Alleged Angeles Crest Road Rage Incident Involves Cyclists
 

Alleged Angeles Crest Road Rage Incident Involves Cyclists

The cops actually tracked down a driver based upon reports that he had been threatening cyclists and they arrested him because he defiantly confessed because he thought he'd done nothing wrong. Bizarre.

Interesting, well at least it seems he got an appropriate charge for once.

Well, that's one guy off the street.

Glad he's off the road. The res gestae statement is sweet, I hope they nail him to the wall and not allow him to plead to a minor traffic offense.

Hmm, I could be mistaken, but isn't/wasn't that one of the primary nails in the "good doctor" from LA's coffin? That he just wanted to "teach" those pesky cyclists a lesson? As I recall he made that statement to the 911 operator as well as the first cop on the scene.

As to the myth that cyclists riding two-abreast being either "rude" or "wrong." Stop and think about this. Which is easier for a motorists to pass? Two cyclists riding two-abreast taking up pretty much the same amount of space as any car on the road, or two cyclists who are riding single file, creating an "obstacle" that is twice as long and those takes longer to pass?

Agreed.

And how many countless millions to go?

Ditto, he should NOT be allowed to plea to a lessor offense. He should be charged with every related offense that fits, and when convicted he should have to do the full bid.

(emphasis mine)

Translation: Only motorists "own" the lane. If you are using the public right-of-way without surrounding yourself with two tons of imported steel and fuel, then you are just wrong and it is open season on you.

His mother must be so proud.

who do you think taught him how to drive?

for this guy to essentially brag to the cop about what he did, obviously he thinks he's fully justified in doing it. very nice charges :D

as a (recovering) motorist with half a million miles behind the wheel (without accidents or tickets) i understand that my attitude towards driving came from my dad. i recall a trip, as a kid, out to dinner. we were "stuck" behind a large group of road racers on a training ride. my mom got all uppity and says "what are they doing?!?!?" my dad looked at the speedometer and calmly replied "about 25 mph." very chill. never in a hurry.

Yeah, I've never figured motorists' mentality about that one. You've got to change lanes to pass safely, and two abreast is a shorter pass. I'm convinced at least 90% of drivers think we should all be gutter bunnies.

I would not mention 99,999.999 motorists to go, would I? :)

*chuckle*

cowboy

You make a great point about a car passing 2 cyclist abreast or 2 cyclist in trail. You are absolutely right about the fact that 2 abreast means the car will be on the "wrong" side of the road for a shorter amount of time.

Here is another case of conventional "wisdom" being wrong again. We have always had it pounded into our heads that 2 abreast is a bad thing.

Don't forget about the following quote from Earl Clyde Cox:

If the cyclist were in his lane then why would he need to drive "close to the right shoulder" to yell at them :rolleyes:?

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You'd think that they'd support having a smaller "target" to pass.

The sad thing is that there are also a LOT of cyclists who think that we should be "gutter bunnies."

It would also be nice if drivers ed taught people how to safely drive around cyclists. And in this case I am NOT talking maneuvering around us, but how to operate their 2+ton killing machine without endangering our lives.

:lol:

Exactly, and at the risk of enraging those here who spend "more" time in their cars vs. their bikes. IF a lane is wide enough that cyclists can ride 3 or more abreast. Than why shouldn't we be allowed to do so? I mean down here in Florida a "standard width lane" is 14' wide, so let's say we have a road that has at least two lanes for each direction of travel and it is a "standard width lane" i.e. 14' wide and if 3 cyclists can safely ride side-by-side than why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Wasn't part of the "good" doctor out in LA excuse? That those "mean, rude, inconsiderate" cyclists were "daring" to ride two abreast on "his" road, and he wanted to "teach them a lesson."

It'd be nice if motorists could/would learn that when we ride two abreast that we're actually doing them a favor.

Good question, maybe because he isn't just a JAM or an ass hat motorist, but he is that unique combination of JAM AND ass hat motorist.

This is a steep, twisting two lane mountain road. I've ridden it and driven it. A lone cyclist is easy to pass in a car, if the cyclist is over to the right. (Yes, I know that according to the A&S arithmeticians a cyclist's life is in danger if he's given less than 100 yards of passing space, but in reality, a few feet is fine and accepted by cyclists on mountain roads in SoCal.) A pair of cyclists, though, cannot be passed safely there unless the driver moves into the oncoming lane. There is rarely a safe opportunity for this, as there are few straight sections of any length. So cyclists "taking the lane" or riding two abreast are simply blocking traffic, regardless of what fancy word one might have for it.

Now, other road users block traffic up there too. Motorhomes, older drivers, even some of the Harley guys tend to go well below the posted limit, and other road users get stacked up behind them. This is annoying, especially when they refuse to use the turnouts. But the difference is that even a slow driver is going to be doing 30 or 40 MPH. The average cyclist will be doing something like 5 MPH. I know the hard-core A&Sers will refuse to see the difference, but in the real world, that kind of behavior is just not acceptable on our SHARED roads.

I concur -- that's a silly law.

My guess is that they were simply adopting the law that permits motorcyclists to ride two abreast (they're bigger, faster, so need more space) for bicycle use?

I have to disagree with you. Just because you are faster, doesn't mean you get the right of way. Having lived near Amish country, there have been many times I have been behind a horse and buggy going slowly up a hill. We waited until it was safe to pass. We didn't honk, buzz the buggy or anything like the such. We respected his/her right to use the public roads in a conveyance that they chose.

If there is a safe place to turnout, I agree that the slow moving vehicle should out of courtesy pull over. But this does not mean that they should give up their right of way. The idea of faster means more rights is something that needs to change.

I think that you have a point there.

Agreed, and sadly, I think that the "greater speed," along with the phenomenon of "everyone and their brother being in a hurry to get nowhere fast," leads to impatient drivers, as well as road rage. People need to:

a) be more patient when out on the road
b) they need to leave themselves more of a "time buffer" when leaving either home or the office for an appointment so that way IF they encounter a problem on the road they have a better chance of still getting there on time
c) they need to realize that they are NOT the only one's on the road and that we all have to share the road

You do know that there have been court cases that dispute your "ascertain" that a cyclist who is traveling at a speed that is reasonable for their mode of transportation is NOT "blocking" or "impeding" traffic right? Do you expect someone who is using a bicycle for transportation to "avoid" those particular road just because they "might" slow down and inconvenience some motorist?

Yes, I agree with you, that IF a cyclist sees that there is a number of cars stacking up behind them and that IF they can do so safely. Then yes, they should pull over and allow them to pass. However IF there is no safe place for the cyclist to pull over than the motorists need to be understanding and wait until THEY can safely pass the cyclist OR for to safely pull over and let them pass.

Also see above about how people (not just motorists) need to leave earlier for their appointments so that IF they encounter a situation that's going to slow them down they can still make it to their appointment on time WITHOUT having to rush to do so, or putting themselves or someone else in danger by rushing to get where they want/need to go.

It's not about speed or rights or court cases and blablabla. It's about common courtesy and safety in the real world. A single rider on Angeles Crest Highway can be passed safely if the rider is over to the right. Two riders side-by-side cannot. It's unnecessary and rude and shows exactly the kind of contempt for other road users that A&Sers are always complaining about from drivers.

And I just have to single this one out for attention: It's almost unbelievable to me that someone would look at a row of cars stuck behind a couple of rude cyclists going 5 MPH and think "Well, that's not legally considered blocking..." I guess if a court held that the sun doesn't rise in the East you'd be arguing with the astrophysicists.

Beyond that, you can pretty much count on the fact that a couple of Lycra-clad prettyboys riding Angeles Crest on a weekend are out for recreation. So the argument is essentially that it's perfectly acceptable to take over a public road for your own enjoyment and the hell with everyone else.

And A&Sers wonder why drivers are so angry with cyclists...

You seem familiar with the road. Are you also familiar with safety considerations?

How wide is the lane there? Is the width consistent? What is the condition of the road surface far to the right? Again, is it consistent? What is the frequency of intersecting roads and high-volume driveways? What are the sight lined and how does riding FRAP change them? When was the last time you rode that stretch of road?

I'm an strong advocate of sharing the lane when safe but the decision to share or take must be that of the cyclist.

Your other comments about 5 MPH average riders and prettyboys do not give me any confidence in your ability to make safety decisions for others. You seem to thinking with a body part south of your brain.