Bicyclist pulled over for running a red light

[Anonymous]

I heart Oboe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When dc studied bike-car accidents, theotorist was at fault for the solid majority of them. I think that says a lot.

And let's not forget the institutional bias inherent in assigning blame: we don't have hard numbers (because MPD can't seem to get their act together), but in DC, it's pretty common for a cyclist to be hit by a motor vehicle, the cyclist loaded up in an ambulance, then, while the cyclist is off at the hospital, the responding officer takes a statement from the driver--which remains the sole testimony. There've been many incidents of cyclists being hit by a car, then regaining consciousness in the hospital and given a ticket...solely based on the testimony of the driver who hit them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

And yet...for all the alarmism, statistically this never happens. If it were common, the statistics would bear it out. You're just as likely to have a tree branch fall on your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heart Oboe.

8)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

And yet...for all the alarmism, statistically this never happens. If it were common, the statistics would bear it out. You're just as likely to have a tree branch fall on your head.

Is that your line of defense? So breaking the law and potentially putting others in danger is insignificant just because (according to you) it is statistically irrelevant? Carry on with your entitlement, but be aware that you can't complain when drivers think and behave like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

And yet...for all the alarmism, statistically this never happens. If it were common, the statistics would bear it out. You're just as likely to have a tree branch fall on your head.

Is that your line of defense? So breaking the law and potentially putting others in danger is insignificant just because (according to you) it is statistically irrelevant? Carry on with your entitlement, but be aware that you can't complain when drivers think and behave like you.

Call me nuts, but I think the fact that the statistics show it's actually *not* dangerous is a pretty good defense against the charge of "putting others in danger". Certainly more compelling than the case for the prosecution so far. Also, it's a bit sloppy to argue that my behavior is going to lead to "drivers [who] think and behave" this way. They already do. And of course, their behavior has been shown--again with those pesky statistics--to actually put others in danger.

In other words, I could alter my behavior putting myself into greater danger, not reducing the danger to others, and drivers would still be blithely out of control and endangering pedestrians and cyclists. Not a good trade, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

And yet...for all the alarmism, statistically this never happens. If it were common, the statistics would bear it out. You're just as likely to have a tree branch fall on your head.

Is that your line of defense? So breaking the law and potentially putting others in danger is insignificant just because (according to you) it is statistically irrelevant? Carry on with your entitlement, but be aware that you can't complain when drivers think and behave like you.

Call me nuts, but I think the fact that the statistics show it's actually *not* dangerous is a pretty good defense against the charge of "putting others in danger". Certainly more compelling than the case for the prosecution so far. Also, it's a bit sloppy to argue that my behavior is going to lead to "drivers [who] think and behave" this way. They already do. And of course, their behavior has been shown--again with those pesky statistics--to actually put others in danger.

In other words, I could alter my behavior putting myself into greater danger, not reducing the danger to others, and drivers would still be blithely out of control and endangering pedestrians and cyclists. Not a good trade, IMHO.

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

[Anonymous]

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

First, you really can't believe that most drivers come to a complete stop moof the time, can you?

Second - "or close to it" is a nicer way of saying, "not stopping," isn't it? So basically, your position is it's OK to break the law if you make a half-hearted attempt to comply? I'm pretty sure that's nto how that works.

Or, are you saying that a rolling stop is acceptable, even though technically illegal, in situations where a driver believes that a full stop isn't really necessary, given the circumstances?

It's not okay not to come to a complete stop. I'm the one who does so every time, remember?

My regular routes in the city include a lot of stop signs so I drive behind a lot of cars that stop at stop signs. I can't say that I check to see whether every car comes to a complete stop in front of me every time, but I do notice when they roll on through, and that's not very often.* Since I'm not really looking for a complete stop I can't say for sure, but most of the cars come to something approaching a complete stop most of the time. Is your experience really different? I'm comparing that to bicyclists. Anyone who has driven on any street in DC can attest that most of the bikers do not stop or slow down at stop signs most of the time. If you say otherwise you are lying.




