Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,882

    Maybe they'll put this guy away this time

    A blind man searches in a dark room for a black hat that isn't there. Dashiell Hammett

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,618
    Rant - not at all related to this incident:

    I've driven thru Boulder on my way up to Lyons on a weekend. The road riders out on that road seem to operate from a position of entitlement...2, 3, even 4 abreast, doing 15mph on a 35 zone, and taking up an entire lane on a two lane road NOT letting cars by. Those of you who've driven that road know it's hilly and passing just can't happen for good stretches. At those moments, I think I would applaud a snow plow coming by and scraped some of those entitled a-holes off the road! I road ride and there's no WAY I'd behave like this on roads...first and foremost on the basis of courtesy, and especially when my total mass of person and bike is just over 200lbs and a car's easily approaches 2000!

    Rant over.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  3. #3
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Rant - not at all related to this incident:

    I've driven thru Boulder on my way up to Lyons on a weekend. The road riders out on that road seem to operate from a position of entitlement...2, 3, even 4 abreast, doing 15mph on a 35 zone, and taking up an entire lane on a two lane road NOT letting cars by. Those of you who've driven that road know it's hilly and passing just can't happen for good stretches. At those moments, I think I would applaud a snow plow coming by and scraped some of those entitled a-holes off the road! I road ride and there's no WAY I'd behave like this on roads...first and foremost on the basis of courtesy, and especially when my total mass of person and bike is just over 200lbs and a car's easily approaches 2000!

    Rant over.
    Yeah, rants against people using the public roads on bicyles is not related to this incident at all. There's no doubt that many cyclists fail to fully comply with CRS 42-4-1412, just like the fact that most drivers don't comply with all laws. Picking out people in a vulnerable situation for even cartoonish statements of violence because you were likely delayed by, at most, a few minutes certainly establishes your high ground.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  4. #4
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    Call the Sheriff, don't murder them.

  5. #5
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,684
    First off, thoughts to friends and family of the fallen cyclist. This is tragic and completely avoidable. Sounds like he was a cautious rider.

    I carry eggs and use my horn. I dont use the car as a weapon, not even in pretend.
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,618
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    Call the Sheriff, don't murder them.
    No no, not murder... Just an mischievous grin to a "cartoonish" evil thought
    I'm twisted, not homicidal.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  7. #7
    Trail Prospector
    Reputation: Flyin_W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,573
    Posting this does little other than to ignite strong emotions.
    [VA's inside joke may be that the best way to legally off your spouse is to buy them a road bike. Jeez, even school kids do not have well-marked x-walks, or a guard on duty for a busy 4 lane road]

    I feel for the family's loss, and that this 73 yr old roadie was done wrong. Certainly most will agree this truck driver with proven anger management issues should be fried - yet this is a MTB forum. Those that choose to ride road know the risks, and if willing to accept the odds of a 23,000# truck vs. a 20# bike then he died doing what he loved.
    We can only hope that justice is served. Let's be safe out there getting to the trails...
    The best is the one you want to ride most often..

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    that dump truck driver looks a lot like the one who barged on me last week up there

    then again, all fat bastiches look alike to me

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,882
    That truck driver has a history now of killing at least one bicyclist and endangering another. We all know there are loaded guns driving around out there who will take somebody out when they feel like it.

    I was almost taken out by a taxi in downtown Denver a few days ago as I was crossing the street. I swear the guy accelerated and basically tried to hit me. An ******* who will kill somebody eventually.

    There was this driver I read about who used to harrass other drivers for perceived wrongs against him a few years ago. He even harrassed an off-duty cop, almost running him off the road. He got some minor wrist slap as punishment. A few weeks later he slammed his brakes on and forced a jeep onto oncoming traffic, killing the two guys in the jeep. His words while being briefed by police? "He had it coming".

