Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 92
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541

    Agressive Driver Warning

    OK... while not mountain bike related, my rant is about biking in the FR and nearly being plowed into by a total A-hole who had a MT bike in his pickup and was driving to Hall Ranch, Antelope Trail head.

    Here's the situation:

    I am riding along with 2 other dudes on Apple Valley road headed out of Lyons and there is no traffic, like most days at 12:15PM. The three of us are on roadbikes, 2 in front, 1 behind in a tight grouping that is NOT taking up too much road.

    A dude in a HUGE old (70's era something, bluish/rust coloroed) dualie pickup buzzes us about 1 foot away; clearly he's not a fan of roadies. at the last second, he cuts it even closer forcing the dude in the left front position to swerve into the dude in the right front position, who road (momentarily) off the road. Luckily, we all have good bike handling skills and no one went down.

    Now, I've been buzzed by loads of cars and accept this as part of the bargin, but there are a few things that really bother me about this incident:

    1. Apple valley road has NO traffic mid-day, mid week
    2. We are with in the law being 2-abreast
    3. He had plenty of room to pass us
    4. HE HAD A FVCKING BIKE IN HIS TRUCK!!!!!!
    5. He made no indication that he even saw us or cared, so this was intentional

    So, watch out for this dude. Here's the best description I can give you:
    -70's or 80s dualie long bed pick up, blue with rusty patches
    -Rides a silver/champagne colored Motobicane mountain bike (on an upright bed rack)
    -Rides at Hall Ranch, Antelope Trail.
    -Probably a total A-Hole in regular life as well

    I didn't get the plate as I was too busy trying not to crash into my riding buddies.

    Thanks a lot dude, you're a real winner!

  2. #2
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,886
    Just curious, if you knew where he was going to and you were close by...

    Why did you go the internet sandy vag route instead of making a stop @ the TH to say "hello" to said driver?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541

    I thought about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR
    Just curious, if you knew where he was going to and you were close by...

    Why did you go the internet sandy vag route instead of making a stop @ the TH to say "hello" to said driver?
    I "assume" he went to the Antelope Trail head, but maybe he didn't go there... it wasn't really possible to catch up to him. I debated doing that (and a few other modifications to said truck), but in the end just needed (for time's sake) to get back to work.

    I thought posting here might serve as a warning to other cyclist in the Lyons area.

    PS - I don't really know what "sandy vag" means, but I'm sure it's not flattering.

  4. #4
    I think I can.
    Reputation: JOEMTBR COLORADO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,241

    Well that sucks

    I can relate and don't understand drivers who show no respect for a fellow rider.

    Just cuz I am a curious kind of guy, were you riding 2x1 in a designated bike lane or were you left of the white line?

    Dam,
    Bikes are FUN

  5. #5
    imaorobbie
    Guest
    ...ina?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by JOEMTBR COLORADO
    I can relate and don't understand drivers who show no respect for a fellow rider.

    Just cuz I am a curious kind of guy, were you riding 2x1 in a designated bike lane or were you left of the white line?
    Apple Valley road has no bike lane. No doubt that single file would be better, but there was PLENTY of room and 2x is legal. Also, there is just about nothing right of the white line except a 3" drop off into the bushes and dirt.

  7. #7
    rubber side down
    Reputation: russman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by JOEMTBR COLORADO
    I can relate and don't understand drivers who show no respect for a fellow rider.

    Just cuz I am a curious kind of guy, were you riding 2x1 in a designated bike lane or were you left of the white line?
    Not sure this question has any bearing since by law motorists are required to give 3 feet to cyclists when passing...

    This kind of situation sucks, and, unfortunately because society is for the most part, intolerant of anyone who is not like them. Sucks. Like it's THAT hard to respect fellow cyclists, much less fellow humans.
    R

  8. #8
    Total Goober
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    886
    "5. He made no indication that he even saw us or cared, so this was intentional"

    Okay...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541

    hm ok a minor correction

    Quote Originally Posted by BigSteve in CO
    "5. He made no indication that he even saw us or cared, so this was intentional"

    Okay...
    was intentional --> seemed intentional

  10. #10
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,530
    Quote Originally Posted by yogidave
    was intentional --> seemed intentional
    Doesn't matter. Negligence is no excuse, and death/injuries are permanent.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: karpiel666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,124
    I'm assuming you all had a single, red reflector facing rearwards, if not, you broke the law as well. You can't have it both ways, if you pick and chose which laws to follow, why cant he?


