Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. #1
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,849

  2. #2
    No one calls me Maurice.
    Reputation: Forster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,566
    He doesn't stop when he hits the car? I'd call the cops on him and let them ticket him.
    The most expensive bike in the world is still cheaper than the cheapest open heart surgery.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Texan-n-Fla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    864

    Re: "My cyclist husband risks his life by purposely ramming into cars...

    I don't even know what to think...
    Bourbon: Because no good story ever started with "So, there we were eating salads".

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,138
    Hmmm. 2 ton vehicle with lots of protective metal possibly with sociopathic or at least apathetic driver and maybe a rabid passenger to help. Me? a helmet. In Indiana, a pass not completed within 100' of an intersection is reckless driving. Though few know that law. (Blind intersections with possible turns into the lane of the passing vehicle is why this is illegal.) I remember no such law in Ontario and checked: nope. There is this"

    Bicycles overtaken
    (6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).

    Highlight mine. So the driver must safely complete the pass to the left of the cyclist before taking the right lane (not cutting the cyclist off in the process). Maybe this cyclist is getting squeezed and backs off for life and limb, then retaliates. I have not seen a jurisdiction that doesn't require the avoidance of a collision if at all possible. Except maybe England with that driver who mowed down a cyclist. Where was his requirement to avoid the accident? I digress. Taking the law into your own hands is frowned upon. A loud horn is needed to let him vent.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    384
    Take out a good life insurance policy and wait for the payday. It'll come eventually if he keeps that up.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,814
    Ever consider that he is bored so he just lights you up everyday...

    He probably needs more sex.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    I don't know what is more amazing:
    1) That a newspaper's online web portal actually published this actual troll.
    2) Or that people actually on this forum think it is true and posted it, to discuss it as if it was true.

    This is likely an anti-cyclist person who is trolling the image of cycling and cyclists by making up a ridiculous scenario. You cannot just keep crashing into cars on purpose if you are an exposed bicyclist. Your bike will break and so will your body, in short order. No one is gonna maim themselves to prove such a stupid point. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
    Last edited by RoyFokker; 03-02-2014 at 11:46 AM.

  8. #8
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,102
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyFokker View Post
    I don't know what is more amazing:
    1) That a newspaper's online web portal actually published this actual troll.
    2) Or that people actually on this forum think it is true and posted it, to discuss it as if it was true.

    This is likely an anti-cyclist person who is trolling the image of cycling and cyclists by making up a ridiculous scenario. You cannot just keep crashing into cars on purpose if you are an exposed bicyclist. Your bike will break and so will your body, in short order. No one is gonna maim themselves to prove such a stupid point. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
    really?

    even if things are superficially true, it would be VERY easy for a non-cycling concerned spouse to misinterpret and exaggerate what's actually happening. especially if the concerned wife has not actually witnessed what happens. if things happen exactly as she says they happen, you're right, the dude would not still be riding. which leads me to believe that the woman is concerned and expressing exaggerated fears.

    the dude probably rides like an ass and probably will get himself hurt. but I doubt the recklessness is as bad as the piece actually suggests.

  9. #9
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyFokker View Post
    You cannot just keep crashing into cars on purpose if you are an exposed bicyclist. Your bike will break and so will your body, in short order. No one is gonna maim themselves to prove such a stupid point. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.


    Yes. Ashamed. All of us.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  10. #10
    Randomhead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,119
    I understand the temptation, but it is actually illegal to hit someone when you can avoid it -- even when they violate your right of way. I assume this is the same in Canada as it is in the U.S.

    I got right hooked a couple of times this fall, and both times the person swung really wide and then pulled in front of me offering the nice, soft passenger side door as a cushion for my left shoulder. Resisted though.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    if things happen exactly as she says they happen, you're right, the dude would not still be riding.
    Oh, so you agree that the scenario is totally bs. But you still give this alleged woman(who may not even exist) the benefit of the doubt and her husband(who likely may not even exist just like her) must be an ass... This is what happens in countries like the USA and Canada where even most self proclaimed cyclists spend more time and miles with their bikes racked to their cars. Everyone looks for reasons to slight those who bicycle, even such alleged cyclists, because the interests of the motor vehicle on the road are their own.

    I bet on a Dutch or Danish forum, no one would buy the bs story submitted to this newspaper which is actually being discussed here like it is true. Infact probably there would be lots of complaints against the columnist who accepted and printed such a fanciful story.

    @ghettocruiser:
    Genius, that is a video of guy crashing into static objects to get Youtube hits for his channel. This newspaper article claims a husband is repeatedly hitting moving cars to "prove a point." There is a big difference, even ace Hollywood stuntmen wouldn't allow an unknown variable like that.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Texan-n-Fla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    864

    "My cyclist husband risks his life by purposely ramming into cars...

    Have we thought of the possibility that when she says "hitting cars", she doesn't mean plowing into them on a bike, but perhaps slapping a rear quarter panel or something? I understand the title of the article paints a certain scenario, but let's also take into account the use of language and how many different things can be conveyed when only one is intended.
    Bourbon: Because no good story ever started with "So, there we were eating salads".

  13. #13
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Texan-n-Fla View Post
    Have we thought of the possibility that when she says "hitting cars", she doesn't mean plowing into them on a bike, but perhaps slapping a rear quarter panel or something? I understand the title of the article paints a certain scenario, but let's also take into account the use of language and how many different things can be conveyed when only one is intended.
    I'm trying to take into account the vagaries of language (and the tendency of newspapers and newspaper editors these days to be terrible at teasing out the various meanings of language) and problems with misinterpretation. What you're saying is entirely possible, and one possibility I considered.

    We really have no idea what is ACTUALLY happening. Anything we postulate beyond that is nothing but speculation. What I can tell from the letter is that a concerned spouse probably has no idea about cycling and is writing the newspaper's advice column.

    Roy just appears to be a pessimistic jagoff, rather than trying to really understand anything. It really doesn't matter whether the letter to the advice column is real or not. I know where that mentality comes from. I have a concerned wife, but she at least understands most things about cycling. I also have other family members who are far less concerned, but have NO IDEA, much like the author of that letter. It's a constant battle to educate them about what I'm doing when I ride my bike to work, how to interpret the actions of other cyclists on the road, and how to handle them.

  14. #14
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyFokker View Post

    @ghettocruiser:
    Genius, that is a video of guy crashing into static objects to get Youtube hits for his channel. This newspaper article claims a husband is repeatedly hitting moving cars to "prove a point." There is a big difference, even ace Hollywood stuntmen wouldn't allow an unknown variable like that.
    They were BOTH "proving a point", or at least trying to. Plowing into things seems dangerous to me whether they are moving or not. They are creating spectacle, and maybe being idiots, and maybe it will make things better and maybe worse, but that's for them and their law enforcement to figure out.

    Look, riding in Toronto, I get bumped by a car maybe once a year, and it's almost always on purpose, by an overtaking car who wants to "teach me a lesson" for "riding in the car lane". Yes, this causes me concern and anger for a few minutes, but it's what happens in a city of of people who know their actions have no real consequences.

    I used to get worked up for extended periods, and spend lots of my time complaining to apathetic law enforcement, but no longer. If these guys were really brave enough to maim or kill me, they certainly would have. They're just going for a low-speed mirror-slap or knock-down, and when that doesn't work they usually move on.

    And I ride out in the suburbs where there are way fewer vehicles. I have to assume that downtown those guys get bumped more often. Pedestrians are in the same boat. Some guys, apparently, have to "strike back". I can't help that either.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,253
    For the Americans in the audience, the Canadian perspective might be a little different since we're probably quite unlikely to encounter anyone who is armed? (or that's the impression I get, anyway. I really have no idea what it's like in the States, or even TO)

    When I walked to work I used to "hit" cars all the time. And my wife knew about it, and wasn't happy about it. But drivers are @#$%s with no sense of the consequences of their actions, and if I could get them to worry for 2 seconds that their precious paint might be damaged, then that was a fair tradeoff for their ongoing and continued idiocy.

    On a bike though, you're way too exposed and not maneuverable enough, so I'm better behaved.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,138
    ^^ Apparently in Madison, WI, it is fairly common to slap the roof of cars that have not completed the pass but are coming over and pushing the cyclist into parked cars. That might elicit a hot reaction, but if your shout and or horn isn't cutting it and you can't brake your way out of harm, you have few options left to keep both legs intact.

    So I think there is a time and place for "hitting" a car.

    Pedestrians here are fair game. And I object. Friday, I had a lady pull out of a bank teller spot without checking the wide oft used downtown sidewalk (near the Post Office) ahead of her. I was a stride away. She stopped halfway into the sidewalk to transfer her cash to her purse and had her face down attending to that. I did not trust her so I moved closer to the curb to get some room in case. I walked in front of her car watching her. She was setting her purse on the passenger seat and didn't even look up when she started up again. She got three rapid slaps on the hood (her left to mid hood) as I walked by before she got it stopped. I was about to jump on the hood to save my legs. Would have smashed her hood good and proper. Small of me I know, but she won't do that again for some time. Maybe she needed a change of clothing. I thought it was SOP to actually look before you drive off. Apparently it is optional. Good nothing happened or the officer would have excused her as "being distracted". Another story.

