LOL, glad the dude wasn't hurt, b/c I for one was laughing.

And isn't running from the cops a crime?

Slammed his breaks on, huh?

You see? THESE are the kinds of dangerous morons who drive cars!! Keep your damn cars on the race track where they belong and leave the roads for cyclists!!

Without the evasion, dude in the car is still guilty of RCW 46.61.620

Opening and closing vehicle doors.

No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side adjacent to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle adjacent to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

*and* assault.

They know where the dude lives, presumably from this car registration and job... why isn't he arrested yet?

The cyclist "made a hand gesture" to slow down. Yeah, I'll just bet that's what it was.

Wow. This driver is a fucking hero! This is what I want to do to every single cyclist that thinks they belong on the road. These two hipster cyclist were just doing what other cyclist do, they stand shoulder to shoulder at red lights, LIKE THEY ARE FUCKING CARS, blocking cars from accelerating from the red light. There is nothing more frustrating then being stuck behind some slow ass moving hipster cyclist. I know Seattle is full of passive aggressive slow moving idiots, but some people like to get where they are going faster than 10 MPH. It is hard enough to deal with scared slow moving drivers in the city, but when a car finally gets ahead of slow drivers on the road, to have some cyclist block you, it is frustrating. The driver should have ran them both fuck over. If enough cyclist get hit, maybe they will finally get the picture that THEY ARE NOT CARS AND DO NOT BELONG ON THE ROADS. I hope this sort of stuff happens everyday. Except with a couple cyclist in the hospital as a result.

And I love how they were trying to get HIS license plate.Fucking cyclist can throw stones or ball barrings, or punch cars, and they have no licenses plate for drivers to call in. Why the fuck dont cyclist pay for tabs(and contribute to the roads they steal) and get plates so drivers can report their hipster militant actions against evil car drivers?

"...the cyclist slowed down, allegedly to confront the driver, but instead collided with the driver's door and crashed."

Wait...what? He slowed down to talk to the guy, but couldn't avoid his door???

This seriously sounds like two different types of douchebags having an unfortunate confrontation.

@ 3 and @ 6, you are both world class douchebags who deserve each other. (Although @ 6 has a point - bikes are supposed to be all the way to the right in a single file, even at traffic lights. You still suck hemorrhoidic asshole, though, Mr. Bombit.)

@2 ftw.

"slamming on his breaks" - glad he got his beats down and his rap in gear.

Probably a tea bagger.

Mrbombit, please read the law before you act like you anything about anything.

Also, I'm surprised car tabs pay for the roads in their entirety. I am also surprised to hear that no cyclists own cars. I thought they were, you know, people who often do things like own cars and houses and other stuff like that. I assume you also support "shoe tabs" so pedestrians, who get to walk on sidewalks for free, can contribute to all the public space they're stealing when they cross the street.

Oh wait. You're an ignorant, violent dumbass who doesn't make sense. Sorry.

@8

Wrong. Two abreast is the law.

@8 - wrong.

Bikes have as much right to occupy a lane as they need.

Please retake your drivers test.

#6 is either joking brilliantly, or is close enough to a self-induced coronary that it shouldn't worry anyone much longer.

All love for trolls aside, I really want to know why the dude isn't arrested? Are the police baffled as to his location? Are they scared because he isn't a jaywalking teenager, or a stripper? Seems like a slam dunk follow up arrest.

With all the talk of civility laws to clean up this city, they cant be bothered to pick up a suspect that seriously injured someone, that they have multiple witnesses to the alleged crimes?

This is what's wrong with this city.

pancakes

@8 Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong! You are not right! Bikes are better! Ha! Even Will says so! Bikes win!

If that's true, Will and emor, then no wonder you have such bike vs car problems in Washington. You should lobby for change - two abreast is fucking stupid because it impedes the flow of traffic, and Will, I'm sure that "take up as much of the lane as they need" is your unique misinterpretation of "stay as far right as practical," which is the law in most places.

(Note: since some dummy is going to misinterpret "practical," it means that you can go as far left as you have to in order to avoid hazards, but otherwise keep to the right.)

@ 16, I've been riding bikes for far longer than you.

It would be great to read the police report and compare it to what unpaid intern has posted.

Not to say this driver isn't a douchebag, but this post led to one giant fucking eyeroll after another.

If I was in a confrontation with an intoxicated, very aggressive driver downtown at night, the last thing I would do is try to have a personal confrontation with them. You might end up getting your ass handed to you. Especially if you're wispy enough to get lifted, bike and all, into the air several times. Get the license number and get the hell out of there. Use your head.