    You stop at every stop sign and always use had signals, right?

    Learn to share the road, buddy.


    I assume riders who aren't following the law wont care if I don't either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qatarbhoy
    I have to ask for them to do a "Number two" on my head

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541

    Reflector....No

    Quote Originally Posted by karpiel666
    I'm assuming you all had a single, red reflector facing rearwards, if not, you broke the law as well. You can't have it both ways, if you pick and chose which laws to follow, why cant he?


    You stop at every stop sign and always use had signals, right?

    Learn to share the road, buddy.


    I assume riders who aren't following the law wont care if I don't either.
    Stop @ signs? ... yes
    Hand signals ?... yes.

    I don't enjoy pissing off motorists and do share the road.

    In fact, I've been known to get really annoyed at road cyclist that don't share the road, but I don't try to hit them, yell at them or engage them with my vehicle. I just go around them.

    So are you saying that a 5,000# truck has more right of way than a 185# ride (bike + person) and that a reflector is the arbitrator of right vs wrong? Like it or not, there is a hierarchy of right of way.

    Hmmm.... that sounds a little, crazy.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    601
    I'm not justifying this guy's behavior, but why do you feel you are "with in the law being 2-abreast"?

    I think if you're 2-abreast and on the left of the white line, you need to get in single-file when traffic is approaching.

  14. #14
    rubber side down
    Reputation: russman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs
    I'm not justifying this guy's behavior, but why do you feel you are "with in the law being 2-abreast"?

    I think if you're 2-abreast and on the left of the white line, you need to get in single-file when traffic is approaching.
    Splitting hairs, no? So they were 2 abreast at a particular point in the road, so that gives this a$$clown the ok to do buzz them with his monster truck? Again, it goes back to respect. There's precious little of it to go around. Like it's THAT hard to step on a brake a little, then when it's all clear, give the cyclists a wide berth, and be 5 seconds late to wherever he was going. Laziness-pure and simple. Would he have REALLY made his point if he had knocked 1 or 2 of them over, or god forbid-seriously injured one of them?

    R

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by russman
    Splitting hairs, no? So they were 2 abreast at a particular point in the road, so that gives this a$$clown the ok to do buzz them with his monster truck? Again, it goes back to respect. There's precious little of it to go around. Like it's THAT hard to step on a brake a little, then when it's all clear, give the cyclists a wide berth, and be 5 seconds late to wherever he was going. Laziness-pure and simple. Would he have REALLY made his point if he had knocked 1 or 2 of them over, or god forbid-seriously injured one of them?

    R

    Uhhh, I did note that I wasn't justifying the drivers behavior...

    Read the comments on any article in 9News or the Post about cycling and you'll see a bunch of disgruntled drivers. One of the things they ALWAYS complain about is roadies riding two or more abreast.

    So, my point is that YogiDave may not have been following the law in this case, and giving drivers something to rightfully complain about.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    352
    If you can get the license #, probably the best thing is the *CSP aggressive driver number. It gets the guy in the "system". Makes his defense tougher should a future similar incident end poorly... In fact, there was a case where reports of aggressive driving were used to get a conviction for first degree murder against a guy who repeatedly did stuff like this.

    Here's the link regarding the murder case and other information: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=63729.

    The Colorado State Patrol's Star CSP (*277) aggressive driver program was implemented on July 1, 1998. The CSP partnered with several cellular companies to provide a phone number, free of charge, to be used by motorists to report "real time" aggressive driving behavior. The phone number is Star CSP (*277). Since the program was started, the CSP has received more than 230,000 reports of aggressive drivers.

    Some examples of aggressive driving behaviors are moving violations that put other motorists at risk, such as improper lane changes, following too closely, weaving, passing on the shoulder, and speeding.

    When observing an aggressive driver that is putting other motorists at risk, the aggressive driver should be avoided by getting out of the way, not making eye contact or giving any indication of disapproval of their driving behavior. Contact the CSP as soon as is safely possible and be prepared to provide the following information: vehicle description, license plate number, location and direction of travel, driver description, and the aggressive driving behavior being demonstrated.

    The information provided is entered into an aggressive driver database. After three complaints are received against a vehicle, the registered owner is sent a warning letter advising them of the complaints and encouraging them to take the necessary steps to correct the aggressive driving behavior. If additional complaints are received against the vehicle, a uniformed CSP member makes personal contact

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    280
    yogi,
    That sucks. While on my road bike I've been buzzed, yelled at and even bumped off the road (while riding to the right of the white line, single file). I know how you feel.
    But Wiggs is right, sort of. Unfortunately the language of the law is rather ambiguous and interpretation subjective.

