04.01.11 Road Rage: Bike Assaults Car
The first paragraphs of this piece appear as a teaser on Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.
I was driving along River Road this evening when I rolled to a stop at an intersection where a bicycle was waiting for the light to change. I was in the middle of my lane – the rightmost through lane — and the bicycle was partway into the lane. There was plenty of room to its right, in an unoccupied right-turn-only lane.
The bicyclist started pounding on my window and screaming that I had come closer to him than permitted by law. I was taken aback by his fury, but didn’t engage. Nonetheless, his message had sunk and, as I approached the next intersection, I was as far left as I could go, with my tires just about touching the dotted white line. The bicyclist had also moved leftward, well into the lane. As I stopped, he threw his bike against my car and started screaming that I had hit him.
I should have stayed put, but have always had a hard time accepting accusations of things I haven’t done. So I opened the door and started screaming for the guy to get away from my car. He came towards me, so I tried to push him away. He threw me onto the hood of my car and then onto the pavement. Now he was screaming that I had assaulted him.
We were nose to nose, still screaming at each other, when a woman came up and threatened to call the police on both of us. The bicyclist urged her to do so. I backed away, got into my car, and closed the door.
The bicyclist stayed right in front of me for two or three additional minutes, glowering at me the whole time. Eventually, he proceeded on his way.
I remained stopped in my car, oblivious to the line of traffic behind me. I was determined to not to put myself anywhere near the raging man again and didn’t move forward until he disappeared from view.
The man on the bicycle couldn’t have known that a dear colleague of mine was run over by a truck two years ago while she was riding her bike near Dupont Circle. He couldn’t have known about the time 20 years ago when I was in an accident with a car while I was commuting on my bike in Boston. I am far from unsympathetic to the rights and safety of bicyclists.
Yet here he was, at the end of what must have been a bad day and with an axe to grind. I had nothing to do with his day or that nasty axe. But I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The rider is certainly home now (or wherever he was headed) bragging to companions about how he took his crusade right to the face of the evil automobile and won. I’m at home, too. As I lick my physical and emotional wounds, I’m quite sure that – bad as his day might have been – the damage he did to mine far exceeds whatever drove him to his fury.
Final note: I sure would love to track down the woman who intervened to break up the fight. She was gentle, persistent, and courageous. I wish there were more like her!
***
Update 4/8/11 – Please see my new post on this topic: http://tiny.cc/iv0j9
©2011 Keith Berner
Tags: bicycle rights, rage
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
April 2, 2011 at 9:12 am
Really sorry to hear this! I’m glad you weren’t seriously hurt.
April 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm
[...] [Continue reading Keith Berner’s post at Left-Hand View.] [...]
April 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm
So you feel justified in coming uncomfortably close to a cyclist with your car because he wasn’t using a right turn lane to go straight? (Hint: he shouldn’t be doing that, don’t you know that?). And if you are crowding a cyclist because you want them out of your lane you are a bully of the road.
Sure he over reacted. But if you hadn’t crowded him with your vehicle he wouldn’t have had anything to react to in the first place.
You are really very clueless about the situation, for someone who supposedly is a regular cyclist.
Do you regularly write about drivers losing their cool for seemingly minor reasons? It happens all the time. Why single out a cyclist? What’s your agenda?
April 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm
My agenda is, pure and simple, to work through a traumatic experience by writing about it.
And no, I do not feel in the least bit justified about being too close to a cyclist. As I wrote, though I was put off by the cyclist’s vehemence and fury, I am aware of the law in question (and — as I’ve written, very sympathetic to cyclists) so I moved as far away from him as I could. He was itching for a fight and is clearly used to being an aggressor, while playing the victim. This is a very dangerous psychology — one that I have no clue how to handle. I certainly should not have handled it by physically confronting him. (I’m only 5′ 5″ and, like most of the world, he is significantly taller than I. If nothing else, I was a complete moron putting myself in such physical danger against someone I had no chance of overpowering.) I note that my first coming too close was an accident that I promptly remedied. His response was purposeful and malicious.
