Angry Bicycle Rider

[lesliepaul]

I think that would be considered assault and battery ... are you going to keep a gun handy for the P.O.S. driver who pulls stupid stuff?

[/quote]

If I lived 70 miles south of here..............one WOULD be handy...........legally. Just in case that above mentioned cyclist decided to attack me with his bicycle pump.........HA HA!

[What_the]

I'm sorry,I just have to be that guy.
You drove beside at pace of this road bike conversing out the window and you're making admonishments of safety responsibility?

People can look up and down a street and consciously decide to berate an idiot without affecting other road users. It is possible.

Sure people can. But don't come Here and complain more beyond the berating, about people being unsafe when literally yelling and exchanging sentences out the passenger window on a windy road with 2 distracted people..yelling and a flat bed truck driver perhaps wondering wt heck. Never mind the oblivity of on coming traffic.



In the large part of driving, the only people that get "cut off" are those that aren't paying attention and do not anticipate it may happen at an intersection.


And I was insulted and name called as was the appearance of the bike rider.

Indignance. Telling.

An open letter to someone that didn't give a Shiite in the first place. And I'm the dope

[Dizzy1]

People can look up and down a street and consciously decide to berate an idiot without affecting other road users. It is possible.

Hmmm, focusing on what everyone else is doing and catching up to them to give them a what for - sounds like distracted driving to me.

[RTH]

People can look up and down a street and consciously decide to berate an idiot without affecting other road users. It is possible.[/quote]
Sure people can. But don't come Here and complain more beyond the berating, about people being unsafe when literally yelling and exchanging sentences out the passenger window on a windy road with 2 distracted people..yelling and a flat bed truck driver perhaps wondering wt heck. Never mind the oblivity of on coming traffic.



In the large part of driving, the only people that get "cut off" are those that aren't paying attention and do not anticipate it may happen at an intersection.


And I was insulted and name called as was the appearance of the bike rider.

Indignance. Telling.

An open letter to someone that didn't give a Shiite in the first place. And I'm the dope[/quote]

First off What the.. I was not yelling,
Second, it wasn't on a windy road. It was a straight stretch of McCulloch Rd. Traffic was moving at a crawl as I stated. The exchange lasted 5 seconds.
You can put any spin on it you want. I was in the right, the bike rider was in the wrong and an angry man as well.
No one was ever in danger. He blew threw the stop sign and the only reason I didn't hit him was because I did anticipate him doing just that. I was paying attention as I always do.
You sound like a person that loves to pick a battle for the fun of it. You assumed a great deal in your argument. Most of your assumptions were without merit.

[lightspeed]

People can look up and down a street and consciously decide to berate an idiot without affecting other road users. It is possible.

Sure people can. But don't come Here and complain more beyond the berating, about people being unsafe when literally yelling and exchanging sentences out the passenger window on a windy road with 2 distracted people..yelling and a flat bed truck driver perhaps wondering wt heck. Never mind the oblivity of on coming traffic.



In the large part of driving, the only people that get "cut off" are those that aren't paying attention and do not anticipate it may happen at an intersection.


And I was insulted and name called as was the appearance of the bike rider.

Indignance. Telling.

An open letter to someone that didn't give a Shiite in the first place. And I'm the dope[/quote]

First off What the.. I was not yelling,
Second, it wasn't on a windy road. It was a straight stretch of McCulloch Rd. Traffic was moving at a crawl as I stated. The exchange lasted 5 seconds.
You can put any spin on it you want. I was in the right, the bike rider was in the wrong and an angry man as well.
No one was ever in danger. He blew threw the stop sign and the only reason I didn't hit him was because I did anticipate him doing just that. I was paying attention as I always do.
You sound like a person that loves to pick a battle for the fun of it. You assumed a great deal in your argument. Most of your assumptions were without merit.[/quote]

I concur.

[Harris Creek Central]

Quote:
But I recognize that many people are paying attention and don't turn right, right in front of me.....so I don't go around talking like every driver out there hates cyclists.
The people following the rules tend to blend into the background, so they likely don't get noticed much. The rule breakers stand out, so it only seems like 'all' cyclists are breaking the rules....doesn't make it so.[/quote]

So why does the cyclist get this extra ruling.. This is one of the most ridiculous rules I have ever seen. If I am making a right turn, have my signal on, why should I have to watch for a cyclist passing me on the right. If a Motorcycle passes on the right it is illegal. Why any different for a pedal bike?

[lightspeed]

So why does the cyclist get this extra ruling.. This is one of the most ridiculous rules I have ever seen. If I am making a right turn, have my signal on, why should I have to watch for a cyclist passing me on the right. If a Motorcycle passes on the right it is illegal. Why any different for a pedal bike?

You have to yield to the cyclist in the bike lane to your right. Good example is along Ethel.

Use mirrors. Shoulder check. Watch for idiots.

If they ride parallel to you when you're stopped with right turn signal on, and they still continue straight, they're a "protected idiot" under the new rules of the road. Lowest common denominator - protect the stupid. More pro cyclist communism.

[spooker]

So why does the cyclist get this extra ruling.. This is one of the most ridiculous rules I have ever seen. If I am making a right turn, have my signal on, why should I have to watch for a cyclist passing me on the right. If a Motorcycle passes on the right it is illegal. Why any different for a pedal bike?

You have to yield to the cyclist in the bike lane to your right. Good example is along Ethel.

Use mirrors. Shoulder check. Watch for idiots.

If they ride parallel to you when you're stopped with right turn signal on, and they still continue straight, they're a "protected idiot" under the new rules of the road. Lowest common denominator - protect the stupid. More pro cyclist communism.

There are so many days that I feel I'm being trolled here ... but I can't help myself but respond

There's nothing special about it ... you don't make a right turn from the left lane along Springfield without expecting to get hit do you?

The bike lane is as much for the benefit of drivers as it is for cyclists ... but everyone needs to know how to use it ... if you see a bike lane, you need to make sure you're not cutting someone off ... as a cyclist I'm paranoid about people not using their turn signals ... but I know it happens and if I'm approaching an intersection I'm keeping a close eye on cars to see what they're going to do ...

If there's a dashed line separating the vehicle lane and the bike lane ... signal, then move into the bike lane to make your turn if it's clear ... if it's not clear let the cyclist pass ...

If the line is solid ... signal, check right and turn from the vehicle lane if it's clear ...

Sure there are going to be idiot cyclists out there ... but the smart drivers operate as if everyone else is an idiot ... the same applies for smart cyclists ... I see idiot drivers at the same rate but yet I've avoided getting hit for 35 years

[lightspeed]

You have to yield to the cyclist in the bike lane to your right. Good example is along Ethel.

Use mirrors. Shoulder check. Watch for idiots.

If they ride parallel to you when you're stopped with right turn signal on, and they still continue straight, they're a "protected idiot" under the new rules of the road. Lowest common denominator - protect the stupid. More pro cyclist communism.

There are so many days that I feel I'm being trolled here ... but I can't help myself but respond

There's nothing special about it ... you don't make a right turn from the left lane along Springfield without expecting to get hit do you?

The bike lane is as much for the benefit of drivers as it is for cyclists ... but everyone needs to know how to use it ... if you see a bike lane, you need to make sure you're not cutting someone off ... as a cyclist I'm paranoid about people not using their turn signals ... but I know it happens and if I'm approaching an intersection I'm keeping a close eye on cars to see what they're going to do ...

If there's a dashed line separating the vehicle lane and the bike lane ... signal, then move into the bike lane to make your turn if it's clear ... if it's not clear let the cyclist pass ...

If the line is solid ... signal, check right and turn from the vehicle lane if it's clear ...

Sure there are going to be idiot cyclists out there ... but the smart drivers operate as if everyone else is an idiot ... the same applies for smart cyclists ... I see idiot drivers at the same rate but yet I've avoided getting hit for 35 years

We're saying the same thing. I'm just more cynical regarding our "new" laws.

Road sense should be based on a hierarchy of vulnerability.

Commercial > large vehicle > small vehicle > mc > moped/scooter > cyclist > pedestrian > dog/cat/squirrel

Kinda based on self preservation and respect for other more powerful and potentially dangerous vehicles. The onus should be placed more so on idiots not to place themselves in precarious situations or expose themselves to risk.

FWIW I do obey the new rules and I do - 100% - watch for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

[What_the]

Of course I like to argue. Why else would I be in an online forum dedicated more or less to, arguing points?

But look RTH, I took exception to your, lack of better words, holier than thou attitude and presented that with my very first post in your thread. It didn't take, and you took offence to being challenged, ratified by continuing.

Ive dealt with, managed people, my whole working career and learnt much about people, one of the things being, after not having satisfaction roadside you brought it up here, to nameless faceless people that like to debate and argue. I called you on it like has been done to me for almost a decade.

The bird would have sufficed quite nicely.... even telling him whom to have sex with should have been enough for you. It does for me. And if I want to tell everyone what kinda idiot they were, details are not needed. Like I said before.

Methinks thou doth protest much is what comes to mind.

[Bsuds]

Methinks thou doth protest much is what comes to mind.

I have found that some people argue too much when they know they did something they are actually embarrassed by.

I have never done that!

[What_the]

If you're suggesting, me, perhaps. I did go off little bit. But I commented originally for a reason.

[What_the]

You suck Bsuds, deflate me. for being voice among reason

[spooker]

We're saying the same thing. I'm just more cynical regarding our "new" laws.

Road sense should be based on a hierarchy of vulnerability.

Commercial > large vehicle > small vehicle > mc > moped/scooter > cyclist > pedestrian > dog/cat/squirrel

Kinda based on self preservation and respect for other more powerful and potentially dangerous vehicles. The onus should be placed more so on idiots not to place themselves in precarious situations or expose themselves to risk.

FWIW I do obey the new rules and I do - 100% - watch for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

But that's backwards to the idea of responsibility ... we don't preach that people with only knives should be worried about people with guns ... we put the onus of responsible gun usage on people who want to have and use guns ...

We require drivers of commercial trucks to take more training and exercise more caution ... we require taxi drivers to qualify to a higher standard of driving to gain the level of trust that a passenger places in them when they get in the car ... we require Class 5 drivers who get behind the wheel to the lowest standard of qualification, but they're the most numerous ...

The regulations are setup so that the operator who poses the greatest danger to the rest of the public has more responsibility than the next lower level ... but too often this is ignored by the SOV driver ... they're king of the road because they have control over this deadly beast ...

No one driving a car wants to kill another person ... but that is too easily what can happen when they aren't paying attention ... sure, a cyclist can ruin your day by running a stop sign ... but they can't hurt you ... what's moral outrage versus actual physical threat?

[lesliepaul]

With all of the plastic pipes the city has put up at many intersections to divide the traffic lane from the cycle lane it is only a matter of time before another fatality occurs because the TOO MANY idiot cyclists believe EVERYONE else has to "watch for me" and that "I have zero responsibility to go along with my very limited grey matter".