Should have gotten a nice closeup of his license plate, and it done it nice and intentionally so the driver could see. Then say something like, "BPD says hello!" and continue onward. Forward it to BPD, who may do nothing, but make the guy sweat a little at the very least.
will blow it up and get the plate.
Or someone with decent vision and the ability to start and stop a Youtube machine. 9515YE.
While I'm not a digigeek, the 7 second mark shows the plate clear as day.
But the driver doesn't really know that. It should have been much more intentional and deliberate.
From the video it looks like plate # 9515 TE .(Though the Y could be a T)
When did "you're going on YouTube" become an actual threat? And do you think the old dude really gives a fuck?
thinks all bikers are commie infiltrators and that Youtube is something in the back of his 16" Magnavox.
I didn't read the "You're going on YouTube" bit as a threat so much as a member of the social media generation being pleased with themselves for capturing something YouTube-able on the way to work.
Where's a wambulance when you need one?
Looks to me like the bike rider is riding along minding his own business until the lawbreaking car driver decides to be a dick.
of the notorious anti bike jihadists Al-Bikeda.
Yes, a couple.
1.) The ignorant asshole driver in the bike lane.
2.) The biker who couldn't keep his hands to himself, riding around with a camera on his head, looking for confrontations.
Look, I get why bikers are frustrated. Getting around in this city is a nightmare, whether on foot, on a bike, in a car, or on public transit. I understand why people have cameras for insurance purposes. But to post every annoying inconvenience you see on youtube is just petty. So you got cut off by some masshole? Welcome to the club!
I think he rides with a camera in case someone like this dove into the left lane and hit him.
I'm just not seeing it. To what are you referring?
The cyclist is in the right here, obviously--the driver is in the bike lane. But sheesh--they're all stopping for a red; there's no place at this point for the driver to pull up. Tapping on the car is a little overkill, IMO. That said, the wannabe-Whitey driver is cuckoo bananas.
It's like honking, which anyone in a car would do if someone was blocking their travel lane, red light or not.
how fun it is to have someone honking at you when you can't actually move. Again, I believe 100 % that driver guy was being an over reactive, foul-mouthed jerk, but the traffic had stopped--there's no way biker guy is going to lose much time waiting for the light to turn and everyone start moving again. Just unnecessary IMO.
Not being in that area in a while, with the snow covering , it looks like a fog line to me. Maybe the old dude thought the same.
if it's a fog line he still shouldn't be crossing it
Really , Bobby, the lanes have been bumped out by the snow banks, be practical here. You want to write up the plow guy too for crossing the fog line ? When the roadway is covered in snow , you have to improvise.
Funny that everyone else on the road didn't have to improvise. Everyone else is within the lines. It's the one asshole who isn't.
Admit it, you're the dude driving the care aren't you?
Two seconds in you can see a worn bike lane marking on the road there.
Par for the course, unfortunately. When we have cycletracks, this will not be an issue unless drivers like running over curbs / barriers.
Be careful what you wish for. When a cycle track is blocked by snow, it's not nearly as much fun to threaten to put the snowbank on Youtube.
Should've just nailed him with a snowball or thrown some snow in that open sunroof and called it a day.
I was thinking the same thing. When he said "youre in the snow anyway" I would have lobbed a snowball right through his sunroof.
is a better response than SwirleyJustice of "he's an old man stuck in traffic, so I'll threaten to kill him with my u-lock".
We have a perfect example of someone that needed some u-lock justice via side mirror smashing.
You know I never realized all this hostility, but the old u bolt lock weapon is mentioned a lot as some sort of equalizer. Sometimes I walk in downtown Boston and get terrorized on the sidewalks by the biking public. Maybe a little forearm shiver will get the dudes off the sidewalk. Now if I can only find that old leather football helmet and get a modern bird cage put on it, like the big boys use now...............
I agree. Keep you're eyes open for a hipster on a black Mercier Kilo TT with a white back wheel.
Hardly a hipster.
But good to see my #1 fan, Zetag chiming in!
Acceptance is the first step to recovery bro, we'll have you out of those skinny jeans and flannels in no time.
But this only highlights my point from yesterday, who knows why this guy hates bikes, it could be because some wanna be tough guy took his mirror off one day and rode away, after the driver casued no damage to anyone or anything, and now he's going to take it out on any biker that he sees. Being a douche bad makes it more dangerous for the rest of us riders just trying to get by.
There's no evidence in the film that the car driver has any issue at all with bikes, only that he reacts like a dickhead when it's pointed out that he's being inconsiderate and blocking the road.
Biker was not in bike lane. Should not be passing traffic on left. And wearing of a helmet cam shows he is looking for a confrontation.
Old guy in car rules.
pause the video at 3 seconds and you can clearly see the bike lane icon painted on the ground
Once one guy follows driving rules chaos is sure to follow.