*I can think of two places in the city where it happens a lot. One occasionally gets a cop pulling people over for it. The other is the intersection of Beach & RCP. I know why people run the stop sign there -- it's to make up for the people who don't go even when it's clear think they can't cross RCP if there is southbound traffic even though they have a dedicated lane -- but I still come to a complete stop. I don't know why I've never seen a cop there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see bicyclists flaunt the traffic laws often (I live off Wootton Parkway) and today I saw the Rockville police pull over a cyclist who ran a red light crossing Falls Road.

First of all, it's "flout". Second of all, while I believe cyclists should be ticketed for infractions, police should do so only after no driver ever breaks a law anywhere. Having enforcement that targets cyclists is like taking detectives off of homicide detail and reassigning them to "litterbug enforcement".

There are a lot of folks dying in traffic in America 99.9999999% of them are being killed by cars

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. There are clear traffic laws that apply to bicyclists and all vehicles that use the road, pedestrians included, for everyone's safety. In fact, these laws have been around for a very long time and if you recall your drivers-Ed class youd remember studying turn signals that cyclists are supposed to use. Part of having fundamental rules on the toad is so that people on the road have a reasonable assumption of what others are going to do. A stop sign assumes that everyone entering the intersection will stop.

Wrong. They're not for "everyone's safety". Traffic laws present a balance between a) safety of drivers from one another; and b) getting everyone else the fuck out of the way of drivers.

80% of the time there's no reason for me to stop at a stop sign because either there are no cars waiting to proceed across my path, or because I can time my riding so that I'm sharing right-of-way with a car that's going in the same direction. Cyclists jay-bike. Pedestrians jay-walk. It's almost completely safe--certainly safer than the other things humans do. But it sticks in drivers' craws because there's a minor irritation factor. And we can't inconvenience the drivers ever. After all, that's why the roads are there in the first place.

You're stupid and wrong and I hope you get a big fat ticket soon. I don't have a car and walk everywhere. Every single day I see bikers flying through red lights and stop signs, completely ignoring pedestrians and risking injuring someone. Your "almost completely safe" theory is only in your head and a huge BS. God forbid a child, stroller, elderly or disabled person is ever crossing a street when you decide to run your red lights!

And yet...for all the alarmism, statistically this never happens. If it were common, the statistics would bear it out. You're just as likely to have a tree branch fall on your head.

Is that your line of defense? So breaking the law and potentially putting others in danger is insignificant just because (according to you) it is statistically irrelevant? Carry on with your entitlement, but be aware that you can't complain when drivers think and behave like you.

Call me nuts, but I think the fact that the statistics show it's actually *not* dangerous is a pretty good defense against the charge of "putting others in danger". Certainly more compelling than the case for the prosecution so far. Also, it's a bit sloppy to argue that my behavior is going to lead to "drivers [who] think and behave" this way. They already do. And of course, their behavior has been shown--again with those pesky statistics--to actually put others in danger.

In other words, I could alter my behavior putting myself into greater danger, not reducing the danger to others, and drivers would still be blithely out of control and endangering pedestrians and cyclists. Not a good trade, IMHO.

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Yes, that's how it usually works: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If they're not, pound the table, call your opponent a douchebag, take your ball and go home. Pretty funny that you think I've got some sort of "green agenda", since I'm not particularly green. It's also quite illustrative of another dynamic in these sorts of situations: there's a lot of projection on the anti-cyclist side. Not so much on the pro-cyclist side. As I said, I own a car. I like to drive it. But I'm not so clueless that I don't understand where the danger on our streets and sidewalks comes from. It ain't rollerbladers. I't not out-of-control skateboarders. And it's not lawless bicyclists. It's cars.

Of course, for that small subset of true cyclist-haters, "cyclist" is just a proxy for some sort of cultural bogey-man: with their "green agenda", hipster pants, perhaps a goatee. Damn them and their outsized self-regard! It's comical.

Anyway, for the statistics, a national overview:

"Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 5,228 in 1998 to 4,092 in 2009, there were 59,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2009, nearly one every 9 minutes. Pedestrian injuries have been on a downward trend for the past two decades, with 59,000 reported injuries in 2009 representing a decrease of 10,000 reported injuries since 1998. However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of pedestrian crashes that cause injury are ever recorded by the police."

