What's worse? SUVs or Cell Phones?



Status
Not open for further replies.
Barry Gaudet wrote:
>
> ...you can all determine
> the difference between:
>
> 1] Joe 'Roadrage' Cyclist is pounding on the hood of a car screaming at the driver calling
> him/her a miserable so and so.
>
> and
>
> 2] John 'Serenity now' Biker thumps the hood of an auto to get the drivers attention and make eye
> contact to ensure the driver is aware of the cyclist's presence.
>
> In case 1 it is reasonable to believe the driver had a reasonable fear of harm. In case 2, not
> so much.

Sorry, you're being very unrealistic. The driver can doubtlessly tell the difference in attitude
of the two cyclists, but how on earth can the driver of a car be harmed by a cyclist who's slapped
his fender?

Adequate defense consists of rolling up a window and perhaps locking a door. Perfect defense
consists of driving away at 30 mph. IOW, any fear of harm is UNreasonable.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
: Barry Gaudet wrote:
[...]
:> In case 1 it is reasonable to believe the driver had a reasonable fear of harm. In case 2, not
:> so much.

: Sorry, you're being very unrealistic. The driver can doubtlessly tell the difference in attitude
: of the two cyclists, but how on earth can the driver of a car be harmed by a cyclist who's slapped
: his fender?

: Adequate defense consists of rolling up a window and perhaps locking a door. Perfect defense
: consists of driving away at 30 mph. IOW, any fear of harm is UNreasonable.

It need not be harm to persons but also harm to property. Unfortunately
automobiles are considered property. Regardless of that, ability to flee
does not obviate the threat of physical harm from a legal perspective.

--
'People think I'm insane because I am frowning all the time All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy' 'Make a joke and I will sigh And you will laugh and I will
cry' -Black Sabbath
 
On 9 Feb 2003 02:36:25 GMT, Barry Gaudet <[email protected]> wrote:

> It need not be harm to persons but also harm to property. Unfortunately
> automobiles are considered property. Regardless of that, ability to flee
> does not obviate the threat of physical harm from a legal perspective.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the car was close enough that you could deal it a decent blow
immediately demonstrates that you were acting in self-defence, and in fear of harm which is far more
soundly based in reality. Very few drivers are killed by impacts with bicycles.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 9 Feb 2003 02:36:25 GMT, Barry Gaudet <[email protected]> wrote:

:> It need not be harm to persons but also harm to property. Unfortunately
:> automobiles are considered property. Regardless of that, ability to flee
:> does not obviate the threat of physical harm from a legal perspective.

: On the other hand, the mere fact that the car was close enough that you could deal it a decent
: blow immediately demonstrates that you were acting in self-defence, and in fear of harm which is
: far more soundly based in reality. Very few drivers are killed by impacts with bicycles.

You'll get no argument from me and you're welcome to try that defence out, but unless you're judge
and/or jury consists of cyclist I wouldn't bet on you winning.

--
'People think I'm insane because I am frowning all the time All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy' 'Make a joke and I will sigh And you will laugh and I will
cry' -Black Sabbath
 
On 9 Feb 2003 16:08:23 GMT, Barry Gaudet <[email protected]> wrote:

>: On the other hand, the mere fact that the car was close enough that you could deal it a decent
>: blow immediately demonstrates that you were acting in self-defence, and in fear of harm which is
>: far more soundly based in reality. Very few drivers are killed by impacts with bicycles.

> You'll get no argument from me and you're welcome to try that defence out, but unless you're judge
> and/or jury consists of cyclist I wouldn't bet on you winning.

Maybe not - unless they were given a demonstration of how it feels to be passed by a car with less
than two feet to spare.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If Claire (an experienced urban rider and all around mild mannered person) said the cager needed a
> slap then he probably did.

I've pedalled some miles thinking about this thread. Some reactions:

a. I don't think of myself as "mild mannered" on my bike. The word I would use first is assertive. I
was riding along one day on Dearborn Ave (a five lane urban arterial leading out of downtown
Seattle) while some other woman was riding behind me. I thrust out my arm and signalled to cross
over two lanes so I was properly positioned to continue on my way. When she met me up at the
light, the other cyclist said I was a good example to her on how to be assertive in traffic. I
shrugged -- to me, signalling, watching traffic, taking your place -- this is what you do as a
bicyclist who wants to survive, right?

And I can't say I'm not hot headed. I think I feel things rather intensely, on the bike and off.
Certainly when this twitbrain honked and passed too close, I had strong feelings of fear and and
then outrage.

But I do my best not to wallow in these feelings. Really, when you nearly get hit, your primarly
feeling is fear, so feel it authentically. Outrage is something you might feel later, as a more
acceptable substitute. You can have a merry time fueling outrage, particularly when you know you're
in the right and the other guy was in the wrong. But hanging on to anger in the long run isn't all
that much fun.

b. I wasn't planning to rap on the guy's trunk because he was inattentive. Some people are
inattentive. But he was driving recklessly. For all I know, he was paying attention, close
attention, while driving too fast, passing me to close, failing to yield the right of way, and
failing to stop at the stop sign. If I was doing all that, I'd be concentrating my driving, too.

Instead, I was planning to rap on the guy's trunk to get his attention so I could waggle my finger
at him. No, not that finger. My index finger. My feeling was, he was acting up, the way a kid does.
Now, when kids act up, I think it's my responsibility as an adult to waggle a finger and say "no".
Unlike some other adults, I have no problem acting as mom to other kids, and maybe some people
should think I should mind my own business. But I think it's a positive thing for adults to mind
kids -- it helps kids find their boundaries.

The difference is that he is supposedly an adult, and is driving a car that could potentially kill
someone, including me. So it is even more imperative to let him know that I disapprove of this
behavior. If I had rapped his trunk, I would have indeed shook my finger at him, and told him that
his behavior was dangerous and he shouldn't drive that way.

It's possible he could be one of those lunatics who think that no one should touch his car. I can
not relate to this idea emotionally. Intellectually, I can say, "ok, this person considers his car
to be an extension of his body, and just like someone might not want to be touched on his body
without permission, this person doesn't want his car touched." But it's not something I personally
relate to. If someone wants to sit on my car hood in a parking lot, as long as they aren't hurting
the car, I don't care.

You can touch my bike, too, that's okay by me. The paint job is all scratched up and touched up with
nail polish and there's tears in the handlebar tape, and dirt on the fenders (etc.) because I ride
the thing all the time, and that's the way it is.

But there's a big difference between touching a bike (or rapping on a trunk) and causing damage to a
bike, a car, or a person. Surely anyone can see that.

Now, if he wanted to call the cops about me rapping his trunk and waggling my finger, my attitude
would be, go ahead -- I can then tell them about your bad behavior, and we'll see who comes out the
better in this discussion.

I suppose he could have a gun. That would look real macho -- a big bad guy brandishing a gun against
a middle aged lady on a bike? Because she said, "don't do that young man!"? That's a funny picture!

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky ([email protected]) Home of the meditative cyclist at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
 
9 Feb 2003 09:44:19 -0800,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Claire Petersky)
wrote in part:

>It's possible he could be one of those lunatics who think that no one should touch his car. I can
>not relate to this idea emotionally. Intellectually, I can say, "ok, this person considers his car
>to be an extension of his body, and just like someone might not want to be touched on his body
>without permission, this person doesn't want his car touched." But it's not something I personally
>relate to.

That's the sickest aspect of car culture and the one preyed on by hyped up advertising.

I think it's also at the root of drivers' frustration. They've invested heavily in this image but
it's negated by the traffic laws which equalise all the vehicles by limiting them. In heavy traffic
their $50,000 Benz is effectively proven inferior to a $100 bicycle. That makes them appear idiotic
which isn't the image they bought.

Not only are their cars perceived as extensions of their self, it's also an extension of their home
where people can generally behave worse than they do in public.
--
zk
 
Barry Gaudet wrote:
>
> ... ability to flee does not obviate the threat of physical harm from a legal perspective.

I believe you're wrong there. Envision the following argument:

"I had to shoot him. It was self defense. He was swinging a club at me as he sat in his wheelchair."

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
: Barry Gaudet wrote:
:>
:> ... ability to flee does not obviate the threat of physical harm from a legal perspective.

: I believe you're wrong there. Envision the following argument:

: "I had to shoot him. It was self defense. He was swinging a club at me as he sat in his
: wheelchair."

????

I fail to see the logical connection between an inapropriate and overwhelming response to an
assault and the existence of an assault in the first place.

Your hypothetical shooter may not have had the legal right to shoot in self defence but if he did
stand there and was whacked he most definitely would have beenthe victim of an actionable assault.
Think of it this way: I decide to walk down the street swinging a mace am I immune from assault
charges because anyone I hit could have gotten out of my way?

