criminal court--bike

On Feb 2, 12:57 pm, Jym Dyer wrote:
In my experience in traffic court and related places, if you
are presentable, pay attention, speak clearly and concisely
(and not go off reciting paragraph numbers of various vehicle
codes) and don't ramble, you will get as good treatment as
possible.

=v= Yeah, never mind the facts or anything (e.g. 40,000 people
killed each year in the U.S. by bad drivers). Just look good,
and the traffic commissioner -- who's also a motorist -- will
see your offense as good clean fun that could happen to anyone.
_Jym_

P.S.: Also, have the foresight to be born white.

There are some motorists who are complete retards and are a menace to
everyone and demonstrate this by getting tickets all the time. There
are also some motorists who are for the most part safe and sane
people. They too sometimes get tickets for infractions despite their
overall general safeness. The first sort is usually a ****-up in other
ways too, and this is immediatly apparent when you look around at
traffic court. If you can make an officer or a judge see that you are
a member of the second group you will have much better results. Being
white has nothing to do with it. Not being an ignorant moron is what
counts. Any time spent watching traffic court will make this
abundantly clear.

Joseph

On Feb 1, 5:37*am, "ilaboo" wrote:
went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at that
time--explaination went no where

peter

The most likely reason your explanation went nowhere with the cop is
he was thinking, "So then- you're confused, disoriented, and can
barely see because your eyes are almost swollen shut. Get off the bike
and walk. You're endangering pedestrians." Apparently the judge agreed
with that assessment of the situation. Pay the fine.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In The Bronx where the OP was ticketed, in an area where the
officer would bother to ticket somebody for sidewalk riding,
I'm sure it was a pretty pedestrian area.

=v= What makes you so sure? The Bronx ain't Manhattan; though
it has reasonable pedestrian density there *are* stretches of
sidewalk where few people venture on foot. (Also, these tend
to be along heavily-travelled roads that are very unsafe for
bicyclists.)

I think you are reading too much into the cop's behavior.

=v= Perhaps, though my perspective on the situation is informed
by plenty of first-hand experience with the NYPD, many of whom
behave precisely as I described.
_Jym_

On Feb 3, 9:37*pm, Jym Dyer wrote:
In The Bronx where the OP was ticketed, in an area where the
officer would bother to ticket somebody for sidewalk riding,
I'm sure it was a pretty pedestrian area.

=v= What makes you so sure? *The Bronx ain't Manhattan; though
it has reasonable pedestrian density there *are* stretches of
sidewalk where few people venture on foot. *(Also, these tend
to be along heavily-travelled roads that are very unsafe for
bicyclists.)

That's true. If it was a remote area with few if any pedestrians, the
officer was probably overzealous. That makes a big difference.


I think you are reading too much into the cop's behavior.

=v= Perhaps, though my perspective on the situation is informed
by plenty of first-hand experience with the NYPD, many of whom
behave precisely as I described.
* * _Jym_

It's been a while since I have had anything to do with cops in NYC (I
grew up in Brooklyn) but they always seemed the best compared with all
the cops I've dealt with since. Maybe just fond memories ;-)

My favorite NYC cop story:

Riding across the Brooklyn Bridge (on my track bike with no brakes) my
buddy and I saw a small camera crew taking photos of a woman with the
skyline in the background. As we drew closer we realized these photos
were clearly meant for a certain type of publication. We rode past.
When we got to the foot of the bridge, we came across a cop on a
scooter, no helmet, a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. My friend
said, "They probably don't have a permit or whatever, but there is a
naked lady up there and they're taking porn pictures." The cop
responds with a smile, "Oh yeah? Is she good lookin'? I better go
check it out, you boys have a nice ride." and he scooted up the ramp.

Joseph

ilaboo wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" wrote:
went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
that
time--explaination went no where

...


i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.


That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a bull**** excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

"Dana Myers" wrote in message
. ..
ilaboo wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" wrote:
went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
that
time--explaination went no where

...


i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.