(http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm)

Meanwhile, as far as DC goes, here's the breakdown:

http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Safety/Crash+Reports/Traffic+Safety+Report+Statistics+(2007-2009)

You'll notice there's no separate break-out for bicycle/pedestrian collisions with either injury or fatality. There's also no separate section for "falling out of tree", "piano falling on head", "died of boredom", or other vanishingly improbable scenarios. Do cyclists occasionally strike a pedestrian? Of course. Probably at the same rate that pedestrians walk into the path of a bicycle. Is it a fun experience for either party? No. Is it one of the great public health concerns of our time? I think the numbers speak for themselves.

If cyclists are going to jay-bike, they should do so with due care and consideration for pedestrians--just as pedestrians should be expected to do if they jay-walk. I would think that's obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bull. Most drivers come to a complete stop or close to it, and most cyclists ignore stop signs if they can't see a car about to enter the intersection (maybe they look both ways at full speed if it's not a 4-way stop). Don't even try with that 3-5 mph crap, unless they were going 3-5 mph in the first place.

First, you really can't believe that most drivers come to a complete stop moof the time, can you?

Second - "or close to it" is a nicer way of saying, "not stopping," isn't it? So basically, your position is it's OK to break the law if you make a half-hearted attempt to comply? I'm pretty sure that's nto how that works.

Or, are you saying that a rolling stop is acceptable, even though technically illegal, in situations where a driver believes that a full stop isn't really necessary, given the circumstances?

It's not okay not to come to a complete stop. I'm the one who does so every time, remember?

My regular routes in the city include a lot of stop signs so I drive behind a lot of cars that stop at stop signs. I can't say that I check to see whether every car comes to a complete stop in front of me every time, but I do notice when they roll on through, and that's not very often.* Since I'm not really looking for a complete stop I can't say for sure, but most of the cars come to something approaching a complete stop most of the time. Is your experience really different? I'm comparing that to bicyclists. Anyone who has driven on any street in DC can attest that most of the bikers do not stop or slow down at stop signs most of the time. If you say otherwise you are lying.

Again, there's the dreaded weasel-words: if we look at an intersection where the speed limit is 25 mph, nearly every car will be going at least 30-35 mph (unless there's traffic backed up). When the car approaches the stop sign, they will come to something approximating a "complete stop". Of course, that's usually around 5 mph. While that may seem like a full stop when compared to 35, it ain't a full stop when you're a pedestrian trying to cross the street. And half the time the driver is rolling into the crosswalk before they even fully decellerate. That not-really-stopping speed of ~5 mph is what drivers consider to be a safe speed to roll through and evaluate whether or not it's safe to continue.

By that criteria, I would say that every cyclist at least slows down at a stop sign. Bicycles go much slower, the provide much greater visibliity, and you can actually hear what's going on around you. So the speed a cyclist considers (given their experience in the matter, and their interest in not dying) to be "a safe speed to roll through and evaluate" will be much higher on a bicycle than in a car. Say 10 mph.

In any case, you don't get to put on the hat of "law absolutist" with one breath, and whip it off with weasely constructs like "something approaching a complete stop" in the next. I thought the law was the law? Are you saying there's room for educated law-bending? It seems pretty obvious to me that both drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians do this. The main difference is--given the accident statistics--that cyclists are much better at it than drivers. Why don't you guys work on that before giving advice in an area of which you have no experience?

[Anonymous]

Oh, one last thing on the issue of being "provocative" on this topic: it's clear that most of the vitriol comes from the anti-cyclist side of the argument. That's because, generally speaking, the facts are on the pro-cyclist's side. And there's nothing people hate worse than coming into an argument full of the sure faith of their own righteousness, ready to hold forth on their personal pet peeve; to open a can of whoop-ass on those they feel truly, truly deserve it...only to find out they're actually required to hold up their end of an argument--and that they can't.

I know, I've been there. Makes you very, very angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

An aggressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.