Close Encounters Of The Mercedes Kind

For 40 years, Paul Greenberg has been a serious cyclist. He rides about 5,000 miles a year, and is an avid racer.

For 12 years he’s commuted to work by bicycle, from his home near the beach. First he rode to Greenwich. Now it’s a bit shorter: Stamford.

Fly6He takes a shortcut through the train station, to East Norwalk. Paul rides with a very bright headlight, designed for night mountain biking, plus a bright rear light. He wears reflective clothing.

Recently, he added a Fly6 rear-mount bicycle camera. Over the past few years, drivers have become much more aggressive. He figures if there’s a hit-and-run from the rear, at least there will be video of the incident (and licence plate information).

On Wednesday around 6:30 a.m., he was biking to work through the station’s eastbound parking lot. He slowed down approaching the intersection, where many commuters make a wide left turn without looking from beyond the railroad bridge.

A woman in a Mercedes barreled eastbound on Saugatuck Avenue, cutting across the road to get to the lot entrance (below).

Paul Greenberg screenshot

Paul  jerked his bike left as he saw her. Commuters walking from their cars shook their heads in disbelief as she blasted by.

Paul assumed she would stop and apologize. But she just plowed ahead, as if  nothing had happened.

Only when he pedaled to her car and talked with her did she become apologetic.

Sort of.

Here’s Paul’s video of his near-miss. It’s titled: “Was She Sorry She Almost Hit Me, Or Sorry I Caught Her?”

Sorry. That’s a rhetorical question.


54 responses to “Close Encounters Of The Mercedes Kind

  1. I just moved to Westport and am thrilled to be part of this vibrant community–EXCEPT as a pedestrian. I think it’s absolutely appalling how aggressively people drive here, which is saying a lot since I moved here from NYC and have certainly had a great deal of experience with poor drivers. Perhaps the drivers don’t care about me and my life… they should contemplate how a life in jail would feel for themselves and their families.

    • Someone please explain why the equivalent of the FLY6 camera isn’t mandatory on every automotive vehicle in the US, front and rear. It would eliminate a great deal of controversy over the cause of auto accidents, the cost of auto insurance and could decrease the number of lawsuits. Other countries mandate the auto-cameras. Where is Elizabeth Dole when you need her? (she is the DOT person responsible for the high-mounted brake-light on your rear windshield c1983).

  2. Paul should keep in mind that this kind of audio recording, without the consent of all parties in the conversation, is illegal under Connecticut law. He doesn’t need permission for the video, but he does for the audio.

  3. While it might be “illegal,” it may save his life.
    And, because the video recording is not illegal, perhaps it might have been appropriate for Paul to have included her license plate as part of the recording.

  4. “Holy sh&(*&(*t” is right. Paul is fortunate to have survived that episode. Entitled driving is absolutely a crime, it’s friggin dangerous. Too bad Paul recording this event is what is considered the crime. Entitled and asleep driving and behaviors are in everywhere — a US disease — not just Westport. We have latte sippin, Mercedes/BMW mamas (and papas) driving — flooring it all over our metro area as well. I’m totally over it. Take some meds or something.

    The other day one of those entitled latte sippin mamas was playing “soccer” on my gym floor with her son and a medicine ball — hello — metal inside the ball while I was innocently on a mat way in a corner listening to music doing my customary 10 minutes of abs. She kicks the ball, it hits me in the head, stuns me, almost knocks me out — I felt in shock, quite ill — she said in her oh so droll valley girl talk “oh sorry – hope you’re ok.” She then continues on her way kicking the ball and begins her stretch 10 feet from me – I mean what’s more important than her getting her stretch in — right? When I could compose myself, I got up, quite dizzy I might add and told her exactly what was wrong with what happened and reported it to gym who then asked her to leave the gym with her son for the day. It’s outrageous the lack of conscience you hear in their voices — like you being in their way is somehow the problem. That’s exactly what I heard in the voice of the woman Paul talked to. We’ve got to wake up to what’s going on and start treating each other with dignity and respect. Rant! I realize.

  5. Contrary to the previous information regarding recording the audio, Connecticut does not prohibit the recording of a conversation if one party agrees. This does not apply to phone calls. See Connecticut law below:

    Summary of statute(s): Connecticut
    requires at least one party’s consent to record
    an in-person conversation, and the consent
    of all parties to a telephonic conversation.
    The state’s voyeurism law prohibits taking
    visual images of another person without that
    person’s consent or knowledge when there is
    an expectation of privacy.
    In-person conversations: A person not
    present at a conversation must obtain the
    consent of at least one participant before
    any recording can take place under the
    state’s eavesdropping law. Conn. Gen. Stat.
    §§ 53a-187, -89.
    Electronic communications: It is illegal
    to record a telephone conversation in Connecticut
    without the consent of all parties to
    the call. Consent should be given prior to
    the recording, and should either be in writing
    or recorded verbally, or a warning that
    the conversation is being taped should be
    recorded. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d.
    Hidden cameras: The state’s voyeurism
    law prohibits knowingly photographing,
    filming or recording in any way another
    person’s image without consent in situations
    where the person is unaware of the filming,
    not in plain view and has a reasonable
    expectation of privacy. Conn. Gen. Stat. §
    Criminal penalties: Violation of the
    state’s eavesdropping and voyeurism laws, as
    well as the dissemination of images in violation
    of the law, are all felonies punishable by
    imprisonment for one to five years. Conn.
    Gen. Stat. § 53a-35a.
    Civil suits: Recording a telephone conversation
    without the consent of all parties
    subjects an individual to liability for damages,
    as well as litigation costs and attorney
    fees. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(c).
    Disclosing recordings: Connecticut
    prohibits disseminating recorded images
    of another person in violation of the state’s
    voyeurism law. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189b

  6. January Stewart

    Awful. She didn’t even stop. Not a lawyer, but he’s not recording a phone call. He’s shooting video in a public space. That’s legal. Same as if he was recording video with a cell phone. Video and the accompanying audio in public areas is not illegal. Phone calls are different.

  7. Sharon Paulsen

    WOW WOW and WOW!
    Boy, installing that vid cam was a really good idea. I’m still reeling from watching this. Imagine if there was a front mounted cam too?

  8. I understand the aggressive drivers in this area however the bikers are just as much to blame. Bikers want to be part of the road however they don’t stop at stop signs and often times are oblivious to the fact that there are some roads that are frankly just too dangerous to bike on. Paul did not even look like he was attempting to stop at this stop sign, at an intersection!. Now the Mercedes is also at fault here as well. If you want to be part of the road as a biker, you can’t blatantly ignore stop signs.

    • Paul Greenberg

      Actually it was before the stop sign. Notice I was coasting to stop sign. And I do stop there. Happy to send you the video to prove it.

    • I am always fascinated by how any discussion of how a cyclist was almost killed by a driver always brings out one or more people who blame the cyclist. Sorry, Mr. Brennan, but your bias is showing. Mr. Greenburg was clearly slowing to a stop, and no sane cyclist would ever take that turn without a stop, as the sightlines in both directions are extremely poor and traffic there moves swiftly.

      Yes, some cyclists sometimes don’t stop at stop signs. The same is true of a lot of drivers, by the way. Sit at the intersection of Kings Highway and Old Hill Road, and count the percentage of cars that don’t bother to stop at the stop sign in front of the cemetery on Kings Highway. None of that excuses the driver’s behaviour here.

      Mr. Greenburg was within his rights, operating safely and legally. The driver was reckless and broke the law, cutting across an intersection at a dangerous speed without proper sight of traffic. This is not ambiguous, not the cyclist’s fault, and squarely a dangerous act by a reckless driver. Blaming the cyclist is absurd.

      • So the cyclist is never at fault in your eyes? A woman was just killed by a cyclist in New York City who instead of stopping, proceeded to run her over and she was pornounced brain dead at the hospital and later passed away. She was from Fairfield. Now just like there are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists. I’m sorry, but riding your bike in the middle of Beachside Avenue on a Saturday or Sunday morning has risks and bikers and drivers together need to be more careful, it’s not just one or the other. Again, a road can be shared but it’s just job of the cyclist to obey the rules that drivers obey every day.

        • I did not say the cyclist is never at fault, and that is a misreading of my comments.

          In this instance, Mr. Greenberg is blameless, yet you accuse him. Some cyclists are reckless. Likewise many drivers. Mr. Greenberg was not reckless here, yet your first reaction to this situation was to say that cyclists are “just as much to blame,” a statement which is clearly untrue in this particular situation. You say the driver is “also at fault.” Well, in this case, no. The driver is 100% at fault in this one, and the cyclist is not at fault. I take no issue with the fact that some cyclists are as reckless as some drivers. It is obviously true. I take issue with your rush to blame a cyclist in a case where the cyclist is blameless.

