Whazup with bicycles?

[Guest Jamie]

I'm gonna deal with the last part first here:

....I'm completely convinced they are the result of cowardly, insecure people who are utter losers.

....It's not about time, it's about basic respect for someone different than you.

Knock it off with the ad hominem horses**t... Every driver on the road is "different from me"... Some are in cars, some are on motorcycles, some in tractor-trailers. But all are operating vehicles that are approximately equal in their ability to handle normal traffic conditions. Except the folks on bicycles.

That's just a fact.

Yes the law allows them to be there. Doesn't mean that they should be though, and that may change at some point. Who knows?

Many of them are quite capable, and do everything they can to keep themselves and everyone else safe. Many more don't.

No, I don't believe that a bicycle has any business on many of the roads around here... or really any road that doesn't have a dedicated bike lane. And I have explained why that is, further back up the thread.

Now, on to the rest:

Jamie:

Where do you get the idea that it is assumed that the motorist is at fault in a bike vs car accident? This has to be something you've imagined.

Imagined it? No, it comes from 90% of the people I've ever talked to or worked with, when it involved 2-wheelers of any kind, or pedestrians, being struck by a moving vehicle... And also the apparent general belief/fear that if a person has an accident with any of the above, they'll be sued by folks like you, even if the accident wasn't their fault and there was no way for them to avoid it.

Part of my practice is personal injury and I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. I've had clients who had dufficulty getting a lawyer to even take their case simply because they were on a bike. I've even had one insurance adjuster flat out tell me that they don't "deal" with bike cases, since a jury might think the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road. I filed the lawsuit and they eventually changed their mind. This was in a case with a head-on collision where the driver admitted fault at the scene! Don't worry, we got ours, but not easily.

And how many cases like this have you had, anyway? You make it sound like it's at least a semi-regular occurrence... which would tend to support the above-mentioned fear/belief...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you might be referring to when a cyclist is hit from behind. This the only time I can think of where there is a presumption the driver is at fault and in this instance the law is just treating the cyclist like any other vehicle on the road.

Hitting any other vehicle from behind doesn't usually result in the driver/rider being run over as well... which is a frequent occurrence when there's any contact between a 4-wheeler and a 2-wheeler. Especially a very slow (relatively speaking) 2-wheeler that can change directions and stop much more quickly than the other vehicle.

As for you not being able top avoid some cyclists, sorry. I fail to see how it's any different than any other driver on the road.

Then you probably need to take a basic physics class or two... and also to pay better attention to my description of that spot in the road that I posted earlier.

And yes, we've had accidents here due to people breaking down and not getting their car/truck out of the middle of the road in such spots.

Certainly you aren't in fear of being hit by my 17lb bike?

Nope... see my earlier comment concerning lawsuits.

If you fear being hit while trying to pass a cyclist, just make sure it's safe to pass before you do. It's just common courtesy, but it's not that common anymore.

Or cyclists could have the courtesy to stay off of roadways that aren't really safe for them to travel... But no, they have a right to be there, don't they?

FYI: I've had bottles thrown at me, had people swerve at me, I've been brushed by a rear-view mirror at speed, and I've had a driver pull over and threaten me before retreating in surprise when I didn't cower in fear. You might take these things more seriously if they happened to you.

Man, I've had people throw stuff and cuss at me when I was standing right beside a damned marked patrol car... with me in full uniform. There's just a certain percentage of people in this world that don't have good sense. Some of 'em drive cars and trucks, some of 'em ride motorcycles, and some of 'em like bicycles.

And some of 'em, for various reasons related to them being a**holes/morons, are stuck walking, and aren't allowed to do much more than that.

So what? None of that changes anything I've said concerning bicycles being unsuitable for some times and places.

On a positive note, if you divide the miles I've ridden by the number of incidents, you'll probably reach the conclusion that a huge majority of drivers aren't out to get cyclists.

Yep... I'm also quite sure it's given you a certain... bias?... as well.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Not one of these incidents occured when I was blocking traffic or doing anything to "bring it on myself", as you would say.

Well, it could be they've just had prior bad experiences with some of your fellow riders and are holding a bit of a grudge? Sort'a like you seem to be doing, maybe?

