Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, The Lindbergh Baby wrote:

it!"). The guy was arguing that he bicycles in this area all the time,
there were no cars coming, etc. The cop (surprise...) told the guy he was
just warning him this time rather than writing a ticket, and eventually
let him ride off.

Okay, has anyone ever seen a cop let a driver off after they ran a red
light? Hmmmm?? Unless the driver was a politician or fellow cop, I
doubt it.

Hence my "(surprise...)".

And I love the argument from the bicyclist: there were no cars coming.
How the frig does he know?

He just, y'know, *knows!* Shut up, he does too! Does too does too does
TOO!

(In fact, Bloor street is busy 24 hours a day. There are *ALWAYS* cars
coming from three directions at the particular intersection this guy
blew.)

-Stern

In article ,
"Bob Newman" wrote:

Too many to read every reply, I hope this wasn't touched on. We here in
Florida have had police crack downs in the past giving cyclists tickets for
not stopping, as you say "cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as
anyone else". That is not quite true in this case, cyclists are required to
do more! Simply stopping at a stop sign can still get you a ticket IF you
fail to put one foot fully on the ground. Comments?

I think it's the same for mortorcycles, so I wouldn't say the cyclist is
required to do more in this case.

In article ch.edu,
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

*Reposted, this time to correct groups*

(Prefatory note to Brent: Yes, I'm aware there are many badly-behaved
motorists. No, I don't think they should get off scot-free, either. Yes,
I'm aware you're vehemently opposed to bicycle and rider registration. No,
I don't buy your putative reasons for it. Yes, I know you have to respond
to this post. No, I won't get in a ****ing contest with you.)

I was walking down Bloor St when I saw a copcycle pull over a cyclist for
running a red light...talk about shock and awe! I've never seen the likes
of this before. The cop ordered the cyclist to dismount, walk his bike to
the corner and park it, then lectured the guy for a few minutes ("Red
lights mean STOP, whether you're in a car or on a bike or on your feet!
It's the same rules of the road for you as for everyone else who uses
it!"). The guy was arguing that he bicycles in this area all the time,
there were no cars coming, etc. The cop (surprise...) told the guy he was
just warning him this time rather than writing a ticket, and eventually
let him ride off.

Now, it did my heart a lot of good to see and hear this. There are way too
many badly-behaved bicyclists in Toronto, as there are in every other
city. "Hey, lookit me! I'm a car! WHUP, now I'm a pedestrian! WHUP! Now
I'm neither! Hey, lookit me riding on the wrong side of the street! After
dark! Without lights or reflectors! Wearing all black! And if you hit me,
it'll be all your fault, neener neener neener! Whoah, sucks to be you, red
lights are only for cars!" etc.

You sound upset because the bicyclest is allowed to do things an
automobile driver is not allowed to do. When you see him take advantage
of his greater freedom it upsets you. You want auto drivers to have that
freedom to, or see it taken away from the bicyclest...

I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate, yet is sounds very familliar to
the debate over in rec.boats; there it's motor-boat vs sailboat.
Different vehicles, but the same facts. How much property damage can a
bicycle do compaired to a car? Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall
of the local McDonald's killing and injuring happy meal eaters? Isn't it
true that a bicycle is inherently safer to opperate than a car? If not
for the opperator, then certanly for everyone else?


I'd like to see a lot more of this kind of police activity, but pragmatic
questions pretty much scotch the idea. There's no law requiring
registration of bicycles or carrying an operator's license -- or, for that
matter, any form of identification at all -- while riding one. Should be,
but isn't. So what if the cop stops someone who hasn't got ID? What,
exactly, can the cop do? And even if s/he succeeds in writing a ticket,
what's to motivate the recipient to pay it? There'll be no demerit points
on his driver's license (which s/he may not even have). There'll be no
increase in insurance premiums (which s/he's not required to carry).
There'll be no denial of renewed registration (also not required).

Be nice if cops could/would (they probably can) write tickets and impound
bicycles until the ticket is paid.

Here you claim that the rules that bicyclest must obey are
"unenforceable" because there is no license to revoke, insurance premium
to jack up or points to accrue. However, there are many laws that people
are expected to obey that fit the same profile; shoplifting for example.
A shopper isn't required to carry a "shopping license" and won't have
any insurance problems or get any points if he is caught stealing a loaf
of bread.

I'm not saying that bicyclests shouldn't be licensed, but I am saying
that nothing you present here is a case for why they should.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

"Hey, lookit me! I'm a car! WHUP, now I'm a pedestrian! WHUP! Now
I'm neither! Hey, lookit me riding on the wrong side of the street! After
dark! Without lights or reflectors! Wearing all black! And if you hit me,
it'll be all your fault, neener neener neener! Whoah, sucks to be you, red
lights are only for cars!" etc.

You sound upset because the bicyclest is allowed to do things an
automobile driver is not allowed to do

No, see, that's just it: Bicyclists *AREN'T* allowed to do things (like
run red lights) that cars aren't allowed to do. The guy who inspired my
original post got ordered off his bike and lectured by a cop; sounded like
next time the same cop sees him do the same thing, it'll be a ticket.

