Scary Road Rage Incident

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10115861


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.


Bill

__o | Look to the past and remember no empire rises
_`\(,_ | that sooner or later won't fall.
(_)/ (_) | --Al Stewart

wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10115861


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?

What I don't understand is why the other riders didn't beat the driver
into a coma. Not that I condone that, but if someone had just tried to
kill my friends and myself, I don't know that I would be able to
exercise that level of restraint.
What I find really disturbing though, is that Utah allows people who
attempt murder out on bond so readily.


Shawn

Shawn wrote:
wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10115861


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.

Peter Cole wrote:
Shawn wrote:
wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10115861


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.

OK. I was kinda wondering if this was just a troll or someone with a
serious inferiority complex WRT cycling. I should try to avoid reading
articles like that anyway. As I'm sure you could tell by my response,
they do make my blood boil.


Shawn

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.


Bill

__o | We must be the change we seek.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) | --Mohandas K. Ghandi

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:24:46 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, Shawn
wrote:

What I find really disturbing though, is that Utah allows people who
attempt murder out on bond so readily.

yeah, his bail should have been at least $500,000.00

the cyclist should sue the driver ASAP.

In article ,
writes:
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.

I guess the (public) road belongs to people, period.

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.

I hope you have a good time; I'm sure you will.

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.

Well, I don't believe the sins of some riders are visited
by angry drivers upon third party riders. I opine impatient
and irate drivers are caught up in the moment, and not acting
upon previous perceived dis'ings.

OTOH, contemporary Western Society appears to be highly
competitive, whether it's to get ahead of anybody in
traffic, to be first on the bus or rapid transit to get
the best available seat, or get the last newspaper in
the dispenser. Civilians are pitting themselves (or
being pitted) against one another. It's madness, and
Road Rage is just one manifestation of that general
madness. Remember when Cabbage Patch Dolls and Tickle
Me Elmos were all the rage (there's that word: "rage"
again) as holiday gifts, and fights between customers
broke out over them, and over who got them first?
Oink, oink.

So maybe how people behave on the streets & roads isn't
totally about how people behave on the streets & roads.
It's about how people behave. All too often: badly.

But you make a good point -- it doesn't hurt to be nice to
others. In fact it's contagious in a good way. And for
amusement purposes it's often fun to give drivers the
opportunity to go ahead. They're frequently shocked & awed
by the presence of an unexpectedly unselfish rider.

Shock & Awe can often be accomplished by gentle means.

Dealing with buttinskis notwithstanding.

I shall reiterate my Prime Directive about riding:
I let the impatient ones get ahead of me, and I
keep the indecisive ones behind me.

__o | We must be the change we seek.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) | --Mohandas K. Ghandi

I keep my change in a change purse.
Cuts down on seek time. Well, I keep
the chicken-feed pennies, nickels & dimes
in a big pickle jar. That junk just gets
in the way of coin-op machine fare such
as quarters, as well as wearing holes in
your pockets.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
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.

I guess the (public) road belongs to people, period.

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.

I hope you have a good time; I'm sure you will.

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.

Well, I don't believe the sins of some riders are visited
by angry drivers upon third party riders. I opine impatient
and irate drivers are caught up in the moment, and not acting
upon previous perceived dis'ings.

OTOH, contemporary Western Society appears to be highly
competitive, whether it's to get ahead of anybody in
traffic, to be first on the bus or rapid transit to get
the best available seat, or get the last newspaper in
the dispenser. Civilians are pitting themselves (or
being pitted) against one another. It's madness, and
Road Rage is just one manifestation of that general
madness. Remember when Cabbage Patch Dolls and Tickle
Me Elmos were all the rage (there's that word: "rage"
again) as holiday gifts, and fights between customers
broke out over them, and over who got them first?
Oink, oink.

So maybe how people behave on the streets & roads isn't
totally about how people behave on the streets & roads.
It's about how people behave. All too often: badly.

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

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.

Shawn didn't write that, I did.


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.


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?


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. From the article:

"There were numerous bikes on the Mirror Lake byway Saturday taking part
in the 2008 Felt Tour de Park City race. The bikers involved in the
incident were not in the race."

"Dunleavy, who detailed the collision in an e-mail statement to friends,
wrote that he was riding next to another cyclist, tight against the
right side of the highway, when Barto pulled up, rolled his window down
and yelled at the bikers to get off the road."

From the Utah bicycle laws:
http://www.swcp.com/~nmts/laws/Utahbikelaws.html

It seems as though the cyclist who was deliberately struck was (by his
account) riding legally.

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.

The motorist was/is not an "idiot", he was/is a nut. Courtesy and
lawfulness is all well and good, but the presumption that discourtesy or
law breaking by some cyclists is to blame for an attack on others is a
connection that only exists in your mind. What you are really saying is
that you wouldn't have the same fear for your safety if cyclists behaved
better. That's not only a dubious argument, but also shifts the
responsibility from driver to cyclist, including the rather bizarre
speculation that the behavior of some groups of cyclists precipitated an
attack on an innocent one.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you find so wrong with that.

What I find seriously wrong is your attempt to rationalize such blatant
aggression. It is indefensible.

This kind of incident, while not common, happens more frequently than it
should, there was a well publicized case a few years ago involving Lance
Armstrong. Road rage is a well known (and growing) phenomenon. The
solution is to remove those who don't have the emotional stability or
maturity to drive -- in other words, a zero tolerance policy for road
rage. Apologists like yourself belong to another, bygone, era.

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.

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 don't know what others are thinking about when they ride three and four
abreast on a public road, or when they get in macho contests with cars, but
I've got better ways to occupy my mind and body than tilting at windmills
that can run over me.

Barry Harmon