They think someone is vunerable because they are on a bike so here is the driver's chance to exercise a power-trip. It's not about someone having to wait to pass.

So you're psychic too? Must be handy in court...

Personally, I figure they're just self-centered, self-absorbed... well, those folks I mentioned earlier... and that you or someone like you have managed to offend, somewhere back along the way.

Could just also be that they know you're a lawyer too.

If that were the case, why don't people throw glass bottles at the folks buying lottery tickets when you buy gas?

Maybe they do...

Anyway, what I see here is a youngster with a law degree and a bias concerning something he likes... much as gun owners tend to have, or motorcyclists, etc.

And as I've said, "different" doesn't have any thing to do with what I've said here. It's all from experience, thinking, and being honest concerning both people's and the particular machine's tendencies and abilities. Nothing more.

[Daniel]

uh oh.

[Curiousgb]

Wrong.

I'm also trying to get folks to see that there is indeed a bias, and that in a car vs. bicycle accident, it's automatically assumed, in most cases, that it's the car driver who's at fault.

I am a biker and was involved in a bike vs auto accident. I was in the auto. Luckily no one was hurt, but it was the bicyclist fault for riding on a sidewalk. They were sighted and I was let off.

[Daniel]

Was their citation for riding on a sidewalk? If so, sweet.

[JReedEsq]

I am a biker and was involved in a bike vs auto accident. I was in the auto. Luckily no one was hurt, but it was the bicyclist fault for riding on a sidewalk. They were sighted and I was let off.

That's because riding on the sidewalk is in many cases illegal. and when sidewalks cross the road, they create many intersections in which it is difficult for driver's to see cyclists. Hence, the law instructs cyclists to ride on the road with traffic.

[JReedEsq]

I'm gonna deal with the last part first here:

Knock it off with the ad hominem horses**t... Every driver on the road is "different from me"... Some are in cars, some are on motorcycles, some in tractor-trailers. But all are operating vehicles that are approximately equal in their ability to handle normal traffic conditions. Except the folks on bicycles.

That's just a fact.

Yes the law allows them to be there. Doesn't mean that they should be though, and that may change at some point. Who knows?

Many of them are quite capable, and do everything they can to keep themselves and everyone else safe. Many more don't.

No, I don't believe that a bicycle has any business on many of the roads around here... or really any road that doesn't have a dedicated bike lane. And I have explained why that is, further back up the thread.

Now, on to the rest:

Imagined it? No, it comes from 90% of the people I've ever talked to or worked with, when it involved 2-wheelers of any kind, or pedestrians, being struck by a moving vehicle... And also the apparent general belief/fear that if a person has an accident with any of the above, they'll be sued by folks like you, even if the accident wasn't their fault and there was no way for them to avoid it.

And how many cases like this have you had, anyway? You make it sound like it's at least a semi-regular occurrence... which would tend to support the above-mentioned fear/belief...

Hitting any other vehicle from behind doesn't usually result in the driver/rider being run over as well... which is a frequent occurrence when there's any contact between a 4-wheeler and a 2-wheeler. Especially a very slow (relatively speaking) 2-wheeler that can change directions and stop much more quickly than the other vehicle.

Then you probably need to take a basic physics class or two... and also to pay better attention to my description of that spot in the road that I posted earlier.

And yes, we've had accidents here due to people breaking down and not getting their car/truck out of the middle of the road in such spots.

Nope... see my earlier comment concerning lawsuits.

Or cyclists could have the courtesy to stay off of roadways that aren't really safe for them to travel... But no, they have a right to be there, don't they?

Man, I've had people throw stuff and cuss at me when I was standing right beside a damned marked patrol car... with me in full uniform. There's just a certain percentage of people in this world that don't have good sense. Some of 'em drive cars and trucks, some of 'em ride motorcycles, and some of 'em like bicycles.

And some of 'em, for various reasons related to them being a**holes/morons, are stuck walking, and aren't allowed to do much more than that.

So what? None of that changes anything I've said concerning bicycles being unsuitable for some times and places.

Yep... I'm also quite sure it's given you a certain... bias?... as well.

Well, it could be they've just had prior bad experiences with some of your fellow riders and are holding a bit of a grudge? Sort'a like you seem to be doing, maybe?

So you're psychic too? Must be handy in court...

Personally, I figure they're just self-centered, self-absorbed... well, those folks I mentioned earlier... and that you or someone like you have managed to offend, somewhere back along the way.

Could just also be that they know you're a lawyer too.

Maybe they do...

Anyway, what I see here is a youngster with a law degree and a bias concerning something he likes... much as gun owners tend to have, or motorcyclists, etc.

And as I've said, "different" doesn't have any thing to do with what I've said here. It's all from experience, thinking, and being honest concerning both people's and the particular machine's tendencies and abilities. Nothing more.

1. What is the basis of your evaluation for accident liability? People you've talked to? There are tons of misconceptions about accident liability. So what? It doesn't make it reality. I don't harbor disrespect for LEOs. I've stuck up for LE many times on this forum. I've got to point out though, that much of the disinformation I hear about the law comes from LEOs (or things people have told me LEO have told them).

2. The reason I've represented several cyclists is because I know lots of them and lots of lawyers aren't interested in doing personal injury cases outside their normal scope of practice. I've also turned away cyclists when I didn't think the motorist was in the wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I don't make money on bad lawsuits.

3. I'm sorry you had stuff thrown at you. Here's a difference in my perspective. I'm not blaming you for being a LEO (or former LEO). Those people might have had a prior bad experience with an LEO so it's should be ok right? That's your logic. Why can't we simply agree that it's wrong to hurl hard objects at people?

4. Call me a "youngster" all you want but, I have a better understanding of the law than you do on the issue. You seemed content to spout off what you think it should be, rather than what it is.

I got news for you. Cyclists aren't going away, the sport is rising in popularity. If gas goes up to $5 a gallon I'd much rather ride in to my office a few days a week than sell my CTS or my SUV to buy some stupid Prius. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it OK for people to be assaulted, period. If were going to blame the victims for crimes, how about we close down Memphis? How bout we make motorcycles illegal too? Should we ban short dresses and low-cut tops because they could encourage a sex crime? Maybe everyone should be required to drive cars with less than 50K miles to decrease the likelihood of someone breaking down on the side of the road and causing an accident? If we get rid of everything that might cause someone to get mad maybe we could all sing songs and hold hands.

Or we could put the blame where it lies with the persons who commit crimes. Wouldn't that be a little easier?

If cyclists are enough of a problem that you feel the law needs to change, you must have the rest of life really figured out. You mentioned people being self-absorbed and self-centered. How is it that people should be denied doing a 4-hour bike ride because it might cause you a 5-second delay when you have to pass them somewhere along the way?

Edited March 7, 2011 by JReedEsq

[JReedEsq]

Or cyclists could have the courtesy to stay off of roadways that aren't really safe for them to travel... But no, they have a right to be there, don't they?

Yes, they do, period. You don't like it... I don't care... Just don't go spreading this BS about tickets for obstructing traffic. You can go on and on about what you think the law should be. That doesn't change what it is, and it doesn't justify people being assaulted.

Edited March 7, 2011 by JReedEsq

[Good_Steward]

I guess I should stay out of it, but I'm not.

JReedEsq., I'm sure you know a lot about the legal side of this. Jamie, I'm sure you know a lot about the practical side of it. I think what we all agreed on (Except the advocates of running people down. Really??) is that whomever is breaking the law (either side) should be punished. Too bad it turned into a p****** contest. Once again, I think both sides would be fine if they respected the other's right to be on the road and used common sense, as was the intent of my original post.

[JReedEsq]

I guess I should stay out of it, but I'm not.

JReedEsq., I'm sure you know a lot about the legal side of this. Jamie, I'm sure you know a lot about the practical side of it. I think what we all agreed on (Except the advocates of running people down. Really??) is that whomever is breaking the law (either side) should be punished. Too bad it turned into a p****** contest. Once again, I think both sides would be fine if they respected the other's right to be on the road and used common sense, as was the intent of my original post.

That's all I've ever advocated. Unfortunately, some people don't think cyclists have a right to the road.

[DaveTN]

That's all I've ever advocated. Unfortunately, some people don't think cyclists have a right to the road.

