Scary Road Rage Incident

wrote:
Shawn wrote:

The scary things about this are how close this cyclist came to
being killed or maimed, and the simple fact that if some other
cyclists had been obeying the law it might not have happened.
Are you on crack? Where did it say any of the cyclists the driver
tried to kill were violating any law?
Please don't feed the trolls, they'll just post more.

Okay, first of all, I'm a regular on this group, and I am not a
troll. OTOH, this is the first message I can remember reading from you
in quite a while, if ever.
Second, if you had bothered to read the entire article, which you
don't seem to have done, you would have read that there were numerous
other cyclists on this road, and they were NOT riding legally. The road
in question is a high, winding, steep, narrow mountain road, which goes
over a 10,300'pass. Some of the cyclists were riding three and more
abreast, which is illegal in Utah and probably most other places. It's
also rude and annoying to motorists. Chances are they were riding
pretty slowly too, which isn't a crime, but doesn't make you any less
irritating to motorists when you're taking more than your share of the
lane. The road does not belong to people in cars, but it doesn't belong
to scofflaw cyclists either.
Third, nowhere did I say that provocation was the same thing as
justification. But the fact remains that if there hadn't been cyclists
on that road messing with this cretin's short fuse, he might not have
gone off. From what I have read about this incident in this and other
sources, I'm pretty much certain that the motorist was in the wrong and
the cyclists were mostly right, but there is such a thing as "dead
right."
With some hesitation, I recently signed up for a mass ride that takes
place this weekend. At last year's event, cyclists were riding five and
six abreast at times, taking up BOTH traffic lanes on four-lane (i.e.,
two each way) roads. Just in case there's another idiot cager out there
with a hair-trigger temper like the one that mangled that bike earlier
this week, I thought I'd put in a word for courtesy and obeying the law,
for our own good and the good of other cyclists as well.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you find so wrong with that.


Your argument that other cyclists further down the road precipitated
this violent behavior is akin to blaming the rape of a woman walking
down the street on another, provocatively dressed, woman four blocks
away. It doesn't hold up. The driver was in an irrational rage.
Also, could you quote the portion of the article that describes any
illegal or even impolite riding?

Shawn

On Aug 8, 8:05 am, Barry Harmon wrote:
When I learned to drive a car, I was taught defensive driving. This is a
way to drive that attempts to stay out of the way of accidents by always
giving way to aggressive drivers, leaving oneself an out, anticiating what
a driver will do, always watching what the other driver is doing and never
getting caught up in competition for space.

I've carried that over to my bike riding and have only been involved in one
incident, that when the driver broke the law and hit me.

FWIW, my riding style is a bit different than what yours sounds like.
Mine is legal and careful, but less passive. Still, my "incident"
count is easily low enough for me. IOW, one doesn't have to cede
rights to the road ["never getting caught up in a competition for
space"] to ride safely.

I always thank drivers for letting me proceed them, always wave cars ahead
of me if I am going slowly, always ride to the right and never contest a
lane or a turn.

Am I a coward? Oh yes! But there is no other way to survive and prosper
in and around Morristown, New Jersey, on the public roads.

I doubt that. We regularly get people dropping in who say "But the
riding HERE is REALLY dangerous!!!" Not all places are equal, but
competent cyclists ride safely in every city in America.

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
wrote:
Shawn wrote:

The scary things about this are how close this cyclist came to
being killed or maimed, and the simple fact that if some other
cyclists had been obeying the law it might not have happened.
Are you on crack? Where did it say any of the cyclists the driver
tried to kill were violating any law?

Second, if you had bothered to read the entire article, which you
don't seem to have done, you would have read that there were numerous
other cyclists on this road, and they were NOT riding legally.

I did read the entire article, and just reread it (twice). I challenge
you to quote where it was revealed cyclists were riding illegally. The
"simple fact" you reference is in your imagination.

This being in my area, I read about this incident on at least three
web pages: ksl.com; deseretnews.com; and sltrib.com. Possibly more. In
addition, I saw coverage of the incident on local television. But in
deference to your challenge, I went back, and found this statement in
the reader comments on the Salt Lake Tribune
(http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10115861) report of the incident:

"I was on the Mirror Lake Highway on Saturday and it was filled with
cyclers, no problem. While this driver said he was hugging the right
side, there were plenty of groups riding three and four abreast with a
line of vehicles behind them."