I don’t regularly write about car drivers. But then again, I have never been purposely assaulted by one. I do — in general — write about phenomena (almost always in the political realm) that I see as making the world a worse place. Aggressive “victims” fit that bill, on bicycles or not.
April 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm
[...] [Continue reading Keith Berner’s post at Left-Hand View.] [...]
April 6, 2011 at 7:24 am
Keith, you are in a ditch and it is time to stop digging. You say you don’t know how to deal with the very dangerous psychology you encountered, and yet you didn’t want the cops called? OK, so who do you want to deal with this very dangerous psychology? Then, you say you were a moron to have physically confronted him because you had no chance of overpowering him. So if you were much bigger, it might still not have been justified but it wouldn’t have been stupid? Sorry, I’ll have take your side of the story with a grain of salt.
April 6, 2011 at 8:20 am
What I’m trying to do here is to be honestly introspective about my actions in a nasty (and potentially dangerous) situation.
Once the raging man provoked the incident, what I should have done was stay in my car and call the cops. I’m human and failed to do that, which I regret.
And, you’re right, it still would wouldn’t have been morally justified to push the guy, even if I had been bigger — but it would indeed have been less stupid from a personal safety standpoint. I’m admitting to the world that the false accusation drove me into a rage in which I behaved in a manner that was contrary to my own best interests.
Once we were nose-to-nose screaming at each other, all I wanted was for the incident to end and was glad about the woman who broke the rhythm of what was happening. The threat to call the cops on her part was meant to get our attention. The bicyclist’s claimed desire to call them simply wasn’t credible: if he had wanted to, he could have done so at any moment. But — he was the one who moved leftward in the lane and then bumped the car with his bike. He must have known he had no case or he would have made that call — he had plenty of time to do so once I was back in my car and he remained in place.
You are entitled to your grain of salt. Heck, we should all read stuff in in the news with a critical eye. I’m sorry if you don’t find me credible, but I can live with that.
April 6, 2011 at 9:40 am
He was itching for a fight and is clearly used to being an aggressor, while playing the victim. This is a very dangerous psychology — one that I have no clue how to handle.
Google “fundamental attribution error”. Then Google “projection”.
The fact that it sounds like you deleted comment by the cyclist in question whose account sounded much more credible than yours only makes you sound more like a head-case.
http://washington-on.us/2011/04/bike-assaults-car/
April 6, 2011 at 9:44 am
Could you correct the first paragraph of this article? You justify pulling too close beside him because he is not illegally in the turn lane (I can provide references, if you like).
Regarding his lane positioning, it is both lawful and recommended practice to ‘take the lane’ at the stop lights:
http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/roadrules.php (click “Lane Positioning”)
Reading between the lines, I also would have felt threatened if a car once passed me too close, and then passed me even closer!
April 6, 2011 at 10:33 am
I think you have led a charmed life if no one has ever assaulted you in/with an automobile. I am assaulted, along with millions of others, everyday- whether on foot, on bicycle, in automobile, even using public transportation…
I also think you would do well to get up to speed on the fact that a bicycle is transportation and you owe a cyclist every bit of deference and respect that you expect when you are on the road in an automobile. The big difference is that your automobile is far more lethal to a cyclist than vice versa.
I suggest you be prepared for a violent defense any time you assault or even threaten a cyclist. I have spent the the past five years having three surgeries and countless physical therapy sessions after being left for dead (while on foot legally crossing the street on a pedestrian signal) by a driver who DELIBERATELY ran over me after stopping and shouting an insult at me before running me down. I had not even made eye contact with him prior.
I won’t address your blog and it’s purported logic or purpose. I would have been far more violent with you in the situation you described.
Many cyclists as well as pedestrians, I among them, now defend ourselves as we are able when we are threatened and/or assaulted.