No one has a “Right†to be on the road; it’s a privilege. Did you sleep through drivers ed?

Just kidding man, just kidding.

[bubbadavis]

Or we could put the blame where it lies with the persons who commit crimes. Wouldn't that be a little easier?

How is it that people should be denied doing a 4-hour bike ride because it might cause you a 5-second delay when you have to pass them somewhere along the way?

JReedEsq, we agree completely on the first point.

If only a 5-second delay was the problem, I'd have nothing to be concerned about. What worries me is when a cyclist is doing something unsafe (for them and others) but they don't care because they have a right to be there. Now, with most cyclists, all I have is a 5 second delay while waiting to pass. Its the other minuscule percentage of cyclists that cause me concern.

I guess my point is that rights come with responsibilities. Unfortunately, for every 10,000 responsible people, there's a Kiwk in the world.

[JReedEsq]

JReedEsq, we agree completely on the first point.

If only a 5-second delay was the problem, I'd have nothing to be concerned about. What worries me is when a cyclist is doing something unsafe (for them and others) but they don't care because they have a right to be there. Now, with most cyclists, all I have is a 5 second delay while waiting to pass. Its the other minuscule percentage of cyclists that cause me concern.

I guess my point is that rights come with responsibilities. Unfortunately, for every 10,000 responsible people, there's a Kiwk in the world.

That's right there is always a Kwik in the world. You don't want all gun owners to be judged by Kwik, so all cyclists shouldn't be judged by a miniscule percentage right? FYI, before my wife decided to we needed to have 2 kids in the last 2.5 years, I used to be heavily involved in mountain bike racing. Among other things, the club I raced with was involved with mentoring junor (read high school age) racers with both mountain and road racing.... In short, I have experience not only with doing a lot of riding, but also teaching people how to ride in a group and "road ettiquite" etc.... and I've often been one of the more experienced riders in a group. Trust me if anyone in a group I was with was running red lights, taking up more space than they needed to or generally riding "squirrely" as cyclists call it, they would be either instructed to stop it immediately or find new people to ride with. Believe it or not, lots of new cyclists need basic work on their cadence, (pedal stroke) before they learn to ride smoothly in a straight line. I can deal the rules of the road, never have I said that driver's should always yield to cyclists, and I definitely yield to drivers when they have the right-of-way. I agree wholeheartedly that rights come with responsibilities. None of this does any good, however, if someone simply declares cyclists shouldn't be on the road and uses it for justification that "they get what they deserve" if they are rammed off the road or assaulted. That's the attitude of numerous others here. Somehow everyone keeps saying, "you guys just need to respect each other", but the respect isn't coming from the other side.

Edited March 7, 2011 by JReedEsq

[Jasongar8]

To the guys who are "against" the bikers, how often do you get held up by people riding in the road? I have been driving since I was 16 and have never been held up for more than 10-20 seconds. I really don't see what the big deal is? If having to wait a few seconds to pass someone on a bike is the worst thing that happens to me that day, I am doing pretty good.

[Guest buttonhook]

As a cyclist, I'd have no problem with someone being ticketed for intentional blocking. I think the statute is actually well written. People just need to respect that cyclists have a place on the road, they shouldn't intentionally block, traffic when it's not necessary,

that one of the major problems we have around here....then they yell at you "to share the road"!!! They will ride at under 10mph in large groups in a 35-45mph zone in the middle of the lane and it's not safe to pass them in the other lane because of the road design. i dont have a problem with people riding bike on the road but they have to share the road as well and since the person in the car is not going to get hurt if they hit the rider it's just stupid to be an a$$ when your on your bike....it's just not safe!! for anyone!

it's like carrying a gun sure you may have the right to shoot someone but it's not always smart!

[Armed Aviator]

This thread delivered!

[Guest Jamie]

1. What is the basis of your evaluation for accident liability? People you've talked to? There are tons of misconceptions about accident liability. So what? It doesn't make it reality. I don't harbor disrespect for LEOs. I've stuck up for LE many times on this forum. I've got to point out though, that much of the disinformation I hear about the law comes from LEOs (or things people have told me LEO have told them).