    Just like the grudge this ******* truck driver has against bicyclists. I'm just hoping they lock him up and throw away the keys before he kills again. The Boulder court system will probably see him as a victim, though.
    Last edited by xcguy; 06-21-2011 at 12:28 PM.
    A blind man searches in a dark room for a black hat that isn't there. Dashiell Hammett

  10. #10
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    In the very least he'll most likely be charged with failure to yield causing bodily harm etc. Proving something like vehicular homicide or worse might be a trickier issue but we'll see. Pretty horrible for his wife and son and regardless of what he's guilty of, the driver of the truck. I've ridden Left Hand many times without any issue other than an occasional driver who didn't give as much room as they could have but I know there are more than a few people out there who can't stand the idea of anyone - motorist of cyclist - slowing them down. Since I usually drive more or less the speed limit, I have more issues with tailgater road ragers than people trying to run me over on my bike.

    Not to trivialize the incident, but when I think about it, it sounds as though he lived full and fit life. Although if he was riding up left hand he probably had some healthy years left in him, going out at 70+, on a bike sounds a lot better than going out in a hospital or nursing home with all kinds of chronic malidies related to an unhealthy lifestyle hooked up to all kinds of machines with tubes up the wazoo.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    The road riders out on that road seem to operate from a position of entitlement... At those moments, I think I would applaud a snow plow coming by and scraped some of those entitled a-holes off the road!
    This sounds like the same logic people use when justifying sexual assault with something like, "she dressed in a way that brought it on." Frankly, I find your commentary out-of-line, ignorant and offensive to the overall cycling community, mountain and road. This driver has a demonstrable history of hitting cyclists; for you to manipulate the tragedy and try to turn it into a self-serving pulpit for your personal grudges and frustrations is reprehensible. Remember, somebody died here. Do you really think this is justifiable, as your post suggests?

    To be clear, your post does not represent my voice. I also doubt your perspective is indicative of the majority of mtbrs. Unfortunately, you chose to post on a site that many people view as a reflection of our collective community, and therefore you may help propagate such views. What a shame.

  12. #12
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,146
    I'm surprised more road bikers don't get killed, trying to drive up LHC on a summer weekend is difficult. Many bikers obstruct traffic unnecessarily, which causes some drivers to get angry. Of course only a small number of road cyclists do this, but it does cause a lot of bad feelings. Everyone who lives up there or uses the road frequently is aware of the issue. It doesn't bother me TOO much, I'd rather be patient than risk lives, but this is the choice some of these riders force on motorists. Be patient and let some of them act like entitled d-bags or risk their lives. I hope both cyclists and motorists learn from this. Cyclists need to do everything they can to not impede the flow of traffic, and motorists need to have patience. Any other behavior is adding to the risk of horrible accidents or death. Unfortunately, there are both cyclists AND motorists responsible for intolerant acts that make incidents like this inevitable. Our ego IS NOT more important than other people's well being, no matter how much of a d-bag they are.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Of course only a small number of road cyclists do this, but it does cause a lot of bad feelings.
    This statement is so true... I live on Lee Hill and regularly drive both Lee Hill and LHC to Indian Peaks, Ned, etc. 99% of the riders are courteous and ride single file. And let's be honest, how much does it really slow you down to wait for a safe passing zone to give them some room.

    What kills me though are the teams that feel they can establish a critical mass and ride 2-3 abreast. They are not only endangering themselves, but the motorists they unncessarily force into the other lane to pass. Those a$$-hats create significant ill-will toward all road riders and I have to remind myself that just like fully-armored DH shuttlers on Apex, they are just a small db percentage.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,618
    Quote Originally Posted by dcubita View Post
    This sounds like the same logic people use when justifying sexual assault with something like, "she dressed in a way that brought it on." Frankly, I find your commentary out-of-line, ignorant and offensive to the overall cycling community, mountain and road. This driver has a demonstrable history of hitting cyclists; for you to manipulate the tragedy and try to turn it into a self-serving pulpit for your personal grudges and frustrations is reprehensible. Remember, somebody died here. Do you really think this is justifiable, as your post suggests?

