How Should You Respond to Road Rage?

How Should You Respond to Road Rage?

This is the second of a two-part post about Road Rage. In the first
part Bob Mionske explained road rage from a legal perspective. In Part
II, below, Bob suggests how to handle it.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...g-_-roadrights

By Bob Mionske
So what should you do when confronted with a raging driver? The first
rule is: don’t engage with rage. When that driver yells at you to get
off of “his� road, it’s natural to want to respond with anger, but
when you do, you become involved in an escalating battle. This fails
to work to anyone’s advantage. First, the driver has the laws of
physics on his side. If he decides to use his vehicle to force you off
the road you’ll almost certainly be injured. Second, you don’t want to
be manipulated into being the one who explodes in rage. If you are
bursting with anger when the police arrive, and the driver calmly
proceeds to show them his broken mirror, you will be the road rager in
the eyes of the law.

I once represented a bicycle messenger in Portland, Oregon who had
become involved in a road-rage incident with a driver. The messenger
explained that it began with the cyclist and the driver traveling down
the road side by side, in adjacent lanes. At some point, he said, the
driver decided that she wanted to change lanes, and began to pull into
the cyclist’s lane. However, rather than slowing and pulling into the
lane behind him, as she would have done with another driver, my client
alleged that the driver began muscling her car into the lane in an
attempt to force the cyclist into leaving the roadway. As the
messenger told his story, the problem the driver ran up against became
obvious: she was attempting to intimidate an experienced urban
cyclist, whose livelihood as a messenger depended upon his ability to
aggressively negotiate urban traffic. The cyclist held his ground,
refusing to be intimidated.

Nevertheless, the messenger explained, the driver repeatedly swerved
toward the cyclist. Although she was stopping short of actually
hitting him, she was endangering his life, and the cyclist admitted
that he finally retaliated, cleanly clipping off her side mirror with
his U-lock. Unfortunately for the cyclist, the police did not observe
the driver’s repeated attempts to force him from the road, but his act
of U-lock-assisted mirror removal was observed, and the police
arrested him. The officers only began to understand that the driver
might have been more than an innocent victim, my client explained,
when she leaped from her car, slid across the hood and, thoroughly
enraged, threatened to kill the now-handcuffed cyclist. Nevertheless,
the officers did not see her own illegal actions, so they charged her
with nothing.

When road rage erupts, a disparity exists between the impact of the
encounter on a driver, and the impact on a cyclist; the driver’s life
hasn’t been threatened, while the cyclist’s life has, and thus, it’s
the cyclist whose emotions are showing when law enforcement arrives on
the scene.

This can create a false moral high-ground for the motorist. The
motorist has “plausible deniability� for his actions—he can explain
what happened by calling it a “mistake,� or an “oversight,� or a
“misjudgment.� “I didn’t see him� is the most common driver
explanation for both hits and near-misses with cyclists. Sometimes the
driver truly didn’t see the cyclist, or truly did misjudge the
distance between his car and the rider. And sometimes, the driver
intended to use his vehicle as a weapon, and did. Regardless, except
in particularly egregious incidents, the motorist will almost always
have plausible deniability. The cyclist doesn’t have the same ability
to explain away his intentional actions; If you do something that
makes you look like the instigator, you will lose if you are called
upon to explain your actions.

In the road rage encounters I have described in which the cyclists
retaliated, the cyclists allowed their emotions to be hijacked. Once
you lose your temper and escalate, you have lost control of the
situation, and have already been defeated. For me, this realization is
often enough to deter my dark side from emerging.

To prevent this emotional hijacking, Dr. Leon James, an expert in the
psychology of road rage, advises that we need to learn “emotional
intelligence�:

Despite the seductive persuasiveness of self-righteous
justification, you can compel yourself to reframe the anger-provoking
event. Emotional intelligence provides you with an understanding of
how anger escalates, how venting keeps it going, and how to deflate it
through rational counter-arguments. Negative emotions slowly dissipate
as you force yourself to think positively and expect positive
outcomes. The power of positive thinking lies in its ability to
attract positive emotions such as empathy and forgiveness. These
interpersonal and cooperative emotions in turn facilitate reappraisal
of the anger-provoking event.

This technique will help you reappraise that majority of negative
encounters with motorists that have their origin in an anger-
provoking, but unintentional act. But what of those negative
encounters with motorists that have their origin in a deliberate act?

How you respond will depend upon whether your goal is mere survival,
or seeking justice—but regardless of your goal, you will be better
prepared to respond rationally, in control, if you plan your response
in advance of the incident and either way, don’t engage with rage. It
is not uncommon for road-raging drivers to use their vehicles as
weapons, and some drivers are armed with more than a car. In an
incident in North Carolina, when five members of the Lees-McRae
College Cycling Team flipped off a driver who had buzzed them, they
were confronted by the driver, who they alleged had immediately
skidded to a stop, emerged from his truck with a handgun, and
threatened to “lay y’all out right here and bury y’all on the side of
the road.�

If your goal is simply to survive the encounter, refusing to engage in
conflict should prevent it from escalating in the first place. This
works if the road rager is merely giving vent to his anger, because
you’re not angering him further, and it also works if the road rager
is attempting to provoke a response from you, as we saw in the Lees-
McRae incident, because unlike that team, you’re not giving the road
rager the fuel to “justify� further aggression.

Let’s look at some examples of how this would work, using three of the
real-world road rage incidents I’ve discussed. In the first incident,
from part 1 of this article, the SUV driver in Oregon blared his horn
as he buzzed the group of cyclists. Once he passed them, he continued
down the road, checking in his mirror for a response—which he got. The
pickup driver in North Carolina also buzzed the group of cyclists, and
also checked his mirror for a response—which he also got. In both
incidents, the response from the cyclist led to an escalation in
aggression against the cyclists.

Suppose that instead, the drivers had buzzed the cyclists but failed
to cause a reaction. They would have kept driving and the road rage
incidents would never have occurred. Now consider the incident with
the messenger in Portland. If his goal was survival, once the driver
was muscling her way into the lane, he could simply slow and allow the
driver in. End of conflict.

Now suppose that your goal is to bring the road rager to justice. Be
calm. Remember, your goal here is justice, not retaliation. Therefore,
instead of allowing your words or actions to portray you as a mutual
combatant, get the contact information for any witnesses to the
incident, and report the incident to law enforcement. In some
instances, law enforcement will arrest the perpetrator based on
investigation of your report. For example, on February 14 of this
year, a rider in southern California was shot by a BB gun fired from a
passing truck. He reported the incident to law enforcement, and within
5 minutes, the truck had been found with the BB gun in plain view
inside the cab. The suspects were subsequently arrested and booked on
felony charges. In Colorado, cyclists are encouraged to report
incidents of aggressive driving to a Colorado State Patrol hotline.

Be aware that the response from law enforcement will vary by
jurisdiction and the evidence available. Often, it will be a matter of
the driver’s word against yours, and without confirmation from
“unbiased� witnesses, law enforcement might not be able to file
charges. This requirement for “unbiased� witnesses means that
everybody in your paceline that just got buzzed will be considered
“biased,� but a third party witnessing the incident will be considered
“unbiased.� Nevertheless, even if law enforcement takes no immediate
action, it is important to create a record of the road rager’s
actions. Just how important became apparent last year, when a doctor
used his vehicle to assault two cyclists in Brentwood, California. The
doctor told law enforcement that the incident was an “accident�;
however, he had been involved in a virtually identical incident a few
months prior, and the two cyclists in that case had reported the
doctor. Although the first event was treated as “his word against
theirs,� the doctor’s actions were now “on the books� and because of
this his second attempt to hurt cyclists led prosecutors investigating
his actions to doubt his “unfortunate accident,� contentions and he is
now facing charges for both incidents.

In Oregon, a state law allows citizens to cite and prosecute drivers
if the police will not issue a citation, and if the D.A. will not
prosecute. Cyclists using this law have successfully prosecuted
drivers in several incidents, and the Salem Bicycle Club is
considering using the law to prosecute the infamous “red pickup
driver� who has an extensive history of harassing local cyclists.
However, as far as I know, this law is unique to Oregon, so it would
not be an option for cyclists in other states.

