Nate
 

I like Nate too- But a decision was made here.
Unfortunately it turned out bad-

I avoid Mt. Tam on pavement on the weekends for the same reasons. I usually go off-road instead just to avoid car traffic.

I do my Mt. Tam road rides on weekdays.

This is sad. I used to ride grooves into Panoramic Highway on Saturday. Now it just isn't fun.

This.

Come on. I think anyone responding to his blog post should consider he just had a traumatic accident with a negligent, reckless (or worse) driver. Have any of us felt this helpless, had this much anger, and then said or written things we later regretted... ?

The "full of himself" I haven't considered, but the rest of what you wrote-was exactly what I was thinking.

After all the miles he's ridden I'd presume he has had enough altercations with drivers to expect anything and be prepared for the worst. Lord knows I have.

He put himself in a vulnerable position and got sucker-punched. Was the driver wrong? Sure he was. But don't step into the ring and expect to not get hit.

I completely agree. As I said before, if I were his friend, I would encourage him to delete or revise it. I don't think anyone would disagree that there is valid message here, but it's being drowned out by the intensity of the emotions he is experiencing.

+1000 - I have DEFINITELY been there with writing something that made sense to me in the moment and later not so much..

It's the same thing down here...No way I go on skyline weekend mid-day when the PCA, BMWCCA or streetbike clubs are using that stretch for speed trials. That said...we all have to ride with managed risk. And, give ourselves the best odds even when we don't think we need them.

I am sympathetic and empathetic to Nate (and AC) so I read the blog with more time and care than perhaps others will. In that regard, i hear the comments that the posture and prose interpreted from a casual read come can be interpreted less than positive.

Only on a cycling forum would a hit and run be blamed on the victim. We excel at eating our own and doing the work of anti-cyclist drivers for them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sH23G-QQsq...crazypills.jpg

No.
If he had let it be over when the car passed too close, he would not have been hurt. The driver probably made an asshole pass. But physics and common sense says not to chase them down and start a confrontation. Not worth it. Never will be. Whether you’re in a car or on a bike.

At times, ambivalent feelings arise when reading comments in a forum -- funny and sad.

"those fifteen years, I’ve experienced more than my fair share of close calls. As an amateur mountain bike racer (I use this title loosely), bike messenger, professional road racer, and finally amateur fongravel extraordinaire over the decade and a half, I’ve put more clicks into a bike than most other humans my age, save a small cadre of elites. I’ve also had my fair share of injuries, from a dozen concussions to broken bones to countless incidences with road rash, lacerations, contusions, heart palpitations, and calls to my mom from locales the world over that always start out with “I’m in the hospital, but I’M OKAY,”. I’ve been involved in run-ins with cars more than I’d care to admit, almost always the fault of the two-ton mechanized beast we contend with on a daily basis. Sometimes, they end with a quick bounce, acknowledgment of fault, and a going of separate ways. A couple of times, I’ve ended up on the deck, with a horrified automobile driver standing over me exclaiming “I didn’t see you!”."

I didn't go any further than that. This man has serious issues. I've been cycling for thirty years, and only been down twice, and, trust me, I've encountered my fair share of Aholes out there, like the rest of us. Drama queen, looking for trouble, and found it.

Marin General
 

He didn't mention the ER, but my guess is that it was Marin General.
Busy place on a sunny weekend day.

Last time I was in there I had to release myself.
I had been there 4 hours- they X-rayed me and sewed up my biggest gash, but I had lots of other issues.
I finally pulled off all of the electrodes and took out my own IV- Someone came in when the alarms went off. I told them I was going home now-
Funny thing was they just rolled with it- Like it was a regular occurrence.

He never chased, nor started a confrontation. Read more good.

Read it. Its called a “quote” and mine is verbatim. There is not one bit of as you say, “creative license.”

Pick up the story right where you stop. He wasn’t some complete innocent pedaling along. Plus and the biggest point, he’d already seen evidence of this individual’s point of view re cyclist. We can imagine his hand response to the pass fit the moment? Yet he’s now approaching said individual at a high rate of speed with intent to, and I quote Nate, catch his “prey.”

Sorry, but your “eat your own” interpretation is skewed by not reading the section you either skip or choose to ignore (see your #4) as written by Nate himself.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nate's article reads like a classic SAT passage...
 

...It tricks the reader. Upon first read, I assumed Nate was partially at fault for instigating the driver further. However, critically and subtly, he wrote that he opted NOT to engage with the driver, rather than engage the driver.

Then, to add further confusion, he mentions that when he catches up to the driver, he THINKS about what to do with the "prey," and that before he actually can act on his thought in any particular way, the driver slams on his brakes.

Reading these two paragraphs quickly, I can easily see how somebody reading quickly would read that Nate gets sideswiped, retaliates against the driver before the driver decided to brake check him. However, the sequence of events as described by Nate is actually as follows:

1). He almost gets sideswiped
2). He gets mad, but chooses not to do anything
3). He catches up with the driver
4). Before he can decide what to do, driver brake checks him and sends him to ER.

The problem here isn't Nate's actions. It's his writing. He's clouding the sequence of events. Change the structure of these two paragraphs and I bet the universal consensus in this thread would be that Nate was not at fault here (if the facts are true). There's literally no external recourse from Nate with the driver: only a description of his internal monologue. We can't blame him for thinking about retaliation. I know I would feel the same way. In fact, I have felt the same way under similar circumstances.

However, in his effort to write a post to garner sympathy/remind the public of the plight of road cyclists, I don't think he's succeeded. Not because of his actions, but because of his lack of clarity of expression.

Its always fun when the San Quentin Prison crowd share a room with your child in th ER..