"I'm going to knock your head off with a baseball bat"

  • Thread starter Preston Crawford
  • Start date



Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> I exclaim, "Excuse me! Excuse me!" until I finally get the young

fellow to
> unroll his window. I say, in a motherly voice, "I heard you shouting

to me
> as you passed by me earlier on the hill, but I couldn't quite make

out what
> you said. Is everything OK? Do you need help with anything?" There's
> probably about 8 or 10 motorists all rather curiously staring at me

and the
> Encore, trying to figure out what is going on, probably because

they're
> bored waiting at this interminable light, and this is the most

interesting
> thing happening. "I was afraid that maybe you had some difficulty.

Are you
> sure you're all right?" Like, are you sure you don't need a brain
> transplant, IDIOT?!! but of course outwardly I was all maternal

concern.
> They disavow any need for assistance, and embarrassedly roll up their
> window. The light turns green.
>
> I ride away in triumph.


As I said:
"I keep thinking there must be a way to use psychological jiu-jitsu in
situations like that - something other than "my weapon trumps your
weapon," even if my "weapon" is a cell phone. I'm thinking (vaguely)
of something that confuses them, then makes them see how silly they're
being. "

Good one, Claire!

- Frank Krygowski
 
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> >
> > I exclaim, "Excuse me! Excuse me!" until I finally get the young

> fellow to
> > unroll his window. I say, in a motherly voice, "I heard you shouting

> to me
> > as you passed by me earlier on the hill, but I couldn't quite make

> out what
> > you said. Is everything OK? Do you need help with anything?"

<snip>
>> The light turns green.
> >
> > I ride away in triumph.


Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> As I said:
> "I keep thinking there must be a way to use psychological jiu-jitsu in
> situations like that - something other than "my weapon trumps your
> weapon," even if my "weapon" is a cell phone. I'm thinking (vaguely)
> of something that confuses them, then makes them see how silly they're
> being. "
>
> Good one, Claire!
>


The best "psychological jiu-jitsu" I have seen was in a Radiology Department
staff meeting at a significant Boston hospital. For some reason, one of the
elder male radiologists stood up during the meeting and vehemently attacked
another radiologist at some length and in some detail. After he finished and
sat down, all eyes (at least mine) went to the one who had been attacked
wondering what the response would be. The one who had been attacked , who
happened to be female, remained seated, said not a word, showed not the
least bit of stress, but just smiled broadly with what looked like genuine
amusement. And held the smile until the meeting finally got started back up
again.
 
"Alfred Ryder" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The best "psychological jiu-jitsu" I have seen was in a Radiology Department
>staff meeting at a significant Boston hospital. For some reason, one of the
>elder male radiologists stood up during the meeting and vehemently attacked
>another radiologist at some length and in some detail. After he finished and
>sat down, all eyes (at least mine) went to the one who had been attacked
>wondering what the response would be. The one who had been attacked , who
>happened to be female, remained seated, said not a word, showed not the
>least bit of stress, but just smiled broadly with what looked like genuine
>amusement. And held the smile until the meeting finally got started back up
>again.


The best I ever heard about was at a construction meeting in China.
The French Program Manager was laying into a Chinese supervisor or
contractor about something. He railed on and on cursing and swearing,
and all the while the Chinese guy just sat there idly folding a
cigarette paper (lots of 'em rolled their own back then). This went
on for a while, until the French PM ran out of steam.

"Are you done?" asked the Chinese guy.

"Yes" snarled the French PM.

At which point the Chinese guy sat the neatly folded oragami frog on
the table just long enough for it to sink in... then touched it with
the tip of his lit cigarette, sending it up in instant flames.

Classic.

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


> I exclaim, "Excuse me! Excuse me!" until I finally get the young

fellow to
> unroll his window. I say, in a motherly voice, "I heard you shouting

to me
> as you passed by me earlier on the hill, but I couldn't quite make

out what
> you said. Is everything OK? Do you need help with anything?"


>
> I ride away in triumph.


I had a nearly identical experience a few years ago. A kid leaned out
and yelled in my ear as they passed. I caught them at the next light.
There were 2 teenage girls giggling hysterically (one being the
driver), while a younger boy was literally trying to hide under the
dashboard.

I let a few moments pass, gave him my steeliest look, and in my best
Clint Eastwood asked: "Have you always been such a complete jerk?" He
swallowed hard and gulped "Yes". "I thought so", I said, and rode off
shaking my head. Heh, I forgot about that one.
 
"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Claire Petersky wrote:
>>

>
>> I exclaim, "Excuse me! Excuse me!" until I finally get the young

>fellow to
>> unroll his window. I say, in a motherly voice, "I heard you shouting

>to me
>> as you passed by me earlier on the hill, but I couldn't quite make

>out what
>> you said. Is everything OK? Do you need help with anything?"