    "Colorado Statutes : TITLE 42 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : ARTICLE 4 REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : PART 14 OTHER OFFENSES : 42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.
    (6) (a) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES UPON A ROADWAY SHALL NOT RIDE MORE THAN TWO ABREAST EXCEPT ON PATHS OR PARTS OF ROADWAYS SET ASIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF BICYCLES.
    (b) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES TWO ABREAST SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND REASONABLE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND, ON A LANED ROADWAY, SHALL RIDE WITHIN A SINGLE LANE."

    What is "... NORMAL and REASONABLE..."?

    IMHO. On a narrow road with blind corners, like Apple Valley, there's not really enough time for cyclists riding two abreast to react to traffic coming up from behind and go single file without traffic having to cross into the oncoming lane before overtaking and giving three feet.

  18. #18
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,530
    Quote Originally Posted by ajdonner
    yogi,
    What is "... NORMAL and REASONABLE..."?
    IMHO. On a narrow road with blind corners, like Apple Valley, there's not really enough time for cyclists riding two abreast to react to traffic coming up from behind and go single file without traffic having to cross into the oncoming lane before overtaking and giving three feet.
    We went through this a few weeks back.

    The law also clearly states that it is up to the bike rider to determine when he needs extra space, not the driver of a vehicle.

    "Section 5.1. If the right-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so"

    Try as hard as you want. There is absolutely no circumstance in which a driver should be able to use their vehicle as a battering ram to try and "push" someone riding a bike out of their way. If you believe you have the right as a motorist to intimidate people on bikes using a weapon(vehicle), then someone needs to take your car keys and drivers license away.

    Give yogi a break, he just wanted to vent a little.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs
    I'm not justifying this guy's behavior, but why do you feel you are "with in the law being 2-abreast"?

    I think if you're 2-abreast and on the left of the white line, you need to get in single-file when traffic is approaching.
    single file is required only if riding two abreast impedes traffic. If there is no oncoming traffic at all, or if it is still possible to pass safely with only a minimal delay, then you're not impeding traffic. The law does not say that you have to ride single file so that a driver can pass without any delay or slowing until safe to pass whatsoever.

  20. #20
    I think I can.
    Reputation: JOEMTBR COLORADO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,241

    Prudent and Safe

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail
    Try as hard as you want. There is absolutely no circumstance in which a driver should be able to use their vehicle as a battering ram to try and "push" someone riding a bike out of their way. If you believe you have the right as a motorist to intimidate people on bikes using a weapon(vehicle), then someone needs to take your car keys and drivers license away.

    Give yogi a break, he just wanted to vent a little.
    UT your correct, the only intention of my question was that after reading the OP's original comment he felt he was in the right, right or wrong Truck>Bike any day. As for me, riding road or mountain on a dirt road our group always folds into single file when traffic is around or the road narrows with blind corners. A narrow two lane road is no place to ride 2 abreast, IMHO
    Be aware of your surrounding at all times, don't wear head phones on the road and ride defensively, we don't need to read about another fellow rider being run down by stupidity

    Be safe brother.

    Dam,
    Bikes are FUN

  21. #21
    VooDoo user.
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    Personally I don't like to push my luck with cars..
    if I'm on a road with no shoulder and I hear a car back my friends and I single up. Law or no law 2 wide on a road with no shoulder is not too smart. There are just way too many people txting, chatting, not paying attention, and there also the ones who think roadies just flat out suk so they crowd or run you off the road.

    Just my useless opinion an one that has kept me alive so far.

  22. #22
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by mudge
    single file is required only if riding two abreast impedes traffic. If there is no oncoming traffic at all, or if it is still possible to pass safely with only a minimal delay, then you're not impeding traffic. The law does not say that you have to ride single file so that a driver can pass without any delay or slowing until safe to pass whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by ajdonner
    yogi,
    That sucks. While on my road bike I've been buzzed, yelled at and even bumped off the road (while riding to the right of the white line, single file). I know how you feel.
    But Wiggs is right, sort of. Unfortunately the language of the law is rather ambiguous and interpretation subjective.

