An Embarrassing Ride with My Nephew

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a “Blog” as:

As a Bike Lawyer, I blog about “The Law” and how it affects bicyclists in Kentucky and Ohio.  I also blog about bicycle advocacy, bicycle happenings, and bicycle riding and racing.  This week, however, I choose to write about a recent cycling experience with more than a modest amount of embarrassment.

Cycling is a lot of things to a lot of different people.  Cyclists come in all sizes and shapes and varieties of disciplines and interests.  But we all have one thing in common – we love our cycling.  Being a cyclist is part of our identities.  We share that part of our personality with family and friends.  Most cyclists can attest to involuntarily becoming the resident expert at work every July as Le Tour rolls through France.  In those moments we are ambassadors for the cycling community.

We make new friends on group rides and enjoy old friends on weekend rides.  When we ride with friends, we often solve all the world’s problems and at times work through personal difficulties on those rides.  There is a kinship at the center of cycling.  That kinship is all the more special when you can share it with family.

I am approaching half a century on the planet and have lasted long enough that I can ride with younger family members.  Last week I had the treasure of getting to ride with my nephew Taylor who was in town for a family wedding.

Miles of Bike Paths Along C-470

Taylor is one of a kind.  He is an Eagle Scout, an Architect, and presently a Wanderer.  J.R.R. Tolkien reminds us that “Not all those who wander are lost” and that applies to Taylor.  Taylor has always loved the outdoors from Cub Scouts to Adult Life.  He spent his Summers at Philmont Scout Ranch and now his adventures are headquartered in Denver, Colorado.  He has hiked the entire 2,650 miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) and as I pen this blog, he is somewhere in Maine hiking the Appalachian Trail (AT) from north to south. In his words, he is “chasing summer” along the trail.  There is more than a modest amount of irony in those words as I watch a young man challenge the convention of hiking the AT from south to north and more broadly challenge the convention of spending the summer of his life at a desk job.

Can you tell I am fond of Taylor?

So, I was very much looking forward to a ride with him while we had him in town.  When in Denver Colorado he rides a fixie, a gravel bike, and a Pedicab for extra cash.  He regaled me bike packing stories and tales of riding Mount Lookout, Green Mountain, South Table and North Table Mountains.  When Taylor goes out for beers he can connect over 10 miles of protected bike paths from Golden, Colorado to Morrison, Colorado.

I did not have anything on par with Taylor’s Colorado cycling options in Northern Kentucky and Southwestern Ohio (although we have plenty of hills).  Regardless, we rolled out of my garage at about 3:15 on a Thursday.  We had planned on a 2:00 start, but as work would have it, I was running late.  We road single file, then two-abreast and back to single file along some rollers just north of my house.

Taylor’s Bike Packing Set Up

Taylor’s Fixie

Strike One – Am I Entitled?

When we reached the first lighted intersection a middle-aged woman rolled up to us at the intersection and with her window down declared (I later learned the question mark was rhetorical) “Do you feel entitled?”

Entitled?  I thought to myself.  This is weird because this woman literally had a trunk rack with a bike on it!  So, facing a fellow cyclist I took stock of the situation.  What did I do wrong?  We were 2 miles into the ride.  I had a blinky on.  Taylor had a blinky on.  We both had helmets.  We were riding at 17 miles per hour (uphill) and alternated between two abreast and single depending on traffic.  She could not have been behind us for more than a quarter-mile.

So that left me with two alternatives: I must have felt entitled to be on the road in the first place or I must have felt entitled to ride two abreast – both legal and neither really holding her up.  I did note that there was zero traffic behind her at the intersection.

So, I asked her for clarification: “To what did I feel entitled?”  This was an earnest question as I was genuinely confused and had clearly irritated a fellow cyclist.  Her response?  “You know what I mean.”  And she drove off in a huff.

That. Was. Weird.

The middle portion of the ride was on a bike path so Taylor and I chatted that conundrum up for at least fifteen minutes and we both remain confused to this day about what she really meant.

Regardless, that was an unfriendly way to start our ride.

Strike Two – What About That Three Foot Law?

Once we exited the bike path, we were on old country roads with zero shoulder and a white line.  I have nothing against old country roads, I kind of like them to be honest.  With a delayed start time, it must have been around 4:30 when we hit that patch of roadway and we had vacillating adherence by our fellow motorists with the three-foot law as they passed during growing rush hour traffic.  Getting buzzed is par for the course, but again, embarrassing to me as I was showing Taylor one of my local routes.  I had to wonder; Did Taylor get the same treatment in Colorado?  Colorado has a three-foot law.  I was too embarrassed to ask.

Things have a way of occurring in threes.

Strike Three – The All-Black SUV

As we descended off the hardest segment of the ride, Eight Mile Wall, we approached a four-way intersection with a stoplight.  We were facing west with a left turn lane.  As a matter of personal policy, I always enter the roadway as I approach intersections.  A cyclist in the roadway is more visible and avoids the risk of being clipped by a right-turning vehicle if the cyclist remained in the shoulder.   This approach also allows you to stay out of the way of any motorists who are taking a right turn on a red light.

Well, none of this sat well with the fella in the All-Black Ford Expedition EL with Black Rims who was immediately behind us in the intersection.  Here comes Strike Three!  In an attempt to get our attention, he laid into that Ford Expedition’s horn with multiple five-second horn blows.  This had the intended effect of getting my attention and I turned around to find him gesticulating madly in between horn blows.  I interpreted his hand signals to read something along the lines of You-Have-No-Right-To-Be-Where-You-Are-Get-Out-Of-My-Three-Quarter-Ton-SUV’s-Way.  It was almost like I hurt his beloved SUV’s feelings and he felt honor-bound to defend his slighted vehicle.  His face was very red.

We did not move.  I offered him the opportunity to roll down his window and use words instead of his horn to communicate with us.  He declined.

