Odd interaction with a road rager



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

>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.

ROTFLMAO

Oh, so that's all right then.

It doesn't even say they stated that they *hadn't* had contact with Bin Laden,
or *didn't* know anything about terrorist activities.

Just that the didn't say they *had* (I wonder if they were actually asked).

ROTFLMAO some more.

I can just picture the scene:

Bush (to head of FBI) Just go and ask those Saudi folk about what they had for
breakfast (in detail), and if they don't actually admit to chatting to Osama in
the last few days, or engaging in terrorist activity, you can let them go.

Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon".

--
Dave
 
Dave Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Oh, so that's all right then.

You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("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...")

It isn't true.

Bill "I know it doesn't please you to read facts" S.
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("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...")

What I wrote had nothing to do with any claim.

It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.

Rather like the way they somberly ask you if you are intending to commit any
acts of terrorism when you enter the US.

Now, why didn't *that* one catch the 9/11 terrorists, I wonder?


Dave "You won't catch teorrorists by asking them if they're terrorists" Mount
 
Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:19:33 -0400,
<[email protected]>, Badger_South
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'

So why add this dreck?
>...towards
>other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
>future.

Scud jockeys give each other all the encouragement and reinforcement
they need to continue their loathsome detestable ways. The skanky
asswipes who threaten and menace cyclists behave the same toward other
drivers too.
--
zk
 
>>>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...<<<

I guess it depends on where you live. New York is a heavily populated
city - and its suburbs, especially here on Long Island, are pretty crowded,
too. My "little" town (population 20,000) is definitely an automobile
community. There are no bike lanes, no bike paths, and drivers have very
little patience for cyclists who try to share the road with them. To
survive a bike ride to the local Dunkin' Donuts means being an extremely
vigilant cyclist with a good sense of what the average auto driver is
thinking at any given time --especially now that one out of every three cars
in our town is driven by someone with a cell phone to his/her ear virtually
all the time.

All this said, there is no room for bicyclists who fly around town with the
attitude that they can go anywhere and do anything they please and, as long
as they make it to the other side of the road, they are OK. I watched a kid
get knocked at least 10 feet into the center of a very busy four lane
turnpike the other day. The driver was simply waiting at a red light. He
wasn't on the phone, wasn't talking to a passenger, and wasn't sipping a
Starbuck's. The light turned green, a young teenager who was zipping along
the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road made an uninformed decision about
his ability to beat all the cars through the intersection, the driver tapped
his gas pedal, and the next thing you know, cars are skidding and swerving
all over the road to avoid crushing the kid's head. The driver did nothing
wrong. The kid was coming from the wrong direction, on the wrong side of
the road, but he probably didn't know any better. It could have changed his
life forever - and it certainly could have changed the driver's life
forever.

Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
up every once in a while.

Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
understands what it takes to operate a car.

So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.
 
>>>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...<<<

I guess it depends on where you live. New York is a heavily populated
city - and its suburbs, especially here on Long Island, are pretty crowded,
too. My "little" town (population 20,000) is definitely an automobile
community. There are no bike lanes, no bike paths, and drivers have very
little patience for cyclists who try to share the road with them. To
survive a bike ride to the local Dunkin' Donuts means being an extremely
vigilant cyclist with a good sense of what the average auto driver is
thinking at any given time --especially now that one out of every three cars
in our town is driven by someone with a cell phone to his/her ear virtually
all the time.

All this said, there is no room for bicyclists who fly around town with the
attitude that they can go anywhere and do anything they please and, as long
as they make it to the other side of the road, they are OK. I watched a kid
get knocked at least 10 feet into the center of a very busy four lane
turnpike the other day. The driver was simply waiting at a red light. He
wasn't on the phone, wasn't talking to a passenger, and wasn't sipping a
Starbuck's. The light turned green, a young teenager who was zipping along
the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road made an uninformed decision about
his ability to beat all the cars through the intersection, the driver tapped
his gas pedal, and the next thing you know, cars are skidding and swerving
all over the road to avoid crushing the kid's head. The driver did nothing
wrong. The kid was coming from the wrong direction, on the wrong side of
the road, but he probably didn't know any better. It could have changed his
life forever - and it certainly could have changed the driver's life
forever.

Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
up every once in a while.

Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
understands what it takes to operate a car.

So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:20:52 GMT, "NYRides" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
>but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
>poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
>cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
>pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
>matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
>up every once in a while.
>
>Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
>that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
>lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
>behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
>will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
>do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
>understands what it takes to operate a car.
>
>So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
>dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
>might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
>the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
>caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
>by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
>I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
>wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.

Right, but in a way, you -know- to expect this behavior and are less
susceptible to it. It's certainly not 'right', but if you're surrounded by
dumb kids in bikes, then that's your milieu, and you are more-or-less
prepared, or should be. Not to sound preachy, but it's just another thing
you have to add to your mental checklist, and be thankful that you're more
attentive than most.

If it is that bad though, maybe the people in your suburb should get more
police patrols so they can look at the problem?

-B
 
"NYRides" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> 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.
>


It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
laws.

Peeling-out, unecessary horn-honking, aggressive lane changes are all
hallmarks of road-ragers especially if the cyclist does not impede the
travel of the car in any real way.

