Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Share the road with bikes?

An editorial in this morning's Northwest Herald proclaims "Sharing road a necessity." The editors took off on a DeKalb motorist who chased a bicyclist for ten blocks.

What the editors failed to report is what caused the driver to become irate in the first place. Something did. Let me offer some possibilities, based on bicyclists I've seen in Woodstock.

The bicyclist was riding in traffic and many cars had gone around him on a straight stretch of road. At a traffic light, all cars stopped. The bicyclist rode past the line of stopped cars to the head of the line.

Perhaps before the light changed green, the bicyclist crossed the intersection against a red light and began riding on an upgrade that restricted his speed. All the cars that had passed the bicyclist now had to pass him again.

The bicyclist rode in the center of the traffic lane, impeding the flow of traffic and preventing cars from passing him.

The bicyclist weaved in the traffic lane, interfering with drivers trying to pass him.

The bicyclist made a left turn from the right side of the lane, without signalling.

The bicyclist rode at night without proper front and rear lighting or reflectors.

The bicyclist rode against traffic.

The bicyclist failed to stop at stop signs.

None of these violations gives a motorist the right to chase down the bicyclist and threaten him with a tire iron. The motorist could have called the police to have the bicyclist cited.

Ah, but what happens when you do report a bicyclist/violator? Does the complainant get laughed at? Does the officer take the caller as seriously as he would, if a bicyclist complained against a motorist?

Perhaps a monthly traffic "initiative" in Woodstock should be enforcement of traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists.

8 comments:

John Lovaas said...

Frank R. Philpott- You asked, in reference to the Dekalb motorist that chased the cyclist for 10 blocks:

"...what caused the driver to be irate in the first place..."

Well, let's look at the charges against the motorist:

"...Bradley E. Hostetler, 26, of the 300 block of South Pearl Street in DeKalb, was arrested Friday and charged with assault, disorderly conduct, possession of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, illegal transportation of alcohol and failure to display driver's license.... ...After chasing the bicyclist 10 blocks to Molly's Eatery & Drinkery, Hostetler got out of his car and began chasing the man with a tire iron...."

hmm. The charges may also explain why the motorist didn't contact police- contact with a police officer wouldn't have gone well, it seems.

According to Dekalb police:

"...The complainant thought he didn't like following a bicycle," (Dekalb Cpl. Scott) Farrell said. "The bicyclist just had the luck of heading the same direction as him for several blocks..."

You know, if you're stuck behind an elderly driver who is consistently 5 to 10 mph under the posted speed limit, you can't chase them with a tire iron because "you don't like following them."

If you are stuck behind a piece of farm machinery- you can't chase the farmer with a tire iron.

Same thing with a golf cart in Huntley's Sun City, or with a bicyclist- anywhere.

Can't chase them with a tire iron. Sorry to disappoint you.

Gus said...

Apparently, Mr. Lovass overlooked my sentence in the article: "None of these violations gives a motorist the right to chase down the bicyclist and threaten him with a tire iron."

John Lovaas said...

Nope- didn't overlook it at all; your comment-

"What the editors failed to report is what caused the driver to become irate in the first place..."

rather trumped everything else in your post- that's all.

It explained why in the NW Herald editorial, 8 lines from the top of the article-

'...“The complainant thought he didn’t like following a bicycle,” police said. “[The bicyclist] just had the luck of heading the same direction as him for several blocks....'

and you still asked why.

Getting irate because someone is travelling at a different speed, or is using a different conveyance-is a useless expenditure of energy at best, and a profound character flaw at its worst.

Gus said...

And you and I still don't know what the bicyclist did, if anything, to initiate or escalate the confrontation.

To me, it matters.

John Lovaas said...

Mr. Philpott-

I don't know what's wrong with you. Here's what the police officer said- it's a quote:

"...“The complainant thought he didn’t like following a bicycle,” police said. “[The bicyclist] just had the luck of heading the same direction as him for several blocks....' "

The complainant had ample opportunity to tell the officer all the egregious things that the cyclist did to justify an unsuccessful attack with a tire iron, and what did he say?

He didn't like following a cyclist. So he attacked the cyclist with a tire iron.

Please explain how the complainant's 'thought' as to why he initiated the attack on the cyclist does not explain how the attack was initiated.

I don't believe any effective law enforcement theory or practice can rise out of immature analysis of how victims are angering their attackers. If someone is raped or murdered, do you dwell on all the ways the victim "initiated or escalated" the attack?

Gus said...

Mr. Lovass, I'm pretty sure that the complainant was the bicyclist. He was the one who complained against the motorist, albeit after he was followed by a car for a long distance and allegedly chased with a tire iron.

On the other hand, maybe the motorist complained to the cop that he couldn't catch the bicyclist within ten blocks or threaten him as much as he wanted to with the tire iron...

John Lovaas said...

Mr. Philpott-

I apologize for using the term "complainant"- the correct term should have been defendant.

That being said, the opinion of the loser with the tire iron is about as valid as the opinion of a rapist or murderer, as to what angered them so much to commit their crime.

It appears that some people just deserve what they get, in your sad worldview.

Perhaps I've provided you with a new campaign slogan-

"Frank R. "Gus" Philpott for Sheriff- because deep down, every victim probably deserved what they got..."

Gus said...

Nowhere in the original article, or any comment since, have I said that the victim got what he deserved.

Road rage is illegal. It's a crime, not just a traffic violation.