Regardless, at the end of the day, all of this: (1) angry motorist number 1; (2) the close passes on narrow roads; and (3) the excessive use of one’s SUV’s horn, all left me embarrassed.  Taylor is too kind to complain about it, but our community sure did not give him a warm reception as a cyclist.

However, the ride was not a complete bust.  He did ask me to text him a screenshot of the Eight Mile Wall Segment and its 16% grade.  I hope he adds that part to his story when he is chatting with his Denver buddies about riding back home because the rest was not very pretty.



Is It Bicycle or Not?

My fellow Florida Cyclist (and Father) recently sent me this article from his hometown newspaper on the legality of ElliptiGos on Florida roadways.

On December 1, 2019, Dan Moser was ticketed for riding a “bicycle” without a seat on a roadway.  Per the citing Officer, Dan’s use of his ElliptiGo was reserved for multi-modal paths, not roadways.  Under then-current law, the Officer may have been right.

All of this got me wondering about ElliptiGos in Kentucky and Ohio.

In Kentucky, per 601 Kentucky Administrative Regulation Section 1 a “Bicycle” “[m]eans a device with an attached seat propelled primarily by human power upon which a person rides astride or upon, regardless of the number and size of the wheels in contact with the ground.” This definition in subsection (1)(b) goes on to exclude a wheelchair from the foregoing definition. So, a bicycle in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is characterized by an “attached seat” and propulsion by “primarily human power.”

In Ohio, per Revised Code 4511.01(G) a “Bicycle” “means every device, other than a device that is designed solely for use as a play vehicle by a child, that is propelled solely by human power upon which a person may ride, and that has two or more wheels, any of which is more than fourteen inches in diameter.”

Dan would have never been subject to citation in Ohio, but his ElliptiGo would not qualify as a bicycle under Kentucky law.  

Back in 2019, per Florida Statute Statute 316.003(4) a bicycle was defined as “every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. A person under the age of 16 may not operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.”

Dan pushed for a change in Florida law and he won.  He was instrumental in pushing through House Bill 353 which is scheduled to go into effect on July 1 which will amend Florida Statute Statute 316.2065(2) to read:

One should note the current definition of a “bicycle” under Florida Statute 316.003(4)  defines a “Bicycle” as “every vehicle propelled solely by human power, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include a scooter or similar device.”

So for you ElliptiGo Riders out there, you are good-to-go in Florida and Ohio.  But beware, you are not riding on a “bicycle” in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.


I69 – A Bridge Over Troubled Waters for Cyclists and Pedestrians in Kentucky and Indiana

My new friend and fellow Cyclist, Gary Davis is the Community/Governmental Relations Liaison for Indiana Trails.  Gary recently reached out to me about the new Interstate 69 Bridge which plans to span the Ohio River at Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky.  You can find the Indiana Trails website’s discussion of the Project here.  Why did Gary reach out to me?  You guessed it – there is NO PROVISION FOR BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC in this new Project!!!  The only current access for cyclists and pedestrians from Henderson, Kentucky to Evansville, Indiana are the US 41 Bridges which have no protected lanes in either direction.  So the Project currently removes the only unsafe passage (two US41 Bridges) between the states and replaces it with one even more unsafe US 41 Bridge with traffic in both directions and no plans for protected lanes for cyclists and pedestrians.   

Evansville-Henderson has two existing U.S. 41 bridges–both of which have been declared patently unsafe for non-motorized travel by the Interstate-69 Bridge project managers.  The latest plan is to demolish one of those bridges and keep the other for non-tolled local auto traffic when the new I-69 bridge is opened.  There is currently no plan to safely accommodate bicyclists or pedestrians on the proposed new I69 Bridge or the old US 41 Bridge.

From Evansville-Henderson, the nearest safe crossings of the Ohio River for anyone but the most experienced or daring cyclists are Louisville-Jeffersonville to the east (121 miles/three bridges) and the Cave-in-Rock Ferry in Southern Illinois-Western Kentucky (75 miles).

Kentucky Cyclists and Indiana Cyclists must have their voices heard.  Please consider lending your support to their efforts to secure safe passage from one state to another by signing the petition for safe passage on the proposed I69 Bridge linked below.  You can also write Governors of Indiana and Kentucky with proposed letters which are also linked below.

Image care of

The Interstate 69 Bridge got me thinking about cycling in Northern Kentucky and Southwestern Ohio.  For most of my adult life, I have taken getting across the Ohio River on my bike for granted.  The Ohio River between Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati averages one mile in width and averages 24 feet in depth which basically eliminates the get-a-couple-soakers-and-wade-across-option for cyclists.

Not only have I taken the dry passage across the Ohio River for granted, it occurred to me that we have an embarrassment of riches in Northern Kentucky when it comes to river passage by bike.  We have no less than four bridges that allow for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Image care of Google Earth

Photo Care of

Heading from East to West, the first and safest bridge for cyclists and pedestrians is the Purple People Bridge (aka The “C&O” or Chesapeake & Ohio Bridge) located in Newport which has no vehicular traffic; the second is the Taylor Southgate Bridge with protected lanes on either side; the third is the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge located in Covington which has protected lanes on either side; and the fourth is the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge which has a protected lane on the east side of the bridge.  If you want to take a step back in time, you can cross the Ohio River from Kentucky to Ohio via the Anderson Ferry to the west and the Augusta Ferry to the east of Northern Kentucky.

I have been able to combine old (the Augusta Ferry) and new (Purple People Bridge) transportation technology to create a beautiful 125-mile route that crossed the Ohio River at two locations:


But you do not need to go on a Century Ride to appreciate the value of pedestrian and bicycle access on bridges.  Both sides of the Ohio River have seen increased development.  It is a typical occurrence for Reds Fans to grab a beer at the Hofbrauhaus in Newport, Kentucky, and take the Purple People Bridge to Great American Ballpark.  All of the dining options in Covington, Kentucky are connected to Cincinnati’s Smale Riverfront Park by the Roebling Suspension Bridge.  Both sides of the Ohio River’s economies are enhanced by pedestrian access on these bridges and folk’s quality of life is undoubtedly enhanced by the parks and trail systems connected by these bridges.

