cyclist shoots motorist

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:24:17 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:
>It seems many cyclists take offense at just being beeped at ... not passing close or anything, just
>a friendly beep to let them know a car is going to pass. One cyclist was adamant that he always
>flipped the bird if someone beeped at him for any reason.

This is not limited to cyclists. Many people, regardless of what their mode of transportation is,
are immediately offended by horn beeps. To tell you the truth, my gut reaction is offense, although
I try hard to stifle it and remember to assess the situation before being offended. I can't say as
I've ever been honked at while bicycling.

>I was surprised at how diametrically opposed most opinions were ... and they were all from
>cyclists. Some thought it just and proper to beep when passing in a dangerous situation (me for
>one, although I've probably only done it twice, if ever), and others thought it should never be
>done for any reason under pains of death. It was all quite illuminating.

It's pretty well proper in any number of situations, but because of the oversensitivity to it,
it's a good idea to ignore propriety and not do it unless really necessary (or unless you _want_
to offend).
--
Rick Onanian

 

[David Reuteler]

Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
: I'm not defending either guy, but recently I was involved in a heated discussion concerning just
: that with another bike group. It seems many cyclists take offense at just being beeped at ... not
: passing close or anything, just a friendly beep to let them know a car is going to pass. One
: cyclist was adamant that he always flipped the bird if someone beeped at him for any reason.

well, i do take offense at being beeped at. and it always sets me on edge for something worse to
come. but i don't flip someone off or get in their face just for that -- it is, as you said,
ambigious. usually the expletives out the window or gestures from the driver remove the
ambiguity, tho.

: Often it's a matter of perspective. I got involved in a road rage incident with a guy once over
: his misunderstanding. I was completely in the right ... but up until the moment the police pointed
: out his error he thought he was right.

which goes with what i was saying before. i don't think most car drivers view buzzing a cyclist as
any threat to their physical well-being. to them it's completely justified. they don't see it from
your perspective because they .. have .. never .. ridden .. a .. bike .. in .. traffic.

:The other guy got 9 months in prison for assault and battery
: with a deadly weapon by the way. You should have seen the look on his face when he realized he
: screwed up big time and was going to spend Christmas in jail (c:

ahh, i love a happy ending.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Q.]

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:24:17 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It seems many cyclists take offense at just being beeped at ... not passing close or anything,
> >just a friendly beep to let them know a car is going to pass.
>
> You've obviously not done much cycling.

And where do you get that from? Because I can comprehend the difference between a Soccer Mom being
overly careful and genuingly trying to be nice, and some hotheaded jerk? To be honest, I've never
cared that much. It's just not a big deal to me on the rare ocassion it happens, as long as someone
passes me safely. I mean, so what, who gives a ****? I got enough things to worry about, I don't
sweat the small stuff.

So ... by your definition, someone who has "obviously" done a lot of cycling is someone who
goes ballistic over every little thing? It's been my experience it tends to be the opposite,
but whatever.

> By the time one of these "friendly" drivers has decided to "beep" to let me know they're going to
> pass, I've been hearing them coming for the past mile they've traveled, seeing them coming for the
> past half mile, and smelling them coming for the last quarter mile. Fifteen feet before they pass,
> they suddenly notice me and feel compelled to "beep".

So what? So you're a world class cyclist and a superior genetically engineered human. OKay, I'll buy
that, but what does that have to do with all the other morons on the road? You obviously haven't
done much driving if you've never noticed guys who have to ride a bike because they don't have the
mental capacity to hold onto a drivers license. Interesting that the cyclist who shot the driver was
riding a bike because his license had been revoked. You may find this hard to beleive, but not every
driver can tell the difference between an obvious pro like yourself, and a dunderhead. Some drivers
err on the side of caution because they think killing another human is actually a *big deal*.

> Forgive me if I occasionally forget to use all five fingers when I give them a friendly wave
> in return.

That kind of behavior makes all cyclists look bad and adds to the animosity drivers have towards
cycling in general and increases the danger to everyone.

If you decide someone is being aggressive or just a jerk, then deal with it however you see fit.
Call the cops or shoot them, the choice is yours. Ultimately it's you who have to face the
consequences of your own actions. There is no way flipping the bird can be misinterpreted ... if you
deliberately ask for trouble and find it, I have no sympathy.

C.Q.C.

Simply having a bike attached to your ass does not necessarily mean you're not stupid (c:

 

[Jacques Moser]

> I admit I was a little perturbed at the statement I was responding to. I was just pointing out
> that this civilization (the U.S. and a few other nations to be fair), with all its many flaws, is
> simply the best that has existed throughout history and much better than many places out there
> right now. You're right, Angola no longer has a proper police force ... my big sister was raped
> there by them.

...raped !? I better understand your views in this context. Not sure I agree in a logical sense,
though. Although it probably won't help her much, all my sympathy to your sister.

>... Anyway, this is something that can be argued even more than helmet laws so I'll stop myself
>while I still can
> (c:
>

This to remind me that we are in a cycling NG...

Jacques

 

[Jacques Moser]

> Your position seems rooted in the typical European view of the roll of government as caretaker
> ("let the police handle it").

I agree the "typical" European view differs significantly from the "typical" American view, although
there is obviously a large variety of opinions also here. I personnally endorse this view to a large
extent, but I am rather a (moderate) left-wing guy by the local standards.

 

[Jacques Moser]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:24:54 +0000, Zippy the Pinhead wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:11:12 +0100, "Jacques Moser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As a Swiss citizen I _had_ to keep my military gun (a Weapon of Mass Demotivation) at home
>>during 20 years.I was released from the army last fall and could finally return the gun. It was
>>a great relief.
>
> Did they let you keep your knife, though?
>
> It's a little-known fact, but incontrovertibly true. The reason nobody

Not that cool. As a basic soldier you only get the version without corkscrew. The better ones are
for officers only.

Still, yes I kept the knife )

 

[Mark Hickey]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> I will if I want. It's a free country.
>
>Its interestingly un-free. Disapproval and social shunning are powerful forces, and ultimately more
>oppressive than storm troopers.

Spoken by someone who's never dealt with storm troopers, no doubt.

>It was extremely shocking and eye-opening in the last conflict to realise that this "freedom" is
>all about freedom to agree.
>
>Reading back through this thread, the actual crime that is helping terrorists is to state that the
>current situation in America is not the best that the world has ever seen. Wow. Mental
>straightjackets.

I think you're putting on those "mental straightjacket" yourself. The issue has never been total
agreement. The issue has been that our society should have debate (we did), decide on a course of
action (we did) then stand together (we didn't).

In fact, when those who backed the action in Iraq later turn around and denigrate the current
administration for doing what they voted for... it's putting partisan politics above the needs of
the country - and that's wrong no matter who does it.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:42:49 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
<[email protected]> from Xavier Onassis Associates wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:34:00 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>America: Love it or leave it.
>>>>
>>>>That's the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma.
>>>
>>>It's actually a false dichotomy, but who's keeping score?
>>>
>>>Hate it, stay within the borders, and work assiduously to help your terrorist comrades to
>>>destroy it.
>>>
>>>Just don't get in my way.
>>
>>I will if I want. It's a free country.
>
>So you do, indeed, hate us because we're free?

You have an apt nym.

--
[email protected]
Lost in useless territory.
24

 

[W K]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> I will if I want. It's a free country.
> >
> >Its interestingly un-free. Disapproval and social shunning are powerful forces, and ultimately
> >more oppressive than storm troopers.
>
> Spoken by someone who's never dealt with storm troopers, no doubt.

No doubt neither have you. I have, however - met plenty of people who have. Its a provovative
exaggeration of course, but there are elements of truth in it.

> >It was extremely shocking and eye-opening in the last conflict to realise that this "freedom" is
> >all about freedom to agree.
> >
> >Reading back through this thread, the actual crime that is helping terrorists is to state that
> >the current situation in America is not the
best
> >that the world has ever seen. Wow. Mental straightjackets.
>
> I think you're putting on those "mental straightjacket" yourself.

You misunderstand. I was talking about the thread. As in "america isn't the best place ever" means
you support terrorists.

> The issue has never been total agreement. The issue has been that our society should have debate
> (we did), decide on a course of action (we did)

Oh yes? What kind of thing happened to people who stood up to say "no"? They'll have got the old
"you're either for us or against us" (as Stalin used to say)

And what about all the "france" nonesense? Is the definition of a democracy a country that does
things that the american people want to?

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:03:52 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> from
Habanero Cycles wrote:

>I think you're putting on those "mental straightjacket" yourself. The issue has never been total
>agreement. The issue has been that our society should have debate (we did), decide on a course of
>action (we did) then stand together (we didn't).

The debate was rigged to only represent rabidly pro-war and moderate pro-war sides. Antiwar
positions were shunted aside. The course of action was unilaterally decided upon and justified with
lies. I am proud to oppose both the

country over for years to come.

>In fact, when those who backed the action in Iraq later turn around and denigrate the current
>administration for doing what they voted for... it's putting partisan politics above the needs of
>the country - and that's wrong no matter who does it.

