Lock this driver up and throw away the key.
Takes a pretty sick person to do something like this -- how you feel about cyclists is irrelevant.
Lock this driver up and throw away the key.
Takes a pretty sick person to do something like this -- how you feel about cyclists is irrelevant.
old guy 71 wrote:
The Hypocrisy wrote;
Are you guys being serious? Imagine if you could run 30 miles an hour for 5-10 minutes at a time. Would you be running on the sidewalk? No. You'd have to be in the street. Now imagine you're on a run and maybe you're holding up traffic. Do you think it's ok if someone uses their car to hit you?
Common sense and common courtesy? Have you lost your mind? The car was overtaking the cyclist and decided he'd teach him a lesson.
How would you like it if your daughter was walking down the middle of a sidewalk and I just trampled her as I ran by because she didn't have any common sense or common courtesy and really had it coming to her.
___________________________________________________________
The 'common sense' and 'common courtesy' suggestion was in reference to the cyclist not the driver. I'm sorry you didn't understand my point.
Common sense: Even if the law allows you to ride down the middle of the road it doesn't matter if you're right if you wind up dead. It's safer to ride off towards the right side of the road. That's common sense.
Common courtesy: Even if the law allows you to ride down the middle of the road and you know there is traffic trying to get by it is courteous to move over. Kind of like holding the door open for someone. Common courtesy.
Are you the guy who asks "well what was she wearing" when a woman gets raped and says "well he shouldn't have been in that neighborhood, anyway" when someone gets beaten and robbed?
Have to agree with this
"Truly stunning how many nasty, trashy, horrible, cruel people there are on this thread. It was a scenic highway, known as a cycling destination, specifically designated for that purpose. The sign said cyclists make use full lane. The motorist could easily have killed the cyclist and then drove away. This is not something on which reasonable people can disagree. There is a right answer and a wrong answer here. Full stop."
I usually try to see both sides of an argument - but there is no two sides here. Even if the cyclist could have been riding 'safer', getting hit intentionally is not something they deserved or asked for.
The driver should be charged with attempted murder and spend a long time in jail. The road f**g explicitly says bicycles are free to use entire lane. But who cares, you simply can't decide to run over anybody with your car because you are irritated, annoyed, feel like you are being slowed down... whatever your reason, you can't fire a bullet someone because you disagree with how they are doing something that is legal.
This was that guy's first road ride ever. Terrible introduction.
And to think a dean of the most expensive, prestigious private school in Nashville intentionally tried to kill him.
Absurdity at the highest level .
hrunner wrote:
Have to agree with this
"Truly stunning how many nasty, trashy, horrible, cruel people there are on this thread. It was a scenic highway, known as a cycling destination, specifically designated for that purpose. The sign said cyclists make use full lane. The motorist could easily have killed the cyclist and then drove away. This is not something on which reasonable people can disagree. There is a right answer and a wrong answer here. Full stop."
I usually try to see both sides of an argument - but there is no two sides here. Even if the cyclist could have been riding 'safer', getting hit intentionally is not something they deserved or asked for.
The driver should be charged with attempted murder and spend a long time in jail. The road f**g explicitly says bicycles are free to use entire lane. But who cares, you simply can't decide to run over anybody with your car because you are irritated, annoyed, feel like you are being slowed down... whatever your reason, you can't fire a bullet someone because you disagree with how they are doing something that is legal.
Both parties were "wrong". The driver should go to jail for his malicious and illegal behavior. The cyclists displayed bad judgment. I don't care what the signs say. It's self-evident. Look at the reality of what happened. Take up an entire lane of a public roadway and you are asking for trouble, which is exactly what happened. The fact that you are legally entitled to take the whole lane is irrelevant in terms of your decision making as a cyclist. Whatever, cyclists can be satisfied knowing they were "in the right" at their funeral.
old guy 71 wrote:
I'm not so sure it was intentional.
The cyclist was obviously making no effort to ride towards the right side of the road. He seemed to be riding down the middle of the road as if he were flipping everyone off.
The driver didn't hit him directly. He moved over and bumped him with the side of his front fender. It was almost as if he meant to cut him off and scare him, but misjudged the distance.
I have little sympathy for the clown on the bike. Sorry, I know that's not the PC response.
A SF liberal.
Oh, if he wasn't making an OBVIOUS effort to move to the right side of the road then drivers should obviously be allowed to attempt to murder cyclists with their cars.
Cite the law wrote:
old guy 71 wrote:I'm not so sure it was intentional.
The cyclist was obviously making no effort to ride towards the right side of the road. He seemed to be riding down the middle of the road as if he were flipping everyone off.
The driver didn't hit him directly. He moved over and bumped him with the side of his front fender. It was almost as if he meant to cut him off and scare him, but misjudged the distance.