Yes, it's indeed a bike lane. That section of Comm Ave has a clearly marked bike lane on the left.
He was in the bike lane. Like this rude driver, you obviously have never driven down Commonwealth when it's not covered in snow. Bike lane goes under Mass Ave on the left and stays that way to the Public Garden.
Bike image is very clearly in the lane just before the confrontation happens. You can see it. With your eyes.
Comm Ave has bike lane on the left, get over yourself
Actually, on that section of Comm Ave, that's exactly where the bike lane is, the painted markers of which you can clearly see in the video. The rest of your points hardly need addressing.
They put the bike lane on the left a few years ago. Try to keep up.
Comm Ave in the Back Bay, bike lanes are on the left.
"Left" lane commie bike lanes.
Everyone's taking you to school on the whole bike lane on the left on Comm Ave, so I'll also point out that most bikers wear a helmet cam because if they get run over in a hit-and-run, they aren't exactly going to be able to just chase after their assailant. Pedestrians claim bikers want to run them over. Drivers want to run bikers over. They end up stuck in the middle defending accusations from both sides. Bikers with cameras aren't looking for confrontation, they're looking to defend themselves when confrontations happen to them (and any biker who hasn't ended up accused of doing something wrong is a liar).
Also, the bike lane is on the left on Comm Ave.
I don't think this is an accurate statement.
Also, I would not have started a fight or posted a video to YouTube and Reddit in such a situation. I would just swing to the right and pass him, then swing back to the left in front of him.
A camera in case of an accident sounds reasonable to me, in Russia there are a lot of drivers that have dashboard cameras in their cars for exactly the same reason.
most bikers wear a helmet cam because...
Was my shorthand for "most bikers who wear a helmet cam do so because...".
You are flat out lying. The bike lane is clearly marked.
Guys, does anybody know which side of Comm Ave the bike lane is on?
Who rides a bike in december? And why is he wearing a camera? Go get your shine box bikey boy. Next time take the t or drive like a normal person
Why do you have a problem with people making their own, perfectly legal decisions? Do you enjoy totalitarianism? Would you like to tell people what is allowed? How would you feel if you were told the best way to commute for yourself? Would you tell that person to fuck off? Because that's what I'm going to say to you on behalf of the biker... fuck off.
I sure escalated things quickly there, eh? Anyway. Point is... why the hell does anyone care what someone's preferred, legal method of commuting is? Seriously?
that escalated quickly...
I have a problem with the majority of bikers that I see ignoring traffic rules. I guess they only apply when the biker isn't at fault. Anyone who wears a camera is looking to start trouble. Try walking next time.
Even though there is no evidence that this biker ignored any traffic rules, you have a problem with him because some other bikers ignore traffic rules?
Thats how these debates always end up when I try to talk to friends about safety on the road. It just turns into finger pointing and confirmation bias.
ALL bikers break the law in their eyes. Drivers are saints on the road.
right? And no cyclist is so inattentive (even for a few seconds) that they aren't paying closer attention to what the traffic in front of them is doing - right?. IIRC, the basic rule for operating a vehicle on a public street is that you are responsible to observe what is going on IN FRONT of you. That premise is the basis for most "standards of fault" (like the one that states that in a rear end collision, the driver in rear is at least 50% at fault).
Now, I'm not saying that the old man didn't intentionally swerve into the bike lane. But a cyclist who intentionally uses a bike lane that obviously has substandard width because of snowbanks (no way they can maintain the "magic" 3 foot lateral clearance many UHubers advocate for from adjacent traffic here) shouldn't be held entirely blameless in this situation either. Especially when they are geeky or self-centered enough that they feel the need to wear a helmet cam to capture possible YouTube moments.
And for those reading this who disagree with my opinions, you should note this - If this incident occurred between two cars on a roadway, especially where one lane is partially obstructed by snow , we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sure cars drift out of their lanes all the time, I see it daily and its really unsafe, right? Why is that ok? And there are cyclists, just as there are drivers, that aren't paying attention to whats happening in front of them. Whats your point?
Drivers need to be aware of whats around all sides of their car, hence why cars had mirrors, checking blind spots and signals. You need to be aware of other vehicles in front of you, as well as those to your side and rear. Drifting in and out of other lanes without proper signals and checking mirrors is dangerous and illegal. I think we can all agree with that, right?
But a cyclist who intentionally uses a bike lane that obviously has substandard width because of snowbanks.....shouldn't be held entirely blameless in this situation either. Especially when they are geeky or self-centered enough that they feel the need to wear a helmet cam to capture possible YouTube moments.
Blameless? Remind me what the cyclist was doing that was illegal? (Aside from the love tap he gave to the car hood.) The car was illegally in the bike lane. Snowbank or not, the car was operating illegally. But hes especially in the blame because he rides with a camera? What? Don't attack this rider for bringing his camera along, you know why he rides with a camera, to protect himself legally.
