Father's Day Road Rage on Rogers Park.com

This was sent to me by a friend.

 

Article link here.

 

Father’s Day Road Rage

Posted by Mike G on June 21, 2011

Last Sunday evening, while driving home with two of my children from a special Improv Olympics Father’s Day show, I learned an important lesson.

Be careful while driving south bound on Sheffield, near Wrigley Field, especially if driving within two hours of a weekend Cubs Yankees game. 

My mistake: While in the left hand lane, I abruptly changed lanes to the right in order to pass the vehicle in front of me preparing to turn left. Before turning I diligently check in my rear view mirror to be sure that no motorist was behind me.

Regretfully, I didn’t check for bicyclists.  My kids noticed.

“Uh, Dad” said my youngest, an 18 year old daughter who, despite her lovely non confrontational demeanor, frequently criticizes me for not routinely activating my turn signal when changing lanes. “You cut off that biker.”

“Yeah Dad,” chimed in my 21 year old son, a young man who only five years earlier I had patiently taught the intricacies of parallel parking and to whom I offered countless driving tips. “You almost hit him.”

As I proceeded south on Sheffield, near Belmont, my repeated glances into my rear view mirror unveiled the image of a young male biker, peddling hard in the middle of my lane, trying to catch me. As he passed me on my right side, I could hear him shout out some unintelligible words, directed towards me.

Being the type of person who always presumes the best of others, I chose to interpret what he said as something considerate. “I think he said ‘massive hole?’ The nice young man must be warning me about a giant pothole next block.”

My son (who is more of a realist) didn’t hear it that way. Within seconds, he rolled down his passenger side window, and offered his response: “Hey dude. Next time wear a helmet. Be safe!”

The bicyclist slowed down, and as I approached him, with him on my driver’s side, he repeated what he said earlier, causing me to realize that though I accurately heard him shout the word “hole,” he uttered only a select portion of the word “massive” immediately beforehand.

I would like to say that at this point, my years of wisdom and my desire to set a proper example for my children kicked in - that, realizing that nothing good could come about from verbally retaliating, I continued driving, ignoring him.

Of course, I didn’t. Picking up on my son’s observation, I rolled down my window and shouted out choice expletives, including something about the fact that he should wear an ‘F-ing helmet,’ which resulted in him responding in kind, and threatening to permanently alter the appearance of my side view mirror.

My kids stopped me before I could respond further. Following their advice, I activated my right turn blinker and turned at the next side street, retreating from harm’s way, my side view mirror in tact, but not my ego.

My children looked at me with dismay.  Both lectured me about my carelessness at changing lanes without first looking for bicyclists, and they also offered their opinion on how ridiculous I sounded mouthing off to the guy.

At first I got defensive, arguing that most drivers like me simply are not accustomed to sharing our city’s streets with so many bicyclists (seemingly more than ever before), and that we often forget about being mindful of bikes, especially when a street does not have designated bike lanes.

Yet, I also realized that “wrong is wrong” and I was wrong. It doesn’t matter how reckless or drunk or ill prepared some bicyclists might be, those of us driving motor vehicles must constantly be on the look out for bicyclists at all times, irrespective of whether the bicyclist is responsible or reckless.

We drivers cannot presume that all bicyclists are responsible. There are those who don’t wear helmets, and if we hit them (or worse, carelessly open our doors as they are passing us), we bear the liability if they experience head injuries, which many do. Whether we like it or not, we must realize that some bikers choose to ride at night without adequate reflective gear, or lights. Many don’t believe in stopping at stop signs or stop lights and many feel comfortable riding on all parts of the road. We might get angry at them, but we have to realize that they are there and we must exert full caution.

No one wants to deal with the ugly reality if a biker - even a reckless one - gets hit by us, even if their injury is aggravated by their stupidity, such as failure to wear a helmet. As drivers we simply have to avoid having accidents with them. Life will be easier that way.

Similarly, those of us who are bikers need to consider that not all drivers all fully cognizant of their responsibility to share the road. Some drivers, like me in this instance, may fail to take adequate precautions. Bikers cannot ignore the danger of riding bikes in an urban area. We must wear helmets. If riding at night, we must wear reflective gear or place reflective apparatus on the rear of our bikes. We ought to install lights.

What about drinking and biking?

In the past thirty years there has been a heightened awareness of the perils of drinking and driving motor vehicles.

Bikers must fully consider the danger of drinking and riding bikes.
The rules are common sense. Stay off of your bike if you are over served. Leave your bike at the bar. Take a taxi home.

Or do the humiliating thing and simply stumble home.

It sure beats having to fend with the likes of me on the road.

Views: 241

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike w. on June 28, 2011 at 7:25am

I don't see anywhere in the article that the incident occurred in the dark... he says "evening" after the Cubs game, but IIRC, that was an afternoon game and there still should've been plenty of light.