Photo Care of

Other cities with pedestrian and bicycle access to bridges have experienced the same benefits.  The Ben Franklin Bridge Pedestrian Walkway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania spans the Delaware River and provides bridge access between Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota boast 23 bridges with pedestrian and bicycle access!  Pictures and the history of those bridges can be found here.

Interstate bridges like the new Quad Cities Interstate-74 Bridge over the Mississippi River between Illinois and Iowa should be a model, not an exception for providing protected travel for cyclists and pedestrians.  Our friends at Indiana Trails provide us with the following list of bridges across America that provide similar pedestrian and bicycle access.

The population of the Evansville-Henderson metro area is approximately 300,000.  Evansville has an advanced and expanding trails/greenway system.  Southwest Indiana and Western Kentucky are home to dozens of major parks, forests, lakes, and tourism amenities, and have the American Discovery Trail, the Bicentennial U.S. 76 Bike Route and a planned added north-south U.S. Bicycle Route.

Indiana Trails, the Evansville Trails Coalition, Advocacy — Evansville Trails Coalition, Hoosier Environmental Council, the Greenways Foundation, Ride Illinois and others are advocating for safe/separated/protected multi-use pathways on the new Interstate-69 bridge.

Also voicing support for the advocacy are the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, East Coast Greenway Alliance, Missouri Bike-Ped Federation, BikeWalk Tennessee, and the mayor of Kentucky’s first Trail Town, Dawson Springs–along with various individuals belonging to bicycling and hiking organizations.

New USDOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg says transportation safety is his number one concern.  The I-69 Bridge, with its use of federal funds, is a good place to start.

What can you do?

The stakeholders for this project need to know that the cycling community supports bike and hike accommodations to the new bridge project between Evansville, Indiana, and Henderson, Kentucky.  There are several ways you can help out:

Sign Indiana Trails petition.

Write a letter to the Governors of Indiana and Kentucky.

Spread the word!


Road Rage Is A Real Thing And Cyclists Have Civil Remedies – Part 2 of 2

Last week we discussed Road Rage.  Here is Part Two of that Article.  Here is how Steve Magas and I handled a real-world case of Road Rage in Ohio.  You have remedies!

R.C. 2307.60 As a Civil Remedy for Assaulted Cyclists

Revised Code 2307.60 provides an assaulted cyclist a remedy.

Ohio Revised Code 2307.60, entitled “Person Injured by Criminal Act Has Civil Remedy; Exceptions” states as follows:

(A)(1) Anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in, a civil action unless specifically excepted by law, may recover the costs of maintaining the civil action and attorney’s fees if authorized by any provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure or another section of the Revised Code or under the common law of this state, and may recover punitive or exemplary damages if authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the Revised Code.

(2) A final judgment of a trial court that has not been reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside, nullified, or vacated, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty, but not upon a plea of no contest or the equivalent plea from another jurisdiction, that adjudges an offender guilty of an offense of violence punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, when entered as evidence in any subsequent civil proceeding based on the criminal act, shall preclude the offender from denying in the subsequent civil proceeding any fact essential to sustaining that judgment, unless the offender can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented the offender from having a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal proceeding or other extraordinary circumstances justify affording the offender an opportunity to relitigate the issue. The offender may introduce evidence of the offender’s pending appeal of the final judgment of the trial court, if applicable, and the court may consider that evidence in determining the liability of the offender.

Assuming a criminal appeal has not been taken, the key language of R.C. 2307.60 for an assaulted cyclist can be found in subsection (A)(2): “A final judgment of a trial court that has not been reversed on appeal … or upon a plea of guilty, . . . that adjudges an offender guilty of an offense of violence punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, when entered as evidence in any subsequent civil proceeding based on the criminal act, shall preclude the offender from denying in the subsequent civil proceeding any fact essential to sustaining that judgment, unless the offender can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented the offender from having a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal proceeding or other extraordinary circumstances justify affording the offender an opportunity to relitigate the issue.”

First and foremost, the crime must be one of violence (typically assault, battery or menacing) that could be punishable with a prison term of one year or greater.  Stated differently, R.C. 2307.60 will not apply if the crime is pled down to a misdemeanor assault, battery or menacing that carries a prison term of less than one year.

Having said that, the Ohio Supreme Court has recently held “that the plain language of the statute does not require proof of an underlying criminal conviction.”  Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 2020-Ohio-3832, ¶11.  While an injured cyclist may not have the benefit of the statutory estoppel provided by subsection (A)(2) of R.C. 2307.60, an action under R.C. 2307.60 can still be brought as a matter of law.  The Ohio Supreme Court recognized” “[i]t is certainly possible for an individual to commit an unlawful act and be prosecuted, yet evade conviction for a variety of reasons. Thus, we do not read the phrase “a criminal act” to mean “a criminal act that resulted in a conviction.”  Id. at ¶13.

Second, the criminal conviction or guilty plea must be entered into evidence.  This can be accomplished by admitting a certified copy of the conviction or plea agreement.

Third and most important, the criminal, now civil defendant is “precluded” or estopped from denying the elements of the civil causes of action for assault, battery and/or menacing provided “extraordinary circumstances” do not apply.

As discussed below, R.C. 2307.60 has been amended several times since it was enacted in 2008.  However, between 2008 and the date of this article, the question of what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” has not been litigated in an Ohio courtroom and reduced to a published decision.

I would submit that the Ohio Legislature added this language where exculpatory evidence surfaced after the criminal trial akin to DNA evidence relied on in Innocence Project type of cases.  Further, one must note that the language of the statute focuses on due process rights.  The “circumstances” must have prevented a “full and fair opportunity” in the criminal trial to litigate the issue.  I would further submit the fear of incarceration or loss of liberty, while real concerns, are ordinary fears every criminal defendant faces when deciding to take a case to trial.  As a result, these fears should  not rise to the level of “extraordinary” just because a lengthy jail term may follow if the defendant is convicted.