Nothing bad happened in this case, so honestly beyond the Youtube video, we wouldn't be talking about this even if it was about two carrs. But thats not ok, because this kind of driving behavior happens daily, while traffic is moving and it endangers other road operators.
Isn't that reason to stop someone and check their ability to drive? As in OUI?
In many places, inability to drive in marked lanes can cost you your license unless you can prove you are medically fit to drive.
By cussing them out is looking for trouble. Or who knows--maybe there's a body in the trunk. Or the Curley desk.
Joe Gill--you be right on dude! this stupid 2-wheeler should increase his BMI and get Type 2 Diabetes like the rest of us assholes.
on his way to your mom's house...bada boom!
have a seat on that bike.
Actually, I often ride bikes without seats:
I compare it to riding a stationary bicycle at the gym, compared to riding an elliptical machine; it's a workout for your upper body as well as your legs. With no seat in the way, your legs are freer to move and stretch through a wider area. They work surprisingly well on ice and snow; you can put both feet on the ground and slide along, sort of like skiing, but with the bicycle giving you lots of extra stability.
As an added benefit, seatless bicycles are less likely to be stolen.
When a bolt clamping the the seat on my bike broke it was a hellish mile or two to get to Wheelworks for a replacement. I don't know how you can do it.
biker, but you're kidding right? That seems like a prescription for a fractured taint.
Here's another picture from after a big storm last winter:
Note the other bikes, abandoned in the un-shoveled-out bike rack.
I stated riding without seats a few years ago, so I guess I've just gotten used to it. I'm an old guy with osteoporosis and certainly not the toughest biker either. So, if I can do this, anyone can!
Definitely, you're working a different array of muscles; more lower legs, calves, and feet. I have some other bikes that do have seats, but I usually ride them standing up too. When I do sit down and pedal, then I feel much more of a workout on my upper legs and thighs.
I don't think those bikes you are showing pictures of, without seats, are because the riders are deliberately doing without. Those are instances where the quick release seat bolt has been used either by thieves or by the owner to prevent thievery.
As the owner of those bikes, I can tell you that the seats were permanently removed and thrown away. Yes, there are some people who remove their seat as a theft deterrent, but my bikes are so old and junky that thieves ignore them as a matter of course. Only once did I have a bike stolen from Wonderland Station. Until then, I never bothered to lock my bikes, but just tethered them to the fence with a bungee cord or plastic bag. It was on the one day at the end of the school year when thousands of kids skip classes and go to the beach when the bike disappeared. Fortunately, I had other beat up junky bikes to take its place.
My strategy is to have a fleet of old recycled bikes ready to go; if one breaks, has a flat tire or gets stolen, I don't care; I've always got another spare bike as a replacement. This works much better for me than investing a lot of money in a single expensive bike that would be much more likely to be stolen. It's the freedom that junky bikes provide that I find particularly appealing; they get me where I want to go just as effectively as an expensive bike would. This might not work for everyone, but for me it's perfect.
I can even ride my junky bikes through the ocean surf without worrying that the salt water will cause rust damage! Some people may also refuse to believe you can ride a bike in the sand, but you can and it's very pleasant; with or without a seat. One thing's for sure, you don't have to deal with nasty people driving cars; the seagulls give you plenty of respect and always step out of your way:
As much as I love the use of shine box, I'm afraid I can't get beyond the fact that you just don't get it. The commute is atrocious in the snow for car and T. Walking, and even more so, Biking are much faster, more adaptable to the conditions. Learn from Bikeyface!
Comb your your hair! Look like everyone else! DO what your told! Why are you different?!?!
because of the snow. The car in the car is old (I know, no excuse for some) but he is old and may be just plain ol confused.
Cut the driver some slack. As a former bike rider, I would not be riding down Comm Ave with such a narrow bike lane.
But, if I did choose to do so, I would understand that the world is not perfect, and not everyone is on the ball.
Thus I would ride defensively but without a camera on my helmet 'cause folks who ride with cameras on their heads,
in general, are just looking to jump up and down on their self righteous soap boxes (says I, a recuperating soap box jumper).
The car in the car is old
I didn't notice this. Perhaps the man was having difficulty steering his car while that car was steering the car that said car is inside of. :-)
Preemptively rolling down your window to call a guy on a bike an asshole, a guy who is in the right, is inexcusable. If he's so old he can't understand that then his license should be revoked. Whether it was a bike lane or not (which it was), he should be driving in the lane of traffic not crossing the line to teach someone a "lesson"
This guys seems to think he is entitled to driving where he wants when he wants and is irritated that someone is even on a bicycle. What the fuck difference should it make to him?
