Beerball Posted November 3, 2009 Author Posted November 3, 2009 My hero. I'm not sure what your point is here. They guy snapped and did what many of us only dream of doing. You think maybe the previous behavior of the cyclists are what caused him to snap? No, the article doesn't mention anything about that. They were just riding along not causing anyone any bother.
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 No, the article doesn't mention anything about that. They were just riding along not causing anyone any bother. I heard these jackasses interviewed on a local radio station right after the incident. I had no sympathy for them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 From the little bit of info I could gather from the articles, it sounds like the cyclists were following at an unsafe distance if they were unable to stop in time to avoid the vehicle in front of them. I always thought that the vehicle that rear ended (giggity) another was always at fault? Sometimes. Yet basically your post is a BINGO! What would happen if the car had to suddenly stop for other reasons... Anyway you slice it the bike was following to closely. Not saying the car driver wasn't wrong.... But what this verdict does is put the BURDEN on the car driver. The burdened vehicke should be the bike... They shouldn't follow so close if they can't stop. The car driver should just get something like intent to harm or something else. It takes two to tango and if bikes don't follow so close, no problem.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 No, the article doesn't mention anything about that. They were just riding along not causing anyone any bother. Ya they may have been bothering... They may have been following too close. Again... Back to the water. Bike acting like a jetski with the attitude of a sailboat. That may be true... Ya, the car driver did do it with intent to harm... That he is wrong for. Now with that said... What happens if a child would have jumped out in front of the car and the car slammed on the brakes and the bike hit the car in the same way as with the rage incident? Is the car still wrong both for what is in front of them and what is in back? Kinda like skiing... The down hill skier ALWAYS has the right of way... Even if they (downhill shier) stop right in front of the uphill skier. The uphill skier HAS to avoid the downhill skier at all costs. NEWSFLASH: The bike in this incident was the "uphill skier." Again, not saying the car driver should get off scott-free... He did do it with intent. And the according to the article, the cyclist is nevervous now... Maybe they should be! Follow with proper stopping distance. This article just shows how we have lost all common sense in our society... Both on the part of the cyclist AND the driver (ya, but where is a cop to give a cyclist a ticket for tailgating when you need one!)
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Kinda like skiing... The down hill skier ALWAYS has the right of way... Even if they (downhill shier) stop right in front of the uphill skier. The uphill skier HAS to avoid the downhill skier at all costs. NEWSFLASH: The bike in this incident was the "uphill skier." Unless rk is the one skiing uphill (however the !@#$ you defy gravity and do that). Then he gets to do whatever he wants.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 My hero. I'm not sure what your point is here. They guy snapped and did what many of us only dream of doing. You think maybe the previous behavior of the cyclists are what caused him to snap? The driver should have lied and said that he saw an animal jump out in front of his vehicle and it was natural instinct to slam ont he breaks. The bottom line is if the bikes were tailgating, they would have never been harmed. I guess to the driver's credit, he was honest and said that he snapped... Obviously the bikes had to be bothering him? Unless he came right out in court and said that he hates bikes and they don't belong on the road? I am not sure... Not too much of the case was given int he article. What caused him to snap? This question IMO is very important to the case.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Unless rk is the one skiing uphill (however the !@#$ you defy gravity and do that). Then he gets to do whatever he wants. Dude... You are smarter than this. Sorry for not clarifying... I thought you understood the terminology. Uphill skier is the one behind someone else... You know FURTHER up the hill. When passing somebody going down the mountain... There is the uphill skier and the downhill skier. How many degrees do you have college boy?
Beerball Posted November 3, 2009 Author Posted November 3, 2009 Ya they may have been bothering... They may have been following too close. apparently my sarcasm is a bit too subtle today
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 apparently my sarcasm is a bit too subtle today Sorry... I was a bit confused... I thought you were turning into a spandex wearing nancy-boy! On another note... You know what cracks me up? The motorcycle bumper sticker/campaign: "Kill a motorcycle/go to jail." What happens if a driver really doesn't "see" them? Or the bike is acting like a douchebag and something really bad happens. Ya, that is all fine and dandy, lets just start a common sense campaign to get people to all of a sudden "start paying attention." What an arbitrary, self-serving/self-interest only society we have become.
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Sorry... I was a bit confused... I thought you were turning into a spandex wearing nancy-boy! On another note... You know what cracks me up? The motorcycle bumper sticker/campaign: "Kill a motorcycle/go to jail." What happens if a driver really doesn't "see" them? Or the bike is acting like a douchebag and something really bad happens. Ya, that is all fine and dandy, lets just start a common sense campaign to get people to all of a sudden "start paying attention." What an arbitrary, self-serving/self-interest only society we have become. On behalf of stuckincincy, I'd like to take this opportunity to blame this on damn liberal hippies.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 On behalf of stuckincincy, I'd like to take this opportunity to blame this on damn liberal hippies. Better yet: From EIL. I would like to take this oppotunity to just blame it all on the freakin' baby-boomer generation! That way Tom we can implicate Cincy and Sen for creating this whole mess.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Sorry... I was a bit confused... I thought you were turning into a spandex wearing nancy-boy! On another note... You know what cracks me up? The motorcycle bumper sticker/campaign: "Kill a motorcycle/go to jail." What happens if a driver really doesn't "see" them? Or the bike is acting like a douchebag and something really bad happens. Ya, that is all fine and dandy, lets just start a common sense campaign to get people to all of a sudden "start paying attention." What an arbitrary, self-serving/self-interest only society we have become. Very off topic, but I always get a kick out of the bikes with the "loud pipes save lives" sticker and the rider wearing the absolute minimum legal protection helmet, shorts and no sleeves. I'm sure those obnoxious pipes are because you are a safety nut.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Very off topic, but I always get a kick out of the bikes with the "loud pipes save lives" sticker and the rider wearing the absolute minimum legal protection helmet, shorts and no sleeves. I'm sure those obnoxious pipes are because you are a safety nut. I don't mind... I am always off topic. I agree, like all of a sudden they (bikers) are clinging to safety. [/sarcasm on] It is all about me and what you are doing chknwing34... [/sarcasm off] Why don they just be men about it and realize that even a computer geek in a Yugo can kill a big, bad biker on a big, bad bike if they so happened to collide with one another. People gotta cling to something and fall back on what can become a lame safety argument (that they throw out the window when it suits their "style"). It really can be an arms race out there. People want to do what they want to do when it suits them. If I get t-boned in an accident, I got nobody to blame but myself if I am riding around town in my Jeep with the doors off.
erynthered Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Very off topic, but I always get a kick out of the bikes with the "loud pipes save lives" sticker and the rider wearing the absolute minimum legal protection helmet, shorts and no sleeves. I'm sure those obnoxious pipes are because you are a safety nut. They do.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 They do. Ya, how? I know in my wife's car with the windows up... One is in a coccoon... You can barely hear anything. Better luxury cars have to be better insolated and quieter. Loud pipes are just an obnoxious way to feel some control over their already helpless situation.
erynthered Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 How? Experence. In my car driving, with a harley in my blind spot its helped before. I can recall a couple of times wher if I had not heard that rumble I would have run over the bikers while trying to change lanes. Especially at night.
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Experence. In my car driving, with a harley in my blind spot its helped before. I can recall a couple of times wher if I had not heard that rumble I would have run over the bikers while trying to change lanes. Especially at night. More often than with your example I've had the **** scared out of me with some motorcycle gang wannabe roaring past me.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Experence. In my car driving, with a harley in my blind spot its helped before. I can recall a couple of times wher if I had not heard that rumble I would have run over the bikers while trying to change lanes. Especially at night. Maybe they shouldn't be in the blind spot. It is their dumbass. Ya, maybe they save lives... But they enable dumbass behavior like riding in a blind spot. I do think that autos should drive defensively and bikes (and cyclists) should drive offensively. How those two styles mesh on the road can be dangerous at times... But hey, dems the breaks and if one doesn't like it... Get something safer.
erynthered Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 More often than with your example I've had the **** scared out of me with some motorcycle gang wannabe roaring past me. I can agree with that also. Every day going home there's this crotch rocket !@#$er zooming in and out of traffic on one of our bridges down here knockin at least 90. One of these days I'm going to see him splatterd all over the bridge because of the way he drives.
Recommended Posts