Self-Defense? Really?

A typical response to an assault is that the defendant was acting in self-defense.  This allows a defendant to admit the allegation that he struck the victim, but justifies that contact on the grounds that he was protecting himself.  In my Ohio case, John Doe Cyclist, Steve Magas, Esq. and I were faced with an argument that John Doe Cyclist was careening toward the assailant (now felon) at issue and he had no choice but to push John Doe away and the fractured elbow that ensued was an accident.

If he was successful in asserting self-defense at the civil trial, that success would mean a complete defense to the assault and battery claims.  We argued that the defendant was estopped by common law under the doctrine of res judicata and statutorily estopped under R.C. 2307.60 from raising such a defense because (1) he admitted to the crime of assault in open Court under oath and (2) he had the opportunity to raise that defense in his criminal trial but chose not present that defense to the jury.

Res Judicata – Guilty Pleas Mean Something

As for the doctrine of res judicata, the Ohio Supreme Court has held:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.

State v Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals in McLoughlin v. Sword, Case No. CA93-05-014, 1993 WL 512370 (12th Dist.) involved a Road Rage incident.  Citing the doctrine of res judicata and relying on State v. Perry, supra, the trial court found that a Guilty Plea completely waived a subsequent claim of self-defense in tort proceedings.  The Twelfth District affirmed the trial court’s holding, finding:

However, with reference to the offense or offenses to which a guilty plea is entered by a defendant in a criminal prosecution, the plea is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt. See Crim. R. 11(B)(1); State v. Pernell (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 261, 264. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a defendant from raising and litigating, in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding, any defense that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction.  State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, paragraph nine of the syllabus. Consequently, any defense to the crime is completely waived by the entry of a plea of guilty. See Hoppe v. State (1928), 29 Ohio App. 467, 473; 26 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1981) 651, Criminal Law, 823.

Therefore, the trial court was correct in finding that by pleading guilty in his criminal prosecution for assault, appellant made a complete admission of his guilt and, as such, waived his ability to bring up any claim of self-defense in this subsequent civil action for assault. Appellant’s first assignment of error is accordingly overruled.

Id. at *2 (emphasis added).

R.C. 2307.60 Should Prohibit Self-Defense Arguments

At least one Court prior to 2006 permitted a convicted felon to put on self-defense arguments in a civil case based on R.C. 2307.60.  Interpreting a then-current version of R.C. 2307.60, the Fourth District Court of Appeals found: ““[s]imilarly, testimony adduced at the criminal trial may be considered in the civil case when properly submitted. In the interest of fairness, however, we feel the defendant to the tort must be afforded an opportunity to present evidence rebutting or explaining the criminal conviction.”  Phillips v. Rayburn (4th Dist. 1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 374, 382.

We argued that Phillips v. Rayburn is no longer good law.  Any reliance a Court would place on it would invite error.  The foregoing dicta was specifically superseded in 2006 with the addition of subsection (A)(2) and its estoppel language which specifically prohibits relitigating of any element of an intentional tort where a defendant enters a guilty plea to the same course of conduct, save extraordinary circumstances.  Senate Bill 107 revised R.C. 2307.60 to include the current version of Subsection A(2) for the first time in 2002.  The current version of R.C. 2307.60, includes the same Subsection (A)(2), and was reenacted in 2004.  Both of these pieces of legislation postdate the Fourth District’s Decision in Phillips v. Rayburn.

The Fourth District in Burns v. Adams (4th Dist.), 2014-Ohio-1917 all but overruled Phillips v. Rayburn in light of revisions to R.C. 2307.60 discussed above: “[t]he language of R.C. 2307.60 has since been revised, as we have indicated above, to allow that ‘a final judgment of a trial court … entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty, but not upon a plea of no contest …’ shall preclude the offender from denying in a subsequent civil proceeding any fact essential to sustaining that judgment.’ This is a significant difference.”  Id. at ¶ 30 (emphasis added).

The Fourth District correctly noted the significant changes in R.C. 2307.60 in its critique of its earlier rulings in Phillips v. Rayburn.  R.C. 2307.60 has been revised no less than five times since the cause of action in Phillips occurred on August 11, 1994 – over 26 years ago as of the date of this Article.  It is noteworthy that the cause of action in Burns occurred on September 12, 2012 and interpreted the current version of R.C. 2307.60.

Final Thoughts

John Doe’s case settled favorably within weeks of oral argument on these legal points.

My real-world example was fortunately a rare case where significant physical injury resulted from a Road Rage confrontation.  However, it was one case too many.  Ohio’s Legislature recognized this in its enactment of R.C. 2307.60 as a form of victim’s rights legislation.

For those of us who ride alone and are faced with an enraged motorist it will be our word against their word absent some record.  This is where a GoPro or phone video/audio recording is paramount.  Even if physical injury is not a result of Road Rage incidents, the video and/or audio evidence may allow a prosecutor to bring menacing charges and may allow for a civil suit if the local prosecutor elects not to proceed with charges pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in .”  Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 2020-Ohio-3832.

Don’t navigate these waters on your own!  If you have been the victim of Road Rage in Ohio or Kentucky, please do not hesitate to reach out to Carville Legal Counsel LLC.  We offer FREE Consultations and would be happy to review your case with you.  Call Chris at 513 600 8432 or email Chris at [email protected] or Steve at [email protected] if you have any questions about your case.

Road Rage Is A Real Thing And Cyclists Have Civil Remedies – Part 1 of 2

Road Rage is a very real thing.  And cyclists are some of the most exposed users of roadways, highways, and streets.  This article and next week’s article will address Road Rage under Ohio law and discusses recourse available to assaulted cyclists based on a real-world case that Steve Magas and I brought to a favorable conclusion last year.