April 6, 2011 at 11:05 am
Keith,
Any assault is unwarranted, and I am sorry the confrontation came to blows. I am sympathetic, however, to the cyclist for 3 reasons:
1)Having ridden River Road myself, I am CONSTANTLY passed far too close by cars trying to pass. It puts me on edge and gets my adrenaline flowing in a way that makes me quick to anger, and I am a generally calm person
2)As has been pointed out already, you are wrong in saying he could have moved further right – if you are not turning, it is AGAINST THE LAW to be in the turn lane.
3)In your second encounter, you state that “I moved as far away from him as I could.” Clearly you did not, because if you had, you would have been behind him as legally required of you when the cyclist “takes the lane” as he is legally allowed to do.
So really, what happened here is that you broke the law twice and got into an altercation because of this.
April 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm
This reply just taught me something I didn’t know: that I was supposed to be behind a bike when it “takes the lane.” I will certainly abide by that in the future.
April 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I am glad to hear it, and appreciate you replying to the (reasonable) comments on your blog.
Bikes are *permitted* but not *obligated* to ride to the right, if the situation permits (hazards such as gratings with openings going long-wise, piles of ice/snow, improperly parked cars can make it unsafe if not impossible to travel to the right). If a bicyclist is “on the right”, drivers may pass in the same lane observing a minimum of 3 ft passing distance (likewise, bicyclists may pass to the right of cars in the lane, but this is another issue). If, however, a bicyclist moves to the center of the lane (which all cyclists are advised to do if conditions close to the edge of the road are creating an unsafe condition – doors opening, snow, etc.) then they are no different from a car (and you would not try to squeeze by a car).
I don’t want to enter into this issue too much more, and will leave it at this, but my perspective as a commuting cyclist is that when motor vehicles break the laws/rules, the consequences are deadly for unprotected persons (pedestrians and cyclists). So if you (and this is now the royal you, the reading community) see a cyclist, give them their 3 ft – at most it will add 30 seconds to your day. They have to deal with enough bulls*** as it is.
Thanks for reading all the comments, Keith
April 6, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Thanks for your message. It represents the kind of interaction I hope to have on this blog, whether the topic at hand is bikes or politics.
April 6, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Your first paragraph sets up the confrontation by illustrating your incorrect perception…you were in your lane? Where was the bicyclist according to you, in your lane! It would be illegal for a bicycle to sit in the right hand turn lane if they weren’t turning. So you display ignorance in that regard. But you display a blatant violation of the law by not yielding 3 feet while passing. the cyclist was in front of you so while you pat yourself on the back for being to the far left touching the white line you still made attempts to crowd him and pass him.
While you state you are not unsympathetic to the rights of cyclists you are clearly either ignorant or chose to violate them. You also assign such negative characteristics to this person about their alleged bragging, an axe to grind, etc. without knowing this person. You are naive to think that we as bike commuters are not going to stand up for our rights. the cyclist, based on your own blogging, violate any laws. You both displayed poor judgement, you even more so as you chose to take your tiny self up against someone bigger. when you think about it, change some words and that’s how cyclists are when riding with cars, we take on things bigger than us because most motorists don’t follow the law and put our lives in danger. Instead of hurling insults or accusations about this man’s motive, perhaps you should learn from this yourself and hold yourself accountable for what you didn’t do under the premise of the law and common sense. I’m sure your departed cyclist friend would be embarrassed by your poor judgement, use of your car as w weapon and otherwise pathetic behavior.
April 6, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I’ll admit to ignorance (about the “take the lane” principle and to accidental encroachment. I can understand a cyclist’s perspective of always being the “little guy” fighting off big and dangerous bullies.
I am learning a lot from much of the feedback I’m getting.
Nothing, though, excuses the other guy’s purposeful throwing his bike against my car and claiming that I hit him. If he hadn’t done that, from my perspective, there would be no story here. I daresay, this kind of behavior hardly serves to enhance the credibility of the cause being espoused by all those commenting.
So, cyclists far and wide: how about giving me an ounce of credit for acknowledging mistakes and vowing not to repeat them, while condemning the principle that an aggrieved (but unmolested) bicyclist may/ought to create a crisis by staging an accident that didn’t happen?