  17. #17
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,102
    I had a friend in TX who smacked the hood of a car that did a similar thing when he was walking through a crosswalk at a 4 way stop. a campus cop observed the interaction, and chewed HIM out for it, not the driver for entering the crosswalk.

    You never can tell sometimes. but yeah, I will smack cars if they pass too close when I'm in ped mode. I'd really rather not remove my hands from my bars when cars are that close when I'm riding, but I won't say I'd never hit one. just that I have not had to at this point. if they are close enough for me to smack, they are too close. Here in Indy, we have a 3ft law. even though I have long arms, they are still not that long. anyone within range is violating that space and subject to whatever defensive maneuvers are necessary to minimize injury.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,223
    I try as best I can to follow a path of least resistance. Basically, this means that while on city streets I look to avoid traffic based on the assumption that drivers/pedestrians/other bikers look out for themselves and themselves only. I used to care more, but after a couple of confrontations that did nothing but increase the level of misunderstanding between me and the other person, I find it just isn't worth it. While it isn't right for the might of the automobile to push anyone aside, it does nothing but sow discontent to have a confrontation with a disgruntled driver, especially if you've caused damage to the car. So I let them pass and I think I'm bigger for it, since it is my choice to do so I still retain my composure instead of losing it. I don't lose much time by going behind a car than in front of it. Sometimes, I even get a wave to go ahead after I've done the same. Most of the time, people are happy that you acknowledged them and sometimes they pay it back. This is the only way to roll in the winter slush.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  19. #19
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,422
    The whole "slapping the fender" thing shows the complete detachment from reality that drivers and LIO often operate in. Because I've heard police go on the record as saying it's vandalism.

    And motorists may use it as an invitation for a roadside fistfight, which in some cases was their objective in passing that close to begin with.

    Who is actually capable of denting a car with their outstretched hand while riding a bicycle? Meanwhile, my car is absolutely beat to hell from dozens of vehicles running into it while parked and then driving off. Last time I washed it I found so many new dents that I resolved to keep it dirty. I am willing to bet none of the them were bicycles or pedestrians.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,138
    ^ Vandalism? Show me the dent. No harm. No repair. No liability.

    When a hood, fender or roof slap is a warning meant as a last ditch effort to avoid harm that the driver is about to cause to a pedestrian or cyclist, it seems to easily fall into protected free speech, to me.

    Whereas going out of one's way or using it punitively is taking the law into your own hands. So if you walk a crosswalk and slap the hood of a vehicle blocking it which was there well before you got to it, you are wrong. If the SOB is about to run you down, no. If he almost ran you over, I suppose temporary insanity defense seems applicable. No jury should convict you. Of course the driver may have shot you, but that is another issue.

    Vigilantism can be dangerous:

    Attacked By Ferrari Owner - Pee Prank - YouTube

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Texan-n-Fla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    864

    "My cyclist husband risks his life by purposely ramming into cars...

    I don't think I would have continued to be pushed around like that. You get one warning not to touch me. Next time, I touch you.
    Bourbon: Because no good story ever started with "So, there we were eating salads".

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,814
    the slap on the hood is me preventing a fall and getting run over hardly vandalism

  23. #23
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,102
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    A phone call to the police and a bunch of pictures of the ferrari showing that it has no handicapped tags very clearly (useful if the douchebag leaves), and that it is parked in a handicapped zone would have been my choice. set cameras to roll from behind the bushes when police show up.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    What we have here is an attempt to denigrate the most efficient, fast and safe means of transport. And in this very sub-forum, which is allegedly oriented to commuting by bicycle, everyone from what I know about disgusting North American cyclists is buying this fanciful tale and acting superior because they are good cyclists not like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser View Post
    They were BOTH "proving a point", or at least trying to. Plowing into things seems dangerous to me whether they are moving or not. ...
    You are beyond silly. The youtube video you posted is once again, here:
    bike lanes by Casey Neistat - YouTube

    It showed a guy quite skilled in hitting stationary objects with his bike doing it to drive Youtube hits to his channel. If you notice on every fall he kept some kind of momentum instead of taking it stiff, which is my reaction when falling off a bike, since I am not experienced in falling and don't certainly practice it. That is nothing like ramming cars on purpose, because cars can react in unexpected ways. You are just sadly searching desperate heights to try to prove this letter to the editor could somehow be true.