Road Rage Defined

The United States Department of Transportation draws a technical distinction between “aggressive driving” and “road rage.”  The words, “aggressive driving,” emerged during the 1990s as a label for a category of dangerous on-the-road behaviors. The category comprises following too closely, driving at excessive speeds, weaving through traffic, and running stoplights and signs, among other acts. Aggressive driving occasionally escalates to gesturing in anger or yelling at another motorist, confrontation, physical assault, and even murder; “Road Rage” is the label that emerged to describe the angry and violent behaviors at the extreme of the aggressive driving continuum. NHTSA defines aggressive driving in DOT HS 809 707 as, “the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property.” An important distinction is that aggressive driving is a traffic violation, while road rage, aside from yelling and gesticulating, is a criminal offense.

Fortunately, assault cases against cyclists appear to be statistically rare.  So rare that I could not find a database that tracked this type of crime against cyclists in particular.  However, these incidents do happen and are likely vastly underreported.

Road Rage Statistics  

Per a 2019 survey conducted by, survey respondents admitted the following:

  • 82% of drivers in the U.S. admit to having road rage or driving aggressively at least once in the past year.
  • 59% of drivers reported showing anger by honking.
  • 45% of drivers report changing lanes without signaling.
  • 42% of drivers claimed they have yelled or cursed loudly at another driver.
  • 38% said they have used rude or obscene gestures against other drivers.

That same 2019 survey found:

  • 7% got out of their vehicle to verbally confront another driver.
  • 6% threw objects.
  • 6% got in a physical altercation with another driver.
  • 5% sideswiped another vehicle.
  • 5% bumped or rammed another vehicle on purpose.
  • 5% forced another driver off the road.

Road Rage Against Cyclists – Criminal Recourse

For cyclists, the predominant form of Road Rage would likely fall into the category of a “Punishment Pass” wherein the motorist gives much less than the three-foot buffer required by Revised Code 4511.27 in Ohio and KRS 189.290 in Kentucky.  In addition, cyclists can be subjected to pop (or soda pending on what part of the country the cyclist finds him or herself) cans or beer cans being thrown at them.  I personally have been subject to Punishment Passes.  In addition, I have had partially full Two-Liter Pop Bottles thrown at me by irate passengers.

All of these activities violate Ohio law.

R.C. 2903.11(A) defines Felonious Assault as:

(A) No person shall knowingly do either of the following:

(1) Cause serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn;

(2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.

R.C. 2903.21 defines Aggravated Menacing as:

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family. In addition to any other basis for the other person’s belief that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family, the other person’s belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.

A True Story of Road Rage

The nightmare scenario is where one of these incidents escalates into an assault.  And that is exactly the scenario one of my clients found himself in while enjoying a 40-mile ride in rural Ohio.

As the matter is now settled and subject to a narrow confidentiality agreement, I will simply reveal that John Doe Cyclist was body checked into the criminal assailant’s truck following a hand gesture that was shared with said criminal after Joe Doe Cyclist was subjected to a Punishment Pass.

Unfortunately, this was one of those 7% scenarios where the motorist got out of his truck to verbally confront my client and his wife. That confrontation escalated into physical contact that resulted in a fractured elbow requiring multiple surgeries at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

That matter was criminally tried to a jury.  On the second day of trial, the criminal assailant opted to take a plea deal that avoided significant jail time. In open Court he admitted under oath to a felonious assault charge against our client and a menacing charge (as to his wife) as part of his plea deal.

In the civil suit, the criminal assailant denied the assault and menacing admissions entered under oath as part of his plea deal.  The criminal assailant claimed that my client was the aggressor, and he was the victim!  He claimed that he was simply acting in self-defense and my client was fabricating the allegations.

Our assaulted client, John Doe, had a civil remedy and next week’s article will discuss a unique application of Ohio law to Road Rage cases.



Limitations of the MUTCD When Applied to Bicyclists

Have you ever wondered where the design for bike signs or bike routes came from?  No?  I am not surprised.  It is Bike Month and I thought I would share a few thoughts on signage or “Traffic Control Devices” and “Bicycle Facilities” from a design perspective.

In the United States, engineers and urban planners rely on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways or “MUTCD” for a shortened reference.  The Current Tenth Edition was issued in 2009 with two Revisions dated May 2012.  Last month the Federal Highway Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Amendments.  Once those amendments are finalized, the Eleventh Edition of the MUTCD will be issued.

The MUTCD drills down into the smallest detail of size, shape and look of “Warning Signs and Plaques” related to bicycles:


The MUTCD is the Bible for traffic control engineers and civil engineers who design “Roadways”, “Rural Highways”, “Designated Bicycle Routes”, “Bicycle Lanes”, “Bikeways”, and “Bicycle Facilities.”  All of these are defined terms within the MUTCD.  It also includes or relates other design documents like The Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance and Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities:


The purpose of the MUTCD is right in its title – Uniformity.  Uniformity is good.  Red means stop and green means go.  Right?  Of course.  It is easy to analyze signage and placement.  The MUTCD provides definite proscribed standards for the look and location of signs.  The MUTCD and its incorporated documents can only provide guidance on the tougher issues of retrofitting Bicycle Facilities in an urban environment, for example.  And that guidance promotes a very conservative approach in designers of new and retrofitted Bicycle Facilities.  If a designer takes the most conservative approach, he or she is insulated themselves and their clients or employers from legal liability for injuries and death that may (or may not) have resulted from a design decision.  And once those design decisions are executed, it is very difficult, not to mention expensive, to reverse or change course.  Road improvements are expensive and modifications can lead to traffic delays, congestion, and irritated citizens.

Our friends at America Walks sponsored a very informative Webinar on the limitations of the MUTCD which aired on April 26, 2021.  The panel discussion which begins at 39:30 is very helpful to the average bicyclist in understanding the limitations of the MUTCD:

Oklahoma House Bill 1770 Would Legalize Idaho Stops and Provide Cyclists Additional Protections.

On March 16, 2021, I wrote about the status of Delaware’s Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act.  The protections afforded to bicyclists in Delaware’s intersections are set to expire this year as the Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act contained a sunset provision.

