Bicyclist smash, police arrest

Wicked Local Brookline reports that, according to police, a visiting bicyclist from Jamaica Plain got upset at a motorist going around him on Washington Street, apparently because he was riding in the middle of the street to avoid just that sort of thing, so he caught up with her at a light and smashed her windshield with his bike lock. Police then arrested him.



Free tagging: 


Actual U-Lock justice

Note to bicyclists: when someone almost kills you, it's sort-of okay to chase them down (kind of fun, too). And to talk to them. Nicely. When I recently did just this in Allston, the driver was very apologetic. I was disarmed, he put a face with the person he almost ran down, no one had their window smashed, and I didn't go to jail. Hooray!


Passing too close can kill

And often goes "unnoticed" by the drivers. Just look at several of the cycling deaths over the past year or so, a few were the result of someone being hit by a passing vehicle that did not notice the collision.

Some states have a 3 foot minimum passing distance, Mass. sadly does not, so drivers are told to "pass safely" and "wait until it is safe to do so." Yeah a lot of good that does, I still get passed daily at very close distances and its can clip my handlebars, causing me to fall under a tire.

Edit: I think it goes without saying that no one is justified in anyway to assault anyone on the road, regardless of how close someone passes you, etc. This something to be handled by the police and rule of law.


When the snow or anything

When the snow or anything else closes the bike lane cyclist are allowed the entire regular lane. While this may be rude under normal situations, with the narrow streets, if the cyclist was in the middle of the lane, it could have been dangerous. Or the cyclist may just have been a douche.

Yes, but...

I get that and I'm not all trying to claim the driver was innocent. My point was that if someone normally accepts that they can ride in a bike lane, at the side of the road and have cars pass within a few feet of them, I don't quite get the rage of being passed when they are riding in the middle of the lane. It's an asshole move by the driver, just like it would be to pass a car on a city street by going over the center line but no more dangerous than normal bike/car passing.

Do you ride a bike in the streets of Boston?

Not trying to be snarky but it might be why you don't quite get the rage of being passed. There is a big different between the space you have when a car is passing you and your in the bike lane compared to when your in the driving lane and they attempt to pass and over take you. Its the passing/over taking part that many drivers do too closely. And if you need to go over the center line to pass the cyclist, you are allowed to but often that doesn't happen and cars come too close.


Wider lanes needed

This problem started around the late 1970's. There was a movement to narrow travel lanes and widen sidewalks. It still continues. Proponents thought it would slow traffic 1-2 mph and maybe make pedestrians safer. The bike boom of the 1970s had subsided, so they didn't think about bicycles sharing lanes with motor vehicles. So, with the next bike boom in the 2000's, cyclists are endangered by such "traffic calming" designs that include lane narrowing.

Competent drivers needed

Sidewalks are already narrow, and Boston and environs put in a lot of lanes to squeeze them in where they never fitted to begin with.


Your entire argument doesn't even apply to older cities in California, let alone MA.


Narrow like Comm Ave or Boylston St.?

Consider Commonwealth Ave. near BU. The sidewalks are so wide, there used to be diagonal parking on the south side! The North side is also so wide that there could be a bike track on a fraction of the sidewalk width!

Alternatively, add some more traffic lanes on Comm Ave. for when Storrow Drive regularly floods, has a stuck bus/truck, breakdown, accident, Sox game, concert etc..


Good try Mark

I love the mental gymnastics routine you've practiced in order to push the blame off drivers that pass illegally.

Regardless of the road widths and historical anecdotes you bring up, you are required to wait and pass at a safe distance. This includes merging into the adjacent travel lane or crossing the double line (of course waiting till it is safe to do so, so that you do not hit oncoming traffic.) You might have to wait a few seconds to make that move and I'll do my best to be as far to the right as is safe for me but you gotta stop making excuses for drivers that willingly pass too close.