"This guys seems to think he is entitled to driving where he wants when he wants"
The biker is in his lane. So is the car. Get it?
No, issue him a ticket. I'd have been for cutting him some slack if his response to the bicyclist had been to say, "oops, sorry" and to immediately pull back into his lane.
Can we get a version of this with a *ding* and counter each time someone says "asshole"? Thanks.
Road into work Tuesday to today and it was touch and go on parts of Comm Ave. Earlier in the week the bike lane on the left wasn't clear enough to ride in safely, so I reverted to the right side of the road for much of the Back Bay portion. City cleared more of the lanes in the past few days so riding in today there was no issues like this, cleared the road right up to the curb. Still a few spots here and there where the lane is on the right and parked cars still haven't moved from the storm.
Don't really have much to say here, its not like the driver was moving while he was doing this, so it was really a matter of inconvenience for the cyclist. Exchange pleasantries and lets move on.
Oh and those people calling him out for being confrontational because he rides with a camera, you know he might in fact be the uppity self-righteous cyclist that you all love to hate but he also might be trying to protect him self legally. I've considered getting a camera for my commute because the times I have talked to the police about drivers trying to push me off the road, door me intentionally, throw bottles at me, etc, its turns into a my word vs. the drivers word and guess who the police tend to favor?
Is awesome! Love it, your in the snow asshole.
I hope that he finds the trouble he's looking for.
With a GoPro. I think it's the biker who was looking for trouble.
What specific evidence from the video supports your assertion that the bike guy was looking for trouble?
... that I'm not like that man in the car. How miserable and unhappy with himself he must be! Just because he's stuck in traffic, he wants to make the world more difficult for everyone else too. I'm even more thankful that I don't have to interact with this man in my own life. Can you imagine how horrible it must be for anyone who lives with him?
i've had this exact thought after getting yelled at by someone in a car. I always regret my response being "fuck you, guy" or something along those lines, and wish i had said 'i feel bad for the people who have to live with you'
We actually do see the car moving (for almost 2 car lengths) and having driven down Comm Ave in my car (never a bike just to be clear - bad back), it looked to me that he was that far to the left with the intention of blocking bikes - too far over to be accidental and he seemed to veer more to the left as the bike approached. I believed it even more when he had his window open before the biker even turned around AND his moonroof so he could verbally abuse the guy (and was obviously watching in his mirror, making his moving to the left more even more dickish). He was busting for a fight and this time it was taped. End of story. I don't think it's a bike thing for him either - he's that much of an asshole to car drivers too.
If I was the guy on the bike, I would have said something too for the simple fact that people who drive like that old guy, whether on purpose or just thoughtlessly) tend to hit, hurt, and kill bikers and especially since the old guy said something first. Is he supposed to thank this guy for swearing and yelling at him? I took his parting shot to be the equivalent of "have fun looking like an asshole on youtube", not a threat, just amused by the idea of it. And if I did ride a bike in Boston, I'd have a GoPro too, since the car insurance of the person that hit you should pay for your medical bills if they're at fault (how I got a bad back). And he shouldn't be attacked by anyone (including the people here) for riding legally in his lane, even if he's recording it.
How can anyone not think the old man in the car is the a-hole in this incident? He was clearly in the wrong about the bike lane, and went out of his way to be a dink about it. Regardless of your opinion of bicyclists, this is open-and-shut.
The pretentious a-hole biking around with a $300 GoPro looking for a fight.
Could you explain what it is in the video that would suggest the guy was looking for a fight?
I like this thing where someone using a GoPro in a way it was intended is now an asshole. There's no indication the guy was looking for trouble.
I think it's about a $200 Contour.
To me it looks like the driver deliberately drove over the fog line seeking to express his feelings with the cyclist. The good part is that he made use of his mirrors to see the cyclist approaching (probably in full bike-activist regalia)! Given the man's appearance, he may not have a YouTube channel, Twitter account, Facebook page, and blog to express his sentiments that many cyclists use, so, he communicates in person.
I noticed that the cyclist seemed put out by needing to slow down and/or wait to safely pass the vehicle. A recent discussion included comments that drivers need to do the same when passing. I guess everyone feels annoyed having to slow or delay passing.
So, the driver was wrong to drive over the fog line, but he did it deliberately to speak with the cyclist. He might have thought driving in snow was difficult enough so that bicycling on messy, narrowed streets displayed extremist behavior he disagreed with.
So he endangered the rider's life so he could express his displeasure at the fact the guy was riding legally? Sounds like typical Kaepplein thinking. Along the lines of how you blamed the woman killed last night in Arlington for her own death when she was run down in a crosswalk by a man driving without a license. The crowning turd on that argument was your excuse for why he wouldn't have a license.