With as sue-happy as people are these days, and the number of lawyers that're more than willing to press those suits, I'm not so sure there's any misconceptions at all... And certainly none that are being reinforced by LEOs.

And for what it's worth, I've held a fair number of jobs in my life, and know a wide range of people due to that. Not only LEOs, firefighters, EMTs, judges, etc., but also construction workers, farmers, woodcutters, engineers, office workers, and a whole host of others... So when I say "people I've talked to on the subject", that covers a wide range... Certainly not just one small group or type of person.

I've also been riding bikes, both motorized and non-motorized, for longer than you've been alive. So I'm not just speaking out of some undue prejudice.

2. The reason I've represented several cyclists is because I know lots of them and lots of lawyers aren't interested in doing personal injury cases outside their normal scope of practice. I've also turned away cyclists when I didn't think the motorist was in the wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I don't make money on bad lawsuits.

So you're involvement is mostly due to your own special interest, and the fact that you travel in those particular circles then?

Oh, and concerning lawyers and money, there's something I read a long time ago that you just made me remember:

"Show me an attorney who's always honest, ethical, and above reproach, and I'll show you a pauper."

Wish I could remember who said it, so I could give 'em proper credit...

3. I'm sorry you had stuff thrown at you. Here's a difference in my perspective. I'm not blaming you for being a LEO (or former LEO). Those people might have had a prior bad experience with an LEO so it's should be ok right? That's your logic. Why can't we simply agree that it's wrong to hurl hard objects at people?

Y'know, I'm starting to think that you're so upset by someone even suggesting that you shouldn't be able to ride your bike on any public road you please, any time you please, that you've quit thinking or even listening...

I was simply pointing out that cyclists aren't special, when it comes to getting things flung at 'em, and that some people don't need much more than a convenient target for them to throw things... Nowhere in there was I condoning or agreeing with their action.

As for people throwing things at me when I was in uniform... I really didn't mind so much. After all, it gave me a reason to get 'em off the streets and out of other people's hair for a while. I certainly never took it personally.

4. Call me a "youngster" all you want but, I have a better understanding of the law than you do on the issue. You seemed content to spout off what you think it should be, rather than what it is.

You are a youngster, and one who's apparently arguing with emotionalism rather than rational thinking. Because if you weren't you'd have noted that I'm not arguing the law with you... I've already stated more than once that I'm fully aware that the law says cyclists are entitled to a certain portion of any public roadway.

What I have said was that I think the law needs adjusting, and that certain places at certain times should be off limits to bicycles. You know, that 3rd "camp" that I said I was in when I first entered this conversation?

By the way... that stretch of road that I keep mentioning that's near me? For a while, a decade or so back, it made the top 10 list of most dangerous pieces of pavement in the country. And there's more than a couple of people who I've known personally that met their end there. People who weren't even on bicycles...

I got news for you. Cyclists aren't going away, the sport is rising in popularity. If gas goes up to $5 a gallon I'd much rather ride in to my office a few days a week than sell my CTS or my SUV to buy some stupid Prius. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it OK for people to be assaulted, period. If were going to blame the victims for crimes, how about we close down Memphis? How bout we make motorcycles illegal too? Should we ban short dresses and low-cut tops because they could encourage a sex crime? Maybe everyone should be required to drive cars with less than 50K miles to decrease the likelihood of someone breaking down on the side of the road and causing an accident? If we get rid of everything that might cause someone to get mad maybe we could all sing songs and hold hands.

Better get your crystal ball fixed, junior... 'cause although cycling may be growing as a sport, it's not likely to become a dominant form of personal transportation any time soon. Not with the population of this country getting fatter, older, and lazier.

And all it will take is enough of those fat old lazy people complaining about bicycles getting between them and walmart - or their next McWhatever fix - and the laws might very well end up changing. You know, sort of the way gun laws got changed, over the years?

And for that matter, even the Chinese are turning their bikes in for gas-guzzlers... which is apparently adding to the problem of high fuel prices.

Or we could put the blame where it lies with the persons who commit crimes. Wouldn't that be a little easier?

