Slog Comments
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car
74
That gray car was being a grade-A douchenozzle before the cyclist entered the picture. Unlike the driver with the camera, if I were in a car, I would have blocked his attempts to merge after he decided he might have a better advantage in front of the black car. PICK A LANE!
If the gray car had been attempting to merge correctly, and got stopped when the traffic did, halfway into his desired lane, then I'd give him every right to be pissed at a cyclist who cut him off, wanting to take the whole lane (a cyclist is entitled to use the whole lane, but not cut off cars to do so).
If the gray car had been attempting to merge correctly, and got stopped when the traffic did, halfway into his desired lane, then I'd give him every right to be pissed at a cyclist who cut him off, wanting to take the whole lane (a cyclist is entitled to use the whole lane, but not cut off cars to do so).
72
@71: I like that, too.
For those who think the motorist is just being a little aggressive changing lanes, pay attention to how he/she is squeezing against neighboring cars: You don't squeeze alongside a car like that, especially not near the rear of the car, when you want to aggressively merge. You squeeze either in front, or right behind the car. I speak as an aggressive merger, who spent his developmental driving years in a Southeast Asian city.
Note also that the car has plentiful opportunities to merge after the first squeeze, but before actually changing lanes.
The only reason to close the gap like that is to, well, close the gap, thus ending the humiliation and victimization being visited upon you by the great hated Satan on the bike getting where he's going faster under his own power than you can by sitting there mashing a pedal.
For those who think the motorist is just being a little aggressive changing lanes, pay attention to how he/she is squeezing against neighboring cars: You don't squeeze alongside a car like that, especially not near the rear of the car, when you want to aggressively merge. You squeeze either in front, or right behind the car. I speak as an aggressive merger, who spent his developmental driving years in a Southeast Asian city.
Note also that the car has plentiful opportunities to merge after the first squeeze, but before actually changing lanes.
The only reason to close the gap like that is to, well, close the gap, thus ending the humiliation and victimization being visited upon you by the great hated Satan on the bike getting where he's going faster under his own power than you can by sitting there mashing a pedal.
71
May I just say how I thoroughly enjoyed the hazard lights coming on? What was that supposed to do?
70
The driver of the car was in the wrong. The cyclist dispensed justice that would have been otherwise denied. Without such consequences, the driver has no incentive to change his/her behavior.
69
@68: Yeah. The appropriate moral analogy is to imagine the bicyclist as a pedestrian, not a car. He's as vulnerable to injury as a pedestrian. You're not allowed to run into, threaten, squeeze, crowd, etc., pedestrians with your car, even if they're in the road. Even if they're being assholes.
Then where does that leave the motorist? Pretty fucking appalling behavior.
The thing, though, is to threaten damage to the car, without actually doing any. Waving a Kryptonite (do they even still exist?) in the direction of the windshield of a sociopathic driver will usually do the trick. They don't mind killing or crippling a stranger, but not if it means cosmetic damage to their car.
Then where does that leave the motorist? Pretty fucking appalling behavior.
The thing, though, is to threaten damage to the car, without actually doing any. Waving a Kryptonite (do they even still exist?) in the direction of the windshield of a sociopathic driver will usually do the trick. They don't mind killing or crippling a stranger, but not if it means cosmetic damage to their car.
68
@64 - I don't know about Seattle law but in California you are required to stay 3 feet away from a bicycle... That car looked like it got a lot closer!
67
Cars are people too. I mean if corporations are... then bikes are people. Wait, what was the question again?
66
@64, well, the driver of the car was changing lanes without signaling, crowding the lane while the black car was in it (before the cyclist showed up), etc. Both were jerks; the cyclist upped the ante.
65
What the car did to the cyclist, ive seen dozens of cars do this to other cars, except all you get is one driver cursing out the other and both move on. But instead of cursing out the driver, the cyclist smashes the mirror in a fit of rage.
This is road rage on the part of the cyclist and its barely justifiable.
This is road rage on the part of the cyclist and its barely justifiable.
64
The car driver actually broke ZERO laws. The cyclist broke SEVERAL. And this is coming from someone without a car who rides several thousand miles a year, most of it in urban settings. Bikes have a right to the road, but they also have to obey the rules of the road. The idiot bicyclist put HIMSELF in the bad situation. The good news is, sooner or later, he will get hit and killed and the gene pool will be cleaner.
