Almost got a ticket today!

[Peter Cole]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Traffic signals are all about efficiency, not safety or courtesy. If
motorists
> > ignore them gridlock ensues (earlier than normal). Bikes don't have the
same
> > effect. While you slavishly obey the letter of the law, you violate the spirit.
>
> I'm glad you don't drive through my neighborhood.

I think you missed my point entirely. I always stop for traffic signals when I drive. I rarely do
when I bike.

 

[Peter Cole]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm glad you don't drive through my neighborhood.
>
> he should really move to mine. it's perfectly legal to treat a stop sign as a yield in idaho.
>
> idaho 49-720 i believe.
>
> http://respect.to/legal/rolling_stops.html
> http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/police/Operations/bicycles.htm
>
> i can't bring myself to do it, tho. for proponents of give an inch take a mile most people treat
> stop lights the same way and many believe they're justified.

Seems like a very logical set of rules to me. I pretty much ride the same way in MA even though the
rules are virtually identical to car rules. The fines aren't, so I can live with that. Cops don't
pay any attention to bikes either, except where "bike advocates" have insisted on it. Unless you're
impeding traffic. They get nasty about that despite it being perfectly legal.

 

[Scott]

Peter Cole wrote:
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Traffic signals are all about efficiency, not safety or courtesy. If
>
> motorists
>
>>>ignore them gridlock ensues (earlier than normal). Bikes don't have the
>
> same
>
>>>effect. While you slavishly obey the letter of the law, you violate the spirit.
>>
>>I'm glad you don't drive through my neighborhood.
>
>
> I think you missed my point entirely. I always stop for traffic signals when I drive. I rarely do
> when I bike.

Oh I see. That's completely different. I'm glad you don't *bike* through my neighborhood.

Scott

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:40:55 GMT, "Peter Cole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Twit.
>
>****.

Wow...any day now, this newsfroup will reach the intelligence level of WWE 'professional wrestling'.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <0yG0c.94017$4o.117244@attbi_s52>,
"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> writes:

> The only place around here that tickets for such things is Cambridge, MA, where the bicycle
> committee has lobbied for it.

It's so stupidly counter-productive to make things harder than they need to be. Oh well, I guess
that bicycle committee thinks they're doing a Good Work, showing that cyclists are "exactly" as
answerable as drivers -- I suppose with the intent of appeasing the drivers and bolstering
cyclist/driver relations.

Of course if cyclists /were/ exactly as answerable as drivers, cyclists shouldn't be forced to be
any more demonstratively law-abiding than drivers. It's most disappointing when cyclists work
against themselves.

No rider who properly yields deserves a ticket, whether or not they come to a complete, foot-
down stop.

I don't think most drivers even care whether or not a rider puts their foot down at a stop line,
as long as they're obviously yielding (an arm signal helps there) and prepared to completely stop
if need be. Drivers do seem to get edgy if riders circle around in front of them at the stop
line, though.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Chris B .]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:40:33 GMT, "Peter Cole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >
>> > For me it's about getting from point A to B. If I stopped for all the
>traffic
>> > controls I might as well drive. The only thing motorists respect is not
>being
>> > slowed down. Me too.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I feel the same way when I'm in a car. Who needs to stop at all those steenkin' signs?
>> <eyeroll>
>
>Traffic signals are all about efficiency, not safety or courtesy.

Ron? <g

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:50:52 GMT, alicem <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I once got stopped by the Police here (U.K) for speeding whilst out on a ride and a much welcomed
> >long descent!!!! I think they must have been bored out of their tiny minds. Saying that they did
> >just 'warn' me about the regulations and didn't take it further. Would have been rather funny if
> >they had though
>
> PC Plod strikes again.

Around here, the New Westminster PD has a reputation for being where cops go when they fail the RCMP
entrance exam. That said, I had an enjoyable experience with the NWPD one day on my commute:

There's a major route through downtown New West that has a 30 km/h speed
limit. That's right, a 4-lane road in a commercial shopping district where the maximum speed is 18
mph. One rush-hour morning, the police were out doing a radar set. as I came past pushing
hard, one cop looked up, said, "34, pretty good!" and gave me a thumbs-up. I grinned like a
silly thing.

Can now hit 50 for short sprints on the flats,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Peter Cole]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <0yG0c.94017$4o.117244@attbi_s52>, "Peter Cole"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The only place around here that tickets for such things is Cambridge, MA, where the
bicycle
> > committee has lobbied for it.
>
> It's so stupidly counter-productive to make things harder than they need to be. Oh well, I guess
> that bicycle committee thinks they're doing a Good Work, showing that cyclists are "exactly" as
> answerable as drivers -- I suppose with the intent of appeasing the drivers and bolstering
> cyclist/driver relations.
>
> Of course if cyclists /were/ exactly as answerable as drivers, cyclists shouldn't be forced to be
> any more demonstratively law-abiding than drivers. It's most disappointing when cyclists work
> against themselves.

Yeah, I think the most frequent consequence is that it gives the cops, who are pretty anti-bike to
begin with, and excuse to hassle cyclists. There was a guy who reported on one of the lists as
having been arrested after allegedly running a light and ignoring a stop command. He claimed the cop
mocked him with "Same roads, same rules" as he cuffed him and took him away. I guess he was lucky
not to have been shot.

This same bicycle committee has been striping bike lanes around town, lanes where virtually the
entire width falls within the door zone. They continue this striping despite a dooring fatality last
summer. Heaven save us from cycling advocates.

