Odd interaction with a road rager



On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:41:15 +0000, Leo Lichtman wrote:

>
> "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.

That seems to be the consensus, and is what surprised me the most. The
driver displayed such a bold front and then bolted, like fight & flight
all in the space of five seconds.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:41:15 +0000, Leo Lichtman wrote:

>
> "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.

That seems to be the consensus, and is what surprised me the most. The
driver displayed such a bold front and then bolted, like fight & flight
all in the space of five seconds.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > [email protected] at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:45:40 -0400, Ron McKinnon <see_sig@for_email.ca>
wrote:

>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.

Thus you need to have a cue or mantra to tell yourself when this happens
again. Think of something when you're feeling cool and rational, and then
when you feel tempted during a ride to do this, you can recall the advice.

Even those of us who are non-confrontational get juiced up with adrenaline
and pumped from riding and lose that better judgement.

Then when you get home, think positive thoughts about your ability to
resist the urge to confront.

-B
 
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:

>> 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.

Nah.

If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.

It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
does to yell at an empty boat.

Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."

I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
asshole spoil my day.

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)
[email protected]
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
 
On 1 Sep 2004 14:21:57 -0700, (Calm n Collected) wrote (more or less):
....
>> 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.

I'm a little confused. You now have biccylcle helmets so you can ride
bikes towards oncoming cars?

Or you now have bicycle helmets because another cyclist has ridden
towards oncoming cars?


In either event, please realise that bicycle helmets are not designed
to withstand head-on impacts from motor vehicles, but are designed for
falling off your bike when cycling at low speed.





>
>Be thankful for each ride where you come home.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [...]
> > 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, [...]
>


"...he responded in kind..."

That's where the problem starts with road rage incidents.

If the victim of the initial act of road rage can just be cool and let
it pass, subsequent acts of stupidity do not occur. This true for both
motorists and cyclists.

In this case, if the cyclist had held his tounge for 2 seconds, he
would not be facing assault charges (which could be life-ruining), a
guy would not have been shot, multiple lawyers would not be 10's of
thousands of dollars richer, and this stupid avoidable case would not
be in the court system.

Responding to road rage just isn't worth it. Its not worth the risk to
your life, car, beater bike, or even your retro cycling apparel. Its
not even worth gritting your teeth for.
 
Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
assumption that all drivers are "challenged."
 
Calm n Collected wrote:
> No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
> big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
> without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
> assumption that all drivers are "challenged."

So helmets are used by idiots as a substitute for riding properly
and proper parenting? I can agree with that. Of course, you could
say that about virtually any traffic safety device, they are all
just poor substitutes for human responsibility.

Mitch.
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>
>
> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Damn! I must have missed the news last night!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html

Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Flaw in your logic there, Frank. Think about it.

Bill "we'll wait" S.
 
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>this guy!"

Didn't you notice?

They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the west
interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.

The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had the
brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the IRA
recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
terrorists.

Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many casualties on
both sides.

Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against terrorism"
recently.

Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a very strong
line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying problems
that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are prepared to
die to harm the west.

> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>countries?

Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.

Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved of the
extreme right could work it out for themselves.

Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the wake up
call the US got on 11/9?

When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others, because of
what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows you what
you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in their
affairs.

> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>won't get angry and do terroristic acts?

If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can stop
them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If they
can't it will go on and on and on.

Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.

I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger pig's ear of
it than Bush and Blair have.
 
Chris BeHanna <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Nah.
>
> If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
> it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.
>
> It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
> does to yell at an empty boat.
>
> Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."
>
> I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
> it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
> asshole spoil my day.

When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.
 
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:53:10 GMT, Doug Ventner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>> either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>> this guy!"
>
> Didn't you notice?
>
> They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the
> west
> interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.
>
> The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had
> the
> brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the
> IRA
> recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
> terrorists.
>
> Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many
> casualties on
> both sides.
>
> Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against
> terrorism"
> recently.
>
> Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a
> very strong
> line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying
> problems
> that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are
> prepared to
> die to harm the west.
>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.
>
> Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved
> of the
> extreme right could work it out for themselves.
>
> Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the
> wake up
> call the US got on 11/9?
>
> When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others,
> because of
> what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows
> you what
> you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in
> their
> affairs.
>
>> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>> the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>> planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>> Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>> won't get angry and do terroristic acts?
>
> If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
> grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can
> stop
> them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If
> they
> can't it will go on and on and on.
>
> Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.
>
> I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger
> pig's ear of
> it than Bush and Blair have.
>
I was going to stay out of this but to relate a bit of history, here goes.
Remember 1941 when the USA thought that WWII was someone elses' problem?
It took Pearl Harbor to wake us up, and information says that many warnings
before that were ignored. The American people only get going when something
big enough gets their attention. Had 9/11/01 not happened we might still be
hemming and hawwing around and ignoring the Middle East situation, which in
hindsight might have been better. I think we have another Vietnam here and
Bush will bury us deeper and the USA will be hated globally, but Kerry will
have his hands full too. Kerry is just the 'least incompetent' choice we
have.
Of course if Bush #1 had finished what he started we would not be there
today.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 
On 2 Sep 2004 10:08:43 -0700, [email protected] (Delano DuGarm) wrote:

>When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
>maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
>give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

When someone honks me from behind, because they can't get past, I wait until it
is safe to do so, pull over a little, at the same time extending my hand and
bekoning them on with two fingers (together). They *hate* that.