          I don’t deny the risks of riding on roads, I just don’t want them exacerbated by carelessness, whether that of drivers or cyclists.

          • I can’t put 100 percent blame on the driver when all I see is a view from the back of the biker and not what actually happened. Could very easily be an overreaction.

            • Oh geez, give it up man. It’s very clear from the video what happened and who caused the incident. The driver.

  9. A similar experience happened to me. I was biking through Longshore right before the stop sign by the tennis courts when a blue Corvette just flew through the stop sign doing about 40. Had I not slammed my brakes, I would have been road pizza. I biked up to the guy and he said he did not see me. I said never mind that, do you always do 40 through a stop sign? Is your tennis match that important.

  10. Crazy drivers are everywhere, so no amount of reflective gear will save a bicyclist’s life. Of course, biking around the clock, in all weather, is a choice.

    Create bike lanes. Or, take the bus.

    • And by Ms. Hunter’s logic, women who wear short skirts make a choice, so can’t blame the rapist if they suffer for that choice. Sloppy thinking, Ms. Hunter. The cyclist is not at fault here. Not by a long shot.

      • Mr Bruce: yours is a shameful, completely off-base comment that is totally out of line with Ms. Hunter’s observation that the drivers are a well-known problem, which cyclists ignore at their peril. You owe her an apology; she isn’t blaming the cyclist. – Chris Woods

        • Sorry, she is blaming the cyclist. She is saying that riding is a choice and if we die it’s our fault. I owe no apology and will give none.

      • Mr. Bruce, I completely reject your illogical and crude analogy.
        How dare you imply that I would ever blame a victim.

        • Welcome to the Internet, Nancy, where even reasonable people become asshats.

          Mr. Bruce, who is obviously a mega-experienced cyclist, completely agrees with your assessment of the cycling environment and actually lives the choices you outline, yet makes a crudely illogical comment anyway.

          He claims that 1 of 5 drivers is a danger to cyclists and that drivers normally don’t cognitively recognize cars. Hence he chooses to ride primarily in the middle of the night and to avoid the very location that is the subject of this post. Seems that you are correct in your analysis and that he agrees with you….

          Another interesting point is that with all Chris Grimm’s experience he himself doesn’t realize that there is a “two-abreast” law in CT that allows cyclists to ride double file for safety reasons (so they prevent cars from passing when they shouldn’t). I can’t tell you how pissed off that made me, even as a rider myself, until I learned that was the law!

          You just can’t win on Internet forums….

          • No worries, Chris. I’ve been in and out of this forum for a long time.
            I used to take certain comments to heart, found myself using equal sarcasm. Not good.
            Now, thanks to advice from my old Westport friends, I treat it mainly as entertainment (with Churchill quotes on the back burner, just in case!).

            • Sorry, Ms. Hunter. All I did was take your logic and apply it to another situation to show how flawed it is. You say that cycling is a choice. Fair enough. You add that if a cyclist took the bus, he would not stand a chance of being hit by a car. That is exactly the same logic that says if a woman wasn’t in a bad place, she would not have been attacked. Same logic, different situation. Flawed logic in both cases. I harbour no ill will toward you, I merely reject your flawed logic.

              • You’ve been thinking too hard, Mr. Bruce.
                Enjoy your weekend. Watch for traffic.

                • These internets are a funny place!

                  Here super-experienced Ian supplies his own math and behavioral analysis to support Nancy’s observation that many drivers are a danger and agrees with Nancy’s logic that it’s best to avoid risky situations (to the extent that he gets up at 3:30 AM to avoid them) yet blindly argues with her anyway.

                  And other people can watch a video of a car spearing across a double yellow line at a right angle and claim they don’t see any problem.

                  Doesn’t matter whether it’s Railroad Place or the Information Superhighway, people just don’t want to see where the other person is coming from.

  11. Scary drivers abound. Behind a jeep that was meandering in and out of the northbound side of Compo Road North early last night, my daughter and I watched in horror as the vehicle veered from over the double yellow line to the far side, all but hitting a pedestrian who was making his way along the side of the road. We stopped to tell the walker how close he’d come to being hit and to let him know that his dark clothing made him difficult to see. We then followed the persistently meandering jeep. And called the Westport police. They only had one officer available to help — who was not close enough to follow — and once I crossed the Weston line out past Lyons Plain Road, the impaired driver’s fate was turned over to the Weston police. I hope this frightening event was a one-time occurrence for that driver; that home was reached safely; and no one died! Should I have followed that driver home or wherever the end of the road was? I wonder.

