atbman

ILTB-2, I for one, didn't cheer because she was justified simply because she said so, in fact I didn't cheer for her, tho' I sympathised that an 83-yr old can't cross with the lights in her favour wthout being put at risk by a law-breaking cyclist. However, on the balance of probabilities, it is highly unlikely that the lady would have crossed against the lights. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the life peerage system and the House of Lords, it is extremely rare that anyone of her age, not in possession of her faculties, would still be taking part in debates. I therefore conclude that, given the extremely high frequency of complaints about cyclists barging across pedestrian crossings against the lights especially in London, she described the situation correctly.

Neither do I think that it is or should be open season on "bad boy" cyclists, any more than I think it should be open season on bad boy pedestrians, even tho' one crossing against the lights cost me a mild concussion, a new helmet and a front wheel re-build.

It does, however, seriously piss me off that, instead of being able to put the case for cyclists on local radio and in meetings with city councillors, I have to spend the time defending us against cretins like the one the baroness handbagged. Remove the high visibility that such riders have in the minds of the general public and more of our time could be spent putting the general non-cycling, driving, public right on their often bizarre misconceptions about our rights and what constitutes good cycling and good driving.

Carusoswi

You don't say!

Carusoswi

The Republicans are truly masters of spin . . . and this one is particularly clever. One family (the Bush family) has predominated in American politics since '89. The Clinton's are sandwiched between, but, now we need change, so they are lumped together with the Bush's as this singular rule by two since '89.

It's really clever.

You could take any two administrations and make the same statement . . . but it has more impact in this case only because of the Bush's, but, somehow, Republicans spin it to blame the Clinton's . . . we should vote against another Clinton to break this stranglehold.

What surprises me is that Republicans seem to get away with this non-logic in that no one ever takes them to task on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Clinton's, but there isn't much, imo, to redeem the Bush's, either.

. . . and this business about us being ruled by just two families is spin without logic and nothing else.

Caruso

1Easyrider

You Americans truly are the original "Richard Heads"!

You don't have to have royal blood to be a baroness. That's totally rich coming from the bunch of idiots that voted a plank like Bush into power.

1Easyrider

You don't need permission to whack a complete and utter dickhead round the back of the head.

You probably need to be carefull yourself......DUCK!

1Easyrider

Come to England fella and YOU try and pull the same stunt with ME. You'll get more than a handbag round the back of your head you'd get it shoved tight up your jacksie followed by your handlebars, stem, pedals and finally my size 10's.

CB HI

Fun to watch the two whack jobs going after each other!

1Easyrider

The only whack jobs round here all have accents like a certain GW Bush...... now there's a whack job for you!

pirate

I wonder what the reaction would be if the baroness was running the red light on a vintage 3 speed and a pedestrian hit her with their backpack?

Cyclaholic

What's the cutoff age? what if she was 53? or 33? what objects are ok to use in the assault? what if she was carrying a small bag of groceries with canned goods? would that be ok to use as the assault weapon?

So, since it's OK to hit someone with whatever is at hand who is about to (but actually doesn't) violate your ROW, what if she had walked out into the bike lane between two parked cars without looking, right into rthe cyclist's path? (old people do it all the time) Would it be OK for the cyclist to whack her across the head with his U-lock as he swerved around her? what if the cyclist was an elderly lady? maybe it would be ok then.

iltb-2

Sure, any Instant Justice Action by a self appointed Vigilante would be "OK," if some Radio Shock Jock, or Tabloid Headline Writer, or Letter to the Editor Ranter, or a Self Righteous Know-It-All BF Donkey says it is "OK."

AlmostTrick

This story reminds me of that old Devo song...

