Digital_Cowboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikemig

The cyclist is an idiot if he was riding in the middle of a lane in the dark. Maybe he doesn't have any good choices to get from point a to point b but still that is a bad line to take. The driver was wrong about a lot of things he said but he was right that he could have easily killed the cyclist in a moment's distraction doing 50 mph in the dark and overtaking a cyclist.

Bikemig,

The problem though is that when he is traveling at those speeds that he can ill afford to be distracted. At those speeds he should have his FULL attention on DRIVING HIS CAR and NOT on talking on his cell phone, or texting, or shoveling food into his mouth.

He should be concentrating on driving his car and NOT hitting anything on the road.

GamblerGORD53

I'm glad the cyclist was ticketed for harassment.

AngeloDolce

Are you glad the driver was ticketed for harassment, or do you think the cyclist should have received multiple tickets (he was cited for riding in the center of a narrow lane)? If you are glad the cyclist was ticketed, do you think cyclists should ever be allowed to delay motorists, or are they always required to get off the road?


My impression is the bicyclist had a number of unfavorable choices, (i) hug the side of the road and invite close high speed passes, (ii) use the center of the lane for visibility and irritate immature drivers, (iii) buy a car in order to use public roads (iv) stay home, don't teach, etc. because it annoys motorists, (v) others?

It seems to me the choice he made is legal and not clearly worse than the other unappealing choices. I don't fault him for his lane position; I do wonder what he was thinking when he called the police. The state police are obviously not consistently sympathetic to bicyclists. Even if they were, they are not likely to appreciate being called to the fire station for a shouting match.

Final update seems to be that the officer thought the incident was not important enough even to show up in court, so citations to both parties were dismissed. I am not as optimistic as the bicyclist that it would have been a good thing for him if the officer or judge had to listen to his explanations and legal arguments - even if he is legally correct, they don't seem to care.


Schill Case: What Now? | League of American Bicyclists (see comment by Etnier)

hotbike

My comments are as follows:

1) The video shows the right edge of the road to be in rough shape. The track worn by the right tire of motor vehicles is all patches, of a darker colored asphalt, and the cyclist is definitely to the left of that track, on smoother pavement.

2) I see no sign of lights on the Bicycle, but it looks like the cyclist is wearing a helmet light.

3) Yes, the motorist , or his occupants, made a threat to kill the cyclist.

4) There was No shoulder between the fog line and the edge of the road.

5) I checked, assuming it was a state road, but it is actually a Federal Route, US 2 . That's bad, because it has a high speed limit.

6) at 0:58 into the video, the motorist has stopped , and is completely holding up traffic.

My conclusion is that motorists have got to be educated, and informed that the cyclist has the right to use a full lane, even if it may cause an inconvenience or delay to the motorist .

cellery

How would you all approach this road as a pedestrian I wonder?

genec

As a ped you probably would not worry about it... as you'd likely hike well off the smooth pavement. I see walking trails parallel to many roads in my area... where sidewalks don't exist. The walking trail, a well worn path, could even be outside guard rails, up steps or rock walls... peds don't have all the same limitations as cyclists... most cyclists want a smooth road to roll on. (unless they intentionally are going off road).

Amp3rs4nd

Here's what I saw:

1. A rider, riding legally in the left hand portion of the lane for a bit to hinder unsafe passing.
2. A non-busy road (based on the video) where multiple vehicles were able to pass him at a safe distance.
3. A motorist who, based on the altercation, appears to have been somewhat negligent in his driving noting "we almost killed you".

Here's what I didn't see:

1. Rear light (not saying he didn't have one, just didn't see it).

We can speculate whether it is unsafe or dumb or whatever, but that's what I saw. He was driving legally in the road which his states' statutes dictate "as is safe" (this is based on perception and discretion). The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if a motorist has a certain expectation on the road. They are trained to operate a motor vehicle. If the cyclist didn't have a rear light that is not necessarily something a motorist would necessarily EXPECT as the cyclist was operating a vehicle in a unlawful manner. Additionally, it is not the job of the motorist to essentially pull over and tell a cyclist what is or isn't safe for him. If that were the case, we would all be pulling people over at stops and yelling at them for speeding, running a light, not using their blinker, etc. That is a police officers job. Just my thoughts on it.

digibud

I try to share the road and am aggressive in asserting my right when it's necessary. Yesterday on a two lane road with no shoulder a truck was approaching with a semi behind me. There was no room for all of us. I could have taken the lane but I moved off the road to allow the semi to get through. Instead, the semi stopped and waited, regardless, just to be safe. I waved as he passed by and he tooted his horn. I think that was a win for all of us. I won't second guess the cyclist in the video but I'd only do that if I had no choice but to be on that road and the shoulder was horrible and even more dangerous to use. I would never take the road in that circumstance if I had any other choice.

