Handlebar bottleholder, in-flight failure, fix

On 8/4/2015 5:00 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Let's try again: Are you arguing that everyone going 36 in a 35 zone
should be ticketed? Check one and only one box, please:
[ ] YES [ ] NO

I certainly do believe that they should be.
It's a limit, not a target, and (certainly here in the UK) it's
illegal to have a speedometer that under-reads (although it can
over-read by a few percent), so there is no excuse.
The only reason for the tolerance was that earlier methods of
detecting the contravention were insufficiently accurate to be certain
that the limit had been broken unless it was by a considerable margin,
but that is no longer the case.

As I said, the _original_ reason for tolerance was technical. I think
the current reason for tolerance is that almost all motorists* take
advantage of the tolerance and expect to be given that tolerance. I
think it is now politically impossible to ticket everyone going 36 in a
35 zone.

James explained in detail Australia's speed limit tolerance scheme - a
scheme with plenty of details indeed. If it were practical to have zero
tolerance about speed limits, I'm sure they'd have done that instead.

*BTW, it's not just motorists. The state highway that runs downhill
through our village center has a 25 mph speed limit, by Ohio statute. I
make a point of hitting 26+ mph every time, just for fun. And I have
met one or two cyclists who got stopped by a cop - but not for a ticket.
For congratulations, instead.

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10 mph speed
limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and joggers, rollerbladers,
skateboarders etc. are allowed to go as fast as they like, and all are
capable of exceeding 10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited
to 10 mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather silly,
especially since bikes are not required to have speedometers. I don't
know any cyclist who actually tries to stay below 10 mph, although all
of my friends (and almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of
caution and use reasonable speed control.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-08-05 1:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Tue, 4 Aug 2015

[...]

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10 mph speed
limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and joggers, rollerbladers,
skateboarders etc. are allowed to go as fast as they like, and all are
capable of exceeding 10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited
to 10 mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather silly,
especially since bikes are not required to have speedometers. I don't
know any cyclist who actually tries to stay below 10 mph, although all
of my friends (and almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of
caution and use reasonable speed control.

Here, that would be covered under careless or (in extreme cases)
dangerous riding, which (given that as you point out, there is no
requirement for any speed measuring device, let alone accuracy of one)
seems far more reasonable. I've only ever even heard of one cyclist
ever prosecuted for any offence purely on the basis of his speed - it
is more common for it to be the close proximity of more vulnerable
road users, like children, that is the reason for a prosecution (which
is perfectly reasonable).


raises hand

Now you know one here in the NG. Happened in Germany, was in a hurry to
make it to a written exam. My mistake was that I passed a bunch of cars,
properly on the left as other cars would but I was on my bicycle. An
even bigger mistake was not to notice the blue hump on one of the cars
- speaker came on - "Bicyclist, pull over to the right!" - speeding
ticket. It was cheap back in the early 80's, either 10 or 20
Deutschmarks, don't remember. There was no other offense cited, just
"speed limit exceeded".

I almost got another one in Washington State. The trooper was not
impressed with my excuse that the bike was borrowed and didn't have a
speedometer. The point where he let me go was when I responded that I
was just visiting and didn't live in WA state. The German police did not
show that kind of courtesy.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

jbeattie writes:

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:17:18 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

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.

IANAL, but I read your news stories (didn't go any further).

In the first it sounds as though a judge just didn't follow his own
state's statute on homicide. We can't just let judges make random ****
up in the process of convicting someone of a serious crime. Sending
someone to prison, or death row, is not 1 mph over the speed limit.
Judges are legal professionals, if they can't follow the law, what hope
for the rest of us?

In the second it appears some cops went over the line in convincing
someone to confess to a crime. Cops are really, really good at that;
good enough that, often enough, someone confesses to something they
didn't actually do. They know what they are doing, the accused,
frequently, not so much.

I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether the appeals court drew
the line in exactly the right spot, but I am sure that wherever it is,
cops and prosecutors will go right up to it, and sometimes over it. If
those accused of crimes can be said to have any rights at all,
eventually the government side will have to be brushed back. The tree
of justice must be watered from time to time by the unrequited blood
lust of newspaper readers everywhere.

You may believe that you lead a charmed life, and that neither you nor
yours could ever be wrongly accused of a crime, but I am not so sanguine.
I do think that accused persons should have rights.

Here's one for you:

http://goo.gl/Ly24wV

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story...ford/25049063/

A Louisiana prosecutor apologizes for sending a man to death row, after
he is exonerated many years later. Per Blackstone you're eight
anectodes down.

I'm unclear on how these cases would be handled to your satisfaction.
We already have a system based on centuries of precedent, legislation,
and more precedent, would you add a step? After a criminal appeal
succeeds, would the judge call you up, and say "O Solomon Krygowski,
we've overturned this conviction, but you have the last word."?

I hear The Baby Leader does it more or less that way in Pyongyang.

In the US the president, or the governor, typically *does* have a last
word: they have the power to commute sentences or to pardon those
convicted of crimes, but not to reinstate convictions that have been
overturned. Perhaps a certain amount of hard-won wisdom is reflected in
that choice.

That Louisiana case is poignant, but there were no Brady violations
from what I could tell or any other constitutional violations, and the
fact that he police investigated other suspects is really meaningless
-- except that the PD could use it to create reasonable doubt. The
former DA made a decision at the time not to pursue those other
suspects -- which is what happens in many criminal cases.

The state puts on its case and the defendant puts on his, and the jury
is instructed and renders a verdict. Sometimes everyone is wrong which
is why we have appeals and post conviction relief -- not infrequently
granted for inadequacy of counsel. I'd be going after that guy's PD.

The government is not constitutionally required(yet) to develop
exculpatory evidence. Now if the DA had withheld evidence or coerced a
confession or interfered with the PD's investigation, that would be a
different matter. We should punish that behavior with exclusion -- but
I don't see any reason for punishing the DA for failing to investigate
everyone under the sun and pursuing a conviction by exclusion.

It might very well be that the former DA is kidding himself, and that
even were his sadder, wiser self magically transported back in time he
would do nothing closer to justice.

--

On 2015-08-06 12:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 05 Aug 2015
16:43:55 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-08-05 1:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Tue, 4 Aug 2015

[...]

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10 mph speed
limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and joggers, rollerbladers,
skateboarders etc. are allowed to go as fast as they like, and all are
capable of exceeding 10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited
to 10 mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather silly,
especially since bikes are not required to have speedometers. I don't
know any cyclist who actually tries to stay below 10 mph, although all
of my friends (and almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of
caution and use reasonable speed control.

Here, that would be covered under careless or (in extreme cases)
dangerous riding, which (given that as you point out, there is no
requirement for any speed measuring device, let alone accuracy of one)
seems far more reasonable. I've only ever even heard of one cyclist
ever prosecuted for any offence purely on the basis of his speed - it
is more common for it to be the close proximity of more vulnerable
road users, like children, that is the reason for a prosecution (which
is perfectly reasonable).


raises hand

Now you know one here in the NG. Happened in Germany, was in a hurry to
make it to a written exam. My mistake was that I passed a bunch of cars,
properly on the left as other cars would but I was on my bicycle. An
even bigger mistake was not to notice the blue hump on one of the cars
- speaker came on - "Bicyclist, pull over to the right!" - speeding
ticket. It was cheap back in the early 80's, either 10 or 20
Deutschmarks, don't remember. There was no other offense cited, just
"speed limit exceeded".

I almost got another one in Washington State. The trooper was not
impressed with my excuse that the bike was borrowed and didn't have a
speedometer. The point where he let me go was when I responded that I
was just visiting and didn't live in WA state. The German police did not
show that kind of courtesy.

Since I was referring to the UK, I still haven't.
Your German ticket seems to have been entirely evidence free, so I'd
have thought that you'd have won if you'd fought it, assuming that
they have any rules of evidence there at all (and it would be
surprising if they don't).

The simple question by your lawyer to the police officer "and how did
you measure the speed of the defendant?" would have destroyed their
case in an instant. There were certainly no electronic devices in use
by police in the early 80s which could get any reading from a cyclist
in amongst other traffic.


Doesn't work. In Germany (and many other countries) the cards are
stacked against you. The government is the plaintiff and the police
officer is a witness. We the people, in contrast, are the defendants and
generally do not have any witnesses.

The police officer will say that the speedometer in his cruiser showed
30km/h which was the posted speed limit. He will then produce the
calibration records and a written statement by his colleague in the
passenger seats attesting the accuracy of what he observed.

At that point your day in court is de facto over.


But hey - it's your choice to accept the ticket, instead of fighting
it, and I've no idea what the limit was, whether it applied to pedal
cycles in Germany, and what chance there was that you were actually
exceeding it. My point is that you were very unlikely to be
endangering anyone else (which is the main point of speeding
legislation) and that your speed was almost certainly impossible to
prove.


I wasn't endangering anyone. But admittedly I was well over the speed
limit and that goes for all vehicles using traffic lanes. I don't know
what their rules on bike paths would be, in the US they mostly have
posted speed limits of 15mph and yes, you can easily get a ticket which
is next to impossible to successfully fight.

Since I was over the limit I wouldn't even have tried to fight it. One
has to be honest. I also don't believe it is a good idea to lie about it
in court.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:51:57 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-08-06 12:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 05 Aug 2015
16:43:55 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-08-05 1:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Tue, 4 Aug 2015

[...]

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10 mph speed
limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and joggers, rollerbladers,
skateboarders etc. are allowed to go as fast as they like, and all are
capable of exceeding 10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited
to 10 mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather silly,
especially since bikes are not required to have speedometers. I don't
know any cyclist who actually tries to stay below 10 mph, although all
of my friends (and almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of
caution and use reasonable speed control.

Here, that would be covered under careless or (in extreme cases)
dangerous riding, which (given that as you point out, there is no
requirement for any speed measuring device, let alone accuracy of one)
seems far more reasonable. I've only ever even heard of one cyclist
ever prosecuted for any offence purely on the basis of his speed - it
is more common for it to be the close proximity of more vulnerable
road users, like children, that is the reason for a prosecution (which
is perfectly reasonable).


raises hand

Now you know one here in the NG. Happened in Germany, was in a hurry to
make it to a written exam. My mistake was that I passed a bunch of cars,
properly on the left as other cars would but I was on my bicycle. An
even bigger mistake was not to notice the blue hump on one of the cars
- speaker came on - "Bicyclist, pull over to the right!" - speeding
ticket. It was cheap back in the early 80's, either 10 or 20
Deutschmarks, don't remember. There was no other offense cited, just
"speed limit exceeded".

I almost got another one in Washington State. The trooper was not
impressed with my excuse that the bike was borrowed and didn't have a
speedometer. The point where he let me go was when I responded that I
was just visiting and didn't live in WA state. The German police did not
show that kind of courtesy.

Since I was referring to the UK, I still haven't.
Your German ticket seems to have been entirely evidence free, so I'd
have thought that you'd have won if you'd fought it, assuming that
they have any rules of evidence there at all (and it would be
surprising if they don't).

The simple question by your lawyer to the police officer "and how did
you measure the speed of the defendant?" would have destroyed their
case in an instant. There were certainly no electronic devices in use
by police in the early 80s which could get any reading from a cyclist
in amongst other traffic.


Doesn't work. In Germany (and many other countries) the cards are
stacked against you. The government is the plaintiff and the police
officer is a witness. We the people, in contrast, are the defendants and
generally do not have any witnesses.

The police officer will say that the speedometer in his cruiser showed
30km/h which was the posted speed limit. He will then produce the
calibration records and a written statement by his colleague in the
passenger seats attesting the accuracy of what he observed.

At that point your day in court is de facto over.

The cards weren't stacked against you. You just had a losing hand.

Police rarely patrol the MUPs -- including this one I take home now and then: http://tinyurl.com/nbaxhjy The sign facing away from the camera says "Bicycles 10MPH" -- just like Frank's MUP. I ignore it and put up with the wrath of runners and dog herders (people with 2-5 dogs). What we need are your mountain lions to thin-out the dog herds.

If the police did start patrolling, they would have to use radar or some other device to measure speed. I don't think a judge would be too impressed with "he was going too fast!"

The same rule must not apply to the Springwater Corridor MUP because it can be a bicycle race course. http://tinyurl.com/o6c5owa I haven't bothered looking into the speed rules for MUPs without posted limits, but if there are any, they're ignored.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2015-08-06 5:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:51:57 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-08-06 12:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 05 Aug 2015
16:43:55 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-08-05 1:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Tue, 4
Aug 2015

[...]

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10
mph speed limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and
joggers, rollerbladers, skateboarders etc. are allowed to
go as fast as they like, and all are capable of exceeding
10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited to 10
mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather
silly, especially since bikes are not required to have
speedometers. I don't know any cyclist who actually tries
to stay below 10 mph, although all of my friends (and
almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of caution
and use reasonable speed control.

Here, that would be covered under careless or (in extreme
cases) dangerous riding, which (given that as you point out,
there is no requirement for any speed measuring device, let
alone accuracy of one) seems far more reasonable. I've only
ever even heard of one cyclist ever prosecuted for any
offence purely on the basis of his speed - it is more common
for it to be the close proximity of more vulnerable road
users, like children, that is the reason for a prosecution
(which is perfectly reasonable).


raises hand

Now you know one here in the NG. Happened in Germany, was in a
hurry to make it to a written exam. My mistake was that I
passed a bunch of cars, properly on the left as other cars
would but I was on my bicycle. An even bigger mistake was not
to notice the blue hump on one of the cars - speaker came on
- "Bicyclist, pull over to the right!" - speeding ticket. It
was cheap back in the early 80's, either 10 or 20 Deutschmarks,
don't remember. There was no other offense cited, just "speed
limit exceeded".

I almost got another one in Washington State. The trooper was
not impressed with my excuse that the bike was borrowed and
didn't have a speedometer. The point where he let me go was
when I responded that I was just visiting and didn't live in WA
state. The German police did not show that kind of courtesy.

Since I was referring to the UK, I still haven't. Your German
ticket seems to have been entirely evidence free, so I'd have
thought that you'd have won if you'd fought it, assuming that
they have any rules of evidence there at all (and it would be
surprising if they don't).

The simple question by your lawyer to the police officer "and how
did you measure the speed of the defendant?" would have destroyed
their case in an instant. There were certainly no electronic
devices in use by police in the early 80s which could get any
reading from a cyclist in amongst other traffic.


Doesn't work. In Germany (and many other countries) the cards are
stacked against you. The government is the plaintiff and the
police officer is a witness. We the people, in contrast, are the
defendants and generally do not have any witnesses.

The police officer will say that the speedometer in his cruiser
showed 30km/h which was the posted speed limit. He will then
produce the calibration records and a written statement by his
colleague in the passenger seats attesting the accuracy of what he
observed.

At that point your day in court is de facto over.

The cards weren't stacked against you. You just had a losing hand.


How would you argue that case in court? Tell the judge the two cops are
lying?


Police rarely patrol the MUPs -- including this one I take home now
and then: http://tinyurl.com/nbaxhjy The sign facing away from the
camera says "Bicycles 10MPH" -- just like Frank's MUP. I ignore it
and put up with the wrath of runners and dog herders (people with 2-5
dogs). What we need are your mountain lions to thin-out the dog
herds.

If the police did start patrolling, they would have to use radar or
some other device to measure speed. I don't think a judge would be
too impressed with "he was going too fast!"


On our bike paths they use hand-held Radar guns. Not a whiff of a chance
in court to fight that.


The same rule must not apply to the Springwater Corridor MUP because
it can be a bicycle race course. http://tinyurl.com/o6c5owa I haven't
bothered looking into the speed rules for MUPs without posted limits,
but if there are any, they're ignored.


Same here, largely. But during high traffic times Smokey will be out
there and it can get expensive.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 12:58:38 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-08-06 5:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:51:57 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-08-06 12:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 05 Aug 2015
16:43:55 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2015-08-05 1:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Tue, 4
Aug 2015

[...]

*And one local multi-use path, fully 18 feet wide, has a 10
mph speed limit for bikes. Only for bikes. Runners and
joggers, rollerbladers, skateboarders etc. are allowed to
go as fast as they like, and all are capable of exceeding
10 mph. But bicyclists are theoretically limited to 10
mph, even if the path is dead empty. It seems rather
silly, especially since bikes are not required to have
speedometers. I don't know any cyclist who actually tries
to stay below 10 mph, although all of my friends (and
almost all other cyclists) do exercise plenty of caution
and use reasonable speed control.

Here, that would be covered under careless or (in extreme
cases) dangerous riding, which (given that as you point out,
there is no requirement for any speed measuring device, let
alone accuracy of one) seems far more reasonable. I've only
ever even heard of one cyclist ever prosecuted for any
offence purely on the basis of his speed - it is more common
for it to be the close proximity of more vulnerable road
users, like children, that is the reason for a prosecution
(which is perfectly reasonable).


raises hand

Now you know one here in the NG. Happened in Germany, was in a
hurry to make it to a written exam. My mistake was that I
passed a bunch of cars, properly on the left as other cars
would but I was on my bicycle. An even bigger mistake was not
to notice the blue hump on one of the cars - speaker came on
- "Bicyclist, pull over to the right!" - speeding ticket. It
was cheap back in the early 80's, either 10 or 20 Deutschmarks,
don't remember. There was no other offense cited, just "speed
limit exceeded".

I almost got another one in Washington State. The trooper was
not impressed with my excuse that the bike was borrowed and
didn't have a speedometer. The point where he let me go was
when I responded that I was just visiting and didn't live in WA
state. The German police did not show that kind of courtesy.

Since I was referring to the UK, I still haven't. Your German
ticket seems to have been entirely evidence free, so I'd have
thought that you'd have won if you'd fought it, assuming that
they have any rules of evidence there at all (and it would be
surprising if they don't).

The simple question by your lawyer to the police officer "and how
did you measure the speed of the defendant?" would have destroyed
their case in an instant. There were certainly no electronic
devices in use by police in the early 80s which could get any
reading from a cyclist in amongst other traffic.


Doesn't work. In Germany (and many other countries) the cards are
stacked against you. The government is the plaintiff and the
police officer is a witness. We the people, in contrast, are the
defendants and generally do not have any witnesses.

The police officer will say that the speedometer in his cruiser
showed 30km/h which was the posted speed limit. He will then
produce the calibration records and a written statement by his
colleague in the passenger seats attesting the accuracy of what he
observed.

At that point your day in court is de facto over.

The cards weren't stacked against you. You just had a losing hand.


How would you argue that case in court? Tell the judge the two cops are
lying?


Police rarely patrol the MUPs -- including this one I take home now
and then: http://tinyurl.com/nbaxhjy The sign facing away from the
camera says "Bicycles 10MPH" -- just like Frank's MUP. I ignore it
and put up with the wrath of runners and dog herders (people with 2-5
dogs). What we need are your mountain lions to thin-out the dog
herds.

If the police did start patrolling, they would have to use radar or
some other device to measure speed. I don't think a judge would be
too impressed with "he was going too fast!"


On our bike paths they use hand-held Radar guns. Not a whiff of a chance
in court to fight that.

Gads, you must have an incredibly low crime rate to have police officers patrolling bike paths with radar guns. Our cops will patrol the paths (I had to squeeze by a police cruiser on the I-205 bike path this afternoon) because they become homeless camps and hang-outs for meth-heads. Speeding suburban bicyclists would be a welcome change.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/8/2015 7:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Gads, you must have an incredibly low crime rate to have police officers patrolling bike paths with radar guns.

When our local "Bicycles 10 mph" multi-user path was still new, the park
system occasionally had a park policeman in an enclosed motor scooter
patrol, and attempt to enforce the limit.

One cop took off after a friend of mine who was exceeding 10 mph. The
cop was yelling at him to pull over. My friend just looked back, put
his head down, and outran the scooter.

Not that I'm advocating such behavior. ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-08-08 4:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 12:58:38 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-08-06 5:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

Police rarely patrol the MUPs -- including this one I take home
now and then: http://tinyurl.com/nbaxhjy The sign facing away
from the camera says "Bicycles 10MPH" -- just like Frank's MUP. I
ignore it and put up with the wrath of runners and dog herders
(people with 2-5 dogs). What we need are your mountain lions to
thin-out the dog herds.

If the police did start patrolling, they would have to use radar
or some other device to measure speed. I don't think a judge
would be too impressed with "he was going too fast!"


On our bike paths they use hand-held Radar guns. Not a whiff of a
chance in court to fight that.

Gads, you must have an incredibly low crime rate to have police
officers patrolling bike paths with radar guns. Our cops will patrol
the paths (I had to squeeze by a police cruiser on the I-205 bike
path this afternoon) because they become homeless camps and hang-outs
for meth-heads. Speeding suburban bicyclists would be a welcome
change.


If a cop needs to up his quota such a bike path would be a welcome spot.
You can pluck riders like ripe blackberries. AFAICT at least half of
them are seriously above the speed limit. During busy times the American
River Bike Trail feels like the Long Island Expressway. Where they honk
at you if you are a "slowpoke" going less than 85mph.

But in all fairness they ticket in areas and at times where doing way
over 20mph or more is really dangerous and has resulted in collisions. I
can't understand raod bikers who blow past a little kid on a tricycle at
full bore.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/