    To be clear, your post does not represent my voice. I also doubt your perspective is indicative of the majority of mtbrs. Unfortunately, you chose to post on a site that many people view as a reflection of our collective community, and therefore you may help propagate such views. What a shame.
    It was solely because I knew you were going to be on here chiding me for being, "out-of-line, ignorant, and offensive" that I hijacked this thread with my raving lunacy. But who fed the troll?

    Looking at your post count, here's a clue about forums: my level of contribution is dependent upon my mood. I found out about this over the wknd, right after a road ride. Made me feel all sorts of not so warm and fuzzy. Then seeing this again at 7 am today... I felt like ranting, however misguided. My right in an open forum. You, have the right to put me on your ignore list. And when I actually contribute w/ pearls of wisdom gleaned from messing around with suspension, finding trails, or reporting on products, you can ignore that too. So with that, you have yourself a good afternoon and try not to get too bent out of shape about stated rants that have nothing to do w/ the topic at hand. You may live longer

    Edit: "rant somewhere else"? You can lick my hairy ballz!
    Last edited by Pau11y; 07-15-2011 at 10:02 AM.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  15. #15
    Abby Normal
    Reputation: Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    531
    "Wynn said investigators will use evidence only from Friday's crash in making a determination of fault. "These are two separate incidents," Wynn said Monday. "You can't hold someone accountable in one case for something that happened in another case."

    Errrm... I'm not a lawyer, but if someone has been proven guilty of endangering cyclists in the past how can that *not* be taken into consideration now that he is involved with the death of a cyclist?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zorro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Not to trivialize the incident, but when I think about it, it sounds as though he lived full and fit life. Although if he was riding up left hand he probably had some healthy years left in him, going out at 70+, on a bike sounds a lot better than going out in a hospital or nursing home with all kinds of chronic malidies related to an unhealthy lifestyle hooked up to all kinds of machines with tubes up the wazoo.
    Amen.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nitecrwlr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    293
    This is why I believe Mountain Biking is safer than riding on the road. I personally don't agree that a recreational sport should be allowed on a road with a narrow shoulder as it interferes with the intended purpose of the road - cars. I find it very difficult to avoid cyclists on some roads. A 3' space between cyclists and cars drives the car into oncoming traffic or forces the driver to come to a complete stop. This is especially dangerous on roads like Indiana in Arvada. I don't think the cyclist deserved to die but I can identify with the frustration some drivers have with cyclists on the road.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,882
    Quote Originally Posted by nitecrwlr View Post
    This is why I believe Mountain Biking is safer than riding on the road. I personally don't agree that a recreational sport should be allowed on a road with a narrow shoulder as it interferes with the intended purpose of the road - cars. I find it very difficult to avoid cyclists on some roads. A 3' space between cyclists and cars drives the car into oncoming traffic or forces the driver to come to a complete stop. This is especially dangerous on roads like Indiana in Arvada. I don't think the cyclist deserved to die but I can identify with the frustration some drivers have with cyclists on the road.
    I never rode on the road and always felt safer on the dirt. It's like roadies all have a secret deathwish. "Death by ******* Driver". What a way to go. There's plenty of *******s willing to take you out. At least when I'm in my vehicle I'm kinda sorta protected from all the crazies.
    A blind man searches in a dark room for a black hat that isn't there. Dashiell Hammett

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,618
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I never rode on the road and always felt safer on the dirt. It's like roadies all have a secret deathwish. "Death by ******* Driver". What a way to go. There's plenty of *******s willing to take you out. At least when I'm in my vehicle I'm kinda sorta protected from all the crazies.
    Yeah, but there are ways to minimize the car/bike encounters. Google maps w/ the bike filter on can give you LOTS of bike path miles where you won't see a road at all. My typical loop has less than 20% on roads, and quiet ones at that. And, I ride solo so no chance to plug up a road riding two abreast.
    Don't get me wrong, I'd rather ride dirt. But I'm trying to loosen up a knee that's being pulled all sorts of out of whack by a ridiculously tight IT band - product of too many years of mogul zipperlines. But if I don't do high cadence road work (w/ foam rollers) so I can loosen things up, I can't ride. So you figure out ways to do your thing and minimize encounters w/ traffic.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  20. #20
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes View Post
    "Wynn said investigators will use evidence only from Friday's crash in making a determination of fault. "These are two separate incidents," Wynn said Monday. "You can't hold someone accountable in one case for something that happened in another case."

