Police: Angry bicyclist takes swing at cop - with his bike

Because yeah...those pesky headlights and brake lights and rear lights...blinding!! We should really all operate without them...soooo much safer.

Total idiocy aside, it sounds as if you never ride on bike paths, side streets, the Emerald Necklace, etc. etc.? Only in brightly lit tunnels?

Ooohhhh-kaaay. I'm going to go stand over here now.

Ok, BlackKat, I'll bite.

First, you are breaking the law by not having lights on your bike but, heck, you don't seem to be ruffled by that, my rebel friend.

Second, bike lights are very light so if you do not want to be weighed down by a light light, you are just plain acting silly.

Third, streetlights vary in intensity and in some areas they are still sparse. Trust me on this. I live in a town that has very dark sections, right near the city in fact, where pedestrians and runners (I am one) are hard to be seen by a motorist. So dark that I will wear a headlight, as a runner, to be seen.

But, hey, your life.

In your mind, the driver was 100% at fault. The investigation (which you probably think is a crock, anyway) did not fault him.

I also know the area well and have a close connection to MIT and am familiar with the accident.

The cyclist was not visible on a dark and rainy night in an area where the streetlights are not that bright. On top of that, the investigators found that his bike was in a high gear, telling the investigators that he was travelling at a good rate of speed. The 18 wheeler could not see him, period, and the cyclist, riding too aggressive for the conditions, probably thought that he could beat the truck's turn. He lost.

The cyclist, MIT, and City of Cambridge were at fault.

Cambridge and MIT urban planners with SHIT FOR BRAINS narrowed the intersection. An intersection of TWO TRUCK ROUTES! There are few truck routes in Cambridge. No matter, Cambridge planners narrow every intersection so there is NO WAY for a MBTA bus or tractor trailer to turn without crossing over another lane.

Don't want T buses or tanker trucks crossing over lanes, then restore slip lanes and restore road width. The truck driver did not fuck up the roads.

occur for the same reason - because the average person does not understand that large trucks need far more room to turn and cannot stop as quickly as a passenger car or a cyclist. They also don't seem to understand that, unlike a passenger car, the back wheels of a trailer do not follow the same wheel track as the front wheels of the tractor do. Not to mention the unavoidable blind spots such large vehicles have (this is more of an issue when allowing bikes to pass other traffic on the right - which should be BANNED).

But, let's play the "automatically blame the driver" whenever a cyclist is involved in a crash instead of thinking "Gee, that truck is going to make a turn in front of me. Perhaps I should slow down and let them do so instead of asserting my "rights" to blast through the intersection at top speed anyway."

And, perhaps we should also teach cyclists how to properly control their speed and use their BRAKES instead of this "Oh gee, I'm about to get hit by (or hit) somebody. I'm going to blindly swerve into traffic instead of trying to stop." mentality.

I ride a city bike and, for city biking, it works great. Doesn't win any pretty prizes, but it has its own style and flair that people seem to appreciate. It also has built in generator lights so I'm never without.

I save the carbon fiber for my 19lb road bike, thanks. It looks sweet, but it doesn't work well in the city.

Then again, I'm a grownup with a real job and have to wear decent clothes and haul my electronics around with me in waterproof panniers. Ditto for my husband. Furthermore I'm a tad too zaftig to worry about "streamlining". I couldn't give a shit about shaving a few ounces off of my bike - Lately, I've been getting much more performance out of it by just dropping 20 lbs of me by hopping on my unaesthetic but highly useful bike and riding it everywhere (and going to a smaller rear cog on the 7speed internal).

You know what is so epic foolish about your comments, here? There is no right way to bike or no right or correct bike. Go someplace where EVERYBODY bikes and you see a lot of those clunky looking city bikes because ... THEY DO THE JOB THEY NEED TO DO! Elitist bullshit like your purity of essence crap here is what keeps people off the road, not helmets, not lights.

Apparently I need remedial aesthetics - that Morris is just cute, and that Bugatti is just trying too hard (screams "midlife crisis" or "young jerk with way too much money")

I think you'll have a hard time convincing most folks (even though that don't like them) that ducati is an example of poor design. . .

. . . or a dutch-style city bike which is ubiquitous in all the countries that have the highest number of daily cyclist per capita. . .

. . . or that you use a mod vespa as an example of poor style--that's pretty much all the mods were, style.

keep livin' the dream, man.

The photo of the Ducati 1098 you chose was in a less flattering paint scheme. I find the newer designs too angular, a trend that seems to copy stealth airplanes and war ships. A pointless design exercise when not used with radar absorbing materials. Genius is integrating form and function. One or the other usually is too heavy, lately, mostly form.

Most car advertising has gone from styling to electronic entertainment and distractions now available. Both not about doing the job of transport better. It just shows how many people much rather be driven somewhere in a limo while they eat, dress, groom, Internet surf, phone, text, read, play games, watch a movie, or listen to music. Without sufficient wealth, many just drive themselves while doing those things.