Fined for impeding traffic.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

--
JS

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 12:21:01 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

--
JS

Yah, me too.

There's a hill that starts just round the corner from my front door, on which I ride several times a week. Cars park on both sides of the lower part, narrowing the centre to about a car and a half. I ride near the middle of the available space. Cars wait patiently for each other to clear this section to the first intersection, and for my bike too, mostly.

Further up this hill the road narrows and cars park only on the uphill side of the road and there are fewer of them. I ride to the right of my half of the road, which puts me a meter from the parked cars, which means oncooming cars have to slow for my bike just like they do for cars. If traffic piles up behind me I'll sometimes, if pedalpals are already pushing, pull in between parked cars to let the cars behind pass, and push from there. But if I'm riding alone or with pedalpals strong enough to cycle to the top, I keep riding to the top, where the countryside starts and the parked cars end, and pull over. I don't see that motorists have a right to demand that I pull off the road in a place that breaks my forward progress so badly that I have to push rather than ride. It is easy for a motorist to restart on a hill, less easy for a cyclist.

If I get ticketed for this by some obdurate policeman -- unlikely where I live -- I too would go to court and argue the case.

There's another case where I ride often, a lane just narrow enough to let a car pass, but no more, with broken verges and the ditch and thorny hedges close by. There, for traffic from behind, I go to the wrong side of the road so that the driver can see how much space there is between his mirror and me. If I were forced to stick to the other side of the road, I would never let him pass, because there just isn't the space.

If I get ticketed for this by some obdurate policeman -- slightly possible where I live -- again I would go to court and in this case argue that since no one could pass me legally by giving me a meter of space, the only alternative is to hog the lane for miles, some of it long straight stretches.

***

I don't trust that New Zealand report that you linked. It reeks of the political bias of committed cyclists. Their biased poll question, "Should cyclists pull over to let cars pass?" tells you their abrasive attitude in a single sentence. (The answer should be "Of course, when legally required, possible without endangering themselves, and as soon as convenient." But these idiots set up an environment in which the expect answer is "No!" They're losers who can't win anything before they start, just like our own Franki-boy, who by his wretched manners without fail ensures the opposite result of the one he aims for.)

However, the implications of their verbatim report of what "Senior Sergeant Scott Richardson, of Canterbury road policing" said are extremely disturbing:
"People going too slow or impeding traffic is a risk in that the people following become more and more frustrated. As that builds, the chance of them doing something dangerous, like trying to overtake in an inappropriate place, increases. Then you're looking at head-on crashes."

I fail to see that a cyclist riding within the law, or a motorist riding within the law, is responsible for the impatience or stupidity of other road users, or for the consequences of impatient or reckless actions by others, which is what this copper is saying quite plainly. That is to blame the cyclist for every incident involving him, simply because he's slower than motorized traffic. That's not in any statute I ever heard of . Senior Sergeant Scott Richardson may well be an old fashioned bobby who believes in clipping the boy in ear for the stolen apple rather than criminalizing him, but this is taking country police lawmaking several very big steps too far.

If Sergeant Richardson's extension of the law was heard in court, the cycling bodies in NZ should escalate this case to a higher court and get a better precedent set, or this small storm in a teacup will return to bite many cyclists in the ankle.

Andre Jute

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 06:45:41 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

James considered Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:20:58
+1000 the perfect time to write:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

And I would, and probably any competent cyclist.
I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

The cop and judge should be sent on cycling courses, and barred from
practicing (and boy, do they need the practice) their chosen
professions until they have completed them to the satisfaction of the
instructors.


Yup, It makes perfect sense. I would assume that under this "on the
job training" scheme that a Judge and the constabulary would also be
precluded from administering murder and robbery cases until after then
had some "hands on" experience.

"Sorry about this, old chap, but today's the day for my grave bodily
harm classes."
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:20:58
+1000 the perfect time to write:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

And I would, and probably any competent cyclist.
I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he would have gotten the same ticket.

Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane (each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws. I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had thirty. He should have pulled over.

Right through Dan-O country. http://www.distancebetweencities.net...sters_or/route

Three short stretches with passing lanes, mostly at the beginning of the drive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFJJJK4VKA (winter).

