JonnyHK 

The whole point is that these cyclists did know know anything about this guy other than he cut them off. They made their decisions in the isolation of that knowledge. The fact that he is/turned out to be nasty only became clearly evident AFTER they made their first decisions in response to being cut off.


I'm still sticking to my position here, to wit:
These cyclists made multiple poor choices that (in the balance of all probabilities) made the situation worse than it might otherwise have been.

- this is not 'blaming the victim' in the sense folks bandy the term about
- many folks above agree
- plenty of information in the story that backs this up

These cyclists were just plain unlucky to meet this a-hole driver and to have events unfold as they did - but there is a touch of truth to the old expression 'you make your own luck'. Next time they'll react differently as they have a larger database of experience to draw from.

I'm sure that in your great experience in playing cat and mouse with drivers that you are making a lot more decisions (and more nuanced ones) to keep yourself out of harms way (whilst also extracting maximum amusement) than the cyclists in the OP.

dynodonn 

Ones chances with the motorist are better than the reporting it to a law enforcement agency with a poor history, really now. With the dude, the incident didn't exist beyond word of mouth with the cyclist, the motorist, witness, and who ever they talked to. Reporting an incident with law enforcement, a phone call will be recorded, along with any information given.

dynodonn 

The "issue" that I was referring to was about the motorist's driving actions at the time of the incident. I don't know a motorist's driving record or if they have a past criminal record, but I will not let an incident slide by. I encountered a female version of the motorist in question, fortunately that my incident did not go as far as the one with the cyclists did. My incident made me opt for video recording of my rides to gather information rather than having to chase down the offending motorist, lessening the chance of a confrontation.

ZombieRider

Stop. Just stop.

No one is blaming the cyclists.

Let me see if I can put this in a way that makes the point more clear....

What is being said is the cyclists who where buzzed by this guy ignored all the red flags this guy was putting up and they made bad decisions because of it.

I think it's reasonable that we all know, even me with my limited riding experience compared to most on this board, the difference between an accidental "buzzing" and someone literally trying to put their car and your bicycle in the same spot. That's the first flag. Yet the cyclists took it upon themselves to continue riding towards this guy as he was waiting at a light.

They passed him while he was at a light. The argument over whether there were other cars there or the cyclists ran the light can be put to the side. Fact is that they passed him and he caught up to them and threw something at them. That's another flag they ignored.

Then he stopped and got out of his car. That's another red flag they ignored as they still rode towards him and his stopped car.

His life as a criminal wasn't known to them. But his actions that night towards them should have clued them in to back away from him. Instead they ignored his behavior and continued to ride towards him. The end result is that one of the cyclists was almost killed. Hopefully the driver spends life in prison from this point on.

And frankly I refuse to believe that after being buzzed and having a shake be thrown and hit one of the bikers that not one of them, least of all the one hit by the shake, didn't say anything or make any type of gesture in response.

The cyclists are victims but they are victims because they ignored all the danger signs that were appearing.

dougmc

And ironically, that actually plays out better in a courtroom or in front of police as well.

If you attack the person's property, it's retaliation. Vandalism. Illegal, whatever preceded it. You might be able to say you slashed his tire so you could get away, but that'll be a stretch, and certainly won't work if you smashed his window instead.

If you attack the person himself, it's self defense. Legal, assuming that it really is self defense, but that's often not a difficult to case to make.

ZombieRider

I think in this case however the cyclist can say he was aiming for the guy and missed.

It's all in how you write your statement.

-=(8)=-

For those laughing too hard to make it to the end the first time . . .
Translation in Bold

What ??!?!? No BF avenger street justice, the kind you and a few other lo-brow'd knuckle draggers claim you would mete out ?!?!?!?
No mace gun ??!?!?!
BWWAAHAHAHAHA, This is classic! Too funny. Do you write letters into Penthouse, too . . .

frantik

and not because there was a psychopath on the road.... #derp

frantik

yes, and no one here would be aware of that report so it's completely pointless to this conversation. People would still find a billion other reasons why the lady who got run over is at fault for getting run over. this guy's lawyer would love to have most of these folks on the jury..

ZombieRider

Would you not agree that if you see a psychopath on the road perhaps the best thing to do is to go away from the psychopath and not continue to ride towards the psychopath?

You seem hell bent on the cyclists taking zero responsibility for the decisions they made that night. They saw a psychopath and yet still choose to ride to him like moths to a flame.

ZombieRider

No he wouldn't because even with the cyclists ignoring the danger signs the driver still acted illegally and I would vote to find him guilty and send him to prison.

I'm sure so would the others in this thread you are continually accusing of blaming the cyclists.

sudo bike

It is illogical to think that stopping behind the truck would've done jack. If he keeps harassing them, he obviously isn't going to stop.

By "not responding", I meant didn't physically respond to physical action by the driver.

Define "back off". If they were being harassed, and they didn't harass back, that sounds like "backing off" and trying to take the high road, to me.

Cyclists get buzzed. A lot. If I suspected every person who buzzed me was a lunatic getting ready to exit their vehicle and attack me, I wouldn't get very far. Throwing objects is thankfullt not common here, but it is in some locales, apparently.

Indeed not, but when you are actually in the situation, you can usually read it better than someone reading sparse facts after-the-fact.

That's an assumption. For all we know he could've swung at the guy and hit the window. It could also be, as I noted, some people just have no experience with violence, and have a very hard time making themselves engage in even when necessary. People get panicky and do weird things.

OTOH, a dangerous felon who has repeatedly attacked cyclists is now put away because someone stood up to him. He'd still be out there.