>
>>
>> I ride away in triumph.

>
>I had a nearly identical experience a few years ago. A kid leaned out
>and yelled in my ear as they passed. I caught them at the next light.
>There were 2 teenage girls giggling hysterically (one being the
>driver), while a younger boy was literally trying to hide under the
>dashboard.
>
>I let a few moments pass, gave him my steeliest look, and in my best
>Clint Eastwood asked: "Have you always been such a complete jerk?" He
>swallowed hard and gulped "Yes". "I thought so", I said, and rode off
>shaking my head. Heh, I forgot about that one.


These are heartening stories, to be sure, but there is a tiny part of
my astoundingly warped brain that says . . .

We cyclists have dozens and dozens of cautionary tales that guide us
in our travels, hopefully keeping us just a tiny bit safer.

I still stand by my "cyclists messing with drivers is high risk, low
reward" (though I did yell at one myself yesterday for trying to take
Sorni out...), but . . .

I want to hear that tale . . . yes, preferably that apocryphal tale .
.. . about the cyclist who--accosted in some "harmless, just crazy kids
having fun" sort of way--pulls out a .357 and starts blasting wildly
at the car.

Again, I'm not adocating violence against the car-people . . . but
what cautionary tales . . . what urban legend do they have to make
them think, if only for a split second, that it's just not a good idea
.. . . that *they're* at risk, too?? Obviously, moral rectitude isn't
cutting it. Maybe fear of consequences would....

Better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than not at all.

Maybe we can work something out with snopes.com??

Be safe out there....
 
David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> BTW, just taking pictures is not enough. All you see is pictures of a
> red-faced fool giving you the finger. Hardly a death threat there. You
> need full-motion video with sound to get their ass in jail. Until your
> phone has that, you flat-out will not win in court, and we all know it.


/briefly puts on his Cell Phone sarariman hat

The LG VX 8000 phone can take 15-second vid clips. Granted, that's
probably insufficient currently. But in a year or two, expect much
longer video times to be available on phones. Already, small digital
cameras/camcorders are catching more people red-handed doing what they
ought-not-to-be doing.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Before you ask more questions, think about whether you really want to
know the answers.
-- Gene Wolfe, "The Claw of the Conciliator"
 
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:42:47 -0500, Preston Crawford
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This for riding my bike in traffic today. I was riding down the street
>that runs from my home to the intersection of the main artery towards the
>light rail. I was in the right lane, waiting for cars to pass, then
>signaled to get into the left lane to turn onto the main artery. Pretty
>mundane stuff. I look behind me with my mirror, then over my shoulder to
>make sure the car behind me (which is moving back and forth aggressively)
>isn't going to pass me on the left as I get into the left lane. He doesn't
>and I get into the left lane.
>
>This is where it gets weird. He starts yelling at me to "f***ing get on
>the sidewalk". This, also, is typical. I'm used to hearing this on an
>almost bi-weekly basis from the citizens of Beaverton, Oregon. We live in
>a bicycle friendly community. Right. I guess that's relative (i.e. they
>don't throw things at us, they only threaten to kill us). Anyway, he's
>yelling at me to get on the sidewalk calling me an "f***ing idiot" (with
>no hint of irony). Finally I try to explain to him (and I seriously mean
>explain, I'll be the first to admit that I've given the finger or shouted
>back at someone before who was road raging) that bikes are allowed on the
>road. Then he says "I'm going to knock your head off with a baseball bat".
>Of course, I shout back that I'm going to call the police and he'll go to
>jail for assault, I pull my cell phone out and start to dial, he starts
>cussing loudly to himself in the car staring forward.
>
>In the end he drove off, I road off, but I'm really starting to get tired
>of this garbage. This happens far too often and I do everything you're
>supposed to do when it comes to riding. And yet still it happens. And it's
>never "damn you for passing me" or "how dare you take the lane". The road
>raging is always because I'm on the road period. Period! Nothing more.
>Nothing less. You don't deserve to be on the road, so I'm going to
>threaten to kill you. What can you do when faced with this? I'm so sick of
>it. I want to carry a camera with me and just photograph the hell out of
>these people and take them to court. I wonder if I should carry mace with
>me at all times. I don't want to. I'm not a fighter. But at a certain
>point when not only are you being threatened by their vehicles, but
>they're threatening to wield weapons, what do you do? I'm at a loss.
>
>Preston


Let me be the first (and only, it appears) person to bring up the
reason most drivers hate cyclists.

The a-hole riders who ignore all traffic laws except when it's to
their advantage. Then they cry about 'having a right to be on the
road'.

Well, bully for you. I ride but I also drive ... (pausing to allow
readers to recover from the shock) and I get ****** at most bike
riders too.