What If You Are Forced to Defend Yourself?

Just because you should avoid becoming a mutual combatant doesn’t mean
you can’t defend yourself. But as with any right, you are subject to
legal limits. The mere fact that you’ve had an unpleasant interaction
with a motorist—no matter how obnoxious that motorist is—does not give
you a license to open up a can of whoop-ass on the obnoxious
miscreant.

Rather, if you are either under physical attack, or if a physical
attack against you is imminent you are entitled to defend yourself.
Furthermore, you don’t have to wait until you’ve been attacked—you can
get the first punch in if the attack against you is imminent.

However, if you provoke the other person into fighting (either
intentionally, or if your actions would be expected to provoke a
fight) you don’t have the right to claim self-defense.

Second, your response must be proportionate to the attack. This means
that in most circumstances, you can only use the force necessary to
stop the attack. For example, if the other person tries to punch you,
you are entitled to use your fists to stop the attack; you would
generally not be entitled to fire a gun at your assailant. If
necessary, you can use lethal force to defend yourself, but only if
the threat against you is imminently lethal.

Third, once your attacker has broken off his attack, or is unable to
continue, you must cease your defense. You are, however, allowed to
use the force necessary to detain the other person until law
enforcement arrives. The limits of your right to self-defense will be
determined by the laws of your state, so you should become familiar
with those laws if you believe that the occasion may arise where you
must defend yourself.

One final caveat on self-defense: Every aspect of your self-defense
must be “reasonable�—what a hypothetical “reasonable person� would do
in your situation. And that brings us back to how your words and
actions will be perceived by a judge or jury. You might think your
actions are justified, but will the judge, or the members of the jury,
perceive your actions as being within the law, and consistent with how
a reasonable person would behave in that situation?

Be an Ambassador for Cycling
Just because there’s some road rager out there who wants to mix it up
with cyclists doesn’t mean that we have to dance to his tune. The most
powerful things we can do to effect positive change in the road
environment are proactive, not reactive. You have the power to bring a
positive influence to your road environment, just as you have the
power to bring a negative influence to your road environment.

First, reach out to build bridges with those who don’t cycle. In my
talks, I’ve suggested that one easy way to do this is with “Uncle
Leo.� Now, Uncle Leo is a real person—he’s my Uncle Leo—but everybody
has an “Uncle Leo.� That’s the family member who doesn’t ride, but
knows you do, and is looking at you like you’re one of “those�
cyclists. If you want to turn somebody around on cycling, start with a
family member who may never get on a bike, but who could potentially
be an important ally to those of us who do ride. After all, my Uncle
Leo may not ride, but we’re still family. And that’s the point:
getting millions of people who don’t ride to think of the cyclists in
their families every time they pass a rider on the roads.

Another important ally is law enforcement. There’s often antagonism
between cyclists and law enforcement officers, and the faults are
mutual. Cyclists contribute to the hostility when they flagrantly
disregard traffic laws. Law enforcement officers contribute to the
hostility when they fail to enforce laws protecting cyclists, and when
they disregard cyclists’ right to the road. We need law enforcement as
our allies, rather than our adversaries, and it is up to us to build
those bridges.

Second, lead by example. This means getting our own house in order,
and keeping it in order. The obvious place to begin is by obeying
traffic laws so that the widely-held societal view that cyclists are
arrogant scofflaws is no longer reinforced by our actions. We may be
adept at rationalizing lawbreaking to ourselves, but such actions turn
the majority of our fellow citizens against us.

Build bridges with other road users—pedestrians and motorists—by
leading by example. We ask drivers to respect our rights, and our
lives, and then we fail to respect the rights and lives of
pedestrians. They are entitled to due care from us, just as we are
entitled to due care from motorists, so lead by example—ride
courteously and carefully around pedestrians.

With the relationship between cyclists and motorists so often
adversarial, it’s natural that we would focus our attention on our
legal rights. It’s easy for all of us—motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians—to forget the importance of the pro-social, cooperative
and supportive behavior that would enable all of us to safely get
where we are going. We have the power to change that, however, and we
exercise that power when we lead by example.