Only suggesting for cyclist safety

If you want to argue for narrow road lanes so you more likely get hit by a truck or bus, go ahead. They can't see you very well in their huge blind spots, but no matter. Gee, I wonder why cyclists are getting hit by trucks and buses in about half of accidents despite the small percentage of vehicle traffic they represent compared to cars. When you are dead, go ahead and tell those drivers they needed to move over more for you.

There you go again Mark

You aren't suggesting this for cyclist safety, its a matter of inconvenience for you because you have to wait to pass a cyclist in front of you. You put a lot statements in their that didn't come from me. When did I say I advocate for smaller lanes?

I wonder why cyclists are getting hit by trucks and buses in about half of accidents

Where did you pull this data from? Regardless, you wonder why cyclists are getting hit? Because drivers refuse to pass safely, refuse to signal when turning, refuse to check mirrors AND blind spots.

Its really simple Mark. If I get hit by a passing car/truck/bus, they passed me too close and thats illegal. End of story.

Near hits man

You keep talking about stats and yet you haven't been able to point to any real data. I've made no claims to the number of accidents that occur around here with regards to passing. However we've had a few cyclists killed by vehicles that have passed too closely.

And I get buzzed daily by cars that are too impatient to pass legally. Now of course I don't have any data to back this up because near hits don't get reported but you know what my initial issue was about. Cars knowingly passing cyclists illegally.


Yeah, okay

Only one set of douchebags is encased in a lethal weapon and excused from responsibility by police for anything they do with their weapon.


Talking helps

Most of time I talk to drivers, they are totally unaware of the accident they almost caused. Be it getting cut off or being passed too close, they are sometimes too unaware of their surroundings to begin with, locked in their little metal boxes, fumbling on their phones.

That being said, I can share the frustration that obviously got the better of this rider. I was passed far too closely by a truck last winter in Allston Center and let him know with a solid "Hey, you're too close!" His response? Let me pull in front of your path and slam my brakes, hoping I rear-ended him. I didn't and was able to quickly pass along his side, at which point he opened his door into my path, which I again was able to dodge. As I looked back to get my bearings and take down his license plate, he began walking agressively towards me, screaming at me to start a fight with him. I had no interest in this so I started riding on, he followed me and I decided to ride up towards the police station near my house in Brighton Center. He followed me, keeping along side me saying "I'm right here waiting for you." I grt into the police station, give my story calmly and I was asked this right away. "Did he touch you physically?" Well no sir, he did not. "Eh not a lot we can do there, you might be able to file a complaint with the truck company." Well I don't know who he is and I couldn't get a plate number but he drove up here, so hes in Brighton somewhere right now. Shoulder shrug from the officer.

Anecdotal yes but my point is, if a car passes me illegally and puts my safety at risk, I've got nothing to protect me, both physically and with regards to law enforcement. Stay safe everyone.


You're doing it all wrong

As someone who has delivered some u-lock justice a few times, the key is to take the butt end of the U-lock and smash out the side mirror as you pedal by in one swift motion. But smashing the windshield? C'mon man, rookie mistake.


you're so cool man. Someone

you're so cool man. Someone almost does something bad, so you destroy their property and ride away like a coward.

As a bike rider myself, I despise you.

I was walking down Broadway the other night and some A-hole on a bike comes flying up the side walk, against traffic, swerves around me and slams into an older gentleman stepping out a door way onto the side walk. The douche on the bike immediately gets up and starts screaming at the guy he just hit telling him he needs to open his eyes, and blaming him for the collision. I confronted the biker and he rode away like a coward. Maybe you two are related.


The laws protect motorists

The laws protect motorists more than they do cyclists in u-lock justice situations. If a car cuts me off when I'm in the bike lane so it can speed ahead and make a right turn and forces me to fall, what is going to happen to the driver? Nothing. If I promptly remove aforementioned moron driver's side mirror with my lock, maybe next time they'll think twice before making the same move. That's not exactly cowardly.

And your little story when you were down in Broadway does not really apply. You're right, people that ride their bikes on sidewalks and/or against traffic are douches. Agree with you 100% there.

Good day, sir.