Why yeah, I'm all for it... But with some of your fellow attorneys and the courts smaking the criminals on the wrist and turning 'em loose, rather than really punishing them, and with the politician's habits or writing more useless laws, rather than actually doing something about the criminal behavior... and with people's penchant for blaming the object rather than the person... I just don't see it happening any time soon.

If cyclists are enough of a problem that you feel the law needs to change, you must have the rest of life really figured out. You mentioned people being self-absorbed and self-centered. How is it that people should be denied doing a 4-hour bike ride because it might cause you a 5-second delay when you have to pass them somewhere along the way?

Man, you're like a stuck record on the whole "delay", "assault" thing... Neither of which have been a point in anything I've said.

Hell, I'm perfectly willing to sit back, keep my distance, and follow behind some damn fool who's trying to peddle up any one of several steep, winding hills we have here... and will laugh at anyone crazy enough to take on such a dangerous climb when they don't have to.

However, I'm fully aware that the impatient soccer mom 3 car lengths back, who's probably texting on the cell phone rather than paying attention... may not be. And may be inclined to try and pass me and the cyclist, in a blind curve with oncoming traffic.

Which, as I've described, will leave everybody, guilty or otherwise, in one helluva mess.

And yes, I do realize it's the soccer mom who caused the mess, but it was the cyclist being where he/she really shouldn't have that set the situation up. Life's just unfair like that.

Now, again, and hopefully for the last time: Not all streets and roads are equal. Some are best left to the vehicles that can manage them best.

[Guest Jamie]

Yes, they do, period. You don't like it... I don't care... Just don't go spreading this BS about tickets for obstructing traffic. You can go on and on about what you think the law should be. That doesn't change what it is, and it doesn't justify people being assaulted.

Oh do get over yourself...

You seem obsessed with the whole "assault" portion of the conversation. And I dare you to find the first place where I've said that it was okay, justifiable, or anything of the sort.

What I did do was state that there are other reasons for people doing stupid crap other than them just being on a "power trip" and picking on poor defenseless cyclists.

And as for the traffic citations... they're a matter of public record, so there's no BS involved there. Like I said, the courts didn't throw them out, or scold anybody for writing them.

Anyway, none of this is any different than any other discussion here concerning any other law. Nobody's picking on you or cyclists in particular. You just seem to wanna take this one much more personally than the others.

[JReedEsq]

that one of the major problems we have around here....then they yell at you "to share the road"!!! They will ride at under 10mph in large groups in a 35-45mph zone in the middle of the lane and it's not safe to pass them in the other lane because of the road design. i dont have a problem with people riding bike on the road but they have to share the road as well and since the person in the car is not going to get hurt if they hit the rider it's just stupid to be an a$$ when your on your bike....it's just not safe!! for anyone!

it's like carrying a gun sure you may have the right to shoot someone but it's not always smart!

That must be one of them in your avatar. Seriously if they are averaging 10mph in a group they must be really slow. I hope you're exgerating about the speed. As a cyclist, I'd probably be annoyed too. The difference is I'd say, "man I need to teach those guys how to ride in a group", instead of questioning their right to be on the road. I'd feel the inclination to say "get tight right", in cycling speak. I've been in lots of groups averaging 25mph in a 30mph zone. Even then there are folks who feel absolutely entitled to drive 55mph in that 30.

Just remember those guys aren't all cyclists. Just remember that you don't want to be judged by the actions of gun owners in the news for accidental shootings etc... so you shouldn't make assumptions about all cyclists based on the actions of those specific riders. Are you sure you weren't behind some sort of organized charity ride or something? Those things are notorious for tons of people who just bought their bike last week. The cycling equal of the guys who muzzled everyone at your HCP class. Would you really want all gun owners judged based on those guys?

I hope I understand you right that you are annoyed by these people. Not that you really want to send them all to the hospital by running them of the road with your car.

I'm optimistic that we can find some common ground in this thread.

I'm probably wrong though, I'm sure the next post will be someone referring to them in derrogatory terms and encouraging you to throw beer bottles at them for making you wait a while to pass them.

Edited March 7, 2011 by JReedEsq

[Curiousgb]

Was their citation for riding on a sidewalk? If so, sweet.

