Posted on 08/17/2012 3:49:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Police are looking for an elderly, white, gray-haired man who, in an apparent fit of road rage, chased a bicyclist onto a golf course in Santa Rosa and ran him down.
The bicyclist told Santa Rosa police he was cycling down Pythian Road at about 5 p.m. Wednesday when the driver began yelling at him and tried to hit him.
To get the angry motorist off his tail, the cyclist told police he raced onto the nearby Oakmont Golf Course. But the driver steered onto the course and continued chasing him, eventually hitting him before speeding away.
The cyclist had moderate injuries and was transported to a local hospital. He described the driver as an elderly man with gray hair, and the car as a gold or beige sedan similar to a Toyota Corolla.
The sedan may have a broken passenger side mirror, police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sfgate.com ...
True story about a bicyclists from about two weeks ago.
Driving along on a divided main road. Two very wide lanes in either direction, concrete island dividing traffic, exceptionally wide berm - about 2-3 feet of asphalt, plus a nice margin of fine gravel. Enough berm that you could park a car or truck on the side of the road and not impede traffic.
It’s morning rush hour, so traffic is heavy. Come up on a cyclist in his full regalia, but the important items is he has a helmet-mounted mirror (so he is aware of the backup of traffic he is causing) and a suprisingly loud horn.
He’s riding a couple feet to the left of the white line, essentially forcing cars to pass him as if he were a car. He’s so far left that cars could actually pass him on the right without leaving the asphalt.
We get to a stop light and I’m about 2 cars behind him. Sure enough, he shoots to the right side of the white line and starts passing cars in the right median.
Light changes, he slips his way into traffic. All the people that so carefully and thoughtfully passed him are now trapped behind him again, and have to pass him again.
The next light is far enough away that I get a chance to get around him. We stop at a light, I look in the mirror - same behavior. A lady in a car pulls into the road from the side street before the light changes. She’s now in the front of the “pack” of cars, but has no idea about Zippy that’s going to come up behind her.
Next light is the entrance to a freeway. The lady wants to make a legal right turn on red, and is waiting for oncoming traffic from the other side that has a green arrow to make a left.
She has no idea Zippy is flying along in the median coming up on her right, nor really should she have to consider that.
She gets a break in traffic and starts to make her turn when Zippy gets to her with his (surprisingly loud) horn. Luckily for Zippy, it’s a nice day and she has her window down. She, of course, stops, trying to figure out what’s going on, but not before her car has nudged out to the right, blocking Zippy.
More horn from Zippy as he cuts her off, memorializing the moment with an obscene gesture as he cuts over to the crosswalk (now he’s apparently a pedestrian), runs through the red light, gets across the street and again jumps into the road, a few feet to the right of the white line. So everyone who passed him and isn’t getting on the freeway must pass this douchebag again.
I have yet to see a driver of a vehicle act with such reckless disregard for traffic laws and safety. You couldn’t do half that in a car without being reported to, and then chased and aprehended by police.
The carheads on this thread have generally ignored the simple solutions that have been put forward. Build roads with ample shoulders or sidewalks, and provide enough crossings so that cross traffic by pedestrians and cyclists is reasonably convenient. I don't think these are radical suggestions. I'm not arguing for bikepaths everywhere (although more bikepaths would be nice.) I DO believe that in heavily urbanized areas, non-motorized movement should be accommodated.
So let's talk about personal conveniences of choice. A suburbanite chooses, for example, to live 30 miles away from his job. His personal convenience involves arterial commuter roads slashed through other people's neighborhoods. If those roads are improperly designed, they become major barriers to non-motorized neighborhood traffic. It is the BARRIER that I object to, not the cars per se.
"Complete roads" is a matter of internalizing the externalities. If the commuters want to drive noisome, dirty, and dangerous blight-inducing roads through other people's neighborhoods, it is not unreasonable to require mitigation. The cost of those offsets should be considered a cost of building the road.
Dagnabit, roads in the city should have sidewalks so that people on foot or bikes can get around without risking their lives. Roads in the suburbs and rural areas should have ample shoulders. This in fact is usually part of the original design of the road, or in theory should be. What happens is that eventually commuter traffic grows, another lane is needed, the shoulder gets taken, and now you've got yet another dangerous road with no accommodation for anything but cars. In other words, a barrier.
The extra lanes, the limited access, the high speed, cars-only roadways are all driven by the personal convenience of commuters who want to live ever further away from their jobs, out in cul de sac land, and shave time off their commutes by imposing these costs on other people. And then they rise up on forums like this and argue that it's an unreasonable request when people like me advocate sidewalks and more frequent crossings so that their commuter sluiceway doesn't become an impassable barrier in my neighborhood.
One size doen't fit all, but as a resident of a walkable, bikeable neighborhood, I will oppose any commuter highway "improvements" that would dump more commuter cut-through traffic onto residential streets. I will oppose any road-widening schemes that involve taking peoples' sidewalks and front yards; the city is blighted by corridors of formerly attractive residential streets that were destroyed in the 60's and 70's to create commuter racetracks, so no more.
There are great neighborhoods all over the city, both in the city and throughout the suburbs. In Washington, and I suspect in most major metro areas that are choking on traffic, people need to get over ingrained prejudices and adapt to living closer to their jobs.
One size doesn't fit all, but in the DC area, there is no way -- I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, or Martian, NO WAY -- that anticipated population and traffic growth can be met simply by increased roadbuilding. You cannot add enough lanes to I-66 or I-270 or I-95/395 or the beltways to handle all the people who want a half acre in the suburbs and a fast commute into town. It can't be done. So traffic just gets worse. This is what is driving gentrification in the city; people are already adapting. The city is already changing fast. If we could just voucher the schools, the rate of change would astound you, but that's a subject for another day. Around here, we are reaching the practicable limits of roadbuilding. Your situation may differ.
I agree. As a cyclist, I would enjoy testifying against one of these turkeys. Same for the pedestrians who do stupid things. Capitol Hill is heavily gentrified but we do have a residual underclass presence. Some of the behavior is patently passive aggressive: the guys riding their bikes the wrong way down the middle of a one way street, or casually strolling diagonally across a busy intersection just as the light changes, or the guys in motorized wheelchairs who drive around in the street. Where's an 18 wheeler when you need it?
I don't trust anyone in Spandex either.
I thought it was only Liberals that take a couple of anecdotal incidents and uses them to stereotype and vilify an entire population of otherwise innocent people.
I could tell you a lot of stories about a person carrying a handgun, who went into a rage and killed a bunch of people. Is everyone with a handgun nuts!? Does everyone with a handgun have no regard for the law?
This is the kind of ‘logic’ you are using. You belong on DU, not here.
How Marxist of you. I guess you think I should redistribute my wealth of bicycles to the less fortunate.
Worse, you expect me to think more highly of you because of your seven bikes. Bully for you.
No, I'm just pointing out that I'm an avid cyclist, as well at an automobile owner, homeowner and taxpayer. I honestly don't care one whit what you think of me. The opinion of some anonymous guy on the internet effects my life not one iota. My point is that your argument about cyclists not paying the same taxes that you do doesn't hold water.
And good luck continuing to find ways to drain others as you go though life.
What am I draining? The bicycle supply? Again, you seem to have a very Marxist point of view about surpluses and private ownership.
You seem to have anger issues. Exercise can help that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.