    @NateHawk:
    Listen I don't care to speculate on the alleged intentionality of the alleged spouse who wrote that letter to the editor. Especially because maybe she or her husband don't exist. All I know is no-one in their right mind would ram into a moving 2 ton vehicle with their body and a meager bicycle, again and again. PERIOD. And even those in the wrong mind, who would do that, wouldn't be able to physically for long. So I simply won't believe it, unlike you. But you can continue being verbose and ineffectual, which you will continue doing without me.

    @Texan-n-Fla:
    The amazing thing about computers is you can easily see what exactly was written in the article that the original poster quoted. So here it is, an exact quote: "most drivers turn without looking, and he rams into them on purpose." So no, this article is not talking about slapping cars.

    You people are really beyond amazing. I salute you guys, being this ridiculous is work.

  25. #25
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,849
    I'm sorry our discussion is so upsetting to you, Roy. The reason us disgusting North American (and other) cyclists are discussing the story is that - while bizarre - it raises actual issues about commuting by bike (people will cut you off, how do you react, ROW in bike lanes, etc.), relationships (many partners express safety concerns), and yes, provides some entertainment value. Maybe you would like to contribute over on "How was you commute today?" or some other thread where you might add value.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    A phone call to the police and a bunch of pictures of the ferrari showing that it has no handicapped tags very clearly (useful if the douchebag leaves), and that it is parked in a handicapped zone would have been my choice. set cameras to roll from behind the bushes when police show up.
    Especially if the car has a list of parking offenses so a tow truck is beginning to haul it away. Far less dangerous and likely a lot funnier, too!

  27. #27
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,422
    I think Roy is upset because he somehow thinks that other cyclists behaving badly is *his* problem.

    It isn't. But this belief isn't just his. Activist motorists, gullible journalists, and populist local-level politicians are constantly trying to force-feed this message to us.

    And I guess if they beat us over the head with the same BS for decades, eventually we start to believe it. Thus, a lot of so-called bicycle advocates now believe in taking collective responsibility for the miscreants and scofflaws that happen to be riding a bike. Hell, MEC stated at one point in their cycling safety tips that "cyclists cannot expect to be treated as legitimate road users when everyone sees riders breaking the rules".

    As if the first order of business in cycling road safety was to get the cycling advocates out there and smack around the guys running red lights on bicycles.

    And on the Bikeforums A&S threads back in the day, there was a small army of "advocates" devoted to doing just that.... we'd get tales of riders chasing down other bicyclists that they deemed had done something wrong, and getting in screaming matches and fist fights. And of course, anyone who questioned these vigilantes was shirking their responsibility to "uphold the good name" of the cycling community.

    It almost seems like a viable course of action.... but would BMW drivers go out there and chase down the gang members in black 535s and give them a talking to, or that pedestrians across the city should be ashamed that someone mugged an old lady and... fled on foot.

    And at the end of it, we have people trying to tie themselves in knots to explain why a cyclist just wouldn't hit a car on purpose because that would be a stain on the good name of cyclists everywhere, even though I've already mentioned that the same city has plenty of motorists that hit cyclists on purpose, however gently.

    Here's a little secret: No matter what you do, other cyclists are going to act like idiots. It doesn't violate the laws of physics, just the law of the road and common decency. It's not your fault, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, so let it go.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  28. #28
    More than a little slow
    Reputation: dskunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    643
    Harbord St is a short connector stretch running EW for maybe 2 km. Most of the streets coming off it are residential. Not a lot of heavy traffic. The guy in the Toronto Life article is annoyed at cars pulling into the bike lane from cross streets and attempting to make right hand turns onto Harbord. They're probably stopped, the guy probably never touches them, and his wife just doesn't like him cycling.
    I was getting very annoyed at cars doing the same thing to me today as a pedestrian. To be fair, it's very hard to move at all in an urban setting without annoying someone.
    Cheers, Dave

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:47 AM
  2. "People are soft, much softer than cars," he said.
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-2013, 06:01 AM
  3. The Lambrecht Auction LIVE / NEW CARS" from the 50's & 60's
    By DIRTJUNKIE in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 11:18 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 10:11 AM
  5. Ramming Speed Fridays
    By Ascentionist in forum Commuting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 07:44 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
  •