 

[H. M. Leary]

In article <[email protected]>,
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:40:55 GMT, "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Twit.
> >
> >****.
>
> Wow...any day now, this newsfroup will reach the intelligence level of WWE 'professional
> wrestling'.
> --
> Rick Onanian

Aiming pretty high there, Rick???

Equal Rights = Equal Responsibility

Also, the laws of gross tonnage apply at stop signs.

Ride safe.

--
"Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness"

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

 

[Harris]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think you missed my point entirely. I always stop for traffic signals when I drive. I rarely do
> when I bike.

Of course. Bikes are just toys.

Art H.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think you missed my point entirely. I always stop for traffic signals
when I
> > drive. I rarely do when I bike.
>
> Of course. Bikes are just toys.

I think you missed my point too.

 

[Chris B .]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:21:44 GMT, "Peter Cole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>This same bicycle committee has been striping bike lanes around town, lanes where virtually the
>entire width falls within the door zone. They continue this striping despite a dooring fatality
>last summer. Heaven save us from cycling advocates.

A-ha! You are Ron!

 

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:58:37 -0800, <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>>>.....it gives the cops, who are pretty anti-bike to begin with, and excuse to hassle cyclists.
>>
>> Darn, I never knew that I and the coworkers I ride with occasionally are all antibike!
>
>I thought he was referring specifically to Cambridge, MA cops.

I figured he meant only a few individual officers, who may be of Geoff Miller's ilk, abusing their
entrusted powers.
--
zk

 

[Rick Onanian]

Somebody wrote:
>> I was really hoping in the back of my mind that there
>> _would_ be a cop waiting with a radar gun in the bushes.
>> That speeding ticket for going 62 MPH (100 KPH) in a 45
>> MPH (72 KPH) zone would have been framed and hung in a
>> place of honor on my wall!

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:49:28 -0500, David Kerber
<ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>Deservingly so; it would easily be worth a $50 ticket to
>have something like that! I'd love to have a hill like that
>around here, but there's nothing that long.

I can think of some here in East Greenwich that might work:
- Division Street, especially from Route 2 towards
Main Street
- Middle Road, from Carrs Pond Road to Route 2
- a road on one of my usual routes that is most likely
Stony Lane, but may be South Road or Narrow Lane.
Looking at a map, most likely South Road. Every ride, I
remember doing 40mph as I brake hard or miss the street
I want to turn onto; if, instead, I follow all the way
down, I wouldn't be surprised to hit 62mph. Maybe I
should make a point of it. Maybe we should go together
so I can have somebody to scrape me off the pavement...

In fact, I guess most of East Greenwich slopes sharply down
heading east. Stony Lane and most of Narrow Lane are in
North Kingstown, but the South Road I'm talking about is in
EG, just over the border, attached to Narrow Lane (not the
South Road in Exeter).
--
Rick Onanian

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Somebody wrote:
> >> I was really hoping in the back of my mind that there
> >> _would_ be a cop waiting with a radar gun in the
> >> bushes. That speeding ticket for going 62 MPH (100 KPH)
> >> in a 45 MPH (72 KPH) zone would have been framed and
> >> hung in a place of honor on my wall!
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:49:28 -0500, David Kerber
> <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
> >Deservingly so; it would easily be worth a $50 ticket to
> >have something like that! I'd love to have a hill like
> >that around here, but there's nothing that long.
>
> I can think of some here in East Greenwich that
> might work:
> - Division Street, especially from Route 2 towards Main
> Street
> - Middle Road, from Carrs Pond Road to Route 2
> - a road on one of my usual routes that is most likely
> Stony Lane, but may be South Road or Narrow Lane.
> Looking at a map, most likely South Road. Every ride,
> I remember doing 40mph as I brake hard or miss the
> street I want to turn onto; if, instead, I follow all
> the way down, I wouldn't be surprised to hit 62mph.
> Maybe I should make a point of it. Maybe we should go
> together so I can have somebody to scrape me off the
> pavement...

Do these have enough of a runout at the bottom to allow you
to go all out? The one by the URI bay campus would be great,
but there's only about 30 feet of pavement before you get to
the beach, and Gilbert Stuart Rd would be fine if you could
trust the cars not to pull out of the blind driveways (you'd
also have to be able to handle some high speed curves). The
one you didn't want to climb on Rt 2 just south of 138 might
work as well.

> In fact, I guess most of East Greenwich slopes sharply
> down heading east. Stony Lane and most of Narrow Lane are
> in North Kingstown, but the South Road I'm talking about
> is in EG, just over the border, attached to Narrow Lane
> (not the South Road in Exeter).

I'm not familiar with that area...

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:50:23 -0500, David Kerber
<ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>[email protected] says...
>> - Division Street, especially from Route 2 towards Main
>> Street
>> - Middle Road, from Carrs Pond Road to Route 2
>> - a road on one of my usual routes that is most likely
>> Stony Lane, but may be South Road or Narrow Lane.
>> Looking at a map, most likely
>
>Do these have enough of a runout at the bottom to allow you
>to go all out? The one by the URI bay campus would be
>great, but there's only about 30 feet of pavement before
>you get to the beach, and Gilbert Stuart Rd would be fine
>if you could trust the cars not to pull out of the blind
>driveways (you'd also have to be able to handle some high
>speed curves). The one you didn't want to climb on Rt 2
>just south of 138 might work as well.

Er, good point.

The blind driveways would be an issue on these roads too. If
Stony Lane is as I remember it, it's got a nice runout at
the bottom. Division has none; it continues steeply down
through the traffic light at Main St. Middle road runs out
nicely just after it crosses a traffic light at Route 2.
--
Rick Onanian