Urban Cycling Video NYC

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.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?

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

- Frank Krygowski

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.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?

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

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?

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?

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.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?

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

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?

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?

+1000! EXCELLENT!

Cheers

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

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:09:59 AM UTC-7, 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.

True, but corralling a cyclist with a car is probably not deadly force unless the car or the bike are going 60mph. I also assume the cops had lights on and were sounding a siren, at least in bursts -- SOP for pulling over cars.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?

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

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?

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?

This raises an interesting point -- when does sinage turn into "the law?" Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't -- and probably not when placed by a private contractor. Some bridges and roads are clearly closed to everyone, and violating the closure results in serious penalties. I rode up to the gate on Larch Mountain after the Eagle Creek fire. The gate was closed, and there were all these "road closed" signs with about a dozen cited CFRs (it's national forest) and statutes cited for authority to shoot you if you proceeded. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2465/5...752ff7cd_b.jpg (minus all the nasty signs with CFRs). Well, maybe not shoot you, but make you legally miserable. I looked up the road and said, nah.

However, not exercising the same restraint, I rode past a barricade with a similar sign on the Gorge highway, and lo and behold, a state policeman popped out of nowhere and busted me. I talked my way out of a fine, penalty and certain death and just turned around and rode back to Vista House and home.

What I hate is when the sign says "bridge out," and I ride ten miles to the bridge to find out that it is REALLY out -- and then I have to backtrack ten miles because I'm not going to swim across a river holding my bike. Optimism is a good thing, to a point. If I were Joerg, I would have a pannier filled with an inflatable raft or a hovercraft or something.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:50:29 +0200, Sepp Ruf
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Seemed. Who cares?

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."

"ahead of the rider and stopped"? Nope, that would yield a different pictu
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/07/07/nypd-used-deadly-force-to-stop-cyclist-suspected-of-running-red-light/

Apparently, they wanted instead for the cop to share donuts with the jerk on the
bike. Apparently, no bicyclist should ever be asked to obey a traffic law.

Apparently, the weather at your place isn't suitable to take a walk or spin
to vent.

A lot of bicycle advocacy is absolutely nuts these days.

The lack of adequate police tactic and training in dealing with actual or
imagined traffic violations of non-cagers is a human rights issue. Would
you call pedestrian advocates nuts if they criticized running Police SUVs
into jaywalkers?

I can't speak for where you live but here (Thailand) I'm sure that the
police look at a bike and think "Oh there is some kid playing on his
bicycle" and just ignore the little twerp. If you are on a small
motorcycle you may be a law breaker perhaps we should stop we can
check your registration and if you are driving a big Mercedes you are
a rich man and may have political influence and thus a possible danger
to a policeman's career.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:19:04 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:09:59 AM UTC-7, 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.

True, but corralling a cyclist with a car is probably not deadly force unless the car or the bike are going 60mph. I also assume the cops had lights on and were sounding a siren, at least in bursts -- SOP for pulling over cars.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?

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

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?

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?

This raises an interesting point -- when does sinage turn into "the law?" Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't -- and probably not when placed by a private contractor. Some bridges and roads are clearly closed to everyone, and violating the closure results in serious penalties. I rode up to the gate on Larch Mountain after the Eagle Creek fire. The gate was closed, and there were all these "road closed" signs with about a dozen cited CFRs (it's national forest) and statutes cited for authority to shoot you if you proceeded. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2465/5...752ff7cd_b.jpg (minus all the nasty signs with CFRs). Well, maybe not shoot you, but make you legally miserable. I looked up the road and said, nah.

However, not exercising the same restraint, I rode past a barricade with a similar sign on the Gorge highway, and lo and behold, a state policeman popped out of nowhere and busted me. I talked my way out of a fine, penalty and certain death and just turned around and rode back to Vista House and home.

What I hate is when the sign says "bridge out," and I ride ten miles to the bridge to find out that it is REALLY out -- and then I have to backtrack ten miles because I'm not going to swim across a river holding my bike. Optimism is a good thing, to a point. If I were Joerg, I would have a pannier filled with an inflatable raft or a hovercraft or something.

-- Jay Beattie.

Swimming with a bicycle across a narrow deep river because the bridge is COMPLETELY gone is a really interesting experience. Then you have to swim back to get your gear and swim t he river again. Sometimes retrieving the gear requires two trips. In the case of the missing bridge I'm referring to it would have been about 100 kms (60 miles) to detour around the missing bridge.

Cheers

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.

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

Cheers

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:44:58 -0700 (PDT), 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

Cheers

Was the bicyclist injured? How badly? Medical costs?
--

Cheers,

John B.