Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

[Daniel J. Stern]

*Reposted, this time to correct groups*

(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)

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:11:20 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>*Reposted, this time to correct groups*

>I was walking down Bloor St when I saw...

>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.
>
>Be nice if cops could/would (they probably can) write tickets and impound
>bicycles until the ticket is paid.
>
>-Stern (pedestrian/cyclist/driver)

I hear your momma was picked up on that same corner. Only, not for bad
biking behavior.

-B

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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!

Quite different from my experience. I stop and the cop runs the red.

> Now, it did my heart a lot of good to see and hear this.

The only times I've been stopped by a cop is when they insisted I
could not use the roadway but had to teeter on the couple inches
of pavement to the right on the while line and left of the gravel.

> I'd like to see a lot more of this kind of police activity, but pragmatic
> questions pretty much scotch the idea.

I'd like to see for ALL vehicles.

> 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.

This doesn't prevent a ticket from being written and legally binding.


> 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).

Because a warrant will be issued for his arrest. This will turn up at
a bad time like when he gets pulled over for driving 70mph on an empty
expressway at 2am.

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

Autos first. It would kill the speeding ticket industry. And btw, cops
are already known to do just that, cept it's with anyone riding a bike
within reach when there is some sort of protest or convention going on.

 

[The Lindbergh Baby]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> *Reposted, this time to correct groups*
>
> (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.

Okay, has anyone ever seen a cop let a driver off after they ran a red
light? Hmmmm??

Unless the driver was a politician or fellow cop, I doubt it.

And I love the argument from the bicyclist: there were no cars coming.
How the frig does he know? Is he psychic? There were no cars coming
because he lived to tell about it. Had there been cars coming, they'd
be scraping him off the street...

....And the gene pool would be 0.000000000000000001% better.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Bob Newman]

Too many to read every reply, I hope this wasn't touched on. We here in
Florida have had police crack downs in the past giving cyclists tickets for
not stopping, as you say "cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as
anyone else". That is not quite true in this case, cyclists are required to
do more! Simply stopping at a stop sign can still get you a ticket IF you
fail to put one foot fully on the ground. Comments?

Bob

"The Lindbergh Baby" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > *Reposted, this time to correct groups*
> >
> > (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.
>
> Okay, has anyone ever seen a cop let a driver off after they ran a red
> light? Hmmmm??
>
> Unless the driver was a politician or fellow cop, I doubt it.
>
> And I love the argument from the bicyclist: there were no cars coming.
> How the frig does he know? Is he psychic? There were no cars coming
> because he lived to tell about it. Had there been cars coming, they'd
> be scraping him off the street...
>
> ...And the gene pool would be 0.000000000000000001% better.
>
>
>
> John
>
> --
> To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
>
>
> Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
>

 

[Paul]

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

<article snipped>

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

AMEN to that. It would be espacially nice (for me anyways) if they would do this to
these idiot kids who have no clue of and/or disregard the rules of the road.

--
Paul

 

[John David Galt]

Bob Newman wrote:
> Too many to read every reply, I hope this wasn't touched on. We here in
> Florida have had police crack downs in the past giving cyclists tickets for
> not stopping, as you say "cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as
> anyone else". That is not quite true in this case, cyclists are required to
> do more! Simply stopping at a stop sign can still get you a ticket IF you
> fail to put one foot fully on the ground. Comments?

Sounds like the usual over-enforcement directed at auto drivers, where the
cop says you "didn't stop" if you didn't wait 5 seconds before proceeding.
The law needs to recognize that when your car rocks back on its springs,
you've stopped.

 

<snip>. The cop (surprise...) told the guy he was
> > just warning him this time rather than writing a ticket, and eventually
> > let him ride off.
>
> Okay, has anyone ever seen a cop let a driver off after they ran a red
> light? Hmmmm??
>
> Unless the driver was a politician or fellow cop, I doubt it.
</snip>

I'm neither and I've had warnings for that AND speeding while driving a car.

<snip>
> And I love the argument from the bicyclist: there were no cars coming.
> How the frig does he know? </snip>

A cyclist can see further down the road than drivers in a car coming to a
stop. Also many states have provisions for cyclists, if there is no traffic
at the light the cyclist can proceed due to the fact that bicycles may not
trip the sensor to make the light change.

