Handlebar bottleholder, in-flight failure, fix

On 7/31/2015 7:07 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/31/2015 10:19 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/29/2015 8:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:57:32 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:48:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/28/2015 10:22 AM, Joerg wrote:


Ever tried taking off after the stop in front of a cop doing a wheelie?

No, I never did. And why would a person do that? It seems as sensible
as yelling "Hey, pig!" when passing a cop.

People forget that according to Orwell the pigs won :-)

"Hey, Pig!" is just needlessly confrontational. One time honored
alternative is the lilting "I smell baaacon".

Strange that while it seems as though it might be good manners to
insult a police officer it is apparent that if the Officer returns the
insult it is grounds for loud screams of oppression.

... and any imperfection in the actions of an officer justifies the
perp walking free.

Like that poor, misunderstood hero in Ohio?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...lish/30830777/

Nope. That's far different than "any imperfection."


"The police officer mispronounced 'Miranda.' Therefore I move to
dismiss the case against my client."

Watching police shows on tv?

Here's one that really happened:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-to-fix.shtml

A Mass state chemist dry labs drug tests for years, but is eventually
caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But what do you suppose happens to
the thousands of people wrongfully convicted based on bogus evidence?
They're still in prison, because it's too much trouble for the state to
figure out who they are.

Bogus evidence is one thing. That's deliberate falsification by cops;
and I've never said all cops are angels.

I was referring to a different thing entirely: to situations where the
defendant is clearly guilty of a serious crime, but it set free
because of some verbal or clerical error by cops or others. Google
"overturned on technicality" for some examples.

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.co...lity%E2%80%9D/

The killer pleaded guilty. But apparently they didn't make sure that
he knew that if he plead guilty, the court would think that he was
actually guilty. OK, so turn him loose.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...verturned.html
She killed someone, wrapped the corpse in a comforter and hid it under
a motel bed. They mistakenly convicted her of 2nd degree murder, but
she'd only been charged with first degree murder. OK, never mind
about that corpse; send her home.

So you're not one to agree that it's better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent one suffer? Against that prohibition on double
jeopardy in the US Bill of Rights?

I think the cases I cited were egregious violations of justice, in that
persons obviously guilty of serious crimes were set free, and are now
able to prey on others. I think word of that gets back to thugs and
potential thugs, and promotes crime.

Personally, I think some law violations should be below the radar and
free of consequence. An example might be moving 1 mph rather than
stopping at a deserted stop sign.

In the same way, I think some procedural mistakes should be below the
radar and free of consequence. An example of the latter would be
forgetting to tell a person that if he says he's guilty, people might
actually treat him as guilty.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:01:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 7:07 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/31/2015 10:19 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/29/2015 8:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:57:32 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:48:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/28/2015 10:22 AM, Joerg wrote:


Ever tried taking off after the stop in front of a cop doing a wheelie?

No, I never did. And why would a person do that? It seems as sensible
as yelling "Hey, pig!" when passing a cop.

People forget that according to Orwell the pigs won :-)

"Hey, Pig!" is just needlessly confrontational. One time honored
alternative is the lilting "I smell baaacon".

Strange that while it seems as though it might be good manners to
insult a police officer it is apparent that if the Officer returns the
insult it is grounds for loud screams of oppression.

... and any imperfection in the actions of an officer justifies the
perp walking free.

Like that poor, misunderstood hero in Ohio?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...lish/30830777/

Nope. That's far different than "any imperfection."


"The police officer mispronounced 'Miranda.' Therefore I move to
dismiss the case against my client."

Watching police shows on tv?

Here's one that really happened:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-to-fix.shtml

A Mass state chemist dry labs drug tests for years, but is eventually
caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But what do you suppose happens to
the thousands of people wrongfully convicted based on bogus evidence?
They're still in prison, because it's too much trouble for the state to
figure out who they are.

Bogus evidence is one thing. That's deliberate falsification by cops;
and I've never said all cops are angels.

I was referring to a different thing entirely: to situations where the
defendant is clearly guilty of a serious crime, but it set free
because of some verbal or clerical error by cops or others. Google
"overturned on technicality" for some examples.