When I'm honked by someone as they go past, I give them a great big smile and a
cheery wave. I figure if they realise I'm taking the **** they'll hate that, and
if they think I have misunderstood and thought they were being friendly, they'll
hate that as well.

You may have guessed that I don't like being honked at.

In fact, it happens very, very rarely - I think three time so far this year. I
find the vast majority of motorists to be careful and considerate, so I return
the favour, and there is little reason for anyone to honk. When they do it is
usually sheer impatience on their part (or some strange belief that I am not
entitled to use a piece of road if they want to use the same piece - which, I
suppose, amounts to the same thing).

--
Ian
 
> When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
> maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
> give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

This is a good point, several times friends have spotted me on the road and
tried to get my attention. I am generally friendly to others on the roads.

On the other hand, when a pickup truck swerves in front of me and slams on
its brakes I know that it's not trying to make a new friend :(

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So Mr. Bush is creating terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

Yes. I'm glad you understand this so well. Thank you for stating it so
plainly.

When we ignore the Geneva Convention for our prisoners of war, and when we
use torture, when we invade another country based on lies, we have no moral
ground to stand on, and we create more people who have good reason to hate
us.

I can tell you, if my comrades were being killed or held prisoner for
fighting for what they believed in, I would not be questioning my beliefs --
instead, I'd be fighting even harder -- wouldn't you? Did the attacks on
September 11 make you less patriotic? Did you feel more or less in
solidarity with other Americans? Why do you think it works differently for
others?

Meanwhile, our national resources are diverted into a useless war abroad and
to the wealthy who don't need the money. Causes that would make our nation
stronger -- devoting resources to lifelong learning so that we are
employable all our lives; ensuring that everyone has access to quality
health care, not just the rich, so that we are physically able to pursue our
dreams, materially and non-materially; putting money into infrastructure
such as roads and bridges so that we can be a more economically viable
country -- well, I could go on and on -- are starved. As the gap between
rich and poor widen, we look less like other developed nations which take
care of their citizens, and more like the Third World.

So, if you want to advance the cause of Osama Bin Laden, vote for George W.
Bush. He is the man who continues to antagonize both our enemies and our
allies, making us ineffective in the world, and weakens our nation at home.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So Mr. Bush is creating terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

Yes. I'm glad you understand this so well. Thank you for stating it so
plainly.

When we ignore the Geneva Convention for our prisoners of war, and when we
use torture, when we invade another country based on lies, we have no moral
ground to stand on, and we create more people who have good reason to hate
us.

I can tell you, if my comrades were being killed or held prisoner for
fighting for what they believed in, I would not be questioning my beliefs --
instead, I'd be fighting even harder -- wouldn't you? Did the attacks on
September 11 make you less patriotic? Did you feel more or less in
solidarity with other Americans? Why do you think it works differently for
others?

Meanwhile, our national resources are diverted into a useless war abroad and
to the wealthy who don't need the money. Causes that would make our nation
stronger -- devoting resources to lifelong learning so that we are
employable all our lives; ensuring that everyone has access to quality
health care, not just the rich, so that we are physically able to pursue our
dreams, materially and non-materially; putting money into infrastructure
such as roads and bridges so that we can be a more economically viable
country -- well, I could go on and on -- are starved. As the gap between
rich and poor widen, we look less like other developed nations which take
care of their citizens, and more like the Third World.

So, if you want to advance the cause of Osama Bin Laden, vote for George W.
Bush. He is the man who continues to antagonize both our enemies and our
allies, making us ineffective in the world, and weakens our nation at home.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:06:10 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:20:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>>> countries?
>>
>>What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??
>
> Actually, that is a good (unintended, I am sure) point. We are
>supposed to believe that fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is "creating" more
>terrorists. But when we kicked them out of Afghanistan, they moved to
>Iraq. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660179/
>So did the more popular invasion of Afghanistan actually create more
>terrorists? And since we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, as you point out,
>how come terrorists were created there? Most of the 9/11 hijackers
>were Saudis, remember?

You are making a fundamental mistake here, and that is to assume that the
terorists are created at the point of operations.

They are not.

Every time the west undertakes an action that is perceived to go against the
interests of those in the middle east, the pool of potential terrorists
increases THROUGHOUT the middle east.

Why is it so hard for the American right wing to understand the simple concept
that just as they get annoyed when their people are attacked, and vow to do
something about it, so, when others are attacked, they to will become angry and
respond?

It's not difficult, is it?

It doesn't mean that you don't defend yourself, just that you give a great deal
more thought to your actions that Bush and his gang have.
 
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
> Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?

All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
his views.


> So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
> hogwash.

That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
around and bites us on the backside within ten years.


> "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
> troops dispersed through the world only at
> the directive of the United Nations."
> -Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970

While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.

BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
be involved in crime.

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