cyclist shoots motorist

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Steven M. O'Nei, Feb 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:45:20 -0700, "Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]>

    >I think I'll use that as my sig line. Whatta all think?

    It would surely beat the hell out of most of mine...

    Why are there no Dental Ethicists?

  2. On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:21:39 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>

    >Fri, 13 Feb 2004 04:05:42 -0500, <[email protected]>, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-
    >> wrote:
    >>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.
    >Go tinkle.

    Oui, oui.
  3. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    14 Feb 2004 03:57:38 GMT,
    <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >Maybe you should look for a link on reading comprehension. I designated the *cyclist* as Knothead #
    >1. Knothead # 2 was not arrested. Duh. Check your meds, man.

    I give a fist what _you_ designated them. I'm renaming them by their order of appearance in
    the episode.

    KH#1 is the driver as he instigated the whole incident by yelling at KH#2 who waved acknowledgement.
    That KH#1 turned around makes him guilty of escalation. He could have most easily just kept going.
    But he didn't. He was spoiling for a fight so turned his truck around.

    I'm not defending either of the scumbubbles nor apologising for the goof with the gun. He was stupid
    for not first shooting out the truck's tires and then for getting caught.

    I had a mungwipe threaten me with his vehicle. He'd turned around twice to make two feints because
    I'd told him his Escalade was ugly.

    Drivers are armed dangerous and extremely stupid while ensconced in their battle wagons. Our system
    is geared toward protecting the most stupid.
  4. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    14 Feb 2004 21:07:49 GMT,
    <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >I've tried to maintain a civil attitude towards you but to hell with it. If you had truly renamed
    >the pair you would have explained that renaming so your post made at least *some* sense to the
    >reader but that's not what happened.

    Message-ID: <[email protected]> "Knothead #1 is going to walk because he's a
    driver . . ." "Knothead #2 was an easy bust. " (Remember which one got busted?)

    That should have been clear enough. Sorry you missed it.
  5. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

  6. Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Sometimes I honk back with my rubber bulb horn. But usually that just makes them laugh. That can be
    >good, too -- once, I actually dispelled a road ragers' horn war that way.

    I usually honk back with my $.99 Bambi bell. Ringa-linga. I usually try to mimic the ryhthm and tone
    of the automobile horn as closely as possible, expressly to make fun of them and/or to demonstrate
    the futility of honking. I try to smile while I'm doing it too.

    Steven O'Neill [email protected]
  7. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:07 -0800, <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

    >I believe when onlookers witness two road users having a dispute, they just see individuals, not
    >representatives of whichever vehicular mode they use.
    >That said, bad vibes in the air seem to be cumulative, and maybe it's ultimately best not to
    >add to them.

    Using "The Look" effectively keeps it nice and personal.

    The one who buzzed me at 80kmh on the Georgia Viaduct got an iced fix when he looked for a reaction
    in his mirror. The look on his face while he was waiting for a light at the bottom of the Main St.
    exit gradually turned to near panic as he realised I was closing on him very fast. Finally he cut
    off a couple cars to make his hasty right turn. The light turned green as I hit Main on the boogie
    and made my right. He kept looking for me all the way up Main and then started rolling up his
    windows because he knew that I'd caught him dead and boxed for that excruciating light sequence at
    Terminal Ave.

    I blew him a kiss as I nailed the green arrow left. His own imagination was worse than anything I
    could have done.

    Another one caught himself crowding me while he'd been distracted on the phone. After passing he
    looked in the mirror for a reaction. He knew that I knew he was an idiot. So he gave me the finger
    when I looked at him as one might view a chronically plugged toilet.

    After I spit and adjusted my parts, he went ballistic, pulled over jumped out and punched me in the
    back as I went by.

    I turned around and went back via the sidewalk (along West King Edward Ave) but I guess he couldn't
    wait for me or didn't want to risk what might happen.

    There were no witnesses to the assault but later that day, I heard that his late model, light
    metallic blue Mercedes SUV with tinted windows got impounded for having expired insurance.

    I've got to learn to maintain that stone zone rather than giving those dipshits the reaction they're
  8. Jym Dyer

    Jym Dyer Guest

    > I don't want to get involved in pointless word games but yes, that is *not* an altercation.

    =v= FWIW (not much), some versions of the AP story said "altercation," others said "confrontation."

    > Do you honestly believe that Urick simply forgot to mention, "Oh yeah, and he almost ran me over."
    > when explaining his own actions to the police?

    =v= That seems unlikely. It's not unlikely, though, that the police discounted this, and perhaps
    didn't even record it in the police report. Or they didn't bother to tell the AP reporter. Or the AP
    reporter -- whose narrative voice is biased against the bicyclist -- didn't bother to report it.

    =v= I don't know whether any of that happened, but I've known each of those things to have happened
    in the reporting of other incidents. We have scant little information to draw any conclusions from
    at this point. <_Jym_
  9. Jym Dyer

    Jym Dyer Guest

    > If they don't want a confrontation, don't start one.

