my life with the Mass RMV
Oct. 15th, 2007 04:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
topaz(This is a slightly edited version of something I posted to the massbike list earlier today. Crossposted to my journal and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
bikepirates.)
So last Memorial Day weekend I had a hilarious bike encounter with a guy in a SUV.
Background:
I was biking in Lexington, MA on a road that splits into a straight-through lane and a right-turn-only lane. I looked quickly behind me to make sure the way was clear, and moved to the left, into the straight-through lane. Almost immediately I heard an insistent honking immediately behind me, apparently someone traveling faster than I had realized who came up directly behind me. As I pulled up to a red light, the driver pulled alongside me in the lane, rolled down his window, and we had the following exchange:
Him: "What the hell are you doing in the middle of the road on a bike? If you want to be in the road, get a car!"
Me: ???
Me: "Well, thank you for your feedback, sir. I am operating a vehicle according to the laws ---"
Him: "A vehicle? You're on a BIKE!"
Me: "Yes, a bike is considered a vehicle according to the General Laws of Massachusetts--"
Him: "If you want to ride a bike, get on the playground with the two-year-olds!"
At this point he (or possibly his passenger) started to roll up the window, and I heard him yell "--the next time I see you, you little---" and the light turned, and he roared off.
I took down his license plate number and called the Lexington police for advice. They told me that I could fill out a "road rage complaint" on the RMV web site, so when I got home I did.
Over the next few months I had to make several phone calls and about a dozen followup e-mails with RMV staff to make sure my issue hadn't been lost. (My main point of contact here was Rebecca.Weller@state.ma.us, who was extremely polite and very helpful throughout this entire process.) This is the part of the process that seems to have been designed to maximize the probability that a complainant would simply give up and let the matter die. They finally scheduled a hearing for today at 10am at the Chinatown RMV office.
The driving complaint hearing is an administrative event. The hearing isn't held by a judge, it's held by a low-level RMV bureaucrat. They hear the aggrieved parties separately, presumably to avoid two cranky drivers escalating the matter between each other.
So first they called me, and I sat down in a small cubicle with an RMV functionary who asked me to describe what happened. I told him essentially the story above, and he asked a few questions to clarify my lane positioning and so on. At the end of this he said that it was clearly a legitimate complaint and added, "frankly, that aggravates me, because there's no call for that kind of behavior." So he said that when he would be speaking with the other driver in a few minutes and, would "put the fear of God into him" and would make it clear to him that if the RMV receives any more complaints that he will be suspended. We shook hands and I left.
It's entirely possible that he was just shining me on; I tend to assume that dispute-resolution departments like this exist mainly to make people feel placated, and that they are inclined to tell you whatever they think you want to hear. He certainly seemed sincere to me, and besides, if he were just blowing smoke he would probably not have been so specific about what he intended to tell the other driver.
It seems to have been a successful endeavor, from the point of view of making the bozo sit up and understand that they have to take cyclists seriously on the road. I would love it if more cyclists took this route with harassing or unsafe drivers. If nothing else it would provide the state with a means of collecting statistics about how badly drivers need to be educated about cycling issues.
But the process is far too inefficient -- it seems to have been designed to maximize the probability that complainants will just give up and let the matter die. It seems unlikely that more than a few bullheaded cyclists would navigate the bureaucratic maze to its end, and therefore will probably not amount to a useful tool for anyone any time soon.
bikepirates.)So last Memorial Day weekend I had a hilarious bike encounter with a guy in a SUV.
Background:
I was biking in Lexington, MA on a road that splits into a straight-through lane and a right-turn-only lane. I looked quickly behind me to make sure the way was clear, and moved to the left, into the straight-through lane. Almost immediately I heard an insistent honking immediately behind me, apparently someone traveling faster than I had realized who came up directly behind me. As I pulled up to a red light, the driver pulled alongside me in the lane, rolled down his window, and we had the following exchange:
Him: "What the hell are you doing in the middle of the road on a bike? If you want to be in the road, get a car!"
Me: ???
Me: "Well, thank you for your feedback, sir. I am operating a vehicle according to the laws ---"
Him: "A vehicle? You're on a BIKE!"
Me: "Yes, a bike is considered a vehicle according to the General Laws of Massachusetts--"
Him: "If you want to ride a bike, get on the playground with the two-year-olds!"
At this point he (or possibly his passenger) started to roll up the window, and I heard him yell "--the next time I see you, you little---" and the light turned, and he roared off.
I took down his license plate number and called the Lexington police for advice. They told me that I could fill out a "road rage complaint" on the RMV web site, so when I got home I did.
Over the next few months I had to make several phone calls and about a dozen followup e-mails with RMV staff to make sure my issue hadn't been lost. (My main point of contact here was Rebecca.Weller@state.ma.us, who was extremely polite and very helpful throughout this entire process.) This is the part of the process that seems to have been designed to maximize the probability that a complainant would simply give up and let the matter die. They finally scheduled a hearing for today at 10am at the Chinatown RMV office.
The driving complaint hearing is an administrative event. The hearing isn't held by a judge, it's held by a low-level RMV bureaucrat. They hear the aggrieved parties separately, presumably to avoid two cranky drivers escalating the matter between each other.
So first they called me, and I sat down in a small cubicle with an RMV functionary who asked me to describe what happened. I told him essentially the story above, and he asked a few questions to clarify my lane positioning and so on. At the end of this he said that it was clearly a legitimate complaint and added, "frankly, that aggravates me, because there's no call for that kind of behavior." So he said that when he would be speaking with the other driver in a few minutes and, would "put the fear of God into him" and would make it clear to him that if the RMV receives any more complaints that he will be suspended. We shook hands and I left.
It's entirely possible that he was just shining me on; I tend to assume that dispute-resolution departments like this exist mainly to make people feel placated, and that they are inclined to tell you whatever they think you want to hear. He certainly seemed sincere to me, and besides, if he were just blowing smoke he would probably not have been so specific about what he intended to tell the other driver.
It seems to have been a successful endeavor, from the point of view of making the bozo sit up and understand that they have to take cyclists seriously on the road. I would love it if more cyclists took this route with harassing or unsafe drivers. If nothing else it would provide the state with a means of collecting statistics about how badly drivers need to be educated about cycling issues.
But the process is far too inefficient -- it seems to have been designed to maximize the probability that complainants will just give up and let the matter die. It seems unlikely that more than a few bullheaded cyclists would navigate the bureaucratic maze to its end, and therefore will probably not amount to a useful tool for anyone any time soon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:48 pm (UTC)I've been in touch with Massbike on other issues, just not specifically this one. I'm not sure it's a priority for them, but I'll ask David the next time I see him.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 09:17 pm (UTC)Um... good idea! Thanks! :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 11:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:27 pm (UTC)I wonder what that driver and his passenger think now and whether they'd do the same thing again.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:33 pm (UTC)Road Rage
Date: 2008-01-08 04:26 pm (UTC)She is part of the reason I haven't gotten a bike. I keep thinking about getting one and using it as part of my commute but I keep thinking that I'll run into drivers like her or like your pal up above. We all share the road and bikers are legally *required* to use the street/road and not the sidewalk. We need to learn how to share the road safely and without harrassment and intimidation.
I should get a book on the bikepaths so I can at least get comfortable with the idea of biking in the area.