Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 9 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-12-2004, 07:52 AM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:18:33 +0000, Hunrobe wrote:

> Oh, and there *are* parallel alternate routes
> that include surface streets and a designated MUP.

Yeah, but the view sucks.

He he.

I've always taken the lakeshore path and just ridden on Sheridan when I
had to and let 'em honk, because it's the fastest way to get to that
Turkish restaurant immediately south of Loyola which has the best dolmas
in the universe--traffic be damned.

06-12-2004, 08:03 AM

Hunrobe <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> For those not familiar with Chicago, if you drive north
> on Lake Shore Drive and never exit you'll end up on Sheridan Road just south of
> Loyola University. At points LSD is four plus lanes wide in each direction.

do a lot of riding on LSD do ya bob?
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

06-12-2004, 08:03 AM

Hunrobe <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> For those not familiar with Chicago, if you drive north
> on Lake Shore Drive and never exit you'll end up on Sheridan Road just south of
> Loyola University. At points LSD is four plus lanes wide in each direction.

do a lot of riding on LSD do ya bob?
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

06-12-2004, 08:03 AM

Hunrobe <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> For those not familiar with Chicago, if you drive north
> on Lake Shore Drive and never exit you'll end up on Sheridan Road just south of
> Loyola University. At points LSD is four plus lanes wide in each direction.

do a lot of riding on LSD do ya bob?
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

06-12-2004, 08:03 AM

Hunrobe <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> For those not familiar with Chicago, if you drive north
> on Lake Shore Drive and never exit you'll end up on Sheridan Road just south of
> Loyola University. At points LSD is four plus lanes wide in each direction.

do a lot of riding on LSD do ya bob?
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

06-12-2004, 08:03 AM

Hunrobe <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> For those not familiar with Chicago, if you drive north
> on Lake Shore Drive and never exit you'll end up on Sheridan Road just south of
> Loyola University. At points LSD is four plus lanes wide in each direction.

do a lot of riding on LSD do ya bob?
--
david reuteler
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

06-12-2004, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same rules of the
>road...except there are no teeth to this requirement, since there's no
>means by which to exact consequences if they flout traffic law. If
>bicycles are to be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
>enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is critical.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but in mine breaking
traffic laws on a bicycle makes you subject to the same tickets and
fines as doing it with a auto. To say that the law only can be
enforced if you have a license is nonsense. You have to prove ID to
the police officer issuing the ticket regardless if you have a
license. Can't prove who you are to the police officers satisfaction
then he can hold you until you can. Therefore the courts have the
same "..means to exact consequences..". If we believe your argument
then we would think that a dog walker couldn't be issued a ticket for
having a unleashed dog because he doesn't have a dog walking license
nor could a litterbug get a ticket because he doesn't have a dumping
license.

---
Joe
REMOVE "Adds" before e-mailing

06-12-2004, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same rules of the
>road...except there are no teeth to this requirement, since there's no
>means by which to exact consequences if they flout traffic law. If
>bicycles are to be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
>enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is critical.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but in mine breaking
traffic laws on a bicycle makes you subject to the same tickets and
fines as doing it with a auto. To say that the law only can be
enforced if you have a license is nonsense. You have to prove ID to
the police officer issuing the ticket regardless if you have a
license. Can't prove who you are to the police officers satisfaction
then he can hold you until you can. Therefore the courts have the
same "..means to exact consequences..". If we believe your argument
then we would think that a dog walker couldn't be issued a ticket for
having a unleashed dog because he doesn't have a dog walking license
nor could a litterbug get a ticket because he doesn't have a dumping
license.

---
Joe
REMOVE "Adds" before e-mailing

06-12-2004, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same rules of the
>road...except there are no teeth to this requirement, since there's no
>means by which to exact consequences if they flout traffic law. If
>bicycles are to be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
>enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is critical.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but in mine breaking
traffic laws on a bicycle makes you subject to the same tickets and
fines as doing it with a auto. To say that the law only can be
enforced if you have a license is nonsense. You have to prove ID to
the police officer issuing the ticket regardless if you have a
license. Can't prove who you are to the police officers satisfaction
then he can hold you until you can. Therefore the courts have the
same "..means to exact consequences..". If we believe your argument
then we would think that a dog walker couldn't be issued a ticket for
having a unleashed dog because he doesn't have a dog walking license
nor could a litterbug get a ticket because he doesn't have a dumping
license.

---
Joe
REMOVE "Adds" before e-mailing

06-12-2004, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:16:56 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I disagree. Bicycles are required to follow all the same rules of the
>road...except there are no teeth to this requirement, since there's no
>means by which to exact consequences if they flout traffic law. If
>bicycles are to be taken seriously as a means of transportation,
>enforceable consequences for traffic law violation is critical.

I don't know about the laws in your state, but in mine breaking
traffic laws on a bicycle makes you subject to the same tickets and
fines as doing it with a auto. To say that the law only can be
enforced if you have a license is nonsense. You have to prove ID to
the police officer issuing the ticket regardless if you have a
license. Can't prove who you are to the police officers satisfaction
then he can hold you until you can. Therefore the courts have the
same "..means to exact consequences..". If we believe your argument
then we would think that a dog walker couldn't be issued a ticket for
having a unleashed dog because he doesn't have a dog walking license
nor could a litterbug get a ticket because he doesn't have a dumping
license.

---
Joe
REMOVE "Adds" before e-mailing