Also, please describe "full bike-activist regalia". I have no idea what that is but I'll go buy some just to piss you off. Is it "bike activist regalia" when people ride in dayglow? Or is it normal clothes that's "bike activist regalia"? The suggestion that someone riding with a helmet cam for their own protection is somehow "looking for a fight" is the new "wasn't wearing a helmet so they deserved to be hit".
How did the driver endanger the rider? I suppose you consider any time that a cyclist ought to slow down as being endangered rather than simple accident avoidance that everyone on the road SHOULD exercise. The cyclist was only temporally inconvenienced.
As to the tragic death of a homeless woman last night in Arlington, you, as usual, selectively mis-characterize my comments made on the Arlington Patch. It doesn't matter if there is a crosswalk in a location or not when its poorly lit at night and drivers can't see pedestrians or even bicycles lacking required lighting and reflectors. A 67 year old driver has about one third the night vision of a 20 year old, so young people ( especially) don't appreciate the need to enhance their visibility when they have no problem seeing at night.
Full bike activist regalia could include the helmet cam. Drivers and pedestrians around here don't wear them, so it calls attention to the user.
Who are you quoting "looking for a fight"? Those voices in your head again? Its clear though that only the driver was looking for an interaction (fight?) by positioning his car to slow/stop the rider.
Mark Kaepplein December 20, 2013 at 02:11 PM
Stephen, even clicking on the photo above, its hard to see much of anything except the car with high beams and driving lights on trying to illuminate a much too dark intersection. I agree that a homeless woman pushing a wheeled cart was quite likely walking in the street along Mass Ave and the accident location near a crosswalk was coincidental. The driver thus would only see her from the back so the small white plastic bag and fluorescent orange cart handles were not visible to him. The driver's (?) Mercedes doesn't have visible damage or broken windshield, to indicate high speed that would carry the victim so far from the crosswalk. I hope APD releases more crash scene/reconstruction details in order to actually improve safety rather than "streetscape".
I'm sure full "bike activist regalia" includes the demanded helmet and viz gear ... so make up your fucking mind, troll!
You omitted the information elsewhere that sidewalks still had snow and ice on them so, consequently people often walk and use mobility aids in the streets. After that post, more information was reported on Wicket Local from witnesses who said that the woman was crossing the road.
I and other residents had been begging the Town to add pedestrian activated crossing signals at several intersections including the one where the accident happened. Instead, money is to be wasted on widening sidewalks and $700,000+ in added landscaping and "streetscape". One full traffic light is to be added, but not a single pedestrian crossing signal.
Google Kaepellian and Patch for a whole slew of other vile victim-blaming garbage.
After that post, more information was reported on Wicket Local from witnesses who said that the woman was crossing the road.
No, Mark. That is a lie. It was reported on Friday morning in the Patch, the website where you wrote your comments, that police had charged the driver with failing to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Wicked Local was also reporting in the morning that the driver was being charged too. You wrote your comments in the Patch in the afternoon, long after it was reported that she was hit in the crosswalk and the driver was being cited for not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
You're trying to claim that it was only reported that she was in the crosswalk after your comments were posted and your claim is a complete fabrication.
A 67 year old driver has about one third the night vision of a 20 year old, so young people ( especially) don't appreciate the need to enhance their visibility when they have no problem seeing at night.
No. Impaired people shouldn't be driving.
Assuming I'm reading this right and you're saying that normal 67-year-olds shouldn't be driving at night -- Deterioration starts long before that. At what % of maximum night vision should people stop driving at night? Do you propose that this be mandated (night-vision tests at every license renewal - and good luck getting that one passed)? Or do you plan to voluntarily stop driving at night sometime in middle age, and expect everyone else to do the same?
Vision tests are not required in MA, but are required in most other states and provinces.
The lack of vision tests in MA is one reason why several Canadian provinces (such as Alberta) will not even take an MA license in trade. If you move there, you will have to go through the entire test cycle that new drivers have to go through.
So, no, it isn't difficult to say that if somebody is impaired, maybe they shouldn't be driving. But MarkK's premise is that everyone else should modify their behavior so that drivers can drive impaired or just with their heads up their assses and not hit things. Drivers are never at fault in his world, people just get in their way and expect too much - that's what people are picking on here.
What you talking about Swirls? I have to take an eye test every time i renew my license. An extract from Mass RMV :
"20/40 vision in at least one eye is the vision required to pass the driving test "
... requires a vision test. Maybe at a certain age, these are required at every renewal -- but haven't reached that age -- yet.
Wow, with all the practice I'm surprised you're not better at this whole internet-arguing avocation of yours.
From the RMV website:
Vision Screening Requirements
Testing your vision is a necessary part of ensuring that you are capable of operating a motor vehicle safely. An RMV clerk will screen your vision when you apply for a learner's permit or driver's license. You will be screened for visual acuity, color vision, and peripheral vision. If you normally wear contact lenses or corrective lenses to see at a distance, then you must wear them during the vision screening examination.
It has been nearly 10 years since I've set foot in the RMV to get a license - I renewed over the internet. And I'm over 50. Never had a vision test.
The absolutely don't test night vision, either.
I just tried to renew online and was denied because I was due for a vision test. Not sure how often they are required, but they do seem to be required periodically. (I have no known visual condition or anything else that would have triggered this; I think it was just an "every other renewal" or "every N years" kind of thing.)
Of course, in typical RMV fashion, the website didn't tell me that I needed a vision test, it just said "transaction failed, try again later." After several tries, I went in in person and they said that the online renewal had failed because I was due for a vision test.
That's when you apply. Not when you renew. Read it.
Swirly said "Vision tests are not required in MA." she didn't specify renewals.
They are a required part of getting a license.
Thanks for playing though.
It is a freaking joke, defended with absurd technicalities.
Since you'll never move from mom's basement, let alone to another state, you'll never know how stupid you sound in the grown up world.
Vision tests are required for renewals sometimes.
This is the biker's website/blog: http://pigeonride.com/
He's usually in t-shirt and jeans.
Also, the biker wasn't passing. There was nobody in the bike lane ahead of him to pass...well, until the car illegally crossed into the bike lane anyways.
It's not a fog line. It's a lane divider. What extremist behavior are you witness to in that video?
For not reading the hundreds of bike blogs.
Solid white lines painted near the edge of pavement are commonly called fog lines for aiding visibility that people don't run off the road shoulder or hit the curb.
Riding a bike in snow and slush is something that only a fraction of the 2-3% of people who do ride bikes to work practice. Hence, a small percentage of a small percentage equals non-mainstream, or extremest. The driver too was extremest - most won't deliberately hold up a cyclist to rant at them. He might have been unfamiliar with the uncommon placement of the bike lane. It is so narrow, it doesn't even look like a bike lane. As for icons specifying a bike lane, people are now overloaded with icons to decipher.
I won't excuse you, because I didn't expect you to read hundreds of bike blogs. I do expect you to stop supposing outlandish scenarios just to allow yourself congruity to absurd points of view that you keep wanting to espouse here regarding car superiority.
If we watched a car intentionally run over women and children in the middle of Franklin Park Zoo and then back up into an endangered animal pit's and land flat, killing the animal, then you'd say the animal had it coming for getting so endangered (I mean, clearly it should have expected the car, that's why we called it "endangered" right?) and why didn't those women and children run faster to stay out of the nice car's way.
Can you try and use some sort of "outlandish" scenario I supposedly made in this thread or are you just trying to generally bash me?
Mark, let me start first that I try to defend you in the past. Some stuff you have a point, just your reputation means it is thrown out the window regardless of the content.
But when I saw this video, seeing his deliberate action to drive on the lane with complete hostility and desire to just make a biker's day worse. I knew when you comment you're are going to defend him. And I know this is one of the times I can't put any agreement with you. When I saw that video, all I desire is that if I was him, I would have got in front of that car and keep making each other day worse until I get myself killed or he acknowledges, in some way, that his deliberate blocking a bike lane is a dick move only trying to passive aggressively make someone days worse. Other here suggested snow and this biker choose to publicize it. But I just want to just get in front of that car.
That driver didn't block the bike lane to spur discussion. He blocked it because wanted to be a dick. He wanted to make a biker's day worse. He had no desire to talk about anything except to insult. Your worded rationalization of the driver reflects more of your biases than the driver's character. Your word choice of "full bike-activist regalia" true purpose is an attempt to undermine the biker which again reflects more of your biases than the facts of the incident. What is seen in the video is an asshole driver looking to make someone's day worse and a cyclist trying to ride in a lane already half blocked with snow, no noble desire to spur discussion nor any obvious indication of the cyclist leanings to bare any matter in this event.
Your explanation is a convoluted attempt to ennoble the driver where you can see from his first words he had no such intention. He just wanted to be a dick and you just want him to be something more than he is.
That's exactly how wrong this guy is and MarkK is.
... who blew around me on the right in the bike lane in the North End last night because I was waiting behind the line (in a car) for the intersection to clear.
Oh, and he did so in order to RUN A RED LIGHT.
The dumfucks are out this week! Go pro is the way to go!
Adam should just put up a post that says "Bike" and see how many comments it generates.
...is what the biker should have said.
The biker was in his bike lane and the car seemed to move further and further left as the biker got close. Either the driver was not paying attention to the road or he was clearly paying attention and intentionally cutting off the biker. As the biker past it was clear the driver chose to yell at the him, as if he was angry at the fabricated incident. If he did not see the biker coming up he would have been far more startled and less quick to escalate.
And now if the biker was overly forgiving and nice this would have been an amazing video. It is to bad the biker got caught in the moment and stooped to his level.
