Home › News › Colleen Cason
Cason Point: County cyclist is victim of a hit and rant
David K. Yamamoto / Special to The Star Tom Wilbur stands at Erringer Road and Royal Avenue in Simi Valley, where he was hit by a pickup truck. The driver, instead of helping, yelled at Wilbur.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Colleen CasonPerhaps this holiday season you've heard that hopeful ditty that proclaims, "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me."
But on a really mean street of Simi Valley, the only peace a seriously injured bicyclist received was a piece of a driver's mind.
Tom Wilber of Simi Valley was the victim of a hit and rant.
Essentially, his fate gives new meaning to the adding of insult to injury.
First, I confess I have been known to see red at the sight of green fluorescent spandex through my windshield.
While I acknowledge the vehicle code dictates motorists share the road with cyclists, I do so with the same joy and enthusiasm I reserve for flu shots and contact dermatitis.
Bike riders invariably throw off the rhythm of the traffic. No matter how much cycling enthusiasts and government officials try to convince me otherwise, I know four-wheeled vehicles rippling with piston power and people-propelled two-wheelers are not compatible on our congested arteries.
There isn't enough titanium, foam or reflector tape at the local cycling shop to even out that difference. In the case of vehicle versus cycle, cycle always loses. Thirty-two bicyclists were killed in collisions with vehicles in Ventura County from January 2000 through November 2006, according to California Highway Patrol figures. Zero is the number of drivers who died in those crashes.
My aversion to road-sharing, I suspect, stems from the fear I likely share with millions of drivers — one day we accidentally will hit a cyclist and have to deal with the guilt as well as the legal and financial consequences.
But then there is another variety of driver, the kind Wilber encountered, who apparently is heavy of foot and light of conscience.
Cyclists report this kind of motorist will hurl insults and even the contents of a Big Gulp at them. One even told me she had a melon thrown at her.
Many cyclists believe it's not a matter of if but when they will be hit by a car. That worry is not all in their helmet-coated heads, either.
The number of cyclists hurt in crashes with cars has risen 25 percent in the past four years.
Wilber's number came up around nightfall on Dec. 5, while commuting home from his job at a Simi Valley company that makes lab equipment.
According to his account, he was wearing a helmet and a reflective vest; his bike was lit up like a pinball machine.
As he rode south on Erringer Road, approaching Royal Avenue, he suddenly sensed a vehicle bearing down on him from behind.
He suspects the driver of the pickup had made an abrupt lane change that put the passenger side of his truck on a trajectory to hit Wilber.
Wilber tried to steer out of the path of the dark brown or maroon vehicle and ended up in a heap on the street. He later discovered a bruise on his left arm that could be the result of contact with the truck's side-view mirror.
Dazed and in pain, he somehow managed to drag his crumpled self out of oncoming traffic.
As he gasped for breath, this husband and father of three wondered if the hugs he had given his family that morning would be his last.
About that time, two men showed up. Wilber thought they were there to render aid. With help like theirs, you don't need hindrance.
It became apparent from his level of anger and profanity that one of the men was the driver of the pickup.
In his 40s with light brown hair fashioned in a comb-over, he accused Wilber of faking his injury. He said he worked all day and didn't need this stuff. Stuff is the family-friendly word for what was said.
The other man, presumably the passenger, encouraged the driver to give Wilber his name and contact information.
That never happened. So Wilber waved his arms to catch the attention of a passing motorist. Eventually, a car did stop, and the passenger apparently phoned 911.
Soon he heard sirens indicating paramedics were responding. The driver by this point had vanished. Wilber has only the faintest recollection that his license plate contained the numbers 738.
There is a good Samaritan in this saga. A scruffy man of about 50 approached Wilber, who recognized him as the neighborhood homeless guy.
The man found Wilber's crumpled cell phone and comforted him with the time-honored balm of chitchat until paramedics arrived.
Wilber spent five days in the hospital suffering from a broken rib and punctured lung. During his recovery, he has had time to reflect on the accident.
