Cyclist Road Rage

Camilo said:

I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes
sense to you.

Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was
driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk.

Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I
can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their
personal safety as a secondary consideration. It would be shame to
hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I
do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after...

Quoted message said:

In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use.

Really? Was the shoulder reasonably clean, or was it full of broken
bottles? Was it paved, or gravel? These considerations make a
difference, and most cyclists would prefer to use a clean hard shoulder
on a road like that.

Quoted message said:

Also
instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting
2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to
pass.

So change lanes.

And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get

Quoted message said:

into.

Impossible? Rarely is it "impossible" to change lanes, even in rush
hour, to pass. You _might_ have to wait a few seconds, but come on,
we've all been there, it is _not_ impossible. You would rather not, and
feel somehow justified in running down another human being because you
would rather not move over. Well, don't expect much validation of that.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Camilo" wrote: (clip) As someone else pointed out, once the decision is
made to not use the

Quoted message said:

shoulder, "taking" the lane to force safe passing is the "common
sense" action. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When Veg blew the horn at him, the message was, "GET OUT OF THE WAY." Or
maybe if it was a gentle tap, the message was, "Please get out of the way."
In either case, he chose not to, and it was his decision to make. Your toot
on the horn was legally and ethically equivalent to honking at pedestrians
in a crosswalk. They are where they have a right to be, even though it may
slow you down.

This cyclist was probably riding at a pretty good clip, in an effort not to
impede traffic more than he had to. To hit the shoulder at that speed could
have been disastrous. And where would you have been, at 45 MPH? Half a
block down the road, and unaware that anything had happened.

Next time this happens, just pretent it's a tractor, and wait for a chance
to change lanes. When he pulls up to you at the next signal, smile, and
say, "Nice day."

Quoted message said:

On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in
1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were
sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.

These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction
from stupid people. First compaing deaths to hospitilizations are two
completely different things . Second society spends a gazillion man-
hours ever year engaging in sleeping, relaxing, and lying around.
However the cycling man hours are tiny fraction of that... So the
ratio of injury to time spent doing these activities needs to reported.

OK, try http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

There's information in there on injury rates, per hour exposure.

- Frank Krygowski

<[email hidden]> wrote: (clip) And since it was rush hour, the other
lane was impossible to get into.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really??! Then how is it that *he* caught up with *you* at the next signal?

Quoted message said:

Camilo said:

I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes
sense to you.

Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was
driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk.

Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I
can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their
personal safety as a secondary consideration. It would be shame to
hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I
do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after...

Classic.

Quoted message said:

On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in
1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they
were sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.

These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction
from stupid people. First compaing deaths to hospitilizations are two
completely different things . Second society spends a gazillion man-
hours ever year engaging in sleeping, relaxing, and lying around.
However the cycling man hours are tiny fraction of that... So the
ratio of injury to time spent doing these activities needs to
reported.

It's official. You're either a moron or a troll. Whichever, go away.

Gooserider said:

---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet.

Here we go... <eg>

Quoted message said:

Camilo said:

I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes
sense to you.

Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was
driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk.

Good. Learning is a good thing.

Quoted message said:

Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I
can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their
personal safety as a secondary consideration.

You said earlier that you had a "gut feeling" that cycling was
dangerous.

In your defense, I'll say that many people think cycling is very
dangerous, so you're not alone. OTOH, you're wrong, at least in any
practical sense.

As mentioned in the article I pointed to earlier, there's an average
of about 15 million miles ridden between bike fatalities. Even a
dedicated cyclist would have to ride for thousands of years (if that
were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if
cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a
given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong.

You may think that bike commuting - as opposed to riding on bike
trails or something - is dangerous. But that's wrong, too. Sorry I
don't have a precise citation now, but there have been studies
published in scientific journals pointing out that cycle commuters
live longer than car commuters. Even if there is an increase in
danger from biking, it's definitely offset by the health benefits.
Aside from the benefits of exercise, it's been shown that those
cycling in traffic have lower blood CO levels than those driving cars
in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill
another person, compared to a car driver like yourself.

Personally, I think the world's in a sad state when people (like you)
feel they have to be enclosed in a steel-and-glass can to move about
safely. You miss so much! There's a large, interesting world outside
your steel-and-glass can. But it's gotten to the point that most
Americans never experience it!

Quoted message said:

It would be shame to
hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I
do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after...

That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a
working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their
victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material
baggage.

One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a
rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time?
Odds are you're not a super-hero. You really aren't going to save the
world with that 30 seconds. You aren't going to earn any significant
money, nor do any significant good for the world in general. In the
best realistic case, you're probably going to watch 30 more seconds of
Oprah or Dr. Phil.

In this case, it wasn't even that much. You ended up sitting at a
traffic light.

So get realistic, get control of your impatience, and chill. The
cyclist really does have a right to the road, and it's not going to
hurt you to respect that.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most
areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means
as much as is safe.

He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him
on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will
still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of
traffic..

That is one example of the idiotic "Take the lane" strategy that some of
the more suicidal bicyclists take. You may read about him in the obituaries.
I ride but do NOT take the lane do to the semi-truck risk and teenagers
in pick ups.
Some cyclists are way too self righteous if you listen in on this group,
rec.bicycles.misc
Good luck with that commute.
Bill (wrong way, still alive) Baka

Bill Sornson said:

Gooserider said:

---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet.

