Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Newsletters
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Stranger Tickets
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
EverOut
Things To Do
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
EverOut App
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
Publication Info
Check it out
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
A car is required to have many safety features to protect its occupant: air bags, safety belts, unibody constructure, impact bumpers, ...
A bicycle has none of these and hence does not belong on the road.
This is why I ride only on the sidewalk, or pedestrian trails, or segregated paths, unless forced to go into the street.
Is this not like blaming a women for wearing proactive clothes after she is assaulted? Man, the idiocy that surrounds the conversion on road safety is truly amusing, however deadly.
Bikes don't have or need any of these safety features.
Not disagreeing with your decision to take the sidewalk however; I am happy to take the sidewalk when crawling up a hill and even happier to take a separate, protected bike lane if one is available.
We have no idea of what truly transpired between these two. There's no mention of the police interviewing the car driver for her side of the tale.
We do know even though the bicyclist alleges he was swerved into and hit neither he nor his bike sustained any damage.
Sounds like a two way road rage to me. Both are probably guilty of some misbehavior.
That wasn't really my point. It appears the Police Report which forms the basis for the cartoon only captures one side of the story, which I presume prompted the cartoonist to use of the term "allegedly" in the first panel. Since none of us (including the officer who took the report) were witnesses, we cannot say for absolute certain events transpired exactly as they're described - we have only the cyclist's word for that. And it wasn't my intention to suggest the alleged assault took place specifically because the rider wasn't wearing a helmet; only to point out that, if the physical representation IS true and the cyclist wasn't wearing one then there is a sense of irony given that they would be so concerned about someone else not having any regard for their personal safety, when they show such small regard for it themselves.
As to any actual assault that may have occurred; well, yes, assault is what it is, but on the other hand it's not in the least bit analogous to blaming a woman for wearing "provocative" clothing after an assault, since for one thing, wearing a bike helmet is required by law, for quite obvious reasons, whereas wearing unprovocative (or whatever) clothing is not.
I'm a devoted cyclist. My bike is pretty much my only means of transportation and I bike everywhere - taking my kids to school, grocery shopping for my family - the whole ball of wax. I know cyclists get a raw deal and have a right to advocate for themselves, but I still feel entitled to call a spade a fucking spade. I'm not making any sorts of equivalencies, false or otherwise. When I hear stories of cyclists getting in punch-ups with drivers or pulling knives on pedestrians, then something is going horribly wrong with bike culture. You disagree?
Again, you're making a lot of assumptions, based on your apparent presumption that the cyclist's "testimony" in this incident is 100% accurate and therefore unimpeachable, which, given my own personal experience with bike riders I would tend to take with a rather large grain of salt. Unless you were actually riding shotgun with the driver - and staring directly at her while doing so - you have no way of knowing whether she checked her mirrors or not; no way of knowing whether she had right-of-way to make the right-turn; no way of knowing that the driver in fact did any of the things the cyclists claims she did, including, presumably, throwing coffee and deliberately swerving in an attempt to hit them. Maybe she did ALL these things, maybe she didn't do ANY of them, or maybe she did one or two of them, and perhaps the cyclist embellished the story in a bid to gain sympathy from the officer. There is ALWAYS another side to the story; that's why incidents such as this require a certain level of corroboration, another eye-witness, physical evidence, etc., etc., none of which are provided here.
Sure, one can give the cyclist the benefit of the doubt, but again, IF it is true they weren't wearing a helmet as depicted in the cartoon, then we DO know one thing for absolute certain: they exhibit a tendency to ignore the law and show little regard for their own personal safety. If this depiction is accurate, that would not be "false equivalency" that would be FACT.
@11 I blame Dominic Holden too.
And the coffee makes it assault.
So I guess it's ok to throw coffee on another person when it's a cyclist telling a driver they did something unsafe. Got it.
" Put another way, cars are so dangerous they need a litany of legally-required safety features yet car 'accidents' are still the leading cause of death for young people in this country. Hence, cars don't belong in an urban environment."
