Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

[Alexander Gilch]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Keats wrote:
> 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.

Not a bicycle, but we had a situation locally where a
student and his girlfriend were waiting for a stopped
freight train was blocking the crossing (equipped with
flashing signal lights), which was on a curve with the
engine well out of sight. The guy got impatient and decided
to crawl under the train. The train "suddenly" started (how
do you "suddenly" start a 100-car freight) and ran over the
guy, killing him. The current info on the accident is to
blame the engineer and the RR company for operating the
freight in a negligent manner. And so it goes.

 

[Alexander Gilch]

Daniel T. wrote:
> There is a law in my city that says people are not allowed
> to shower naked.

There is a law in Kentucky that makes it unlawful to breed
animals within 100 yards of a schoolbuilding, or 200 yards
of a church. Why the difference, I wonder.

OT, but it beats the current discussion.

 

[Norman Wilson]

Daniel J. Stern <[email protected]>:
>Forget the street name; it's the traffic light four or five
>blocks West of High Park Ave (the one *with* cross traffic)

Four or five blocks west, a block or two west of where the
grade levels out, first true four-way intersection west of
High Park? Probably Runnymede.

That is indeed a busy part of Bloor Street, both in the
roadway and in pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks and in
the crosswalks.

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

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> writes:

> 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-*****.

So at least we don't have to worry about you swerving into
another car or two, to avoid hitting a cyclist. And the mass
of goo and twisted metal that used to be a bike and its
rider wouldn't need a license and registration. Some ID
wouldn't hurt, though.

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

 

[Scott In AztláN]

In rec.autos.driving, Zoot Katz said:

>>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.

Interesting... So you're saying that pedalcyclists are about
as intelligent as dogs, coons, and skunks?

--
Sloth is the first deadly sin.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Norman Wilson wrote:

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

> Four or five blocks west, a block or two west of where the
> grade levels out, first true four-way intersection west of
> High Park? Probably Runnymede.

Yep! Runnymede it was.

> That is indeed a busy part of Bloor Street, both in the
> roadway and in pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks and in
> the crosswalks.

"There were no cars comin'!" (the bicyclist who got
stopped). As you know, there are *always* cars comin' there.

-Stern

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Collin wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern 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?

Certainly. I ride mine -- on the street, in traffic --
frequently when weather permits.

-Stern

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul wrote:

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

Must be different where you live. As a 100% legally riding
bicyclist I can say that the majority of drivers treat geese
better than bicyclists.

 

[Tanya]

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

The cops in Toronto are in the midst right now of their
"Cycle Right" campaign which basically means stopping
bicycles for *any* sort of infraction. More stories here:
http://www.web.net/~lukmar/BLD/B1398152979/C258049906/E1050-
780882/index.html

> 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,

In Ontario anyway providing your correct name and address to
the cop is considered to be valid ID. If the cop doesn't
think you are telling the truth, they can detain you as they
can detain you for anything else.

> 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).

Credit rating?

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

Do you think they should do the same for automobiles?

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Tanya wrote:

> The cops in Toronto are in the midst right now of their
> "Cycle Right" campaign which basically means stopping
> bicycles for *any* sort of infraction. More stories here:
> http://www.web.net/~lukmar/BLD/B1398152979/C258049906/E10-
> 50780882/index.html

Interesting!

> > Be nice if cops could/would (they probably can) write
> > tickets and impound bicycles until the ticket is paid.
>
> Do you think they should do the same for automobiles?

That's essentially what refusal to renew registration
amounts to.

-Stern

 

[Resound]

I've made this point before, but what the hell, I'm going to make it again. I'm a reasonably intelligent, capable, mature (yeah, yeah, bear with me) etc etc adult who, at the age of 33, feels that he's competent to judge whether or not he's capable of getting across a road without being flattened by cross traffic regardless of what the traffic lights are indicating. So, do I run red lights? Nope.

This is not because I believe firmly in the infallibility of the law. The law is frequently an ass. It is not because I fear the consequences of my own action. It is because while you and I and probably about 70% (I'm feeling generous) of the population at large is capable of this sort of thing, the other 30% isn't. These are the idiots who think that it's perfectly reasonable to drive screaming drunk, without wearing a seatbelt, talking on their phone and munching down a Happy Meal™. The reason that we have laws about things like driving drunk isn't for the sake of the sane majority that wouldn't do it anyway, but for the addled minority who would.

Now most of you are making the point that a cyclist hitting a car is, apart from a little panel damage, not going to do anyone any significant harm other than themselves. Think again. Even in a country like the US which has an appallingly low level of government funding for health care, the cost to the public of dealing with someone pasting themselves against the side of an Escalade is not small. That's police and emergency services that could be better employed elsewhere. That's also funding and a hospital bed that is needed by someone else, and those beds are needed, check out the waiting lists for "elective" surgery. Note that not all elective surgery is cosmetic, it covers quite serious things that just happen to be non life threatening and therefore aren't provided to you by the state if you can't stump up the necessary dollars. But I digress.

In spite of what I've said thus far, I'm actually rather in favour of a bit of active Darwinism in society and I'd love to see people having to deal with the consequences of their actions. The tricky bit is that while I'm up for dealing with the consequences of my actions, I'd rather not have to deal with the consequences of someone-else's idiocy. Now if I want Joe Stupid to obey the law so that they don't maim me or collectively enrage other collective Joe (and Jocelyn) Stupids behind the wheels of their vehicles or occupy a hospital bed that would better serve my child who suffers from a congenital condition (speculative, I don't have any children) etc etc then I'm going to have to do the same thing. And it might mean that I get where I'm going a minute later...damn.

Stop at the lights for 30 seconds. Take a few breaths. Take a few swigs from your water bottle. Sit upright and stretch the kinks out of your lower back. Maybe grin a bit because you're out and about on your bike and it makes you feel good. If you were that anal retentive about 30 seconds of your time, you'd be in or on a motorised vehicle. It's all well and good to bleat about personal freedoms and the value of liberty, but those things need to be balanced by a sense of responsibility or they're worse than worthless, they become a liability to the community as a whole when abused by those who don't fully value them.

</rant>

Apologies for length of post.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:26:24 -0400,
<[email protected]>, apologist scum "Paul"
<UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> threatened:

>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-*****.

Hey, how about using those turn signals or are you too busy
picking your nose, scumchunks?

You inveterate scud jockeys with your flabby pimpled asses
playing at being adults while ensconced in your smelly
plastic lined cages aren't worth the gobs I've spit on your
windshields.

Park it, puke. You're unfit to drive.
--
zk

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, usenet-
[email protected] says...

...

> well and good to bleat about personal freedoms and the
> value of liberty, but those things need to be balanced by
> a sense of responsibility or they're worse than worthless,
> they become a liability to the community as a whole when
> abused by those who don't fully value them.
>
> </rant>

Well said!

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

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:16:20 GMT, <E3lzc.22785$Hg2.4554@attbi_s04>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Paul wrote:
>
>> Most drivers won't swerve for a coon or skunk and if the
>> dog has a tag on the collar, his owner is mine.
>
>Must be different where you live. As a 100% legally riding
>bicyclist I can say that the majority of drivers treat
>geese better than bicyclists.
>
The geese pose no threat to drivers. Whenever drivers see a
cyclist they're intimidated because they're seeing a being
superior to their own pathetically enfeebled caged selves.
They try to compensate for their impotence by buying a
bigger scud and bullying pedestrians.

There was a rush hour traffic report that for 45 minutes
repeated a warning about five ducks blocking traffic in one
lane of the off-ramp of a major bridge.

Had those ducks been on bikes they'd have been dead or
arrested.
--
zk

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:16:20 GMT,
> <E3lzc.22785$Hg2.4554@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Most drivers won't swerve for a coon or skunk and if the
>>> dog has a tag on the collar, his owner is mine.
>>
>>Must be different where you live. As a 100% legally riding
>>bicyclist I can say that the majority of drivers treat
>>geese better than bicyclists.

> The geese pose no threat to drivers.

They slam on the brakes for the geese, wait untold minutes
for the geese to cross the road...

> Whenever drivers see a cyclist they're intimidated because
> they're seeing a being superior to their own pathetically
> enfeebled caged selves. They try to compensate for their
> impotence by buying a bigger scud and bullying
> pedestrians.

I doubt it.

> There was a rush hour traffic report that for 45 minutes
> repeated a warning about five ducks blocking traffic in
> one lane of the off-ramp of a major bridge.
>
> Had those ducks been on bikes they'd have been dead or
> arrested.

Most likely.

 

[Tom Keats]

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

> Now most of you are making the point that a cyclist
> hitting a car is, apart from a little panel damage, not
> going to do anyone any significant harm other than
> themselves.

Actually the original point in the original post was the
bicycles and cyclists should be licensed & registered and
maybe insured so that cyclist traffic law offenders could be
punished. Especially since bicycles have the alleged
potential of causing much damage and injury to motor
vehicles and their drivers.

Is the added governmental bureaucracy Non-Motor Vehicle
Departments etc. would create really so necessary?

cheers, Tom

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

 

[keydates]

On a slightly different topic, how do traffic lights work? I ask this because sometimes at stoplights, I don't trigger a green light and end up waiting 10 minutes for it (no, I'm not impatient).

 

[Resound]

Originally posted by Tom Keats
In article <[email protected]>,
Resound <[email protected]> writes:

> Now most of you are making the point that a cyclist
> hitting a car is, apart from a little panel damage, not
> going to do anyone any significant harm other than
> themselves.

Actually the original point in the original post was the
bicycles and cyclists should be licensed & registered and
maybe insured so that cyclist traffic law offenders could be
punished. Especially since bicycles have the alleged
potential of causing much damage and injury to motor
vehicles and their drivers.

Is the added governmental bureaucracy Non-Motor Vehicle
Departments etc. would create really so necessary?

cheers, Tom

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

I wouldn't go along with the registration and licensing of riders part. It would put a lot of people off cycling, which is the last thing needed. As someone else pointed out, offences committed by cyclists can be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other offence committed by someone who isn't carrying ID. I suppose that I'm neither specifically for nor against the parent post, but I do hold some opinions that I felt were relevant.

 

[Resound]

Originally posted by keydates
On a slightly different topic, how do traffic lights work? I ask this because sometimes at stoplights, I don't trigger a green light and end up waiting 10 minutes for it (no, I'm not impatient).

In most places it counts as a non-functioning traffic signal. Proceed with caution, and the law is most likely on your side in any case (IANAL). If there aren't any cars around to trigger it for you then it's a fair bet that the traffic is hardly murderous

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <NXnzc.23065$R%[email protected]>,
keydates <[email protected]> writes:
> On a slightly different topic, how do traffic lights work?
> I ask this because sometimes at stoplights, I don't
> trigger a green light and end up waiting 10 minutes for it
> (no, I'm not impatient).

http://bikesense.bc.ca/ch4.htm and scroll down to the
section titled: 'Traffic Signals' (it's near the bottom of
the page.)

Actually the whole Bike Sense manual is pretty good, but
it's in the context of British Columbia traffic law;
other jurisdications might differ on some of the legal
topics covered.

cheers, Tom

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