Thurston
 
Thurston <noemail> wrote:
>
> The a-hole riders who ignore all traffic laws except when it's to
> their advantage. Then they cry about 'having a right to be on the
> road'.


Doubtful. There seems to be a large body of experience showing that people
who attack other people with their vehicles rarely even have that much
justification. It's simply a case of xenophobia in most cases. Attacking
the *other* because it's *other*. The motivations given later for the
attack usually smack of rationalization after the fact.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern
technology. Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."
 
Thurston wrote:
>
>
> Well, bully for you. I ride but I also drive ... (pausing to allow
> readers to recover from the shock) and I get ****** at most bike
> riders too.
>


?? Most of us drive cars as well as ride bikes. You're hardly unique.

If you get ****** at most bike riders, then either the bike riders in
your area are much worse than any I've seen, or (MUCH more likely)
you're just another arrogant, impatient, self-important motorist.

Relax. Slow down. Breathe deeply. You're really not going to save
the world if you're home 15 seconds earlier.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:58 -0400, Thurston <noemail> wrote:

>Let me be the first (and only, it appears) person to bring up the
>reason most drivers hate cyclists.


No, that's not a reason, it's an excuse. One of many.

You appear to be suffering from "cageritis" - the Transport Research
Laboratory documented this attitude in its report 549 of 2003:

"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the
scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
group’"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/bloody_cyclists

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:57:43 +0100,
<[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you
know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:58 -0400, Thurston <noemail> wrote:
>
>>Let me be the first (and only, it appears) person to bring up the
>>reason most drivers hate cyclists.

>
>No, that's not a reason, it's an excuse. One of many.
>
>You appear to be suffering from "cageritis" - the Transport Research
>Laboratory documented this attitude in its report 549 of 2003:
>
>"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the
>scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
>criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
>between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
>be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
>indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
>dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
>were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
>this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
>depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
>dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
>with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
>group’"
>
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/bloody_cyclists
>
>Guy


Wouldn't it have been easier to say scud jockeys like Thurston and the
rest are just worthless self absorbed scum bags and be done with it.
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to say scud jockeys like Thurston and

the
> rest are just worthless self absorbed scum bags and be done with it.


Good summary, I'll go with it.
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:57:43 +0100,
> <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you
> know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on

the
> >scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
> >criticised - no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were

made
> >between the cyclist's behaviour and any external influences that

could
> >be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents'

comments
> >indicated that they thought the cyclist's actions were inherent

and
> >dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists'

misdemeanours
> >were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
> >this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the

individual
> >depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
> >dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This

aligns
> >with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an

'out
> >group'"
> >

>
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/bloody_cyclists
> >
> >Guy

>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to say scud jockeys like Thurston and

the
> rest are just worthless self absorbed scum bags and be done with it.
> --
> zk


Zoot, some of us lack your skill at poetic brevity. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:53:26 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:57:43 +0100,
><[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you
>know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:58 -0400, Thurston <noemail> wrote:
>>
>>>Let me be the first (and only, it appears) person to bring up the
>>>reason most drivers hate cyclists.

>>
>>No, that's not a reason, it's an excuse. One of many.
>>
>>You appear to be suffering from "cageritis" - the Transport Research
>>Laboratory documented this attitude in its report 549 of 2003:
>>
>>"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the
>>scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
>>criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
>>between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
>>be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
>>indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
>>dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
>>were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
>>this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
>>depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
>>dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
>>with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
>>group’"
>>
>>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/bloody_cyclists
>>
>>Guy

>
>Wouldn't it have been easier to say scud jockeys like Thurston and the
>rest are just worthless self absorbed scum bags and be done with it.



What a load of **** that "study" is.

Why not stick to the basics.

There are a lot of a-hole cyclists who cut through traffic, ignoring
rules/laws except when it suits them. When I ride I stay on the side
of the road and yield to cars at ALL times. You pinheads who think
you're saving the world because you ride a bike to work are the
epitomy of self absorbed scum bags.

Get out of the way of people in cars. Idling behind you while you clog
up traffic is causing more polution and wasting more energy than you
save by riding your bike.

It's embarrasing to ride and be lumped together with pinheads like
you.

Thurston
 
Thurston <noemail> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:53:26 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:57:43 +0100,
>><[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you
>>know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:58 -0400, Thurston <noemail> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let me be the first (and only, it appears) person to bring up the
>>>>reason most drivers hate cyclists.
>>>
>>>No, that's not a reason, it's an excuse. One of many.
>>>
>>>You appear to be suffering from "cageritis" - the Transport Research
>>>Laboratory documented this attitude in its report 549 of 2003:
>>>
>>>"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the
>>>scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
>>>criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
>>>between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
>>>be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
>>>indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
>>>dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
>>>were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
>>>this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
>>>depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
>>>dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
>>>with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
>>>group’"
>>>
>>>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/bloody_cyclists
>>>
>>>Guy

>>
>>Wouldn't it have been easier to say scud jockeys like Thurston and the
>>rest are just worthless self absorbed scum bags and be done with it.

