BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Here's the interchange, pasted together into a single image. You will have to click on the image, then zoom in a bit and/or have to scroll sideways to see all three columns. My apologies if you're on a hand-held device and are looking at a postage stamp image with 1,000 words in it.

That guy is an idiot and a prick, Stu. No way I would have remained that patient.

I like how the guy keeps saying cyclists "break the law" and then says "I don't care about (bicycle) passing laws" Maybe it could have been handled better, but only if you wanted to hear more of his bicycle grievances Not bad, maybe pay him a visit at the T station sometime

FYI - I rode on it yesterday, it does have a sandpapery kind of texture so hopefully it will be fine in the rain.

I'm also getting sick of the this "cyclists break laws and that's why they get hit" BS. Tell that to the kid in the hospital. Or maybe the the guy who left hooked me. Or maybe when Nick got hit by that pickup. Or maybe James Price, etc, etc, etc

What Salty said. I can only add: Stu, you're a gentleman.

No one ever deserves to be hit... I would have called him on that much and I wouldn't bother to respond beyond saying as much. He's either a troll, or the guy has no right using our PUBLIC roads.

The fool you argued with isn't likely to care, but I'm not sure the bit of law you quoted is the best bit to cite. The bill that introduced the 4 foot rule is here. It didn't add 3301(a)(2), which you quoted. That was already there. But it added 3301(a)(6) to the list of reasons to drive on the left half of the roadway. 3301(a)(6) merely refers to another new paragraph, 3303(a)(3). And that's the one that says "The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed." So it establishes very directly that cars can drive on the left half of the road when it's necessary to comply with the 4-foot bike-passing rule. That's now one of the six reasons: passing where permitted, obstruction, signs say it's OK, one-way street, left turn, passing bikes. Arguing that a bike is an "obstruction" to a car, as in 3301(a)(2), might reinforce the view that bikes are in the way of "legitimate" road users. I think it's better to avoid it, and refer to the bike-specific paragraphs. (Of course, the fool you were arguing with seems like the kind of guy who will still want to argue with the judge while he's being sentenced.)

Thomas Bennett is a frothing gash.

quizbot wrote:Thomas Bennett is a frothing gash.

Quote of the year.

"Never argue with a fool, on lookers may not be able to tell the difference."

"Honest opinions here: Could I have handled this better? " No. "How would you have done this?" About the same, if I could summon the patience (big if). I would have had to google to get the relevant sections of law quotable. “Never argue with a fool, on lookers may not be able to tell the difference.” It's a good quote, and wise to be aware of before getting into a back and forth, but it depends how you conduct yourself in the argument. The more specific, third party, objective information you can pull in the more mature and informed you will appear. That's not the only argumentative technique at your disposal, analogies are very useful, and you can't underestimate emotional appeals for real influence, but the specific, third party, objective information is your unique advantage and you should use it.

"The more specific, third party, objective information you can pull in the more mature and informed you will appear." Sometimes, it simply isn't worth the effort. Facts and statistics are great, but worthless when arguing with a self-righteous douchebag. You could argue that they are still helpful to 3rd party onlookers... but it's questionable if anyone else will even bother to read the conversation let alone take the time to look up the specifics of the law and otherwise hold an opinion and/or engage in such a conversation.

i think you handled it well. i also think as a professional operator, Thomas Bennett is an idiot for posting his ignorance of traffic laws and wishing bodily harm on people. by his logic of "people who break the law" deserve to be hit, basically applies to every single person on rt 28

You handled this much better than I would have. My hackles get raised when people start dropping phrases like "I don't give a fuck about passing laws" and "they deserve to be hit." And calling you "dumbass" in the middle of it all... I think you do a service by carrying this argument on, even though the other guys are flaming d-bags. People who think like them are not likely to change their minds, because it would require thought. People who don't know may read it and decide to learn more. If even one driver reads this and changes their ways slightly, it's a net win, because the other guys like Thomas Bennett and Eric Voight are going to remain assholes no matter what you say. While they are not likely to change, they won't get any worse (we hope) and we just have to remain vigilant.

I know the other two guys IRL. They're not flaming DBs. The OP is a cyclist who lives in that area. The other is still in his teens. I just try to be the grown-up in the room. The one thing I could have done differently? I did misread TB's veiled threat as an actual threat. Would he actually clobber someone? Probably not, but is quite likely to be one of the people laying on the horn when you're taking the lane. I too am happier that he operates a T vehicle rather than drive a bus. Thank you to @Steven for having a more in-depth grasp of the vehicular laws' intricacies. I find it interesting that TB stopped arguing after my last post. Maybe I got through to him (which I hope) or maybe he just got tired of arguing (which I fear is more likely).

Vannevar wrote:Stu, you’re a gentleman.

Yeah, Dude!

Stu, I think yo did an excellent job there. Your "misinterpretation" of his threat? That was nothing. It was a implied threat and he waffled when he was called on it. I would have probably asked if he felt that anyone who broke the law - like, say a speeding driver - deserved to be hit. That is, I would have if I had engaged in the conversation without screaming abuse at the miscreants. Which is unlikely. I think this is the kind of conversation that changes minds. I'm not sure if this one did or not. Thomas Bennet probably has a good idea that he got pwned. He might refrain from this sort of talk in the future, though. Even without a "mind change," that is something. I used to work with Eric Voigt. Haven't seen him in years, but if I do, I'll bring this up.

isnt making terroristic threats against the law? and if so, doesn't that mean he deserves to be hit for making them? never mind, irony would be lost on such a creature.

This is the 18-year-old Eric. You might have worked with his dad. Anyway, I consciously chose not to let the argument get any wider than the business about crossing the center line. If I couldn't "win" that one (read: make him talk sensibly), I wasn't going to get any further on any other topic. I thought about bringing up Idaho stop rules, motorists rolling stops, etc., but I knew that would just give him even more to argue over. To me, it was a classic "pick your battles" argument. And I'm sure there are 50 more like him out there. And some of them might be bus drivers.

We seem to get at least one of those bus drivers every Flock.

I see those drivers every commute. Part of the job description to drive the 41 bus on West Liberty Ave must be a callous disregard for cyclists...

StuInMcCandless wrote:I did misread TB’s veiled threat as an actual threat.

Stu, I would agree with that possibly being a misread if he hadn't repeated it. Once he said "need to be hit" and the second time he said "deserved to be hit." Whether or not he would actually do it doesn't seem to be the point. If he thinks that way, then he is less likely to use the appropriate caution around a cyclist. So if he hits someone, in his mind it will be OK because they deserved it. I hope your well reasoned argument sank in and led him to decide to stop arguing...I doubt it, but a guy can dream, right?

i stopped reading after i read "need to be hit". the absolute nicest thing i could've done at that point was post this. also, i wonder if his employer is interested to hear his attitudes toward road users and safety.

