SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes:
Velonews has this story, http://www.velonews.com/2017/05/news/legally-speaking-brought-justice_437651 which describes an incident of road rage against a bicyclist. Turns out, this was the wrong cyclist to buzz, he was a lawyer and eventually settled with the cager's insurance company for USD $4500 -- setting a price for cyclist harassment in Louisiana.
The road-raging driver had just endangered the life of the cyclist and his toddler, and now he was spoiling for a fight. It began on a calm Sunday morning in New Orleans. Charlie Thomas had gone for a ride with his young daughter Colette, towing her in a Burley trailer, enjoying the ride and time together. But on the edge of the iconic French Quarter, their peaceful Sunday morning was violently interrupted when a speeding car buzzed them, passing within a foot of Charlie and Colette.
[...] "I'm not trying to start anything," Charlie said, "but you passed way too close to my daughter and me."
And that's when the driver, motioning that he was about to get out of his car, responded with his tough-guy threat: "How about I get out and f—k you up in front of your kid?" Charlie's emotions surged, but he knew that any further engagement would be unproductive, and with his daughter there, unsafe. So he broke off the encounter, and the driver sped away.
[...] Although the incident didn't involve a physical impact, Louisiana has both a three-foot passing law and a non-harassment law on the books. Charlie filed suit seeking damages for the driver's harassment. There had never been a case setting the value of damages for a harassed bicyclist under Louisiana's law, so Charlie and the driver's insurance company were in uncharted negotiating territory.
Eventually, Charlie negotiated a settlement that established a value of $4,500 damages in a civil case for cyclist harassment in Louisiana; the proceeds were donated to Bike Easy, the New Orleans-area bike advocacy group. The official case on the books is Thomas v. Arbona, Case No. 16-03127; First City Court for the City of New Orleans. Now, any other cyclist who sues a driver for harassment in Louisiana can use the value for damages established in this case.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by leftover on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:11PM (5 children)
The situation in New York sounds both decades ahead and decades behind here (Ohio).
In my suburb, there was an extensive network of bike paths, completely separate from
roads. They were intended for mixed bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The cyclists were such
self-righteous and rude assholes that the city banned bicycles on the bicycle paths.
So they went back onto the roads and continued being insufferable jerks.
As usual, I have to mention Amsterdam. Roads, canals, trams, bicycle paths and pedestrian sidewalks.
How utterly civilized.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @11:31PM (4 children)
In my suburb, there was an extensive network of bike paths, completely separate from
roads. They were intended for mixed bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The cyclists were such
self-righteous and rude assholes that the city banned bicycles on the bicycle paths.
That's the kind of anecdote that, if true, stops any self-righteous bicyclist in their tracks.
So, where can I find proof of this to throw in their faces?
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @11:55PM (3 children)
Multi-use trials are not the same as bike paths. In particular, speeds are limited.
Bike trails intended for commuting should not be filled with pedestrians.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:09PM (2 children)
"Bike trails intended for commuting should not be filled with pedestrians."
Then by this standard, streets intended for commuting motorists should not be filled with cyclists.
Fair enough, right? Or do cyclists see themselves as a virtue-signally class of entitled twats?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @06:49PM
Bikes::cars is not the same as pedestrians::bikes
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @10:48PM
It would not be such a problem if pedestrians acted in a predictable manner (that said, I have seen the same complaint about cyclists under this very story).
I find it is easier to pass pedestrians properly facing oncoming traffic. They don't meander nearly as much as a cyclist approaches them. Problem is that most pedestrians don't know that rule (passing vehicles are supposed to give them the lane). One time the local newspaper published two letters to the editor: each advocating a different side of the multi-use trail to walk on.
For my commuting I have taken to accelerating hard off the line (up to about 12MPH), then taking it easy as I reach the higher gears. This gives impatient motorists room to pass me. In my jurisdiction, cyclists are also expected to be as far right as practical. For some narrow lanes, that implies taking the whole lane. If the is snow/sand on the side of the road, that also forces me into the travel lane. Staying near the travel lane is important so that cross traffic can see you.