>
>
>What a load of **** that "study" is.
>
>Why not stick to the basics.
>
>There are a lot of a-hole cyclists who cut through traffic, ignoring
>rules/laws except when it suits them. When I ride I stay on the side
>of the road and yield to cars at ALL times. You pinheads who think
>you're saving the world because you ride a bike to work are the
>epitomy of self absorbed scum bags.
>
>Get out of the way of people in cars. Idling behind you while you clog
>up traffic is causing more polution and wasting more energy than you
>save by riding your bike.
>
>It's embarrasing to ride and be lumped together with pinheads like
>you.


Yielding to cars at ALL times may leave you dead . . . so be careful .
.. . and chuck principle for practicality: do what's right for a given
situation instead.
 
Thurston wrote:
>
>
> What a load of **** that "study" is.
>
> Why not stick to the basics.
>
> There are a lot of a-hole cyclists who cut through traffic, ignoring
> rules/laws except when it suits them. When I ride I stay on the side
> of the road and yield to cars at ALL times. You pinheads who think
> you're saving the world because you ride a bike to work are the
> epitomy of self absorbed scum bags.
>
> Get out of the way of people in cars. Idling behind you while you

clog
> up traffic is causing more polution and wasting more energy than you
> save by riding your bike.
>
> It's embarrasing to ride and be lumped together with pinheads like
> you.
>
> Thurston


Ah! The true nature of our latest troll comes out!

- Frank Krygowski
 
Thurston <noemail> didn't write:
>
> What a load of **** that "study" is.
>
> Why not stick to the basics.
>
> There are a lot of a-hole drivers who cut through traffic, ignoring
> rules/laws except when it suits them. When I drive I stay on the side
> of the road and yield to bikes at ALL times. You pinheads who think
> you're saving some time because you drive a car to work are the
> epitomy of self absorbed scum bags.
>
> Get out of the way of people on bikes. Idling behind you while you clog
> up traffic is causing more aggravation and wasting more energy than you
> save time by driving your car.
>
> It's embarrasing to drive and be lumped together with pinheads like
> you.
>
> Thurston


I think I like this version better personally.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over,
carry forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry Me Back To Old Virginia,
I'll even Hara Kari if you show me how, but I will *not* carry a gun."
-- Hawkeye, M*A*S*H
 
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:26:44 -0400,
<[email protected]>, scud slave,Thurston
<noemail> snivelled and whined like a caged scumbag:

>Get out of the way of people in cars. Idling behind you while you clog
>up traffic is causing more polution and wasting more energy than you
>save by riding your bike.


You'll more frequently wait idling and spewing while another
incompetent attempts berthing their bloated shitwagon.

You lose far more time delayed by motorised traffic than by bicycles.
It's a matter of your faulty perception.

Go choke.
--
zk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Thurston <noemail> writes:

> What a load of **** that "study" is.

Of course it is; it doesn't fit in with your world view.

> Why not stick to the basics.
>
> There are a lot of a-hole cyclists who cut through traffic, ignoring
> rules/laws except when it suits them. When I ride I stay on the side
> of the road and yield to cars at ALL times.


I'm not sure what you mean by "cut through traffic". It
sounds like you're complaining about cyclists using the
traffic lane(s) when they can keep up with or surpass the
prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic. It's entirely
appropriate and lawful to do so. And in those circumstances,
the only thing such a complaint is based on, is the fact that
someone on a bike is making better headway than you in your car.
Tough titty.

> You pinheads who think
> you're saving the world because you ride a bike to work are the
> epitomy of self absorbed scum bags.
>
> Get out of the way of people in cars. Idling behind you while you clog
> up traffic is causing more polution and wasting more energy than you
> save by riding your bike.


I've never seen a cyclist or group of cyclists "clogging up traffic"
to any great extent. I have seen lots of motor vehicles doing so,
though. Get your toxin-spewing stinkbox out of the way of people
on bikes.

> It's embarrasing to ride and be lumped together with pinheads like
> you.


You should look elsewhere for your major source of embarrassment.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:26:44 -0400, Thurston <noemail> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>What a load of **** that "study" is.


You think so? The organisation that produced it are an
internationally renowned transport safety and traffic consultancy:
http://www.trl.co.uk/, whereas you are just a random troll. I know
who I'd rather trust.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound