It's also worth pointing out that, if you need to get somewhere on Burnside, riding on Ankeny doesn't do shit for you.

Seems to me that the fact that he leaned into the car window is far more relevant than what kind of bike he was on. (Not that it, or, you know, *anything* excuses what the driver did.)

I agree that it was malicious to include the fact that the bike was fixed gear, but I don't think it's a good idea to start pulling out online comments as proof of a story's ulterior motive.

I'm living proof that you can find any idiot thing written in the comments, and I don't think you'd like to be held responsible for my content at some undetermined point in the future, whenever another publication wants to make a point about your writing.

Sorry to single you out for this, but I'm getting really tired of seeing newscasters on TV spending more and more time just reading the idiot frothings of commenters (like me) on the air. As we all know, those can easily be cherry-picked to make just about any point you'd want to make (either in support of your own point of view, or to make the opposition look bad).

Anyway, your point was well made long before the inclusion of the comment.

Ankeny is a good route, until you get to SE 11th, and then it's pretty brutal as well. Crossing 11th just below the Burnside/Sandy interchange is its own kind of hell.

This is a road rage case, period. The fact that he was on a bike is rather inconsequential.

I think it says an awful lot that the driver sped off after the altercation. Oh, but wait, the cyclist didn't have brakes. What a barbarian caveman hipster. Why, they're out of control again! We must protect our poor, vulnerable drivers from the crazy anarchist bicyclists and their scary brakeless track bikes before everyone is forced to like, exercise.

I wonder if the Oregonian reporter got all frothy-mouthed aksing their PPB contact something like: "Was it one of them crazy fixie riders? Was it??"


Go to bikeportland.org if you want more intelligent commentary.

But was the car rear-wheel drive? Did it have passenger-side air bags?

Also: ow.

Personally I can see why they included the "fixed gear/no brakes" line: Because it's illegal to do that, here in town. For me, I would have wanted to know if the driver had been drunk or not wearing a seat belt, for the same reason. Still, I respect Sarah's opinion and feelings on the matter. In the mean time, we've sent an email to the managing editor at the Oregonian, to see if she has a comment on the inclusion of that line.

I gotta' nod a bit with "CH" on this one. This seems like two irrational idiots, neither of whom were able to "let it go". Unfortunately, one of them had armor plating in the shape of a car and the other was all fleshy. Pretty obvious who will win that one.

Try and keep a level head and your eyes out for, well, everything and you won't get into most of these situations.

These kinds of stories, regardless of how a journalist reports only adds fuel to a slow-burning fire.

I ride my bike about 75% of the time and I use the Burnside/Sandy/12th interchange most of the time. It is nuts for both bikes and cars. With that in mind, I take it nice and slow on the sidewalks. Where it is 100% legal. (As I am not in downtown).

Maybe it helps that I ride with the assumption that not a single driver can see me. When I drive, I do so assuming bikers won't follow word one of the law.

So for so good.

The inclusion of the type of bike the cyclist was riding probably has little to do with an agenda on the part of the Oregonian and much more to do with a news writer regurgitating information from the police report.

Why is the victim's girlfriend's dad cited as a credible source? He's going on second hand information from a witness.
Secondly - don't reach in to people's cars. I don't like people getting hurt, but pulling a stunt like that is begging for trouble.

Devil's advocate: read the last half of the sentence before the fixie line. Maybe the implication, poorly written, is that "his shoes were previously torn up because he was riding a fixie... and since they were already thrashed, injuries were more likely to occur."

Side bar: they're both idiots. Road rage driver for obvious reasons, and fixie dude for leaning into car, shouting at him. Once his feet heal, throw both into the Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves.

What if two men enter and three men leave?

While it sounds like the bike rider was antagonizing, there is absolutely no excuse for using a car to drag someone down the road. Unless the driver had credible fear for his life (for example the bike rider was trying to assault him with a deadly weapon when he leaned in the window), then I think the law should find and fall on this guy hard. What they did amounts to torture and was potentially fatal. If the bike rider did actually assault him then I think the law should fall on them both hard.