That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a bull**** excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

this is the bronx and no police officer i have ever come in contact will
make any decision that is not a police matter--i could tell you tales!

lets see what happens

pter

On Feb 7, 3:55 am, "ilaboo" wrote:
"Dana Myers" wrote in message

. ..



ilaboo wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
news On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" wrote:
went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
that
time--explaination went no where

...

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a bull**** excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

this is the bronx and no police officer i have ever come in contact will
make any decision that is not a police matter--i could tell you tales!

lets see what happens

pter

I take it your case hasn't been heard yet? Good luck with the judge.
Maybe the officer will fail to appear ;-)

Cheers,
Dana

On Feb 7, 11:11*pm, Dana wrote:

Maybe the officer will fail to appear ;-)


That's why you have to go down the day before and say you have to
change the date because you have a job interview. The extra scheduling
increases the chances of the officer not showing.

Joseph

In article PkCqj.4193$lr3.2490@trndny06,
"ilaboo" wrote:

"Dana Myers" wrote in message
. ..
ilaboo wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
news On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" wrote:
went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
that
time--explaination went no where

...


i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.


That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a bull**** excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

You felt wrong. About the only part of this that is conceivably
exculpatory is that you may have been out of your mind (as in legally
incompetent to form rational decisions) when this happened. Even so, as
lawyers love noting, offenses like riding on the sidewalk and most other
moving violations are based on "strict liability," which means that
anyone committing them is assumed to be guilty of them; criminal intent
is not necessary.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/traffic-ticket.htm

The rationale for such a rule is that the rules of the road are
essentially rules of mutual expected conduct, and no excuses for
disobeying them can fairly be abided as the safety of others depends on
collective respect for those rules.

In other words, if you get on your bike and ride, you are implicitly
agreeing to abide by the rules of the road. Part of the responsibility
that you take on when you mount a bicycle and ride it is that you are
physically and mentally competent enough to operate it safely.

You may object that you were on the sidewalk, not the road, but the
principle of strict liability is even more applicable the pedestrians
have no expectations of encountering a bicycle on the sidewalk.

The best question you can ask, either of us or of yourself, is "in
retrospect, what should I have done?"

It's a question with a clear answer: you were mostly blind, disoriented,
and judged that you were not competent to ride your bike on the road
(good judgment!) You should have stopped and rested. If you proximately
feared for your life or your health, you should have made every effort
to seek aid (call 911, accost passers-by, or go up to the cop who was
about to give you a ticket). Barring such a fear, you should have
dismounted and walked your bicycle home.

If you really were so out of your mind that you didn't realize the
danger of what you were doing, owing to an unfortunate drug combo, well,
you may want to appeal on that basis, but you really shouldn't have
gotten on to your bike in that condition.

It's rather like how very few drunk drivers are permitted to use the
excuse that when they got in the car, they were too drunk to realize
they were too drunk to drive.

Is this a hard rule? Yes. I suppose it penalizes those legitimately
experiencing temporary insanity. But that's a pretty small population.
Also, if you try to plea that defence, a cynical judge might insist on
committing you for a psychiatric investigation.

So out of genuine curiosity, do you think in retrospect that the drugs
impaired your judgment enough to cause your (bad) decision to get on the
bicycle and try to ride home on the sidewalk when you could barely see?
I'm not asking to be a jerk, I really am seeking a reflective answer.

PS: despite what my signature says, I have no legal training. I
basically talk to computers for a living.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

ilaboo wrote:
i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

I call BS on this whole story. If it was only two blocks you should
have walked in the first place. If it was any further, this story
clearly illustrates why one should get a ride -- be it from a friend,
foe, or taxi -- to and from medical procedures involving anesthetics or
other drugs. When I had my wrist surgery, I was *not* allowed to
provide my own transportation home, even by taxi. If you had no other
means, by your own argument[1], you should have stayed in the hospital
unless the effects wore off.

\\paul
[1]"i ahve an intrinsic right not to endanger myself or others"
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the ph to f to reply:.