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.co...lity%E2%80%9D/

The killer pleaded guilty. But apparently they didn't make sure that
he knew that if he plead guilty, the court would think that he was
actually guilty. OK, so turn him loose.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...verturned.html
She killed someone, wrapped the corpse in a comforter and hid it under
a motel bed. They mistakenly convicted her of 2nd degree murder, but
she'd only been charged with first degree murder. OK, never mind
about that corpse; send her home.

So you're not one to agree that it's better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent one suffer? Against that prohibition on double
jeopardy in the US Bill of Rights?

I think the cases I cited were egregious violations of justice, in that
persons obviously guilty of serious crimes were set free, and are now
able to prey on others. I think word of that gets back to thugs and
potential thugs, and promotes crime.

Personally, I think some law violations should be below the radar and
free of consequence. An example might be moving 1 mph rather than
stopping at a deserted stop sign.

In the same way, I think some procedural mistakes should be below the
radar and free of consequence. An example of the latter would be
forgetting to tell a person that if he says he's guilty, people might
actually treat him as guilty.

I suggest that this is wrong.

If you have a law and do not enforce it then why have the law? If it
is not necessary to actually stop at a stop sign than why a stop sign
at all? Perhaps the signs should be changed to "PAUSE" so that in the
future there would be no confusion.

The idea that one has a law and than only enforces it in specific
instances is ludicrous. It would certainly open the door to something
like, "well, it is O.K. to make a rolling stop.... except for these
damned bicycles. They have to come to a complete halt! And put both
feet down!"
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/1/2015 7:15 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:01:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 7:07 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.co...lity%E2%80%9D/

The killer pleaded guilty. But apparently they didn't make sure that
he knew that if he plead guilty, the court would think that he was
actually guilty. OK, so turn him loose.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...verturned.html
She killed someone, wrapped the corpse in a comforter and hid it under
a motel bed. They mistakenly convicted her of 2nd degree murder, but
she'd only been charged with first degree murder. OK, never mind
about that corpse; send her home.

So you're not one to agree that it's better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent one suffer? Against that prohibition on double
jeopardy in the US Bill of Rights?

I think the cases I cited were egregious violations of justice, in that
persons obviously guilty of serious crimes were set free, and are now
able to prey on others. I think word of that gets back to thugs and
potential thugs, and promotes crime.

Personally, I think some law violations should be below the radar and
free of consequence. An example might be moving 1 mph rather than
stopping at a deserted stop sign.

In the same way, I think some procedural mistakes should be below the
radar and free of consequence. An example of the latter would be
forgetting to tell a person that if he says he's guilty, people might
actually treat him as guilty.

I suggest that this is wrong.

If you have a law and do not enforce it then why have the law? If it
is not necessary to actually stop at a stop sign than why a stop sign
at all? Perhaps the signs should be changed to "PAUSE" so that in the
future there would be no confusion.

The idea that one has a law and than only enforces it in specific
instances is ludicrous. It would certainly open the door to something
like, "well, it is O.K. to make a rolling stop.... except for these
damned bicycles. They have to come to a complete halt! And put both
feet down!"

I'm not talking about selective enforcement, so much as recognizing that
perfection is impossible and applying necessary judgment.

I suppose that in some perfect world, every law might be written so
judgment was never necessary. But in real life, unforeseen
practicalities arise, and so do cultural changes.

Example: I imagine that when speed limits were first invented, the
legislators thought it would be simple - as in, "If the sign says 35,
you get a ticket for 36." But probably, the first hurdle was
technology: the stopwatch method of enforcement didn't have that degree
of accuracy. So cops wouldn't ticket until they measured (say) 40 mph.

Next comes the cultural change, where everyone responds by saying "35
mph really means 40 mph." At that point, it's impossible for cops to
actually enforce 35. There aren't enough cops to stop literally every
motorist, plus public outrage would quash any such attempt.

(BTW, we now have the technology to return to perfection with speed
limits. But look at the outrage that speed cameras produce!)

My gripe is that heinous crimes get treated with some of the same slack
as speed limits - "Hey, shooting her dead wasn't that bad, because it
wasn't premeditated" - and that zero slack is given to law enforcement.
"You spelled his name wrong, so he gets to go free."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 30 Jul 2015
16:43:12 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-07-30 3:25 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-30 1:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Now can we ask, how many incidents can you document where a cyclist got
ticketed for this imaginary offense? That is, there was a car at the
right that looked like it might move out, so the cyclist moved leftward.

Do you have _any_ examples of a ticket?


You could have easily looked some up.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...alifornia-v-g/

Quote "We continued the discussion for a while with Captain Devoren
–an incredibly polite and professional man — and the sergeants who
were also in the meeting. Some skepticism was expressed that riding in
the lane was safe, but when we detailed the dangers of riding in the
gutter, they agreed. "Anyway," one of them said, "it's the law."

The only legal way to get this dismissed in California is when the cop
doesn't show in court. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

So the one case you could easily look up was dismissed?
Not exactly a compelling argument.


It's pretty obvious. The chief was a cyclist himself. The cop not
showing is about the only method to make the ticket go away. But the law
is the law and with the ticket itself stands.


... I've mentioned before,
a former team member was cited for taking the lane, fought it
and won. I don't believe it was because the cop didn't show
up in court.


Most of the cases I heard from didn't go so well. More like this one:

http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/ticketed...king-the-lane/

On the next page he talks about his day in court, quote "Well, I was
found guilty". What then? Take it to the Supreme Court?

Yes.
It's the only way to educate those in the judiciary who are as
ignorant as you.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Theefore, they have to PROVE that it was NOT "reasonably necessary",


The cop will say so.


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is.
WTF do you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude the
same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph going in
reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life is.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 30 Jul 2015
16:43:12 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-07-30 3:25 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-30 1:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Now can we ask, how many incidents can you document where a cyclist got
ticketed for this imaginary offense? That is, there was a car at the
right that looked like it might move out, so the cyclist moved leftward.

Do you have _any_ examples of a ticket?


You could have easily looked some up.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...alifornia-v-g/

Quote "We continued the discussion for a while with Captain Devoren
-an incredibly polite and professional man -- and the sergeants who
were also in the meeting. Some skepticism was expressed that riding in
the lane was safe, but when we detailed the dangers of riding in the
gutter, they agreed. "Anyway," one of them said, "it's the law."

The only legal way to get this dismissed in California is when the cop
doesn't show in court. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

So the one case you could easily look up was dismissed?
Not exactly a compelling argument.


It's pretty obvious. The chief was a cyclist himself. The cop not
showing is about the only method to make the ticket go away. But the law
is the law and with the ticket itself stands.


... I've mentioned before,
a former team member was cited for taking the lane, fought it
and won. I don't believe it was because the cop didn't show
up in court.


Most of the cases I heard from didn't go so well. More like this one:

http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/ticketed...king-the-lane/

On the next page he talks about his day in court, quote "Well, I was
found guilty". What then? Take it to the Supreme Court?

Yes.
It's the only way to educate those in the judiciary who are as
ignorant as you.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Theefore, they have to PROVE that it was NOT "reasonably necessary",


The cop will say so.


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is.
WTF do you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude the
same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph going in
reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life is.


The judge will decide what "reasonably necessary" means. That is a legal determination -- and judges can and do disagree with the cops when it comes to interpreting the law. Let say the court interprets the phrase as meaning "under the conditions existing at the time, a reasonable bicyclist would take the lane." Then you get into fact disputes over what conditions existed and what a reasonable bicyclist would do. On those fact issues, a court may find the bicyclist more credible because he/she had a better opportunity to observe the conditions and he/she is a cyclist. In my experience, its only the Critical Mass people who get hit with impeding or failing to ride AFRAP. Cops don't always win -- not unless you're in Hazard County.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2015-08-01 8:40 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

[...]


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is. WTF do
you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude
the same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph
going in reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life
is.


The judge will decide what "reasonably necessary" means. That is a
legal determination -- and judges can and do disagree with the cops
when it comes to interpreting the law. Let say the court interprets
the phrase as meaning "under the conditions existing at the time, a
reasonable bicyclist would take the lane." Then you get into fact
disputes over what conditions existed and what a reasonable bicyclist
would do. On those fact issues, a court may find the bicyclist more
credible because he/she had a better opportunity to observe the
conditions and he/she is a cyclist. In my experience, its only the
Critical Mass people who get hit with impeding or failing to ride
AFRAP. Cops don't always win -- not unless you're in Hazard County.


