 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / September 2008Road raging motorists regulary assault cyclists
The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars By Bob Mionske Posted Aug. 15, 2008 "You've gotta fight for your right to ... pedal. "To the casual observer, it may seem as though tempers have been rising along with the temperatures this summer, but as we'll see, we know that the summer heat has nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, add higher gas prices, more bikes on the road, and - why not? - alcohol to the usual tension between motorists and cyclists, and you've got a potent cocktail for conflict. "On July 4, two southern California cyclists ran headlong into that conflict as they made their way through Brentwood's Mandeville Canyon, a popular weekend destination for cyclists who want to put in a maximum of miles with a minimum of traffic signals. Ron Peterson, 40, a southern California cycling coach, and Christian Stoehr, 29, a member of the West Los Angeles Cycling Club, and both members of Team Cynergy Cycles, had joined some 300 cyclists for a holiday ride up Mandeville Canyon Road - a five mile climb without a single traffic light. On the descent, somebody crashed. Peterson and Stoehr stayed behind with the injured cyclist until the paramedics arrived, then continued their descent towards Sunset Boulevard, two abreast, along the twists and turns of Mandeville Canyon Road. A late model Infiniti sedan approached them from behind and honked; Peterson obligingly pulled ahead of Stoehr to let the driver pass. Not quite ready to hurry along his way, the driver buzzed Stoehr and Peterson, passing within less than a foot of their handlebars, and shouting his profanity-laced advice to ride single file. Peterson fired back with some choice words of his own; the driver then quickly veered into the path of the two cyclists and braked hard - "as hard as he could," Peterson recalled. "Peterson went face-first through the rear window of the Infiniti, breaking teeth and nearly severing his now-broken nose. Stoehr, riding just behind Peterson, nearly steered clear of the car, clipping it just enough to catapult him over his bars. He landed on the road just ahead of the car, separating his shoulder on impact. The driver, Dr. Christopher T. Thompson [Note: NOT the same Dr. Christopher Thompson who has been threatened and harassed by angered cyclists since the incident], exited his car, identified himself as a doctor, but according to Peterson, "from that point on, he never offered any help" - despite having spent 29 years as an emergency room doctor." Read the rest of the article by clicking the link above. In it you will find that the motorists generally is at fault in these road rage incidents and the law slams them pretty darned hard as it well should. . . . Jail them and let them rot there, I say! Shad O'Shay > Read the rest of the article by clicking the link above. In it you will find > that the motorists generally is at fault in these road rage incidents and > the law slams them pretty darned hard as it well should. . . . Jail them > and let them rot there, I say! > > Shad O'Shay Ride on the sidewalk. > The following appears in Velonews: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Shad O'Shay I have no interest, in reading your posting, baiting us into an argument. I have seen far more instances or inappropriate behavior from groups of cyclists than motorists over the last several years. The big problem they create is blocking traffic and causing long backups and sometimes accidents. Common courtesy, on narrow and or congested roads, to pull off an let traffic pass every once in a while does not seem to be a possibility by these folks. Not all cyclists or groups, clubs, or whatever of cyclists of course are guilty. The offenders have encouraged some to change the Law and eliminate cyclists from many roads. I don;t think it has happened yet but such conduct will lead to the straw that breaks the camel's back. A group of cyclists might get wiped out by a vehicle comming around a curve, at legal speed, and encountering a group lolling along and at least injure a few or any number of scenerios. It pays for cyclists groups to give equal consideration to the other users of the road. They are in vehicles because a cycle is not a suitable alternative and the roads are designed primarily for motorized vehicles. Perhaps, instead of trying to stir up arguments, your efforts might be directed to getting cycle lanes and paths constructed along popular routes, safely out of the lanes of motorized vehicles. > The following appears in Velonews: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Shad O'Shay I would say the cyclist(s) shoulda keep their respective pie hole closed. It's only reasonable to assume the driver of the car was crazy to begin with. And you can't win with a crazy person. Especially if their behind the wheel of a 2.5 ton weapon.  