--
'People think I'm insane because I am frowning all the time All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy' 'Make a joke and I will sigh And you will laugh and I will
cry' -Black Sabbath
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> 9 Feb 2003 09:44:19 -0800, I think it's also at the root of drivers' frustration. They've invested
> heavily in this image but it's negated by the traffic laws which equalise all the vehicles by
> limiting them. In heavy traffic their $50,000 Benz is effectively proven inferior to a $100
> bicycle. That makes them appear idiotic which isn't the image they bought.

Zoot, you've got a $100 bicycle? You need to talk to Fab!

Pat
--
Apologies to those easily confused. Address is spam-resistant. Correct email address like pdlamb
'round-about comcast point net.
 
Sun, 09 Feb 2003 16:56:36 -0600, <[email protected]>, Patrick Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Zoot, you've got a $100 bicycle?

I smoke $260,000 buses with a $25 bicycle! (sporting a $40 saddle, $120 pedals, $17 tires, etc.)

>You need to talk to Fab!

He's not speaking to me. . . something about last season's gloves not matching my new
socks, I think.
>
>Pat

--
zk
 
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:45:47 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> from Balsa Pacific Aero Ltd.
Engineering & Bicycle Mongery wrote:

>He's not speaking to me. . . something about last season's gloves not matching my new
>socks, I think.

Hello! It's the MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY! You're still wearing last year's clothes? Sheesh.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Hey, wait a minute!! I want a divorce!! ...
you're not Clint Eastwood!!
7:42:12 PM 9 February 2003
 
>And I can't say I'm not hot headed. I think I feel things rather intensely, on the bike and off.
>Certainly when this twitbrain honked and passed too close, I had strong feelings of fear and and
>then outrage.

I can relate to that. And I agree that it's important to deal with situations as they arise, rather
than letting one's negative emotions of the moment build up...that would make for some very
unpleasant rides.

And, no matter how skillful or experined a rider, there are going to be times when one is forced
into a situation where direct action is called for to preserve one's own safety.

In my own case, the last time something like that happened involved a car that was drifting right in
such a way as to push me into a parked bus--the driver was talking a mile a minute to the passenger,
clearly not registering me.

In retrospect I should have just hit the brakes and drifted back, but all I could think was "She
doesn't see me, **** she's going to crunch me against this bus..."

One of those horrible moments where everthing seems totally inevitable, I did what I had to do and
kicked the passenger side door, she got the message and backed off. I was shaking from the
adrenaline rush, and also because this is the traffic accident I fear most, being crushed between
two vehicles.

Which is why I don't filter, even though it's legal for bicycles in DC.

However, I decided long ago that I have better things to do than call people on their traffic
behavior. If it's something totally egregious, I'll let loose with what I hope is a look of
withering disapproval, but I reserve physical contact for times when I've been at direct
physical risk.

Doesn't happen often. In my experience the percentage of dangerous and or inattentive drivers is
very low. Maybe one in a hundred, or even less, I'd define that as a driver you don't want to be
anywhere near if you see them first.

Sounds like you met one. You'll meet another one, sooner or later, and you'll deal with it.

>I suppose he could have a gun. That would look real macho -- a big bad guy brandishing a gun
>against a middle aged lady on a bike? Because she said, "don't do that young man!"? That's a
>funny picture!

It remains a consideration, though. A while ago in Maryland the shoe was on the other foot, a
cyclist shot and killed a motorist who ran into him in a scenario very similar to that which I've
described above.

He, ah, hung himself in jail out of remorse. So two people died as a result of an accidental bump,
this is a good story to remember.

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to go to war over a close call, there wasn't any malice intended by
the person who nearly squashed me, and I only kicked her door because as I saw the situation it was
the only move I could have made.

Long post, I'll shut up now.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> In my own case, the last time something like that happened involved a car that was drifting right
> in such a way as to push me into a parked bus--the driver was talking a mile a minute to the
> passenger, clearly not registering me.
>
> In retrospect I should have just hit the brakes and drifted back, but all I could think was "She
> doesn't see me, **** she's going to crunch me against this bus..."
>
> One of those horrible moments where everthing seems totally inevitable, I did what I had to do and
> kicked the passenger side door, she got the message and backed off. I was shaking from the
> adrenaline rush, and also because this is the traffic accident I fear most, being crushed between
> two vehicles.
>

I had almost exactly the same circumstance. A curb instead of a bus, and a cellphone instead of a
passenger.