Are we done, yet?
April 6, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I was clearly too close to the bicyclist at that first stop. It was inadvertent, but I regret it, nonetheless. Everyone who has pointed out that I should not have expected him to move over toward the lane on the right is correct. Again, though I was taken aback by the guy’s fury, I moved as far to the left as I could after the initial encounter and he purposely also moved further left to create the fight.
As I have always done with this blog, I will post comments that disagree with my perspective, as long as they are not overly hostile, ad hominem, and don’t detract from a meaningful debate on substance.
I have purposely not accepted the comments of the bicyclist in this incident or those who are quoting him. My purpose was never to continue the fight with him. I purposely didn’t (and won’t) identify him in any way, because mine was simply a story about personal trauma in the big city, period.
This blog post has clearly hit the cycling community that is ipso facto inclined to disbelieve my account and willfully ignore my very personal reasons for being very sympathetic to bikes and bike safety. So be it.
There is certainly no “debate” to be had here, but rather a he-said, she said argument that cannot be proven in the absence of eye-witnesses. That’s ok with me – I don’t need to “win” this ongoing struggle. I really want it to end.
So, I will not engage in any more defense of my actions and intents here, beyond reiterating that I have no agenda against bicycles. If I had my druthers, we would have a decent enough public transportation system that the road would be only buses and bikes.
I may continue to accept comments as they come in and I may continue to respond to the ones that merit a response. And, then again, I might not. Under no circumstances will I engage with the “other guy” who has every right to tell the story as he sees it, but not in this space.
I hope some of those viewing and commenting on this first-ever post about a personal incident will take the time to read my political commentary.
April 6, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Keith,
The posts I see here serve well to prove what many of us already know: far too many cyclists in the DC area have a sense of entitlement that in their minds mandates aggressive behavior and even violence against whoever they think is encroaching on their their “right” to ride on the streets. And woe be unto any driver who dares to complain.
I’m sorry you got roughed up by that out-of-control cyclist. He’s clearly got issues, the very least of which is someone driving a car near his space on the street.
I’m even more sorry to see the beating you’re taking from the biking apologists on your blog, especially since you apologized and promised to “sin no more” once you were made aware of the proper rules of the road. What more do they want? Blood? As a matter of fact, they got that.
The comments posted here clearly show a lack of class on the part of the cyclists.
April 6, 2011 at 9:55 pm
So nice to hear a sympathetic voice and I’m very honored that you have subscribed to my blog.
But I’m not going to take your side in the cars-vs-bike wars. I’m really on the side of bicyclists, even as I react righteously against those among them who choose to create conflict, rather than understanding. My beef here is with an individual, not a movement.
And (as I have written previously) my piece was a story that I found compelling and disturbing, not an “agenda.”
April 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I’ll take your apology at face value and appreciate that you can own up to your error in judgement. I hope you use your blog as an opportunity to further educate on how to reduce conflict between road users, that experience will come in handy in the future.
Regarding ceefer66, you put quotes around the right for cyclists to be on the road. Cyclists do have a legal right to be on the road, it is not some perception the cycling community constructed to piss off motorists. There are six new laws on the books reinforcing that right that was passed by the Maryland General Assembly last year.
And motorists can complain all they want if a cyclist is exhibiting dangerous and unlawful behavior. cyclists should be held to the same standard for behavior on the road that motorists do. Key difference, bad behavior by motorists that results in a collision with a bicyclist will always result in drastically more severe outcome for the cyclist than the motorist. Same for when the cyclist exhibits bad behavior but to me, that’s the risk a cyclist runs and the law should punish as appropriate.
Perhaps Keith is correct, had this not become a physical incident, there would be no story. It’s too bad you have categorized all cyclists as classless. Would you have offered that same criticism of a motorist who commits these offenses? You’re entitled to your opinion granted but let’s not generalize too much on that point. There are bad apples in all groups, cyclists have not gotten any blood from this. I as a cyclist want to be respected by my fellow road users, not treated as a target for road rage or lack of knowledge or caring for the laws that allow me to use the road. Simple yet seems difficult to achieve.
