I will say that on some cars I have trouble setting my mirrors the way I do. Most of them seem to have plenty of room to see the car that I am driving but to set them to view my blind spot is always at the very edge of their range of motion.

I called him timid as he wasn't taking the lane... sort of a line in the sand thing... many otherwise assertive cyclists draw the line taking a lane, when in fact it is often the safest thing to do.

As for the rest, I tend to agree.

In NY, I'd be scared to take the lane with my car!

New York City law:

—34 RCNY 4-12(p)(3) Bicyclists may ride on either side of one-way roadways that are at least 40 feet wide.

One way avenues in Manhattan are at least 40 feet wide, so it is legal to ride on either side of the road. In fact, NYC DOT often stripes bike lanes on the left side of one way roads.

Thanks

As for the rest, I tend to completely disagree. To consider one whose 'one of many' goals in life is to change the 'auto-centric' mentality of those in power to the benefit of all as 'self-absorbed' is rather short-sighted. To refer to him as being a co-respondent in this exchange is inaccurate. No disrespect intended. The cyclist acted in self-preservation and the driver reacted w/belligerence and a criminal act. Swearing and a threat implication of either physical retalliation or using the power of his office to 'punish' the cyclist is 1 of 3 things. It's either a terroristic threat, an ethics violation or both. The former is a form of assault. The latter clearly a violation of his 'oath of office'. This guy needs to be censured by his own legislative body for his actions. The fact that the cyclist checked the license plate and 're-confronted' the driver demonstrates pluck and courage. Not to mention clarity of thought and self-control.

While I DO agree his letter could've been more to the point he's an advocate not a writer. The fact that he's getting a 'sitdown' enabling him to 'speak to power' in a productive way can in no way be construed as 'self-absorbed'. When the Senator calmly replied, "Jeff Klein' to the cyclist's query as to his name he KNEW he was had. He KNEW his political career was in jeopardy and he'd better 'make nice' AND make it stick. The cyclist brought low a potential monster w/o so much as clenching his fist. Except maybe when he pounded on the window. One was full of himself and the other was full of concern FOR himself. The driver was negligent and the cyclist was not. There was nothing equal about the situation. Except NOW the Senator has to deal face to face w/t consequenses of his 'arrogance of position' action. And if he becomes a 'cycling' advocate ala Richard Daley in Chicago the streets of Manhatten will be the safer for it. As stated in my previous post Senator Klein cursed the right cyclist not the wrong one. Because noimpactman is right on every conceivable level.

He was "self-absorbed" by riding in the blind spot of a car, expecting the driver -- state senator or not -- to easily see him, then complaining when he didn't.

So, no, he was not "right on every conceivable level". If he hadn't been cruising in a car's blind spot in the first place, there wouldn't even have been an incident for him to write about.

If he was so "full of concern FOR himself", he would not have put himself in such a precarious position.

This is just sad. All this could've been prevented had the senator adjusted his side mirrors the right way :D

All this could've been prevented if NoImpactMan had just been walking instead of using a machine fabricated from metal ores dug from the ground (probably with explosives :p) and plastics & lubricants made from petroleum (also dug from the ground). :thumb::lol:

noimpactman is not right on every level... the clearest indicator of that is the issue of ROW in a lane... Who "owned" that lane? In any situation I know of the vehicle coming up from behind has to give way to traffic in front.... noimpactman did not keep that in mind when he tried to share the lane and move up from behind. His better course of action would have been to take the lane. The cyclist was negligent in his course of action too.

Now as to the verbal abuse aspect... the Senator needs his head handed to him... In spite of the small "error" on the cyclist's part, the Senator greatly over-reacted... indicating that the paint on his car has more value than a human life. And that attitude just sucks.

It's safer to take the bike lane or sidewalk w/ your car in NY, or so it would appear from the way they drive and park, whenever I go for a visit! (That said I love NYC... but I'd be afraid to cycle there)

A lot of people (especially those who are not from big cities) who say "he should just take the lane". I want to see you do this in NYC. To give you an idea how we drive here, when the light turns green, we gun it! We think it's a drag race to next red light. Taxi cabs try to out do each other for fare, drivers try to avoid taxi cabs and cyclists trying to avoid both! You take the lane and you get one inattentive driver, the next thing you know, you'll be under someone's bumper.

