Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

[Paul]

"tk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
> Not familiar with the 4th amendment are we?

And the 4th amendment would have what to do with ticketing
some idiot kid (or holding his parents responsible) when he
breaks the law?

--
Paul

 

[Paul]

"Timothy J. Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]
> .umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern <[email protected]> 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 -- 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?
>
> Presumably the same thing the cop can do when arresting
> someone for jaywalking or other illegal activity, and that
> person doesn't have ID.

They can lock them up until they identify themselves, like
the local PD here is doing with some idiot protesters who
felt they had the right to block a highway last week.

See: http://tinyurl.com/28737

--
Paul

 

[brian-s-jones]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:41:13 GMT, [email protected]
(Brent P) wrote:

>I've read of these assinine crackdowns many times. A
>bicyclist does a track stand or simply rolls at 1 inch per
>hour to prevent falling and the cops ticket for not doing a
>complete stop. I've rarely heard of motorists being so
>ticketed, but for bicyclists it seems to be a
>characteristic of every 'crackdown'.

This has been applied to motorcyclists also and seems to be
an "attitude" issue with cops.

Those that are knowlegable will usually honor those that can
maintain balance at a stop.

Learned this from a CHP officer that conducted a motorcycle
safety course i took years ago. Motorcyclists are 'required'
to put one foot down for a STOP.

 

[brian-s-jones]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:20:44 GMT, Arif Khokar <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Daniel T. wrote:
>
>> The fact is, bicyclists don't have to obey the same
>> traffic laws as cars,
>
>That's fiction, not fact.
>
>> otherwise they would be getting pulled over and fined.
>
>Which has nothing to do with it. Just because a law isn't
>enforced doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Cyclists
>are supposed to follow the rules of the road just like a
>driver does.

I have lived in California and currently in
Washington...both states require adherance to motor vehicle
laws by cyclists and both states actively enforce these
laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling vary from state-to-
state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.

People get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop
signs, failure to yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne
been stopped and prosecuted for DUI while riding bicyles,
with the same penalties.

B

 

[Daniel T.]

[email protected] wrote:

>I have lived in California and currently in
>Washington...both states require adherance to motor vehicle
>laws by cyclists and both states actively enforce these
>laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling vary from state-to-
>state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
>People get stopped routinely for running traffic
>lights/stop signs, failure to yield to pedestrians/etc.
>People have evne been stopped and prosecuted for DUI while
>riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is
impossible because cyclists don't have licenses, or
insurance... Well Mr. Stern what do you say to this?

 

[R15757]

Tom Keats wrote in part:

<< Incidentally, I've never seen a cyclist "ram" through a
/busy/ intersection against the light. But then, I've never
seen anyone jump through between boxcars of a fast moving
train, either. >>

Nicely put, Tom.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in
> >Washington...both states require adherance to motor
> >vehicle laws by cyclists and both states actively enforce
> >these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling vary
> >from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
> >People get stopped routinely for running traffic
> >lights/stop signs, failure to yield to pedestrians/etc.
> >People have evne been stopped and prosecuted for DUI
> >while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is
> impossible because cyclists don't have licenses, or
> insurance... Well Mr. Stern what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in part:

> 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.

Well, the original poster (Daniel Stern) seems to believe
cyclists and our bicycles should be subject to similar
bureaucratic requirements as drivers in re: licensing,
registration and insurance, in order to facilitate traffic
law enforcement.

As I understand his posts, he refers to some sort of
major mayhem cyclists wreak on motor vehicles, to support
his position.

That last part just sounds a little topsy-turvy to me. Or at
least, over-stated. I'm sure Mr. Stern would get his wish as
soon as bicycles & riders routinely do to cars & drivers,
what cars & drivers can currently do to bicycles & riders.
In the meantime, as other posters have attested, traffic law
enforcement with cyclists is already alive and well. Alive,
anyway. Heck, in the original post
Mr. Stern himself gives an account of his eyewitnessing a
cyclist getting pulled-over and chewed-out.

Besides, even I - a liberal, see such bureaucratic bloat as
a waste of focus and resources that would be better spent on
other, more important things. Gee, maybe the original poster
is a fellow liberal, since he appears to actually /want/
bureaucratic bloat?

But I do think having third party liability insurance is
a good idea. Fortunately, as you no doubt know, but I'm
just saying it for the benefit of other readers who might
be interested: it's available via membership in some
cycling clubs.

cheers, Tom

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

 

[Norman Wilson]

Daniel J. Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street
about 4km from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is
far from straight). Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River
to the west border of the current City of Toronto (formerly
Metro Toronto), and in fact on into Mississauga, the
sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm familiar with are
certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at any hour
of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and
Humber Rivers, Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer
lanes occupied by parking except in the rush hour. Lane
widths vary, but in general it's fairly good cycling save
for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door zone,
and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of
peak hours the on-street parking effectively provides
traffic calming for free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in
the style of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested
in the details.

Norman Wilson Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

 

[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?

> John David Galt wrote:
>> 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.

Bob Newman wrote:
> It is not overzealous. It has been taken to court. That
> is the way the law reads.

Not around here or in any state I've looked up, it doesn't.
Neither "5 seconds" nor "one foot on the ground" is
mentioned. The statute as written merely requires a
complete stop.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Norman Wilson wrote:

> >(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.)
>
> Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

Forget the street name; it's the traffic light four or five
blocks West of High Park Ave (the one *with* cross traffic)

-Stern

 

[Paul]

"Daniel T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >newsostmaster-
> >[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]
> >> gin.umich.edu>,
> >
> >> 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 a DUI driver could pull many types of idiotic
> maneuvers that could cause a bicyclest to lose control and
> plow into a McDonalds... Oops actually that's not the case
> is it, the bicyclest *can't* plow into a McDonalds.
>
> Your ignoring the central fact; a bicyclist simply
> *cannot* do the kind of damage that an auto driver can do.
> Because of this central fact, there really isn't as much
> need to ensure that bicyclests are skilled compared to
> auto drivers.

And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can
not actually *do* the damage, the cyclist can set in motion
the events that *cause* the damage. i.e.: a cyclist darts
out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
oncomming car swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of
those vehicles. The cyclist did not physically do the
damage, but was the cause of the damage.

At a bare minimum, bicyclists should be required to know
the rules of the road and should be required to obey
them with the same consequences if they disregard the
rules of the road.

--
Paul

 

[Daniel T.]

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can
>not actually *do* the damage, the cyclist can set in motion
>the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it
doesn't matter because this isn't something unique to
bicyclists.

>i.e.: a cyclist darts out into traffic from between two
> parked vehicles and an oncomming car swerves to avoid
> the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist
> did not physically do the damage, but was the cause of
> the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into
traffic, it will happen too fast for any of the cars to
react, he'll either get hit or make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike
rider is just as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and
that is why he should have to get a "bike rider license". No
matter what a bike rider does, less damage will ensue than
if a car driver did the exact same thing. And there are many
very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a bike rider
simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

 

[Bernard Farquar]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> I have lived in California and currently in
> Washington...both states require adherance to motor
> vehicle laws by cyclists and both states actively enforce
> these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling vary
> from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
> People get stopped routinely for running traffic
> lights/stop signs, failure to yield to pedestrians/etc.
> People have evne been stopped and prosecuted for DUI while
> riding bicyles, with the same penalties.
>
> B

That's what I thought too, until a bike ran into the front
of my car going against traffic fast down a hill. My
insurance paid, weenies.

Bernard

 

[Collin]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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!

Mr. Stern, have you ever ridden a bike? You just sound
increasingly like a car-loving troll. If so, do you
really follow the rules to the letter as you would have
us believe? Do you have a self-made license plate?

I won't deny there are bicyclists who flout the rules, but
be realistic, will you?

 

[Collin]

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <[email protected]
> in.umich.edu>, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>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!
>
>
> There'd still be a bunch of drivers both directly involved
> and simply looking on, in these alleged, cyclist-caused,
> multi-car pile-ups.
>
> So, where are they? Let's hear from these drivers (if they
> exist.) Or better yet -- their insurance reps.
>
> Incidentally, I've never seen a cyclist "ram" through a
> /busy/ intersection against the light. But then, I've
> never seen anyone jump through between boxcars of a fast
> moving train, either.
>

I have seen this happen, and I'm always shocked at how
stupid the bicyclists are. They're really trusting those
strangers to be paying attention.

I did once see a bicyclist fly over a hood once. It was
ENTIRELY the bicyclists fault. He ran a stop sign when the
oncoming traffic did not have a stop sign.

But frankly, I resent all the people who treat me and others
on this newsgroup like I'm *THAT* bicyclist.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Collin <[email protected]> writes:

>> There'd still be a bunch of drivers both directly
>> involved and simply looking on, in these alleged, cyclist-
>> caused, multi-car pile-ups.
>>
>> So, where are they? Let's hear from these drivers (if
>> they exist.) Or better yet -- their insurance reps.
>>
>> Incidentally, I've never seen a cyclist "ram" through a
>> /busy/ intersection against the light. But then, I've
>> never seen anyone jump through between boxcars of a fast
>> moving train, either.
>>
>
> I have seen this happen, and I'm always shocked at how
> stupid the bicyclists are.

Yeah, whatever.

> They're really trusting those strangers to be paying
> attention.

So anyhow, have you seen any incident where the actions of a
reckless cyclist directly caused three or more motor
vehicles to be involved in collisions with vehicles other
than the bicycle itself?

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

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:53:13 -0400,
<[email protected]> apologist scum "Paul",
<UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> whined:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can
>not actually *do* the damage, the cyclist can set in motion
>the events that *cause* the damage. i.e.: a cyclist darts
>out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of
>those vehicles. The cyclist did not physically do the
>damage, but was the cause of the damage.

Blow me. A dog, coon or skunk could do the same thing.

If you can't control your scud in public, park it or give it
back to the bank.

thpppfffffft!
--
zk

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
johngrabowski1 @die.spammersearthlink.net says...

...

> 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...

He probably looked. That's how I tell if there are
cars coming.

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

 

[Paul]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:53:13 -0400,

> Blow me.

*plonk*

> A dog, coon or skunk could do the same thing.

Most drivers won't swerve for a coon or skunk and if the dog
has a tag on the collar, his owner is mine.

> If you can't control your scud in public, park it or give
> it back to the bank.

And if you can't obey the law while riding your bike,
get the hell off the road. Otherwise, I'd be perfectly
happy to let you see the underside of my car, you
worthless eco-*****.