He understands the driver was acting out from fear. Wilber himself once hit a bicyclist who ran a red light. He certainly never thought of fleeing the scene. And it never occurred to him, he says, to go off on that cyclist, who admitted the accident had been his fault.
He believes the cyclist and the motorist can make peace, if each is willing to give a bit.
"Sharing the road is a matter of trust that will ensure we all get where we need to go safely," he said.
Impatient drivers who view bicyclists as an irritant make matters worse, he said. Likewise, he added, "bicyclists who disregard traffic laws and ride erratically make it difficult for motorists to respect them."
And in an effort to help us all get along, Assemblyman Pedro Nava has introduced a bill that would make what the driver did to Wilber a crime. It would require all motorists to stay 3 feet from cyclists while passing. Nava wrote the bill after Santa Barbara triathlete Kendra Payne was killed by a truck driver on a narrow road.
With many of us gearing up for the changes brought on by global warming, it's easy to imagine more of our green neighbors will trade their sport utility vehicles, minivans and Priuses for bicycles.
This us (motorists) versus them (cyclists) mentality will need to change as commuters seek greener postures.
I guess it's time for an inconvenient truce.
— E-mail this Star columnist at ccason@VenturaCountyStar.
Posted by tsetsaf on December 23, 2007 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a real trend in Simi with cars and bikes. I tend to avoid the roads this time of year and stick to the mountains to avoid holiday revelers.
Hope Wilber gets better soon. May behoove him to hire a PI and track down the vehicle and driver. Seems like a good case of hit and run.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 23, 2007 at 4:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was this really an “accident” or rather intentional vehicular assault? I know from experience bicycling that there is a nazi cager movement against competent vehicular cyclists, and it is outright obvious that such motorists have nothing better to do with their time than to joyride and deliberately harass and intimidate bicyclists — throwing trash at a bicyclist and then making two U-turns in a row in order to pass the bicyclist again with yet more trash to throw. Nazi cagers are even shooting bicyclists with BB guns as a form of hate crime ( http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3... ).
It's time that bicyclists start exercising their First and Second Amendment rights — wit, powerful lights, loud horns, bullhorns, and lastly, if ever necessary, weapons — to scare-away misbehaving cagers. Hauling a 1,000-pound load on a bicycle ( http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-ca... , http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-ca... ) might also be good cager repellent.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 23, 2007 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not as much individual bicyclists who “throw off the rhythm of the traffic” as it is the left-lane-hogging, sidegating, tailgating, rubbernecking motorists who do. Such motorists are effectively engaging in mob action that prevents anyone else from being able to go even slightly slower or faster, hence clogging-up the traffic flow. See http://www.slowertraffickeepright.com/ and http://www.driverightpassleft.com/ .
Based on my own motoring and bicycling experience, any driver should keep optimally a 10-second but at least a 5-second attention span ahead, and at the first sight of a slower or stopped vehicle or bicycle ahead, should promptly prepare to move left, adjusting speed as necessary to allow 5 to 10 seconds both before as well as after overtaking. Do not bother passing in the first place if it would cut-off the bicyclist, such as shortly before making a right turn; instead, wait in single file behind the bicyclist at a safe distance that does not intimidate or aggravate the bicyclist.
Finally, a motorist will much less likely deliberately slam his or her own face than passenger sideview mirror into a bicyclist. A motorist is more likely to get out of the way of a bicyclist who is visible rather than not visible directly through the motorist's windshield on the driver's side. Therefore, bicycling big, tall, assertively, with left arm and finger(s) out in front of a threatening same-direction motorist from behind — as opposed to cowering in the gutter — is the most effective way to get the motorist to move left out of the way as much as possible before overtaking. (It might make the motorist “bark” with the sound of a horn, but the motorists who bark the longest and loudest are oftentimes not the ones who will imminently “bite” — after all, the horn signifies that the motorist *does* “see” the bicyclist!) Swing the bicycle back somewhat to the right at the last second or two before the overtaking, but be ready to swing left quickly again if the motorist does a cut-off maneuver and brakes hard (e.g., for a right turn) immediately after passing.