Keith, I’ll take you as a man at your word and hope all have learned from this episode.
April 6, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I have learned some good lessons.
But I stand by
–the value of my piece as a compelling narrative having nothing to do with anyone else’s agenda AND
–my message that the angry man we had the misfortune to come across that night chose to turn a grievance into an outrage
April 6, 2011 at 7:51 pm
As others have mentioned, the math is simple:
A lane is between 10-12 feet wide.
An average car takes up 9 feet
An average bike tales up 3 feet
The law requires a passing distance of 3 feet.
For you to be able to share the same lane as a cyclist, the lane would have to be 15 feet wide. While some lanes actually are 15 feet wide (an unpainted shoulder), that is not the case at lights, where there is a right turn lane.
So to pass a cyclist, you need to move into the other lane. Since passing isnt allowed at intersections, you simply must wait behind the bike, as if the bike was a car, a motorcycle, a tractor, or any other vehicle legally allowed on the street. You would never attempt to fit in the same lane as a slow-moving forklift, so why try and do so with a slow moving bike?
Now, taking your account as the gospel, obviously, the cyclist severely over-reacted. But imagine if in his commute, he just had a very dangerous close-call a block earlier. His adrenaline is high, he’s angry, and suddenly he finds himself being crowded by yet another driver, and then the very next block, it happens again. Thats enough to make anyone angry.
If the cyclist is reading this, he should know to take the full lane if necessary, and not half-ass it, so the driver will never even try to fit in the space.
And of course, for the driver, when presented with an angry situation….stay in the car.
April 6, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I can imagine myself in the other guy’s shoes (or on his saddle). But I can’t imagine staging a false accident to make a point.
You bet I’ll stay in my car if there’s ever a next time!
April 6, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Keith, you don’t seem like a bad actor who was intentionally seeking a confrontation, and I think we should extend the same benefit of the doubt to the cyclist – specifically, his claim that he was hit by you.
By passing as closely as you describe, you could easily have created some minor contact between your car and this man which you may not have noticed. Perhaps the passenger side of the body brushed against his arm or leg. It’s not an uncommon scenario and it’s very unnerving, because one is acutely aware that the momentum transferred by a multi-ton vehicle to a human being balanced on two thin patches of tire is more than enough to severely injure, even if the car is moving very slowly. As I’m sure you can imagine, an impact that would have been barely perceptible to you in your car could have compromised this man’s ability to control himself and his vehicle. And in his mind, he had already informed you of the danger (albeit aggressively) at the first intersection by telling you that you were too close, and he then attempted to protect himself by taking the lane.
Obviously he could have handled things better, and I think at this point you can see that perhaps you could have done so as well. But rather than assume that he bullied you in order to compensate for his ‘bad day,’ I would consider whether he might have felt as needlessly threatened as you did during your subsequent confrontation.
April 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Another example of a person “feeling like a man” because he has a couple tons of steel wrapped around him. The cyclist (he isn’t a bicycle, he’s a human being, and your inability or unwillingness to see the distinction may have contributed to your negligent and stupid behavior) clearly doesn’t enjoy being intimidated by someone who just as clearly isn’t very intimidating outside of his car.
Sounds like you got a little less than you deserved. A ticket on top of the embarassment might have been justice.
How about this? In the future, see the person and not the object beneath him/her, then give them the kind of respect you would demand yourself. It’s called the “golden rule”…Google it. Why play around with someone’s life just because they aren’t behaving the way you wish they would, especially when you are incorrect (e.g., you believe the cyclist should be in a turn lane when going straight, that you should be able to pass too closely to the cyclist)?
Keep up this behavior, and sooner or later you’ll either send someone to the hostpital/morgue, or be sent there yourself. Is it worth it? If it is, what’s the payoff? A phoney burst of machismo?
Some advice: take a breath, wait 20 seconds, and let it pass.