When I kicked her door (not too hard) she jumped, and the phone went *out the window*. Broke into a
zillion pieces on the street.

Killed two birds with one stone. Give her something to think about for next time, AND one
less phone.

Pete
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "len" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > No ,I can't cite exact examples.

Being able to cite an example of a matter has no particular bearing on its absolute truth.

>
> I didn't think so, thus you don't know what you are talking about. So
many
> kooks and goofballs on this forum. PLONK!!!!
>
>

Not too long ago you made several of the same references and that you were never going to come back.
You might be on to something about the goofballs and kooks.
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 9 Feb 2003 09:44:19 -0800,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Claire Petersky) wrote in
> part:
>
> >It's possible he could be one of those lunatics who think that no one should touch his car. I can
> >not relate to this idea emotionally. Intellectually, I can say, "ok, this person considers his
> >car to be an extension of his body, and just like someone might not want to be touched on his
> >body without permission, this person doesn't want his car touched." But it's not something I
> >personally relate to.
>
> That's the sickest aspect of car culture and the one preyed on by hyped up advertising.
>
> I think it's also at the root of drivers' frustration. They've invested heavily in this image but
> it's negated by the traffic laws which equalise all the vehicles by limiting them. In heavy
> traffic their $50,000 Benz is effectively proven inferior to a $100 bicycle. That makes them
> appear idiotic which isn't the image they bought.
>
> Not only are their cars perceived as extensions of their self,

Excellent point. The problem goes much further than cars. The identification of the self with
objects of perception in general is considered by wisemen as the primary ignorance. Ego
identification with transitory elements will always result in some form of pain or misgivings. If
one's car is a reflection of ones self, then what happens when the car is damaged, worn out,
obsolete or bettered by someone else. The same goes for all objects, thoughts and feelings. It is
this attachment that coerces us towards selfish actions and stops us from acting for universal good.
Ultimately it is what clouds our ability to perceive the unity of all beings.
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > In my own case, the last time something like that
happened involved
> > a car that was drifting right in such a way as to push
me into a parked
> > bus--the driver was talking a mile a minute to the
passenger, clearly
> > not registering me.
> >
> > In retrospect I should have just hit the brakes and
drifted back, but
> > all I could think was "She doesn't see me, **** she's
going to crunch
> > me against this bus..."
> >
> > One of those horrible moments where everthing seems
totally inevitable,
> > I did what I had to do and kicked the passenger side
door, she got the
> > message and backed off. I was shaking from the
adrenaline rush, and
> > also because this is the traffic accident I fear most,
being crushed
> > between two vehicles.
> >
>
> I had almost exactly the same circumstance. A curb instead
of a bus, and a
> cellphone instead of a passenger.
>
> When I kicked her door (not too hard) she jumped, and the
phone went *out
> the window*. Broke into a zillion pieces on the street.

I have nothing against giving a driver a quick reminder of your presence in these situations, but
the easy and safe way out is to simply hit the brakes. Cars may move over gradually but they can't
go sideways. So by stopping or slowing to let the car pass, you solve the problem. This is why I
always keep my speed down in these situations, or leading up to a right hand corner (in case I get
right-hooked). I hear plenty of stories about close calls in these situations, and I've even had a
few myself. But in fact they're easily avoided.

Matt O.
 
--------------1B2C97BF69949D05BFE4AF28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > > In my own case, the last time something like that
> happened involved
> > > a car that was drifting right in such a way as to push
> me into a parked
> > > bus--the driver was talking a mile a minute to the
> passenger, clearly
> > > not registering me.
> > >
> > > In retrospect I should have just hit the brakes and
> drifted back, but
> > > all I could think was "She doesn't see me, **** she's
> going to crunch
> > > me against this bus..."
> > >
> > > One of those horrible moments where everthing seems
> totally inevitable,
> > > I did what I had to do and kicked the passenger side
> door, she got the
> > > message and backed off. I was shaking from the
> adrenaline rush, and
> > > also because this is the traffic accident I fear most,
> being crushed
> > > between two vehicles.
> > >
> >
> > I had almost exactly the same circumstance. A curb instead
> of a bus, and a
> > cellphone instead of a passenger.
> >
> > When I kicked her door (not too hard) she jumped, and the
> phone went *out
> > the window*. Broke into a zillion pieces on the street.
>
> I have nothing against giving a driver a quick reminder of your presence in these situations, but
> the easy and safe way out is to simply hit the brakes. Cars may move over gradually but they can't
> go sideways. So by stopping or slowing to let the car pass, you solve the problem. This is why I
> always keep my speed down in these situations, or leading up to a right hand corner (in case I get
> right-hooked). I hear plenty of stories about close calls in these situations, and I've even had a
> few myself. But in fact they're easily avoided.
>
> Matt O.