This makes me think of something that happened during Meeting Sunday. A baby was crying, and it made me think of how that always makes me feel happy and at peace, because it's one half of an act of love. The baby cries because it expects to be comforted, and then it is. When you have a troll like this trying to get a rise out of you, and you respond calmly, as you did, explaining the law, you're doing the same kind of loving act, helping someone learn. Now, as with children, sometimes that means denying them something -- no, you can't drive wherever you want, that's not what the law says -- and, as children do, the guy responded negatively, but that doesn't mean your message didn't get through. At least, now, he knows what the rules are, and maybe that will affect his behavior someday.

You handled it well. I probably would have given up at post two or so and not bothered. People like that are hopeless and just too dumb to get anything outside their own tiny world and own interests. Also too selfish, so he can't change or be helped in any way.

Stu, You did very well. PS I have a head-smacker at home. I would use it right away. :)

I can't think of any better way to argue with a troll. You did good. Much like the riders I see that wave at drivers that give us crap during group rides at the same time my hand is about to raise for a different greeting, I get inspired to wave and smile, too.

I had another long, difficult conversation on Facebook again today, different person, someone I know IRL. He actually does ride a bicycle from time to time, and has ridden cross country quite a bit. In his view, this makes him an expert on cycling. Unfortunately, he lumps all experienced, law-abiding street cyclists in with those who breeze through red lights with nary a care. Problem is, he's impervious to reason. I can't be bothered posting the whole conversation at the moment (I'm at work), but it did involve a half dozen regular posters on this board, and a few others besides. We all managed to keep our cool and remain civil -- quite a feat, considering some of the personalities involved, and how intransigent he was. The point is that this sort of individual is quite common -- they've made up their minds that every other cyclist is a complete idiot, and stuff we take for granted, like taking lanes, is illegal and suicidal (his words). Somehow, we have to get through to people like this that, indeed, we are within our rights to do this, and they must accept it. To give you an idea how stringently this guy thinks he's right, he even went so far as to contact someone at the Greensburg State Police barracks, and got confirmation that his understanding of traffic law is correct. btw, this particular individual is excellent at contacting legislators and getting on talk shows. One of his primary info sources is Marty Griffin's discussion board. He is not alone. Gah! *tears out hair* Conversation by conversation, somehow, we need to find these individuals and talk sense into them. I do see this guy in person from time to time, though I've never seen him on a bike in the city.

Oh dear me, I must have missed out on something. Let me see what we have goin on over thurr...

I would be more concerned about the info out of a State Police barracks being in error than the one fool at the center of the discussion.

If he doesn't think that bikes should take the lane... then he's entitled to that opinion. He is not, however, entitled to tell me how to ride (beyond what is/isn't legal). If he can't accept/recognize this, then he isn't someone who is going to be reached one way or another.

Boom. heh-heh.

edmonds59 wrote:Boom. heh-heh.

Great, now you have me stalking Stu's FB page to see what the story behind "Boom" is. LOL The entire thing looks like a misunderstanding to me... So he talked to a cop. OK. The thing is, the cop agreed with what he said which was worded a very specific way. That doesn't mean that the cop agreed with what he is currently saying in that thread. The problem seems to be that your fb contact is not understanding what as-far-to-the-right-as-REASONABLY-possible means. Who is advocating taking the entire lane as frequently as possible? No one, best I can tell. He doesn't seem to be disagreeing with the need to take the lane in order to make a left turn (unless I missed something?). The guy seems to think we should all be riding in the door&shoulder zone which is nuts... but, he seems to think we are arguing that we deserve the entire lane at all times?!?! There's no reason to NOT take the entire lane if there is no traffic wishing to pass; but, we should still lean towards the right side of the road (as much as possible, within reason).

Stu, you know this guy, but he gives the impression he just doesn't have all the chips securely soldered into the motherboard, if you know what I mean. Your comment on learning was dead on, brain incapable of accepting new information.

You nailed it.

Well that was amusing for a while, lmao. What a knucklehead.

This was the third one of these in three days. Earlier discussions concerned Benghazi and the proposed BRT lanes on Fifth Avenue. He's particularly nettlesome in that he always contacts legislators and speaks his mind. I wish all those of us who do have our shit together would be so tenacious.