Getting right-hooked by a driver is a moving violation on them. The law protects the cyclist. Whether Johnny Law shows up to help you apply the law is a different question.

Also, the law doesn't protect your u-lock action. That's "willful and malicious destruction of property". If it's over $250 of damage (some of those mirrors come with some decent tech these days), then it's a felony. Johnny Law cares about felonies.


"If I promptly remove

"If I promptly remove aforementioned moron driver's side mirror with my lock, maybe next time they'll think twice before making the same move. That's not exactly cowardly."

Or if they'll be less inclined to drive safely around me or another biker next time, because you just reaffirmed the belief that bikers are assholes. If a car cuts you off in another car you can't just rear end them because you're pissed off.

Escalating the situation and riding away so you can't be followed is more or less the definition of cowardly, by the way.

You must be trolling here because your logic makes absolutely no sense.


An attack carried out against

An attack carried out against a person who is unable to retaliate is literally the definition of cowardly. Look it up. If you escalate the situation by causing destruction to someone else's vehicle while they are stuck in traffic and ride away you are a coward. Running away from a fight you don't want to be involved with is not cowardly, that's not what I'm trying to say, but if you take a cheap shot and run you are by definition a coward.


Fear and Anger = Adrenaline = Shit Happens

It can be scary when someone gives you a close shave - especially in the winter when ice and wheel ruts in the road lower a cyclist's maneuverability. In an ideal world the biker would have been passed safely, and the motorist and biker would not have gotten into this confrontation. But when people feel threatened it can lead to rash decisions and violence. I am not really able to condone nor condemn anyone with such a sketchy understanding of what occurred. But I can understand why the biker confronted the driver, if indeed it was the result of a close shave pass. Words would have likely accomplished more than destruction. Especially since, if the biker was not summarily arrested by a nearby cop, the driver could have escalated the confrontation further. But we've all been in situations where we felt like acting rashly too. Of course it would be better if everyone just relaxed a bit thus avoiding the need for anything - harsh words or actions - or injuries.

No, you're doing it all wrong

or you are trolling

You make it clear to a person who is physically threatening you that you are saving that butt end for their non-butt end, with a "go ahead make my day" kind of smirk.

Then you watch as they shut their fat mouths and retreat into their vehicle before they start a fight they can't finish. So they can go home and tell stories about "violent cyclists" or "the one they scared away".


Sorry Swirly

I usually like your insights, but can't agree with you here. You seem like you bike as well, so you can understand situations where motorists pull some crap that either immediately put your life in danger, or end up injuring you. I'm not going to stand by and let a moron behind the wheel who doesn't like checking his side mirrors before he turns, or doesn't like using his/her signal get a free pass unless they physically threaten me.

I am the judge, I am the jury, the u-lock is my gavel that I use to dole out justice.

The point is not to get

The point is not to get arrested while doling it out. If that makes me a coward, so be it.

If you maneuver your vehicle in a way that puts my life in danger, and I have an assurance that you won't call the cops if I confront you for your stupidity...I'll be more than happy to throw down.

This is why...

... motorists couldn't give a shit about cyclists, because of cowards and keyboard warriors like the baby above and the wretched, know-nothing know-it-all SwirlyGoon. For every responsible, law-abiding cyclist, there are tens of others maliciously breaking the laws and personal property or acting like they're doing everyone such a big damned favor by cycling everywhere and judging those who don't - or in my case, cannot.

Anonnnn - I drive down Columbus Ave. every day around 7:00 p.m. Hope to "bump into you sometime!"


I live in Mission Hill

Keyboard warrior? Hardly.

I live in Mission Hill my man so I'm always around Columbus Ave on my bike (black Mercier Kilo TT with a white back wheel) so feel free to say "hello" if you ever see me.

Just go away dude. You sound

Just go away dude. You sound like an ass and you've contradicted yourself this entire post. You started by saying " the key is to take the butt end of the U-lock and smash out the side mirror as you pedal by in one swift motion." but then you went on to say that if "I have an assurance that you won't call the cops if I confront you for your stupidity...I'll be more than happy to throw down."