The whole aritcle is a just blame-shifting attempt. This guy's a tool.

Melanie said:

I agree about the article, although the author does seem to try to take some responsibility by stating that drivers need to look out for others and be more careful.  I also am a bit peeved about cyclists riding at night without any type of light or reflectors. I am definitely not a ninja- anyone who has seen me riding at night can attest to my 16 LED flashing blinky vest as well as various lights and reflectors making me look like a rolling Christmas tree. I probably blind 1/2 the cars and cyclists at times, which is probably why they can't see me coming :) 

Joe Willis said:

The  whole article is a giant excuse for breaking the law and almost hitting someone because of it! One thing he hit on and is a personal pet peeve of mine is the no lights at night. I come home from work at about 2 A.M. daily and usually see 8-15 cyclist on Irving Park rd and only about 30% have any lights. I am looking for cyclist and can barely see some of you at night just imagine the drivers not looking for anything but the next green light.

 

BTW I am a ninja!

 

Melanie said:

"you just came out of nowhere" as well as as "sneaking up on me"  like I am a ninja, just sneaking up on your car and shooting out of thin air so that I can almost get run over as the driver turns left or right or just pulls out.
Permalink Reply by Joe Willis on June 28, 2011 at 1:28pm
Permalink Reply by Red Tornado on June 28, 2011 at 4:28pm

RE: article

first off, anyone who uses the word "irrespective" voluntarily like that...

it's interesting that he includes himself with bikers using, "We must wear helmets. If riding at night, we must wear reflective gear..."

this guy just has an itch that can't get scratched.  the article, with fragments of good intention, is just a rant and a soft threat. 

hey "father" when it's all said and done, you're the one steering a 2-ton killing machine that's burning the last of our oil, the substance that runs civilization as we know it.

this threat though last line,

"It sure beats having to fend with the likes of me on the road."

 

let's get you out of that car you manly man!

 

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on June 29, 2011 at 1:13am
There was a moment where the driver could have "maned up" in front of his kids (because he was so worried about their impression of the event) by saying, "Sorry for cutting you off.  I didn't see you."  Just talk to people, people.  Why can't we talk to each other any more?
Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on June 29, 2011 at 5:20am
I thought he did a decent job of admitting his faults. Sounded more like a journal entry to me.
Permalink Reply by milesperhour on June 29, 2011 at 5:42am

Well technically, I believe the biker should have slowed down to the flow of traffic, no?  Is there a bike lane on that street?  If not, he was just as guilty of making two lanes out of one by also passing the stopped traffic on the right.

 

Regardless, that was the most half-ass admittance of guilt I've ever read.  He should have turned to look behind him before doing so.

 

Jason said:

Let's be clear, this is the only thing in Mike's non-apology that matters: "While in the left hand lane, I abruptly changed lanes to the right in order to pass the vehicle in front of me preparing to turn left."

 

There is no left or right lane on Sheffield. It is a two lane street, one going in each direction, North and South. Nor are there any left turn lanes on Sheffield. What Mike G did was illegally pass someone on the right.

 

Permalink Reply by David Barish on June 29, 2011 at 6:12am

We've all made mistakes on the road regardless of our method of transportation at the time.  The first mistake was obvious a cyclist was cut off.  It appears that it was not malicious but was dangerous.  The bigger mistake was the second one. Road Rage could have been Teaching Moment.  How about this scenario?

 

Dad- Damn, I cut of that biker.

son- Dad, watch your langauge.

dad- yeah, you are right. I just feel terrible that I didn't look.  I guess that's a reminder that we can all make mistakes. You really have to be careful when you are in a car.

 

later, as the cyclists passes, stops and rolls down the window.

son- Hey, dude, next time wear a helmet.

cyclist-... (massive) hole

dad- hey, he may be right that doesn't matter. I didn't see you and should have. I am sorry I cut you off and will keep a better eye out.

later- after its over regardless of how cyclist replied-

 

dad- yeah, he should have had a helmet but I'm still not supposed to almost kill him.  Also, when somebody is pissed off on the road its never a good idea to argue with them. You can't win these argumentts. You only get a broken window, a broken jaw or something worse.  Lets just be happy nobody was hurt and make sure this doesn't happen again.

Permalink Reply by Jason on June 29, 2011 at 8:16am

No, not really. The bicyclist is not in the wrong for passing a stopped queue of vehicles on the right just because there is no bike lane. (Depending on the room available the safety of such a maneuver varies, but that's another discussion.) It is legal and expected that bikes are going to be sharing lanes with other vehicles, and stationing themselves in the right hand side of those lanes in accordance with the law. According to State law a bicyclist may move to the center of the lane when they are moving the same speed as the surrounding traffic, but does not require that bicyclists merge with vehicles whenever traffic comes to a stop in order to wait until it starts moving again.