Whack that dip
He could've broke your hip
Step on a crack
Break the bikers back

When a cyclist comes along
You must whack him
Before the light is red for long
You must whack him
When someone's doing wrong
You must whack him

Now whack him
Into shape
Shape him up
Hit straight
Go for it
Hit his head
He'll try to deflect it
It's not too late
To whack him
Whack him good

When a cyclist runs a light
You must whack him
The baroness must be right
She's not slackin'
No one gets away
Without a whackin'

I say whack him
For his own good
I say whack him
Whack him good

TRaffic Jammer

I say, I think we have a hit song here.

If you are going to jump a light, do so without getting in the peds' way... it's really simple. I routinely violate traffic laws here but do so in such a way, I almost never honked or yelled at. Even when passing the open doors of the streetcar, I do so slowly as to not endanger the ROW peds, in many years I haven't been dinged at once by the streetcar driver, this incl. doing it at rush hour. I've tipped the cap at peds as I ride safely through crosswalks giving them several feet of space and I slow down somewhat. It is really that simple to be able to get where you have to go quickly on a bike without pissing everyone off.

Cyclaholic

Sounds like a HIT to me! (pun totally intended)

All I've learnt from this thread is that next time I run a red and there's ped-dodoging involved I'll anticipate a swinging purse from a baroness. If I'm quick enough I might be able to snatch it from her, maybe even score an unopened box of prozac.

Bicure

What San Ren said, as ever.

Also, Pirate & Jammer.

I ALWAYS give senior peds an extra cushion when cycling past, as they feel a much greater sense of vulnerability.

Bottom line, however: you can't go out of your way to (deliberately) batter somebody because they (unintentionally) startled you.

That's vigilanteism of the most extreme & absurd sort.

TRaffic Jammer

I learned messin' in MTL where jaywalking is a well loved municipal sport. I learned how to carve 'em, and avoidance.

jcm

Just look at the expression on the ol' gal.

No wild screaming Fuzzy-Wuzzies will defeat that one! I love the Brits. Bashing good show, Baroness!

jcm

...and to any ignoramus that suggests that the US is lucky to have escaped the scourge of class - take a good look around. We have the largest class of criminals and miscreants in the world, capped on top by the largest class of corporate aristocracy in the world.

By far, most of what is good in America, we got from Great Britain. "Up the British!"

Kotts

I usually avoid policical discussions, but that was a nice shot!

rwp

Sure...until someone in a pickup truck, blowing through a red light "unintentionally" startles you.

Handbag swatting is vigilantism of the most extreme sort?

This is the funniest bike forums thread I've read in a long time.

syn0n

He intentionally ran the light, knowing full well there would be pedestrians crossing. Anything that happens is basically something the guy decided to chance. It's an idiotic double-standard to go around breaking laws but whine when someone else does the same thing.

Bicure

RWP - trucks KILL; bicycles don't.

BIG difference.

And the extremity/absurdity of her reaction is in the degree of difference between the inciting act and her response.

Synon - if this PARTICULAR guy has a history of terrorizing/knocking over peds, sure - she may have been justified in striking back.

But she went too far.

He's just a guy who ran a light & startled her.

It sucks, but it doesn't justify battery.

If he'd knocked her over, however?

THEN I'd be fine with him being punched or whatever.

(Is this a bike forum???)

atbman

[QUOTE=Bicure;6039826]Cyclist hits 83-year old woman, say, and there is no risk of her being killed? Wrong. It does, however, rarely, happen. She may be a feisty, and possibly short-tempered, old lady, but she will still be more frail than you or I. Old people can die from something as relatively minor to us as a fractured thigh. Her reaction to her perceived danger to her safety is much the same as has been recorded by posters on this forum
.
You are 83 and you are on a signal controlled crossing when a cyclist deliberately ignores the red. You are startled and react instinctively. And you swing your handbag at him with all the power, speed and strength of your 83-year old arms. The difference is that he could have seriously injured her, whereas his risk was extremely small. Yes, technically, it was assault, but the consequences were there none.