SignatureZyp | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] | with. And you can't win with a crazy person. Especially if their behind | the wheel of a 2.5 ton weapon. They should stay on the sidewalk where they belong and not in traffic. : | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> : | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars : | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] : : They should stay on the sidewalk where they belong and not in traffic. Hey, stupid! Bicycles ARE traffic. Legally and by statute in EVERY state in the country bicycles are defined as vehicles and as vehicles bicycles constitute traffic. Next lame argument please. Shad O'Shay | : | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> | : | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars | : | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] | | Hey, stupid! Bicycles ARE traffic. They are child toys. Legally and by statute in EVERY state in | the country bicycles are defined as vehicles I'm sure that airbag on your handlebars will help you when you hit the grill of a semi. and as vehicles bicycles | constitute traffic. Then you should go the speed limit. Anything less is being a road hazard. | Next lame argument please. | | Shad O'Shay : | : | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> : | : | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars : | : | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] : : Then you should go the speed limit. Anything less is being a road hazard. There is no statute for ANY vehicle that they must proceed at the speed limit. The speed limit is simply the maximum speed allowed by law. You might not like it but since motor vehicles are not required to travel at the speed limit you cannot discriminate against a human powered vehicle by saying it must proceed at the speed limit. Next lame statement please . . . Shad O'Shay | : | : | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> | : | : | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars | : | : | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] | There is no statute for ANY vehicle that they must proceed at the speed | limit. Then you are a road hazard. The speed limit is simply the maximum speed allowed by law. You might | not like it but since motor vehicles are not required to travel at the speed | limit you cannot discriminate against a human powered vehicle by saying it | must proceed at the speed limit. Then if you are going slower than cars you are a road hazard. | Next lame statement please . . . | | Shad O'Shay : | : | : | > The following appears in Velonews: <http://www.velonews.com/article/81778/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---bikes- v-cars> : | : | : | > "Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske - Bikes v. cars : | : | : | > By Bob Mionske [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] : : Then if you are going slower than cars you are a road hazard. It is every motorist's statutory duty to avoid road hazards. There is no law in the Uniform Traffic Code stating: "There shalt be no road hazards." Next lame argument please. Shad O'Shay > It is every motorist's statutory duty to avoid road hazards. There is no law > in the Uniform Traffic Code stating: "There shalt be no road hazards." Bicyclists should ride in a manner so as NOT to be a road hazard. Most do, some such as yourself feel that bicyclists own the road and cars need to get out of their way. If there is a bicycle path then use it for instance!! >> It is every motorist's statutory duty to avoid road hazards. There is no >> law in the Uniform Traffic Code stating: "There shalt be no road [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to get out of their way. If there is a bicycle path then use it for > instance!! Incorrect. Bicyclists should ride in a manner that obeys traffic laws. Bicycles are entitled to ride on the roadway at normal bicycle speeds (for athletes like me this can range from 20 to 50mph). Bicycles are required to ride towards the white line on the right but are entitled to ride within three feet of it in the general area of the right side car tire track. Bicycle are also entitled to use the entire lane should there be hazards to avoid. Motorists are required by law to pass bicycles safely leaving three feet between the cycle and the motor vehicle. If this involves passing in the oncoming traffic lane then the motorist must wait until that lane is clear. This is traffic law. You might not like it but you'd better know it and abide by it. There is no statute in most places that states a bicycle MUST use a sidewalk or cycle path when one is available. A cyclist may choose to ride on the roadway and it is his legal right to do so. There are some communities that have passed ordinances that state cyclists must ride on cycle paths if available but it is questionable whether these would pass muster if challenged in court. I don't feel that cars and RVs need to get out of my way unless they are crowding me in the area of the roadway I am legally entitled to occupy. In the rare cases where cars are going slower than I am it is my duty to pass legally should I decide to pass them. Just like they must pass me legally should they decide to pass. Shad O'Shay > Incorrect. Bicyclists should ride in a