A smile, and a thank you wave are a simple courtesy, and yet they go a
long way toward fostering a positive interaction on the road. When you
thank somebody for their courtesy, you are acknowledging that they did
you a favor; they will appreciate that acknowledgment. By the same
token, when you fail to thank somebody for extending you a courtesy,
you create a negative feeling about that encounter.

And don’t think this is the same thing as abandoning our rights.
Instead, it’s just acknowledging that our rights are the minimum to
which we are all entitled, but that a cooperative road environment
requires us to go above and beyond the minimum, by treating each other
with common courtesy and kindness.

(Research and drafting provided by Rick Bernardi, J.D.)

Bob Mionske is a nationally known cycling lawyer with a practice
exclusively focused on representing cyclists. An advocate for the
rights of cyclists, Bob is the author of Bicycling & the Law, the
first book written for cyclists on their legal rights and
responsibilities since 1895. Bob is also a former U.S. Olympic and pro
cyclist; Bob represented the United States in the 1988 and 1992
Olympic games, and was the National Road Race Champion in 1990,
amassing a record of over 100 wins during his racing career.

If you have a cycling-related legal question or a comment about this
blog, please submit it below. If you have a private legal question for
Bob, please submit it to Bob and he will try to privately respond to
as many of these questions as he can; some questions may be selected
for answering in Road Rights. General bicycle-accident advice can be
found at www.bicyclelaw.com. For more of Bob’s perspective on bicycle
law, be sure to visit his blog, and for Bob’s take on bicycle culture,
visit www.velologue.com.

Important notice:
The information provided in the Road Rights blog is
not legal advice. The information provided on this public web site is
provided solely for the general interest of the visitors to this web
site. The information contained in the column applies to general
principles of American jurisprudence and may not reflect current legal
developments or statutory changes in the various jurisdictions and
therefore should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice.
Understand that reading the information contained in this column does
not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with
attorney Bob Mionske. Readers of this column should not act upon any
information contained in the web site without first seeking the advice
of legal counsel.

Carpunching is usually a good choice when a cager tries to back or
change lanes lanes into me.

On Oct 1, 8:41Â*am, Ablang wrote:
How Should You Respond to Road Rage?

This is the second of a two-part post about Road Rage. In the first
part Bob Mionske explained road rage from a legal perspective. In Part
II, below, Bob suggests how to handle it.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ould-you-respo...

By Bob Mionske
So what should you do when confronted with a raging driver? The first
rule is: don’t engage with rage. When that driver yells at you to get
off of “his� road, it’s natural to want to respond with anger, but
when you do, you become involved in an escalating battle. This fails
to work to anyone’s advantage. First, the driver has the laws of
physics on his side. If he decides to use his vehicle to force you off
the road you’ll almost certainly be injured. Second, you don’t want to
be manipulated into being the one who explodes in rage. If you are
bursting with anger when the police arrive, and the driver calmly
proceeds to show them his broken mirror, you will be the road rager in
the eyes of the law.

I once represented a bicycle messenger in Portland, Oregon who had
become involved in a road-rage incident with a driver. The messenger
explained that it began with the cyclist and the driver traveling down
the road side by side, in adjacent lanes. At some point, he said, the
driver decided that she wanted to change lanes, and began to pull into
the cyclist’s lane. However, rather than slowing and pulling into the
lane behind him, as she would have done with another driver, my client
alleged that the driver began muscling her car into the lane in an
attempt to force the cyclist into leaving the roadway. As the
messenger told his story, the problem the driver ran up against became
obvious: she was attempting to intimidate an experienced urban
cyclist, whose livelihood as a messenger depended upon his ability to
aggressively negotiate urban traffic. The cyclist held his ground,
refusing to be intimidated.

Nevertheless, the messenger explained, the driver repeatedly swerved
toward the cyclist. Although she was stopping short of actually
hitting him, she was endangering his life, and the cyclist admitted
that he finally retaliated, cleanly clipping off her side mirror with
his U-lock. Unfortunately for the cyclist, the police did not observe
the driver’s repeated attempts to force him from the road, but his act
of U-lock-assisted mirror removal was observed, and the police
arrested him. The officers only began to understand that the driver
might have been more than an innocent victim, my client explained,
when she leaped from her car, slid across the hood and, thoroughly
enraged, threatened to kill the now-handcuffed cyclist. Nevertheless,
the officers did not see her own illegal actions, so they charged her
with nothing.

