Seemed rather defensive on the subject, didn’t he? lol. Compelling story none the less. And a rather radical ending. You’d think a bicyclist would love to put those people in jail. Especially for something those two men probably do on a daily basis.

yes, you have a point of view. It is biased, but you are correct, it is a point of view.

If you were really concerned about people making meaningless and idle threats on a message board, you would be focusing on responding to those people, instead you are attempting to insult everybody on this board. You also imply that these sorts of idle threats only happen on this board, which is false, as you well know. Even some of the quotes you just posted have nothing inherently wrong with them, it is purely your assumptions on the meaning. For example, the quote from greasybear advocated no violence, just the willingness to defend oneself when attacked. Self defense can take many forms, not all of a violent nature. On the other hand, the one by NoeValleyJim was obviously over the line, as some others had already pointed out. You might also have made a comment about the threats made by the drivers against the biker, which was the start of the entire thread.

I’m just pointing out your bias.

-

kylek
well, if anyone reading this runs across a dark silver BMW with the license plate BYE GIRL, you might want to get creative with your keys, a can of spray paint, or the heavy end of your bike lock… and then report it to the authorities of course.
September 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm

francis
@ Kylek
For sure, if memory serves a BMW m3 uses 17mm lug-nuts and second hand metric spin-tights are cheap and available. Remember folks, get the rear wheels – you wouldn’t want to hurt anyone – just the car.
September 16, 2009 at 4:28 pm

the greasybear
Each individual must decide for him/herself how to handle attacks by criminal motorists. Yet cyclists must never gain a reputation for being uniquely unwilling to defend ourselves, lest we induce otherwise timid motorists to attack us in the firm belief no price shall ever be paid for crimes which never, apparently, are prosecuted by SF authorities.
September 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm

NoeValleyJim
I would probably carry heat, but it weighs too much. Would it be considered self defense if you shot someone who was trying to run you off the road?
September 17, 2009 at 5:03 pm

The first type is when it actually causes harm. Some cyclists steal right of way at four-way stop signs, or ride too close to crossing pedestrians, or ride on crowded footpaths. It’s the equivalent to the motorist mentioned in this article (but perhaps less dangerous), or motorists who park in bike lanes and bus stops, or motorists who tailgate, or pedestrians that wander into moving traffic and expect it to stop. This kind of behaviour pisses me off, whether I’m in a car, on a bike, or on foot.

The second type of violation is harmless, such as a cyclist not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign but still seeing it’s clear, a motorist doing the same thing, a cyclist proceeding against a red light when there’s no traffic, a pedestrian doing the same thing, or a motorist doing 70MPH in a 65 zone under good conditions. Most cyclists, motorists and pedestrians do these things, and I think that’s perfectly acceptable. (Besides, when I first started commuting by bike, I *did* wait for red lights, and motorists would still abuse me because they didn’t want to wait for their right turns.)

I often see discussions like this, where people try to justify harmful behaviour by saying the other was violating the law, when it was in fact a harmless violation. Somebody else then usually suggests that nobody should be breaking the law, although I’m sure they themselves still break it—do they always come to absolute complete stops at stop signs, *and* never exceed 25MPH speed limits, even in places like Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, *and* always signal their turns? I doubt it.

So I think it’s more realistic for people to just realise there are the two types of law violations, and not get so worked up if they see somebody break the law without it harming anyone. In other words: everyone, chill out.

I wonder why you only picked one small portion of the responses to form your conclusion, here are a few other perspectives that were also presented in the thread:

“If the bicyclist had purposefully ran her bicycle straight into the BMW out of malice, then she would have deserved to be yelled at. As it is, civility is important, whether it be on a message board or on our city streets.”

“Chill. If you see that car, report it to the police. That’ll do *all of us* a lot better”

“1. Bicyclists should not be threatened or harassed by motorists.
2. Bicyclists should stop at red lights and follow traffic rules, as they are considered vehicles too.”

“writing about a crime and saying is should be punished by the law”
-A crime has to be proven in court to have been committed for a perpetrator to be punished. Unless you are a vigilante. Like this one from the first article: “If I ever come across BYE GIRL, it’ll sport multiple dents, broken mirrors and if doable, broken windows & windshield. That I promise. September 16, 2009 at 7:02 pmLink”

“That newspaper was just like a pitchfork-bearing mob.”
-Sorry this confused you. You and some of the other commenters are the potential pitchfork-mob. Not your newspaper, (which one was that again?) and not this blog.

Also, re: your comment on the other post (September 17, 2009 at 10:05 am) advocating a “law against motorists threatening or harassing bicyclists.” – Good news for you: there are already laws making it a crime to threaten or harass any person, whether they are on a bike or not, and they are enforced by the police and courts.

My thought regarding this story was simply that it might have been better corroborated or researched before it was posted in front of people thirsting for violent retribution against their enemies: cars and the people who drive them.

One hopes that your book, which has an interesting premise, is better thought out than your comment would suggest.

*A cyclist informs us she ran a red light
*The authorities warn a motorist and his accomplice regarding their hate crimes and assault upon a cyclist

Now, our Rob Anderson accolytes here insist we ignore the motor-criminals’ behavior, and focus instead on blaming the victim. It’s the same pattern–the cyclist is always uniquely naughty, and the motorist? Blameless like the baby Jesus.

In order to retain their violent and bloody domination of our shared public roadways, fanatic motorists continue to justify bullying cyclists, up to and including death threats and assaults like against this cyclist here. “She deserved it! She had it coming!” That is the bad logic being used to prop up bad behavior that itself is intended to extend bad street design and bad traffic management.

Interesting, no action was taken against the perpetrators of the crime, nothing more than a stern warning, and yet you want the cyclist, who’s action was orders magnitude less serious than those of the driver and passenger, to be given a ticket.

How balanced and fair of you.

That newspaper was just like a pitchfork-bearing mob. Remember that writing about a crime and saying is should be punished by the law is absolutely no different from being a vigilante and acting violently outside of the law.

While the current laws do prohibit bikes from crossing red lights, it doesn’t mean it makes sense. Bikes and cars are not the same at all – bicyclists are hardly endangering anyone but themselves, and traffic lights were made for the taming of the multi-ton death machines that are automobile traffic. If a bicyclist can clearly see there is no cross-traffic approaching, there is no good reason for them to have to continue to wait for the green. Bikes are very maneuverable and have a very short stopping distance, as well. If anything, it is in a cyclist’s best safety interest to get ahead and away from the traffic.

That being said, I don’t have to explain why this bicyclist passing a red light is not even remotely comparable with what the occupants of that vehicle were doing.