Safe Speed Forums

some lovely comments on this news item...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... d-phy.html

Sauce for the goose... If you drive into the back of another car then it is almost certain that you are to blame for not leaving enought seperation. Surely the same logic applies to cyclists. They must have been riding very close and at considerable speed if they couldn't stop or ride round the car and hurt themselves badly.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I love how 95% of the comments are polarized pro or anti cyclist.

The reality, it appears, is that a pair of ignorant w*nkers on push bikes fell out with a reckless w*nker behind the wheel of a car.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

i can't disagree with that...... but the fact the sharp braking appears to have been a deliberate act to "teach them a lesson." is surely of note ?

i mean if a car is tailgating you..... would you consider slamming the anchors on as a safe option ?

I'm with you on that!

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

By the way, I added (US) to the thread title as people might have thought it was Brentwood, Essex.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Sorry, I just can't see where the cyclists could possibly be pinned with being "a pair of ignorant w*nkers ".

Is this a predjudicial statement?

is it actually illegal to ride two abreast in that state ?
(as implied in the article)

i don't think it is particularly, a little harsh perhaps.

the article implies they had already had an argument of sorts with this driver, to be doing the equivalent of tailgating does seem antagonistic at the very least.

Well, quite, but why were they doing that?

I don't think there's enough evidence there to automatically cast the two cyclists as "a pair of ignorant w*nkers ", therefore such a statement is surely derived soley from predjudice?

why does that matter ?
what's a good reason to be doing this ?
is being pissed off a good reason ?

I think I agree with that.

The motorist was obviously being a twit (to put it mildly), but is there smoke without fire? He would have driven past many cyclists without acting in such a way, so it’s likely the riders were doing particularly irritating (in the eyes of that driver anyway). We know they were riding two abreast “We moved to the right in single file within seconds….”, how long they were two abreast before moving over we don’t yet know; possibly 1 second, possibly 60. They might have acted reasonably (even if illegally), they might also have been very inconsiderate; whatever the duration was it was too long for that driver. I know of some phenomenally antagonistically inconsiderate cyclists who love to remain in a blocking position simply to prevent others from passing them.

That aside those riders were possibly blameless in all other respects. It isn’t really fair to blame them for crashing into a stationary car - or should that be a slowing car? The driver could have cut them off so close that they had no chance to react (just like insurance fraudsters who cause other to shunt into them on motorways. Unlike cars, bikes cant turn, let alone turn and brake hard, without preparation).


I think it's more like likelihood based on experience. Like I said, I know cyclists who are deliberately antagonistic (thankfully they are the minority).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

i just picked up a whisper that the car had been along side giving them some aggro before going ahead, cutting in front & braking.. which puts things in a different light if true.



Do you mean you personally know some cyclists who openly admit to doing this ?
Or you have come across some you interpret as doing this ?
There are plenty of reasons i'd stay in 'primary' position which may not be immediately obvious to a following car, none of which are simply for the purpose of preventing an overtake (in most cases it's in my interest to have a following car ahead & out the way).

They admit to blocking passes; the antagonism (or possibly sheer and utter laziness) is my interpretation (I can’t say more without immediate risk of repercussion). Various reasons were given for their repeated blocking but none had withstood scrutiny.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Predjudice then!

Technically yes but that simple term encompasses a whole range of bias levels from reasonable to irrational. The simple way it was conveyed implies dismissal of any chance of the statement being reasonable, that's why I felt the need to add my clarification.

Coincidentally, the words "I just can't see where the cyclists could possibly be pinned with being ..." in itself is prejudicial

Before we go nuts with the semantics of this, I would like to reiterate that I agree with you that we don't yet have enough verifiable info to make judgements on the attitude/errors of those riders.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The facts are limited, the incident could be the "fault" of either or both and we're both speculating.

But it's highly unlikely the man went out for a drive in a homicidal frame of mind one day and simply attacked the cyclists. There is usually a build up to something like this where either party can elect to prevent a flashpoint. Sometimes neither party, self-assured of their own moral superiority, make any attempt to defuse a situation or compromise and an incident becomes inevitable.

I have, I really hate to use the modern cliche, a slight anger management issue. More than once I've found myself wanting to do something to another road user I best not type about. I find solace in the fact that the concerned character will, sooner or later, meet someone similarly aligned. The above story strikes me as such an alignment. (Thats not to say I'm happy or that I approve of the outcome, more I see it as an inevitability. If x% of road users are inconsiderate/aggressive w*ankers, there's a y% for when they'll meet in a situation that requires one of them to compromise)

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I rather suspect that if this had involved cars only, people would be a lot harder on the chap(s) behind for following too closely.

I think you will find that most people in the US take a dim view of cycling on the road. Road are for cars, big cars. My Aunt took her bike with her to Chicago to help with my cousin (her daughter) and her new a bit too early twins. She got much tooting and abuse. "Get the f**k off the road" and all that lot. She did get it nicked as well and she was knocked off (I think), but can't remember when or where. I have travelled through, worked in and lived in a total of 26 states and don't remember much in the way of bikes, that guy that cycled across the US had a bit of trouble too. It's a different country, so lets not get too worked up about it and lets not think that it's too relevant to here, 'cos it's not.

You can't even tell from the article if this is what happend, he might've just overtaken the cyclists and slammed his brakes on.