Anything I can do about this woman?

likitisplit

Buy a treadmill.

Honestly, I bet the driver isn't intentionally moving toward the jogger. It sounds like she's just driving and the jogger expects acknowledgement and a wide berth. I imagine the driver's actual legal obligation is to not cross into the oncoming lane since it's been described as having a double line. So the law might be on her side, assuming she's never actually driven on the shoulder.

You could also shoot a bb gun at your feet and try to move them out of the way quickly enough. I think that would be less painful. And talk about high intensity.

CupcakeCrusoe

This thread was a fantastic diversion.

I'm in the "use a flashlight" camp. If she continues being an oblivious twatwaffle, you at least have to opportunity to make your presence very well known.

DAM5412

Anyone else feeling like the OP was just a troll? No more activity since Friday.

dbmata

Honestly, I bet the driver isn't intentionally moving toward the jogger.

Obviously you've never run, walked, or ridden a bike on the roads. People most certainly do drive their cars intentionally at cyclists and pedestrians. They think it's funny to scare them, or want to "teach them a lesson."

When you're watching a car come at you on a long straightaway, where it's maintaining proper lane position, and see it move toward the white line as it approaches you...every day...then it's safe to assume they're doing it deliberately.

Don't engage that one, they see things "differently". For example, the above statement after reading the OP.


So, looks like no update from the OP? OP died? damn.

likitisplit

Honestly, I bet the driver isn't intentionally moving toward the jogger.

Obviously you've never run, walked, or ridden a bike on the roads. People most certainly do drive their cars intentionally at cyclists and pedestrians. They think it's funny to scare them, or want to "teach them a lesson."

When you're watching a car come at you on a long straightaway, where it's maintaining proper lane position, and see it move toward the white line as it approaches you...every day...then it's safe to assume they're doing it deliberately.

Don't engage that one, they see things "differently". For example, the above statement after reading the OP.


So, looks like no update from the OP? OP died? damn.

Nah. She's still active in the forums.

WalkingAlong

Honestly, I bet the driver isn't intentionally moving toward the jogger.

Obviously you've never run, walked, or ridden a bike on the roads. People most certainly do drive their cars intentionally at cyclists and pedestrians. They think it's funny to scare them, or want to "teach them a lesson."

When you're watching a car come at you on a long straightaway, where it's maintaining proper lane position, and see it move toward the white line as it approaches you...every day...then it's safe to assume they're doing it deliberately.

I imagine that very few people think that's funny.

I think it's more likely the driver is focusing on trying to thread the needle between the runner and the lane lines. Sometimes when you focus too much on an obstacle, you unintentionally steer a bit toward it. If the obstacle also had a leashed dog and was waving, I might find it distracting enough to look away and focus on my center lane markers.

stealthq

Honestly, I bet the driver isn't intentionally moving toward the jogger.

Obviously you've never run, walked, or ridden a bike on the roads. People most certainly do drive their cars intentionally at cyclists and pedestrians. They think it's funny to scare them, or want to "teach them a lesson."

When you're watching a car come at you on a long straightaway, where it's maintaining proper lane position, and see it move toward the white line as it approaches you...every day...then it's safe to assume they're doing it deliberately.

Or, they have the common tendency to steer toward where they're looking - and the driver is focused on the runner or cyclist. Probably happens a fair bit. Kind of like how drunk drivers are known to steer toward lights, especially if they're flashing (like police car lightbars or 4-ways).

dbmata

I did a little searching of news headlines in the OP's area.

I saw this image, and well. I'll let you draw the appropriate conclusions.

willrun4bagels

I like the air horn idea. Or carry a dozen eggs or something equally as breakable and throw them at her as she drives past.

likitisplit

I did a little searching of news headlines in the OP's area.

I saw this image, and well. I'll let you draw the appropriate conclusions.

Who recommended that?!?

Lisah8969

Darn it...I read through 9 pages of posts and no update from the OP? Very sad.

Not that any more advice is needed, but I would call the police department and see if they have any advice and then when I see her coming, I would run in the grass with the dog.

castlerobber

I imagine the driver's actual legal obligation is to not cross into the oncoming lane since it's been described as having a double line. So the law might be on her side, assuming she's never actually driven on the shoulder.

So, the driver isn't obliged/allowed to avoid obstacles in her lane? She has to stay on her side of the double yellow line at ALL costs, even if there's a tree limb down across her lane, or a piece of furniture that fell off the back of a pickup and shattered, or a cow standing in the lane refusing to move (yes, these are all very real scenarios where I live)?

Of course not. Common sense says you move over the amount necessary, without interfering with oncoming traffic. Why should it be any different for avoiding another human being at the edge of the lane? If a policeman were following the driver, I suspect he'd look far more kindly on the driver's avoiding the runner than he would the driver's forcing the runner off the road in the name of staying in the lane.

likitisplit

I imagine the driver's actual legal obligation is to not cross into the oncoming lane since it's been described as having a double line. So the law might be on her side, assuming she's never actually driven on the shoulder.

So, the driver isn't obliged/allowed to avoid obstacles in her lane? She has to stay on her side of the double yellow line at ALL costs, even if there's a tree limb down across her lane, or a piece of furniture that fell off the back of a pickup and shattered, or a cow standing in the lane refusing to move (yes, these are all very real scenarios where I live)?

Of course not. Common sense says you move over the amount necessary, without interfering with oncoming traffic. Why should it be any different for avoiding another human being at the edge of the lane? If a policeman were following the driver, I suspect he'd look far more kindly on the driver's avoiding the runner than he would the driver's forcing the runner off the road in the name of staying in the lane.

That's why I drive one of these:

dbmata

I did a little searching of news headlines in the OP's area.

I saw this image, and well. I'll let you draw the appropriate conclusions.

Who recommended that?!?

**** Cheney. Duh!

dbmata

OP totally had it in control. Some sweet CCTV NSA cam footage:

likitisplit

I was walking in the area and saw this:

yogicarl

- and that runs the length of the road in question? or is near enough to use as an alternate route?

mojohowitz

congrats everyone on the great advice...i found her today. the lady ran into her before she could blow the airhorn or use her sharp pointy stick

2bassets

Dang, I was hoping this was a legit problem.

sdereski

well, there is what i would actually like to do (stinger in the road, kick car as it passes, shoot out tyres?) and then there is what I would actually do, which is take down the number plate and report her to the police for unsafe driving!

this. Absolutely this!