I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate

That much is obvious. Such a "car vs. bicycle debate" is pointless.
Roadway safety is EVERY road user's job, whether they be on foot, on a
bike, on rollerblades, in a car, on a motorcycle...


How much property damage can a bicycle do compaired to a car?

"Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
and damages can be quite large.

Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
and injuring happy meal eaters?

They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
venue, same effect.

Isn't it true that a bicycle is inherently safer to opperate than a car?

Probably not.


you claim that the rules that bicyclest must obey are "unenforceable"
because there is no license to revoke, insurance premium to jack up or
points to accrue.

That's right.

-Stern

In article ich.edu,
"Daniel J. Stern" writes:

"Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
and damages can be quite large.

Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
and injuring happy meal eaters?

They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
venue, same effect.

I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Keats wrote:

They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them.
Different venue, same effect.

I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before, but
I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this has occurred.

'cause the cyclist, having caused mayhem, simply decides he's a
pedestrian, makes a 90-degree turn and cruises away from the scene. Did
anyone get his license plate? Oh that's right...he DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE
ONE!

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ich.edu,
"Daniel J. Stern" writes:

"Compared". Quite a bit, depending on how you define "cause". When a
bicyclist touches-off a multi-vehicle incident, the total tab in injuries
and damages can be quite large.

Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall of the local McDonald's killing
and injuring happy meal eaters?

They can ram through busy intersections against the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
venue, same effect.

I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

I saw something close. I was making a left turn (with the green light)
when a bicyclist ran the light just as I was turning. Needless to say
the bicyclist was going too fast for anyone to really react to his
presence. He ended up hitting an SUV (note the bicyclist hit the
vehicle, not the other way around.) The bike was totaled and the rider
found himself flat on his back. Amazingly, the bicyclist wasn't hurt, of
course the driver of the SUV wasn't hurt either, how could he be? Hell,
I didn't even see any scratches on the side of his vehicle...

I'm not going to claim that what Mr. Stern says never happens, but I
expect that when something like that happens but its a car rather than a
bike that is "ramming" through a busy intersection against the light, a
hell of a lot more damage occurs.

I still say he's just ****ed because he sees bikes doing what he can't
do in his car, but he isn't willing to ride a bike in order to have the
privileges that bikers have. Of course, that doesn't stop him from
wanting to take those privileges away from the bicyclists.

(Tom Keats)

asked:

They (meaning cyclists... ed.) can ram through busy intersections against
the light, causing
multiple collisions as drivers attempt to avoid hitting them. Different
venue, same effect.

I've heard this point raised in the course of discussion before,
but I've never seen nor heard of actual incidents where this
has occurred. Has anyone? And if so, how often does it happen?

Specifically cyclists? No. But when I was in patrol I investigated literally
hundreds of crashes that were caused by a third party's disregard for traffic
rules and saw dozens of similiar circumstances with my own eyes. Almost without
exception, those third parties just kept right on going. Unless it was one of
those times that I *saw* the crash that is. Those people I stopped, returned
them to the scene, listed them as involved parties on the crash report, and
issued them tickets. Sometimes I miss patrol. g
I think there are two main reasons that there aren't more documented cases of a
cyclist causing a crash. First, unless the cop *sees* it he's not going to list
the cyclist on the face of the report and most stats are gathered from the face
of the report. Second, in comparison to motor vehicle traffic there really
aren't that many cyclists on the road. It's rather like, how many crashes has
anyone heard of that were caused by UPS delivery trucks? Not that many I'd
wager and it's *not* because all UPS drivers are careful conscientious drivers
that always obey the traffic laws.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Daniel T." wrote in message
news
In article ch.edu,

I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate, yet is sounds very familliar to
the debate over in rec.boats; there it's motor-boat vs sailboat.
Different vehicles, but the same facts. How much property damage can a
bicycle do compaired to a car? Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall
of the local McDonald's killing and injuring happy meal eaters?

A DUI bicyclist could pull many types of idiotic maneuvers that could cause a car
operator to lose control of his vehicle and plow into a McDonalds. And just why is
that DUI bicyclist on his bicycle? Did he lose his DL because of multiple DUI's?

--
Paul

"Daniel T." wrote in message
news
I'm not going to claim that what Mr. Stern says never happens, but I
expect that when something like that happens but its a car rather than a
bike that is "ramming" through a busy intersection against the light, a
hell of a lot more damage occurs.

What Stern is seeing (and what lots of other drivers see) is cyclists disregarding
the laws that they are supposed to be obeying. The difference is that the car driver
gets a ticket, fine and higher insurance when caught. The cyclist just gets away with
it.

I still say he's just ****ed because he sees bikes doing what he can't
do in his car, but he isn't willing to ride a bike in order to have the
privileges that bikers have. Of course, that doesn't stop him from
wanting to take those privileges away from the bicyclists.

Since when do bicyclists have the privlege of disregarding traffic laws that are
there for the safety of everyone?

--
Paul