It would have also made one hell of a youtube video if he responded diplomatically. Maybe even gone viral, enough to rake in those digital dollars... :)
All this fodder over an event that happens to many , car drivers , pedestrians , and the bikissimos alike , in the big city. There are all sorts of rules in play here. Myself, not knowing ,in that situation , would have assumed it was a fog line. I dont know the reasoning to make a bike lane all the way to the left , or if it is common place. Okay , I will offer up 3 Ava Maria's and 3 Pater Noster's for not knowing. But really , you tube and blogs? Old dude , beater car , dont give a fuck attitude ? Be careful who you mess with.You dont know until you know . As that other now old dude said , '' you got to know when to hold them , know when to fold them , ect ect '' U bolt lock vs. what could be in the trunk, you decide. I prefer Adirondack's myself ! Carry on , and move on.
I always wonder if I too will end up being an old miserable man. Is this like prostrate cancer something that every man developes with age to some degree. Maybe it's a Boston thing? I'd like to think I would have said excuse me, the bike lane is on the left on this street. Probably not though which is why I wonder, am I that man thirty years younger.
Would like to point out the individual driving the car is the "Honorable" Robert McKenna of the Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury. I will be reporting him formerly to the Board of Bar Overseers.
Scroll to the fourth-from-bottom image on this page.
What has that have to do with anything ? Would you type that if he was a different variety ? Explain the reason that you had post that, I am curious , and Catholic !
The suggestion is that the behavior he shows off in a church setting obviously does not have much impact on his everyday behavior. Seems like a fair enough observation to me.
(Also Catholic, btw),
Well Michael , thats your perception. Catholics arent the only ones that go to churches. So this hypocrisy is unique to Catholics.? Do you have to go to a church to be a hypocrite? My observation here is that there was no need to mention the dude was a Catholic, and that maybe there might be a hidden agenda in mentioning it . Now , would that be called prejudice perhaps? That's how I took it , and I am offended.
No one at all suggested only Catholics can be hypocrites, where are you getting this from?
As a Catholic, you should be offended by Catholic bigwigs who parade their piety -- and then act like miserable jerks in their daily life. Or maybe Jesus and Pope Francis don't know as much about things like this as you do?
There was no need to mention that this man was a Catholic. Your observations and assumptions dont mean squat to me.
... whining means squat to me.
I apologize for offending you, Kvn, I didn't intend to do that, and I am sorry.
I was appalled when I first read the comment suggesting the driver was a judge, so I Googled his name for a picture that might confirm or disprove he was the same man in the video. The only picture I found was the one I posted the link to, where the judge is giving a reading at one of Cardinal O'Malley's masses. As Michael points out, it is rather hypocritical for someone who bears such animosity towards his fellow man, to be honored as a "pillar of the community", whether in his duties as a public official, or professing his piety in a publicized religious event.
I was quick to wag my finger, and I didn't pause long enough to consider that it could be hurtful to others like yourself. I grew up in a Catholic family and loved the Catholic high school I attended. It was the early 1970's; a short window of time after Vatican II when it was the most fun, exciting, and; believe it or not; glamorous Catholic high school I'd ever heard of! I loved the priests and especially the nuns, who had just been freed from their bizarre and archaic old habits in favor of new fashionable attire. Most of all though, there was an environment of free thinking and questioning; everything was up for discussion, everyone's opinion had value and there was no single "right-or-wrong" answer to unanswerable philosophical questions!
Naturally, I was disappointed to see the Church regress to the more close-minded and authoritarian way of thinking that it's taken on in subsequent years. The mean-spirited nature, ignorance, and insistence that "they're right" in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary exhibited by the driver in the video, seemed much like the face of the what's become of an institution that I once had great love and respect for.
Although I eventually found my own path to personal spirituality in a very different way, I know that a blessed soul of the Catholic church exists not in the political hierarchy of priests, cardinals, and popes; but in the hearts of ordinary people for whom the religion still rings true. It was wrong of me to throw this unhappy man in your face as an exemplar of Catholicism. I see that now, and I am truly sorry.
Thank you for that Elmer. Religion is part of the legacy that is passed down from your parents , it can almost be in you like dna. It is also entwined in your cultural heritage , also part of you as is the dna. And it is also part of your own personal development. The latin of the mass , the nuns and brothers teaching you . the celebrations, even the parochial school outfits the girls wore,are part and parcel of your growing up. Religion goes deep to some , beyond the dogma of the institution.Thank you again for your words.
If he is spiritually misguided, that's between him and his God and his church. It isn't like he sheltered people who molested kids from justice, wanted to spend tax money according to his own discriminatory rules, tried to prevent employees from exercising their personal rights, or enabled organized crime (which clearly are matters of public concern). He's just being a garden variety jerk. Any religious implications are between him and his priest when it comes to religion.
