YAY - Chicago treating criminal bicyclists same as criminal drivers

[Conservative Ideals]

--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/


"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...60.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
>
> ...
>
>> Police spent six hours Tuesday on bike patrol in Lakeview, giving out
>> 37 warnings to bicyclists for running red lights, riding on sidewalks
>> and, indeed, going the wrong direction on a one-way street. Next
>> month, police will start handing out tickets, with fines that range
>> from $25 to $250.
>
> ...
>
> What a wasteful misplacement of time & resources.
> Such efforts would be much better spent on
> dangerous vehicles and the people who drive them.

I disagree - in any accident involving a bike and a car, the car is the more
dangerous vehicle - but that doesn't mean the car is at fault. I don't
think there should be a special bike patrol as I agree that that is low
yield, but I do believe that if bicyclists violate the law they should be
fined just as any motor vehicle driver would be.

And I think drunk drivers should pay a $10,000 fine minimum and lose all
driving privileges - that should make our street patrols completely
self-sufficient.


>
>
> --
> -- Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Graham

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Pooh Bear <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.
>
> Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Not always. In the context of this particular topic we're
mainly talking about /infractions/, rather than misdemeanor/
summary conviction offenses or felony/indictable offenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Pooh Bear <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.
>
> Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Not always. In the context of this particular topic we're
mainly talking about /infractions/, rather than misdemeanor/
summary conviction offenses or felony/indictable offenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Pooh Bear <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.
>
> Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Not always. In the context of this particular topic we're
mainly talking about /infractions/, rather than misdemeanor/
summary conviction offenses or felony/indictable offenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Pooh Bear <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> 3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>> any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.
>
> Is breaking a law not 'criminal' ?

Not always. In the context of this particular topic we're
mainly talking about /infractions/, rather than misdemeanor/
summary conviction offenses or felony/indictable offenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:35:24 -0500, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>Troll alert:
>1. Suggestive e-mail handle. Laura Bush's driving record is
>old news.
>2. Posted to multiple groups.
>3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Aunt Judy is a troll? Wow, nothing gets past you, Mike...

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:35:24 -0500, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>Troll alert:
>1. Suggestive e-mail handle. Laura Bush's driving record is
>old news.
>2. Posted to multiple groups.
>3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Aunt Judy is a troll? Wow, nothing gets past you, Mike...

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:35:24 -0500, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>Troll alert:
>1. Suggestive e-mail handle. Laura Bush's driving record is
>old news.
>2. Posted to multiple groups.
>3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Aunt Judy is a troll? Wow, nothing gets past you, Mike...

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:35:24 -0500, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote
>in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>Troll alert:
>1. Suggestive e-mail handle. Laura Bush's driving record is
>old news.
>2. Posted to multiple groups.
>3. Use of inflammatory term "criminal". Running a red light in
>any vehicle is not a "criminal" offense.

Aunt Judy is a troll? Wow, nothing gets past you, Mike...

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

 

[Scott en Aztlán]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
> killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

"Conservative Ideals" wasn't replying to you,
so don't worry about it.

PS: I love you. Let's get it on.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
> killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

"Conservative Ideals" wasn't replying to you,
so don't worry about it.

PS: I love you. Let's get it on.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
> killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

"Conservative Ideals" wasn't replying to you,
so don't worry about it.

PS: I love you. Let's get it on.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:55 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but top-posted .signatures are an instant trip into my
> killfile. You have Baxter to thank for that.

"Conservative Ideals" wasn't replying to you,
so don't worry about it.

PS: I love you. Let's get it on.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca