Odd interaction with a road rager



R

Ron McKinnon

Guest
So here's an odd one for the books. I was cycling from work today along a
one-way street with enough clearance to avoid opening car doors. The
street was three lanes wide with one of the lanes reserved for buses at
rush hour. The middle lane was free.

A bus was slowing down to a stop in its lane and I was moving forward when
I heard the ubiquitous blare of a horn from a car in the (clear) middle
lane. Now the car had to pass between the bus and myself, but there was a
whole lane for him to do so, so I wasn't sure what was up.

I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle
car and the driver looked pretty tough so I debated whether or not to ask
him what was up. I thought "what the heck" and asked him if I could help
him with something.

He then yelled, very angrily I might add, that with me on one side and the
bus on the other side he barely had room to pass, and that I should have
been off to the side (riding over top of the parked cars I suppose). I was
about to tell him that his whole lane was clear but the light turned green
and he peeled rubber and took off like a bat out of hell.

I caught up two lights later and was going to ask him why he thought an
entire lane of traffic was not sufficient for him but he'd rolled up his
window and was staring straight ahead. That intersection has an advance
green for bikes and I left somewhat befuddled.

Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
better I'd have thought he was scared.

How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some
people?

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
"Ron McKinnon" <see_sig@for_email.ca> wrote

[snip]

> I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle
> car...
and
> I caught up two lights later...

That's what got to him...:)

Pete
 
Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

&*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun
it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.

I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.
 
"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking
a
> > fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> > that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't
know
> > better I'd have thought he was scared.
>
> &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even
outrun
> it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
> manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.
>
> I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
> just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
> I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

Probably was a cop.
 
"Ron McKinnon" <see_sig@for_email.ca> wrote: (clip) I thought "what the
heck" and asked him if I could help him with something.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See, you didn't play by his "rules." He thought he was protected from
confrontation, which made him very "brave." But you faced him, and forced
him to justify his irrational behavior--which he could not do. What would
it do to your self-image to declare that you can't drive your car down a
standard lane?

I'd say you won that bout.
 
Ron McKinnon wrote:
<road rage incident snipped>

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later.

All road ragers are acting like babies. "I don't want things the way they
are, and I'm going to blame you!" is written into each road rager's
personality. Things like forgiveness and flexibility are not there.

> I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

An immature person having a temper tantrum may in fact rely on him
intimidating you. When that didn't work, he may have felt like his "big
one" was taken away.

> How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some
> people?

Judging by the number of cars I see in the ditch, especially in winter, I'd
say entire roads aren't enough for some people.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address
 
Ron McKinnon wrote:

|| Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.
|| Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking
|| later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that
|| imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared.
||
|| How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for
|| some people?

I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
 
> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
> I caught up two lights later ...

You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
small penis.
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

I think this is REALLY good advice. Stupid people only get stupider and
possibly violent. Not worth it.

Dave
 
Ron McKinnon wrote:

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.

Indeed. I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" to "road rage" as it more
accurately reflects the degree of maturity exhibited...

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 Washington
University
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>> [...]
> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>


I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.

The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
anything and risk more than you than expect.


-H.
 
Jorma wrote:
>
> Probably was a cop.

Definitely an asshole, and apparently a coward, so almost certainly not a cop.
Asshole cops never run in fear from confrontation with unarmed peasants.
An asshole cop would at least threaten to arrest him if he didn't get on the
sidewalk where he belongs.

Mitch.
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:16:13 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ken (NY)
>
>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

Actually, the reverse is true.

Bush's policies, particularly the war in Iraq have been the best boost to the
popularity of Bin Laden and his organisation (and othe crackpots, and their
organisations) that they could have wished for.

In fact, there will be a high state of alert in the run up to the US elections,
because the authorities there believe that Bin Laden is planning on "rewarding"
Bush for his unwitting help in generating recruits, with some atrocity that he
believes will cause Americans to rally behind their president. He certainly
expects a second Bush term will make Al Queda even stronger.

Remember that even the American state department's analysis shows the danger
from terrorism has increased significantly during Bush's term in office,
although that anaysis does not detail why the danger has increased.

Mike
 
Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
traffic lights.

Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody
bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond
the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving
around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off
the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult
rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall
short of yesterday's time.

It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
City. This pisses ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

"H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> > I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second
encounters
> > with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> > upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
> >
>
>
> I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
> to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
> in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
> The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
> slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
> about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
> it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
> anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
> -H.
 
Mike wrote:

>> Ken (NY)
>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

> Actually, the reverse is true.

PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are
such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the
country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded...

Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys -
they were Republican donors!

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 Washington
University
 
On 1 Sep 2004 05:59:58 -0700, [email protected] (H) wrote:

>"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
>> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
>> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>>
>
>
>I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
>to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
>in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
>The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
>slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
>about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
>it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
>anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
>-H.

One of the problems with maintaining one's cool, though is that when one is
riding all systems are in high gear, including the adrenaline, and as a
result there's the sense that you can take on the world.

However, I think Chris Carmichael says it best:

"Resist making an obscene gesture or shouting a profanity...You may think
you're doling out punisment but psychologists say otherwise. It actually
tells the driver that he succeeded, and this encourages the same behavior.
The best response is no response. Keep riding as if nothing happened."
-pg51
The Lance Armstrong Performance Program by Lance Armstrong, Chris
Carmichael.

The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'...towards
other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
future.

I try to tap into the aggressive counter-response and ride harder, which is
what I think most experienced road-riders do. (easier said than done, I
realize.) ;-)

-B
(Of course later, Chris advises that one should be prepared to get a
description and license number if necessary, and be prepared phone in a
report. When I'm going on a long ride I pack a pencil and pad and hope to
concentrate on getting the number and hope it helps defuse the anger with
postive action, etc.)
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>>> Ken (NY)
>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>
>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
> grounded...
>
> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
> guys - they were Republican donors!

This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
(http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):

"No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi
Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and
24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States
on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of
national airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily
the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the
9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin
flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist.
There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks,
or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."



But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?



Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:58 GMT, "NYRides" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
>techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
>City. This pisses ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
>a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few
encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely
encountered a biker on the road, and never encountered one that irritated
me for any reason; much the same way we hardly ever see an accident
actually happen when driving, yet they're extremely common.

However I get your point and don't have an argument with that.

-B
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>> grounded...
>>
>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
>> guys - they were Republican donors!
>
> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
> Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>
> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
> into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
> the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly
> Saudi
> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14
> and
> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
> States
> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
> Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
> Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening
> of
> national airspace.
> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
> primarily
> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
> national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to
> the
> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
> people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the
> 26
> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
> that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything
> about
> terrorist activity.
>
> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
> Ladin
> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
> TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
> Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
> manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF
> watchlist.
> There are no matches.
>
> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
> flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11
> attacks,
> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
> date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."
>
>
>
> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>
>
>
> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>
>

While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken
with a grain of salt.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
 
Bob in CT wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>>
>>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>>> grounded...
>>>
>>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been
>>> bad guys - they were Republican donors!
>>
>> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From
>> /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
>> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>>
>> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted
>> to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13,
>> 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142
>> people, mostly Saudi
>> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September
>> 14 and
>> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
>> States
>> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama
>> Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered
>> flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before
>> the reopening of
>> national airspace.
>> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
>> primarily
>> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a
>> threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI
>> with regard to the
>> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the
>> 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including
>> 22 of the 26
>> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
>> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers
>> stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew
>> anything about
>> terrorist activity.
>>
>> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
>> Ladin
>> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether
>> the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the
>> Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on
>> the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current
>> TIPOFF watchlist.
>> There are no matches.
>>
>> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these
>> six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the
>> 9/11 attacks,
>> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.
>> To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this
>> conclusion."
>>
>>
>>
>> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>>
>>
>
> While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be
> taken with a grain of salt.

It comes from Dave Kopel, who hardly just accepts spoon-fed information, but
rather appears to really investigate hard facts from many sources.

Bill "anything that comes from MM has to be taken with a /pallet/ of salt"
S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back