When road rage erupts, a disparity exists between the impact of the
encounter on a driver, and the impact on a cyclist; the driver’s life
hasn’t been threatened, while the cyclist’s life has, and thus, it’s
the cyclist whose emotions are showing when law enforcement arrives on
the scene.

This can create a false moral high-ground for the motorist. The
motorist has “plausible deniability� for his actions—he can explain
what happened by calling it a “mistake,� or an “oversight,� or a
“misjudgment.� “I didn’t see him� is the most common driver
explanation for both hits and near-misses with cyclists. Sometimes the
driver truly didn’t see the cyclist, or truly did misjudge the
distance between his car and the rider. And sometimes, the driver
intended to use his vehicle as a weapon, and did. Regardless, except
in particularly egregious incidents, the motorist will almost always
have plausible deniability. The cyclist doesn’t have the same ability
to explain away his intentional actions; If you do something that
makes you look like the instigator, you will lose if you are called
upon to explain your actions.

In the road rage encounters I have described in which the cyclists
retaliated, the cyclists allowed their emotions to be hijacked. Once
you lose your temper and escalate, you have lost control of the
situation, and have already been defeated. For me, this realization is
often enough to deter my dark side from emerging.

To prevent this emotional hijacking, Dr. Leon James, an expert in the
psychology of road rage, advises that we need to learn “emotional
intelligence�:

Â* Â* Despite the seductive persuasiveness of self-righteous
justification, you can compel yourself to reframe the anger-provoking
event. Emotional intelligence provides you with an understanding of
how anger escalates, how venting keeps it going, and how to deflate it
through rational counter-arguments. Negative emotions slowly dissipate
as you force yourself to think positively and expect positive
outcomes. The power of positive thinking lies in its ability to
attract positive emotions such as empathy and forgiveness. These
interpersonal and cooperative emotions in turn facilitate reappraisal
of the anger-provoking event.

This technique will help you reappraise that majority of negative
encounters with motorists that have their origin in an anger-
provoking, but unintentional act. But what of those negative
encounters with motorists that have their origin in a deliberate act?

How you respond will depend upon whether your goal is mere survival,
or seeking justice—but regardless of your goal, you will be better
prepared to respond rationally, in control, if you plan your response
in advance of the incident and either way, don’t engage with rage.. It
is not uncommon for road-raging drivers to use their vehicles as
weapons, and some drivers are armed with more than a car. In an
incident in North Carolina, when five members of the Lees-McRae
College Cycling Team flipped off a driver who had buzzed them, they
were confronted by the driver, who they alleged had immediately
skidded to a stop, emerged from his truck with a handgun, and
threatened to “lay y’all out right here and bury y’all on the side of
the road.�

If your goal is simply to survive the encounter, refusing to engage in
conflict should prevent it from escalating in the first place. This
works if the road rager is merely giving vent to his anger, because
you’re not angering him further, and it also works if the road rager
is attempting to provoke a response from you, as we saw in the Lees-
McRae incident, because unlike that team, you’re not giving the road
rager the fuel to “justify� further aggression.

Let’s look at some examples of how this would work, using three of the
real-world road rage incidents I’ve discussed. In the first incident,
from part 1 of this article, the SUV driver in Oregon blared his horn
as he buzzed the group of cyclists. Once he passed them, he continued
down the road, checking in his mirror for a response—which he got.. The
pickup driver in North Carolina also buzzed the group of cyclists, and
also checked his mirror for a response—which he also got. In both
incidents, the response from the cyclist led to an escalation in
aggression against the cyclists.

Suppose that instead, the drivers had buzzed the cyclists but failed
to cause a reaction. They would have kept driving and the road rage
incidents would never have occurred. Now consider the incident with
the messenger in Portland. If his goal was survival, once the driver
was muscling her way into the lane, he could simply slow and allow the
driver in. End of conflict.

Now suppose that your goal is to bring the road rager to justice. Be
calm. Remember, your goal here is justice, not retaliation. Therefore,
instead of allowing your words or actions to portray you as a mutual
combatant, get the contact information for any witnesses to the
incident, and report the incident to law enforcement. In some
instances, law enforcement will arrest the perpetrator based on
investigation of your report. For example, on February 14 of this
year, a rider in southern California was shot by a BB gun fired from a
passing truck. He reported the incident to law enforcement, and within
5 minutes, the truck had been found with the BB gun in plain view
inside the cab. The suspects were subsequently arrested and booked on
felony charges. In Colorado, cyclists are encouraged to report
incidents of aggressive driving to a Colorado State Patrol hotline.

Be aware that the response from law enforcement will vary by
jurisdiction and the evidence available. Often, it will be a matter of
the driver’s word against yours, and without confirmation from
“unbiased� witnesses, law enforcement might not be able to file
charges. This requirement for “unbiased� witnesses means that
everybody in your paceline that just got buzzed will be considered
“biased,� but a third party witnessing the incident will be considered
“unbiased.� Nevertheless, even if law enforcement takes no immediate
action, it is important to create a record of the road rager’s
actions. Just how important became apparent last year, when a doctor
used his vehicle to assault two cyclists in Brentwood, California. The
doctor told law enforcement that the incident was an “accident�;
however, he had been involved in a virtually identical incident a few
months prior, and the two cyclists in that case had reported the
doctor. Although the first event was treated as “his word against
theirs,� the doctor’s actions were now “on the books� and because of
this his second attempt to hurt cyclists led prosecutors investigating
his actions to doubt his “unfortunate accident,� contentions and he is
now facing charges for both incidents.

In Oregon, a state law allows citizens to cite and prosecute drivers
if the police will not issue a citation, and if the D.A. will not
prosecute. Cyclists using this law have successfully prosecuted
drivers in several incidents, and the Salem Bicycle Club is
considering using the law to prosecute the infamous “red pickup
driver� who has an extensive history of harassing local cyclists.
However, as far as I know, this law is unique to Oregon, so it would
not be an option for cyclists in other states.

What If You Are Forced to Defend Yourself?

Just because you should avoid becoming a mutual combatant doesn’t mean
you can’t defend yourself. But as with any right, you are subject to
legal limits. The mere fact that you’ve had an unpleasant interaction
with a motorist—no matter how obnoxious that motorist is—does not give
you a license to open up a can of whoop-ass on the obnoxious
miscreant.

Rather, if you are either under physical attack, or if a physical
attack against you is imminent you are entitled to defend yourself.
Furthermore, you don’t have to wait until you’ve been attacked—you can
get the first punch in if the attack against you is imminent.

However, if you provoke the other person into fighting (either
intentionally, or if your actions would be expected to provoke a
fight) you don’t have the right to claim self-defense.

Second, your response must be proportionate to the attack. This means
that in most circumstances, you can only use the force necessary to
stop the attack. For example, if the other person tries to punch you,
you are entitled to use your fists to stop the attack; you would
generally not be entitled to fire a gun at your assailant. If
necessary, you can use lethal force to defend yourself, but only if
the threat against you is imminently lethal.

Third, once your attacker has broken off his attack, or is unable to
continue, you must cease your defense. You are, however, allowed to
use the force necessary to detain the other person until law
enforcement arrives. The limits of your right to self-defense will be
determined by the laws of your state, so you should become familiar
with those laws if you believe that the occasion may arise where you
must defend yourself.

One final caveat on self-defense: Every aspect of your self-defense
must be “reasonable�—what a hypothetical “reasonable person� would do
in your situation. And that brings us back to how your words and
actions will be perceived by a judge or jury. You might think your
actions are justified, but will the judge, or the members of the jury,
perceive your actions as being within the law, and consistent with how
a reasonable person would behave in that situation?

Be an Ambassador for Cycling
Just because there’s some road rager out there who wants to mix it up
with cyclists doesn’t mean that we have to dance to his tune. The most
powerful things we can do to effect positive change in the road
environment are proactive, not reactive. You have the power to bring a
positive influence to your road environment, just as you have the
power to bring a negative influence to your road environment.

First, reach out to build bridges with those who don’t cycle. In my
talks, I’ve suggested that one easy way to do this is with “Uncle
Leo.� Now, Uncle Leo is a real person—he’s my Uncle Leo—but everybody
has an “Uncle Leo.� That’s the family member who doesn’t ride, but
knows you do, and is looking at you like you’re one of “those�
cyclists. If you want to turn somebody around on cycling, start with a
family member who may never get on a bike, but who could potentially
be an important ally to those of us who do ride. After all, my Uncle
Leo may not ride, but we’re still family. And that’s the point:
getting millions of people who don’t ride to think of the cyclists in
their families every time they pass a rider on the roads.

Another important ally is law enforcement. There’s often antagonism
between cyclists and law enforcement officers, and the faults are
mutual. Cyclists contribute to the hostility when they flagrantly
disregard traffic laws. Law enforcement officers contribute to the
hostility when they fail to enforce laws protecting cyclists, and when
they disregard cyclists’ right to the road. We need law enforcement as
our allies, rather than our adversaries, and it is up to us to build
those bridges.

Second, lead by example. This means getting our own house in order,
and keeping it in order. The obvious place to begin is by obeying
traffic laws so that the widely-held societal view that cyclists are
arrogant scofflaws is no longer reinforced by our actions. We may be
adept at rationalizing lawbreaking to ourselves, but such actions turn
the majority of our fellow citizens against us.

Build bridges with other road users—pedestrians and motorists—by
leading by example. We ask drivers to respect our rights, and our
lives, and then we fail to respect the rights and lives of
pedestrians. They are entitled to due care from us, just as we are
entitled to due care from motorists, so lead by example—ride
courteously and carefully around pedestrians.

With the relationship between cyclists and motorists so often
adversarial, it’s natural that we would focus our attention on our
legal rights. It’s easy for all of us—motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians—to forget the importance of the pro-social, cooperative
and supportive behavior that would enable all of us to safely get
where we are going. We have the power to change that, however, and we
exercise that power when we lead by example.

A smile, and a thank you wave are a simple courtesy, and yet they go a
long way toward fostering a positive interaction on the road. When you
thank somebody for their courtesy, you are acknowledging that they did
you a favor; they will appreciate that acknowledgment. By the same
token, when you fail to thank somebody for extending you a courtesy,
you create a negative feeling about that encounter.

And don’t think this is the same thing as abandoning our rights.
Instead, it’s just acknowledging that our rights are the minimum to
which we are all entitled, but that a cooperative road environment
requires us to go above and beyond the minimum, by treating each other
with common courtesy and kindness.

(Research and drafting provided by Rick Bernardi, J.D.)

Bob Mionske is a nationally known cycling lawyer with a practice
exclusively focused on representing cyclists. An advocate for the
rights of cyclists, Bob is the author of Bicycling & the Law, the
first book written for cyclists on their legal rights and
responsibilities since 1895. Bob is also a former U.S. Olympic and pro
cyclist; Bob represented the United States in the 1988 and 1992
Olympic games, and was the National Road Race Champion in 1990,
amassing a record of over 100 wins during his racing career.

If you have a cycling-related legal question or a comment about this
blog, please submit it below. If you have a private legal question for
Bob, please submit it to Bob and he will try to privately respond to
as many of these questions as he can; some questions may be selected
for answering in Road Rights. General bicycle-accident advice can be
found atwww.bicyclelaw.com. For more of Bob’s perspective on bicycle
law, be sure to visit his blog, and for Bob’s take on bicycle culture,
visitwww.velologue.com.

Important notice:
The information provided in the Road Rights blog is
not legal advice. The information provided on this public web site is
provided solely for the general interest of the visitors to this web
site. The information contained in the column applies to general
principles of American jurisprudence and may not reflect current legal
developments or statutory changes in the various jurisdictions and
therefore should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice.
Understand that reading the information contained in this column does
not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with
attorney Bob Mionske. Readers of this column should not act upon any
information contained in the web site without first seeking the advice
of legal counsel.