I do, however, see a judge who blatantly ignores the law and drives erratically as a matter of public concern and worthy of secular action.
I think most people following the current goings-on at the Vatican would say that Pope Francis is definitely taking things in a different direction, one that might give pause and hope to many people who had given up on the church for the reasons you mention. I'm in the middle of James Carroll's article in this week's New Yorker about Francis and it's fascinating.
I have many lapsed Catholic friends who will be attending mass for the first time in years this Christmas. All because of Francis.
One friend who isn't Catholic received a flyer from a neighbor. It explained how the small local church follows similar teachings. Even though she isn't Catholic and never went to mass in her life? She went.
I'd guess he was one of those winners like Heffernan or King - you know, the appointed ones who were lunatics or were clearly going insane on the bench and nobody could get rid of them?
Perhaps if the biker was wielding a knife instead of riding a bike, the driver wouldn't have been so upset. See this UniversalHub story from April 2011 that also involved Judge McKenna.
The man in the car told the biker to go fuck himself and called him a moron, Archie Bunker style! What was this man doing driving on comm ave in the first place, where was he going? To an art gallery.
I'm the biker who shot this video on Thursday. In retrospect, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did to this guy, but I did and hindsight is 20/20. On the other hand, if I was all nice to him while he called me a moron and an asshole, I would probably have regretted later in the day.. Anyway, that's not what I came to stay.
This is not a 350 dollar go-pro as everyone assumes. This is a 120 dollar first gen contour roam - best 120 bucks I ever spent on biking gear. See, I ride with a pigeon attached to my helmet and this causes funny things to happen to me. I started a blog about it a few years back because everyone liked my stories, but I am a really shitty writer so having a video is better. I record all of my commutes for that and safety. I got this camera a day after a hit and run cost me a 500 dollar wheel set on my road bike.
So there you have it. I am not looking for confrontations - usually I make people smile which makes my commutes awesome. Its slightly annoying that my only video where I act like a dick went viral.
The problem here is that this man is an officer of the court. If this is what he considers legal or reasonable behavior on the roads, you can bet that the same mentality prevails in the cases he hears. Do you think someone who does this in his personal life is likely to condemn someone charged with doing the same thing? There is a huge issue in this state with crimes against cyclists being totally ignored - grand juries vote not to charge because they are themselves packed with motorists who think "gee, that could have been me changing lanes when I cut that cyclist in half - better not indict this guy". Now, we have a man on the bench who not only thinks, "gee, that could have been me..." but also "hell, that WAS me, just last Friday!"
It appears to me from the video he was intentionally cutting you off - no other clear reason to continue crossing the line is evident to me, even if he was planning on making a left turn soon. His maneuver seemed to have only one objective - to intimidate a very vulnerable user of a public road. Trolls can take this kind of behavior lightly, but that's only because they're safe behind their keyboards living in Mommy's basement. As someone who uses every means of transportation available to me to get around Boston, including bikes AND cars, I don't take this lightly, and I'm not incapable of doing anything about it.
I'd like your permission to send a copy of this video to both the Board of Bar Overseers (has authority to discipline all lawyers in the Commonwealth) and the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (disciplines judges) with the objective of laying the groundwork to eventually get a standing order or injunction preventing this man from ever hearing another case involving motor vehicles, cyclists, or any traffic-related matter. His bias is clear as day, he's a hazard on the roads, and the right people need to know about it.
Reply with an email address if you also want to include a statement.
I don't think that any of your behavior in the video came across as "dickish". You politely tapped his trunk to indicate he was out of line and in the way, he is the one who used all the foul language really. And instead of escalating the confrontation, even though the driver was being very belligerent and crude, you rode off with a flippant and funny comment that this was going to end up being published.
Years of experience have made it clear that some people in cars are completely freaked out about other people on the road touching their cars. Because of the reaction you might get, it's a dangerous escalation. Usually he worst you get is a curse, but some will try to hurt you. It's not worth it. Better to go around.
On the other hand, now that we have that video, that might be very useful in appealing any bicycle-related case coming before that judge.
Before a bunch of trolls reply that I'm just talking here and won't actually do anything, here are a few authorities from the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct that pertain to the situation at hand.
Rule 3:09 Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 2: A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judge's activities
Canon 2A.: A judge shall respect and comply with the law and conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule 8.4 of Rules of Professional Conduct:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.
Whether or not the Commission agrees with me that this makes the Judge unfit to hear any cases involving motor vehicles, I suspect they will agree that his conduct most definitely runs afoul of Canon 2.
Now, wouldn't it have just been easier to move over two feet to the right?
No, you were not a dick at all, the driver was for being over the line to incite a confrontation with you. Finding out that he is a judge rather than just some random obnoxious guy is golden. No way should a judge behave as he did.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy