Originally Posted by
Chris516
I read it. I have never gone(and will never go) to the point of the cyclist in the article. While the cyclist was expressing disgust, they crossed the line, when they punched the offending vehicle, regardless of the negative nature of what the cyclist said to the motorist. Then the passenger(and probably the driver) crossed the line, when they threatened to kill the cyclist.
The cyclist in the article was FRAP'ing to the curb, in my opinion inviting the threat from the vehicle's passenger to come to fruition. The article mentions how the cyclist was squeezed to the curb. I try to not let that happen, by 'taking the lane'.
Are we reading the same article, since I didn't get any of the above? Not sure what really happened since we only have the writer's side, but at least from his statements the situation started when the car driver 'migrated into the curb lane.' That doesn't indicate the the cyclist was FRAP. Even if he was right in the middle of the right (curb) lane; i.e. 'taking the lane', he could still get squeezed over to the side of the road by the encroaching car. And the car continues to move to the right into the cyclist after he tries to get the driver's attention by yelling. Hitting the car was a last-ditch effort to make the driver aware of the cyclist's presence - how is that "crossing the line?"
It does sound as if the conversation after that point got increasingly uncivil and was probably counterproductive.