Just as there are different rules for pedestrians, trucks, busses, and
motorcycles... There are different rules for cyclists. Some need to be
modified with the times but there are differences.

 

[Mike Baron]

"<<<<<< ]] gun_dog99 [[ >>>>>>" wrote:

>
> stop. Also many states have provisions for cyclists, if there is no traffic
> at the light the cyclist can proceed due to the fact that bicycles may not
> trip the sensor to make the light change.

Applies to all vehicles. If a signal is not working properly, one may
proceed with caution. A vehicle not tripping a sensor indicates a
siognal not working properly.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Bob Newman wrote:

> Florida have had police crack downs in the past giving cyclists tickets for
> not stopping, as you say "cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as
> anyone else". That is not quite true in this case, cyclists are required to
> do more! Simply stopping at a stop sign can still get you a ticket IF you
> fail to put one foot fully on the ground. Comments?

That seems silly and pecksnifian. For a well-balanced rider and bicycle,
It's perfectly possible to come to the kind of complete and adequate stop
that a stop sign requires without putting a foot fully on the ground.

-Stern

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, The Lindbergh Baby wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Okay, has anyone ever seen a cop let a driver off after they ran a red
> light? Hmmmm?? Unless the driver was a politician or fellow cop, I
> doubt it.

Hence my "(surprise...)".

> And I love the argument from the bicyclist: there were no cars coming.
> How the frig does he know?

He just, y'know, *knows!* Shut up, he does too! Does too does too does
TOO!

(In fact, Bloor street is busy 24 hours a day. There are *ALWAYS* cars
coming from three directions at the particular intersection this guy
blew.)

-Stern

 

[Daniel T.]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Newman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Too many to read every reply, I hope this wasn't touched on. We here in
>Florida have had police crack downs in the past giving cyclists tickets for
>not stopping, as you say "cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as
>anyone else". That is not quite true in this case, cyclists are required to
>do more! Simply stopping at a stop sign can still get you a ticket IF you
>fail to put one foot fully on the ground. Comments?

I think it's the same for mortorcycles, so I wouldn't say the cyclist is
required to do more in this case.

 

[Daniel T.]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote:

>*Reposted, this time to correct groups*
>
>(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.

You sound upset because the bicyclest is allowed to do things an
automobile driver is not allowed to do. When you see him take advantage
of his greater freedom it upsets you. You want auto drivers to have that
freedom to, or see it taken away from the bicyclest...

I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate, yet is sounds very familliar to
the debate over in rec.boats; there it's motor-boat vs sailboat.
Different vehicles, but the same facts. How much property damage can a
bicycle do compaired to a car? Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall
of the local McDonald's killing and injuring happy meal eaters? Isn't it
true that a bicycle is inherently safer to opperate than a car? If not
for the opperator, then certanly for everyone else?


>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.

Here you claim that the rules that bicyclest must obey are
"unenforceable" because there is no license to revoke, insurance premium
to jack up or points to accrue. However, there are many laws that people
are expected to obey that fit the same profile; shoplifting for example.
A shopper isn't required to carry a "shopping license" and won't have
any insurance problems or get any points if he is caught stealing a loaf
of bread.

I'm not saying that bicyclests shouldn't be licensed, but I am saying
that nothing you present here is a case for why they should.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >"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.
>
> You sound upset because the bicyclest is allowed to do things an
> automobile driver is not allowed to do

No, see, that's just it: Bicyclists *AREN'T* allowed to do things (like
run red lights) that cars aren't allowed to do. The guy who inspired my
original post got ordered off his bike and lectured by a cop; sounded like
next time the same cop sees him do the same thing, it'll be a ticket.

> I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate

That much is obvious. Such a "car vs. bicycle debate" is pointless.
Roadway safety is EVERY road user's job, whether they be on foot, on a
bike, on rollerblades, in a car, on a motorcycle...


> How much property damage can a bicycle do compaired to a car?

"Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
and damages can be quite large.

> Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
> and injuring happy meal eaters?

They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
venue, same effect.

> Isn't it true that a bicycle is inherently safer to opperate than a car?

Probably not.


> you claim that the rules that bicyclest must obey are "unenforceable"
> because there is no license to revoke, insurance premium to jack up or
> points to accrue.

That's right.

-Stern

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
> bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
> and damages can be quite large.
>
>> Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
>> and injuring happy meal eaters?
>
> They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
> multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
> venue, same effect.

I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

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

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Keats wrote:

> > They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
> > multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them.
> > Different venue, same effect.

> I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before, but
> I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this has occurred.

'cause the cyclist, having caused mayhem, simply decides he's a
pedestrian, makes a 90-degree turn and cruises away from the scene. Did
anyone get his license plate? Oh that's right...he DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE
ONE!

 

[Daniel T.]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
>> bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
>> and damages can be quite large.
>>
>>> Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
>>> and injuring happy meal eaters?
>>
>> They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
>> multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
>> venue, same effect.
>
>I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
>but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
>has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

I saw something close. I was making a left turn (with the green light)
when a bicyclist ran the light just as I was turning. Needless to say
the bicyclist was going too fast for anyone to really react to his
presence. He ended up hitting an SUV (note the bicyclist hit the
vehicle, not the other way around.) The bike was totaled and the rider
found himself flat on his back. Amazingly, the bicyclist wasn't hurt, of
course the driver of the SUV wasn't hurt either, how could he be? Hell,
I didn't even see any scratches on the side of his vehicle...

I'm not going to claim that what Mr. Stern says never happens, but I
expect that when something like that happens but its a car rather than a
bike that is "ramming" through a busy intersection against the light, a
hell of a lot more damage occurs.

I still say he's just ****** because he sees bikes doing what he can't
do in his car, but he isn't willing to ride a bike in order to have the
privileges that bikers have. Of course, that doesn't stop him from
wanting to take those privileges away from the bicyclists.

 

[Hunrobe]

>[email protected] (Tom Keats)

asked:

>> They (meaning cyclists... ed.) can ram through busy intersections against
the light, causing
>> multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
>> venue, same effect.
>
>I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
>but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
>has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

Specifically cyclists? No. But when I was in patrol I investigated literally
hundreds of crashes that were caused by a third party's disregard for traffic
rules and saw dozens of similiar circumstances with my own eyes. Almost without
exception, those third parties just kept right on going. Unless it was one of
those times that I *saw* the crash that is. Those people I stopped, returned
them to the scene, listed them as involved parties on the crash report, and
issued them tickets. Sometimes I miss patrol. <g>
I think there are two main reasons that there aren't more documented cases of a
cyclist causing a crash. First, unless the cop *sees* it he's not going to list
the cyclist on the face of the report and most stats are gathered from the face
of the report. Second, in comparison to motor vehicle traffic there really
aren't that many cyclists on the road. It's rather like, how many crashes has
anyone heard of that were caused by UPS delivery trucks? Not that many I'd
wager and it's *not* because all UPS drivers are careful conscientious drivers
that always obey the traffic laws.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Paul]

"Daniel T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,

> I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate, yet is sounds very familliar to
> the debate over in rec.boats; there it's motor-boat vs sailboat.
> Different vehicles, but the same facts. How much property damage can a
> bicycle do compaired to a car? Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall
> of the local McDonald's killing and injuring happy meal eaters?

A DUI bicyclist could pull many types of idiotic maneuvers that could cause a car
operator to lose control of his vehicle and plow into a McDonalds. And just why is
that DUI bicyclist on his bicycle? Did he lose his DL because of multiple DUI's?

--
Paul

 

[Paul]

"Daniel T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> I'm not going to claim that what Mr. Stern says never happens, but I
> expect that when something like that happens but its a car rather than a
> bike that is "ramming" through a busy intersection against the light, a
> hell of a lot more damage occurs.

What Stern is seeing (and what lots of other drivers see) is cyclists disregarding
the laws that they are supposed to be obeying. The difference is that the car driver
gets a ticket, fine and higher insurance when caught. The cyclist just gets away with
it.

> I still say he's just ****** because he sees bikes doing what he can't
> do in his car, but he isn't willing to ride a bike in order to have the
> privileges that bikers have. Of course, that doesn't stop him from
> wanting to take those privileges away from the bicyclists.

Since when do bicyclists have the privlege of disregarding traffic laws that are
there for the safety of everyone?

--
Paul