You don't even get a chance for the car driver to give that assurance if you smash their mirror as you're riding by. You've proved yourself to be a scummy human being and the type of biker that everyone hates, all the while making the rest of us who just want to bike to work look bad.


You're missing my entire point. But it's alright, Z. Enjoy your 7PM rides down Columbus, and if fate allows, we can calmly debate this hot topic in person!

Two sides to a story

We have read one side that makes the vandalism seem totally unprovoked. That in itself leads me to wonder if there is more to the story. Did the driver previously throw something out the window at the bicyclist? We just don't know the complete story to go and make assertions. It really seems unlikely that bicyclists use U-locks to smash in car windows with zero provocation. Perhaps the driver already spoke to the bicyclist after she forced him off the road? Perhaps the driver swore at the bicyclist or said she wished she'd killed him. There is more to the story.


How about those drunk drivers though?

funny you should say that...

A) not sure why you singled me out here


2nd one interesting

The second article eventually links to a Lancet published study of heart attack precipitators. "Traffic" is one of them, though well below doing cocaine. What would be useful for public health is an analysis of how many lives would be saved by reducing traffic congestion, or the reverse, how many lives risked by increasing congestion for 85% of travelers by various ways including: replacing a travel lane with bike lanes, and "livable streets" features. Then subtract the risk reduction for the 0.5-3% (0.9% average) who cycle and 1-15% who walk (excluding a small number of outlier locations). Has anybody looked at the cost/risk benefits impartially? I just see the one sided view of promoting walking/cycling without examining the health costs of making a place more "livable" on the much larger population using motorized transit.


The preferred traffic removal method

Especially in the old cities of Europe: fewer cars in the city

It isn't a one-sided view, but a reality of there not being enough room in most cities for any other sort of measures. That's why so many cities like Cambridge have stopped pretending they can fit more cars in - it isn't physically possible. So, if you want to move more people through an area, making more space for cars is highly inefficient, but making more space for public transit, cycling, and walking is highly efficient.

It simply didn't happen that people lobbied for these things you hate. It happened that planners realized that no more cars would fit, existing schemes were not working, and they had to try other ways of mobility.

You can look into the entire Dutch experience of removing cars from their environments once they realized that their cities and lives and children were being destroyed by attempts to wedge them into a human-scale landscape.

The most effective keywords to search on google scholar, etc.: mobility, urban mobility, future of mobility (I recently did a lit search for this stuff)

Context sensitive

Sorry, I was more concerned with the US than Europe. Even within the US, there is a vast difference between NYC and Newton. I'm not finding data on how much the replacement with a slip turning lane with a tight corner turn saves lives vs. how much traffic congestion and stress to drivers it adds. Or how much lane narrowing increases congestion by not allowing cars to go around turning vehicles, resulting in more stress, and how many lives it purportedly saves. CMF (crash modification factor) data is largely absent for promoted, yet unproven, changes.

The search terms you suggest are all one-sided, biased, opinion finders.

Not Really

Part of my foundation's funding comes from the auto industry, actually. And that's where I did the literature searching. These terms are absolutely not limited to "anti-car" types - hence the auto industry's insistence on the use of "mobility".

You familiar with this? ACEA Sustainability Statement?

European car manufacturers don't seem to see it as an all/nothing, car-haters vs car-lovers situation like you seem to do:

Sustainable mobility is about moving people and goods across Europe in the most efficient way, cutting emissions and saving fuel. That means access to the most appropriate transport mode or modes and investing in the technology, infrastructure and management systems that encourage free movement.

There is actually an organization, heavily funded by Volvo and entirely industry funded, that is grappling with mobility issues on a global scale. For some reason I can't find the exact name of it, but I'll update if I do (something like the Global Movement for Sustainable Mobility ... but I think I need the German or French translation to find it).

This is all ultimately about moving people and stuff in efficient ways that don't kill us and keep our cities vibrant and liveable. Roads and cars aren't necessarily the answer to that need.

Car maker motivations

From that web page, car makers are quite interested in people buying new cars that are more eco-friendly than their current vehicle. US car makers loved the cash for clunkers program paid for by taxpayers to boost new car sales while removing old cars from the used market. Much of the support for "livable streets" is by design firms that profit from more expensive road rehab projects - they then deceive potential activists into thinking that the expensive extras actually accomplish anything. The extras are perceived as safer, but the reality is no real safety increase to offset added cost and reduced mobility.

The site does make many good points, including:

Freely flowing traffic is one of the most important measures to cut unnecessary road transport emissions. Investment in infrastructure is therefore paramount. Well-designed roads and traffic management systems help cut accidents and lower CO2 and other harmful pollutants.

As far as automotive interests supporting anti-automotive programs - its tribute. AAA has gotten abused by bike lobbyists for years. Last year they were one of the sponsors of the D.C. based, League of American Bicyclists annual lobbying summit.

Definition of "bias"

Bias: something that doesn't agree with MarkK.

US auto industry: not biased.
Pedestrians groups: biased.
Bicycle industry: biased.

But my favorite is the idea what we must work to protect the health of motorists by reducing the stress caused to them by their driving, but ignore the huge impact to their health caused by their generally unhealthy mode choice, not getting exercise, etc. And of course there's the hopping up and down about the misbehavior of cyclists (which pisses me off, too) while simultaneously not even acknowledging the danger drivers pose to other people, especially those not in an automobile. Maybe we need little teensy automobiles to use when we're on the sidewalks or in crosswalks?

Also, those mode choice numbers? Shown repeatedly to be a huge underestimation of mode choice thanks to the way mode choice is ascribed to mixed mode trips and how some trips are counted while others aren't.

I pointed out auto bias

You missed where I pointed out how the auto industry is biased - they advocate people buy new cars before they wear out because new cars are more eco-friendly, which was also the cash for clunkers corporate welfare program for the auto industry. So, how am I not claiming auto industry bias?

Note though the auto industry mostly focuses on selling more cars, not selling cars AND places to use them. People already want places to drive, so no need to pump up demand. Bicycling and skateboarding need promoting to sell both the product and places to use it. Recent weather makes me wonder why there isn't a big lobby to promote cross-country skiing as transportation, skiing paths, and skiing lanes for winter, giving them to cyclists the other 3 seasons - that's not asking for much.

Lots of mixed-mode happens, like walking to/from parking lots. In the burbs most people drive to reach public transit for jobs in the city, then walk from it to their office. In Arlington, side streets get used as free MBTA parking even for those taking the bus, not just the typical parking to take commuter rail and subway. Promotion of carpooling is considered a failure, yet still much more popular than bicycling.

Forgive my immediate anger

If I'm angry and yelling at a driver, its most likely because they almost hit/killed me. Just my two cents.

Although I've had a few obscenity laced fits directed at drivers that have almost hit me, only to line up with them a few lights later and offer my sincere apologizes when waiting for the red. "Hey, I'm sorry for yelling at you back there, I was out of line. But you need to check your mirrors and blind spots before you pull across the bike lane to park."

Just one example I know but we aren't all assholes, just like all drivers aren't assholes. Plus I can't stand riding around in constrictive clothing, I prefer something comfortable and light fitting.


As hee-larious as the spandex jokes are...

Virtually no bicyclists in Boston wear that shit. Seriously. We're mostly commuters and regular folks going to work, running errands, etc and dressed accordingly. If I go out to Concord on a Saturday in October, yes, I see the guys in spandex. But not in the city, not biking through JP or Brookline or Brighton. And I've said it before here, but the ones who seem angry to me are the ones driving cars, not riding bikes. I'm happy as a clam on my bike, except when some jackass on a car is trying, through carelessness, inattention or misplaced aggression, to kill me. Get it now?



For those of you who seem to have this thing about spandex and cyclists, I have an assignment for you: When you get home tonight, and change into your slothwear for the evening, take a quick look at the tags on ALL your clothing for the fiber content.

Most underwear: spandex
Most jeans and dress pants: spandex
Long underwear worn by outdoor workers: spandex
Bras: Spandex
Casual shirts and some dress shirts: spandex

That's right: your average hard hat on a cold day like today is probably wearing as much or more spandex than a cyclist. No joke. Look at a Work-N-Gear catalog sometime!

Any one of us reading this comment thread is probably wearing a fair amount of the stuff, too.

I disagree

I live in Boston, JP in fact, and see plenty of cyclists wearing spandex. Granted they're usually doing a workout or even going for a century ride. I have no problem with spandex.

I think what people may object to is the barrage of adverts on the clothing which makes them look like wanna be Tour de whatever racers.

As a motorcyclist, I just don't see why some form of protective clothing is objectionable on these rides. Yes, lighter is better - during a race. Wear some added padding during a workout, consider it part of the training regime and be safe. No one is looking out for you but you. Take it from me who had an SUV slide into my lane while I was still in it on Melnea Cass and also had a Zip Car driver (something else to be avoided at all costs, I'll explain below) left lane turn in front of me such that I came within 1 or 2 feet of their back bumper. Motorcycles are just 1 step above bicycles in the "I didn't see you" department.

Now to my Zip Car concern. I was a member for a number of years when I was carless. It's a great product. However, I give them a wide berth because too many times they act like they've just gotten their license which tells me they don't drive all that often and are out of practice. They will move in mysterious ways and are to be given a lot of room, preferably in my rearview.

Reflecting with Wonder of the Right Action

This does sounds like it's going to be a huge 100+ war. In this example, I'm probably going to feel conflicted. I only reflect on my habits below.

I am imagining the cyclist taking the middle because of the snowbanks. The car behind decided to pass in a lull taking the lane against traffic to pass.

I can easily imagine being (well I probably have been, though not on Washington) that biker in the middle. But I don't mind if cars pass me. I must admit I get a kick if I manage to keep up (partially by lights, but I bike pretty past), but I also dislike if I'm causing a line of cars building up behind me. If the car is passing with attending and courteously (regardless of what lane), I don't see a problem. But I imagine many don't. I can understand on major aspect, part of why one goes to the middle is because safety is compromise any other way (as per all this snow).

On the driving side, I honestly have to admit I would be be similar to the driver if I am imagining how it went down correctly. That means I would also pass the cyclist if there's an opportunity despite I am aware there's a strong possibility of hitting a red light. I would pass nonthreatening and clearly, but would pass if there's a chance. If I had to stay behind, I would feel annoyed regardless of lights and average speed (and if the car was in front, one scenario is making the light before it turned red).

In short, I can easily be either person (except for any road ragey aspect in passing or getting passed). That kinda bothers me.


It's not clear from the report

whether the passing motorist gave enough room to the cyclist when she passed him. As RhonInFire already said, many drivers (myself included) will cross the yellow line if there is no oncoming traffic to pass a cyclist on the street. If the motorist gave him enough space to pass safely, what's his beef? If she didn't, I can understand his anger but not his vandalism of her car.

Interesting details in article

that are omitted from the abstract here. Cyclist arrested (at 6:55 PM) is 61 years old. When police caught up with him, he was no longer wearing his helmet, red bandanna, and "neon" vest. Driver reported the cyclist had first attempted verbal communication, though she found it indecipherable.

My impressions include: Monday was a bad night for choosing to ride a bicycle given snow banks and ice potential; I'm surprised a 61 year old living in JP isn't getting enough herbal tea to relax them. I'm not surprised by someone living in JP actively displaying an anti-car attitude.

Riddle me this, MarKKK

Cyclist arrested (at 6:55 PM) is 61 years old. When police caught up with him, he was no longer wearing his helmet, red bandanna, and "neon" vest.

Yup, probably the guilty party. Lots of people try to hide their guilt when confronted. What's your excuse?