April 7, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Dear Blue-Eyed Devil:
Please reread my original piece, all the comments I’ve received, and my responses to them. Then reread your comment and reconsider whether it’s justified. If you still feel it is, I accuse you of being simply another ideologue unable to process information not in accord with his black/white view of the world.
–Keith
PS. Everyone in my life would die laughing at the idea of someone accusing me “feeling like a man” and of machismo, nonetheless of considering human beings as objects.
April 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Lame of you to delete the cyclist’s reply.
April 7, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I have stated my reasons for not approving the cyclist’s comments, but will repeat them for your benefit (including new ones):
1. My post was never intended to be about the bike vs. car agenda, but rather a piece of personal storytelling.
2. I had no desire to continue the dispute with other guy (who, frankly, is a bit scary to me) and believe that refusing to engage with him further was essential to that. (In fact, I never should have engaged with him in the first place. I should have sat calmly in my car and called the police.)
3. As part of this strategy, I have assiduously avoided naming him (he wrote to me from his work address, so I know who he is), because his identity is ***completely irrelevant*** to the story I was telling.
4. He has had plenty of opportunity to share his view on the Washington Post website and elsewhere.
5. The views of the cycling community have been very well represented in the comments I have approved.
I’ll finish with the same note I sent to the previous hostile comment I received today: reread my original post, the comments I have received, and my replies. If you still want to call me “lame,” that’s fine; I’ll call you “blind” and with our mutual trading of insults, we will have contributed exactly zero to the good of the world.
As of now, I will stop approving any further comments that are insults without analysis or thought.
April 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Keith,
Thanks for you response.
You came too close with your car (close is too close when there is no reason for it), then you, in your own words, pushed the cyclist before he physcially touched you. Another, fancier word for that latter action is “assualt.” If assaulting someone baselessly isn’t machismo, then what is it? I have no problem with you getting out and, if it turns in a bad direction, defending yourself, but that doesn’t seem to be what happened, according to, well, you. (And, knowing how unreliable people are when self-reporting, especially about an incident where adrenaline was flowing, I can only imagine your post-hot-flash description of the event has been toned down from reality. I may be wrong, but in any case, unless you clarified something I missed, you struck the first blow. And that wasn’t the first wrong–the first wrong was in believing you knew the law regarding cycling in DC, or in believing a cyclist should behave according to your car-centric principles.)
No, I didn’t read every comment and response. I take your initial posting as it is. Perhaps, if I missed something, and you are upset about that, you should update the post and include notice where you’ve made edits and to what effect.
I’m not an idealogue, just a daily cyclist who has encountered the idiotic, unlawful, and dangerous behavior of motorists a few too many times.
Again, take a breath, let it pass. Maybe ask yourself whether it’s really the cyclist who is frustrating you/making you angry, or whether you’re just picking an “easy,” immediate target, as people–especially motorist, who command a large, powerful machine that changes the way they behave once inside it–are wont to do.
I think it’s fine (and healthy) to write about your experiences. No problem with that. But when you call fear for life a “grievance,” that gets at the problem of motorists vs. cyclists. In my experience (my own as a driver and what I’ve observed), motorists don’t often consider, let alone respect, the threat their vehicles represent to anything that isn’t in a like vehicle or moving at the same speed. The attitude is that cyclists, pedestrians, animals, et al, are obstacles or impediments to be circumvented with the utmost haste and least effort, safety be damned. I’ve had people blow the horn at me from two lanes over on an almost deserted stretch of road (I know it was directed at me, because I happened to follow one guy home to find out why he behaved that way) as they roared past, in an empty display of phony machismo. I honestly don’t understand why many motorists have such disdain and disregard for the lives of cyclists, but I think it has to do with the frustration in their lives (part of which is traffic congestion), the easy targets (and the sense of personal freedom?) cyclists represent, and the bravery that comes with being enveloped in a comparative tank.
I can’t speak on behalf of the cyclist you encountered. He may very well have been a jerk with an agenda; if he was, I’m betting he wasn’t the only one on the scene.
Drive safely.
April 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm
If you read my responses to the overwhelmingly hostile comments I’ve gotten, you will find that I have accepted responsibility for my errors in judgment and ignorance of a key facet of bike safety (the take-the-lane principle).
The single thing that I simply won’t give on because it is an unfortunate fact, is that the other guy purposely staged an “accident” that didn’t happen.
As for my dialogue with you (and all the other angry cyclists out there), unless you are willing to read everything I’ve written on this, and unless you are willing to give me just a wee bit of credit for truly giving a shit about the plight of cyclists, there is simply no point in communicating further.
I GET IT: CYCLISTS ARE PUT IN HAZARDOUS POSITIONS BY CAR DRIVERS WHO CONSIDER THEM NUISANCES, AT BEST, AND VERMIN, AT WORST. I HAVE NEVER HELD THAT VIEW AND NEVER WILL. THE MISTAKES I MADE THAT EVENING, I TAKE TO HEART.
Now, all of you: please get it through your heads that I get it!
April 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm
By the way, my guess about the cyclist moving farther left is that he felt compelled to take the lane in order to prevent you from sliding up beside him (and possible endangering him) again. I would have done the same thing. That’s how you survive on a bike among careless or inattentive drivers. Speculation, but I’ve done this when it seemed prudent.
But this brings me to your response (yes, I’ve started to read them) about inadvertently getting too close to the cylist the first time. How do you inadvertently get too close to someone unless you’re not paying attention? If you aren’t paying attention to the cyclist (or in general, for that matter), maybe he felt compelled to get your attetion by moving out more to the left, presumably into your field of vision. He may have viewed your actions as being aggressive or disrespectful (again, this is just speculation; he may also have been a jackass).
We all want to be safe. And we all want to be respected. Motorists, as a subgroup of society, are the least respectful (willfully or not) and least safe, and not just toward cyclists/pedestrians, but toward each other. What are we to make of that? We would rarely behave on foot the way we do while driving a car: giving the finger, shouting insults, threatening at someone.
A car isn’t just transportation; it can be (and, indeed, is sometimes used as) a weapon. Something with this much capacity and potential to cause death and injury shouldn’t be something you use lightly or when not in the mood to pay attention to your surroundings. The car is going to win every time. But no one involved will be a winner.
Again, drive (and pedal) safely.
April 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I agree with you completely. Can you hear that? Or do you and all the other cyclists out there need to continue to hold me up as the exemplar of The Enemy to be harangued to death, if not hung in public square?
If this is how cyclists want to treat their friends (and I have wanted to be one) who happen to drive cars, why do you imagine that your true enemies are ever going to have the patience to listen to you?
April 8, 2011 at 10:42 am
Keith,
You published a personal piece on a public blog about a controversial subject and now you become upset that people disagree with you? And that they are vehement about it? Isn’t the point to open an issue up to discussion and other viewpoints? If not, maybe you should turn off the comments feature of your blog. Not everyone is a fan, and certainly not all the time. Also, the points made here in the comments (those that aren’t adversarial), pro and con, aren’t just directed at you, though you are the impetus. They’re directed at anyone who reads them, to share (air) ideas with the goal of opening minds.
Hop on a saddle and get a new perspective. You won’t have to try; it comes naturally (the new perspective). I drive and I bike (mostly the latter), and when I drive I can be a jerk sometimes. While I don’t accept this, I do acknowledge it and try to moderate my behavior behind the wheel.
To a motorist, a cyclist is a momentary hassle, at worst. To a cyclist, a motorist signifies looming death or injury. For every cyclist you deal with daily as a motorist, the dedicated cyclist deals with hundreds of motorists (and their cars) of varying ability to drive, many of whom either don’t care or don’t think or are easily distracted. Think about how that might give a cyclist an “axe to grind,” especially when (s)he deals with inconsideration and hostility (and a false sense of entitlement),backed up by a multi-ton battering ram, day in and day out. It adds up. Nosing up too closely on or beside a cyclist is the driver’s way of showing his/her “power” and, often, contempt; it’s that simple.