The Oklahoma Legislature followed the safety statistics in both Idaho and Delaware. The Oklahoma House passed House Bill 1770 with an overwhelming vote of 76-13 on March 11, 2021.  On April 20, 2021 the Oklahoma Senate approved the Bill and sent it back to the House for further consideration.

My compliments to Representative Dobrinski and his Staff.  House Bill 1770 sets forth a straightforward and easy-to-follow-standard for bicyclists to apply at intersections:

An “immediate hazard” is defined as “a vehicle approaching a person operating a bicycle at a proximity and rate of speed sufficient to indicate to a reasonably careful person that there is a danger of collision or accident.”

House Bill 1770 also provides a standard for bicyclists approaching a steady red traffic-control signal.  A complete stop is required when traveling through the intersection.  However, “if a person operating a bicycle determines there is no immediate hazard, he or she may proceed through the steady red traffic-control signal with caution.”

Where a bicyclist is making a right-hand turn at a steady red traffic-control signal, he or she may “roll” the intersection provided, he or she “slow[s] to a reasonable speed and yield[s to] the right-of-way, if required, to oncoming traffic that constitutes an immediate hazard[.]”

House Bill 1770 also makes it a crime of reckless driving for a motorist to “taunt or maliciously throw an object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle, equine or animal-drawn vehicle.”  This only appears to be a misdemeanor offense as the maximum penalties are six months in prison and a One Thousand Dollar fine.  House Bill 1770 also prohibits drivers from “us[ing] a horn when passing a person riding a bicycle, equine or animal-drawn vehicle under normal conditions if no imminent danger of a collision exists.”

This is very encouraging news out of the State of Oklahoma.  I would love to see similar legislation regulating intersections in Kentucky and Ohio.


A Day of Remembrance For Deceased Pedestrians and Cyclists

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, I attended A Day of Remembrance recalling and celebrating the lives lost to pedestrian and cycling deaths on Kentucky and Ohio roadways.  Penning a blog on preventable deaths is both difficult and jarring considering one week ago I was writing about the joys of bike riding and bike racing.  Unlike you and me, those remembered will never throw their leg over their bike’s top tube or lace up their sneakers for a run or a walk.  Pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable users of Kentucky and Ohio roadways.   In Kentucky alone, in 2018 there were 1,024 pedestrian collisions resulting in 12 deaths and 332 bicycle-motorist collisions resulting in 9 deaths.  In 2019 there were 1,048 pedestrian collisions resulting in 80 deaths and 330 bicycle-motorist collisions resulting in 4 deaths.  We await a final compilation of 2020 figures from Kentucky Traffic Safety Data Services.

Elected Officials, Policymakers, and Traffic Engineers can do much to design, redesign and retrofit existing roadways to make them safer for those vulnerable users.  We can do something too.  We can be vocal advocates for the deceased and their families.

I am struck by the totally preventable deaths – in particular those involving drugs and/or alcohol use.  Just last month, on March 1, 2021, Bradley McNally, only 33 years old, was struck and killed on his bicycle in Bell County, Kentucky by an impaired driver who fled the scene.

Last year, Steve Adams, a friend, was struck from behind on a morning ride in Cincinnati and ultimately succumbed to his injuries.  Again, the driver fled the scene.  We have ordered the police report and investigation file – whether impairment was an issue remains an open question.

In 2017, William Rust was struck from behind on U.S. 52 by an impaired driver who fled the scene. William was 61 and survived by his wife and children.

In 2016, again on U.S. 52, Michael Prater, a friend, was struck from behind on a training ride and killed, again, by an impaired driver who fled the scene.  Michael was 42 and survived by his wife and children. His son was three years old, and his daughter was only four months old.

We will never know whether immediate medical attention would have mitigated the injuries of these cyclists.  We do know that the drivers were cowards selfishly motivated to protect themselves at the expense of a dying cyclist.  More needs to be done in the charging and sentencing of these cowards.  Their cowardice may have cost these men their lives.  Their criminal sentencing should send a message to all users of Kentucky and Ohio roadways.

Death March Race Report, The Art of Under-Planning, and a DNF-M Finish

Many of us will not forget March 13, 2020.  That date is doubly significant for me. At 10:00 a.m. I had resigned from my secure corporate litigation job to hang a shingle to represent cyclists in Kentucky and Ohio.  By 3:00 p.m. Governor Dewine had begun the inexorable “lockdown” process to “flatten the curve.”  Governor Beshear would soon follow.

Needless to say, in-person marketing (the lifeblood to any organization which needs to generate revenue or raise capital) was put on a bit of a hiatus.  Professional and college sports went on a hiatus until team doctors and administrations figured out how to operate in “a Bubble.”  Church services went online; schools went online; work went online; groceries went online; even bike racing went online.

Online bike racing?  I get Canyon/SRAM finding riders online based on power numbers and I sort of get Zwift Academy.  But what about “The Rules”?  For a Road Cyclists, these are the 10 Commandments or 95 Commandments as it were.  There is absolutely no reference to “online” or “Zwift” or “Smart Trainer” in The Rules.  As an attorney, I would argue that Rules #5 and #9 resolve the question of Smart Trainers and online platforms, but I digress …

The point of riding a bicycle is to be outside with friends.  The point of living is to be with loved ones.  If you are lucky, the two will meet.  “Online” living, riding, and racing does not allow you to be with – “online” is a poor facsimile for the real thing.  So fast forward to March 27, 2021, exactly one year, and two weeks later I was back to racing!  And boy did I need it – more than I knew.