Besides, why would you want to take the lane? Most of the time, you can go faster white-lining.

If you follow the "law", it's almost a lose-lose situation in NYC. You take the lane and slow everyone down when the light turns green. Everyone honks and possible scream/throw things/spit at you as they pass. Then when you reach the next red light (in 500ft), you stay behind these cars that are backed up? If that's the case, why ride your bike? You'll be going much slower than vehicular traffic.

But this is exactly the problem with the current transportation policy... So if you aren't taking a lane, but instead are "sharing" it, who has ROW when there is a lateral shift within the lane? Since the motorist has no incentive/need to look or worry about someone behind them, why should they care. The cyclist has incentive, but how can they control what a driver in front of them is doing?

And of course if the motorists feel you shouldn't be taking a lane and hassle you for it... what recourse do you have?

Certainly the issue is with our transportation policy and the way cyclists get "the left overs" of the road.

EXACTLY!!! So how do we fix this lose-lose situation? :(

You can't control what anyone in front of you is doing -- that's obvious enough. The trick, then, is to avoid getting caught next to a vehicle. If they're in front of you and swerve to the side, it's not nearly as big of a deal as when they're next to you and decide to swerve. They don't even have to be directly in front, just as long as their rear bumper is far enough ahead of your front wheel.

I don't mind getting the "leftovers of the road", since that means that I can go where cars can't. ;)

:notamused: If it wold have been me and the window was open far enough for him to talk to me like that he would have a fat lip or a black eye or both. Senator or not, he puts his pants on the same way I do, if you know what I mean. :50: Don't pick a fight with an old man, he will just kill ya!!:50:

pop's

+1

There is one, and only one, left lane (no mention of a bike lane, and he specifically says he was "in the curbside of that lane"). If the car had (illegally) passed the cyclist which occupied the same lane, he would have been aware of his presence, and the incident wouldn't have happened. Instead, it appears that the cyclist was in the process of (illegally) passing the motorist. Obey the traffic laws, or STFU.

I've got answers for all these, but it's Sunday night, I'm tired and going to get a good nights sleep. I'll post my responses tomorrow or the next day. W/much respect to any who disagree this is AT LEAST an intersting, thought provoking thread. Gotta re-read the letter again, though. Certain details are getting away from me. G'night fellow commuters. Be Safe out there.:thumb:

Right on.Activism.I like it.

He (along with Transportation Alternatives) does have an agenda, but it's not at all about assuring that cyclists can ride the road safely. And it's not about cyclists' rights. Since this is the commuting forum, I'll just direct people to this A&S thread.

You know, I'm proud of No Impact Man for making an example of a someone in political office that gave the road rage so many of us experience daily.

Let him publicize the encounter with his letter, blog, etc. If more people thought we'd write to their employers each time we had a close call, they would instantly be looking for us, like any other vehicle.

True ,read the fine print.You're right. I wish I had time to read this all right now

You're right. Road rage should be reported. So, to whom do we report "No Impact Man's" road rage?

And yes, by all means, let "no impact man" publicize his own self-righteousness. Given that the senator has apparently agreed to meet, at least the senator seems to have some sense that he might have done something wrong. But "no impact man" rode dangerously and stupidly, and now demands an apology for the accident his own reckless riding almost caused. What a spoiled child. What an embarrassment to cyclists everywhere.

And that's how things work in Happyland.

Ya gotta understand that my comment about "if he had been walking instead of riding a machine made from dug-up ore, etc etc" was in jest (partly, at least ;)).

But yeah, read his open letter again. The most important part -- the who, where, and when regarding the positioning of the senator and NoImpactMan -- is just one sentence long, in the paragraph right after "To refresh your memory:" at his blog entry:
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/...en-letter.html

To me, that's what triggered the whole thing, and I also think that it could have been avoided just as easily as it happened. If I let myself get caught in the same position as he was, I'm more apologetic than confrontational, because I think it's a very dangerous place for me to ride.