Posted by jill on December 23, 2007 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've seen many cyclists that go beyond following the rules of the road, going through red lights, straddling the line between the bike lane and traffic lane. They also need to be considerate of traffic. If they're going to be in the traffic lane, they need to keep up their speed.
Posted by rich on December 23, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember:
Cyclist and pedestrians always have the right away. Colleen's "Bike riders invariably throw off the rhythm of the traffic" and the "us versus them" attitude is ridiculous! Get out of your climate controlled rolling tin boxes and ride a bike. You'll save gas, stay healthy and hopefully not get taken out by someone's side view mirror.
Kudos to Assemblyman Pedro Nava for recognizing this critical conflict between cyclists and driver. Hopefully his bill will pass for the safety of cyclists and punish these inhumane hit and run drivers. It might even promote bike riding and alleviate some of the obesity issues.
Good luck recovering Tom Wilbur and safe riding (on your BIKE).
Posted by star on December 23, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>>If they're going to be in the traffic lane, they need to keep up their speed.
Oh? How about a cement truck going up a hill?
How about me? Driving past Buena High School on Victoria, the speed limit is 25 when students are present. Even with hundreds of kids on the corners, in the crosswalks, traffic goes twice that. Am I obligated to drive 40 - 50 mph and keep up with traffic?
We have maximum speed limits, not minimums. Bikes are vehicles. Annoying vehicles, yes. But the streets are there for them, too.
Posted by SamQ on December 23, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Motorists have become increasingly aggressive, as is obvious from the statistics quoted in this and other news articles about pedestrians and cyclists being victimized by drivers.
I have watched motorists whiz through crosswalks occupied by children in quiet neighborhoods. This is not the exception any longer but the rule.
This bullying is a sign of the state of our national soul. We have become a people who love torture and inflicting mayhem through national policy and this cruelty is obvious on the road too.
I have begun finally to understand the Old Testament concept of an angry, vengeful God as I pray for Divine Intervention against the bullies who rule our nation and our roads. Smite them Lord!
Posted by smithjc on December 23, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rich, bicyclists and pedestrians do NOT "always" have the right of way. read the vehicle code. it describes just who has the right of way, when and where.
Posted by cassandra on December 23, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bicyclists do not obstruct traffic; we are traffic.
When possible we share a lane with vehicles, I always try unless some #$@% bleep has parked over the parking lane, and I can't, but we are entitled to the entire lane.
Posted by devilangelhawk on December 23, 2007 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well, i have always changed lanes or stradled to give a bicyclist room, just in case something where to happen.
Now a good article for star to right about as well, would be for motorcyclists and how people will close a gap on them while driving. I personally will move into the emergency lane to let them pass...granting there is room and no stopped vehicles.
Everyone has a different preferance in transportation, we are all adults, we should be understanding and able to adjust slightly.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 23, 2007 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vehicle Code Section 21658(a) states: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane...” — of course also applying to bicyclists who have the same rights and duties as vehicle drivers. In other words, a bicycle or vehicle driver is supposed to be clearly, distinctly, assertively within a single lane at any given time, except when legally changing lanes as the remainder of VC 21658(a) dictates.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 23, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/... for the full text of VC 21658.
Posted by funkyjunky65074 on December 24, 2007 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the person who wrote: "Vehicle Code Section 21658(a) states: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane...” — of course also applying to bicyclists who have the same rights and duties as vehicle drivers. In other words, a bicycle or vehicle driver is supposed to be clearly, distinctly, assertively within a single lane at any given time, except when legally changing lanes as the remainder of VC 21658(a) dictates" - Bicyclists do not pay taxes to be able ride their bikes on the road, as car drivers do, so how do they have the same right to the whole lane?
I am all for giving a cyclist space when driving past them, but it really irks me when a cyclist rides down the middle of the road at 30 mph when the speed limit is 45 mph and we all have to "patiently" drive behind them!
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 25, 2007 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
funkyjunky65074 — Who do you think you are — a “wannabe” identity thief, if you think that you know about all the taxes which I pay — as a bicyclist, as well as motorist, owning and driving both a bicycle as well as minivan? Gasoline taxes are supposedly only a tiny fraction of all the tax dollars used to fund road building and maintenance; the state general fund via income, sales, real estate, etc. taxes is the primary funding source for roads. Furthermore, bicycles don't pollute nor tear-up the roads like some motor vehicles do.
Whenever possible and safe, one should *change lanes in order to pass*, as opposed to “‘patiently’ drive behind,” slower traffic, whether it is a bicycle or big-rig semi. When I see a motorist drive patiently behind me on bicycle — without using a turn signal as to justify the slowing-down — when he or she could easily pass safely and promptly simply by moving left, I almost consider it to be stalking. It is an indicator that someone in that vehicle might be getting some trash ready to throw at me.
There's only one particular type of instance when slower traffic is legally required to turn-off the roadway in order to permit faster vehicles to pass, as VC 21656 states ( http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/... ) :
“Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles: On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.”
Posted by ChipSeal on December 26, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr FunkyJunky, according to the DOT, 78% of all highway funds from all sources come from user fees, tolls, fuel taxes, and registration fees. 22% of local and state transportation funds come from property taxes and sales taxes.
A car free cyclist would (by your reasoning) have a greater right to the road, as his contribution to building and maintaining them is way out of line to his wear and tear of the same.
But now that you have brought up taxes and who's paying what- how about all the subsidies that motorists receive? For example: Curb side parking! Why should such prime PUBLIC real estate be set aside for the exclusive use a few motorists? Many a congested street could benefit from a few extra lanes- lanes that would be available to ALL road users.
Do you really want to discuss roadway costs and benefits?
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 27, 2007 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A bicyclist going, say, 30 mph in a lane designed with a maximum safe speed of, say, 45 mph would naturally typically need at least about 30/45 = 2/3 of the width of the lane (the rightmost 1/3 on the bicyclist's right side and the middle 1/3 on the bicyclist's left side) for a safe space margin.
Bicyclists normally attain 30 mph or faster only on downsloped road sections and/or with strong tail winds, oftentimes coasting as opposed to pedaling due to the bicycle's highest gear being maxed-out at these speeds. Motorists seem oftentimes to underestimate bicyclists' speed at relatively high bicycle speeds, especially if coasting.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 27, 2007 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The essays “The Right to Travel by Human Power” at http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/s... and “Cyclists Pay Their Fair Share!” at http://www.stlbikefed.org/Advocacy/Cy... further address legal and statistical arguments for bicyclists' rights to the roads. In particular, the second of these essays states the following:
“According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.
“FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.
“Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs. Bicyclist[s] pay no user fees so the entire 0.2 cents/mile comes from the general tax fund.
“What about motor vehicles? They impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees.
“The difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. So both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue. This is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund.”
Posted by mrd on December 28, 2007 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is disturbing that someone would be so careless with Mr. Wilbur’s life. It is a sad indication of the lack of respect people have for each other. His life is priceless, and it should be treated as such, regardless of his mode of transportation or virtually any other factor.
People drive carelessly and sometimes maliciously. And even worse if a roadie gets killed nothing comes of it, unless the driver is intoxicated. (Read January "Bicycling").
This is why I stick to the dirt. I know, you all have a right to ride on the street. At your funeral your loved ones will mention that fact I am sure. But dead you will be; right and dead. This is not about rights, it is about reality. The reality is everybody drives carelessly. Even the best drivers do dumb stuff behind the wheel. Accidents happen. When it is car on car lawyers make money; when it is car on: pedestrian, bike, motorcycle- lawyers make money and the victims get hurt or killed. Thems the facts.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 30, 2007 at 2:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Speak about falling gullible to the fascist motorist propaganda...
In fact, roads are multiple times safer for bicycling than dirt trails, paths, or sidewalks ( http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil... )! For every life year lost to bicycling crashes, 20 life years are gained from the health benefits of bicycling ( http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepa... ).
Hence, the blanket statement, “Road bicycling is dangerous,” is deceitful. Instead, it should be phrased: “Road bicycling is overall healthy, yet people should not accept letting cager terrorism and negligence win and reverse this trend.”
Posted by mrd on December 31, 2007 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Smolik,
Thanks for the link to "bikexprt". It was quite educational and I stand corrected on the safety of riding on the street!
Dennis
Posted by mrd on December 31, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Smolik,
This data is based on miles/per accident. Since roadies ride more miles than mountain bikers, pedestrians etc., the information may be a bit misleading as to which is more dangerous. In my personal experience it seems that riding on the street is more dangerous. I think a better way to determine the overall safety of riding on the street would be to examine how many accidents per bicyclist occur compared with other activities.
I agree drivers should be more cautious of bicyclists. I think if drivers went for just one ride on the street they would have a whole new respect for bicyclists.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"- Jesus
And I agree that bicycling in general is healthy. I went from 260 lbs to 205 lbs by riding my bike and eating less. I am sure that statistically I am way better off risking injury while riding versus being fat.
Dennis
PS What is "cager terrorism"?
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on January 6, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a fatality risk comparison of various different activities on an exposure time basis shown at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html . It shows bicycling for some amount of activity time to be even a lower fatality risk than passenger car driving for that same amount of activity time.
An additional main reason why road bicycling is safer than bicycling on other facilities is that the great majority of bicycling mishaps do not even involve motor vehicles, instead being simple falls or crashes with stationary obstacles that are more likely on badly-surfaced, narrow, steep, and/or tightly-curving facilities than on roads.
Fortunately, many bicycling falls or crashes can simply be walked- or biked-away-from and do not warrant professional medical attention. I myself have experienced about once every five years a fall or crash involving hand, arm, or leg road rash, bruise, or sprain that has essentially fully healed on its own within two weeks, but I was able to manage completely on my own each time. Only one fall or crash ever involved a motor vehicle — a hit-and-run “right hook,” or cut-off right turn directly in front of me by a same-direction motorist who had just overtaken, over 10 years ago. It involved no more injury than my other falls or crashes. Still, I am now much better at avoiding such collision scenarios through vehicular cycling experience. Bicycling on a sidewalk (crosswalk) or sidepath (crosspath) as opposed to road only increases the risk of this “right hook” scenario.
I myself have also lost a significant amount of weight through bicycling, from a peak of 325+ pounds in 2001 at age 24 to about 235 pounds during recent months at age 30, at a height of 6'2". (Vitamin and herbal supplements, and plenty of sleep, have also been essential components of my weight loss; my eating habits of typically two full square meals per day without snacking are not noticeably any different than before.) I have always done occasional amounts of utility and recreational bicycling even before 2001, but since then I began regularly bicycling 10 miles (50 minutes) per day until 2004, 20 miles (1.75 hour) per day until 2007, and 25 miles (2 hours) per day for the past year.
The definition and an example usage of the slang word “cager” is at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define... :
“a popular word among motorcyclists and bicyclists for four wheeled motor vehicle drivers. The term is often used in a derogative sense, because the car body effectively forms a cage, isolating the said driver from having to interact with other road users.
“The term was coined by motorcyclists.
“‘Some ignorant cager nearly hit me while I was biking. Idiot obviously wants a U-lock to the face.’”
I'm sure that the term's invention would also be a reference to where wild zoo animals reside, analogizing encapsulated four-wheeled motorists to such creatures.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on January 6, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By cager “terrorism,” I am referring to the deliberate, intentional assaults by motorists upon bicyclists as apparent hate crimes towards bicyclists as a group, such as the BB gun shootings, trash and bottles thrown, or vehicular assaults that are framed as so-called “accidents.” (See my original comment post from Dec. 23 above.)
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.