Look, for me, what this comes down to isn't should or shouldn't. It's who was at fault and who wasn't. Clearly, regardless of any of the decisions made by cyclists and how optimum they were, the driver is at fault. Full stop. Explaining away the drivers actions as being partially instigated by the cyclists is silly. All situations are, of course, a culmination of decisions and circumstance on either side... but that doesn't make a lick of difference when it comes to assigning fault for an incident. In this case, it is clearly the drivers fault, and that's really all there is to it. I can think of no better way to erode basic freedom to live your life than to insist victims accommodate aggressors rather than simply holding aggressors at fault, as they should be. This is seriously the exact same argument as blaming **** victims.

frantik

yes, if they had just chosen not to be cyclists, they wouldn't be attacked! So many poor choices! Apparently the guy who ran them over didn't make any poor choices. Clearly he has no responsibility. If these cyclists had just chosen to act exactly like you think they should have, then none of this would have happened. The psychopath would have stopped attacking and blown them kisses instead! He didn't really want to attack anyone, he's just an unthinking raging bull that has no mind of his own, and only reacts to the choices other people make.

Why are you ignoring the actions of the psychopath? You're blaming the cyclists and "bad luck" while ignoring the fact this guy repeatedly tried to attack them. It's not like this was a natural disaster. These cyclists were plain attacked by a psychopath and he was totally out of line to RUN OVER A HUMAN BEING WITH HIS CAR, regardless of ANYTHING the cyclists did.

sudo bike

If your definition of "psychopath" is people who buzz cyclists and throw crap at them, there is an amazingly high number of psychopaths in America. The real signs he was unstable came later, and at that point, probably too late. Psychopaths rarely walk around with a big sign pointing them out, convenient as it might be.

frantik

+1 to everything said. [emphasis added]

ZombieRider

No it's not. I'm not saying they should get on his tail and stop. Stopping behind the truck means they see him at a light they stop well back of him.

Words are a response and if he heard them since he the driver was an idiot.....

I've made it clear that back off means stop on the road and let the driver drive off or to turn down another street or to turn around. Back off means don't get close to the driver.

That's the high road....

Except in this case the cyclists made it obvious they realized that he had done it on purpose.

Apparently not since the cyclists still rode towards him after he threw something at them and then stopped his vehicle and got out.

That's why I said it's all in how you write your statement.

"The man tried to grab me off my bike so I swung at him with my lock but I missed and hit the window of the truck."

No one stood up to him. He only got arrested later on because apparently someone managed to get his tag or someone knew who he was.

It's good that he's in jail and hopefully he will go away forever under the three strikes law but no one stood up to him. He almost got away with killing someone.

No. You're wrong. When it comes to the cyclists.

The driver is at fault 100%.

But that doesn't excuse the cyclists making bad decisions that night.

I wish there was a better article on what happened and what the cyclists did or didn't do. We will probably have to wait for the court case.

ZombieRider

Someone buzzes you and then throws something at you and you are going to continue to ride towards them?

Not me. No point in it. Let them drive off.

frantik

yep.. initially he buzzed them, which is pretty common when riding in a city. Even where I live, where most people are courteous, I still have people make a close pass once in a while. I'm not going to stop or change my route every time I encounter an unsafe driver. The time between the milkshake and running over this lady sounds like it was very short, and they didn't have the benefit of hindsight, like everyone giving their armchair quarterback version. I really doubt most people here really know what they would have done if they were in Oakland at 1am in the morning on a bike...

frantik

Dude, he threw something and then ran over that lady in the space of one block. Are you just going to slam on your brakes in the middle of the street or what? Pull a u-turn in the middle of traffic?

And you're going to let someone who attacked you get away without even trying to get their plate number? Then you'd be just as bad as that other cyclist that people are criticizing for not reporting his actions to the police....

-=(8)=-

This is the thread that just keeps giving and giving
This is getting funnier by the page

MODS, any chance of a crosspost in the Fixie/SS forum

sudo bike

Going to trim this down to make it more manageable.
Sure, but I don't expect humans to be monks, either. A verbal response to having food hurled at you is pretty reasonable.

And? Happens all the time...


"Better", not perfect.


And why is that? Because none of us were there and that's perfectly plausible.


They absolutely stood up to him.

Bull. They're actions are 100% excusable and 100% reasonable. Now, if you want to frame it in terms of "if you want to avoid a situation like this in the future, you may want to try X Y Z", which seem to be mostly how howsteepisit was framing it, I think that's valid. But that they should do that, or that there is any compulsion to do that is complete contrary to the idea of a free society. It just is. You could just as easily argue that they shouldn't be getting on bikes at all because so many Americans are hostile towards cyclists, and they might be "asking for it" by riding on the road with cars. We don't do that in a free society. Citizens are free to live as they choose, and those who would try to stop that are punished. Safety and freedom are often competing interests. Pick which is more important to you.

frantik

good thing Godzilla wasn't on his bike, or it would be his fault Chuck Norris is attacking him

sudo bike

This is basically it. We have the benefit of tearing apart every decision made by all parties. It completely ignores the context of the situation.

ZombieRider

They didn't get his plate number when they rode by him at the light? Well shame on them then.

Should they try to the plate number and report it? Of course. But sometimes you can't and sometimes it's not worth the possible confrontation that will take place.

You live in a very black and white world. In your world a driver does something bad? Must confront and get license plate number and report it.

I stick with my shades of gray world.....

It's not the end of the world and besides this guy may not get caught on a Monday but he will get caught on Friday if you know what I mean.....

Walter

This seems to be going in circles with no end in sight and also is skirting the VC line. I'm closing it. If you want it re-opened report this post and add your appeal to the report. Other members of the moderation staff will consider it.