    "Colorado Statutes : TITLE 42 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : ARTICLE 4 REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC : PART 14 OTHER OFFENSES : 42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.
    (6) (a) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES UPON A ROADWAY SHALL NOT RIDE MORE THAN TWO ABREAST EXCEPT ON PATHS OR PARTS OF ROADWAYS SET ASIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF BICYCLES.
    (b) PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES TWO ABREAST SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND REASONABLE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND, ON A LANED ROADWAY, SHALL RIDE WITHIN A SINGLE LANE."
    What is "... NORMAL and REASONABLE..."?

    IMHO. On a narrow road with blind corners, like Apple Valley, there's not really enough time for cyclists riding two abreast to react to traffic coming up from behind and go single file without traffic having to cross into the oncoming lane before overtaking and giving three feet.
    Ride Single File!

    Normal and reasonable are not the issue on that road. It is a laned roadway, so you are supposed to ride single file. [Laned roadway: A roadway which is divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic.]

    I see it all the time here up north. It seems that a lot of roadies (and half-assed, weekend warrior roadies) seem to think the 3' law entitles them to ride however the h3ll they like. This includes riding 2 abreast, and riding outside existing bike lanes. This only infuriates the people who don't want us on the road anyway, and worse, gives them the feeling that they are entitled to bi-tch at us, buzz us, and run us off the road.

    Let's face it, we are at a massive disadvantage to as-sclowns in trucks so maybe we ought to ride within the law and not with a sense of entitlement.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by mudge
    single file is required only if riding two abreast impedes traffic. If there is no oncoming traffic at all, or if it is still possible to pass safely with only a minimal delay, then you're not impeding traffic. The law does not say that you have to ride single file so that a driver can pass without any delay or slowing until safe to pass whatsoever.
    There are very few places on that road where you have enough visibility to pass 2 cyclists riding abreast. I don't know if that qualifies as "impeding traffic." That said the road is primarily used by cyclists (road and mtn.) and the locals and as such is pretty mellow. This guy obviously has a problem and decided to take it out on you. It probably would have been worthwhile to roll up to the Antelope TH and say something.

    I can't believe there are people saying that it's ok to run someone off the road. That is just ridiculous.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    280
    UncleTrail,
    Since you quoted me, let me respond. At no point in my most did I support the idea that motorists have the right to intimidate people on bikes. In fact, I empathized with yogidave since I have been on the receiving end of motorists aggression while riding my bike. My intent was to provide reference to the CO law Wiggs mentioned, to point out that it does not necessarily give cyclists carte blanche to ride side by side, and that the vague wording can, unfortunately, lead to different real-world interpretations. Lastly, I stated I would choose to ride single file up Apple Valley as it is my opinion that riding two abreast, on that road, might impede the "normal and reasonable movement of traffic" [Edit to add] and seems unsafe.

  25. #25
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Oddly enough, I've NEVER been buzzed, bothered, intimidated or any of the like by a vehicle while riding ON TRAILS!!

    I'll never understand the desire of people to ride a bike on a road filled with jackasses. People are scary enough when you're in a car, why in the hell would you ride next to them on purpose on a bike????

    Sorry, I'll just never understand road biking. Still, in the future, take checkred's advice, and call the guy in. If someone attempts to injure you, DO SOMETHING (like, aside from whining about it on the intreweb) that may keep it from happening to other riders.

    Btw, road geeks that ride 2 abreast when cars are around are a pain in the ass.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    Meh.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by mtn hack
    Ride Single File!

    Normal and reasonable are not the issue on that road. It is a laned roadway, so you are supposed to ride single file. [Laned roadway: A roadway which is divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic.]

    I see it all the time here up north. It seems that a lot of roadies (and half-assed, weekend warrior roadies) seem to think the 3' law entitles them to ride however the h3ll they like. This includes riding 2 abreast, and riding outside existing bike lanes. This only infuriates the people who don't want us on the road anyway, and worse, gives them the feeling that they are entitled to bi-tch at us, buzz us, and run us off the road.

    Let's face it, we are at a massive disadvantage to as-sclowns in trucks so maybe we ought to ride within the law and not with a sense of entitlement.

    You clearly don't understand the law. It says you may not ride more than two abreast, and shall not ride two abreast when impeding traffic. Impeding traffic does not mean that a driver has to slow until safe to pass, or that they have to cross the center line to avoid striking the cyclists. Impeding traffic means that you've essentially brought traffic to a stop because the conditions just flat don't allow passing.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    No one dead. No one injured. No one hit. No equipment damaged. No big deal; welcome to road riding.