Section 11.44.040 RIDING ON ROADWAYS.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed slower than the normal and reasonable flow of motor vehicle traffic thereon shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe, except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

Emphasis added.

Until yesterday, I was a big advocate of generally trying to stay out of motorists' way, just out of courtesy. But after having some asshole come within about six inches of clipping me because he decided he could probably make that turn without actually running me over, I'm becoming a big goddamn advocate of taking up as much of the fucking lane as I have to to keep assholes from trying some kind of bullshit maneuver that they're pretty sure won't end up fucking killing me.

If the lifting up the bike and the bicyclist into the air description is accurate, it sounds like the meathead is suffering from 'roid (not road) rage.

It isn't like the old days when you could just run a cyclist over. The tide is turning and you can be arrested and put in prison. Ask the doctor in LA and others. And for the big, bad motorists who are bragging about wanting to run over cyclists? You are nothing but cowards. Get out of the car and be brave.

BTW, user fees, taxes and gas tax pay for less than 1/3rd of road construction and maintenance. Over 2/3rds comes from general taxes- paid by everybody. When you start paying all road costs in gas taxes, which will make gas incredibly expensive, then you can try to use this argument. You do not own the road. Everybody does. And roads have been around a lot longer than cars. Bikes have been around a lot longer than cars as well.

@22- "Hercules is a positive connontation type demi god...you know, the stuff he did was valiant and all?"

Except when he was drunk and wrecked shit.

@the author: BRAKES stop cars and bicycles.

@24: I'm going to be an asshole to all drivers because any driver could fucking kill me dead by being an asshole to me.

If being an asshole in this case helps me to not get fucking killed, then yeah, I'm gonna be an asshole. I've got a wife and three cats depending on me. How about the guy who's only risking being four seconds late makes the first move in breaking the cycle of assholery?

Ima gonna have to agree with 7, 19 & 22. I would NOT roll a Rollo to eithier of those bitches, bitches!

@6. 8/10

you really nailed the angry driver motif, but it was a little to long to be perfect. Next time just type fuck 17 times in allcaps after the fourh sentance. Good effort.

@24 it's not being an asshole, it's taking up as much of the lane as necessary to assert our own right of way in a safe manner.

Even Mayor McGinn says TAKE THE LANE.

And now I'm gonna go ride my bike up Pike St on my evening commute. BRING IT BOMBIT.

@30 so you want to walk my 20 mile commute....?

wait wait wait.....did you just suggest that walking is a reasonable alternative to bike riding, driving and bussing for the general population?
you do realize the average commuting distance for americans is 16miles correct?

The bicyclists are completely right.

And yet completely wrong.

Bicycling around Seattle is unsafe on anywhere but bike only paths.

You can pretend it's otherwise, and assert your rights -- but the real focus needs to be on using Transit Funds to build bike only paths, lanes...even Bike Highways.

@36 agreed, but that's long term and I'm riding my bike NOW.

You're all a bunch of assholes. Cars and Bikes.

@38 i am neither a bike nor a car, I am human: hear me fart

@ Mrbombit, I owe you an apology. My ability to detect irony and sarcasm is very impaired today...

@36- It's also unsafe to walk, take a shower, or breathe.

@12 Wrong

"(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, .."
plus,..
"(2) 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."
RCW 46.61.770
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

Bicycles have to stay as far to the right, and not be to abreast, when riding on roads. They cannot act like a car and take up an entire lane. However, I suppose someone could argue they are such a pansy they have to ride in the middle of the road because they fear of hitting a parked car?

Bikes do not " have [just] as much right to occupy a lane as they need." If you read the law, instead of relieng on your drivers test for legal knowledge, you will read
"(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, EXCEPT as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application."

As you can read, the law creates "special status" for bicycles, by explicitly stating there are exceptions for bicycles. So when you say bike have "just as much right" to the roads as cars you are factually and legally wrong. If you would like to sound half informed, you should say they have just as much right, except....

I know you think you are some sort of intelligent celebrity, here on the SLOG. But, that should not lead to you speaking out of your ass on matters you apparently have no grasp of. Please stick with making clever commentary to matters that only affect hipsters. You are much better suited for that, as opposed to practicing law.