    =v= Yes. We all know that. Of course. Goes without saying.

    =v= You posted this cliché in response to what I wrote, yet I don't see its relevance to my words,
    since the very issue under discussion is *WHO* started it.

    =v= One version of events is that the motorist started the VERBAL confrontation by demanding the
    bicyclist get off the road. This version has been deemphasized by both the narrative and
    authoritative voices in the story.

    =v= If events were described accurately, and the motorist turned around and "drove toward" the
    bicyclist, then it is the motorist who started the PHYSICAL confrontation as well -- also with a
    deadly weapon.

    =v= It also seems possible that the motorist's initiation of verbal hostility was accompanied by a
    physical threat in the form of unsafe driving. We have scant little information about the situation,
    and as I said, what little we know about the start of the conflict has been deemphasized, but if I
    was working on that case that would be something I'd ask. <_Jym_>

    P.S.: The above is simply focusing on the initiation of hostilities. You don't have to respond
    with, "it takes two to fight." Again: Yes. We all know that. Of course. Goes without saying.
  10. Jym Dyer

    Jym Dyer Guest

    > Leave aside any predisposition you may have to believe Urick was wrongly accused or that you and I
    > may disagree.

    =v= Like I said, I take no sides in this. The closest thing I've got to a "predisposition" is a
    skepticism over the accuracy of the (brief) newswire story, due both to its bias and its internal

    > An even minimally competent investigator *always* documents *every* excuse a defendant offers for
    > his actions if for no other reason to keep the prosecutor from being blindsided by the defense
    > attorney at trial. Add to that, many prison inmates are there at least in part because of
    > conflicting self-serving statements they made to the police.

    =v= I agree with all of that. Yet I've known of police reports that reflect less than minimal
    competence. Also, I grew up in Pittsburgh, with family that worked for the police, and -- how can I
    put this? Most people watching _The_Simpsons_ laugh at the antics of Chief Wiggum, secure in knowing
    that *their* police don't act that way. My laughter, however, is the type that's tinged with

    =v= Maybe the East Pittsburgh police are more competent than the ones in my neck of the woods. Let's
    hope so. <_Jym_
  11. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Bill Meredith" <[email protected]> wrote
    > Now I just stood there with my right hand holding a small two shot 38 in my pocket, watching her
    > hands to see if she was going to go for a weapon that might had been somewhere on her. With my 80
    > year old mother along there was no way I could had safety retreated from this nut case and if it
    > had look like she was going for a gun or knife, I would had kill her.

    Good thing she wasn't carrying -- like you.

    It doesn't seem fair though, either everybody ought to be armed to the teeth or no one. Personally,
    I vote for no one, but the everyone case would be interesting.
  12. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Q." <> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > >This country is not perfect (far from it), but it's still the best situation
    > that
    > > >ever existed ...
    > >
    > > That's your story and you're stuck with it, dupe.
    > There are plenty of places in the world for you to live if you don't like America ... places
    > without "hillbillies in pickup trucks" and where armed robbers are allowed to roam the streets
    > unopposed. Try Angola.

    I think Canada would be a closer and more reasonable (esp. wrt guns) choice.
  13. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote
    > Of course, since you tend toward a minority opinion, that pesky concept of "democracy" means
    > you're never gonna get it like you really want it here.

    Abolition was once a minority opinion.
  14. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote
    > 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.

    The current administration screwed up badly. I thought that was obvious to everybody by now?
  15. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Q." <> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > >Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ?
    > >
    > > To compensate for a small dick or other feelings of inadequacy.
    > Jesh ... never fails ... arguments always end up either talking about small dicks, or Nazis.

    Or small-dicked Nazis.
  16. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Bill Meredith" <[email protected]> wrote
    > I to had found that when I am carrying, I am far more peaceful and willing to retreat, then I
    > would be otherwise.

    Michael Moore was right.
  17. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Bill Meredith" <[email protected]> wrote
    > I had a friend in high school that once bend over and dared a man to shot him with a shotgun in
    > the rear end.
    > Luckly for him the shotgun shell contain birdshot, but it was still a long long time before the
    > man could eat setting down.

    This must have been before lawyers were invented, or maybe just unknown in your country?
  18. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:31:11 GMT, "Peter Cole"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >It doesn't seem fair though, either everybody ought to be armed to the teeth or no one. Personally,
    >I vote for no one, but the everyone case would be interesting.

    It would weed out the knotheads pretty damn fast. Only reasonable and safe people would remain, and
    crime would be nearly non-existant.
    Rick Onanian
  19. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]_s51>,
    "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Michael Moore was right.

    I'd like to see his Fahrenheit 9/11, just to see what all the fuss is about. I'd be happy just to
    transcribe it. I /did/ get to transcribe much of Mark Achbar's "The Corporation": and I highly recommend seeing it if you get a chance. It's
    a straight-goods documentary (Canadian film always seems to default to that) rather than a Moore-
    like mockumentary, but it's pretty thought provoking.

    cheers, Tom

    -- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
    [point] bc [point] ca
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.