  29. #29
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    Oddly enough, I've NEVER been buzzed, bothered, intimidated or any of the like by a vehicle while riding ON TRAILS!!

    I'll never understand the desire of people to ride a bike on a road filled with jackasses. People are scary enough when you're in a car, why in the hell would you ride next to them on purpose on a bike????

    Sorry, I'll just never understand road biking. Still, in the future, take checkred's advice, and call the guy in. If someone attempts to injure you, DO SOMETHING (like, aside from whining about it on the intreweb) that may keep it from happening to other riders.

    Btw, road geeks that ride 2 abreast when cars are around are a pain in the ass.
    He's not whining about it. He's giving fair warning to his fellow cyclists.
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  30. #30
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by concretejungle
    I can't believe there are people saying that it's ok to run someone off the road. That is just ridiculous.
    As my Dad always said, "Son, you know how stupid the average person is? Well half of them are dumber than that."
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  31. #31
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by mudge
    You clearly don't understand the law. It says you may not ride more than two abreast, and shall not ride two abreast when impeding traffic. Impeding traffic does not mean that a driver has to slow until safe to pass, or that they have to cross the center line to avoid striking the cyclists. Impeding traffic means that you've essentially brought traffic to a stop because the conditions just flat don't allow passing.
    So, you think it's ok to slow traffic from 55-65 down to the speed that you're riding...

    Not to say that I agree with the guy that the op mentioned... but I can understand how you end up disliking road geek to the point of WANTING to run them off the road... when they think like this guy.
    Don't try to come up here & try to prove your point about what's legal, there's a lot of those rednecks in big trucks that would be happy to disagree with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yogidave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    541

    We didn't know he was there

    Or we would have gone single file.... He didn't give us the chance to go single. That's our lunch ride guideline.... we all have no wish to tangle with big bertha the dualie.....

    That said, we where NOT impeding traffic in any way shape or form at where going about 80% of the speed limit.

    As as to the comment about the law calling for a reflector.... WTF good would that have done? If it was at night, he might have seen it, but I'm going out on a limb here to say that in mid-day, the mere presence of a reflector would not have made him drive any differently.

    Flame away. OP out!

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    13
    Regardless if it's legal or not use some common sense. That road's pretty narrow.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jchull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    68
    Next time dial *CSP with the plate number, if he learns his lesson, you might be saving another cyclist's life.

  35. #35
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,530
    Quote Originally Posted by jchull
    Next time dial *CSP with the plate number, if he learns his lesson, you might be saving another cyclist's life.
    Maybe someone else had had a better experience reporting aggressive drivers? I would love to know.

    Here was my experience.

    "Hello, CSP"

    "Hello, I was riding my bike down a street in downtown C/S and a guy in a pickup coming down a side street and ran his stop sign while looking right at me, almost hitting me on purpose. I had to skid to avoid crashing into the side of his truck. When I caught up to him and asked him why he ran the stop sign, he threatened me. I have his license plate number and vehicle description for you."

    "Sorry sir. You'll need to call your local PD. There's nothing we can do about that."

    "Isn't this the hot line to report aggressive drivers?"

    "Yes sir. But you were on a bicycle and you'll need to contact your local PD. There's nothing we can do."

    Give it a try sometime. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did?

  36. #36
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,530
    Quote Originally Posted by DWF
    As my Dad always said, "Son, you know how stupid the average person is? Well half of them are dumber than that."
    ROFL

    You should add, "and drunk or stoned."


    My bet is the OP's driver was throwing back an ice cold 12oz Bud Light. The bike was for gettin' to the fishin' hole.

  37. #37
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail

    "Sorry sir. You'll need to call your local PD. There's nothing we can do about that."

    Wow. I guess not all of those stupid people are out on the road... some of them answer phones for CSP. What the hell is the difference if a jerk runs a car off the road compared to running a bike off the road??? Oh yeah, you're much more likely to be injured on the bike compared to the car.

    That's a real shame.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jchull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    68
    I should know better than to think they would do something, but I was tricked
    http://bicyclecolo.org/page.cfm?pageId=731

    Perhaps if enough people share their experience with the hotline with Bicycle Colorado? Wishful thinking, I know.

  39. #39
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    So, you think it's ok to slow traffic from 55-65 down to the speed that you're riding...