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:20:58
+1000 the perfect time to write:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

And I would, and probably any competent cyclist.
I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been
laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider
been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he
would have gotten the same ticket.

Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane
(each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph
under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws.
I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five
cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had
thirty. He should have pulled over.

Right through Dan-O country.
http://www.distancebetweencities.net...sters_or/route

Three short stretches with passing lanes, mostly at the beginning of the
drive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFJJJK4VKA (winter).

-- Jay Beattie.

What a coincident. I drove that stretch a couple of years ago during my
last visit to the US, coming from Bend. Did I impede you? 😀
Btw getting a ticket for impeding traffic on a bicycle in the Netherlands
is unthinkable.
--
Lou

On 6/22/2015 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

It is educational, though. I don't advocate applying the book to a
judge's nose, but it's high time someone did something to educate those
in the legal system.


Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider
been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he would
have gotten the same ticket.

Depends on the law, doesn't it?

There's legal precedent that the capability of the vehicle needs to be
taken into consideration. Today I watched a tractor (used for roadside
mowing, I think) waiting to pull out onto a 40,000 car per day, 40 mph
road. I know that tractor wasn't going to be going over 20 mph. I very
much doubt the driver got a ticket.


Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane
(each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph
under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws.

And people complain about bicycles!

I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five
cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had
thirty.
He should have pulled over.

Yes, I've followed monster motor homes in similar situations. Yes, he
should have pulled over - assuming he could do it safely. But I'll
note, that degree of obstruction never happens with a bicycle. For one
thing, it really is much easier to pass a bicycle.

Question: What's the longest time and distance you've ever been held up
behind a bicycle while you were driving a car?

Personally, I don't think I've ever been held up for even thirty
seconds, nor even a quarter mile. It's just not a big problem.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/22/2015 4:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

Btw getting a ticket for impeding traffic on a bicycle in the Netherlands
is unthinkable.

It's tremendously rare in the U.S. too, despite the gnashing of teeth in
this discussion group.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:00:19 PM UTC+1, Lou Holtman wrote:

Btw getting a ticket for impeding traffic on a bicycle in the Netherlands
is unthinkable.

I keep trying to explain to the Americans that, as they have an SUV-centric societal outlook, reflected in their laws, so in The Netherlands the society as a whole has a bicycle-centric outlook, including in their law. Until the Americans understand that a cycling society is a matter of philosophy rather than of fiddling at the margins with bicycle facilites that ghettoize cyclists and solve nothing, nothing will change in the States. Nor in the societies that try to emulate them, like Australia and NZ. It's an uphill struggle.

Andre Jute

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 1:00:19 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:20:58
+1000 the perfect time to write:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-on-port-hills

By the sounds of it I would have been fined too.

And I would, and probably any competent cyclist.
I'd have probably also been fined for telling the judge exactly what
kind of idiot he was, and ramming a copy of Cyclecraft up his nose.

I don't know if you would have been fined, but you would have been
laughed at. Cyclecraft isn't the law -- anywhere.

Bicycles are not special. They are treated like vehicles. Had the rider
been in a car going below the speed limit and holding up traffic, he
would have gotten the same ticket.

Having crept home on Saturday on a 100 mile stretch of twisting one lane
(each way) road, stuck behind an asshole with a horse trailer going 10mph
under the limit for much of the way -- I fully support the impeding laws.
I like the Washington version that says you're impeding if you have five
cars stacked up behind you. The guy with the horse trailer probably had
thirty. He should have pulled over.

Right through Dan-O country.
http://www.distancebetweencities.net...sters_or/route

Three short stretches with passing lanes, mostly at the beginning of the
drive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFJJJK4VKA (winter).

-- Jay Beattie.

What a coincident. I drove that stretch a couple of years ago during my
last visit to the US, coming from Bend. Did I impede you? 😀
Btw getting a ticket for impeding traffic on a bicycle in the Netherlands
is unthinkable.
--
Lou

We're you towing a horse trailer on Saturday? I thought that was you! I've seen those pictures of the horses behind your house!

The Critical Mass guys get fined for impeding, but that's about it. I think more cars should get fined.

-- Jay Beattie.

cyclists who wave us by into blind turns should be keelhauled.

last time I ranted on this....local authority said

'oh those boys are retarded'

of course , the ride was in Oregon.