Third, nowhere did I say that provocation was the same thing as
justification. But the fact remains that if there hadn't been cyclists
on that road messing with this cretin's short fuse, he might not have
gone off. From what I have read about this incident in this and other
sources, I'm pretty much certain that the motorist was in the wrong and
the cyclists were mostly right, but there is such a thing as "dead
right."

"pretty much certain"? Are you serious? What does it take for you to be
certain?

Standard disclaimer he I'm not a lawyer. However, I have been a
litigant a few times, my personal attorney is highly regarded and
teaches law on the side, I have several lawyers among my friends and
family, and I used to work as an interpreter in federal court. One
thing I have learned from all this admittedly osmotic legal experience
is that courts are thorough almost to a fault, and always give both
sides every chance to make their case. None of the articles I have seen
or read about this incident contain the motorist's side of the story,
but you can bet it will be told if the case goes to court.
I suppose I should also bring up here the legal concept of "fighting
words." Example: It is one thing for someone to walk up to you and
cold-cock you without warning or provocation, quite another if before he
did so, you had loudly and profanely claimed to have violated his
mother's virtue.
If this case goes to trial, you can bet that Counsel for the Defense
will bring up these points and probably many mo

1. There were "plenty" of cyclists riding illegally (more than two
abreast) on the Mirror Lake Highway that day.
2. There were cyclists not moving over and letting motorists pass
them.
3. There were words excanged between the defendant and numerous
cyclists before he encountered the guy he ran down.
4. There were words exchanged between the two principals in the
incident. In the victim's own words as quoted on deseretnews.com, "I
said something back about having a right to be on the road." But in the
sltrib.com account, "[I'm] not sure exactly what I said, but it further
enraged him." I can easily visualize the motorist's lawyer pouncing on
that inconsistency. Which sort of a statement would be likely to
"enrage" a driver, "I beg your pardon sir, but cyclists do have a right
to be on the road?" Or would something like this come closer: "F***
you, a******, it's my f****** road too?" I'm not saying that that's
what the cyclist said, but the driver's response makes me wonder.
I don't think any of the things I've mentioned would be exculpating,
but they might be mitigating. There are of course plenty of aggravating
circumstances too. My point was not that this cager was innocent or
even rational. My point was that he may have been provoked.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that this case will end in a plea
bargain. It shouldn't, but I'd still bet it will. The real blood will
be drawn in civil court. The cyclist says he has already been told that
the motorist's insurance only pays for accidents, not criminal acts. So
I'd expect a civil suit for the cost of the bike, an impressive $14,000.
For the victim's sake, I hope the cretin's truck is worth that much.

With some hesitation, I recently signed up for a mass ride that takes
place this weekend. At last year's event, cyclists were riding five and
six abreast at times, taking up BOTH traffic lanes on four-lane (i.e.,
two each way) roads.

So, why would you participate in an event you find so troubling? I
dislike mass rides, so I never participate in them. I don't know about
Utah, but here (MA) bike races require permits.

I do like mass rides. I'm particularly avid about the local multiple
sclerosis society event--already registered for next June's ride. I
enjoy the ULCER [1] as well, but last year I found myself wishing that
SOME of the participants were a little more careful and courteous. That
clown is out on bail, after all.

remainder snipped


Bill

__o | Blind faith in your leaders--or in anything--
_`\(,_ | will get you killed.
(_)/ (_) | --Bruce Springsteen


[1] For readers who suddenly wonder why I'm writing about a stomach
disorder, it's the Utah Lake Century Epic Ride.

Barry Harmon wrote:
When I learned to drive a car, I was taught defensive driving. This is a
way to drive that attempts to stay out of the way of accidents by always
giving way to aggressive drivers, leaving oneself an out, anticiating what
a driver will do, always watching what the other driver is doing and never
getting caught up in competition for space....


To heck with that. Getting in a moderate speed accident is better than
letting the MFFY sociopaths win.

We are too often a nation of sheep.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

Second, if you had bothered to read the entire article, which you
don't seem to have done, you would have read that there were
numerous other cyclists on this road, and they were NOT riding
legally.

I did read the entire article, and just reread it (twice). I challenge
you to quote where it was revealed cyclists were riding illegally. The
"simple fact" you reference is in your imagination.

