And yes, I realize that this was not an accidental collision while passing, but instead, an attack by going in front of them and slamming on the brakes.

So again, making ad hominem attacks on my ability to read doesn’t intelligently add anything. In fact, again, I suggest you re-read what I actually said, because your responses bare little resemblance to the points I am making.

Again, my point (my opinion) was that the psycho driver didn’t attack the eyewitness because the driver thought the eyewitness was doing his best, under the circumstances, and based on what he could do safely, to leave plenty of room for passing cars. And, that the psycho driver did not believe the pair of riders were doing the same (by riding tandem rather than single file).

You obviously have not read the eyewitness account. He said the driver was honking at him and passed him aggressively as well.

I won’t call you ignorant for completely missing the point and mis-directing it to how the eyewitness was able to safely stop. I would suggest that you are either being disingenuous, or you have poor reading comprehension.

I can only speculate that the psycho driver thought the eyewitness was doing his best, under the circumstances, and based on what he could do safely, to leave plenty of room for passing cars. And, that the psycho driver did not believe the pair of riders were doing the same (by riding tandem rather than single file).

That is the ultimate point here. Hiding behind what the vehicle code “is not logical and makes no sense”.

It behooves those who want to avoid the wrath of psycho drivers to make as much room as safely possible. The eyewitness did that, and will be riding tomorrow. We cannot say the same for Ron and Chris.

It had nothing to do with the pass . . . and the fact that you don’t know that is indicative of your ignorance.

CVC is very clear about rider lane position. Either the lane is shareable, or it is not. It was not in this case, and by taking the lane the riders sent a visual cue that they were not to be passed. It was DURING A DESCENT, are you mad? Any urban cyclist or vehicular cyclists will tell you that they did the right thing.

That’s the last I’ll discuss this with you. What are you doing posting on 4 month old posts anyhow?

But still, regardless of the codes, ultimately, the first part of your statement is true:

“The CVC does not indicate that you must ride single file when you have taken the lane…”

But the final portion:

“…nor does that make logical sense.”

is not logical, nor does it make any sense. This event proves my point well.

The psycho driver had no problem with the eyewitness, because the eyewitness was not riding center lane.

It behooves those who want to avoid the wrath of psycho drivers to make as much room as safely possible. The eyewitness did that, and will be riding tomorrow. We cannot say the same for Ron and Chris. I.e., Ron and Chris were not doing the right thing, and the eyewitness was.

I guess you’re not familiar with Mandeville Canyon Rd. There is no room to ride to the right. Moreover, these riders were descending at 30mph, which is past the speed limit. The road is extremely twisty, so it’s hard to go much faster than that.

California Vehicle Code says, if one is riding slower than the flow of traffic, one must ride as far to the right as is practicable, unless you cannot safely share the lane with motor vehicles. In this case you cannot safely share the lane, so they rightly took the lane. The CVC does not indicate that you must ride single file when you have taken the lane, nor does that make logical sense.

In short, they had the right to the road, and they were doing the correct thing by taking the lane. You don’t understand the law correctly – the CVC says nothing about impeding the flow of traffic. Here’s the text; please familiarize yourself with it:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

I find it horrifying that these two guys were essentially attacked by the driver. They didn’t deserve that, and I don’t condone the drivers actions. He should be prosecuted.

What bothers me is how much responsibility these riders may bear in bringing this incident upon themselves. They were reportedly blocking the road by not riding single file. In fact, the eyewitness account I just read stated that they were in the middle of the road, and did NOT move to the right as the driver approached – “…Ron and Christian were ahead of me and Ron was close to the center of the lane and Christian was to his right.” http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/08/july-4th-road-rage-crash-grabs-police-and-media-attention/#comment-1459

And it has been reported that the driver shouted an insult at them, and one or both shouted back at him. Frankly, I doubt this would have happened if they had moved over to the right –the driver would not have had anything to go psycho over.

This incident is yet one more example of the all too common road rage. But, it also sheds a very negative light on inconsiderate bikers, or groups of bikers, who essentially take over a road, and impede the safe flow of traffic. Yes, us bikers every right to use the road. But common sense and common courtesy dictates that if we are going slower than the flow of traffic, or much slower than the typical automobile would travel on a road (regardless of what the speed limit is), we should move over and allow automobiles to safely pass us. Remember – impeding the flow of traffic (even if traffic is exceeding the speed limit) is NOT lawful, regardless of whether you are on a bike or in a car. I have been riding for over 20 years, and have never experienced ANY problems by adhering to this simple principle.

Please, think of that the next time you are in a large group of bikers, riding 5 or 6 wide, riding much slower than the flow of traffic (blocking traffic). And don’t be so surprised when motorists honk at you to move over, or when they become upset when you act as-if it’s your right to ride in the middle of traffic at 20MPH.

In the end, I hope some good comes from this. I hope that an example is made of that driver with a severe & stiff punishment. And, I hope that more riders will take Darwinism into account, and realize that there are crazy people out there, who will react to and punish them for being inconsiderate riders – remember, the car always wins.

Rudeness is now a justification for assault? You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting so. See you Monday.

I think the issue stems from riders not exercising common courtesy and common sense on the roads shared with automobiles. The road rage incident in Mandeville canyon is another example of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnKZv41sbqg

Why don’t cyclist start a second to the right movment, meaning you take the lane second to the right. You take the whole lane (that’s safer, I see alot of cyclist doing that hugging the side of a lane thing and then cars can squeeze in, cyclist need to make their lane unsqueezable.) Cyclist aren’t supposed to have to share a lane with cars, they are viewed as a car (well you know that,) so why don’t you start the we are taking the second to the right lane movement.

That way you won’t have problem with the busses and it will educate car drivers that you have the right to be on the road.

You should also carry bamboo staffs to beat cars into submission, but that’s only for the brave. I’m very pro kicking cars that try to run me off the road.

Browne