Yes. But it scared the living #$% out of me. I was pulling out of a drive on a downtown street in Charleston SC. I must have looked 10 times as I crept out to pull onto the street. On last look to my left as I eased onto the road and bang. I was barely moving but the bike was under the front of my van and the rider was laying in the street. I was a teenage girl. You just can't be too careful.

All this talk about assaulting people. I want someone to find themselves in this position, they will change there tune in a hurry. It just puts a fear in you that is impossible to describe.

[JReedEsq]

Now, again, and hopefully for the last time: Not all streets and roads are equal. Some are best left to the vehicles that can manage them best.

And that decision is left to each individual to decide for themselves.

[Guest Jamie]

And that decision is left to each individual to decide for themselves.

Which in some cases is a whole lot like letting a person decide for themselves whether or not they're too drunk to drive....

[JReedEsq]

What I did do was state that there are other reasons for people doing stupid crap other than them just being on a "power trip" and picking on poor defenseless cyclists.

There it is. That's the statement that indicates it's OK to assault someone. you are justifying their behavior.

1. What reason could there be? You continue to imply that it is ok to assault someone based on them wasting a little bit of your precious time or because you don't like them. You don't like me using the word assault, but it is what it is, period. This is IMHO why you cannot be reasoned with.

2. I never said cyclists were defenseless. I said they are perceived as defenseless.

3. The fact that you resort to downgrading my profession by assuming we're all immoral and the reason that criminals are out on the street just proves you have nothing substantive to say about the subject at hand.

4. It's incredibly ironic that you would admit to writing citations you know can't hold up in Court and then you talk about sue-happy lawyers? What a load of BS!

5. In the incident you describe the cyclist is not even at fault so why can't you leave us the hell alone!

Other than your BS hypothetical where the cyclist isn't even at fault, you've never been able to demonstrate how a cyclist places you in any danger. The bottom line is you don't like something so it shouldn't be allowed.

[JReedEsq]

Which in some cases is a whole lot like letting a person decide for themselves whether or not they're too drunk to drive....

No, not at all. The difference is 1) that cycling can be done responsibly, regardless of your BS notions.

[Guest Jamie]

Mr. Reed, I do hope your arguments in court are better thought-out and better presented than what we've seen here. :lol:

[Guest buttonhook]

That must be one of them in your avatar. Seriously if they are averaging 10mph in a group they must be really slow. I hope you're exgerating about the speed. As a cyclist, I'd probably be annoyed too. The difference is I'd say, "man I need to teach those guys how to ride in a group", instead of questioning their right to be on the road. I'd feel the inclination to say "get tight right", in cycling speak. I've been in lots of groups averaging 25mph in a 30mph zone. Even then there are folks who feel absolutely entitled to drive 55mph in that 30.

Just remember those guys aren't all cyclists. Just remember that you don't want to be judged by the actions of gun owners in the news for accidental shootings etc... so you shouldn't make assumptions about all cyclists based on the actions of those specific riders. Are you sure you weren't behind some sort of organized charity ride or something? Those things are notorious for tons of people who just bought their bike last week. The cycling equal of the guys who muzzled everyone at your HCP class. Would you really want all gun owners judged based on those guys?

I hope I understand you right that you are annoyed by these people. Not that you really want to send them all to the hospital by running them of the road with your car.

I'm optimistic that we can find some common ground in this thread.

I'm probably wrong though, I'm sure the next post will be someone referring to them in derrogatory terms and encouraging you to throw beer bottles at them for making you wait a while to pass them.

I wish I was exgerating!! and they are all dressed in the classic lance armstrong gear so I dont think they are joy riders....there are alot of them that try to hold you up around here.....sorry but it's true. I dont have a problem at all with riders that ride at speed or move to the right when faster traffic over takes them...I have the same problem with people driving tractors or any other slow moving vehical....use the road but move over when being over taken....I've done the same thing when teaching my wife to ride motorcycles...we move to the right or pull off the road and let people pass....it's just common sense...we have a couple of road around here that people ride everyday!!! all day!! and many of those people think they own the road because they ride a bike... they tend to cause more problems than need to be because they are trying to make the point to share the road.... well they need to share the road too. Just because lots of bikes use the road doesn't excuse them from common sense