On 7/13/2019 4:18 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/13/2019 8:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:55:21 PM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/11/2019 4:44 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:27:27 PM UTC-4, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Radey
Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:25:18 AM UTC-4,
Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:29:23 PM UTC-4,
AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/angry-biker...matic-protest/


Includes (predictably) editorial snark about hats

Interesting data point in that video: Last year
111 pedestrians
were killed, a
4.7% increase. As always, that's _far_ above the
number of dead cyclists.

But they somehow neglected to say about the peds,
"Many without helmets."

Vaguely related: Yesterday Streetsblog (IIRC)
posted a rabble
rousing rant about
"Police using deadly force." Most of the
commenters seemed to want
every police
officer hung.

I gather there is some problem with police
attitude toward NYC
bicyclists - as
in, when a cyclist is killed (say, from a right
hook crash with an
irresponsibly
driven truck) the NYC cops respond by ticketing
only cyclists, even if the
dead cyclist broke no law. That's wrong, IMO.

But the Streetsblog event was different. A guy on
a bikeshare bike
crashed red
light after red light, ignoring the cop following
in a cruiser
order him to stop
the bike. The biker kept looking back at the cop,
but riding on,
through light after light.

The cop finally cut into the bike lane ahead of
the rider and
stopped. The biker
ran into the cop car. Streetsglob called that
"Deadly force."

It plainly was "deadly force". If anyone but a cop
were to cut off a
cyclist with an SUV, causing an intentional
collision, I think even you
would call it so. Cops *are* permitted to use
deadly force under some
conditions, whether this was one of them ought to
be the question.

As I understand it, the cyclist is still alive. That
seems to prove the "force"
was not deadly in this case.

That's a ridiculous argument. Deadly force means
force that *might*
cause death, people survive being shot all the time,
but shooting is
plainly deadly force.

The cop did not apply the force. The cyclist ran into
the cop car. The cyclist
applied the force.

Is it possible the cop pulled over so close to the
cyclist that the cyclist
could not stop? Yes; but that's not proven. Given his
behavior, it's as likely
that the cyclist was deep in la-la land.

He had sailed through multiple intersections and
ignored the cop car, flashing
lights and megaphone. We don't know whether or not he
was high or drunk. We
don't know if he was a Social Justice Warrior who
rammed into the cop car on
purpose to trigger outrage. His behavior made no sense.

And BTW, while the reactionary anti-cop sites say he
ran over the bike, or that
the bike ended up under the patrol car, photos show
otherwise. The bike isn't
even on the ground. It's leaning, nearly horizontal,
between the cop car and
a parked car, one bike wheel contacting each car. The
bikes wheels look intact.
The bike looks undamaged. The police say the perp
jumped off the bike before
the crash.


But anyway: What should the cop have done?

I haven't seen the video, was he using lights and
siren? PA system?

The officer is saying he used all those.

Here's video of the discussion afterward. The cop
seems quite rational.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1147293981694418944

So what should he have done?

And are you saying that no traffic laws should apply
to bikes? And that bikers
are exempt from following police orders?

Of course not. I note that a few days ago you proudly
described ignoring
warning signs that probably had the force of law, and
ignoring the
protestations of a construction foreman who tried to
prevent your using
an unsafe bridge. Would you have paid attention if
he had been a cop?

Yes, if he had been a cop, I would have stopped. In
fact, if a cop were guarding
the entrance to a closed bridge, I wouldn't even
attempt to cross it.

On the other hand, I've gone past signs saying "Road
closed, local traffic only"
even though I was not "local." Guilty as charged - but
I don't know if the signs
had the force of law, and I doubt you do. The law may
very well apply only to
motor vehicles. It almost certainly does not apply to
pedestrians, and if I had
been challenged, I'd probably have been told I had to
walk the bike. But you and
I both know that no cop would stop me.

BTW about a month ago, I went past a "Road Closed"
sign in a nearby
neighborhood. The closure was because a broken water
main had been spraying over
60 feet in the air across the road. This was on my way
home to meet my wife.
Avoiding it would be a long detour. I rode up, joined
the group watching the
cleanup, and asked the cop if I could go past. She
said "Sure, just be careful."

I think you said something like "no bridge is closed
for a cyclist".
Should *those* traffic laws not apply to bikes? Or
just not to you?

Although it's too complicated for some folks, the
reality is that laws are
seldom black and white. Do you do a complete stop at
every stop sign? I'm
betting you don't, just as I don't. (I've done a
not-quite-complete stop
directly in front of a patrol car, and I suspect the
cop was pleased, because
that four-way stop sign often gets to be a "politeness
war," holding everyone
up.)

Do you never break speed limits by a mile or two over?
Do you signal EVERY turn?
(I almost never miss signaling, BTW.) Like it or not,
society expects and
accepts these tiny transgressions. Judgment is applied.

But I don't want society to accept ignoring cops
lights, sirens, verbal orders.
I don't want cyclists to decide that red lights don't
matter at all.

I also don't want hyper-privileged liberals whining
about "deadly force"
regarding a guy whose hair didn't even get mussed. The
cyclist was wrong. He and
all his fans should just admit it.

- Frank Krygowski

Geeze Frank, don't you know that when a bicycle and an
automobile
contact each other it is *always* the fault of the
motor vehicle? I
had never realized that was a universal law until I
started reading
this site where even a bicycle running into the rear of
a parked car
it is deemed to be the car's fault... "He shouldn't
have parked
there".
--

Cheers,

John B.

I know a guy that rode his bicycle into an opened car
door. The bicyclist never slowed nor did he try to pass
by moving into the adjacent lane which is required of
motor vehicles. The bicyclist said the driver of the car
opened the door and he (the bicyclist) hit it. The
result? The bicyclist sued and was awarded $500,000.00

In Oregon at least, opening a car door into traffic
without first
checking that it will not impede traffic (or maybe it's
just if it
impedes traffic that's right there?) is a cite-able
offense. I've
probably got the details wrong [Jay?]. In short, if you
"door" someone,
you're liable.

I still avoid the door zone, and bike lanes that don't
extend past it.

Mark J.


We got a law for everything!

ORS 811.490 Improper opening or leaving open of vehicle door

(1) A person commits the offense of improper opening or
leaving open a vehicle door if the person does any of the
following:

(a) Opens any door of a vehicle unless and until it is
reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without
interference with the movement of traffic, or with
pedestrians and bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders.

(b) Leaves a door open on the side of a vehicle available
to traffic, or to pedestrians or bicycles on sidewalks or
shoulders for a period of time longer than necessary to
load or unload passengers.

(2) The offense described in this section, improper
opening or leaving open a vehicle door, is a Class D
traffic violation.


Crappy little Class D traffic violation. Make it a
capital offense! BTW, if you ever wondered about making a
citizen's arrest:

ORS 133.225 Arrest by private person

(1) A private person may arrest another person for any
crime committed in the presence of the private person if
the private person has probable cause to believe the
arrested person committed the crime. A private person
making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay,
take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver
the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use
physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255 (Use of
physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest).

161.255 Use of physical force by private person making
citizen’s arrest

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section,
a private person acting on the person’s own account is
justified in using physical force upon another person when
and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it
necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from
custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested
under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).

(2) A private person acting under the circumstances
prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified
in using deadly physical force only when the person
reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to
defend a third person from what the person reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force.

So, you can't make a citizen's arrest for getting doored,
but there are a lot of "crimes" that are pretty low-watt,
like "menacing."

ORS 163.190 Menacing

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or
conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another
person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor.

So, the next time a motorist menaces you, take him or her
into custody.I carry handcuffs in my panniers, right next
to the light-bar, siren, raft (when bridges are out),
heart-lung machine and Loran, which I find far more
accurate than GPS. https://tinyurl.com/y3j2c4op

-- Jay Beattie.

Thanks, Jay, but, I'm a little confused, so while we have
you on the line:

You say one can't make a citizen's arrest for dooring
because... (Guess it's a "traffic violation" and not "a
crime"? And to be "a crime" the offense must be at least a
misdemeanor?

It's all moot anyway, my bike bag is too full to hold
handcuffs. (inflator, patch kit, spare tubes, multitool,
tire boot, tire levers, "emergency" 1oz bottle of sunblock,
reading glasses [to remove those d**n Michelin wires my
tires pick up], not to mention all the excess clothes I
started the ride with.)

BTW, do you suppose an Ottolock would work in a pinch as
makeshift handcuffs? I was toying with getting an
Ottolock until I saw what short work a pair of snips made of
it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ah3RA0Alo

Mark J.


Times change. I see you haven't been arrested lately:

https://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/...cuff-tweet.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971