitimate excuses for hitting a person on a bike. A global mindset that would
make it so people wouldnt be intimidated to ride on the road if they wanted to try to forgo using their car.
We are universes away from having the voice many other groups of people as large as we are, has.

FBinNY 

With nearly half the deaths the direct result of cyclists failure to stop or yield at intersections (where signage and/or red light mandate) you don't even bother mentioning rider education. Don't compare to other countries, think about how to correct the issues here at home.

spare_wheel

Pedestrians and cyclists in the netherlands behave quite a bit like peds and cyclists here.

kalliergo 

Yes. I think it's crazy not to start with cycling education for drivers and cyclists. I simply cannot understand how we have failed to even seriously attempt it for so long.

On one end of a ferry ride I have the cyclist's paradise of southern Marin. 15-20 minutes across the Bay is charming San Francisco, one of urban America's great cycling adventures.

In both editions of American road culture, the cyclists are at least as clueless and rude and reckless as the drivers. That would be frequently/seriously clueless, rude, etc.

sudo bike

Lots of backseat riders today.

I vehemently disagree with the sentiment that you should always just ignore and/or try to get away. That is often a good bet, but not always. Some bullies will keep bullying you until they get a reaction... it doesn't matter if you don't give it to them, they'll keep after you. It sounds like this guy was it, if the comment from the reader who claims she interacted with him is to be believed. And truthfully, not one of you knows otherwise. You weren't there. Sometimes you really are in a position where you have to do something, and getting away isn't really an option. If this guy drives up on sidewalks trying to get to people fleeing from him, I'm not so sure running away is going to help. Their mistake was that they attacked his car instead of him. He should have been incapacitated.

Anyone claiming this was sheer escalation has no clue. Point is, we don't know exactly what happened, and the assumption that it is always better to jet just isn't true. Sometimes flight isn't an option, and you're left with fight. The key is, you can't hesitate when it comes down to the latter.

As to riding in Oakland at 1am, the argument isn't any different than girls wearing skimpy clothes "asking for it"...

kalliergo 

Yes, absolutely. This and education are the key strategies.

These things are also among the least expensive things we can do. And they can often be done on the neighborhood level.

turbo1889

+1 !!!!

With only the slight side note that while choosing to not engage and avoid the situation is not always available and not always the best choice, usually it is. For me it comes down to "Never start a fight, always finish one." Finishing and Escalating are NOT the same thing and don't take every slight real or imagined as "starting a fight", wait to make your move until it is beyond question that the other guy is starting a real fight. And when you make your move make it count and make sure it eliminates the threat and Finishes it. If it comes down to that don't do a half-@$$ job of the Finishing part or it is merely going to escalate the situation. The guy with the U-lock made that mistake, at least from what I can tell of what I know of the situation.

CB HI

Hawaii

CB HI

Time for the insults, since he has no valid points to discuss.

CB HI

I will be happy to help you out of your boggle. It is quite possible, maybe likely that the pickup simply used a right turn only lane to pass the cyclist who would be in a through lane. I have motorist every day during my commutes pass me on the right side when they are in the right turn only lane.

The pickup driver may have also used a break down lane (shoulder) to aid in his evil deeds.

Are you channeling Hillary Clinton now?

sudo bike

Random smileys and/or the infamous laughing rolling smiley is almost always a bad sign.

howsteepisit

All possible CB, none proven. Nope not channeling Hillary, trying to get some value out of a tragedy where opinions outnumber facts. Your earlier posts indicated you know what the circumstances of the incident were, and what the witnesses knew. You are clearly as bound by your opinion as I am mine. But the germane question in my mind is, what can the cyclist do to avoid this type of outcome in the face of an a person who has discarded the rule of law in favor of vigilant justice.