"You don't have the right of way."

[kookmyers]

-

[Louis]

Unless the driver is unusually open-minded, "talking" to them about the stupid stuff they've just done is usually fruitless. It does allow the cyclist to blow off some steam, but if the driver is not an older lady, but instead another guy, and worse yet, an aggressive guy, things often escalate and you never know where they'll end up.

[homagesilkhope]

Yep, my experience is the driver's ability to reason clearly, much less in a way favorable to you, rarely improves under direct questioning.

[Neil]

I was very disappointed to learn that this type of behaviour from the driver cannot be answered by simply opening fire on them.

What use is the second amendment if it can't be used to even up the power imbalance of driver vs rider?

[Louis]

Originally Posted by Neil

I was very disappointed to learn that this type of behaviour from the driver cannot be answered by simply opening fire on them.

What use is the second amendment if it can't be used to even up the power imbalance of driver vs rider?

Better watch it, PUNK...

[ahumblecycler]

If you opt to do this again (hopefully you will not be presented with that choice but drivers are ), I would advise you to not follow the person onto their personal property. I get why you did what you did:bike, but when you went onto her property without her permission, you put yourself in a bad position particularly since you mentioned your tone was angry and sarcastic.

I emphasize with you - most of us likely do - but you need to be careful as the "cyclist" what your actions are portraying to that driver (and then the driver's social and physical friends - people blab). I have "lectured" many drivers but only in public areas (typically the next stop light or stop sign). I do not follow a driver to a home though.

I'm not saying that count yourself lucky that the driver acted poorly and/or that you did not get hurt but do be aware how your response can be perceived with the potential of escalating the situation. Again I emphasize but we all need to be careful.

[Neil]

Ultimately this sort of thing will continue as long as there are ignorant, entitled people in existence - so likely forever.

Self driving cars will solve this - take the human out of the decision making process, and the human failings that create these situations go with them.

That way you can sue Tesla for being right-hooked, if it does happen, and then it's provably negligence on their part and should get fixed.

[Bruce K]

First guns, then lawsuits.

Feeling a little testy this morning are we?

Let's focus on the OP's handling of the situation.

BK

[Neil]

The guns thing was a joke, the solution to this problem is not to look at how the OP handled it - it's to look at why the OP had to handle anything.

The left hook (here) or right hook (where you drive on the other side) is the single most common cause of serious injury to cyclists, and it's because people either don't look or don't care - that latter one being what's in evidence in the OP's narrative.

We, as cyclists, can't fix billions of drivers. Reduce that to Tesla, Google, Apple - these companies can be held accountable in a way that we refuse to hold individuals accountable.

The driver in the OP's story should have their licence revoked, until such a time as they demonstrate genuine understanding of what they did wrong and an ability to drive to the rules of the road without endangering others.

That's clearly never, ever going to happen though - so it's pointless hoping for it.

I understand why the OP did what he did, it's maddening when our lives are risked by idiots, but it's part of cycling.

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by Neil

We, as cyclists, can't fix billions of drivers. Reduce that to Tesla, Google, Apple - these companies can be held accountable in a way that we refuse to hold individuals accountable.

I disagree. Expect auto manufacturers to have the laws rewritten protecting them from responsibility in the event of an accident.

You can't fix stupid, and most car drivers ARE. Unfortunately, kookmyers met one of them.

I met one of them many years ago. She seemed entitled, and I think during our "conversation" she related it didn't matter what she did because her son was a police officer. You can interpret the rest.

[Neil]

I don't think that will happen - look at Apple and encryption.

The US wants them to cripple their encryption - Apple are refusing, knowing that to bow to a single market would be extremely negative. It's also insane to cripple encryption as it would enable any amount of criminal enterprise.

Same thing with (say) Tesla - they'd be nuts to bow to US government pressure to not stop cars from hitting cyclists, as they'd have to write a US specific software that didn't account for other road users. There's no way the EU would accept an auto-driving car that couldn't see peds and cyclists, so the software for that market would have to account for them.

[dekindy]

Originally Posted by Neil

the solution to this problem is not to look at how the OP handled it - it's to look at why the OP had to handle anything.

To obtain an Indiana motorcycle endorsement, a 2-day class is required that includes written and riding skills tests. The entire focus is defensive riding strategies. They don't sit around reviewing scenarios like the OP's and what should be done about the car driver. The total focus is on anticipating incidents and how to minimize your chances of getting hit.

At the minimum, the OP should be assuming that no driver sees him and will turn in front of him or hook him, knowing the most strategic way to position himself in lanes to put the most distance between himself and other vehicles and knowing his escape routes which means having a rear view mirror , guarding his brakes, and using hand signals to indicate turning, avoid the incident and ride on.

I drive the speed limit in my car and impatient car drivers do this to me. To expect car drivers to not do this to bicycles is unrealistic and will get you killed.

Now tear into me and tell me that bicycle riders should not have to do this.

[fuzzalow]

The OP discussion/confrontation with the driver was futile and pointless.

Everything done in the activity of riding a bicycle is one-sided only involving what the rider can can do, influence or control as pertaining to his immediate riding environment. How well does a rider identify, know and anticipate the variables he will encounter and the calculated actions taken in response are all that matters.

Anytime you ride, you play the odds for completing a ride in one piece. You do everything you can to increase the odds in your favor. Having an emotional reaction to anything that happens on the road is counterproductive to the discipline & self control in your decision making process employed in your riding.

Of course there may be times when you might be caught off guard from somebody doing something dangerous that you haven't seen before. Fine. Learn from it so you can identify and anticipate that action again in the future. After a while, the dangerous stupid actions you might encounter are not new but simply variations on the theme you have seen before.

Lecturing or discussing with any driver? Laughable. You think you're so smart and they're so stupid - and meanwhile they're thinking the exact same of you.

[choke]

Originally Posted by Louis

Better watch it, PUNK...

Heh....apropos that you used a pic of a British tank.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by dekindy

To obtain an Indiana motorcycle endorsement, a 2-day class is required that includes written and riding skills tests. The entire focus is defensive riding strategies. They don't sit around reviewing scenarios like the OP's and what should be done about the car driver. The total focus is on anticipating incidents and how to minimize your chances of getting hit.

At the minimum, the OP should be assuming that no driver sees him and will turn in front of him or hook him, knowing the most strategic way to position himself in lanes to put the most distance between himself and other vehicles and knowing his escape routes which means having a rear view mirror , guarding his brakes, and using hand signals to indicate turning, avoid the incident and ride on.

I drive the speed limit in my car and impatient car drivers do this to me. To expect car drivers to not do this to bicycles is unrealistic and will get you killed.

Now tear into me and tell me that bicycle riders should not have to do this.

I agree, cyclists have to do this, today - as car drivers won't take responsibility for themselves.

I don't see where I've denied this?

As I said, it's part of cycling to have your life repeatedly threatened, and in some cases ended, due to others selfish sense of entitlement and inability to take responsibility for their own actions. It is what it is - a tragedy, but one which we need to deal with.

As ever, the problem with ignoring reality is that reality won't ignore you.

But I won't join you in blaming the victim.