@43, who determines "safe"? The cyclist. If the cyclist feels like he needs the whole lane to feel safe, he gets the whole lane. Car drivers can suck it if they don't like it. If you force a bike off the road for any reason whatsoever, and get caught, you're going to be paying Vern Fonk $2,000 a month for car insurance for the rest of your life.

@36 I agree that making dedicated bike paths is a wonderful idea. However, we are stuck in a pretty icky cycle right now. First, no one wants to build dedicated bike paths because there aren't enough cyclists. Second, people are discouraged from biking because they don't feel it's safe to bike on anything but a dedicated bike paths. Simply, the government won't build bike paths because there aren't enough cyclists and people won't bike because there aren't bike paths. As is, we're stuck.

@30 Do you have some kind of proof that walking is safer than cycling? Because I've heard that the actual rates aren't that different. That being said, I can't seem to find good statistics for it, so I'm hoping that you have access to good statistics, given that you are so vigorously claiming that people ought to walk rather than cycle for their own safety.

@43

Please read again. Specifically, "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."

I'll explain that to you: Two friends can ride side by side on roadways. Three friends may not. One must ride in front or back. On bike paths, three friends may ride abreast. Understand?

Now, even though I recognize I have the right to ride next to my friend or girlfriend, I always drop into single file to allow automobiles to pass. Just to be nice.

Fnarf covered the "Far right as practicable" business well. Since you're in a car, you don't understand the multitude of dangers and hazard faced by people on bikes that might force them to take the lane. Preventing unsafe passing in narrow traffic lanes is just one of these situations. In other words, cyclists are not obliged by law to ride into ditches or potholes that often lie in wait on the edge of the roadway.

Finally, you mention a "special status" for bikes. Note that elsewhere in the law the following is stated: "46.61.755 Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the drive of a vehicle by this chapter."

How exactly does that sentence fit into your misguided opinion? It seems to indicate that bicycles belong on the road.

Theres got to be more to this story. This cyclist isnt completely innocent in this. I would never leave my girlfriend.

Motorcyclists love Bicycle / Auto wars. They crack our shit up.

@43 If you are biking and there is potential to hit a parked car, it isn't the parked car you need to be worried about. Swerving in and out of traffic (making "S" movements) isn't safe. If you are riding on the side of the road and there is or might be a parked car in your way, you need to stay left far enough that you don't need to move to keep from hitting the car. If you are riding so far to the right that you need to move left to avoid parked cars, you are increasing the likelihood that a moving car will hit you when you shift left to avoid it. The same thing applies to car doors; you need to be far enough left that if you someone opens the door to their car, you don't need to swerve left or hit the door. Where I live, it is the LAW that you do this.

I apologize if you already knew this.

Man I gotta remember this when I get pulled over for DUI: run away from the car. The cop will impound it but I'll face no penalty other than the fee to have you car towed & stored for a day.

Being a motorist is awesome!

Motorists who hate cyclists are about as interesting, rational, and intelligent as teabaggers.

i just had a double bacon salad from il fornaio. so good

@53 Actually, that does work. If the police cannot get a breathalyzer on you, it is really hard to make a DUI case. If you wreck your car will drunk, leave. The next morning, call the police and tell them you think you wrecked your car. They can, but won't always, hit you with a leaving the scene of an accident. However, they cannot make a DUI case, nor a refusing a breathalyzer case. YMMV. There is a good chance the motorist will not face a DUI in this situation, but I think they have him on assault.

@58 hover buses?

Personally, if I was riding a bike and had an asshole in a car wave his proverbial dick at my friends and I and speed off, I like to think I'd know better than to try and chase him down. If I chased his large practically-armored (compared to me) vehicle in my very squishy jacket and shorts on a bike and got messed up because I felt the need to wave my proverbial dick back at him and got messed up from it, I'd feel lucky if I could walk afterwards.

If someone tries to dangerously cut me off at an intersection when I'm driving a car and relatively safe, I don't feel entitled to become some hooded vigilante trying to teach him a lesson. I leave the asshole alone and move on with my day. I'm not sure why I'd necessarily change this behavior just because I'm on a bike.

Cyclists are to Slog what Republicans are to Fox News.

I prefer the motorcyclists way, with the pressure to keep your skills tip-top; the encouragement to continuously improve yourself through extra classes. Neither cyclists or cagers impress me. Cyclists expect the same rights as motorized vehicles, but they take no training classes and barely protect their persons while riding. They go slow and block traffic, then take offense when faster, stronger vehicles roar by them. Cagers take a one-time test as a teen and think they know everything about driving. They know they're set for life, and take their ability to drive for granted.