Here's the FB thread so far (let's see if this fits...): Stuart Strickland In Idaho, cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. Just like in 1992, when the 55 mph speed limit was lifted because the law needed to reflect reality, it's time to change the rules. TheWashCycle: Cyclists are special and do have their own rules www.thewashcycle.com Sarah Goodyear of the Atlantic has an article for Bike to Work Week entitled "Cyclists Aren't 'Special', and They Shouldn't Play by Their Own Rules." The thesis seems to be that now that cycling is James Love In any persons mind that has a real brain, it should be stop means stop. Red light stop yellow light slow down and be prepared to stop. Green go with caution at all meanings of thinking. Bike riders and all vehicles. That's whats wrong with bikers and some drivers today they don't pay attn to the rules, for they want to make up their own rules. Thats why there are accidents and deaths do to the careless ways of humans. 14 hours ago Stuart Strickland Partially true. Not like you're saying, though. 14 hours ago James Love Stu I like you as a friend, however bikers in Pittsburgh don't know the rules of the roads neither do driver' 14 hours ago James Love Neither do driver's of some of vehicles in towns and cities. 14 hours ago Stuart Strickland You're making a large, dangerous, and incorrect blanket statement. Also, it's not the point of the discussion. The matter at hand is that, WHERE IT IS SAFE TO DO SO, cyclists would be allowed to proceed through a stop sign or red light. 14 hours ago James Love Ok I will let you win on that one, however be careful Stu you may be hit a a invisible vehicle on the out look for bikers breaking the law by not stopping. 14 hours ago James Love Wait a minute on the stop sign one yes but with the red light no way. 13 hours ago Stuart Strickland Fourth Avenue, downtown, at Cherry Way. Both are low-speed, one-way streets. I see no reason, if I am first in line, and stopped, not to proceed through the red if there is nobody coming. Give me one good reason other than "the law is what it is, deal with it"? 13 hours ago James Love Your life counts. If red light is on stop and wait for green no exceptions. 13 hours ago Stuart Strickland OK, you've just identified yourself as impervious to reason. Conversation over. 13 hours ago · 2 James Love Stu your wrong, you have to exspect the unexspected from happening. I don't know how many time drivers do crazy things to where people get hurt. Your not that wrong, however that road known Cherry Way is the last road I'd go through a red light with. It's far to dangerous. 13 hours ago Lyle Seaman I prefer a "very slow yield" which allows the same option for everyone regardless of the type of vehicle. It would require the driver to be able to see a certain distance down each conflicting roadway for a certain period of time, before proceeding through the intersection at no more than 5mph and to come to a complete stop if there is any other traffic at the intersection. Essentially, this would allow cars to roll through stop signs at wide-open intersections at about 2mph, as they do now, and allow bikes to roll through at about 5mph, as they do now. 12 hours ago James Love I say complete stop reguardless. Safty 1st all the time. Bikers in cities are always doing wrongs as of late and thats why some are in graves for what stu wants t6 happen by cherry way and staying to left of lane hnstead of staying near curb and drains along with near fog lines. via mobile Stuart Strickland Jim, when you can articulate back to me what I mean, in your own words, and explain why what I am trying to say is wrong, rather than blindly pound your fist on existing traffic law, then we can talk. Use these words: "Stu, what you're trying to say is ______, and here is why that is not a good idea," then back that up with sound reasoning. · Like · 3 Stuart Strickland btw, 4th and Cherry? Calmest corner in all of the Golden Triangle. If you're first in line on a bicycle, either direction, sight lines are fantastic. I use them both almost daily. · Like Joe Frambach Lyle, I think you're talking about a roundabout. And we all know that is much too complicated for the average american driver. 11 hours ago · Edited · 1 James Love Stu 1st road laws arn made 4 a reason callled safty 4 all. 2nd your on a bike. Most drivers don't lonk 4 other vehicles walkers let alone bikes. I have noticed bikers refusing to yaild to walkers other vehicles let alone they wont use common sinse. Coming up murray ave saw a nnt biker riding along yellow line to turn left. Wrong thing to do. Proper would be ride along parked car to street then walk it aross and then ride along curve. 11 hours ago via mobile James Love I speak as a biker walker and class c driver people. 11 hours ago via mobile Joe Frambach Hell no I'm not getting off my bike to make a left turn. The lane is mine to use, and I am going to use it. 10 hours ago · 2 James Love Not the hole lane. Your suicidal and holding traffic up in the lane you are in from two blocks down to forward ave and more. Thats uncalled for. 10 hours ago via mobile Stuart Strickland Jim. Stop talking. You're trying to convince a roomful of experienced road cyclists that they don't know what they're talking about. These are people who put a couple hundred miles a month under them in city traffic. Including me. We know from first-hand experience, and from sharing information with one another, and from dissecting crashes, what we're talking about. 10 hours ago · 2 Stuart Strickland Short version: You can repeat an uninformed opinion, but that does not change our reality. 10 hours ago John Grabowski II mr. love likes to say that the laws were designed for safety reasons and yet he calls it suicidal to take the lane when making a left turn on a bicycle. however the law says a cyclist may take the lane at any time and the safest thing a cyclist can do when making a left in traffic is to obey that law and take that lane. aside from getting off the bicycle, waiting for the light to change and walking the bike across the intersection, which no experienced cyclist should ever be expected to do, how would he suggest we make that left turn? 9 hours ago · 1 James Love Safety John I fully understand, however taking the whole lane is not safe as Stu is pushing. Bikers are to come to a complete stop at red lights and stop signs as everyone is to do. 9 hours ago James Love I have asked the State Police to contact Stu and Bike Pittsburgh to update all of you of whats safe for all bikers and everyone else on roads, seeing the people who are involved with biking in Pittsburgh are refusing to bike safely. 9 hours ago James Love To make a left turn slay off Murry Avenue, go to corner and push the walk sign and wait for the white person to come on and walk across the street like everyone else does, then get back on and ride safely. Don't take up the whole lane all the way up Murray from Forward like the man did this morning for 3 blocks to make the left turn. 9 hours ago Stuart Strickland Jim. Stop talking. Six experienced street cyclists are on this thread, at least one of them with formal training and certification in cyclist training, and we're all saying you're wrong. 9 hours ago · 1 James Love If so exsperienced why are all of you doing deadly acts on roads? 9 hours ago John Grabowski II +1 million what stu said about "we know from first hand experience...". for example, i ride west carson street from the west end to the western most entrance of the station square parking lot frequently. cars travel that stretch of road in excess of 40 mph and i have to move from the right lane to the left lane in order to make that left turn into the parking lot. i have to take the full left lane, if i leave room to pass on either side cars will pass and i will either have cars to my left and right moving the same direction passing me at 40 plus mph or cars to my left and right moving in opposite directions passing me at 40 plus mph! how is that safe? if i'm in the middle of the lane i have the best chance of being seen by motorists behind me and they can choose to merge into the right lane to pass or wait the 5 seconds it takes me to make my left turn. you are not educating anyone here mr love, you need to educate yourself on the laws and the act of self preservation. 9 hours ago James Love John in a normal left turn situation from a non hill left turn I agree with you to be in the left turn lane but to be on the right side of it not to block the vehicle from making the turn as I see happening. H 9 hours ago Stuart Strickland Jim, from our discussion the other day, I know that your method of riding down the street, hugging the curb and cars, is about the most dangerous method out there. It would do you well to learn from the nearly 10 experienced cyclists on this thread just how to do it safely. 9 hours ago · 2 James Love However coming from Rocks Sir I always stay along the side walk to the Corliss Tunnel, however from there in is suicidal. I say cross over use side walk to first traffic light then use GAP to Station Square until a trail is put along the P&LE RR. 9 hours ago James Love Stu I disagree all the way. I'm 49 and have rode bikes from Pittsburgh PA to Glen Burnie MD Clarion Zelienople Erie etc.., I've asked Officers other drivers and they say I'm correct and that your all wrong. They tell me I'm doing biking properly. 9 hours ago John Grabowski II dude as i was trying to explain if i'm i n the right side of the left hand lane cars will pass on both sides of me at excessive speed (nearly all breaking the speed limit!) and i would be trapped there until there was a break in traffic. what happens when i get to where i need to be to turn just stop and stand on the dotted line and wait while traffic speeds past on both sides. 9 hours ago John Grabowski II somebody break out the pa statutes involving biking in pa and educate james on how to do biking properly. 9 hours ago James Love NO John use Eighth and Amity as an example as going towards Kennywood but going down to the tracks. Yes in this case be in far left lane however leave room for trhe car to be on your left with fog line and the other two cars in their lanes to your right. That way the car can take to the left of you so you can be along the sidewalk when you make turn. 9 hours ago James Love When coming down 5th Ave. at Robinson Street be on right side with sidewalk to right so traffic can be on your right. If making left on Birmingham Bridge keep to the right until you need to cross lanes to be in turning lane and then do the same as above post so its done safely. 9 hours ago James Love Don't be in far left of lane all the way down 5th 9 hours ago John Grabowski II i would never willfully allow traffic at any speed to be both right and left of me at the same time. what if there's a 2" deep pothole? i either hit it blow out my tires and get run over, or swerve to avoid it and get run over. no the law says the lane is mine and i'll take it every time. 9 hours ago John Grabowski II the situations you are describing james are about the most dangerous things you could do. 9 hours ago James Love Your in a turning lane turning left you must be in that lane. When riding down a road bikes are to be on right of road not to the left. Period. 9 hours ago James Love Stu says to take up the whole lane at all times. That's wrong and dangerous. 9 hours ago James Love At a stop sign you must come to a complete stop and same with red lights. 9 hours ago James Love Gentlemen I just spoke to a State Police Officer in Greensburg, he barified with me that I'm correct. If you would like to speak to him (724) 832-3288 8 hours ago John Grabowski II if you are referring to stopping at red lights and stop signs, agreed you are right that is the law currently, i believe that was why stu started this thread in the first place, to educate folks on why that law should be revised.as far as taking the lane goes the law states that a cyclist may take the full lane at any time james, if the state cop doesn't know that it wouldn't suprise me but he is wrong. 8 hours ago James Love John stopping at red lights and stop signs as a complete stop must not change for any reason. As far as a biker taking a lane I'd only do that if I were cresting a ridge as in being above Chestnut ridge riding down, or say coming down Browns Hill Road. All other times we are to be to the right along side walks and hill sides on a two lane highway. 8 hours ago James Love If vehicles are parked we are to be beside parked and moving vehicles. In cases of when trucks and buses are there waiting to pass us have brains and wave them passed us letting them know we know they are there or pull over and wait until they have passed us. 8 hours ago John Grabowski II i suggest you go to www.bikepgh.org and browse the message board it may be enlightening for you. i respect your right to your opinion as well as your demeanor in this discussion however i disagree with you. maybe we will meet on a group ride and compare riding styles and continue this conversation someday, until then i'm out. Bike Pittsburgh www.bikepgh.org News, Events & Action AlertsRSSOur Sponsorsespresso a manoGelman-ReismanOver the... See More 8 hours ago James Love I'll do that however the way your doing things now are deadly. 8 hours ago Lyle Seaman Regrettably, police officers are no more knowledgeable about bicycle laws and bicycle safety than the average motorist is. I once had a cruiser cop get on his loudspeaker and tell me that I should be riding "closer to the cars" through the strip district - in clear contravention to the existing laws. I politely declined. About five minutes later, I found a bike cop and spoke to him, asking him to please encourage the precinct to provide some education to their officers. He replied "It's hopeless, they say the same stupid shit to us all the time." James, I agree with you that the law states that you must come to a complete stop at stop signs. I was proposing an alternate marking which is partway between a full stop, and a flying "yield", but which would accommodate the way most people actually drive now. I wasn't describing a roundabout (which is a 20mph operation on a bike) but what I consider to be a better, fairer, low-speed alternative to the "Idaho stop" proposal that treats bikes differently from cars at stop signs. 4 hours ago · 1 Lyle Seaman James, what do you think the average speed of traffic is from Forward to Forbes? I'm guessing it's about 3 mph. I'll have to measure it. Sunday, some git in a car yelled at me because I wasn't going fast enough for him -- at a red light. That's right, there was a gap in front of me of about 5 yards to the bumper of the car that was stopped in front of me, and I was riding very, very slowly so that when the light changed I could accelerate away smoothly. This irritated him, and he felt entitled to yell at me about it. I remind you, the light was red. There sure are a lot of control freaks out there who think they have the right to dictate other people's behavior, on purely aesthetic grounds. There's a four-letter word for that which is polite, and a much longer word that isn't. 4 hours ago James Love I agref to a point. However more than the bikers that were killed on penn ave old us 30 were driving carelessly as stu wants and they lost there lives. 3 hours ago via mobile Stuart Strickland Again, Jim, you are misinformed. The cyclists in those incidents were obeying the rules. The motorists were not. Also try explaining how a motorcycle cop, sent out to do traffic enforcement after one of those fatalities, himself was hit in much the same manner as one of the cyclists. It's not the cyclists, Jim. Certainly not the dozen people on this thread. We know what we are talking about. You do not. 3 hours ago Lyle Seaman "McClure's license was suspended at the time of the accident... McClure was traveling at a high rate of speed and fled the scene." Now, who was driving carelessly? 2 hours ago Lyle Seaman "In Florida, a state with about 15.5 million legal drivers, 2.2 million people currently have suspended or revoked licenses, authorities say" I'll bet the numbers for PA are similar. 2 hours ago Bill Edmonds Mr. Love, you are about as lost and clueless on these issues as one person can be. It's astounding that you seem to do some riding. You are making broad brush and absolute generalizations that don't begin to connect with reality. For one thing, traffic laws are not written to cover all foreseeable road conditions, that would be impossible and ridiculous. It is up to the vehicle operator to interpret conditions on the road and ride safely as conditions warrant. And bicycle riders are vehicle operators under PA law. 2 hours ago Bill Edmonds Want to drop some stats? I'm 53 years old and have been riding on the road since, gee wiz, 1974. Ridden across this continent and parts of another, if that's in any way relevant. Have not yet been hit by a car. I follow traffic law to the extent th...See More 2 hours ago James Love I used 2 ride bikes all over pa years ago. Didnt realise how bad it has gotten. However i have seen bikers doing crazy things lately that makes me wonder why they are still living. I have been away from pgh a lot in past 2 years so im not able to keep up when away as i normally do. I vary greatful 4 rail trails to stay off a lot of bad roads. about an hour ago via mobile Bill Edmonds Unfortunately I don't have a rail trail from my house in Robinson to work downtown, 9,5 mi. one way. Do it 2 or 3 times a week. And I have never seen a bad road. Only bad drivers. about an hour ago James Love true? how far do you live from montour or panhandle trails? about an hour ago Bill Edmonds About a mile from the Montour, 4-5 from the Panhandle. Never ride them. I usually ride a road bike. about an hour ago Bill Edmonds Those walkers on the trails with their dogs and kids do too much crazy stuff for my tastes. about an hour ago James Love Things will be far worse when spc starts bike lanes and rapid bus from town to oakland to sq hill and shadyside. won't be enough room. about an hour ago James Love at least you don't have speeding vehicles to get to airport robinson mall IKEA to get PAT about an hour ago Stuart Strickland James. Your insistence at adhering to disproven ideology when 12 people are unanimously telling you you are wrong, is just amazing. Why do you do this? Can it possibly occur to you to consider the possibility that if 12 people are all saying the same thing, there might just be something in it that you can learn? Has learning ceased for you? Myself, I just biked home, the last 20 or so minutes in dim light. I used East Street and Perry Highway, and where there were two lanes my direction, I took the right lane. The entire length of East Street, for example. Nothing even close to a problem. Cars went around me. That's how it's done. That last bit on Perry Hwy, I turned on my extra blinkies (I have three pointed backwards) as a safety precaution. Still, not a problem. 11 miles. 55 minutes ago · Edited Bill Edmonds Not really clear on what all that means, but I ride on 60/Steubenville Pike pretty often, bookstore, haircut, etc. it's not a big deal. Also re: the "rapid bus", Forbes and Fifth devote far too much roadway to automobile traffic, that's why pedestrians repeatedly get killed through there. It is not a highway. Bring on the bike and bus lanes. 56 minutes ago Stuart Strickland James, you were in the same room as me for that public presentation by PAT on the BRT, so you cannot say you were not informed. What you are claiming is complete falsehood. None of what you said was voiced by anyone present. I detect a strong scent of Marty Griffin. 54 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Stu, come on, facts don't matter if you really really really believe. 54 minutes ago Stuart Strickland *giggle* 53 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Also, I missed whatever Marty Griffin has to do with anything. Except for being a sensationalizing attention starved hack. 52 minutes ago James Love I will disaprove brt til i die for it's a bad idea all the way in every manner. as far as bike lanes it will create more road radge accidents trafficjams deaths in near future. 51 minutes ago James Love Marty has nothing to do with what I see daily with bikers and bad ideas 49 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Yeah 'cause I'm always hearing about all those road rage incidents in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. All over the news, it's like the wild west over there. 49 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Also, Jim, I've ridden out past IKEA a bunch of times. I used to work at FedEx, remember? The Ikea to FedEx trip, and back, was something I did several times. There, too, I took the lane, and depending on where I was going, the lane I took was not necessarily the right lane. Bottom line, a bicycle is a vehicle, and entitled to use the entire lane, anywhere, at any time. That *is* the law. 47 minutes ago Stuart Strickland My daughter was in Copenhagen on Thursday. I can't wait to see the dozens of pictures she took. 46 minutes ago James Love 60 is fine if bikers don't hog lane all the time 44 minutes ago Stuart Strickland I haven't biked a lot of Steubenville Pike, but Perry Hwy looks just like it, and I take the lane there. Taking the lane is legal, and recommended. 39 minutes ago James Love should not take lane for a full 1 mile let alone 15 38 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Why not? What is wrong with claiming a lane? You have not yet made that clear. 37 minutes ago Bill Edmonds In that condition I usually ride in the right hand wheel-track, away from the debris of the shoulder, and away from the anti-freeze and oil droppings in the center. Cars are legally permitted to cross the center line to pass. That however is an entirely different set of conditions from riding in the city - refer to "operate the vehicle according to conditions". In the city cyclists frequently must take the lane (please drop the "hogging" nomenclature, it is legal operation) to discourage impatient motor vehicle operators from illegally passing. 36 minutes ago James Love keep it up and one day you will piss someone off and they will teach you why not 35 minutes ago James Love i dear you to do that to a trucker for miles on on. 35 minutes ago Stuart Strickland That is called something else: aggravated assault. 35 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Oh very nice, now providing a justification for vehicular assault. Outstanding move. 34 minutes ago Stuart Strickland I don't care what any driver thinks. It's my lane. You can have it when I'm done. 34 minutes ago James Love but you bikers are driving way to slow holding traffic 33 minutes ago James Love it is not leagal to do that for miles on end 33 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Why is that a problem? I am going 22 mph in a posted 25 zone. Butler, Penn, Grant, Fifth. 33 minutes ago Stuart Strickland It is TOO legal. 33 minutes ago Stuart Strickland that is to say, It, too, is legal. 32 minutes ago Bill Edmonds You bikers? Really? But dude, I thought you were a biker. 32 minutes ago Stuart Strickland You may not like it, but it is legal. 32 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Also, bikers are not too slow for traffic, bicycles are traffic. 31 minutes ago James Love i will show this to officers and they will say you can't do that for you holding traffic 30 minutes ago Stuart Strickland I just rode 22 miles today. Into the city from McCandless, and back out. Did not even come close to having a problem. A few places, where it made sense to, I pulled over and let people pass. If there was a parking lane I could pull over into for a bit if I was moving slower, fine, but once I ran out of space, I signaled and got back into the lane. 30 minutes ago Stuart Strickland You don't know case law. Those cases are nearly always decided in favor of the cyclist. 29 minutes ago James Love not the wau drive at yellow lines 28 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Wut? 27 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Jim, what is your justification for wanting to do something dangerously? Adhering to the far right almost guarantees that you are going to run into a drain grate, gravel, or be doored. The serious problem I ran into last summer when I stayed too far right was that someone pushed me into the curb and I went flying. That would not have happened if I'd taken the lane. 27 minutes ago James Love i do it safe never have a issue. your going to get hurt or killed with how you ride iin dangerous careless manner 25 minutes ago James Love you are not to take lane at yellow line 24 minutes ago Stuart Strickland I do not ride in a dangerous, careless manner. I am visible, I signal my intentions, I obey the law. What is it about that that you do not understand? 24 minutes ago James Love you are to be at fog line 24 minutes ago Bill Edmonds What the heckity heck is the fog line? 23 minutes ago James Love and you hog full lane and hold traffic from moving 23 minutes ago James Love fog line is white line to passenger side 22 minutes ago Stuart Strickland When it is not safe to pass, you get in line behind what is in front of you, whether it is a tractor trailer, the mailman, a garbage truck, or a bicycle. It's what you do. It's called traffic. If that traffic has to go 14 mph in a 40 zone, then it goes 14 in a 40 zone. That's just how it is. 22 minutes ago · 1 Stuart Strickland Justify why it should be any other way? 21 minutes ago Bill Edmonds OOOhh, I refer to that as the "nails glass and debris line". 21 minutes ago · 1 James Love your to be near the curb side at all times not all the way at double yellow lines 19 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Jim, answer the question. What is it about traffic that you feel that cyclists "hold traffic from moving", where that cyclist feels unsafe pulling to the side? 18 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Forgot "[In my opinion] your (sic) to be near the curb side at all times not all the way at double yellow lines" Fixed it for ya. 17 minutes ago James Love bikes can't go say 50 rpms and law states bikes are to share road with vehicles but bikes are to keep to right 16 minutes ago Bill Edmonds Forgot "...where safe and practicable". There's where interpretation comes in. Also u spell turribl for a 49 yr old. 14 minutes ago Bill Edmonds And I can pedal 50 rpms easy. 13 minutes ago Stuart Strickland You meant miles per hour. Anyway, you want to see state law? Here is Title 75, Chapter 35, concerning pedalcycles. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.035..HTM Chapter 35 - Title 75 - VEHICLES www.legis.state.pa.us (a) General rule.--Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be gra... See More 13 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Chapter 33 is Rules of the Road In General. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.033..HTM Chapter 33 - Title 75 - VEHICLES www.legis.state.pa.us (a) General rule.--Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway except as follows: 13 minutes ago James Love my spelling is bad and laying down at shelter. sorry sir 12 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Chapter 31 is Operation of Vehicles. Enjoy the reading. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.031..HTM Chapter 31 - Title 75 - VEHICLES www.legis.state.pa.us (a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the provisions of this... See More 12 minutes ago Stuart Strickland Miscellaneous provisions in Chapter 37. 3705 concerns "dooring", for example, one of the reasons NOT to keep to the right. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.037..HTM Chapter 37 - Title 75 - VEHICLES www.legis.state.pa.us (a) General rule.--No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall perm... See More 10 minutes ago James Love show me where we are to bike at yellow line and hog whole lane so no other vehicle can pass 9 minutes ago Stuart Strickland The 12 people you have been arguing with all day are very well versed in PA motor vehicle law. I recommend again that you stop arguing nonsense and try to learn something from us. That specifically means UNLEARNING some incorrect stuff you've picked up somewhere. 9 minutes ago Stuart Strickland It is not "hogging" it, it is "owning" it. You're behind me, you stay there. Too bad. 8 minutes ago James Love i'll stop arguing when you she me we are to block full lane to be at yellow line for miles on end and prevent traffic from passing bikes 7 minutes ago Paul S. Heckbert The PA Vehicle Code says: Sec 3301(b): "(1) Upon all roadways, any pedalcycle operating in accordance with Chapter 35, proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. (2) This subsection does not apply to: (i) A pedalcycle using any portion of an available roadway due to unsafe surface conditions. (ii) A pedalcycle using a roadway that has a width of not more than one lane of traffic in each direction." 5 minutes ago Paul S. Heckbert The PA Vehicle Code says: Sec 3505(c): "A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of section 3301 (relating to driving on right side of roadway) unless it is unsafe to do so." Sec. 3501(a). "Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle…" 5 minutes ago Paul S. Heckbert My interpretation of the PA Vehicle Code: The law does not require bicycles to keep to the right of the road if a) making a left turn, or b) traveling as fast as other traffic, or c) there is only one lane in the direction of travel, or d) passing slower vehicles, or e) dodging potholes, loose gravel, sticks, or other obstacles, or f) keeping right would be unsafe for other reasons. It implies that riding very close to parked cars is not required by law, since the risk of getting doored would make it unsafe to be that far right. And it implies that when turning left, staying at the right or left of the lane is not required by law, since that would be unsafe (cars passing you on both sides). The law says nothing about cyclists using a crosswalk to make turns. 4 minutes ago

In James' defense, how would the "normal" person know what the law is concerning bicycles? You dont have to learn it when you go to get your first license, and they never make you learn it after that card is in your wallet, never. He is now in discussions with Stu and others and refuses to read the texts that are in front of him. He can probably drive improperly for decades without any fear of getting a ticket too, since we know how often the police write tickets for speeding, etc.

I should have just stayed away...

I don't see how it's worth arguing any point whatsoever with a person who consistently misuses "your" vs. "you're". If they can't work that basic concept through their head, good luck with anything else that requires comprehensive skill.

quizbot, please be careful when generalizing about people's writing. It's an easy cop out. I'm a writer and used to be very judgmental about grammar, spelling, and usage. My husband, who is a brilliant programmer and "math type" brain, has a hard time with spelling and grammar. It doesn't mean he's stupid or unable to do things with skill. IMing with him has really opened my eyes to how other brains work. I'm not saying that the guy above's argument is valid or OK. I just don't think writing him off as "unable to write, therefore unable to learn" is valuable.

@marko, ++, also, the situation is pretty complicated WRT bicycles. We've had discussions here on when it is legal to take the lane and I'm not 100% convinced that the answer we came up with (always) would stand up in court. We also concluded that cyclist must always turn right at an intersection with a right-turn-only lane, which makes no sense whatsoever. And don't get me started on filtering. Plus, what Stu was arguing was the stop sign law doesn't make sense and isn't followed, especially for bicycles, so let's change it. That is a tricky position to argue with someone who thinks cyclists should follow the law more often (and we all have seen cyclists ignore the law) for their own safety.

"We also concluded that cyclist must always turn right at an intersection with a right-turn-only lane, which makes no sense whatsoever." No, we certainly did not. I remember that thread (though I don't have the patience to try to use the search tool to find it). If you are traveling straight through such an intersection, you simply take the left lane (i.e. move out of the right-turn-only lane) and proceed straight through the intersection. That is what is safely practicable and in accordance with the law. As far as filtering, there is a PA Bicycle Operator's handbook out there that implies (and stops short of explicitly endorsing) that filtering is okay. I might waste some time trying to dig up a link... Chapter Three near the bottom of the page seems to cover the right-turn-only lane situation. I'll see if I can get to the part about filtering... Chapter Ninegives the follwing advice concerning traffic jams: "Traffic jams don’t have to stop you -- that’s one of the biggest advantages of bicycling in the city. But in the tight quarters of a tie-up, take extra care. Stopped cars in a traffic jam present the same hazards as parked cars: blindspots, doors and unpredictable starts and turns...If the street is completely plugged, pick your way forward slowly and with your hands on the brake levers."

Here's the the pdf of Pub 380 in case anyone wants to print it. It's published by PennDOT, which as far as I'm concerned makes it the word from on high. It basically endorses treating traffic signals that can't detect your bike as stop signs, filtering, and taking the lane. If this manual doesn't convince a police officer or magistrate that you were acting as instructed by the state, I think little else will.

@stu, when arguing for the Idaho-stop law you may want to bring up the "new" law passed back in the 1970s that allows cars to make right turns on red with caution after coming to a full stop (ha!). The gas crisis was the excuse given for this law, but it is analogous to the Idaho law in that it really doesn’t make any sense to sit there burning gas when nothing is coming. Likewise it makes no sense to have cyclist come to a complete foot-down stop when it would be safe to just slow down then proceed if clear. And how many drivers come to a full stop versus treating it more like a yield? You could even have “no Idaho stop” signs at those intersections deemed too unsafe for cyclists to do so.

You could I suppose try pointing them at this ancient Metafilter Ride-of-Silence thread:

I hate to be all "what about all the children" on you, but the majority of cyclist fatalities are under 15*, so all the ranting about lycra wearing daredevils running stop signs smacks of ignorance and willful prejudice. I think we can all agree on a world where everyone, including children, cyclists, pedestrians and the mentally and physically disabled, can have freedom of mobility without the absurd and totally preventable statistic that 1 out of 81 of them will be dead before their time because of an automobile. I might even posit that drunkards, self-righteous environmentalists, unicyclists and diet coke drinkers deserve freedom of mobility and safety within the transit system, too. I might even posit that folks who work full time but who are still below the poverty line deserve freedom of mobility and safety within the transit system, too. But, yeah, you are privileged enough to have full capacity of sight and ability and an extra $7000/year to burn on fuel, loans and maintenance. That's great. But keep your mother fucking privileged attitude to your god damned self. Self-righteous cyclists, my ass. I'll stop being self-righteous when you stop being totally ignorant of anybody who doesn't, by choice or by circumstance, fit your middle-to-upper class yuppie consumerist model. Multi-modal transit works (for everyone). Single occupant vehicle commuting works for you and you alone for now and now alone. Single occupant vehicle transit is a threat to everyone's safety, environmental health, free time and freedom. Just because you think your car makes you free doesn't mean it works to increase society's freedom.

* - Pittsburgh note: As I'm sure we're all familiar, in the last month two children were hit, one of them killed, by cars while cycling on neighborhood streets... [edit: Mboard apparently doesn't believe in paragraphs within blockquotes. stupid stupid stupid.]

hahaha a day later and the thread is still alive! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlApioLO1A

bb - damn, I like that. Alot.

Bill Edmonds "I have never seen a bad road, only bad drivers." Bravo to the 59er!

At the Ride of Silence, as people spoke, there was talk of legislation, better facilities, enforcement, big picture stuff. But it occurs to me that this is the hand to hand combat part of the engagement. We may just have to chase these dumbasses down one at a time in their trenches and rat holes, corner them, and shine the 1,000 watt spotlight in their faces and make it clear that we are not going anywhere. I'm in.

Precisely. Mr. Love, and others of that same ilk, like to change the subject when cornered. I don't know if they realize they can't win at that point, or not. That's the moment of truth. Might take 50 exchanges on a Facebook thread, may even take having to meet them face to face. Still gotta keep cool, somehow.

James "Loves" comment on CBS local regarding the ride - I am so fucking pissed off right now I want to kick in a fucking wall.

Sorry Stu, I'm with Edmonds. I tried to be civil but that guy is a shitbag and all that's happening on that FB thread is a lot of people wasting their time while giving him some kind of twisted ego trip.

The *comments* section on any news-site as well as commenting on facebook is the internet's version of arguing with someone who just had ten beers... it's an unproductive black hole that is best avoided.

I don't known what the hell Stu did but it's hugs all around now. Stu ain't skeered of no stinking black hole, he jumps in with neurons blazing.

I meant as a general policy... I just try to avoid what I call the peanut-gallery. That said, Stu IS the man!

I really like Bill's hand-to-hand combat analogy. This is, indeed, where it really counts. This guy is truly a loose cannon, but occasionally I can get through to him. And so must we all. Everyone has a Jim Love in their life, somewhere, and many of them drive, and vote, and call radio call-in shows, and have precious little else to do in life besides make life difficult for others. 2 Corinthians 11:19 (KJV), reads "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." Sometime over a beer/cuppajoe/whatever, we can talk about the deeper meaning of things. I am not a Bible thumper. But Jim Love is. Go figure.

I suspected as much. Coincides neatly with the belief in absolutes, everything in black and white, no grays allowed. Which I have little to no tolerance for. I am more of the school of thought that, without doubt, or examination of your own beliefs, faith itself cannot exist.

I'm pretty sure that 2 Corinthians 11:20 (KJV) says "Taketh thee the right hand lane, whilst pedaling, lest ye be stricken by wayward car doors or car drivers of feeble mind".

@paulheckbert: it turns out that verse is apocryphal, research has shown that corinthians drove on the left side of the road

When I get to a traffic light and find that there is no oncoming traffic, but my light is still red? Well, obviously that is a malfunctioning red light, isn't it? I legally proceed with caution.

Follow-up: The above discussion continued, off and on, over the last 3+ months. I finally cut him off and unfriended him. He has not changed his mind in the slightest. He still thinks automobiles are entitled to travel down the street at close to the speed limit without having to slow for cyclists, and that cyclists should hug the door zone, never take the lane except when flying down a hill at 30+ mph, move out of the way any time a car comes up behind them, and to do anything else is suicidal. Argument after argument, weekend after weekend, it never quit. He is not alone. There are many others just like him, impervious to learning, blind to understanding, and convinced they are in the right. Also, Thomas Bennett now drives a bus. We have a LOT of work to do. Don't waste your time on fools.

FWIW, I agree with him in some specific scenarios... just not as a general rule. My problem with his positions was that he couldn't get past the difference between good-judgement and legal-obligation. An uninformed cop's position on traffic law is meaningless if it's contrary to the actual law. It may be poor judgement to take the lane in some scenarios... but it is still a legally protected right (as it should be).

That is some of why I put up with him for so long. He had just enough of a shred of a credible line of reasoning (as in this post) to want to give him a hearing. But his steadfast refusal to accept statute law, while in the next breath complaining about cyclists breaking the law, took up way too much time and energy. You see one conversation above. There must have been a half dozen of those since May. That one went on for four days. The turning point was this argument, which continued on after this for several days in PMs (which, being private, I will not share). You can see his constant repetition of the same thought. There are more like him. We can't change them. We can only inform the reasoning people, and there are a lot more of them.

Most folks are just uninformed, or doubt whether they're hearing the unbiased truth from us. Using e.g. the PA Bicycle Driver's manual as a reference works well with these people.

I said this guy was dangerous. He got Bike-Pgh's Facebook page pulled down. Confession here, in a text directly to me, 3pm today, referring to Dan Y. I told Bike-Pgh staff about it in an email earlier. "Im glad biker lived. Prayfully he and rest of bikers learn to share road with rert [sic: "rest"] of traffic and stop hogging road and stop suisidal [sic] acts. Even fb p" "Even eb pulled bike pgh site down by my request after they saw it was teaching wrong." [emphasis mine, text his, character for character] Note: I have made zero effort to respond to him in any way since September 8.

Gotta link to his own fb page? If enough people flag it as a fake acct, they will pull his personal page down as well, no questions asked.. b/c that is how fb rolls. Not to be mean and/or target him or anything like that... but getting a legit facebook page taken down over a difference of opinion is harassment pure and simple.

So one fringe individual who is more than a few cards short of a full deck is able to get a legit orgs page taken down? How does that work? What an asshole. That is infuriating.

Click on one of the links to one of my Fb posts in the Sept 8 @ 5:02pm post above. You will find all manner of posts of his. Just sayin'. And, yeah, how does one person (who has a history of his own with Facebook) manage to get the main page of a legitimate organization taken down? Oh, to have such power with organizations which really matter, like politicians and mass media. Oh wait.

that's fb for ya... they have a bad habit of action before investigation. I'm sure the bikepgh page will be back as soon as someone contacts them and they realize that it is a legit organization. Insult to injury is that I imagine that his complaint to FB had nothing to do with any official position of BikePgh the organization and that it was strictly a reflection on his disagreements with any of us who have engaged him in the past. The worst part, he finds further confirmation in his unfounded opinion... right, because the guy who writes bicycling laws works for FB and would close down a page over bicycling law.

He's also recently taken to trolling the Bikes Belong in the Traffic Lane page on FB.

Thanks!

StuInMcCandless wrote:I said this guy was dangerous. He got Bike-Pgh’s Facebook page pulled down. Confession here, in a text directly to me, 3pm today, referring to Dan Y. I told Bike-Pgh staff about it in an email earlier. “Im glad biker lived. Prayfully he and rest of bikers learn to share road with rert [sic: "rest"] of traffic and stop hogging road and stop suisidal [sic] acts. Even fb p” “Even eb pulled bike pgh site down by my request after they saw it was teaching wrong.” [emphasis mine, text his, character for character] Note: I have made zero effort to respond to him in any way since September 8.

do you have screencaps of this? our fearless benefactors asked me to have you email to their personal email addresses if you do. it will help them with getting the FB page turned back on. text, tweet or FB message me for the email addresses.

It's been down a week now. facebook has not responded to multiple requests, given multiple different ways, and we've reached out to personal contacts there. the link they provided to challenge the takedown is a dead, broken link (remember that next time there's a bug on this messageboard). It's truly unbelievable. we're almost out of our "proper" channels, so we may have to do something public

erok wrote:It’s been down a week now. facebook has not responded to multiple requests, given multiple different ways, and we’ve reached out to personal contacts there. the link they provided to challenge the takedown is a dead, broken link (remember that next time there’s a bug on this messageboard). It’s truly unbelievable. we’re almost out of our “proper” channels, so we may have to do something public

The best solution I can come up with is two-pronged: 1) Post a thread on here with a link to the asshat in question's fb page. Ask users of this board to flag his account for harassment, citing the BikePGH fb page takedown, along with his constant trolling of Stu, as proof of harassment. 2) Make a new fb account for BikePGH. In less than an hour, you could probably have a new page set up and active while you wait for fb to respond to your earlier appeal. All you should need is to use a different email account than was used for the first BikePGH fb page.

Cburch, is the full name of that fb page "bicyclists belong in the...."? I didn't find one that's just "bikes belong...".

edmonds59 wrote:Cburch, is the full name of that fb page “bicyclists belong in the….”? I didn’t find one that’s just “bikes belong…”.

Here ya go: https://www.facebook.com/BicyclistsBelongInTheTrafficLane?fref=ts

JaySherman5000 wrote:1) Post a thread on here with a link to the asshat in question’s fb page. Ask users of this board to flag his account for harassment, citing the BikePGH fb page takedown, along with his constant trolling of Stu, as proof of harassment.

I don't think it's a good idea to propagate that action on the message board. Especially with Bike Pgh trying to gets their page back to active. Otherwise, I approve of the action. Plausible deniability, yada, yada...

He's had his Facebook account taken down before. He has a backup, where he is known as James Mozuch.

Some of this particular idiot's other work, still up: A mokery must be a place where one breeds and raises mokes.

erok wrote:It’s been down a week now. facebook has not responded to multiple requests, given multiple different ways, and we’ve reached out to personal contacts there. the link they provided to challenge the takedown is a dead, broken link (remember that next time there’s a bug on this messageboard). It’s truly unbelievable. we’re almost out of our “proper” channels, so we may have to do something public

Have they given any feedback beyond a dead link? Besides, how is anything found at bikepgh(dot)org a justification for removing the page at fb(dot)com if it doesn't violate any of the FB TOS? Honestly, I've been through this game with them at least ten times over banned accounts due to game related bs and it's unlikely that it won't be resolved. I'll have to look for the email contacts I've used in the past. In the meantime, no harm in going public over fb's bs policies... I hate that site and only use it do to the lack of an alternative.

That is complete bullshit - both Mr. Love and FB's unwillingness to fix the problem. There's always https://plus.google.com/u/0/112263477379465038018/posts

Site is back, thank goodness.

Facebook deleted his account, but hours later, like a bad mushroom, he popped right back up. Same name, same attitude. Put profile.php?id=100004771634527 after facebook.com if you're interested. He actually is an interesting person, if you're into railroad and trolley history.

Would it be reasonable to inform the Port Authority of Thomas Bennett's attitude towards cyclists? Assuming that's his real name. Wouldn't be the first time people got reprimanded/fired over ill thought facebook postings. Using his language, the guy "doesn't deserve" to be on the road in a professional capacity.

No, not worth the trouble. There really dozens more like him . I can name some names, but I would only scratch the surface. That is not to say that he and others cannot be called on the carpet if they do something stupid. Get a helmet camera, mount it on the seatpost, point it backward, and make sure it's always working and you know how to process and store the video if needed. (9 days out of 10 you can probably just delete it.) What you want to prove is what said bus driver did before he passed you. When you have it, report it in writing and save a copy of what you sent before you send it. Be absolutely clear on details of where you were, what you were doing, what measures you were taking to be visible and not doing something unexpected. You need to prove you were beyond reproach, and that the driver was not. Indicate you have video to back up your complaint. In order to positively identify which driver was involved, they need the exact location, time of day, bus number, bus route number, and direction of travel. It is very difficult to get a driver fired, but if they get called in enough times to answer for how they handled a situation, it will start to make a difference. Short version: Take names and kick ass, but we have to be following the rules, too, and willing to make a case.

The durn fool hasn't changed his mind a bit and won't shut up. I have not said a word to him in weeks. But I got this from him on Friday, responding to a proposal he saw about rearranging traffic lanes on Fifth from Oakland to Downtown: "Bikes on sidewalks and roads yes. No to taking bus lanes away. And keep to right. No to along solid yellow lines. N oakland 1 bus lane 1 4 bikes 2 lanes 4 motor traffic or put bikes on side streets like bikes on watson" A few days ago (Sept 24), I got these: "Drug addicks messed up erie pgh trail from brayburn to arnold." "For u and bike pgh hating me 4 thinking safety i am trying to help u all get rail trail extended north." He doesn't understand the law, doesn't want to understand anything, and his mind is rusted shut. He seems to want to get trails built, but wants nothing to do with bikes in traffic. I will have nothing further to do with him, but I will keep the community posted if he does anything that involves us.

StuInMcCandless wrote: I will have nothing further to do with him, but I will keep the community posted if he does anything that involves us.

I think that's the best approach. It's good to know that there are people out there like him sending mixed signals with a self-righteous attitude concerning bicycle infrastructure. Obviously, on some issues he will be an ally while on others, he will be an obstacle. He's confusing dislike for him with the fact that he talks too much. IF the guy would shut up once in a while and actually consider what others are trying to say to him... but he doesn't seem to listen, unless the person he is speaking to is affirming the opinions he already holds. You can't win with someone like that, and as we saw with his personal vendetta against bikepgh on facebook (despite bikepgh having nothing to do with anyone debating this guy), he's dangerous to even have a simple discussion with. Best to just ignore him.

In regards to this thread http://localhost/mb/topic/opinion-piece-at-the-post-gazzette-today-not-very-nice/ The latest from James...

sheesh, almost exactly one year later... like clockwork.

Haha! He is not at all well. And yet, as Stu said, he manages to get the ear of legitimate authorities. It's mind boggling.