 

One could do some back flips to try to make the argument your proposing based on the State language:

 

11-1505 Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways - Riding on roadways and bicycle paths 

 

(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

 

But I don't know why you'd want to. To do so would require bicyclists to be constantly merging and diverging with traffic in ways that made little to no sense and would create more safety issues than it addressed. And besides, it would simple be an academic argument anyway, I seriously doubt it would stand up to much scrutiny. The intent of that language is to give bicyclists the expanded rights to the full width of the roadway depending on what is safest for them at the time.

 

milesperhour said:

Well technically, I believe the biker should have slowed down to the flow of traffic, no?  Is there a bike lane on that street?  If not, he was just as guilty of making two lanes out of one by also passing the stopped traffic on the right.

 

Regardless, that was the most half-ass admittance of guilt I've ever read.  He should have turned to look behind him before doing so.

 

Jason said:

Let's be clear, this is the only thing in Mike's non-apology that matters: "While in the left hand lane, I abruptly changed lanes to the right in order to pass the vehicle in front of me preparing to turn left."

 

There is no left or right lane on Sheffield. It is a two lane street, one going in each direction, North and South. Nor are there any left turn lanes on Sheffield. What Mike G did was illegally pass someone on the right.

 

Permalink Reply by Stephanie on June 29, 2011 at 8:37am

I don't think motorists would like having bikes sitting squarely in the lane of stopped traffic like cars any more than we'd like it. If I am understanding this right, when I come up to a line of stopped traffic (me being off to the right curb), I'd have to pull into the lane of traffic and wait behind the last car. But all that accomplishes, when the light turns, is making the next car behind me wait for me and my bike to get moving (and get back over to the right curb) when traffic does clear. I would expect this would probably be highly irritating the motorist at best, possibly inducing them to attempt to pass me (in a move of highly questionable safety) at worst.

As a policy, I proceed on the right shoulder or in the bike lane past lines of stopped traffic in a pretty slow and very careful way, and only join the lane of traffic when there is just no clearance to safely proceed on the right or if I am turning left at the next intersection.

Permalink Reply by JTO on June 29, 2011 at 10:42am
+1.  My thoughts exactly.

mike w. said:

Okay, so...

 

First off, the son was an effing edithole for saying anything to the cyclist. When i'm driving, woe betide any passenger of mine who shouts rude things out the window -they'll find themselves let out at the next corner. And so what if the rider was lidless? There's no law in this state that i'm aware of that requires a helmet (BTW, i for one chose to wear one, but the operant word is choice.)

 

So, you cut the guy off in traffic and he got pissed off at you? You deserve the billingsgate you got from the rider. Man up and have the decency to at least act apologetic, tell your kid (yeah, 21 and technically an adult,) to STFU or get out and walk, and thereafter get your cager head out of your ass!

Permalink Reply by milesperhour on June 29, 2011 at 3:24pm

I ask in seriousness, where does it state this in the law? 

Section "a" below states riders should stay to the right, except when needing to pass another vehicle, at which time they can go the the left. 

I'm not saying it's practical by any means, nor that I believe riders should do this, but would like to know where it says bicyclists don't have to yield and can pass on the right.

 

Jason said:

No, not really. The bicyclist is not in the wrong for passing a stopped queue of vehicles on the right just because there is no bike lane. (Depending on the room available the safety of such a maneuver varies, but that's another discussion.) It is legal and expected that bikes are going to be sharing lanes with other vehicles, and stationing themselves in the right hand side of those lanes in accordance with the law. According to State law a bicyclist may move to the center of the lane when they are moving the same speed as the surrounding traffic, but does not require that bicyclists merge with vehicles whenever traffic comes to a stop in order to wait until it starts moving again.

 

One could do some back flips to try to make the argument your proposing based on the State language:

 

11-1505 Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways - Riding on roadways and bicycle paths 

 

(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

 

Permalink Reply by Jason on July 1, 2011 at 7:28am

If you're asking where in the law it states that cyclists may merge with traffic (move to the center of the lane) when they are moving the same speed as surrounding traffic, it would be in the same section (a), where it states:

 

(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway...

 

So one is required to ride on the right if moving slower than traffic, with the noted exceptions granted. But the converse is not automatically true. A cyclist is not required to merge with traffic if they are traveling the same speed or faster. However they may.

So if you're moving the same speed on your bike as the surrounding traffic, the requirement to ride on the right hand side does not apply and you may merge with traffic and ride more towards the center of the lane. (This is preferable from a safety perspective as well as it makes the cyclist more visible and precludes the possibility of being right hooked by a driver whose blind spot the cyclist has been riding in if they had stayed to the right.)

 

Incidentally if there is no other traffic on the roadway at the time, the argument could be easily made that you, as the only traffic on the roadway are creating "the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing" and could therefore ride in the center of the lane. Until a faster moving vehicle approaches, at which time it's "Car back."

 

 

 

 

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service