I learned to ride a bike when I was 6. I took Sunday rides with my family, my skirts clipped to my ankle with a little plastic clip. Hit my teens, and they started changing the laws -- I couldn't ride my bike on the sidewalk anymore. Now I'm supposed to (if I opt to ride a bicycle) ride in traffic, with motorized vehicles that I can't keep up with and only a flimsy stupid foam & plastic helmet for protection.

In addition, having never taken a formal bicycling traffic course, I'm not entirely certain of bicycle etiquette on the road. Am I to block traffic at lights, or edge my bicycle to the side of the road? What are my different hand signals, again? Can I get a ticket if I'm impeding traffic, due to my slow speed?

So I stopped riding a bicycle. I roller-blade or walk, and when a bicyclist comes up (illegally) on the sidewalk, I step aside easily enough. I honestly feel relieved when I see a cyclist on the sidewalk rather than the road. They may be going faster than pedestrians, but it seems so much safer than putting them among motorized vehicles, where they're slower.

In comparison, to drive both my car and motorcycle, I had to take a test for my permit (for both vehicles). I had to take a driving (and later, riding) course. I had to pass a test, proving that I knew both how to operate my vehicle and the rules of the road.

Furthermore, motorcyclists are expected to take the brunt of their riding safety on themselves -- as a car driver, I'm not regularly encouraged by other drivers to take advanced driving courses. Nor am I encouraged by the government or safety institutions to get regularly re-tested on my skills. Instead, I got my drivers license at 17 and am accepted as a driver, a fellow citizen of the road.

wait, you claim to be tip top with your motorcycle skills but you don't know your hand signals?

That shit is like motorcycle driving 101, that's on the test, I believe its even on your automobile test too.

FAIL

here, i will help you, if god forbid you ever drive a real motorcycle without turning lights: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hand+signals

I honestly thing people need to take tests for rollerblades more so than bicycles, people strap those things on and just go straight for a hill......get out of control and just bail in a bush or grassy yard, half the time the sporty ones only have one rubber brake. What are the chances they are doing even the most minimum service on their wheels or boots or brake pads? I'd be surprised to see them doing any maintenance

also, why are knee, wrist and elbow pads so necessary for rollerblading? ....oh right....cuz most people are out of control amateur bladerz

@62 While it does SEEM safer to bicycle on the sidewalk, it is my understanding that it was made illegal to do such in part because ISN'T safer, even for the cyclists. The way it was explained to me is that automobile drivers only expect pedestrians on the sidewalk, and as such they only check for people on the sidewalk that are at a distance a pedestrian could travel. In other words, a driver who is getting ready to pull across the sidewalk won't look far enough down the sidewalk to see if a cyclist is coming. This is an issue because cyclists can cover more ground in less time (obviously) and they have greater difficulty stopping. Thus, this increases the danger that there will be a car/bike collision at every intersection. But when a cyclist is on the road (not the sidewalk) then cars that are at intersections are look in far enough to see cars coming, meaning that the driver is more likely to see the cyclist. Unless we are going to have cyclists stop at every place where a car might cross their path, it's just safer to have them on the road.

@65 -- While it is safer to have them on the road, I personally think every piece of cycling gear needs to come with a warning label like with cigarettes: "You are a squishy person riding on a metal frame reliant on your stamina and balance to remain upright. The ease with which you can become a martyr for cyclists everywhere (douchebag and otherwise) does not automatically make you an innocent victim if you do something stupid and get hurt. Assume people in cars will have as much contempt for you as you do for them."

In my experience it is standard for police to not pursue someone (like issue a warrant and start a manhunt) for minor assault (no injuries, no medical attention requested) or for past-tense possible DUI. Officers' job is to keep people safe, and by the time officers' arrived, the people were safe. Good on them for towing the car because the man was intoxicated after the police talked to him; though I wonder if towing a car because the owner is intoxicated is would be ok if the issue came up in court (I doubt it, or police would constantly tow cars owned by bar patrons).

No DUI for this driver either, he went and got a drink after the incident and before police arrived. Even if the officer drunk tested as soon as they saw this man, test results showing booze in his system aren't valid because he drank AFTER driving. If he was loaded while driving, the police weren't there in time to test for that. Yep, if you get in an accident or other driving trouble and you have been drinking, get thee a legal drink before the police arrive to negate drunk driving charges. Current breathalysers can only analyze current blood alcohol levels, not back in time when you were driving.