I have little sympathy for the clown on the bike. Sorry, I know that's not the PC response.
A SF liberal.
What law requires cyclists to "ride towards the right side of the road"?
The laws of physics.
Looks like full justice all around.
The cyclist wasn't riding safely and was hogging the lane and making it difficult for cars to pass.
He got what was coming to him.
The driver did not pass safely and is at fault for the accident and will get cited as such.
There can be two bad guys in one scenario.
Your stupidity is amazing wrote:
old guy 71 wrote:It really doesn't matter what the law is. Common sense and common courtesy should be all that's required.
What part of intentionally hitting someone with your car and driving on is common courtesy? The cyclist was at most causing an inconvenience which would cost the driver a few seconds of time. For that inconvenience the driver was willing to seriously injure or kill someone? So if you or someone you love inconveniences someone (wrongly or rightly), a person can then seriously harm them or kill them and you will blame your loved one for the other persons gross overreaction? As soon as you inconvenience another person the inconvenienced party no longer have any standard of behavior required of them? Wow.
It makes me sad for you that you are an old man so have lived your whole life this remarkably stupid and you will die an idiot. Sad.
Common sense and common courtesy applies to both the cyclist AND the driver.
Clam Evans wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/Cyq1vpV.png
Who gives a F&*# what the signs say. Did the sign prevent the murderous asshol# from running him over? Tell me that?
Two separate issues here.
Nobody is disputing the illegality and outrageousness of the driver. He belongs in jail for attempted murder.
The other element is the decision making of the cyclist. Is it safe to use the whole road even if this sign tells everyone it's legal to do so? My argument is that it's not safe. The proof of this argument is obvious. Look at what happened. How can you see it any other way? Maybe you can say this is only once incident and it's an exception. But that's not true. Look at the dead and injured cyclists. This is not an isolated one of a kind incident.
Cyclist wrote:
On a side note. Don't ever wear what the guy who got hit was wearing:
Black jersey
Dark gray bike shorts
Black helmet
You wear that and you blend into the road. Wear bright clothing.
His clothing didn't seem to be a problem for the driver, who had no trouble aiming at and running over the bicyclist.
That black Volvo with the stealth tinted windows is rather hard to see, though. He should probably get rid of the tint and paint his car with red and white candy stripes so others can see him and he can see out.
Ya'll should go ride the Trace before you talk about whats right and whats wrong. It sees way more bikes than cars in this area everyday. Just getting on the trace is a chore. There's only 4 on ramps in ~25 miles. You definitely don't use the Trace if you're trying to get anywhere quick in a car.
lol
Star wrote:
Looks like full justice all around.
The cyclist wasn't riding safely and was hogging the lane and making it difficult for cars to pass.
He got what was coming to him.
The driver did not pass safely and is at fault for the accident and will get cited as such.
There can be two bad guys in one scenario.
The bicyclist is being cited for nothing because he did nothing wrong and will be compensated with a large payday in civil court.
The driver was thrown in jail, faces a slew of serious criminal charges, and his employer has scrubbed already starting the process of canning him.
Society disagrees with your assessment.
The bicyclist may not have been cited with anything legally but he is being sighted with bruises and injuries for riding the way he did.
If you want to ride in the left side of the lane looking for a pay day go ahead.
I'd rather ride on the right side and not get hit.
Karma agrees with my assessment.
You have no sympathy for the rider. If you read the article, you'll see that there are signs posted that cyclists can ride in the whole lane there. That this guy was an administrator at a prep school just confirms that there is a kind of general attitude among drivers that cuts through all of society that they own the road and they will not lift a finger to avoid killing any pedestrians, cyclists, or runners with the misfortune to enter the roadway near them.
Believe it or not, it's often safer to "take the lane" when riding on a road that does not have a shoulder or dedicated bike lane. If you ride to the right on such a road most vehicles believe they can pass even with oncoming traffic, as they can "squeeze by" which often puts them far less than three feet away from the cyclist. This leaves no room for any error. At least by taking the lane you force the passing vehicle to possibly display a little more caution when overtaking. A psycho like this kind of throws a wrench into that though. One of the many reasons I quit cycling a long time ago.
I've never really understood the mindset that if someone is being less than extremely courteous then they deserve any ill fortune that befalls them, no matter how severe.
Cyclists pay road taxes as much as anyone else when they drive. Just because someone is out on a bike doesn't mean he or she doesn't drive as well.
Of course, he should have been on the right. There is no shoulder in this case and so he'd have been in danger there as well, maybe from the same driver. If it was an accident, the driver would have stopped or at least reported it. And there are signs on that stretch saying riders can use the whole lane.