manner that obeys traffic laws. Which includes riding in such a manner so as not to impede the normal flow of traffic nor cause a danger to the rider or others. > Bicycle are also entitled to use the entire lane should > there be hazards to avoid. True. Howver, bicyclists must be aware that when they do so they do not have the right of way. They can only do so if not an impediment to traffic or cause a hazard to themselves or others. > If this involves passing in the > oncoming traffic lane then the motorist must wait until that lane is > clear. A bicyclist should not cause a traffic jam behind them. Traffic laws state bicyclists should not impede traffic flow nor create a hazardous situation. > There is no statute in most places that states a bicycle MUST use a > sidewalk or cycle path when one is available. A cyclist may choose to > ride on the roadway and it is his legal right to do so. That does not mean it is the proper thing to do. Only an arrogant bicyclist would assume that the road belongs to them and cars just need to get out of their way. > I don't feel that cars and RVs need to get out of my way unless they are > crowding me in the area of the roadway I am legally entitled to occupy. What about bicyclists who crowd cars and RV's and cause a hazardous impediment to themselves and to other vehicles? >> Incorrect. Bicyclists should ride in a manner that obeys traffic laws. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >What about bicyclists who crowd cars and RV's and cause a hazardous >impediment to themselves and to other vehicles? Just remember that every time you drive over a cyclist you are helping clean the gene pool. BTW - you are being trolled so if you gett Shad it's bonus points. > BTW - you are being trolled so if you gett Shad it's bonus points. I think most that have been here more than a day no that Shad is just out for attention. But he's fun to toy with just the same! >> BTW - you are being trolled so if you gett Shad it's bonus points. > >I think most that have been here more than a day no that Shad is just >out for attention. But he's fun to toy with just the same! I know, been lurking for several months. I just wanted to let him know his place. I lived in the country and solved this moral dilemma years ago. >> Incorrect. Bicyclists should ride in a manner that obeys traffic laws. > > Which includes riding in such a manner so as not to impede the normal flow > of traffic nor cause a danger to the rider or others. Wrong! Here is an appeals court case that states as long as a bicycle is traveling down the road at normal bicycle speeds it CANNOT, by definition, be accused of impeding traffic. It IS traffic and traffic going at normal speeds for that traffic cannot impede. http://velonews.com/article/5496 >> Bicycle are also entitled to use the entire lane should there be hazards >> to avoid. > > True. Howver, bicyclists must be aware that when they do so they do not > have the right of way. They can only do so if not an impediment to > traffic or cause a hazard to themselves or others. Wrong again. They cannot attempt to occupy a spot that a motor vehicle occupies. (That would mean they would be colliding with the motor vehicle) But, they can move to any position in their lane to avoid an obstacle and if a motor vehicle coming up behind them has to slow down then TOUGH sh.t! that's just something the motorist will have to adjust his speed for. And, again, read the link above and you will see how lame your "impeding" argument is. >> If this involves passing in the oncoming traffic lane then the motorist >> must wait until that lane is clear. > > A bicyclist should not cause a traffic jam behind them. Traffic laws > state bicyclists should not impede traffic flow nor create a hazardous > situation. Wrong again. A bicycle operated at normal bicycle speeds cannot be said to be impeding traffic from a legal standpoint. See above link. >> There is no statute in most places that states a bicycle MUST use a >> sidewalk or cycle path when one is available. A cyclist may choose to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bicyclist would assume that the road belongs to them and cars just need to > get out of their way. Wrong again. The proper thing to do is for the cyclist to decide where he wishes to ride his bicycle. If he wished to NOT ride on the bike path for any number of reasons such as it is chock full of debris, is clogged with people walking their dogs and pushing their babies in strollers and joggers, has motorists pulling out and blocking it from side streets, has a very rough surface, etc. A fast cyclist such as myself would be a danger to pedestrians using the bike path which in most cases is a mult-use path. It is safer for all concerned for me to use the roadway. >> I don't feel that cars and RVs need to get out of my way unless they are >> crowding me in the area of the roadway I am legally entitled to occupy. > > What about bicyclists who crowd cars and RV's and cause a hazardous > impediment to themselves and to other vehicles? Cannot "impede" read the above link. Shad O'Shay |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.