Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 6 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-12-2004, 06:11 AM

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

06-12-2004, 06:33 AM

In article <x8Byc.7010$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Newman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

06-12-2004, 06:33 AM

In article <x8Byc.7010$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Newman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

06-12-2004, 06:33 AM

In article <x8Byc.7010$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Newman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

06-12-2004, 06:33 AM

In article <x8Byc.7010$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Newman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

06-12-2004, 06:33 AM

In article <x8Byc.7010$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Newman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

06-12-2004, 07:02 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ch.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 pissing 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.

06-12-2004, 07:02 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ch.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 pissing 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.

06-12-2004, 07:02 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ch.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 pissing 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.

06-12-2004, 07:02 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ch.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 pissing 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.