But in
deference to your challenge, I went back, and found this statement in
the **reader comments** on the Salt Lake Tribune

That's a curious way to apologize, especially for such a stickler for
courtesy.

I suppose I should also bring up here the legal concept of "fighting
words."

This is an interesting legal concept, and one that may be of general
interest to this audience given the frequency of motorist-cyclist conflicts.

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13718

"Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)"

"Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not
amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected
unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger
of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or
annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that
certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals."

"Fighting words" seem not to be the issue here, as it is normally a term
related to freedom of speech protection, but rather "provocation" as a
defense.


If this case goes to trial, you can bet that Counsel for the Defense
will bring up these points and probably many mo

1. There were "plenty" of cyclists riding illegally (more than two
abreast) on the Mirror Lake Highway that day.
2. There were cyclists not moving over and letting motorists pass
them.
3. There were words excanged between the defendant and numerous
cyclists before he encountered the guy he ran down.

All these are irrelevant, since they were not part of the criminal act.

4. There were words exchanged between the two principals in the
incident.

Precedent has held that words alone can not support a "provocation
defense". It would be problematic in another way since the defendant
apparently initiated the verbal exchange which preceded his assault.


I don't think any of the things I've mentioned would be exculpating,
but they might be mitigating. There are of course plenty of aggravating
circumstances too. My point was not that this cager was innocent or
even rational. My point was that he may have been provoked.

Apparently not by the cyclist he struck. As a matter of fact, his
behavior was provocative. In any case, "provocation defense" is based on
the behavior of a "reasonable man". The defendant's behavior is
unquestionably far outside the norm, while the circumstances are
relatively common. Irritation simply is not a reasonable excuse for
assault with a deadly weapon -- or any form of assault.

With some hesitation, I recently signed up for a mass ride that takes
place this weekend. At last year's event, cyclists were riding five and
six abreast at times, taking up BOTH traffic lanes on four-lane (i.e.,
two each way) roads.

So, why would you participate in an event you find so troubling? I
dislike mass rides, so I never participate in them. I don't know about
Utah, but here (MA) bike races require permits.

I do like mass rides. I'm particularly avid about the local multiple
sclerosis society event--already registered for next June's ride. I
enjoy the ULCER [1] as well, but last year I found myself wishing that
SOME of the participants were a little more careful and courteous.

I have never been on a mass ride where there wasn't a lot of violation
of the law with respect to riding abreast. From that perspective,
charity rides could be called "lots of cyclists breaking the law for a
good cause", and other mass rides "lots of cyclists breaking the law for
fun".

Here in MA, even riding 2 abreast is illegal. Cycling advocacy
organizations have expended considerable effort to change that
ordinance. I am opposed to such changes as I feel that the only benefit
is increased socialization and the road is a poor venue for
socialization. Besides that, I don't like riding while boxed in by other
riders as it eliminates wiggle room and the ability to avoid road
hazards. I have yet to discover a tactful way to express that to riders
who pull up alongside.

Group rides have destroyed cycling for me in many areas I formerly rode.
I used to ride with groups twice a week. Over a 10 year period, these
rides became more popular, changing from perhaps a dozen riders to at
times over a hundred. All of the founding ride leaders quit for fear of
liability. Rider behavior was uniformly bad, and no amount of pre-ride
"safety talks" seemed to make a dent in it. The retirees and social
riders were just as bad as the racers. Confrontation with angry
motorists and harassment by local town cops became frequent. All of the
explicit criticisms I personally heard (and I heard plenty) were of the
"cyclists blocking the road" variety, though cops started camping out at
stop signs -- probably only because it was easier to bag cyclists there.
Things went so far as cops blocking roads to stop all riders for
lectures/threats and motorists publicly chewing out groups of cyclists
in the local coffee shop. My conclusion: the biggest source of motorist
hostility and cycling lawlessness was group rides. So I just quit doing
them.

Whenever there is one of these road rage incidents the finger pointing
and lecturing begins (among cyclists). It's always those other
"scofflaws" that are "ruining cycling" for everyone else. I see a
(common) disconnect in your attitude. You raise the possibility of a
provocation defense for a road rage incident, citing the presence of
many law breaking cyclists participating in a group ride locally, then
criticize an earlier group ride you participated in for similar
behavior, while announcing your intention to repeat your participation.
To paraphrase Pogo: you have met the enemy, and it is you.