63
Christ, it's all Rashomon in here.
Without even getting to the judging phase of things, SLOG doesn't seem to have any agreement on whether or not the cyclist was trying to run the gap between cars, or just trying to switch lanes. Looked like the former to me, but obviously some don't see it like that.
Without even getting to the judging phase of things, SLOG doesn't seem to have any agreement on whether or not the cyclist was trying to run the gap between cars, or just trying to switch lanes. Looked like the former to me, but obviously some don't see it like that.
62
I hope someone who hates the douchebag cyclist recognizes him and reports his fucking ass! If you wanna be a vehicle on the damned street, BE A VEHICLE! It is not legal for cars to try to move between cars the way he did, and he seemed to often be in the driver's blind spot! Now, the driver is a douche for not using his signal, as seems to be typical around here! BUT, it was OBVIOUS in the video that the car was trying to merge left, but this dickwad on the bike kept trying to slide in between! It look like just before the confrontation, the fucking douchebag cyclist was in the driver's blind spot once again! It's not the damned driver's fault you're too big of a bitch to look out for yourself and act like you own the whole fucking road!
61
The car was blocking the bike from the beginning of the video ... squeezing up against traffic, knowing the bike was going to try to cut through. As a former bike messenger in a Major Eastern Seaboard Metropolis, I've seen it a lot. I've been squeezed FORWARD into intersections by assholes like this.
The usual response to assholery like this in my day was an emphatic slap on the driver's window (BANG!) when you pass them again, which tends cause a blork in the driver's trousers, metaphoric or otherwise, often followed by white-hot rage, which is when the heavy-traffic advantages of the bicycle become useful.
Driver deserves a beating, and the biker was technically wrong, but in a spectacularly awesome way.
The usual response to assholery like this in my day was an emphatic slap on the driver's window (BANG!) when you pass them again, which tends cause a blork in the driver's trousers, metaphoric or otherwise, often followed by white-hot rage, which is when the heavy-traffic advantages of the bicycle become useful.
Driver deserves a beating, and the biker was technically wrong, but in a spectacularly awesome way.
60
Even if the bike had been a car, the (real) car would be in the wrong. (But clearly, the cyclist's revenge was wrong, also.)
After all, blinker or no, intentions or no, the bike-now-imagined-car got there first. You can't just push a car that outwitted you off the road and be considered "right."
The cyclist should have wedged his front tire between the agro driver's car and the next car up, and then just sat there until the agro driver actually hit him or backed off.
Then, when the driver hits his front wheel, he could take a fall as dramatic as those you see in Italian soccer, and the driver would find out what it's like to be arrested.
After all, blinker or no, intentions or no, the bike-now-imagined-car got there first. You can't just push a car that outwitted you off the road and be considered "right."
The cyclist should have wedged his front tire between the agro driver's car and the next car up, and then just sat there until the agro driver actually hit him or backed off.
Then, when the driver hits his front wheel, he could take a fall as dramatic as those you see in Italian soccer, and the driver would find out what it's like to be arrested.
59
Also: note that the cyclist also clearly gives the driver a chin-flick when they're talking.
Assholes all around.
Assholes all around.
58
The thing that people who drive but don't bike rarely seem to understand is how fucking scary an aggressive driver like the one in this video is. It takes next to nothing for a car to seriously injure or kill a cyclist. And drivers like the one in this video are SO common. It can really get to you, dealing with that shit day after day. I wouldn't do what the cyclist did here, and I wouldn't advocate doing that, but I totally get where he's coming from.
57
I walk across one of the busiest intersections in Los Angeles to get to work and am often near-missed by drivers speeding across the cross walk when I have the right-of-way. I get the bicyclist's anger.....I carry a pocketfull of small rocks to throw when the car is too far away to scratch it with my keys or going too fast to allow me to kick it. The intersection is camera'd so.....go ahead, call the police and explain how you almost mowed down a pedestrian. Go on, do it, it will be fun for me.
56
@16:
I watched the video three times, and as best I can tell the driver didn't use his turn signal until the cyclist was already moving into the left lane (approximately 0:22 - turn signal comes on about 2 seconds later). So, in that regard the cyclist did have the right to be in the lane.
However, the cyclist himself never signaled for a lane change, so I'm calling this a draw.
I watched the video three times, and as best I can tell the driver didn't use his turn signal until the cyclist was already moving into the left lane (approximately 0:22 - turn signal comes on about 2 seconds later). So, in that regard the cyclist did have the right to be in the lane.
However, the cyclist himself never signaled for a lane change, so I'm calling this a draw.
54
As a point of reference, the black toyota-looking car in front of the silver car (not the black one beside it, that then turns left), was also up on the white dotted lines at the very beginning of the clip. Based on the evidence, I am thinking there is something about that stretch of road or traffic patterns in it that prompted the silver car to be so far to the left of the lane. I don't know if this should adjust anyone's interpretation.
52
You can view a bicycle as a full-fledged road vehicle, entitled to the whole lane. Or you can view it as a non-vehicle, able to ride on the shoulder, the sidewalk, or the dotted line between lanes. The dickish thing about this cyclist is that he's trying to have it both ways. He slides between lanes of cars to get in front of the vehicle with the camera, and slides around to the left of the vehicles in the left lane to make his getaway, but in between he's outraged that a car would crowd into "his" lane. The cyclist is the bigger douchbag here.
51
I empathize more with the cyclist. I totally get his frustration, anger, and seriously, who knows how many times he had been through the same predicament that day!
50
@12, who cares if the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not? And he is a jerk. Prob angry from too many close calls.
49
Both were complete jerks, but the cyclist started the confrontation. The silver car had clearly been trying to get into the left lane, nearly sideswiping the black car (that's why that driver is a jerk). The cyclist is lane-splitting, then tries to pass on the left when he had to have known that's where the car was trying to go--if he didn't know that, he has criminally poor road awareness. The car then tried to take over the lane, but not really endangering the cyclist. Then the cyclist throws a tantrum and commits property damage, which causes traffic behind him to get even worse as the silver car must now stop and pick shit up.
I'm usually on the side of the cyclist in these kinds of things, but here the cyclist is more wrong than the driver. (The driver is still pretty jerky.)
I'm usually on the side of the cyclist in these kinds of things, but here the cyclist is more wrong than the driver. (The driver is still pretty jerky.)
47
Someone hit me with their car's mirror while I was cycling. I had filmed this with a helmet cam, caught up with the fellow and informed him that he'd hit me with his car. He denied that he'd hit me, dismissed my request that he pull over and discuss the matter and drove off. I filed a police report and provided a copy of the video. The Seattle Police declined to prosecute this as a hit and run case.
46
The driver should not have tried to force his way in. But breaking the mirror and taking off is a bitch move
43
I'm pretty sure, as a cyclist, that the cyclist was in the wrong here. Sure, the car shouldn't have been trying to merge over, but that was an offense against the other cars, not the cyclist.
42
The vehicle appeared to be intentionally forcing the bike off the road, albeit, slowly...
While I can relate to feeling angry and wanting to show someone you don't have to tolerate their putting you in danger by showing a complete disregard for their right to have space, it is, unless in defense, wrong to behave in a violent manner. The car, at that point was not a threat, but had the biker been a worse rider, the car could have easily knocked him off of his bike, and at times, a slow speed accident like that can prove fatal or crippling. The driver was behaving in a dangerous manner. The biker should not have done that. Some might consider it self defense, but I'm not sure that I would.
If I were a cop, I would ticket the driver for whatever would stick.
They were both wrong. I'll check the math on that later.
Cars can kill bikes, but bikes can kill mirrors.
While I can relate to feeling angry and wanting to show someone you don't have to tolerate their putting you in danger by showing a complete disregard for their right to have space, it is, unless in defense, wrong to behave in a violent manner. The car, at that point was not a threat, but had the biker been a worse rider, the car could have easily knocked him off of his bike, and at times, a slow speed accident like that can prove fatal or crippling. The driver was behaving in a dangerous manner. The biker should not have done that. Some might consider it self defense, but I'm not sure that I would.
If I were a cop, I would ticket the driver for whatever would stick.
They were both wrong. I'll check the math on that later.
Cars can kill bikes, but bikes can kill mirrors.
41
Yep. The car pulled up so they could talk. The cyclist didn't feel threatened. He didn't move an inch. He didn't flinch. Nothing.
40
Hey, the cyclist knew that the car driver wanted to get into the left lane. The cyclist had to know it by :13 when the cyclist had to stop.
Then, when the left lane opened up because the black car turned left, the cyclist swooped into the space. Would that have been a legal maneuver for a car? I don't think so.
The cyclist made that move in the car's blind spot. At no time did the driver in the silver car threaten the bicyclist with his car. Never. The event that piqued the cyclist was something the car driver SAID, not the way he or she drove.
Look again. There is nothing that suggests that the driver was using the car to threaten the cyclist's safety and there is no reaction from the cyclist that bespeaks feeling threatened. Instead, the car driver called the cyclist for his assholery. You can see the cyclist's "What? What are you bitching about?" gesture. The driver told the cyclist what an asshole he is, and the cyclist proven it further.
Then, when the left lane opened up because the black car turned left, the cyclist swooped into the space. Would that have been a legal maneuver for a car? I don't think so.
The cyclist made that move in the car's blind spot. At no time did the driver in the silver car threaten the bicyclist with his car. Never. The event that piqued the cyclist was something the car driver SAID, not the way he or she drove.
Look again. There is nothing that suggests that the driver was using the car to threaten the cyclist's safety and there is no reaction from the cyclist that bespeaks feeling threatened. Instead, the car driver called the cyclist for his assholery. You can see the cyclist's "What? What are you bitching about?" gesture. The driver told the cyclist what an asshole he is, and the cyclist proven it further.
39
I'm more interested to know why the black and silver vehicles were practically trading paint at the beginning there.
38
I don't see what pissed of the psychotic cyclist. Everyone was vying for position. Cyclists are being treated as poorly as car drivers in that clip.
36
Before the video begins, I surmise that the car saw that the cyclist was making progress through traffic between lanes through its sideview mirror and resented this. The car then shifts left to occlude the possible passage between it and the left lane's traffic. This is worth 5 asshole points and probably illegal (not that I know anything about European traffic laws). Then when the left lane opens up and the cyclist proceeds, the car then turns on his signal and gains another 15 asshole points making a completely out-of-bounds cut-off maneuver. I think the threshold for deserved side mirror vandalism is in the neighborhood of 17 asshole points.
Asshole: "Do you know who I am!?"
Cyclist: "No, do you know who I am?"
Asshole: "No"
Cyclist: *smack* Bye.
Asshole: "Do you know who I am!?"
Cyclist: "No, do you know who I am?"
Asshole: "No"
Cyclist: *smack* Bye.
35
CAR all the way. That guy's not only an A-hole, but endangering someone. That deserves a lesson. You drivers come at us like that and you better expect some retaliation. Bikers have to stick together and push back if we expect to survive bad drivers who don't care about our safety. I've chased drivers down on my bike and will do again. I've also been hit. You guys come at a biker, you never know which biker you get. You may end up getting me and a world of hurt.
34
Former Soviet-bloc country. I think that's a Lada one car up and to the right at the beginning of the video, which is probably providing most of the sound effects.
Driving habits (as opposed to laws) are way more aggressive there (and probably more drunks on the road mid-day). Still, this thread shows in microcosm why there will never be peace between cyclists and motorists.
Driving habits (as opposed to laws) are way more aggressive there (and probably more drunks on the road mid-day). Still, this thread shows in microcosm why there will never be peace between cyclists and motorists.
33
The cyclist smashing the mirror is the same as any driver, pissed off about getting cut off in traffic, getting out of their car to smash a mirror. He may not have made the first asshole move, but he raised the stakes into a legal wrong. At least if it was another driver, he wouldn't have been able to slink away, and/or other drivers would have been able to get his license plate number.
I highly doubt the driver of the car is now thinking "by gum, I better start seeing cyclists and treating them as equal partners on the road!".
And I don't own a car, if that matters at all.
I highly doubt the driver of the car is now thinking "by gum, I better start seeing cyclists and treating them as equal partners on the road!".
And I don't own a car, if that matters at all.
32
I can see how the cyclist would have assumed that the car driver chose to come up in his space like that, but the silver car had already started merging into that lane at the same time as the cyclist arrived in it.
It must have looked ruder from the cyclists position than it actually was. That silver car was in a difficult position, with traffic behind it already taking its place, and no where else to go. The driver would have known that the cyclist would be able to get over to the edge.
And aggression like that (window smashing) just makes me embarrased to be part of the human species.
(and I'm a cyclist who doesn't own a car).
It must have looked ruder from the cyclists position than it actually was. That silver car was in a difficult position, with traffic behind it already taking its place, and no where else to go. The driver would have known that the cyclist would be able to get over to the edge.
And aggression like that (window smashing) just makes me embarrased to be part of the human species.
(and I'm a cyclist who doesn't own a car).
31
Also re: helmet, they're not going to protect your vital organs if a car hits you because some asshole couldn't be bothered to not drive aggressively around your bike.
30
Cyclist shouldn't have broken mirror.
Bicycles have the same legal space/status as a car on the road, so he shouldn't have just moved in on the cyclist like that.
Bicycles have the same legal space/status as a car on the road, so he shouldn't have just moved in on the cyclist like that.
29
When assholes collide. The bicyclist was trying to have it both ways, driving between cars (not part of normal traffic) then sitting in the center of a lane (part of normal traffic). But that car, sheesh. I wanted to knock his mirror off, also. I hate merge bullies.
28
It is wrong to smash an asshole's mirror no matter how much they deserve it, and I hope the biker got as much enjoyment out of his wrongness as I did.
@16, the car's left turn signal wasn't on until the bike was already passing. And the car was obviously being aggressive before putting on the turn signal -- watch where he is in the lane and how close he is to the car that was originally next to him.
@16, the car's left turn signal wasn't on until the bike was already passing. And the car was obviously being aggressive before putting on the turn signal -- watch where he is in the lane and how close he is to the car that was originally next to him.
26
I take that back. The driver wasn't trying to impede the cyclist, he was trying to bull his way into the left lane without waiting for somebody to yield. Still a selfish POS. And wrong.
25
Car was trying to block the cyclist in the first part of the video and then impeded on the cyclist's lane. Driver was engaged in a bit of road rage.
Legally, the cyclist was wrong for breaking the car's mirror, but I found it hilarious. I hope it is very expensive!
The car was also endangering other autos. The driver was a selfish POS.
Legally, the cyclist was wrong for breaking the car's mirror, but I found it hilarious. I hope it is very expensive!
The car was also endangering other autos. The driver was a selfish POS.
24
@12
It's curious how people who aren't riding concern themselves with whether a bicyclist is wearing a helmet or not. I assume they ask the same question about drivers buckling their seat belts. The fact is, the helmet won't protect a bike rider half as much as drivers carefully scanning the road for all of its complexly interacting populations of two and four wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. How close is too close for a car? I would say anytime a car gets inside a space equal to the size of another car centered around the cyclist, it is too close. This applies with motorized and non-motorized cycles.
In the video, the driver pushed a multi-ton vehicle into the rider's safety zone like he wasn't there. This would not have happened without their disparity in weight and degree of vulnerability. That is the act of aggression which incited the retaliatory vandalism which was wrong.
It's curious how people who aren't riding concern themselves with whether a bicyclist is wearing a helmet or not. I assume they ask the same question about drivers buckling their seat belts. The fact is, the helmet won't protect a bike rider half as much as drivers carefully scanning the road for all of its complexly interacting populations of two and four wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. How close is too close for a car? I would say anytime a car gets inside a space equal to the size of another car centered around the cyclist, it is too close. This applies with motorized and non-motorized cycles.
In the video, the driver pushed a multi-ton vehicle into the rider's safety zone like he wasn't there. This would not have happened without their disparity in weight and degree of vulnerability. That is the act of aggression which incited the retaliatory vandalism which was wrong.
22
Driver was acting like an entitled asshole before the cyclist appeared. When the cyclist appeared he also acted like an entitled asshole. (Or maybe they'd had a running battle-of-the-entitled-assholes going on for a while already, and the person with the camera started filming because they could tell somebody was going to act like an entitled asshole.)
Damage/destruction of property wins the asshole challenge, though.
Damage/destruction of property wins the asshole challenge, though.
20
Cars are people, my friend. They contribute to campaigns and form super-PACs. They have all the rights of people, including free speech (honking) the right to be armed with laser guns and oil slicks. Hurting a car is like aborting a fetus and makes the baby Jesus sad to live in Detroit.
Chant it with me: "The Citizens United will never be defeated."
Chant it with me: "The Citizens United will never be defeated."
19
If you are picking a side you are missing the point. Assholes are assholes, whether they are blocking out a bike because they can, or if they or smashing car windows because the have a lack of self control.
This scene is 99.9% of the car vs. bikes battle.
This scene is 99.9% of the car vs. bikes battle.
16
The car driver was wrong for trying to force his or her way into the left lane long before the cyclist arrived on the scene.
The bicyclist was wrong for coming from behind the car into the left lane and then pulling up along side the car (in the driver's blind spot). The car's left turn signal was on and the car driver's intent was clear. The bicyclist, who also wanted to get into the left lane, should have done so behind the car. The bicyclist is trading too heavily on his ambiguous status, sometimes a vehicle, sometimes a pedestrian, sometimes something else.
The car driver was wrong for saying whatever it was the driver said to the bicyclist. And you can tell that the driver said something.
The bicyclist was then wrong for pretending to be innocent.
The bicyclist was then wrong for damaging the car.
Mostly the bicyclist was wrong in this case.
The bicyclist was wrong for coming from behind the car into the left lane and then pulling up along side the car (in the driver's blind spot). The car's left turn signal was on and the car driver's intent was clear. The bicyclist, who also wanted to get into the left lane, should have done so behind the car. The bicyclist is trading too heavily on his ambiguous status, sometimes a vehicle, sometimes a pedestrian, sometimes something else.
The car driver was wrong for saying whatever it was the driver said to the bicyclist. And you can tell that the driver said something.
The bicyclist was then wrong for pretending to be innocent.
The bicyclist was then wrong for damaging the car.
Mostly the bicyclist was wrong in this case.
15
The car is in the wrong. People who think they can purposefully endanger the body of a human using their car suck, and smacking off the mirror is not an overreaction in such an event. Cars do not get the same rights or respect as people.
14
That's a messy situation. With traffic that dense everyone should do their part to alleviate the pressure. So the cyclist could have slid down the curb side (as he did at he end) to allow the dick-tater in the car to take the space and not be blocking two lanes at once. But the car acted like a dick encroaching on the cyclist's space, and the cyclist was right to question that. Now, it is unclear what the cyclist then said, he probably could have used better de-escalation tactics. But then so could have the car driver. However, considering that *after* the words were had the car was unwarrantedly aggressive (s/he could have just stayed in place), the cyclist's rearview window destruction is understandable. Regardless, neither left a positive impression on the other. Ultimately, it's funny for us.
13
@9: The bicyclist has a right to be in the whole lane, especially in crowded traffic like that. It's far more dangerous to stay on the side of the road when there's not enough room for both you and a car in the lane.
12
No contest.
Cyclist. Car didn't get close enough to endanger the cyclist. Left plenty of room on the left for the cyclist. Destroying the mirror ($100's to replace) was petty and cowardly.
And why wasn't he wearing a helmet?
Cyclist. Car didn't get close enough to endanger the cyclist. Left plenty of room on the left for the cyclist. Destroying the mirror ($100's to replace) was petty and cowardly.
And why wasn't he wearing a helmet?
9
car is wrong though for all up driving into the bike. he could have honked first, or just had the courtesy to wait for the biker to notice/pull ahead more.
obviously the cyclist is wrong for bashing the mirror though, and it begs the question of why didn't he wasn't on the side of the road to begin with.
obviously the cyclist is wrong for bashing the mirror though, and it begs the question of why didn't he wasn't on the side of the road to begin with.
8
Car was wrong first and clearly the instigator, but ripping off the mirror was a bit of an overreaction. That being said, I get it. Yesterday I was riding my bike when a car full of idiots starts screaming obscenities at me for no reason. Four blocks later they were backed up at a light and I gave them the same "what was that" shrug seen in this video. At this point traffic starts moving again and the driver deliberately pulls into my lane hitting me with his car. No injuries but plenty of anger. License plate taken down and police report filed. That's vehicular assault and it is definitely not OK.
6
I can totally put myself in the cyclist's place there: ooh, I wanna smack off the inconsiderate driver's mirror, but lemme make sure I have a clear path to flee...YES! Whap! Run awaaaaay!
Profiles in Courage.
Profiles in Courage.
Comments (74) RSS