@Matt Davis: I believe you're mistaken about the clear cut illegality of fixies with no brakes. The current standing precedent is that it is decided on a case by case basis, and the one ruling against a fixie rider with no brakes is still under appeal.

That said, I personally think it makes more sense to have a front brake. But I also think it's stupid to ride a mountain bike down the sidewalk to commute yet innumerable folks do that.

the cyclist sounds like another dumb hipster fuck looking for a fight, and the driver sounds like a drunk asshole that was not going to take his shit. if you ride a bike in the streets, figure on watching out for yourself, assume that people do not see you and will be rude. oh, and don't reach into the car of another person to act tough. that was fucking stupid.

Wait... the bike had no gears? How the fuck did he power the bicycle then? Did he have some sort of drive shaft mechanism or something?

Stupid fucking reporters not knowing anything about anything. Fixed gear bicycles have gears. I don't think people actually know what a gear is anymore. A fixed gear bike has two gears. A 10-speed bike has seven gears. A 27-speed bike has 12 gears. People are fucking retarded.

A front brake is better than a rear brake? LOL. Did you start riding a bicycle yesterday, or have your grown up front teeth not come in yet?

Lean into my car window and I'll drag your ass a lot farther than 150 feet!!!

Does anyone remember the movie Goonies?
When Brand gets dragged by that jerk Troy Walsh?

ANDYYYY!!! YOU GOOOONNIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

goonies never say die

@matt: the "no-brakes" law is usually secondary to more hrsh offenses like running red lights.

@D, Do you actually know anything about bicycles? Or are you just an internet blowhard?

The front brake provides approximately 70% of your stopping power when applying both front and rear brakes. By using simple math we can deduce that the front brake is twice as powerful as the rear brake at stopping the bicycle.

http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html

Learn some shit about the topic at hand before running your mouth. God, all you people who just want to use one or two leters for your name are all equally stupid it seems like.

"God, all you people who just want to use one or two leters [sic] for your name are all equally stupid it seems like."

That's harsh. I'm just lazy.

D, just a front brake on a fixed gear is far safer and more effective on a fixed-gear bike than just a rear brake. Just because kids are dumb and tend to flip over their bars before they learn how to break properly doesn't mean the front brake is the tool of the devil.

(god, i should refresh more)

(in before someone pointing out that I wrote something about "breaking" in a tarck bike thread)

Guess I flipped over the handlebars a few too many times, always preferred the back. No offense.

Well D, you don't know much about bikes, but you sure know how to backpedal.

"Fixed gear bicycles have gears. I don't think people actually know what a gear is anymore. A fixed gear bike has two gears. "

Hee hee! I think you meant to say "sprocket" and not "gear." A fixed gear bike has two SPROCKETS. These two sprockets equate to a single speed bicycle, thus the bicycle has ONE gear.

"I also think it's stupid to ride a mountain bike down the sidewalk to commute yet innumerable folks do that."

Except for me, who rides a mtn bike because my rode bike was stolen, you fuck.

@GLV I think it was more about riding on the sidewalks rather than the mtn biek part.

Cam, chainrings and sprockets are both gears. These two gears on a fixie make a single gear-ratio.

@Cam I think we're getting pedantic on the difference between gears and sprockets. Let's just agree that the bicycle definately wasn't gearless.

@gorillamonsoon

snark award of the day

Wouldn't reaching into a vehicle constitute assault whether you are on foot, bike or in another car?

Sorta, yeah. Gears mesh with other gears, sprockets interface with chains. I probably am pedantic (but I'm certainly not alone in that regard).

I don't think it matters what kind of bicycle was ridden by anyone involved, nor whether the motorist drives an economy car or an SUV. I think what's really relevant includes the actions of the involved parties. Because we don't know the facts, much of this discussion is conjecture and opinion anyway. And it became pedantic well before I arrived.

Cheers -

Cam