    Errrm... I'm not a lawyer, but if someone has been proven guilty of endangering cyclists in the past how can that *not* be taken into consideration now that he is involved with the death of a cyclist?
    I am a lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer, and you can't use that because it's too prejudicial. IIRC, unless you can show a consistent pattern of similar behavior, as opposed to just a similar past act, that evidence is inadmissible. Think about it, if you were on the jury, and you heard about the prior conviction, how much would the prosecution need to prove before you found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? It could truly be an accident, but the prior incident would ensure a guilty verdict because of that piece of highly prejudicial "evidence."

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    I am a lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer, and you can't use that because it's too prejudicial. IIRC, unless you can show a consistent pattern of similar behavior, as opposed to just a similar past act, that evidence is inadmissible. Think about it, if you were on the jury, and you heard about the prior conviction, how much would the prosecution need to prove before you found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? It could truly be an accident, but the prior incident would ensure a guilty verdict because of that piece of highly prejudicial "evidence."
    I sat on a jury once. I wanted to shout out my own questions the whole time on points neither lawyer was touching on. The guy had gone to somebody elses's house, kicked in the door and wailed on him. I wanted to know what led him to this behavior, was he justified, but all the prosecutor was going for was that he indeed did kick in the door and beat on the other guy.

    We had to convict the guy because, yes, he did break into the guy's house and did beat him up. After the trial the judge brought us into his chambers and asked us about the whole experience. Then he said "oh, by the way, the guy you convicted, he's in the middle of another trail right now for killing a guy with a baseball bat. Violent guy."

    Would that kind of knowledge had swayed our verdict? We probably would have been able to cut short our deliberations by at least a day, fo' sho'.
    A blind man searches in a dark room for a black hat that isn't there. Dashiell Hammett

  22. #22
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    I am a lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer, and you can't use that because it's too prejudicial. IIRC, unless you can show a consistent pattern of similar behavior, as opposed to just a similar past act, that evidence is inadmissible. Think about it, if you were on the jury, and you heard about the prior conviction, how much would the prosecution need to prove before you found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? It could truly be an accident, but the prior incident would ensure a guilty verdict because of that piece of highly prejudicial "evidence."
    Pretty much. I'm not a criminal attorney either, but the short answer is a defendant is only put on trial for the specific crime the defendant allegedly committed and not for previous acts or being a bad guy. There are exceptions where evidence regarding previous bad acts can be admitted, but only if (I think) their probabtive value outweighs the potential to make the jury see red.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  23. #23
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by nitecrwlr View Post
    This is why I believe Mountain Biking is safer than riding on the road. I personally don't agree that a recreational sport should be allowed on a road with a narrow shoulder as it interferes with the intended purpose of the road - cars. I find it very difficult to avoid cyclists on some roads. A 3' space between cyclists and cars drives the car into oncoming traffic or forces the driver to come to a complete stop. This is especially dangerous on roads like Indiana in Arvada. I don't think the cyclist deserved to die but I can identify with the frustration some drivers have with cyclists on the road.
    And if the rider is going to work, or to shop, i.e. not recreation? What is a driver is just going for a recreational drive, or driving to then recreate, should they have less rights?

    Regardless, of your personal opinion, a person on a bike has a legal right to use the public rights of way regardless of the persons' purpose as confirmed in Title 42 chapter 14 section 1412 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by nitecrwlr View Post
    This is why I believe Mountain Biking is safer than riding on the road. I personally don't agree that a recreational sport should be allowed on a road with a narrow shoulder as it interferes with the intended purpose of the road - cars. I find it very difficult to avoid cyclists on some roads. A 3' space between cyclists and cars drives the car into oncoming traffic or forces the driver to come to a complete stop. This is especially dangerous on roads like Indiana in Arvada. I don't think the cyclist deserved to die but I can identify with the frustration some drivers have with cyclists on the road.
    I am a cyclist... I have ridden mtb since 1985 and road since 2001. Both have inherent risks, dangers, fun factors and groups advocating against them.

