LA Doctor convicted in attack on Cyclists

[worthywads]

The driver was an Ass.

I just hope we don't expanded the already redundant hate crime laws to include cyclists.

[phoebeisis]

A few bike forum members have mentioned just that-hate crimes--even made comparisons to African Americans and gays.It doesn't seem to have any traction-even on a bike forum. Tough to keep a straight face and write that!

How about a "really, really dislike" law ??

[Chuck]

In regards to expanding the definition of hate crime, the doctor was behaving as if maybe they should have no rights.

It does look like justice was served.

[SentraSE-R]

Bikers have the right to use a full lane, if they want. The fact that almost none of them do so, speaks volumes that they're generally courteous to car drivers.

The doctor is a homicidal attempted murderer. Lock him up and throw the key away.

[worthywads]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Bikers have the right to use a full lane, if they want.

Is that local law?, even in uber-bike friendly Boulder cyclists must ride to the far right unless they are riding as fast as car traffic. If your are pedaling slower you only get more than the far right if you are passing another slower moving vehicle, car or bike, otherwise stay far right.

No hostile act such as that was justifiable but it is just plane stupid for cyclist to intentionally impede traffic like I often see in uber-aggressive cycle activist Boulder. I see the same nuts driving 2 abreast in rush hour traffic risking their own life to make some lame attempt at martyrdom for their cause. They are clearly breaking Boulder law, that's not courteous, or legal.

[lightfoot]

Cyclists on racing bikes tend to ride where the right tires of the cars would be. This is because the car tires sweep this area clear of debris, broken glass, sand, etc that can puncture bicycle tires, which are thinner than car tires. Plus at higher speeds, bike tires can slip on sand, which can lead to a crash. Punctures are a serious problem if not exactly a safety issue.

Car tires sweep much of the road debris to the right, near the painted line and onto the paved shoulder. So cyclists avoid moving to the right of the right wheel track and into the debris except in emergency situations.

The problem is that cars must move to the left to go around cyclists that are in the right tire track, and in doing so may encroach on the oncoming lane. And may then move right into the cyclists if oncoming traffic appears. Or may just decide to shove their way past close to the cyclists, feeling that the cars own the road. This is just one of the risks of cycling. We never tried to take a whole lane to block cars from passing.

As for riding two abreast, it's not a good idea to do it constantly except on more rural, flatter roads where there is little traffic. But if one cyclist is to pass another, they have to be two abreast at least for a while. And a training group that is drafting each other will switch leaders every minute or two, so there will often be two abreast as the previous leader drifts back to the end of the line.

But apparently these riders were climbing up a canyon?? In that situation we would rarely have been two abreast, as there would be no reason to do it. We just each climbed at the pace we could manage. Back in the day, I rode a lot of the canyon roads in the LA area during training rides.

None of this excuses what this car driver did.

[98CRV]

This Doc is done with the practice of medicine. He committed a crime and purposely harmed people in the process. His impulse control problem has been very expensive indeed.

[phoebeisis]

Lightfoot-they were descending when it happened. According to what I read, their GPS indicated they were doing 28mph in a 30 mph zone. When he-driver- initially came on them they were 2 or three across(for whatever reason)- they say they then got in single file-he says they didn't???
He pulls along side-tells them to get right-they f you him flip him off , he gasses by them pulls right and slams on his brakes-blam!

I'm not exactly sure what the keep right law is, but it is subject to interpretation since it usually says something like "keep as far right as you safely can." Riders who take a lane usually argue that it isn't safe to let cars skim by them so closely, so they take a lane to indicate drivers should not pass, or should swing waaaay into the other lane to pass.

I don't quite get the logic of that. If you take more of the lane, it means that the driver will strafe you even more closely, since he is going to be closer to the oncoming traffic, and will want to give himself more clearance on the left, where are car can crunch him, than on the right, where it is just a dinky bike. Human nature means he will bias his pass to your side, not the car side.
Of course, he could just not pass until he has plenty of clearance both sides-which is what the "take a lane" riders want/hope for.Drivers aren't happy with this, of course.

[lightfoot]

Thanks phoebesis, I didn't realize they were descending at the time.

I don't get the lane-blocking bit either. I trained in the LA canyons alone, in groups of 2-3, and in large groups and we certainly didn't find any need to block lanes ever. As I said, sometimes it happened inadvertently, especially in large groups, but the general tendency was to descend single file, not drafting because there was little tactical advantage in drafting downhills: someone can easily just pedal and catch you.

Which brings up the question: if they were doing essentially the speed limit (28 in a 30 zone), what justification did he have for passing them anyway? He needed to get around so he could speed?

[brick]

Huh. I had no idea that cars vs. bikes had become a "thing" to the extent that you guys describe. When I was in middle school and early high school (90s) my bike was both my preferred recreation and my primary mode of getting around in good weather. I can honestly say I never experienced animosity in either direction.