Death March.  It is an (almost) annual tradition for me dating back to 2013.  Allow me a quick plug for the Race.  If you love gravel, do it.  If you love mountain biking, do it.  If you love adventure racing, do it.  If you love racing with friends, do it.  Here is the premise:  find a bunch of cemeteries that are assigned time bonuses with whatever route you chose, and the lowest time (calculated by actual time minus bonuses) wins.  There are some other rules, but that is the gist of it.  What follows is a “sort-of” race for most racers.  I say sort-of because everyone is not taking the same right turns, so during the race no one really knows who is winning until the end of the race.  This promotes much comradery and cooperation on the course because the cemeteries can be hard to find (more on that later).  You can flog yourself as hard as you choose between cemeteries, knowing that one navigation error is the equivalent of burning all the matches you have in your box, and then some. The vibe is chill, and everyone looks forward to a post-race beer.

This Year’s Edition was unusually kind weatherwise.  The race started out at 39.2 degrees and ended at 78.8 degrees and sunny throughout.  Almost like God gave us a hall-pass on the weather.  In the 2019 Edition, the weather averaged 34 degrees with lightning and thunderstorms – which can feel really, really REAL on the top of an exposed ridgeline.

However, this Year’s Edition was not equally kind on race-day mandatories.  Well, not kind to those of us who started their route-planning at 10:00 p.m. on March 26, 2021 because his son had a high school lacrosse game under the lights.  One under-plans at their own peril.  I have made under-planning an artform.  Just ask my Pal Charlie.  I invited him down all the way from Michigan in 2015 with NO MAP between us and only my 2013 route loaded on my Garmin 500 – remember those?  Not much of a navigation screen to work off.  Lose a GPS signal and you get lost pretty quick.

Well, history has a way of repeating itself.  Fast forward to March 26, 2021 11:30 p.m.  I was much more prepared than my 2015 navigation disaster — or so I thought.  My new partner, Nate (he is not really new, we did it together in 2013) had a brand-new Karoo 2 with all the GPS coordinates downloaded and I had my trusty laminated National Geographic Topographical Map with all the cemeteries called out with red and yellow stickers.  Red for mandatory, yellow for optional cemetery checkpoints.  By 11:30 p.m. I had found all the cemeteries on my topographical map.

In my defense, how hard is it to find a cemetery, right?  You find a road, you ride along it until you see a cemetery, stop, take and picture to prove you were there, and then ride on to the next checkpoint, right?  Wrong.  This thinking only applies to cemeteries on paved roads.  The Callahan Cemetery dates back to 1812 and there are no paved roads to get you there.  A little history lesson from a geocaching website:

At the start of the war of 1812 there were about 70 families in Jackson Co. When the Indians started fighting with the British and killing settlers, all of the families in Jackson Co. except for twelve families, left. Those twelve families holed up in Fort Vilonia. At the end of the war the Indians were pushed north of what was called the Indian Treaty Line at the northern edge of Jackson Co. This allowed settlement of Jackson Co.

Jesse and Eve Callahan aged 22 and 17 were among those couples. Sometime around 1817 Jesse Callahan bought 160 acres of land in a valley just west of Cornett grove cemetery for $1.25 an acre. Jesse and Eve died around 1865 and had 8 children over their lifetime. Jesse and Eve and most of their adult children are buried in the Callahan Cemetery.

There are at least 25 headstones in the cemetery, most are unmarked flat creek rock, and there are some graves that have no marker. In Jesse’s time the main east-west road ran past Cornett Grove on to his farm and forked. The south fork wound through the valley and came out on Hickory Ridge Rd. just north of Norman. The North Fork climbed to the top of the ridge, passing the cemetery, and going along the ridge top to near where the other fork came out just north of Norman, on Hickory Ridge. Sometime around 1900 The Hoosier National Forest was formed and took all the land from Cornett Grove to Norman.

The only way to get to Callahan Cemetery is by horse trail.  Like “Trail 16” which our friends at National Geographic’s map clearly, to my eye, showed as the closest trail to Callahan Cemetery.  If National Geographic, who gave us endless Jacques Cousteau documentaries, shows “Callahan Cemetery” above Callahan Creek and southeast of Trail 16, Callahan Cemetery should be above Callahan Creek and southeast of Trail 16, right?  If it’s good enough for Jacques, it should be good enough for Nate and me, right? WRONG.  I should have known better when the Race Director snickered over the loudspeaker when he announced “Callahan” as one of the race-day mandatories.

Callahan Cemetery as Shown on National Geographic Topo Map

I learned, over a beer, at the finish line from a Local, “that everyone around here knows Callahan is off Trail 15 and ‘The Map’ is wrong.”  You mean that map that cost me $14.95 for the waterproof and tear-resistant version?!?

To be clear, I do not blame the Race Director for National Geographic’s placement of Callahan Cemetery on its topo map.  And to be equally clear, I don’t blame anyone other than myself.  And to be super clear, I do not blame Nate!  It was all on me.  I had been to Callahan in 2017 (without Nate) and it was indeed off of Trail 15 as it has been for 150 years.

Strava Screenshot of Callahan Cemetery from 2917 Edition of Death March

In my humble estimation, it is these kinds of idiosyncrasies that make Death March, well Death March.  Technically, Nate and I are DNF. I would humbly suggest that Death March needs to add a DNF-M for those racers who, like me, got lost in 2013 or could not find a mandatory in 2021.  Adding an “M” to Did Not Finish [all] Mandatories would restore a small measure of dignity.  I still got over 6 hours in the saddle (and over one and half hours of hike-a-bike along horse trails) and 70 miles of sweet gravel/road/single track in my legs.  And I had a fine cold beer from Upland Brewing Company waiting for me at the finish line.  I had been waiting over a year for that beer and it never tasted better.

Idaho Cycling Stops and Kentucky Law on Cyclists at Intersections

Many Cyclists and Cycling Advocates are big fans of Idaho Stops.  I know I am.  Currently, at least six states have “legalized” Idaho Stops: Idaho, being the first in 1982, as well as Arkansas, Colorado (on an opt-in basis), Delaware, Oregon, and Washington.  California, Colorado (on a statewide basis), New York, Utah, and Virginia have proposed passing Idaho Stop legislation in 2021.