    I find the comment by nitecrwlr interesting because it seems similar to the comments you can read about mountain bikers all the time from hikers, equestrians and our own cycling brethren of another riding discipline.

    I have seen, read and heard too many stories of the "shared uses' mentality in our society being abused by a minority of users. A small percentage of every user group thinks they are the entitled group and act ridiculous. Our legal system has lost its common sense and entered the realm of "what can I get away with". These types of threads are an example of how we need to be more patient, even when someone else acts the fool.

    We can all easily be frustrated by the other groups. A car intentionally buzzing you, a roadie taking a lane, a bike on a hiking trail, a dog off leash, someone going downhill not relinquishing the trail, someone shuttling a trail, dog poop in a bag and all the other irritations in the world. As a society, I think many have forgotten how to be courteous, empathize or simply play well with others. Too much "me first" attitude and by many a false sense of entitlement.

    My thoughts go out to all the people involved with this tragic and senseless loss. In a small way, even those of us on this forum that will have a moment of hesitation or even fear when riding next time. Ride safe and wise!
    "Biking lets you come alive both in body and spirit- the bike disappears and you feel as if you're suspended in midair"GKlein

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    And if the rider is going to work, or to shop, i.e. not recreation? What is a driver is just going for a recreational drive, or driving to then recreate, should they have less rights?

    Regardless, of your personal opinion, a person on a bike has a legal right to use the public rights of way regardless of the persons' purpose as confirmed in Title 42 chapter 14 section 1412 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
    Recreational cyclists are out for one thing and one thing alone, recreation. This is true whether their motivation is fitness, training, racing, or just enjoy riding a bicycle. They are recreating and most of the time, it's even easy for a layman to tell this due to their attire and/or how they are equipped.

    Having been both a recreational and utility cyclist out here for three years now, I can say unequivocally that I get ten times the respect when not on my $3500 road bike and geared up in all of the correct gear any "serious" recreational road cyclist would be in. When wearing street clothes and going somewhere with a purpose on a low-key single speed bicycle, I get a wider berth from traffic, fewer horn beeps and less garbage thrown at me from passing vehicles. There is a very noticeable difference whether I'm going somewhere with a purpose, or simply recreating.

    It wasn't hard to do the math and come up with an answer for all of this. If someone is recreating in the street while many motorists may think that bicyles do not belong in the street, it's most likely considered at least an inconvenience to them. To some of those drivers, it would seem that a person with a purpose of transporting themselves to work, to attain goods, or access services may not be an inconvenience. This seems especially true in neighborhoods were there are higher percentages of low income residents who must depend on either public transportation, a bicycle, or even a combination of both. They understand the bicycle as a means of transportation, yet may not understand the bicycle as a recreational tool. Playing in the street is something your mother warned you about.

    With the increase in recreational cyclists on the roadway due to the "Lance Effect", SoCal drivers will probably become less and less understanding of cyclists in general. The "What are you doing in the road?" attitude that is already in the minds of many motorists seems to be getting worse. This is especially true when I don my "serious" gear and throw a leg over my relatively expensive bicycle for that .5 mile ride to the Class I river path near me. Hopefully those negative motorist attitudes don't spill too far over into the netherworld of utility cycling. I rather enjoy riding to and from work, which is a fringe benefit for any utility cyclist who does not have to ride a bicycle to get where they need to go. It still can't be called "recreational".

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fort William start time in Pacific Time Zone?
    By pablo4429 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-04-2010, 02:07 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 03:18 PM
  3. Long time rider, first time threader. handle bar question
    By livewiretone in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-17-2009, 09:30 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 07:38 PM
  5. Training-what time logged on a MTB is equivalent to time on a road bike?
    By dawgcatching in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 09:23 AM

Posting Permissions

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