Driver reported the cyclist had first attempted verbal communication, though she found it indecipherable.

After prolonged periods in the cold, the jaw may not be very happy and it may make it difficult to speak clearly. Also, I'm fairly certain that her windows were rolled up. So, what's your point?

I'm not surprised by someone living in JP actively displaying an anti-car attitude.

Or...perhaps there's more to the story that what is reported here. But, being someone of your bias, you immediately assume it was because the rider is "anti-car", because everyone who might have a beef with a driver - any driver, anywhere - is axiomatically anti-car? Isn't that right Mark?


You'd Be Amazed

I suspect some of my success in staring down mouthy would-be assailants threatening me with bodily harm has been because nobody is going to believe a smallish female started a fight and no dumbass bully is going to live down getting his ass kicked by a small mature female, either.

There are a lot of cowards out there who get their thrills trying to bully others. Fortunately, most are all mouth and will shut up and flee when their tough guy act fails to produce a fear response and elicits defiant self-defense instead. They aren't looking for a real fight, just a dominance thrill.

But I have a long and rather ugly history of dealing with bullies.

Not that this is something that happens all the time, anyway. In fact, it has been at least three years since anybody got obnoxious enough to play this game with me. I suspect motorists have simply been learning their place.

They are probably afraid you

They are probably afraid you are:

1.Stealing their souls (sorry couldn't resist the ginger joke)
3.Memorizing them and their car to file a police report.
4.Looking at something beyond which might hurt them.

Snow Patrol

I just want to to point out that with the snow, the available bike lanes are either rubble, ice or non-existent. So... we need to access to the full lanes. Sorry folks, thems the bricks.


Biking in the middle of the street

Personally i despise cyclists who ride in the middle of the road. To me you're asking for it. But on the other hand you know where you're riding and how bad the drivers can get in this city. But to smash out someones windshield because they went around you?! Sure we're suppose to share the road but again remember you're just a "guy" on a bike and not a car so.....move over and avoid the bullshhhhh. Oh and watch out for those car doors and people crossing in the crosswalk!

I don't get it

You're upset with people exercising their rights as outlined by mass general law? I'm asking for it when I drive safely to the rule of the law? I'll drive as far to the right as is safe and you'll have to pass me safely, its the law.

Don't tell me to move over, don't buzz me to teach me a lesson because I'm "asking for it." Pass me safely and we'll be ok, got it?

Oh and I'll look out for car doors, thats why many of us ride in the middle of the lane, because drivers can't be bothered to follow the law on THEIR end and check their mirrors before opening the car door into traffic. Remember, its illegal to door a cyclist and you will be found at fault, not me.

Laws are just words and bike lanes are just painted lines

So basically what you're saying is that you're a douche who tells other people their opinions are wrong?! All im hearing is that youre one of those people who are always in the middle of the road so that means i personally despise you now. Seeing as your responded to my post like i personally knew you. Dont come on here bitching because you feel offended or whatever the case may be. I dont care what the laws states....ill just ask one simple thing. If im a car in the road,not the middle or off to the sides, i need to watch out for you because you decided to take my whole lane? Ill just hit you with the classic teenage response..."whatevs." Dont be an ass hat. My opinion is my opinion. If you dont like dont respond to it!

One last thing.....shut ya mouth and stay in your lane. Pun intended!

Had no idea

that every cyclist in Boston is apparently a BAMF. Yall should take up cage fighting instead of cycling.

Might as well through my $.02 in -

if the motorist was being a jackass, then the cyclist has every right to yell and scream at them - destruction of property is wrong. It's no different than when some Southie jackass smashes a window for taking "their" parking space.Maybe I'll do my next anthropology research paper on why cities appear to make (presumably) normal people into a__hats.


Cops don't care til you get hit and motorists willingly tell you they don't care if you die. The law is on the cyclists side regarding where they can ride but there is no enforcement. I do not advocate violence but it's hard not to be upset and to try not to protect yourself when you know that many motorists don't care if they kill you.