London has a population of 8m+. she would, of course, have been able to instantly recognised him as a notoriously dangerous rider, yes? He just "ran a light and startled her"? so that's only a small matter? Will all those with 80+ year old relatives on this forum put their hands up and dismiss this as lightly as Bicure does.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of her action (battery? - oh, come on), whose reputation do you think has been damaged in the public eye? Hers, or cyclists?

I've written elsewhere on this forum that, if you are a campaigner (do you go to endless, frustrating meetings, Bicure?), you get fed up of having to spend time dealing with the often-held public view of us as law-breakers who never get caught and punished, instead of dealing with the serious problems that all road users, but especially cyclists, face.

If we were all law abiding people and almost never, visibly, did the things that many do, we would still have an uphill battle, but we would, at the very least, be able to spend our time on the real issues that we ahve to solve, before we can ride on the highway as safely as is humanly possible.

Bicure

Please re-read the post where I said that he should have given her an extra cushion due to her age.

But do you really believe a cyclist hit by a handbag hasn't been put in danger of as serious a sort (or much greater) than a pedestrian being hit (which she wasn't) by a cyclist?

C'mon now!

She was STARTLED.

When STARTLED, we are legally/morally permitted to react in kind.

Period.

He SHOULD have given her plenty of cushion, but he didn't.

Instead, he startled her.

And she could have screamed "Guttersnipe!," but she didn't.

She battered him.

Would you feel differently if it was an 83 year old cyclist battered by a young woman?

I wouldn't, as it's not relevant.

You don't lay your hands on others because they unintentionally startled you.

And you feel they MIGHT have (had they made contact with you) knocked you over.

And (possibly) caused you injury.

(Which might have been serious.)

If people (of any age) were allowed to batter others because they felt startled, it would be WWIII all day/night long.

I sometimes wanna brain people who honk.

They startle me.

Should I physically assault them?

Am I permitted this right when I reach a certain age?

And should the police be permitted to shoot/mace/taze/club cyclists who run red lights?

Does that make sense to you?

(Yeesh.)

As to endless, frustrating meetings?

Of course, dude.

Yer crumpets are pretty presumptuous to think otherwise.

But the REAL danger faced by cyclists & pedestrians (& motorists themselves) in kar kulture is NOT the same as the PERCEIVED danger caused by a cyclist running a red light & (unintentionally) startling somebody.

If you're so easily side-tracked by such obfuscations, I can imagine that your meetings are a bit longer & more frustrating than the average.

Next time this comes up, just point out that kars cause over a MILLION deaths each year.

Bicycles cause NONE.

Please:

STOP.

BLAMING.

THE.

VICTIMS.

syn0n

First of all, it's called a paragraph. Learn how to write one.

As for the matter at hand, you're saying the cyclist is the victim. I disagree. Why? He jumped a light. He violated the ROW of others. The consequences of his illegal action should fall on him. It's not like she shot him, or stabbed him, which obviously would be a vicious overeaction. He didn't even fall down; he was able to keep going as though nothing had happened. If the elderly Baroness had been hit, as I've repeated many times, she probably would have died from her injuries. I know this, as I remember how frail my grandmother was. She could still walk, but if she had been hit by a bicycle, it would've almost certainly killed her. We were worried she would fall somewhere, and be killed by that.

There is a monumental difference between 23 and 83. If the Baroness were 23 years old, I'd say it wasn't justified. The injuries would be less significant, and more of an annoyance to a 23 year old had she been struck. Seriously, I can't believe you or anyone else is moaning about "the poor cyclist" when the elderly pedestrian is the one who would've been killed. Just as motorists have an obligation to yeild to cyclists, cyclists have an obligation to stop at lights, and yeild to pedestrians.

If you ever wonder why people don't take cyclists with your attitude seriously, it's because they don't like double standards. Respect is earned, Bicure. If you run reds, cut off and nearly hit pedestrians, and then blame them for your poor cycling practices, don't expect them to be nice to you. And in this case, I sympathize with one of the most vulnerable road users out there - an elderly pedestrian, not a dangerous rider.