  12. karen Howes Westport youth comm.

    Despite legal vs illegal, let’s look at behavior…it’s part entitlement and part in a hurry and always busy..the driving in this town is way too fast, aggressive, and not focused…when people are rushed, overscheduled kids, multi tasking and cluttered mind, this kind of driving about less scheduling, breath more and slow down…♥

    • That’s a fair answer on the surface and don’t totally disagree but somehow that reasoning excuses the behaviors. The rushing around smartly, thinking your schedule trumps everyone else’s is a societal ill of burgeoning narcissism in our world. My texts, my fb posts, my kids, my schedule, etc are far more important and wonderful than yours. That’s underlying all of the frantic energy — trying to keep up and surpass. We need another Mr. Rogers (as corny as he was to some people I realize but my daughter watched him faithfully growing up) to appear for our kids and young parents– he emphasized all are your neighbor– all individuals are valued and of equal importance for their various roles in society. Those days are slipping away sadly and the dinner table isn’t teaching our kids these values either. Gotta start somewhere and Dan’s blog seems to be a place where this discussion is taking place if not sometimes painfully – you know “where Westport meets the world.” Westport will always meet my world as that’s where my world basically started.

  13. The difference between entitled and criminal is the type of car!?

  14. We have an amazing shirking of responsibility and what the h…. Downplaying of other people’s being harmed by something we did. This video made me I think I would whether I was on the bike or in the car. Believable.. Not unbelievable.

  15. Sadly things like this happen often on the road. People just seem to have forgotten that driving a car is a potentially lethal responsibility.

  16. Back in my running/jogging days I was almost taken out by a real estate agent pulling into her office driveway at the former “glynn’s” post road and I was on the sidewalk. She had the audacity to tell me the roads belonged to cars… I asked if that was her marketing mantra to home buyers…

  17. Paul – Thank you for sharing this and Dan thank you for creating the forum for it to be shared. I am hopeful that one of the effects of ubiquitous video (in public space) is that it will turn the tide of personal accountability in our community and ones like it around the country. The cultural value of ‘doing the right thing, even when no one is looking’ has for the most part been expunged from our society. Perhaps this form of spotlight will force it to return, albeit because of a different motivation. Thanks Paul and Dan.

  18. I used to ride a bike a lot around here. Then one day I came home with my umpteenth example of bad driving and realized that the next time I went out, there was a reasonable chance the I would encounter another life threatening situation and I could chase down the particular driver and curse, bang on their car or try to educate them….or I could realize that getting angry at one person was vastly inferior to than accepting an environmental, systemic problem. I mostly stopped riding outdoors. (As a friend states, “Riding in a helicopter is an intelligence test.”…”You can’t complain about the weather if you move to Seattle.”)

    Paul Greenberg is one of the most experienced and talented athletes in the area, but all the care and videos are as effective at changing the environment as shaming double-parkers or complaining about the people that don’t pick up after their dogs. Remember the banner across Main Street asking people to drive more respectfully? How did that work out?

    In the big picture, thinking the world is different than it is causes the worriers more problems than the culprits. Until society wants to change the overall attitude, we are just ruining our own health (often dramatically) by not recognizing “how the world works”.

    Westport could significantly improve biking safety in two weeks by simply stationing a policeperson at any intersection on the Post Road and giving tickets for running a red light, texting or talking on a cell phone. We just don’t want to.

  19. I start my weekday rides at 3:45 a.m. in part because there are almost no drivers out at that hour. And I avoid train stations on weekdays, because too many drivers there only care about making the train. But not every cyclist has that flexibility.

    After nearly 80,000 miles of observation from my saddle over the last decade, I have concluded that drivers’ perceptions are binary. At intersections, they only perceive two conditions: “car coming” or “no car coming.” A cyclist, motorcyclist, runner, or pedestrian is perceived as “no car coming.” Drivers will look me in the eye and proceed through the intersection, with absolutely no awareness that I am there. It is terrifying. (This, btw, is why many motorcyclists say, quite correctly, that “loud pipes save lives.”)

    But the drivers here are in the wrong, plain and simple. We cyclists have to ride defensively, and it looks like Mr. Greenberg does. Most drivers are good enough, but too many, maybe 15% or so, are inattentive, distracted, or unfocused. And another 5% are downright hostile. There’s plenty of room on the roads for all of us if people pay attention and co-operate.

    Mr. “cwdz” above (probably not his real name, I’m guessing) is correct that more enforcement would bring some change, but the town has chosen not to allocate its resources to this.

    Drivers need to remember that while they are cocooned in a ton or two of steel, surrounded by countless inflatable safety devices, I am riding a vehicle that weighs less than two gallons of milk, and am protected only by a small piece of plastic on my head. I am more nimble, and I can stop faster, which are good things for my safety. But drivers who are unpredictable, inattentive, reckless, are a threat to everyone. At the end of the day, the responsibility for changing this rests with drivers.

  20. Iain’s posts (especially the last one) 100% nail the issue.

    I used to be a very active cyclist – and my first job out of college was with the League of American Bicyclists (née Wheelmen), a leading bicyclist advocacy organization. I feel as if I know of what I speak.

    The same obliviousness and self-absorption that leads to the parking craziness that we see on here, is reflected in the driving, too. (“Affluenza.”) The texting while driving, the driving through stop signs, the driving through red lights – I live close to the Post/Maple intersection, and the WPD is often parked there waiting for speeders – why can’t they pull the many people using their held devices or pull those turning left through the red arrow to get on to South Maple? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. You could fill monthly ticket quota in a day, and address problems far more dangerous than speeding.

    The mindset (giving the presumption that these self-absorbed people are actually thinking about anything other than themselves) is that a car is bigger than a bike, so a bike will stop. That is not the law.

    And the blame-the-cyclist defensiveness, after having an actual tape of the incident is remarkably dunder-headed. And I don’t many cyclists who don’t drive – so they are paying their fair share of gas taxes that maintain the roads that they use.

    THAT SAID, the awful habits of so many cyclists contribute to an us-vs.-them attitude in drivers that have a self-centered attitude to begin with (some of which we see here). Cycling behavior seems to have gotten worse in the last twenty years, and I worry that it has inflamed an “I’m not giving that bike any space” attitude. My main gripes being cyclists who don’t stop at stop signs, those who pass on the right in traffic (at signs and lights, requiring a re-passing once cars start moving again) and double-file riding where it is not appropriate (Greens Farms Road being a perfect example – where there is a lot of car traffic but turns and hills create bad site lines for passing).

  21. How can we call that a tape of the incident? The 2 dollar camera shows absolutely nothing except a biker not intending on stopping at an intersection.

  22. The power of video to effect a change in behavior is daunting. Its presence in our daily lives is a complete game changer. If you doubt it, give Roger Goodell a call.

  23. Video shows me nothing. Shows me nothing but a questionable stop by the cyclist and an angry biker chasing a car. Other than that, can’t really conclude anything.

    Ray Rice on the other hand, that’s a different story.

    • Paul Greenberg

      @Ryan Please watch the video more carefully. The sound you heard was coasting. I do not need much room to stop as I have good brakes and plenty of skill to stop in minimal distance. I have gone through that intersection on a bike at least 1000 times in the past years. I am quite aware of the aggressive driver behavior at commuter time and plan accordingly.

      If I had blown through the stop, you would have seen the white stop line on the road and the stop sign on the left of the picture when I was heading west. In fact, you do not even see the second set of directional arrows just before the stop line. Notice that only when I turned into the lot, do you see the white line and the stop sign, both of which were to the left of my bike by quite a distance (which means that I never got to the stop sign before the incident).

      For a bit more detail, as I saw the car encroaching into the lane, I swerved left as I assumed that I was about to be hit and much preferred taking a side swipe than a head-on. I did not use brakes at that instant as any cyclist or skilled driver would tell you that heavy braking reduces maneuverability. I needed to re-position myself quickly, not be motionless. I did stop quickly afterwards (before the stop sign), as you could see in the video.

      You may argue that I was going to go through the stop sign without stopping. You may also argue that the world is flat. Neither statement is accurate.

      If this does not make sense, I am happy to meet you at said intersection with my commuter bike for a personal demonstration.

      Ryan, there are plenty of lousy cyclists and plenty of lousy drivers out there. The problem is that in car x bicycle situations, the cyclist always loses.

      BTW, where is your source for $2 HD cameras with sound? I will put in an order for a gross and distribute to fellow cyclists 😉

      Best Regards,


      • I totally agree. “The problem is that in car x bicycle situations, the cyclist always loses”.
        So why do you choose to put yourself in that situation?