I don't think that road-ragers have a special thing for cyclists.
Slow, or temporarily stopped cars bring similar responses out of them.
The difference is that the cyclist is in a vastly more vulnerable
situation than a car.

As I said before, road-ragers have some personal conflict going on
that is unrelated to traffic. No one flys into a blood rage at a
stranger over trivial traffic issues unless something much deeper is
bugging them.

The typical advice that authorities give to potential victims of road
rage applies to cyclists too:

1) Don't provoke/escalate a confrontation by responding aggressively
2) Diffuse the situation by backing off, create distance, get out of
the way
 
Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist

Monday, February 09, 2004
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to kill a
pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday afternoon near the
entrance to Monroeville Park.

The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
confrontation.
No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.

Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along Tillbrook
Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an obscene gesture as
the truck passed him.

Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti had told
him to get off the road.
Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick, who
pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that Nicoletti had "five
seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would shoot," according to an
affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.

Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him in the
arm.

As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck, ramming
the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.

The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the arm.

Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with Nicoletti,
ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the affidavit said.

Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and
two weapons violations.
He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on $100,000 bond,
pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m. before District Justice
Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm

(Jim McKinnon can be reached at [email protected] or 412-263-1939.)
 
"NYRides" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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!

Don't let it get you so upset. Many parents don't have their
priorities straight and don't teach resposibility. They aren't
themselves responsible
and either is their progeny. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.

One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
racing towards
each other.

That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.

Be thankful for each ride where you come home.
 
Carmon wrote:
|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
||
|| Monday, February 09, 2004
|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
cyclist?

||
|| A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to
|| kill a pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday
|| afternoon near the entrance to Monroeville Park.
||
|| The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
|| confrontation.
|| No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.
||
|| Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along
|| Tillbrook Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an
|| obscene gesture as the truck passed him.
||
|| Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti
|| had told him to get off the road.
|| Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
|| Urick, who pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that
|| Nicoletti had "five seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would
|| shoot," according to an affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.
||
|| Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him
|| in the arm.
||
|| As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck,
|| ramming the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.
||
|| The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
|| Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the
|| arm.
||
|| Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
|| possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with
|| Nicoletti, ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the
|| affidavit said.
||
|| Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated
|| assault and two weapons violations.
|| He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on
|| $100,000 bond, pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m.
|| before District Justice Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.
||
|| http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm
||
|| (Jim McKinnon can be reached at [email protected] or
|| 412-263-1939.)
 
Carmon wrote:
|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
||
|| Monday, February 09, 2004
|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
cyclist?

||
|| A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to
|| kill a pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday
|| afternoon near the entrance to Monroeville Park.
||
|| The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
|| confrontation.
|| No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.
||
|| Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along
|| Tillbrook Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an
|| obscene gesture as the truck passed him.
||
|| Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti
|| had told him to get off the road.
|| Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
|| Urick, who pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that
|| Nicoletti had "five seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would
|| shoot," according to an affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.
||
|| Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him
|| in the arm.
||
|| As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck,
|| ramming the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.
||
|| The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
|| Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the
|| arm.
||
|| Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
|| possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with
|| Nicoletti, ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the
|| affidavit said.
||
|| Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated
|| assault and two weapons violations.
|| He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on
|| $100,000 bond, pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m.
|| before District Justice Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.
||
|| http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm
||
|| (Jim McKinnon can be reached at [email protected] or
|| 412-263-1939.)
 
Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, <[email protected]>,
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

"Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
Urick"

IOW, the cyclist didn't chase down the truck to shoot the driver and
I've never been satified that it was even the cyclist's gun.
--
zk
 
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Carmon wrote:
>|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
>||
>|| Monday, February 09, 2004
>|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

Yeah this sounds like a case of man bites dog. A paraffin test will tell
who fired the gun, though.

-B
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Carmon wrote:
> || Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
> ||
> || Monday, February 09, 2004
> || By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
> So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
> cyclist?

If you believe the cyclist's story, the driver was.
Somebody yelled at him, he responded in kind, the original
instigator then threatened him with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist then defended himself with a deadly weapon, and
shot the driver when the driver refused to relinquish his weapon.

In contrast, many police officers have jumped in front of moving
vehicles, and then shot the driver "in self defense" because the
vehicle was moving towards them. I've never heard of one of them
being charged with any crime whatsoever.

BTW, we went over this back in February, who drug it up again?
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0700, H wrote:
> It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
> case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
> laws.

That I can guarantee. The lane I was in even has signs next to it
designating it as the preferred lane for cyclists to use on that street.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:25:05 -0400, Mitch Haley wrote:
> &*^$ 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.

Lol! One can only hope.

> 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.

Unfortunately where I live, the cops won't do anything unless you've been
hospitalized or killed, and even then it would likely get ruled as an
accident. :(

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0400, Roger Zoul 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.

Probably a good piece of advice. At least in that respect, being
hot-headed, the road rager and I have something in common. However I've
never instigated anything with a motorist in my life, but I do tend to
respond in kind more than is probably wise.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
Calm n Collected wrote:
> One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
> lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
> racing towards
> each other.
>
> That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.
>

What reason?
With or without a helmet you need a closed casket funeral when a kid
gets splattered on the front of a car in a head-on.

Mitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back