That's another perspective.
But are you willing to say that cars should not have safety devices? That I should be able to ride around in an open jalopy with not even a safety belt? I think not.
You might also argue about banning cars, but until that happens, also, logically, bikes should not be on those roads as well.
My argument is still valid.
Bikes should not be on streets adjacent to car traffic, both by law, and by reason.
"Seattle roads were actually built for cyclists and streetcar use (90%). Cars came later"
This is my argument for why all Walk Lights should be instantaneous.
For the same historic Right of Way reason that someone in a yacht can command the floating bridges to rise, and tie up hundreds of motorists, a pedestrian should be able to hit the Walk button and instantly stop traffic.
Yeah, if you stop a stranger, hold up a finger, and lecture them, expect coffee or worse. Your salesperson analogy doesn't work at all, sorry.
Someday, somebody is going get hurt and sue the City for this inherently unsafe roadway design.
Stop trying to make it out that the cyclist didn't throw a fit, go up to a car, and start lecturing a stranger. That's not just saying something in conversation, or even a "hey, learn how to drive!" yelled at the driver as she turned in front of him. Even a semi-sympathetic cartoon shows a self-righteous male lecturing a female stranger who has no idea who he is, or what he's about. He's lucky it was just coffee - not that more would be justified, but it's stupid of him to not be aware of potential consequences.
I do enjoy that the "y" and "o" on your keyboard appear to be broken.
I'm not saying that the bicyclist's version of events is completely accurate, but I'd give it far more credence than the artist's rendering of his physical appearance. Chances are stellar that whether or not he was wearing a helmet wouldn't even be noted in the police report since that detail is 100% irrelevant to the interaction between the biker and the driver. He could have been on his way home from a puppy kicking party and it would have no bearing on this incident, because no matter how reckless or horrible a person he happens to be, assault is assault.
...What? You'll jump to the defense of someone who physically assaulted a guy based on a (MAYBE) perceived threat, but not to the defense of someone who (MAYBE) raised his voice to the person who just nearly made him road kill. Right. Makes total sense. My apologies for thinking that the person who merely responded verbally to a near-death incident responded more appropriately to the situation than a person who threw coffee at someone they almost ran over.
We all live in the same world, one where, for example, innocent kids are gunned down with impunity for no reason whatsoever; a world rife with people who don't exercise good judgement, or who have issues with self-control. In a situation like the one described in this comic, it would seem imprudent to expect a "normal response", particularly if you believe the person in question just did something dangerous, stupid, illegal, or some combination of all three. Rather, I would think the better default would be to expect them to do something irrational, based on their behavior, and to make the decision to engage them (or not) accordingly. If events played out as the cyclist described, this would seem to be a perfect case in point, as the driver's irrational behavior appears to have been pretty consistent throughout.
@40:
Which was why I asked the question about whether the depiction was accurate in the first place (cit ref @1). And actually, I would think whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet would be a salient detail in the report, since again, failure to wear one is a citeable infraction in King County.
As a 48 yo native I've not actually run into this level of douchebaggery much. From my perspective this is an imported attitude towards cyclists in general that demonstrates a most classist and disgusting level of entitlement. Please SPD & AG, throw the book at her. Hard! No verbal tongue-lashing from any cyclist - even if whiney (omg, boo-hoo) - justifies assault!
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…
RCW 46.61.770
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(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.
Oh, and I've seen enough gopro footage of aggro cyclists being treated like shit by aggro drivers to know that everybody sucks in most of these scenarios.
Which is one of the reasons I'm skeptical things went down the way they're described. If the cyclist had had a cup of hot coffee thrown on them, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY report the assault? Why did they wait until they had another confrontation with the same driver, wherein they allegedly made a second attempt at assault? Something smells fishy here, and it ain't the fish.
Re: Helmet. It would only be relevant to a report regarding a helmet infraction/citation. Since it would be a completely separate infraction made by a separate person, it has no reason to be in the same report as the assault. Far more believable that the artist just didn't want or think to draw a helmet.
But, the problem in both cases is that, in addition to your "healthy dose of skepticism," you're actively taking sides in an event that you yourself claim we can have no knowledge of, for or against the narrative. (Apologies for the incredibly awkward wording.)
You're not only dismissing the claims of the bicyclist, but you're adding in justification for the other party, whose side we haven't even had the privilege of hearing. It's one thing to say, "I have no reason to believe this is accurate," and another to say, "...but, somehow it's probably the biker's fault." That's not just being skeptical of the biker's claims. That's inventing an entirely new story out of thin air. Hell, maybe he summoned his pet raptors to attack her, not because she nearly hit him, but because she had an anti-raptor bumper sticker, and she didn't throw the coffee at all - one of the raptors swiped it out of her hand. I mean, since we can't believe anything we read, that's JUST as likely a scenario, right?
If I'm showing any bias, and I don't necessarily deny that to be the case, it's based on my own personal experiences with entitled douchebags on bikes. But I try not to generalize, since I realize that isn't how all cyclists behave. But, given the tone of this story, the "victim" here sounds a lot like ones I've encountered, and thus I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
As I said in a previous comment, without corroborating evidence or a second set of eyes, it's all just "he said", and I've seen enough examples of mendacious speech in my life to not take anyone's story at face-value.
Felony assault? Give me a break. She threw her coffee cup at him, the cup hit him in the face, and some coffee got on him. He was unharmed, by his own account.
@All those claiming a near-death situation:
They were BOTH turning right according to the cyclist, and he was mad that she "swerved around him" during her turn. The second time, when she "swerved" into him, he was stopped, she was trying to turn right again, and she drove off. And, by his own account, neither he nor his bike were damaged.
I'm not going to deny that some bikers are jerks. But some drivers are jerks, too, and regardless of who is or isn't a jerk in this situation, it seems clear that the person who ended up throwing beverages and swerving their thousands of pounds of rolling metal at others is the one who ultimately crossed the line from jerk to criminal. You can argue all day about whether or not he 'deserved' it, but that doesn't make her alleged actions any less illegal.
You don't have to be physically harmed for something to be a near-death incident. It merely requires there to have been a real possibility of moral harm.
@57 thank you
I think if every driver walked (pedaled) a mile in a bicyclist's shoes they'd understand a little more why cyclists get upset when cars don't pay attention/put lives in danger
So ... When do we get that?l
There does not appear to be anything more than the possibility of "moral" harm here, agreed.
Get over the vulnerability Olympics. Participate in the street like you want to live. Yell at other participants if you want to pick a fight. Don't pick fights. Bring up deficiencies in this system with the city council and Seattle DOT, not other street users.
And seriously, type out "you" like you are a fucking adult.
Sounds like the driver was in the wrong and also I would like the cyclist's contact information so I can throw some coffee at him.
Thank you! What we have here is a fucking clueless driver with some leftover coffee (HOT SCALDING COFFEE THAT LEFT THE CYCLIST BLIND - FELONY!!!!) and a hissy-fitting cyclist (HOW DARE BICYCLES THINK THAT THEY CAN TAKE MY PRECIOUS LANES!!!). Two everyday Seattle stereotypes clash, and it's apparently a story.
-- the story from the biker's point of view
Are you sure it was just mace mixed in with the trace coffee left in the cup she no longer cared about? I'm pretty sure that CAR DRIVERS BRINGING ABOUT THE APOCALYPSE all have access to ricin. Thanks for your totally reasonable and accurate description of how Sacrificial Lamb Cyclist was nearly killed.
An inconvenient typo on my part since it set up your dismissal so nicely, but if you seriously think a giant metal box is not potentially life threatening to a squishy human should two come into contact, I don't think I can help you.
There is research that suggests that automobile drivers would get a substantial benefit from wearing helmets (similar to those worn by auto racers). So perhaps it is drivers that care very little for their safety?