Our “true enemies” would never, as a whole, “listen” to us (we don’t want to be heard, just respected)just because we acted sweet and nice and servile, even if they were paying attention. It just doesn’t work that way. But that’s what laws are supposed to do; force respect where it’s due but lacking. And you were breaking the law.
You say you agree with me completely. That’s great to hear. But agreeing and behaving can be two different things.
I’ve overposted here, so this is my last one. Consider this horse dead AND beaten. Hope to see you out there on two wheels.
April 8, 2011 at 11:29 am
Yes, indeed, it is my intent to promote open discussion. Everything I have done demonstrates that. Yet you feel the need to lecture me on that principle. (By the way, I am frustrated that these kinds of discussions rarely break out when I write about politics. Sigh.)
And that that’s my point, Blue-Eyed: the horse is dead and beaten. Over the past week, I have analyzed my own behavior, respectfully received and approved for posting, comments that ranged from nasty to (as in your case) constructive. I have learned from all of this and repeatedly declared that I’ve learned.
My problem at this point — even with your clearly constructive intent — is that you won’t take “yes” for an answer. You continue to lecture me, pound into me, points that I have already accepted.
Yes, agreeing and behaving are two different things. But further hectoring cannot predict or modify my future behavior. The only thing that can do that is my personal commitment to build on the respect I’ve always had for cyclists by being even more diligent.
You and others seem to consider my having come too close to the cyclist at that first stop as evidence of ill intent, a dangerous pattern of disregard, etc. It was a mistake, pure and simple. Indeed, a mistake that put another human being at risk, or — at least — caused him anguish. But still a mistake.
Does that make me a hazardous driver overall and a menace to bikes? Hardly. Does it make me uniquely dangerous? Ask that question of pedestrians in downtown DC who have been nearly mowed down by speeding (and oblivious) bike messengers. No driver or cyclist is perfect. Some are better than others. We all make mistakes. The best of us learn from mistakes and redouble efforts to do better next time.
One problem that clearly needs tackling is the apparent assumption among cyclists that drivers know the rules of the road. I doubt very much that most do. Certainly, when I went to drivers ed 35 years ago, there was nothing in there about bikes. So, most of us who come too close or don’t allow you to “take the lane” are not hostile to you or indifferent to your safety, but rather poorly informed.
I don’t need to close the conversation with you at this point. I don’t think the two of us are adversaries; rather, we are having some difficulty fully grasping our mutual understanding. I’d be delighted to speak with you live. Drop me an email (lefthandview@kberner.us) with your phone number and I’ll give you a call. In fact, why not get together for coffee or drinks. You could bring some other cyclists and we could have a good conversation about how to promote car-bike safety.
April 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Blue:
Please check out my brand-new post on this topic: http://lefthandview.wordpress.com/
–Keith
April 11, 2011 at 1:58 pm
[...] the first post here and his follow up in whole here. Posted on April 11, 2011 by Lindsey. This entry was posted in DC [...]
April 12, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Geez, I know bikers have some legit grievances but based on some of the comments I’ve read there are a lot of hostile, whiny, and self-righteous people out there on bikes. Just for the record…bike vs. Car = bike loses…period. Even if you have the moral high ground it makes no practical sense to force the issue. IF (and only if), a biker forces a kinetic showdown with an automobile, and/or initiates a physical altercation with a driver (who has not hit them first) then they deserve their injuries. If the driver hits the biker then he deserves prosecution…or if it was intentional, an a**whipping as well. But the anti-driver vitriol is b.s. pure and simple
April 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm
You should not have been occupying the same lane as a bicycle. If your description is true, the cyclist was not properly asserting his place in the lane.
Perhaps you were confused about his intentions and didn’t know if he was turning right or going straight but it sounds like you nudged your car in there and you happened to have messed with the wrong dude. People get emotional when you are pushing them around with a 1/2 ton piece of steel. You should probably chalk your hurt feelings up to another lesson learned. I’m glad you and the cyclist were not injured.