Monday, August 16, 2010

To every rule, there is an exception -- angry driver edition

Okay, it's not just the inattentive who pose a risk to cyclists. An angry motorist drove through a Brookline park chasing after a cyclist before being stopped by the police.

Via Universal Hub.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like we have angry cyclist here also. And he was the one who took the first swing by breaking the side mirror of the car with his bike lock.

This in no way excuses the driver, who is an incredible idiot and deserves to have his license revoked and should face some serious charges.

However, the cyclist was the cause of the escalation of the incident. There may have been a disagreement with the right of way, but resorting to violence is no solution.

dr2chase said...

Looks like we have a REPORT of an angry cyclist from someone caught driving their car offroad through a park, unless you have some other evidence that I've missed.

I certainly don't know how you infer "first swing" either -- lacking the cyclist's side of the story, we don't know if or how (assuming he did u-lock the mirror) he was himself provoked.

Anonymous said...

Well dr, guilty people don't run.

But I forgot. It's never the poor bikers fault around here. There too busy saving the planet from the evil car drivers and twisting facts to their best advantage. Barring that, they just drift away from the conversation like ti never happened.

I seem to have read a number of comments on here how bikers think the only way they can gain any respect is by doing a little destruction. Sounds like this biker is one of that group.

The car driver is a dangerous lunatic but there had to be a little something more than a verbal altercation to for him to crack this badly.

dr2chase said...

Anon, I am merely pointing out that you leaped to a conclusion on the say-so of a deranged person. Most people run when chased by a nut in a car, so we can't really learn anything from that, either.

What we do know, is that someone in a car, certainly broke the law, and endangered a bunch of people, and tore up public property. For that, we have multiple sane witnesses.

If the nut had been on a bicycle instead, it would have been safer for everyone else, and probably would have done less damage to the park. Bikes are better, even in the hands of lunatics (perhaps, especially in the hands of lunatics). (We know this, because of laws of physics, and accident statistics.)

Anonymous said...

Well dr, if a nutjob chased me around a park in a car, I certainly would have contacted the police. Unless of course I was guilty of a crime myself, such as destruction of property or assault.

He got in a fight with the driver. Smashed the sideview mirror and then fled into the park, thinking he was safe. Must have been a bit of a surprise when the nutjob tried to chase him down.

dr2chase said...

And similarly, if I were angry at a driver, I would be unable to quickly release my u-lock (takes 2 hands), never mind my intent -- does that mean that I therefore conclude that the U-lock story is a lie, because I personally would not and also could not whack the mirror with my lock?

What you or I would do, does not necessarily determine what happened here. Some people carry their U-locks at the ready. Some people don't trust the police very much.

Nonetheless, I think you are probably right, but your certainty annoys me. The only information about the bicyclist that we have, comes from a proven nutjob, and from that, you certainly conclude that the cyclist did thus-and-such. That's unwise, and also a little insulting; you're clearly willing to believe the worst of an unknown cyclist, whereas I don't put complete faith in the word of a proven nut. He could be lying -- perhaps he accidentally or intentionally squeezed the cyclist against parked cars, such that the only choice the cyclist had was to run into his mirror (no u-lock, no fault of the cyclist). Perhaps he nicked the mirror on a tree, chasing a guy who insulted him. I once had a nut return to run me off the road after I flipped him off; a friend, hit and hurt by a car, had the nut return to lecture him on "safety"; there was that doctor in California who swerved and braked hard in front of two cyclists coming down a hill. A guy who would leave the road to drive through a park full of people, he might also lie, too.

Sean Roche said...

Let's assume that the driver isn't lying. In what universe is it remotely acceptable to go rampaging through a park in response to some minor property damage? He could have killed someone.

Anonymous said...

Sean,
I am not sure what you are getting at. I don't see any comments here saying that the driver was anything but lunatic who should be prosecuted and riding the T from now on.

But it also not remotely acceptable to destroy someone's property because you get in an argument with them.

No way to guess the cause of the original altercation or if either the cyclist or driver were obeying the laws when it occurred.

The fact that the cyclist has not contacted the police however, does not shine a favorable light on him.