Schwinnhund

I imagine the ticket will be dismissed. I don 't know where this video was taken, but here in Georgia, bicycles are vehicles, and have the same rights and responsibilities as cars. Here, the driver and passenger would have been arrested for assault.

From what I could see, there wasn't a lot of traffic, and there was plenty of room for cars to pass without undue delay. The cars response was unwarranted, and illegal, and around here, could have resulted in both he and the passenger being shot. It's stupid to confront someone you know nothing about, at any time. There are crazy, and dangerous people out there......

NYMXer

After watching that video, I too, would be upset if I was in a car and came upon a cyclist in the middle of the lane with no lights other than my car lights to see him. Imagine the guilt any driver that ran him over would have to deal with because of a selfish act of entitlement by the cyclist.

He made all cyclists look bad and he should have exercised a little common sense and discretion. I'm glad that this time, no one got hurt, or killed, but we all know that's not the way the story always ends.

Edit: I watched the video again and saw that when the cyclist was stopped, the far right side of the road looked fine, even the shoulder. Makes you wonder what the cyclist was thinking.
Also, why did he feel the need to wear a video camera? It did appear that he used some sort of headlamp, but I was unable to tell if he used a tail light or reflective clothing...

CrippledKonaBoy

I have to wonder why you preface this vivid description of advocacy with the phrase "we have given up massive civil liberties over the last 20 years". WHO actually thinks driving while drunk is a civil liberty? That point of view represents all that's WRONG with our society, the free exercise of our own 'rights' at the expense of all else. Even the Founding Fathers (whom I have developed a reduced respect for in recent years due to research) never espoused that viewpoint. THEY considered the attendant responsibilities that go along with ALL of our rights to be such a basic thing that they didn't NEED enumeration.

Sorry, but NO right or liberty is absolute; they ALL stop just short of infringing on the rights of THE OTHER PERSON.

dru_

I have to wonder if you missed the point. Maybe I articulated it badly.

No, I am not advocating that driving drunk is a right.

I *am* saying that in the fight to stop drunk drivers, we have granted law enforcement exceptionally broad rights to violate our civil liberties in the name of preventing DUI/DWI/Etc. I am saying that we have done so as a direct result of a very well executed media campaign that sold a huge swath of people on the idea that granting these exceptional powers was a good idea ( despite a fair bit of evidence to the contrary ). Those very ideas have been used to expand to the "war on drugs".

I don't think the above statements are really that tough to defend.

Consider the imbalance that exists today. Look at the cultural feelings towards a driver that gets a DUI (no injuries, no incident), versus one that gets a Distracted Driving (texting, no injuries, no incident). Add a fatality to those two. Look at the cultural reactions then.

I think you get the point.

CrippledKonaBoy

Yeah, I get the point -- that you have MISSED the part where DUI checkpoints are fats becoming illegal, and that you have libertarian leanings.

I think we'e done. At least *I* am.

dru_

Evidently not, but you have made yours, though not the one I think you were going for


You never actually articulated that, until now. Yes, some states have made this a trickier thing than it was, but as far as I know, there is not a state that has actually made their use illegal, only regulated. For example, they can still be used during approved target weekends.

I am assuming you intend that as an insult. It isn't. I can't imagine not fighting for civil liberties, so yeah, I'm fine with it.

Are now.

You are the one that resurrected an old thread, lobbed the darts, and then go scurrying off after lobbing what you thought of as insults, all while getting in your last word .


In closing, my entire point from the get go, is that love or hate MADD, their goals and their methods. They created the blueprint for cycling advocacy to create change. That was ALWAYS the point of my comments, the politics, insults and arguments over civil liberties are all distractions from that simple point.

B. Carfree

Actually, a number of states, including drunk-laden Oregon, have either interpreted their state Constitutions to prohibit drunk driver checkpoints or they have requirements that these checkpoints be made explicitly legal by their lawmakers, who have not chosen to oblige.

State Sobriety Checkpoint Laws