Tuscon driver mows down cyclists

[greglepore]

Jeff, the point isn't that the cyclists were lily white, maybe they were, maybe they were not but--

you have a ccw; you and a guy have words about something and it escalates into a shouting match for whatever reason, and maybe he even questions your heritage-does this allow you to brandish your weapon or even fire a shot over his head? That's my point here--hitting a cyclist with a car, even just knocking him over, is never justified unless somehow your life has been endangered by the cyclist, and I have difficulty conceiving of how that transpired.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Jeff, the point isn't that the cyclists were lily white, maybe they were, maybe they were not but--

you have a ccw; you and a guy have words about something and it escalates into a shouting match for whatever reason, and maybe he even questions your heritage-does this allow you to brandish your weapon or even fire a shot over his head? That's my point here--hitting a cyclist with a car, even just knocking him over, is never justified unless somehow your life has been endangered by the cyclist, and I have difficulty conceiving of how that transpired.

That's fully understood, Greg, and a good analogy. The one possessing the means to inflict greater harm does indeed have the greater responsibility. I agree completely. If the driver did indeed swerve to hit the bikes, he deserves all of the wrath expressed within this thread. I've never said otherwise.

But - and this is a big "but" - your analogy doesn't necessarily fully equate to this situation. What if the cyclist(s) tried to cleat his door and, in doing so, lost it and crashed? As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, I've ridden in these peletons, and witnessed many an aberrant act of aggression, from motorists and cyclists both. I saw guys cleat doors on passing cars. I saw guys club passing cars with their pumps. I saw guys throw rocks at passing cars. All because the motorist, after being held up for awhile, had the audacity to honk, or maybe even flip off or verbally berate the pack as he passed.

And, of course, when a knucklehead like that missjudges or misstimes his kick and crashes, the whole pack will stand together and tell the cop that the car swerved into them. Been there, seen that.

[flipper35]

Mr. Jeff Higgins, meet Mr. Jack Baruth.

Rod Kinkade Has Been Tried And Sentenced For Attempted Murder By The Internet | The Truth About Cars

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by greglepore

That's my point here--hitting a cyclist with a car, even just knocking him over, is never justified unless somehow your life has been endangered by the cyclist, and I have difficulty conceiving of how that transpired.

You're assuming that what this guy did is intentionally hit the two lead cyclists with his car. After all that's what the lily-white cycling "team" told us is what happened.

Maybe he just sped up to pass the mob, and misjudged his return to the right lane. Or maybe some contact was made with a little "assistance" on the part of the cyclists.

I find it absolutely unbelievable that this car-driving "homicidal madman" engaged 20 cyclists in vehicular combat and the only thing to show for it was a scratch on his car and two bruised cyclists.

[greglepore]

Jeff- we do agree on almost all points-I would guess that its also possible that the car "right turned" the group, by accident, I've seen that happen too...but usually in these cases the driver sticks around. Hit and run is hit and run, whether provoked or accidental or whatever, and flight is admisable evidence of a guilty state of mind.

But I will admit to pro cycling bias and will tone it down. I will also repeat that most bunch rides are loaded with flippin idiots who for whatever reason don't race, won't race and act like fools generally.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Jeff- we do agree on almost all points-I would guess that its also possible that the car "right turned" the group, by accident, I've seen that happen too...but usually in these cases the driver sticks around. Hit and run is hit and run, whether provoked or accidental or whatever, and flight is admisable evidence of a guilty state of mind.

But I will admit to pro cycling bias and will tone it down. I will also repeat that most bunch rides are loaded with flippin idiots who for whatever reason don't race, won't race and act like fools generally.

We're on the same page, Greg. "Likelyhood" and "possibility" are two different things, and I agree it's entirely likely it went down just as the cyclists describe. I'm just probing the "possibilities" side of the equation.

Taking off may or may not be an indicator of guilt. At first blush it certainly is. Like many things, though, under closer examination, maybe not so much. This guy was faced with a pretty angry bunch of pretty fit young men - he may very well have been stopping for his own beating. I'm not sure I would stop under those conditions - I may very well continue on, and call the police once I was out of their range. Especially since yes, I am typically armed.

Unfortunately, we are burdened on this BBS with at least a few guys that will hang the guy on the scantest of "evidence", jumping to their own unassailable conclusions. "Often wrong, but never in doubt". That's really my only peeve in this whole thing. I love seeing their panties twist until they squeal like so many little girls - "I'm saving this for when you're prosecuted...", "you need psychological help...", "I'm telling mommy...". Unimaginative, narrow minded twits.

[jyl]

These are UCI pro bicycle racers, training during the season, competing in international races. Which means they are being drug tested sometimes, and live constantly under threat of random test. And large doses of steroids are very easy to detect.

Which does not mean all the riders are completely drug-free - unfortunately we know that - but does mean these riders are probably not taking such blatant amounts of steroids as to be " 'roid raged". I think that claim is not only without any basis - Jeff invented it, zero evidence at all - but logically is quite unlikely.

If you want to surmise their heart rates were high and their adrenalin up, that would seem pretty likely.

But to claim with zero evidence that these riders were on heavy steroids is just inventing a story.

There is being a Devil's Advocate - and then there is making up stuff. When we were talking about Dorner, Jeff had no problem making up the claim that the murdered Monica Quan was an evil scheming witch who might have deserved her death. Same thing going on here.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

There is being a Devil's Advocate - and then there is making up stuff.

When discussing a range of possibilities we do, of course, "make things up". Then we discuss their relative merit, or likelyhood of occurance. This seems to unduly irritate folks like you; folks who arrive at their conclusions with little real knowledge of the events under discussion. Somehow, you folks just seem to "know" what happened. Must be a "gift". Of sorts...

Originally Posted by jyl

When we were talking about Dorner, Jeff had no problem making up the claim that the murdered Monica Quan was an evil scheming witch who might have deserved her death.

Yes, we were discussing "karma" at the time. I was illustrating the fact that none of us could have possibly known anything about her. Guys like you, of course, know "everything" about her (and others like her). You paint a mental picture of her that makes her death seem all the more atrocious, and her killer all the more monstrous for having killed such a pure and innocent young thing. Then, wringing your hands ever tighter, twisting your panties yet another turn, you attack anyone - like me - who would dare question the sanctitiy of your baseless conclusions.

Originally Posted by jyl

Same thing going on here.

Exactly. Hand-wringing ninnies like you jump to (unsupported) conclusions, others chime in offering differing possibilities on what may have occured, and your poor little head 'splodes. It's become perfectly predictable. I can make you do it on que.

[Kraftwerk]

KT: " Imagine you are doing 40mph and so is the oncoming vehicle as you come around this blind curve, except it's a truck.
There is a bike in the middle of the lane in front of you.
What are your options?"

ONE option: You find your brake pedal, that's what you do. Same as if you came upon a tractor, or any farm vehicle around a blind bend... The roads are shared: mopeds, bikes, cars, tractors everyone pays for the roads, so everyone gets to use them.
I hope Scatterbrain over there sees some real jail time. Kudos to a well organized team effort to snag this low life.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Mr. Jeff Higgins, meet Mr. Jack Baruth.

Rod Kinkade Has Been Tried And Sentenced For Attempted Murder By The Internet | The Truth About Cars

Sorry it took so long, Brent, but I finally got around to reading this. Baruth is describing this very thread to a "T". So, what if he is right, and Herriott instigated contact? Then Wren writes this little report and it goes viral on the interwebs, and ruins an innocent man?

Think of the implications. Lets say some has been or wannabe on the team goes all "Tyler Hamilton" on them, claiming he just can't live with himself with what he knows (translation: his career is in the tank or never got off the ground, everyone has forgotten about him, he craves the publicity, and he's a weaselly little snitch - you know, like Hamilton). So he goes to the press with the "real" story: Herriott and Wren intimidated the team into following along with their story, just like Armstrong.

So, what recourse would Kinkade then have? I think Kinkade would have all of the legal ammunition he needed to absolutely crush those guys in court, wouldn't he? Would the same folks screaming for his head today scream for the other's heads if that came to pass?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk

I hope Scatterbrain over there sees some real jail time. Kudos to a well organized team effort to snag this low life.

Aannnnnd, there ya go.

Maybe they'll hire you as an expert witness?

[Kraftwerk]

Well... leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. No external witness needed.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Oh? There was an accident? Amazing, the things we can conclude based what could very well be someone's creative writing assignment posted on the web.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk

Well... leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. No external witness needed.

I had a guy run a stop sign going more than twice the speed limit, hit me, drive until he was forced to the side of the road by a good samaritan several miles away and told he best come back. He did not even get a ticket, and I am fairly certain he was drunk. There is the "Law" and there is real life

[Kraftwerk]

Well, there was an accident report.. according to Tuscon police dept.... draw your own conclusions! This is the internet after all! Peace.

[Danimal16]

I HAVE NEVER SEEN A GROUP OF RIDERS DO THIS.

CVC 21656 specifies that slow-moving vehicles causing a queue of five or more vehicles behind them must turn off the roadway in order to allow the vehicles behind to pass them. Section 21202 explicitly states that cyclists are "subject to the provisions of Section 21656".

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles
21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
—California Department of Motor Vehicles, CVC 21656, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles^[14]

[techweenie]

Cycling clubs are the scourge of the bike paths I ride on. They tend to be rude, reckless, yell at everyone else to ride single file while they ride 3 abreast, rarely signal turns, etc.

I admit I scanned this thread, but the report is dominated by the cyclists and I have a hard time believing we're hearing a balanced report.

Here in LA, a doctor, who was frequently blocked driving to his house by cyclists finally lost it and rammed them. So it can and does happen.

[Joe Bob]

Another reason to ride, run, ski, drive or have sex by yourself.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Sorry it took so long, Brent, but I finally got around to reading this. Baruth is describing this very thread to a "T". So, what if he is right, and Herriott instigated contact? Then Wren writes this little report and it goes viral on the interwebs, and ruins an innocent man?

Think of the implications. Lets say some has been or wannabe on the team goes all "Tyler Hamilton" on them, claiming he just can't live with himself with what he knows (translation: his career is in the tank or never got off the ground, everyone has forgotten about him, he craves the publicity, and he's a weaselly little snitch - you know, like Hamilton). So he goes to the press with the "real" story: Herriott and Wren intimidated the team into following along with their story, just like Armstrong.

So, what recourse would Kinkade then have? I think Kinkade would have all of the legal ammunition he needed to absolutely crush those guys in court, wouldn't he? Would the same folks screaming for his head today scream for the other's heads if that came to pass?

I thought it interestig that a person that has made really good money with pedal power having a similar opinion as you. It doesn't say in the excerpt that he swerved to hit the cyclist, just that there was an impact. I was riding close to a friend and he bobbled a bit tangling his bars with mine and he went down and broke his arm. Some people said I drifted into him and others said he wobbled into me. A dozen people saw it and a dozen different stories came of it. THe only was we willknow what really happened with Kinkade is if there is dashcam footage somewhere. Humans have their own version of the truth and some believe what they think they saw and not what they really saw.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Humans have their own version of the truth and some believe what they think they saw and not what they really saw.

Great point, Brent. This phenomena has been studied at length. What has been found is that eye witnesses, even when told they will be asked to decribe what they saw (so they better pay attention) will provide wildly varying accounts of the same event with astonishing regularity. As a matter of fact, those studying this phenomema will tell you there is actually something wrong if their stories match. Ask any cop - if the story among several suspects matches too closely, they know it's been rehearsed, raising suspicions.

Good thing this BBS is blessed with those who can tell us exactly what happened regarding any given incident, forgoing any requirement whatsoever to have actually witnessed the event under discussion. And they can pull this off time and time again, without fail. What a talent. What a resource. What a bunch of blithering idiots.