Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

Daniel J. Stern

(Prefatory note to Brent: Yes, I'm aware there are many badly-
behaved motorists. No, I don't think they should get off scot-
free, either. Yes, I'm aware you're vehemently opposed to
bicycle and rider registration. No, I don't buy your
putative reasons for it. Yes, I know you have to respond to
this post. No, I won't get in a pissing contest with you.)

I was walking down Bloor St when I saw a copcycle pull over
a cyclist for running a red light...talk about shock and
awe! I've never seen the likes of this before. The cop
ordered the cyclist to dismount, walk his bike to the corner
and park it, then lectured the guy for a few minutes ("Red
lights mean STOP, whether you're in a car or on a bike or on
your feet! It's the same rules of the road for you as for
everyone else who uses it!"). The guy was arguing that he
bicycles in this area all the time, there were no cars
coming, etc. The cop (surprise...) told the guy he was just
warning him this time rather than writing a ticket, and
eventually let him ride off.

Now, it did my heart a lot of good to see and hear this.
There are way too many badly-behaved bicyclists in Toronto,
as there are in every other city. "Hey, lookit me! I'm a
car! WHUP, now I'm a pedestrian! WHUP! Now I'm neither! Hey,
lookit me riding on the wrong side of the street! After
dark! Without lights or reflectors! Wearing all black! And
if you hit me, it'll be all your fault, neener neener
neener! Whoah, sucks to be you, red lights are only for
cars!" etc.

I'd like to see a lot more of this kind of police activity,
but pragmatic questions pretty much scotch the idea. There's
no law requiring registration of bicycles or carrying an
operator's license -- or, for that matter, any form of
identification at all -- while riding one. Should be, but
isn't. So what if the cop stops someone who hasn't got ID?
What, exactly, can the cop do? And even if s/he succeeds in
writing a ticket, what's to motivate the recipient to pay
it? There'll be no demerit points on his driver's license
(which s/he may not even have). There'll be no increase in
insurance premiums (which s/he's not required to carry).
There'll be no denial of renewed registration (also not
required).

Be nice if cops could/would (they probably can) write
tickets and impound bicycles until the ticket is paid.

-Stern (pedestrian/cyclist/driver)

Florence Hender

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:02:32 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> said:

>There's no law requiring registration of bicycles or
>carrying an operator's license -- or, for that matter, any
>form of identification at all --

Nor should there be.

It's a lot harder to ride a horse than it is to ride a bike,
yet back in the days when everyone rode around on horseback,
a license wasn't required.

Badger_south

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:02:32 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>Now, it did my heart a lot of good to see and hear this.
>There are way too many badly-behaved bicyclists in Toronto,
>as there are in every other city.

Nice troll, but I only give it a 1.5.

Google only shows two posts to Usenet, and they're in
'automobile' and 'motorcycle' groups.

Get a life, maybe?

-Badger

S O R N I

Florence Henderson Had A Mullet wrote:

Who cares? User Name of the Month Award!!!

Bill "Rose Marie had a... nah, can't go there" S.

Daniel J. Stern

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, maxo wrote:

> Riding your bike on the sidewalk on Sheridan road in
> Chicago WILL get your bike impounded. Irony is that it's
> one of the scariest places for even experienced riders in
> town--I've seen full dress racer boys chicken out and jump
> up on the sidewalk there.

Yeesh. Sounds like fun and merriment for all involved...

Daniel J. Stern

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Florence Henderson Had A Mullet wrote:

> >There's no law requiring registration of bicycles or
> >carrying an operator's license -- or, for that matter,
> >any form of identification at all --
>
> Nor should there be.

I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same
rules of the road...except there are no teeth to this
requirement, since there's no means by which to exact
consequences if they flout traffic law. If bicycles are to
be taken seriously as a means of transportation, enforceable
consequences for traffic law violation is critical.

> It's a lot harder to ride a horse than it is to ride a
> bike, yet back in the days when everyone rode around on
> horseback, a license wasn't required.

Horses weren't mixed in with cars, either.

-Stern

Daniel J. Stern

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Badger_South wrote:

> >Now, it did my heart a lot of good to see and hear this.
> >There are way too many badly-behaved bicyclists in
> >Toronto, as there are in every other city.
>
> Nice troll, but I only give it a 1.5.

'cept it wasn't a troll.

> Google only shows two posts to Usenet

You're kidding, right? I've been on Usenet since early '94.
Infrequent posts to rec.bicycles.misc, but *thousands* of
posts to rec.autos.*, sci.engr.lighting, us.talk.headline-
news, and others.

> 'motorcycle' groups.

Nope, don't think I've posted to motorcycle groups.

-Stern

Brent P

In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406120015260.8911@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
> wrote:
>
>> >There's no law requiring registration of bicycles or
>> >carrying an operator's license -- or, for that matter,
>> >any form of identification at all --
>>
>> Nor should there be.
>
> I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same
> rules of the road...except there are no teeth to this
> requirement, since there's no means by which to exact
> consequences if they flout traffic law If bicycles are to
> be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
> enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is
> critical.

So you are going to require people to license their shoes
too? Your arguements apply in the same manner.

>> It's a lot harder to ride a horse than it is to ride a
>> bike, yet back in the days when everyone rode around on
>> horseback, a license wasn't required.
>
> Horses weren't mixed in with cars, either.

I think you should watch some old films from the early
20th century.

Florence Hender

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> said:

>Horses weren't mixed in with cars, either.

Then maybe cars should be banned from the roads.

Let's face it: A lot of roads were built before cars were
invented. So do cars really have a right to be on our roads?

Pete

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406120015260.8911@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
> wrote:
>
> > >There's no law requiring registration of bicycles or
> > >carrying an operator's license -- or, for
that
> > >matter, any form of identification at all --
> >
> > Nor should there be.
>
> I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same
> rules of the road...except there are no teeth to this
> requirement, since there's no means by which to exact
> consequences if they flout traffic law. If bicycles are to
> be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
> enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is
> critical.

So you think cyclists should be required to have a license
and registration? Below what age should we then ban cycling?
16? 14? 13?

Pete and no, let's not get into a cross post war with
wreck.autos

Gooserider

Are BMX kids the worst offenders? I think it's a tie between
them and DUI Charlies. I saw a teenager on a BMX yesterday.
He was wearing a walkman, and cut across two lanes of
traffic(not at the intersection), and proceeded to ride down
the turning lane. Geez.....

Zippy The Pinhe

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:39:04 GMT, "Gooserider"
<gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>Are BMX kids the worst offenders? I think it's a tie
>between them and DUI Charlies. I saw a teenager on a BMX
>yesterday. He was wearing a walkman, and cut across two
>lanes of traffic(not at the intersection), and proceeded to
>ride down the turning lane. Geez.....
>

I don't know if they're BMX bikes, but the riders where I
live who exhibit the most robust death-wish wear wool
stocking caps, pants several sizes too big, and have their
seats adjusted so low that their knees come up around their
chin. They use only one hand, the other one either dangles
or has a cigarette.

Daniel J. Stern

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Florence Henderson Had A Mullet wrote:

> >Horses weren't mixed in with cars, either.
>
> Then maybe cars should be banned from the roads.

Except that this is reality, not dreamy-dream land.

> Let's face it: A lot of roads were built before cars
> were invented. So do cars really have a right to be on
> our roads?

Nonsequitur.

-Stern

Joe

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same
>rules of the road...except there are no teeth to this
>requirement, since there's no means by which to exact
>consequences if they flout traffic law. If bicycles are to
>be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
>enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is
>critical.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but in mine
breaking traffic laws on a bicycle makes you subject to the
same tickets and fines as doing it with a auto. To say that
the law only can be enforced if you have a license is
nonsense. You have to prove ID to the police officer issuing
the ticket regardless if you have a license. Can't prove who
you are to the police officers satisfaction then he can hold
you until you can. Therefore the courts have the same
"..means to exact consequences..". If we believe your
argument then we would think that a dog walker couldn't be
issued a ticket for having a unleashed dog because he
doesn't have a dog walking license nor could a litterbug get
a ticket because he doesn't have a dumping license.

---
Joe REMOVE "Adds" before e-mailing