Here we go... <eg>

Getting run over with a helmet on still hurts.;<😉
Take the lane from a full cement truck and see how much the helmet saves
your life.
Hah!
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

nash said:

Yeah, if you are that unskilled.
That would be a proper lesson for U.

what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a
45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when
some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share
your wisdom!

There is little wisdom here, just overblown self importance and opinions.
The cyclist was an idiot, period.
Now the self important "Experts" on here will start flaming me, for
being logical and avoiding cars.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if
cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a
given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong.

I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is
perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy
4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling that
cycling in such conditions is unsafe.

Quoted message said:

in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill
another person, compared to a car driver like yourself.

the bicyclist is impeding traffic and creating situations where a car
could get hit trying to pass it since hte passing lane is going 45
mph. Since you have cars backed up behind you it is difficult to see
far back enough to safely pull out and pass.

Quoted message said:

That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a
working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their
victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material
baggage.

What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything.
My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish and
foolhardy decisions.

Quoted message said:

One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a
rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time?
Odds are you're not a super-hero.

again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I am
also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think cycling in
the conditions I cited are not prudent. And the elephant skinned
byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. Who said the
world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for experience..

Quoted message said:

Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety?
So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him?

Ask Gooserider.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

Claire Petersky said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years,
that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample
population and then maybe Ill try it.

You may be interested in this page, which I feel does a fairly thorough
examination of the topic:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

You are probably a USAian, but you also might be interested in a large
study
done in Britain. The question is, how dangerous is bicycling compared to
other activities of daily life? A 1999 study of emergency room incidents
came up with these statistics: While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in
1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were
sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.

Here's more:

"The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by
armchairs,
down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries 'leave little
room for complacency', New Scientist said, adding that injuries inflicted
by
vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at 13,132. Hospital admissions caused
by socks and tights rose from 9,843 to 10,773, while birdbath accidents
almost trebled to 311."

You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to an
alarming 37. 5,945 people were hospitalized after trouser-related
accidents.
146 were seriously hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet roll holder
related injuries.

So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of cycling
while being stuck in some malordorous steel box in an interminable line of
cars, fuming at your sorry situation?

Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free!

Claire,
People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more
hazardous than cycling?
Give it a rest.
Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots.
Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot?
I'm not name calling, just asking.
Bill Baka

Curious...I take the lane in rush hour when necessary, most notably
moving to the centre of the right lane on a particular somewhat blind
curve on a rather busy part of my commute. It's clear that this is the
safest alternative, since otherwise the trucks are tempted to pass
within my lane, and they end up off-tracking me onto the sidewalk (which
isn't safe either, because that's where the pedestrians and oncoming
cyclists are riding, and it's even more blind than the road).

Anyways, I'm not dead, and not especially pompous. My other vices more
than make up for it.

Don't even do Critical Mass rides,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Quoted message said:

there was shoulder he could have ridden on.

Do you cheerfully take the risk of driving on shoulders when people want to
pass you? No? Then why should anyone else?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Warner said:

Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he
could get out of your way?

there was shoulder he could have ridden on.

So could have you.

shoulders are completely unsuitable, they are not roadways and they are
strewn with tire-puncturing debris. The average bike would not make it 3
miles down the shoulder of a busy 45 mph 4-lane road before getting a
puncture.

Your suggestion is about as appealing as suggesting that one make out
with one's sister.

..max

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety?
So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him?

Why are you paranoid? Are you not in control of your car?

..max

On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700, [email hidden] wrote, in part:

Quoted message said:

So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to
explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for
his own safety, but he would have nothing of it?

I've read the whole thread and can say you've been treated quite
gently. You've been given sound, sensitive and educational responses.

I generally believe all drivers are [censored] or idiots until they
prove themselves otherwise. It's part of what keeps me alive.

Over 400,000 people were killed last year in traffic collisions.

Some deaths were caused by the crappy attitudes drivers acquire
inside their plushy scuds. Their fluffy squishy flesh is stuffed
inside an impervious carapace that gives them more horsepower than
their quarter-horsepower brains can handle.

With their sippy drinks, cell phones, stereos and other distractions
they feel like they're alone at home so can act more rudely than they
would in a public place like our roads.

Certainly the larger number of those deaths was caused drivers'
outright incompetence, inattention and ignorance or misapprehension
of their traffic laws.

Let's not ignore all those upstanding citizens who regularly drive
while impaired with over-the-counter and/or prescription medications,
sleep deprivation, alcohol and illicit dope.

Couple this with drivers' sense of exclusive entitlement because they
erroneously believe the money their precious car is sucking from
their wallets pays for the roads.

They regularly fail to grasp the fact that cyclists too pay taxes. In
the overall accounting, that includes policing you bunch of petulant
brats, cyclists end up subsidising you same scuds slaves who are
threatening our lives by your very presence.

Drivers are regularly [censored]-off about _anything_ "in their way" of
attaining that dream they'd bought from the advertisements, sucker.

Yeah, I love you guys.

NOW SHOVE THAT HORN UP YOUR ASS BEFORE I DO!
--
zk

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most
areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That
means
as much as is safe.

He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him
on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will
still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of
traffic..

The cyclist was doing the right thing.