Delaware’s “Idaho Stop” legislation entitled Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act was enacted on November 1, 2014.  The legislation is unique as the original bill contained a “sunset provision” which provided that the law would “sunset” or terminate if not renewed.  Well, the sun is descending toward the horizon line.  An amendment in the form of House Bill 36 proposes making the Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act permanent is pending on the floor of the Delaware Legislature.

As a nonresident of the fine state of Delaware, all of this came to my attention as the Kentucky Bike Lawyer via my Google Alerts which got me thinking about Idaho Stops in Kentucky.

Idaho Stops can be divisive between motorists and cyclists, so they are back in the news in Delaware with strong feelings on both sides of the debate.  On the one hand, uniform laws should encourage uniformity among all users of the roadways and therefore safety should follow.  On the other hand, cyclists will report that while uniformity in the use of the roadways is a noble goal, predictability at intersections does not necessarily follow.  A lack of predictability makes intersections particularly dangerous for cyclists.

Let’s face it, at intersections cyclists are often treated as a hybrid of motorist and pedestrian.  In most localities pedestrians are not held to the same traffic rules as motorists and that may further confound a motorist’s understanding of the “rules of the road.”  Most motorist-cyclist intersection interactions, in the best-case scenarios, are fraught with confusion:

A motorist with right-of-way may yield despite arriving at the intersection first just to avoid the potential for a crash. 

A motorist without right-of-way may incorrectly interpret eye contact with the cyclist as permission to proceed.

A cyclist without right-of-way may also incorrectly interpret eye contact with a motorist as permission to proceed.

A motorist may not come to a complete stop when making a right turn and collide with a cyclist proceeding with his or her right-of-way.

A cyclist may just blow a downhill stop sign with painful results – I have seen it myself on a group ride.

The permutations can go on.  All it takes is one first person experience to harden a person’s belief system for a lifetime.

Idaho as Model Legislation

Title 49, Chapter 7 of the Idaho Code states:

Idaho Code 49-720.

The most important language in this legislation requires that a cyclist “approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection[.]”  The legislation further requires the cyclist to “yield right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching  . . . so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard[.]”  Simply stated, an “Idaho Stop” permits a cyclist “to roll” an intersection provided no other vehicles are in the intersection or approaching the intersection.  More simply stated, a cyclist needs to exercise common sense when deciding “to roll” a stop sign-controlled intersection.

“Follow the Science”

Our friends at Bike Delaware are encouraging voters to follow the science, to borrow a recent turn of phrase.  Bicycle crashes at Stop Sign Intersections have been down a whopping 23% in Delaware since the Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act was enacted.  Fortunately, all other crashes involving bicycles were also down during that 30-month period, but by only 8%.  23% versus 8% is statistically significant, even for this simple country lawyer.

One of the first, most influential, and oft-cited studies of the “Idaho Law” was penned by Jason M. Meggs in 2010.  That study was entitled Bicycle Safety and Choice: Compounding Public Cobenefits of the Idaho Law Relaxing Stop Requirements for Cycling.  As of 2010, Idaho had been a real-world test case for relaxing stopping rules for bicyclists at intersections.  Meggs reviewed several studies.  Comparisons of Boise, Idaho to comparable cities found Boise to be safer for cyclists.  For example, when compared to Sacramento, California bicycle safety fared 30.4% better in Boise on the low end and 60.6% better on the high end.  Within the State of Idaho, bicycle injury rates in the state declined by a substantial 14.5%, with no change in the number of cycling fatalities the year following the enactment of the Idaho Law.

A Little Common Sense

Cycling Advocates have done, and continue to do, their homework on increased safety at stop sign intersections as a result of Idaho Stop Laws.  I would like to see the numbers from “Motorist Advocates” (is there such a group?) that demonstrate that Idaho Stop Laws have increased the number of injuries to motorists who collide with  cyclists at an intersection (regardless of fault) in Idaho (we are approaching 40 years since the enactment of the Idaho Law) or in their state.

In this age of inexpensive digital cameras and accessible public records, opponents of the Idaho Law could easily cobble together statistics on motorists injured because of collisions with cyclists at stop sign-controlled intersections.  Why don’t they?  Common sense would dictate that a motorist encased in a quarter ton of steel usually fares better than a cyclist on a 15-to-25-pound bicycle with nothing more than a jersey or jacket on his or her back.  But I am willing to be convinced by the science if it is out there.

Idaho Stops in Kentucky

The Delaware kerfuffle got me thinking about Kentucky’s Revised Statutes and Administrative Code on Idaho Stops.  Kentucky is definitely not on the list of the BIG SIX: Idaho, Arkansas, Colorado (on an opt-in basis), Delaware (for now), Oregon, and Washington.

Kentucky’s Administrative Code does permit a type of Idaho Stop: “[a] bicyclist operating on a highway or highway shoulder may proceed after stopping and if safe against a red light if a traffic signal fails to detect the bicycle.” See, 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5).  Note that this is an administrative regulation, not a full-blown bill passed into law.  This regulation is not written in the vein of the original Idaho Law, which contemplates a cyclist “approaching a stop sign [who] shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection[.]” Idaho Code 49-720.  It contemplates a full stop and a light that fails to detect a cyclist before a cyclist is permitted to proceed through the intersection.

As an administrative regulation, 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5) is also arguably subordinate to any local or municipal ordinances on point.  KRS 189.287 is the statute that gives the Department of Transportation the authority to pass regulations like 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5).  KRS 189.287 contains a caveat which states: “Bicycles and riders which comply with the regulations promulgated under this section are exempt from municipal and other local government regulations concerning safety equipment but not method of operation.

So the short answer is that a true “Idaho Stop” remains illegal in Kentucky but a cyclist can proceed against a red light (1) provided he or she comes to a complete stop and the light was not triggered and (2) provided there is not a local ordinance on point regulating a cyclist’s use of an intersection.

If you have any questions about the Idaho Law in general or Kentucky Law as applied to cyclists, you can reach the author at [email protected]