I think you nailed it, Tom. Scarcity of resources, whether money, gas, or
room on roads, fosters competitive behavior. I don't think this is unique
to Western society, but it's certainly much more prevalent in our mindset
in that we tend not to share as well as other, less competitive societies.

Like nearly everything, this competitiveness can be good and bad. It can
drive innovation and lead to more available resources for everyone... it
can also encourage malignant, misanthropic, anti-social behaviors, which
result in these senseless "road rage" incidents.

brink

I asked a driver about this once, and she fumed that the cyclists were
"taking up my time."
I told her it was just seconds, after all, until she passed them, but she
was indignant about being delayed even for one second.

Pat in TX

"Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)"

"Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not
amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless
the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or
annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that
certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals."

"Fighting words" seem not to be the issue here, as it is normally a term
related to freedom of speech protection, but rather "provocation" as a
defense.

I am glad you posted this. It reminds me of a Judge Judy program where the
man said, "He provoked me! He called me an idiot so I had no choice but to
slug him!" and She replied, "So? Sticks and stones, sticks and
stones---that's no reason to assault somebody."



In any case, "provocation defense" is based on
the behavior of a "reasonable man". The defendant's behavior is
unquestionably far outside the norm, while the circumstances are
relatively common. Irritation simply is not a reasonable excuse for
assault with a deadly weapon -- or any form of assault.

Right! Far too many people seem to think that "any" disagreeable words give
carte blanche for an assault.


I have never been on a mass ride where there wasn't a lot of violation of
the law with respect to riding abreast. From that perspective, charity
rides could be called "lots of cyclists breaking the law for a good
cause", and other mass rides "lots of cyclists breaking the law for fun".

I have seen this, too, but sometimes they aren't breaking the law because it
is a special event with lanes coned off, cyclists being escorted by law
officers, law officers directing traffic at intersections, etc. In a normal
day it would be violation of the law, but not on a mass ride which is a
special event.


My conclusion: the biggest source of motorist
hostility and cycling lawlessness was group rides. So I just quit doing
them.

I have to disagree with you here, mainly because our club doesn't have the
problems you mentioned. BUT, I think the biggest source of motorist
hostility comes from the kids, teens, and other adults who aren't part of a
group but just do as they please riding on sidewalks, against traffic,
through red lights, etc. Motorists see those people many more times a week
than they do the club rides.

Pat in TX

Pat wrote, On 8/9/2008 2:07 PM:
I think you nailed it, Tom. Scarcity of resources, whether money, gas, or
room on roads, fosters competitive behavior. I don't think this is unique
to Western society, but it's certainly much more prevalent in our mindset
in that we tend not to share as well as other, less competitive societies.

Like nearly everything, this competitiveness can be good and bad. It can
drive innovation and lead to more available resources for everyone... it
can also encourage malignant, misanthropic, anti-social behaviors, which
result in these senseless "road rage" incidents.

brink


I asked a driver about this once, and she fumed that the cyclists were
"taking up my time."
I told her it was just seconds, after all, until she passed them, but she
was indignant about being delayed even for one second.

Pat in TX




You should give her break, she only has about 2,524,538,880 seconds in
her lifetime...

(I'm assuming that she will live to be 80 years old)

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

Paul O wrote:
.

I asked a driver about this once, and she fumed that the cyclists were
"taking up my time."
I told her it was just seconds, after all, until she passed them, but
she was indignant about being delayed even for one second.

Pat in TX



You should give her break, she only has about 2,524,538,880 seconds in
her lifetime...

(I'm assuming that she will live to be 80 years old)


With that attitude, I am assuming she will meet the Grim Reaper somewhat
sooner than age 80.

catzz66 wrote, On 8/9/2008 3:02 PM:
Paul O wrote:
.

I asked a driver about this once, and she fumed that the cyclists
were "taking up my time."
I told her it was just seconds, after all, until she passed them,
but she was indignant about being delayed even for one second.

Pat in TX



You should give her break, she only has about 2,524,538,880 seconds
in her lifetime...

(I'm assuming that she will live to be 80 years old)


With that attitude, I am assuming she will meet the Grim Reaper
somewhat sooner than age 80.
How likely is it that she will die while riding a bicycle? ;-)

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)