Lots of things are easily avoided, but what about your legal and proper right to be there? You'll
end up riding on the sidewalk if you are not assertive. I don't mean aggressive, just self
assertive. I feel it is better to take the lane than to be gently squeezed by someone who is unaware
of the danger they may be putting you in. Best regards, Bernie

--------------1B2C97BF69949D05BFE4AF28 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>
<p>Matt O'Toole wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message <br><a href=-
"news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]
r.com</a>... <br>> <br>> "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote <br>> > <br>> > In my own
case, the last time something like that <br>happened involved <br>> > a car that was drifting
right in such a way as to push <br>me into a parked <br>> > bus--the driver was talking a mile a
minute to the <br>passenger, clearly <br>> > not registering me. <br>> > <br>> > In retrospect I
should have just hit the brakes and <br>drifted back, but <br>> > all I could think was "She
doesn't see me, **** she's <br>going to crunch <br>> > me against this bus..." <br>> > <br>> >
One of those horrible moments where everthing seems <br>totally inevitable, <br>> > I did what I
had to do and kicked the passenger side <br>door, she got the <br>> > message and backed
off. I was shaking from the <br>adrenaline rush, and <br>> > also because this is the
traffic accident I fear most, <br>being crushed <br>> > between two vehicles. <br>> > <br>> <br>>
I had almost exactly the same circumstance. A curb instead <br>of a bus, and a <br>> cellphone
instead of a passenger. <br>> <br>> When I kicked her door (not too hard) she jumped, and the
<br>phone went *out <br>> the window*. Broke into a zillion pieces on the street.
<q>I have nothing against giving a driver a quick reminder of <br>your presence in these situations,
but the easy and safe way <br>out is to simply hit the brakes. Cars may move over
<br>gradually but they can't go sideways. So by stopping or <br>slowing to let the car
pass, you solve the problem. This is <br>why I always keep my speed down in these
situations, or <br>leading up to a right hand corner (in case I get <br>right-hooked). I
hear plenty of stories about close calls <br>in these situations, and I've even had a few
myself. But in <br>fact they're easily avoided.
<r>Matt O.</blockquote> Lots of things are easily avoided, but what about your legal and proper
right to be there? You'll end up riding on the sidewalk if you are not assertive. I
don't mean aggressive, just self assertive. I feel it is better to take the lane than to be
gently squeezed by someone who is unaware of the danger they may be putting you in. <br>Best
regards, Bernie</html>

--------------1B2C97BF69949D05BFE4AF28--
 
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I have nothing against giving a driver a quick reminder of your presence in these situations, but
> the easy and safe way out is to simply hit the brakes. Cars may move over gradually but they can't
> go sideways. So by stopping or slowing to let the car pass, you solve the problem. This is why I
> always keep my speed down in these situations, or leading up to a right hand corner (in case I get
> right-hooked). I hear plenty of stories about close calls in these situations, and I've even had a
> few myself. But in fact they're easily avoided.
>
> Matt O.

Yes, usually escape is the best solution. This was on a busy, curbed, 6 lane arterial, with zero
escape routes except for maybe bunnyhopping up onto the sidewalk, and maybe hitting one of the trees
or poles that are close to the road. The consequences of messing that up and falling back into the
street made that a distant 3rd as an option.

Slowing might have been best, but she was drifting to the right rather quickly. Traffic volume and
speed was such that stopping (in the road) would have been a worse idea. Someone behind her might
not have seen me until it was too late. If I'm still moving, they get an extra few seconds to see
and go around.

So I just reached out and tapped her pass door with my foot. Different traffic situations would have
made for different solutions.

Pete
 
To answer the subject of this thread...

There's noting wrong with either cell phones or SUVs. It' the assholes and idiots operating them
that are the problem. The real problem comes down to poor law enforcement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.