    Not to say that I agree with the guy that the op mentioned... but I can understand how you end up disliking road geek to the point of WANTING to run them off the road... when they think like this guy.
    Don't try to come up here & try to prove your point about what's legal, there's a lot of those rednecks in big trucks that would be happy to disagree with you.
    Ever get behind a piece of heavy equipment on the road? Farm tractor? Combine? Grandma in a motorhome? Person walking on the side of the road way? What difference does it make? You don't pass until it's safe to do so. That's the driver's responsibility, not the passee's.
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  40. #40
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by concretejungle
    I can't believe there are people saying that it's ok to run someone off the road. That is just ridiculous.

    A sad state of affairs.

    It doesn't matter if cyclists are riding 10 abreast, that doesn't give the driver the right to try and kill them.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    So, you think it's ok to slow traffic from 55-65 down to the speed that you're riding...

    Not to say that I agree with the guy that the op mentioned... but I can understand how you end up disliking road geek to the point of WANTING to run them off the road... when they think like this guy.
    Don't try to come up here & try to prove your point about what's legal, there's a lot of those rednecks in big trucks that would be happy to disagree with you.
    I don't particularly give a happy rat fart as to what those rednecks want to disagree about. I'm not suggesting that it's smart to ride in traffic in such a way as to slow traffic from 55-65 down to whatever. I was making a factual point about what the law states.

    As for people who think like me, you should know that I've been riding the roads for over 25 years and get buzzed by drivers so rarely that I can't remember the last time it happened. I ride defensively and predictably. I don't run red lights or stop signs, I use hand signals when there are cars present, and I don't ride any further to the left than I really need to, but I do NOT hug the curb. If you follow the laws, ride sensibly, and behave like you have a right to be there, it's really pretty simple to co-exist w/ drivers.
    Last edited by mudge; 07-08-2010 at 10:51 PM.

  42. #42
    trail waggler
    Reputation: daveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,425

    So...

    You were on Apple Valley at lunch...if you were riding Hall Ranch, I doubt that you would've had a problem (no duellies allowed).

    Wait...is this RoadBikeReview?
    MY dog can lick YOUR dog!

  43. #43
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by mudge
    You clearly don't understand the law. It says you may not ride more than two abreast, and shall not ride two abreast when impeding traffic. Impeding traffic does not mean that a driver has to slow until safe to pass, or that they have to cross the center line to avoid striking the cyclists. Impeding traffic means that you've essentially brought traffic to a stop because the conditions just flat don't allow passing.
    You need to read the law in its entirety.

    The section that supercedes the "2 abreast" portion states;

    (5) (a) ANY PERSON OPERATING A BICYCLE UPON A ROADWAY AT LESS THAN THE NORMAL SPEED OF TRAFFIC SHALL RIDE IN THE RIGHT-HAND LANE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:


    (I) IF THE RIGHT-HAND LANE THEN AVAILABLE FOR TRAFFIC IS WIDE ENOUGH TO BE SAFELY SHARED WITH OVERTAKING VEHICLES, A BICYCLIST SHALL RIDE FAR ENOUGH TO THE RIGHT AS JUDGED SAFE BY THE BICYCLIST TO FACILITATE THE MOVEMENT OF SUCH OVERTAKING VEHICLES UNLESS OTHER CONDITIONS MAKE IT UNSAFE TO DO SO.

    A) There is no way riding 2 abreast allows the road to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles.

    B) If cyclists choose to push this issue, we are asking for the next anti-cycling politician to put hard and fast defintions to "impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic".

    & C) Bicycle Colorado suggests the SIDE-BY-SIDE RULE: Ride no more than two abreast; move to single-file if riding two abreast impedes the flow of motorized traffic. On curving canyon roads without bike lanes or shoulders, play it safe and ride single file


    They also suggest following the 3-2-1 Code..

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    118
    The driver sounds like a real a**hole but...

    If I remember correctly--and I may not--there is a sign on Apple Valley road that says something to the effect of "Bikes ride single file"

    ...which could possibly explain his vindictive a**rage, though not necessarily justify it.

  45. #45
    hehe ...you said "member"
    Reputation: jake7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail

    "Isn't this the hot line to report aggressive drivers?"

    "Yes sir. But you were on a bicycle and you'll need to contact your local PD. There's nothing we can do."

    Give it a try sometime. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did?
    Outstanding
    Sadly this is not supprising ... and likely not too far off from the response you may have received after contacting the PD ... bummer.
    “Me fail english? Thats unpossible.” - Matt Groening

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by mtn hack
    You need to read the law in its entirety.

    The section that supercedes the "2 abreast" portion states;

    (5) (a) ANY PERSON OPERATING A BICYCLE UPON A ROADWAY AT LESS THAN THE NORMAL SPEED OF TRAFFIC SHALL RIDE IN THE RIGHT-HAND LANE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:


    (I) IF THE RIGHT-HAND LANE THEN AVAILABLE FOR TRAFFIC IS WIDE ENOUGH TO BE SAFELY SHARED WITH OVERTAKING VEHICLES, A BICYCLIST SHALL RIDE FAR ENOUGH TO THE RIGHT AS JUDGED SAFE BY THE BICYCLIST TO FACILITATE THE MOVEMENT OF SUCH OVERTAKING VEHICLES UNLESS OTHER CONDITIONS MAKE IT UNSAFE TO DO SO.

    A) There is no way riding 2 abreast allows the road to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles.

    B) If cyclists choose to push this issue, we are asking for the next anti-cycling politician to put hard and fast defintions to "impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic".

    & C) Bicycle Colorado suggests the SIDE-BY-SIDE RULE: Ride no more than two abreast; move to single-file if riding two abreast impedes the flow of motorized traffic. On curving canyon roads without bike lanes or shoulders, play it safe and ride single file


    They also suggest following the 3-2-1 Code..
    Geez, I sure hope you're not an attorney.

    So, exactly what about those parts you've highlighted prevent, or even suggest, that riding two abreast isn't allowed? As I look at your item A), it appears to me that you believe that safely passing means that the car has the full 3 ft required w/out crossing the center line while passing. What the red highlighted section means is that if the lane is NOT wide enough for you to ride to the right while allowing a car room to pass with the required 3 ft in a fashion that you the rider deem safe, you are not obligated to try and make it safe by riding too far to the right (a common misconception of drivers, and apparently roadie-hating mountainbikers).

    There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a cyclist to ride so far to the right as to be a hazard to themselves, and nothing that says you must ride so far to the right that a car can pass w/out crossing the center line to do so. Are you suggesting that riding two abreast can not be done without extending all the way into the left lane (the only way that riding two abreast can be done while allowing safe passing). Cars have, and should exercise, the option to move as far into the left lane as necessary to insure the 3 ft buffer while passing. They do it all the time when passing other cars, you know, and there's no reason that a driver should ever try to squeeze by a cyclist w/out at least crossing the center line, at least in part if not fully, while passing a cyclist. What your red highlighted portion states is that IF the cyclist feels that the lane is wide enough that he can safely ride far enough to the right that a car can pass w/ out crossing the center line, he should do so. That does not in any way put an obligation on the cyclist to ride in the gutter just so as to not inconvenience a driver in any way, such as requiring them to slow until it is safe to pass. The courts have never found that 'impeding' traffic includes a momentary slowing of a vehicle while waiting for a safe passing opportunity.

    As the law is written, it is the obligation of the driver to wait behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass, yet it does not state nor imply that if it is not possible to pass w/out crossing the center line and still have the required 3 ft, then forget the 3 ft and just squeeze by. As for practical application, if you are one of those riders who tries to make it easy on drivers to pass by squeezing over as far as possible, all you're doing is putting yourself at greater risk and encouraging drivers to pass you in an unsafe manner. You have a right to the safe usage of the lane which does not include being forced to grovel in the gutter. Take a reasonable portion of the lane and ride like you a right to be there ('cause you do).

    As for your statement that we as cyclists shouldn't push the issue(s) for fear of a backlash from the driving public, well... that's just nuts. With proper education everyone involved can come to understand the law and accept it for what it's intended, that being a way that everyone can exercise their rights w/out unduly affecting others.

  47. #47
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by DWF
    Ever get behind a piece of heavy equipment on the road? Farm tractor? Combine? Grandma in a motorhome? Person walking on the side of the road way? What difference does it make? You don't pass until it's safe to do so. That's the driver's responsibility, not the passee's.
    Agreed completely. I'm not saying it's right to run people off the road, what I am saying is that if road geeks want to ride in the self righteous fashion of trying to show how important they are & that they "have a right" to be a f***ing nuisance, things like this will happen.

    If you want to take common sense out of the equation, sure, it's legal to ride two abreast on a narrow winding road, but the reality is, it's stupid & irresponsible.