Well ... I've got some real life experience there. Cop gave me speeding
ticket but I was not speeding. Went to court to fight it. I could go
into all the details but suffice it to say that almost half a dozen
grave procedural mistakes were made by the cop (or his organization) and
the judge. Yeah, I could probably very easily have had it tossed out on
appeal but one does not spend $1-2k on a lawyer to have a $145 ticket
removed. Which is probably something they count on.

De facto it feels like guilty until you prove yourself innocent. And you
must do it yourself because nobody else has an interest in that. A
Belgian business friend called that "Napoleonic Law".

We also have another nice little development lately: Numerous taxes and
"fees" are attached to tickets, driving up the ticket cost 3x or more.
One of them goes to ... drum roll ... a fund to build more lavish
courts. 'nuff said, I guess.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/1/2015 11:40 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 30 Jul 2015
16:43:12 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-07-30 3:25 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-30 1:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Now can we ask, how many incidents can you document where a cyclist got
ticketed for this imaginary offense? That is, there was a car at the
right that looked like it might move out, so the cyclist moved leftward.

Do you have _any_ examples of a ticket?


You could have easily looked some up.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...alifornia-v-g/

Quote "We continued the discussion for a while with Captain Devoren
-an incredibly polite and professional man -- and the sergeants who
were also in the meeting. Some skepticism was expressed that riding in
the lane was safe, but when we detailed the dangers of riding in the
gutter, they agreed. "Anyway," one of them said, "it's the law."

The only legal way to get this dismissed in California is when the cop
doesn't show in court. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

So the one case you could easily look up was dismissed?
Not exactly a compelling argument.


It's pretty obvious. The chief was a cyclist himself. The cop not
showing is about the only method to make the ticket go away. But the law
is the law and with the ticket itself stands.


... I've mentioned before,
a former team member was cited for taking the lane, fought it
and won. I don't believe it was because the cop didn't show
up in court.


Most of the cases I heard from didn't go so well. More like this one:

http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/ticketed...king-the-lane/

On the next page he talks about his day in court, quote "Well, I was
found guilty". What then? Take it to the Supreme Court?

Yes.
It's the only way to educate those in the judiciary who are as
ignorant as you.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Theefore, they have to PROVE that it was NOT "reasonably necessary",


The cop will say so.


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is.
WTF do you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude the
same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph going in
reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life is.


The judge will decide what "reasonably necessary" means. That is a legal determination -- and judges can and do disagree with the cops when it comes to interpreting the law. Let say the court interprets the phrase as meaning "under the conditions existing at the time, a reasonable bicyclist would take the lane." Then you get into fact disputes over what conditions existed and what a reasonable bicyclist would do. On those fact issues, a court may find the bicyclist more credible because he/she had a better opportunity to observe the conditions and he/she is a cyclist. In my experience, its only the Critical Mass people who get hit with impeding or failing to ride AFRAP. Cops don't always win -- not unless you're in Hazard County.

Not to mention the fact that I've been taking the lane when desired for
many, many years, and I've never been hassled by a cop. In fact, I've
had the pleasure of watching a cop pull over a car full of jerks who
were hassling me for taking the lane.

And several of my riding buddies are cops. They take the lane when they
think it's prudent.

Joerg is just spouting more paranoia.

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 30 Jul 2015
16:43:12 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-07-30 3:25 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-30 1:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Now can we ask, how many incidents can you document where a cyclist got
ticketed for this imaginary offense? That is, there was a car at the
right that looked like it might move out, so the cyclist moved leftward.

Do you have _any_ examples of a ticket?


You could have easily looked some up.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...alifornia-v-g/

Quote "We continued the discussion for a while with Captain Devoren
-an incredibly polite and professional man -- and the sergeants who
were also in the meeting. Some skepticism was expressed that riding in
the lane was safe, but when we detailed the dangers of riding in the
gutter, they agreed. "Anyway," one of them said, "it's the law."

The only legal way to get this dismissed in California is when the cop
doesn't show in court. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

So the one case you could easily look up was dismissed?
Not exactly a compelling argument.


It's pretty obvious. The chief was a cyclist himself. The cop not
showing is about the only method to make the ticket go away. But the law
is the law and with the ticket itself stands.


... I've mentioned before,
a former team member was cited for taking the lane, fought it
and won. I don't believe it was because the cop didn't show
up in court.


Most of the cases I heard from didn't go so well. More like this one:

http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/ticketed...king-the-lane/

On the next page he talks about his day in court, quote "Well, I was
found guilty". What then? Take it to the Supreme Court?

Yes.
It's the only way to educate those in the judiciary who are as
ignorant as you.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Theefore, they have to PROVE that it was NOT "reasonably necessary",


The cop will say so.


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is.
WTF do you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude the
same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph going in
reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life is.


The judge will decide what "reasonably necessary" means. That is a legal
determination -- and judges can and do disagree with the cops when it
comes to interpreting the law. Let say the court interprets the phrase
as meaning "under the conditions existing at the time, a reasonable
bicyclist would take the lane." Then you get into fact disputes over what
conditions existed and what a reasonable bicyclist would do. On those
fact issues, a court may find the bicyclist more credible because he/she
had a better opportunity to observe the conditions and he/she is a
cyclist. In my experience, its only the Critical Mass people who get hit
with impeding or failing to ride AFRAP. Cops don't always win -- not
unless you're in Hazard County.



What do you think would happen if in an area where there are a lot of
cyclists the cyclists en masse started taking the lane because they felt it
was safer? Not to avoid hazards like potholes or door zones but because
someone coming up to an intersection might not see them soon enough
otherwise.



--
duane

On 8/1/2015 5:59 PM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-31 5:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 30 Jul 2015
16:43:12 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-07-30 3:25 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-30 1:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Now can we ask, how many incidents can you document where a cyclist got
ticketed for this imaginary offense? That is, there was a car at the
right that looked like it might move out, so the cyclist moved leftward.

Do you have _any_ examples of a ticket?


You could have easily looked some up.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...alifornia-v-g/

Quote "We continued the discussion for a while with Captain Devoren
-an incredibly polite and professional man -- and the sergeants who
were also in the meeting. Some skepticism was expressed that riding in
the lane was safe, but when we detailed the dangers of riding in the
gutter, they agreed. "Anyway," one of them said, "it's the law."

The only legal way to get this dismissed in California is when the cop
doesn't show in court. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

So the one case you could easily look up was dismissed?
Not exactly a compelling argument.


It's pretty obvious. The chief was a cyclist himself. The cop not
showing is about the only method to make the ticket go away. But the law
is the law and with the ticket itself stands.


... I've mentioned before,
a former team member was cited for taking the lane, fought it
and won. I don't believe it was because the cop didn't show
up in court.


Most of the cases I heard from didn't go so well. More like this one:

http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/ticketed...king-the-lane/

On the next page he talks about his day in court, quote "Well, I was
found guilty". What then? Take it to the Supreme Court?

Yes.
It's the only way to educate those in the judiciary who are as
ignorant as you.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Theefore, they have to PROVE that it was NOT "reasonably necessary",


The cop will say so.


despite all cyclist education programs stating that it is.
WTF do you think those exemptions are there for? Padding?


If the cops says it wasn't necesssary then the judge will conclude the
same. If the cop says you blew through a red light at 30mph going in
reverse then that is so. Sad, but that's how real life is.


The judge will decide what "reasonably necessary" means. That is a legal
determination -- and judges can and do disagree with the cops when it
comes to interpreting the law. Let say the court interprets the phrase
as meaning "under the conditions existing at the time, a reasonable
bicyclist would take the lane." Then you get into fact disputes over what
conditions existed and what a reasonable bicyclist would do. On those
fact issues, a court may find the bicyclist more credible because he/she
had a better opportunity to observe the conditions and he/she is a
cyclist. In my experience, its only the Critical Mass people who get hit
with impeding or failing to ride AFRAP. Cops don't always win -- not
unless you're in Hazard County.



What do you think would happen if in an area where there are a lot of
cyclists the cyclists en masse started taking the lane because they felt it
was safer? Not to avoid hazards like potholes or door zones but because
someone coming up to an intersection might not see them soon enough
otherwise.

Here's what I think would happen:

There would be a lot fewer right hook crashes and left cross crashes.
And there would be a lot fewer cries that "You MUST have a blindingly
bright daytime running light to be safe!!"

Don't argue that bicyclists should be forced to the gutter.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're reading ? healthy...