I don't recall getting a vote on the Iraq war. I would have been certain to have voted against it.

--
[email protected]
Bridges - build - burn.
38

 

[David Reuteler]

Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
: While I've investigated enough so-called road rage incidents to be convinced that *most* of the
: time neither party is blameless I do believe that the person that escalates from verbal abuse or
: rude gestures to physical violence bears a larger part of the blame.

& that is the logical place to put the bar.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Zippy The Pinhe]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:31 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I got enough things to worry about, I don't sweat the small stuff.

Aren't you special?

 

[Zoot Katz]

12 Feb 2004 21:16:54 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote, in part: \
>I do believe that the person that escalates from verbal abuse or rude gestures to physical violence
>bears a larger part of the blame. In this particular instance that would seem to be the person
>riding the bike.

Huh?

After he was threatened with bodily harm by the driver turning around and driving toward him with a
pickup truck.

The truck had to have stopped so he, the driver, could further escalate the situation. It's not as
if the cyclist chased him down to shoot him.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:31 -0500, <[email protected]>,
"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:

>That kind of behavior makes all cyclists look bad and adds to the animosity drivers have towards
>cycling in general and increases the danger to everyone.

Substantiate that assertion with data or shove it up your ass.

You're just projecting your own hostile attitude toward cyclists.
--
zk

 

[Q.]

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:31 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I got enough things to worry about, I don't sweat the small stuff.
>
> Aren't you special?

Ooooh. Good one. You're a master debater, ain't ya?

 

[Zippy The Pinhe]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:44:16 -0600, Kevan Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>So you do, indeed, hate us because we're free?
>
>You have an apt nym.

Ooooh. Good one. You're a master debater, ain't ya?

And you have a funny way of spelling "Kevin".

 

[Q.]

"Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Zoot Katz [email protected]
>
> wrote:
>
> >Huh?
> >
> >After he was threatened with bodily harm by the driver turning around and driving toward him with
> >a pickup truck.
> >
> >The truck had to have stopped so he, the driver, could further escalate the situation. It's not
> >as if the cyclist chased him down to shoot him.
>
> Yes, the cyclist was probably shaking in fear as he stood at that truck's door, gave the driver
> five seconds to get out of the truck, and then shot
the
> driver through the open window. Twist it any way you like. Assume all kinds of facts not in
> evidence. When
all
> of your self-righteous outraged assumptions are over and done the only
thing
> any of us can say without fear of contradiction by the *facts* is this: The cyclist was knothead #
> 1. The driver was knothead # 2. Knothead # 1
shot
> knothead # 2. Knothead # 1 went to jail.

Or in the immortal words of the eloquent Zoot Katz:

"Substantiate that assertion with data or shove it up your ass."

C.Q.C.

 

[Bill Meredith]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 12 Feb 2004 21:16:54 GMT,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote, in part: \
> >I do believe that the person that escalates from verbal abuse or rude gestures to physical
> >violence bears a larger part of the blame. In this particular instance that would seem to be the
> >person riding the bike.
>
> Huh?
>
> After he was threatened with bodily harm by the driver turning around and driving toward him with
> a pickup truck.
>
> The truck had to have stopped so he, the driver, could further escalate the situation. It's not as
> if the cyclist chased him down to shoot him.

All very must beside the point in a legal sense, as no one have a right to direct legal force, in
this case a bullet, at another person, except in response to a deadly threat that he have no other
way to avoid.

Bad words or bad fingers or even a raise fist, don't meet that test.

Bill Meredith

 

[Q.]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:31 -0500, <[email protected]>, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-
> hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That kind of behavior makes all cyclists look bad and adds to the
animosity
> >drivers have towards cycling in general and increases the danger to everyone.
>
> Substantiate that assertion with data or shove it up your ass.

Data? Do you even exist on the same planet? Yeah, OKay ... umm, let's see, flipping the bird at
someone makes them want to give you a big girly kiss on the bottom. Yeah, that's the ticket.

> You're just projecting your own hostile attitude toward cyclists.

Substantiate THAT assertion with data or start packing fudge yourself.

Just because most people that meet you end up hating your guts, doesn't mean they're hostile towards
cyclists. It simply means you're an @$$hole.

C.Q.C.

 

[Zippy The Pinhe]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:08:55 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:31 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I got enough things to worry about, I don't sweat the small stuff.
>>
>> Aren't you special?
>
>Ooooh. Good one. You're a master debater, ain't ya?

I've quite forgotten. WTF were we talking about?