    Mudge, obviously you don't ride in the manner you suggest is allowed by law if you have no problems co-existing with vehicular traffic. Obviously you ride with more common sense than the argument you're making suggests.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  48. #48
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,939
    CSP is Colorado State Patrol for DUI and agressive drives on state and federal highways. Not much they can do about a jerk on nevada. Im sure the call would have different if you called from your car on I-25. It did not have anything to do with what you were riding it was more of the placement of your call. Not putting a dog in the fight just pointing things out so that the local or state people trying to help are not under attack next in internet flame wars.

    Also remeber that bikers are guest on the roads, roads were built for cars. Ride like a guest unless your the guy that go to friends house and walks in and grabs a beer and slaps your buddys wife on the ass and sits down and changes the channel on the tv cause its your right to watch what you want and do what you want cause doing all these things in not technicaly against the law * just stupidcause you are a guest and pretty sure you will make the owner of the house and remote mad.


    *(well expect slapping wife, but you can choose which laws to follow as long as it suits your needs)

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    Agreed completely. I'm not saying it's right to run people off the road, what I am saying is that if road geeks want to ride in the self righteous fashion of trying to show how important they are & that they "have a right" to be a f***ing nuisance, things like this will happen.

    If you want to take common sense out of the equation, sure, it's legal to ride two abreast on a narrow winding road, but the reality is, it's stupid & irresponsible.

    Mudge, obviously you don't ride in the manner you suggest is allowed by law if you have no problems co-existing with vehicular traffic. Obviously you ride with more common sense than the argument you're making suggests.
    Sorry, but no... I don't have problems with traffic and I do in fact ride within my rights as outlined in the law. It's not mutually exclusive. The key is to not push it. Yeah, the law says you have the right to the entire lane if safety conditions warrant it, but it rarely happens that way. So, unless I'm descending somewhere where I can clearly maintain the speed limit (not just a normal speed) or if it's a street with a really low speed limit where I can keep up w/ the reasonable flow of traffic, I don't ride too far into the lane. But, I ride far enough into the lane that a driver must cross the center line. Maybe not fully into the left lane, but at least across it. Riding so far to the right as to encourage a driver to try to pass w/out crossing the center line puts you at significantly greater risk. I just won't do it. Of course, I recognize that while in a practical sense it doesn't matter if I'm 3 ft from the gutter or smack dab in the center of the lane, if you do ride further into the lane than necessary all it does is piss people off. So, I don't.

    I've learned some tricks over the years, too. For example, when you have a car that has slowed behind you to wait till it's safe to pass, give 'em a polite wave with the left hand as they start to pass (you can tell from the engine noise when they're accelerating). It's a way of saying 'thanks for not running over me'. You'd be surprised how many drivers wave back. At a minimum you've created a tiny bit of good will.

    Speaking of tricks, want to know how to prevent the sort of hateful stares and sometimes rude or aggressive remarks you get while riding on bike paths and having to pass people out walking their dogs? Pay a compliment to their dog. In over a decade of doing that, not once has the dog owner failed to smile back at me or even say something nice in return. Instead of them resenting me, they smile and move over.

    Funny how civility can really go far in making things better.

  50. #50
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    Agreed completely. I'm not saying it's right to run people off the road, what I am saying is that if road geeks want to ride in the self righteous fashion of trying to show how important they are & that they "have a right" to be a f***ing nuisance, things like this will happen.

    If you want to take common sense out of the equation, sure, it's legal to ride two abreast on a narrow winding road, but the reality is, it's stupid & irresponsible.

    Mudge, obviously you don't ride in the manner you suggest is allowed by law if you have no problems co-existing with vehicular traffic. Obviously you ride with more common sense than the argument you're making suggests.
    What's telling is how folks characterize road cyclists and how it reflects their bias. Cyclists are always portrayed by these types as self righteous geeks, fags, fairies, whatever (keeping in mind that these folks constantly state how dangerous it is to ride the road and how they're too scared to do it).

    So it comes down to this: a fellow cyclists gets brushed back by a motorist and you blame the cyclist and you defend the actions of the motorist because he's been inconvenienced by said cyclist. Hell, we all know that if you're inconvenienced while driving, that's just cause to endanger the life of some *** roadie. Come on, that's crazy right? It's like saying the woman got raped because she was asking for it by the clothes she wore.

    Cyclists have a legal right to safely travel on roads. They are not guests, second class citizens, or targets. They're cyclists, just like you.
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •