A look into road rage

[seamusTX]

The alleged shooter in the North Carolina case was indicted for "assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill." The grand jury declined to charge him with attempted murder.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs. ... 06020/1119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know the fine points of North Carolina law, but that decision seems reasonable for a case where premeditation does not exist.

It doesn't much matter, anyway. Any felony conviction is the end of a person's normal life. He will go to his grave with the mark of Cain on his brow.

- Jim

[joe817]

Agreed. Pick your poison.....arsenic or strychnine. Both have the same end result.

[boomerang]

While a felony conviction may end up on his permanent record, I thought the phrase "mark of Cain" comes from Genesis 4:15 and specifically refers to murderers, although not necessarily fratricide.

[seamusTX]

You are correct. Furthermore, the purpose of the mark of Cain was to indicate that others should not kill him, as he wished someone would.

- Jim

[android]

There is no such thing as road rage;

I feel differently about the issue.

When we name a thing, it exists, even it is only in our imagination. Saying "road rage" is a lot easier than saying "using a motor vehicle to threaten, intimidate, harass, or assault someone."

- Jim

I agree that naming a thing causes it to exist, even if only in our imaginations, but that is not always a good thing, IMHO.

Example: "Hate Crime."

Our legal system has always taken motivation into account along with the actual results. 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder are examples of this. In all cases, the victim is equally dead, but we seem to think some ways of getting him or her dead are worse than others and deserve a stiffer sentence.

I think the point of the "Hate Crime" categorization is that this allows a greater ability to restrict parole and release of a person convicted of such crimes. As long as the type of people they hate are available to prey on, they are a menace to society and the recommendation is that they stay locked up rather than being out early for good behavior.

[android]

I think one major element of "road rage", particularly when it concerns bicycles, is pride and ego. Many drivers just cannot tolerate being passed or seeing someone else on the road find some advantage through traffic that they have not found, etc. I think this is one foundational element between drivers and cyclists, when drivers see a cyclist whiz by stopped traffic on the shoulder and they get angry because they are stuck there in their car, or they figure since they are in a car they should at least be able to get where they are going faster than a cyclist. This extends to these guys who have a car or, particularly around here, a truck that is a crutch to prop up their egos and they just are offended that some spandex-clad sissy thinks they can share the road that belongs to real men with trucks.

I'm one of those spandex clad sissies and these guys are one of the reasons I've applied for a CHL. Despite the educational campaigns attempting to raise awareness and promote good behavior between motorists and cyclists, the jerks in the motor vehicles still seem to be increasing in number and aggressive behavior. I'm not perfect, but I'm a polite and traffic law abiding cyclist for the most part, so I don't think I'm doing anything to egg these guys on.

Although expensive, I've just about decided that a Rorhbaugh R9 will be the perfect jersey pocket pistol and it has some carbon fiber on it to match the rest of my ride!!

[dicion]

I've noticed some interesting things about the general vehicle driving populace in regards to bicyclists

Apparently, Most people don't know that someone on a bike, has as much a right to use a lane on a road as your car.
They are considered, for all intents and purposes, the same as your car. In fact, I'm just going to post a bit from the texas drivers license manual on it:

BICYCLE TRAFFIC LAW
1. “Bicycle” means every device propelled by human power upon which
any person may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is more than
14 inches in diameter.
2. “Vehicle” means a device, in, or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used
exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
3. A bicycle is a vehicle and any person operating a bicycle has the rights
and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle, unless it cannot, by its
nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.
4. A bicyclist should always obey all traffic laws, signs, and signals. Never
ride opposite the flow of traffic. Stop at all stop signs and stop at red lights.
5. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than
the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as possible to the right curb
or edge of the roadway unless:
a. The person is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.
b. The person is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or onto a private
road or driveway.
c. There are unsafe conditions in the roadway such as fixed or moving
objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, potholes, or
debris.
d. The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel
side by side.
6. A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more
marked traffic lanes may ride as near as possible to the left curb or edge of
the roadway.
7. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable
flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway
must ride in a single lane.

So yes people, by law, the bike has just as much of a right to be on the road as you do! I actually heard someone scream at a Bicyclist once that if they "wanted to drive on the road, they should buy a car"
One major thing in the above quote that most people don't know. Bikes DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE RIGHT if the lane is too narrow for a car to pass them safely. So yes, the Bike, driving in the middle of the lane, intentionally blocking you from passing them, IS FOLLOWING THE LAW, as IMHO, Unless the lane is at least 12 feet wide, I would easily say that "The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."

That being said, I also frequently see Cyclists that think they are above the law that applies to vehicles. This includes, but is not limited to:

- Not Stopping for stop signs or Traffic Lights - Sorry, if you're on the road, just because you're only doing 15-20mps doesn't mean you don't have to stop and yield. You do.
- Not signalling for turns and lane changes
- RIDING THE WRONG WAY IN THE BIKE OR MAIN LANE OF TRAFFIC
(Actually had some yahoo do this the other day, dude was in my lane, COMING AT ME... seemed oblivious. I guess he figured since he was on a bike, everyone should have to swerve out of the way for him)

I fully support bicyclists, but some of the yahoos out there on bikes apparently don't think that those big Signs and Lights that apply to cars, apply to them too.

[mr.72]

Apparently, Most people don't know that someone on a bike, has as much a right to use a lane on a road as your car.

You are absolutely correct. Even those who do know this seem to want the law to only apply when it is punitive for cyclists (having to unnecessarily stop at a stop sign when there is no other traffic in place, etc.) and not when it benefits the cyclist's safety (riding in the main lane when it is not wide enough to safely allow cars and bikes to ride side by side).

That being said, I also frequently see Cyclists that think they are above the law that applies to vehicles. This includes, but is not limited to:

- Not Stopping for stop signs or Traffic Lights - Sorry, if you're on the road, just because you're only doing 15-20mps doesn't mean you don't have to stop and yield. You do.
- Not signalling for turns and lane changes

As a cyclist, my safety comes first. The nit-picky laws which were obviously and clearly intended to apply to cars are secondary. My front brake is where most of my stopping power is (and you might know that bicycles are much harder to stop than a car going the same speed) so for me to take my left hand off of the handlebar and lose access to that brake in order to signal a turn or lane change is just plain stupid. And if I can take off early from a stop light when there is no cross traffic and avoid interaction with the 100 cars that are stopped at that light when it turns green gives me a major margin of safety so I will do it and risk a ticket. I'd far rather pay a $80 ticket than end up in the ER again after some dufus passes me on at an intersection only to turn right right on top of me. And as for stop signs... well I'll give you a dollar for every car you see that actually makes a complete stop at any stop sign when there is no other traffic. In all of my years of driving and riding a bike on the street, I have never seen it happen, ever. If you don't follow that law to the letter in a car, why do you expect cyclists to do it on a bicycle?

- RIDING THE WRONG WAY IN THE BIKE OR MAIN LANE OF TRAFFIC
(Actually had some yahoo do this the other day, dude was in my lane, COMING AT ME... seemed oblivious. I guess he figured since he was on a bike, everyone should have to swerve out of the way for him)

This comes from the mixed message that people send cyclists especially when they are children. They say, "pedestrians should walk opposing traffic along the left side of the road", so then later on they hear that cyclists are pedestrians (so they should do things like use the sidewalk or whatever) and then they think they will have to ride opposing traffic. It's deadly and foolish. It shows a distinct lack of proper education about cyclists rights on the road.

[tarkus]

You are absolutely correct. Even those who do know this seem to want the law to only apply when it benefits them (having the same right to use the road as cars) and not when it inconveniences them for 30 seconds (coming to a complete stop at red lights and waiting for the green before entering the intersection.)

So yes, the Bike, driving in the middle of the lane, intentionally blocking you from passing them, IS FOLLOWING THE LAW, as IMHO, Unless the lane is at least 12 feet wide, I would easily say that "The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."

If that's true, the bicyclist who rolls past cars waiting at a traffic light to get to the front IS BREAKING THE LAW, as in your opinion, unless the lane is at least 12 feet wide, you would easily say that "The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."

However, by rolling passed the cars waiting at a red light, the bicyclist is indicating VERY CLEARLY that they think there's enough room for a bicycle and a car to share the lane, so they're hypocrites and childish if they whine when a car driver agrees with them and shares their lane after the light turns green.

That driver is only holding the bicyclist to the bicyclist's own standards. That's not rage - that's the Golden Rule.

[CompVest]

Okay, I think it is time reflect that this thread is in the General Gun, Shooting, & Equipment Forum and it really doesn't fit here and so please, start a new thread in the Off Topic Forum or get this to something dealing with firearms.

Thank you

[seamusTX]

I guess that's my fault. Can you move this thread to the Off-Topic forum?

I introduced this topic because so-called road rage is one of the commonest assaultive behaviors that most of use run into. It's dangerous, difficult to deal with, and has led a couple of CHL holders to losing their licenses.

- Jim

[CompVest]

Jim, that is what I thought when you posted it. That's why I left it without comment but it hasn't gone that way so I will leave it for a while and see if it heads the way you intended. If not I will move it to off topic.

[seamusTX]

Wow, here you go.

In Odessa, Florida (Tampa area), yesterday, a man wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with multiple weapons shot a teenage driver "for not pulling his car up far enough at an intersection."

The 34-year-old man then killed himself. He had earlier had a fight with his girlfriend and said he was going out to kill cops.

The teenage victim is expected to survive.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug/09 ... -breaking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[joe817]

Unbelievable! I'm glad the teen will make it. With someone that unstable, he has to have some history of violence, I'd think.

[seamusTX]

You would think, but the Pennsylvania gym shooter had no criminal record, and many others have cruised under the law-enforcement radar until they committed an atrocity.

- Jim