        • Paul Greenberg


          because without risk there is no reward and life would be quite dull.

          I guess since person x car, the person always loses means that I should not go outside. I guess hiking is out since bear x person… I guess truck x car means I should not drive a car, I guess terrorist x innocent bystander means I should stay away from mass transit and crowded areas, etc. Where does it end?

          Cowering under the covers hiding from the world is just not my style…..

          I am not polyannish about the risks. I have been riding too long for that.

          • Glad that you are okay, and that we’ve all learned a thing or two from this.

            p.s. what about bike lanes?

            • Paul Greenberg

              I would LOVE bike lanes. Unfortunately, I am just not sure how compatible they would be with a narrow curving road layout that probably originated as paved cow paths! Interestingly enough, Ferry Lane and Saugatuck Ave. are part of the East Coast Greenway bike route.

            • Nancy,

              Paul’s brother here. I was going to write a long treatise about my time living in the Netherlands, where bike lanes are everywhere, but it occurred to me that the reason they’re successful is cultural rather than the physical separation they create. To demonstrate, let’s consider an example closer to home:

              Consider pedestrians. We have reserved spaces for their safety among the cars, called crosswalks. How well do those work? Do you stop your car for every crosswalk? Do you look before you walk into one? Do you follow the different rules for regulated and unregulated cross walks in either case?

              The fact that it’s against the law to drive through an occupied crosswalk is irrelevant. Further, the fact that the space is designated a crosswalk is somewhat irrelevant as well. What matters is the culture… the respect for the other people… and the presence while driving to see the other people.

              The same is true for cyclists. Even if there were bikeways, they’d still have to cross roads. And then what matters is culture. In a culture of self-important, distracted, entitled operators of automobiles, the bikeway is irrelevant unless, like in the Netherlands, we’re willing to install and obey a full, separate set of traffic signals for the bikes. (Yes, there are separate bike traffic lights.)

              By the way, in the Netherlands, right of way is the inverse of the US. It’s more similar to boating (which is not a surprise): the bigger, less maneuverable vehicle has precedence over the smaller, more maneuverable one. People yield to bikes yield to cars… and no one ever messes with the tram!

              • Yes Dan, I agree completely.
                I happen to live in western Canada, in a city where bike lanes were introduced just a few years ago, and where “share the road” signs dot municipal streets. The climate here is quite conducive to biking, whether to work or for recreation, as in many parts of Europe.
                Here, though, there are no separate bike traffic lights as that idea would seem silly (heck, we don’t even jaywalk!).
                Sure, our bike lanes have sparked controversy: from taxpayers who don’t want to foot the bill, or from people who claim they create added traffic.
                But on the whole, they are welcomed, well used, and safer than not having them at all.
                Yes indeed, this is a cultural matter.

                I’m sorry about your brother’s bad experience. I just thought I’d throw in the ideas of bike lanes and bus bike racks.

  24. Question: Are Westport/Fairfield County buses equipped with bike racks?
    A great solution in order to avoid dangerous, difficult, or long excursions.

  25. Doesn’t anyone know who this woman is? Can’t she be arrested, using this video as evidence? Assuming she’s a regular commuter, she wouldn’t be difficult to find.

    Let’s quit fighting over whether or not bikers or drivers are more at fault, Let’s find this particular driver and have her face the consequences of her actions.

  26. As someone who rode competitively in Europe and the United States – and who has been hit by, and hit, nearly everything conceivable, I find the distracted/careless/aggressive driver issue is, in many ways, worse than ever. As Chris pointed out, quite correctly, it hardly helps that many cyclists behave differently on their bikes than (I hope) they do when driving their cars. I wish they could be made to understand how unhelpful that is. Also, an odd (and mostly useless) observation: I’ve noticed over the years that riding a tandem bicycle makes a material difference with drivers. Perhaps it’s the novelty factor or maybe it’s the just that two peeps on one bike makes more of a visual impression.

  27. There is no excuse for this woman’s driving – or reaction. Worse are the cyclist bashers. You have to be kidding: this person is clearly riding carefully and within the laws all vehicles have to observe. To support this self-important “entitled” b!t@h is silly. Wake up, grow up and share the road.

  28. What amazes me, assuming she actually reads 06880, is that she had a forum to apologize and share the error of her ways. She seems to have parked in a permit area so she has been here a while. It seems she was just embarrassed that she was caught and not truly remorseful. Just let’s be glad she did not hit Paul and good for him confronting the situation and handling it the way he did!