Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 25 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-13-2004, 11:26 AM

Tom Keats wrote in part:

<< Incidentally, I've never seen a cyclist "ram" through a /busy/
intersection against the light. But then, I've never seen anyone
jump through between boxcars of a fast moving train, either. >>

Nicely put, Tom.

06-13-2004, 12:40 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> >require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> >actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> >vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride. People
> >get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs, failure to
> >yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped and prosecuted
> >for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is impossible
> because cyclists don't have licenses, or insurance... Well Mr. Stern
> what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

06-13-2004, 12:40 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> >require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> >actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> >vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride. People
> >get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs, failure to
> >yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped and prosecuted
> >for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is impossible
> because cyclists don't have licenses, or insurance... Well Mr. Stern
> what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

06-13-2004, 12:40 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> >require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> >actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> >vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride. People
> >get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs, failure to
> >yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped and prosecuted
> >for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is impossible
> because cyclists don't have licenses, or insurance... Well Mr. Stern
> what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

06-13-2004, 12:40 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> >require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> >actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> >vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride. People
> >get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs, failure to
> >yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped and prosecuted
> >for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is impossible
> because cyclists don't have licenses, or insurance... Well Mr. Stern
> what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

06-13-2004, 12:40 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Daniel T. wrote:

> >I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> >require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> >actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> >vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride. People
> >get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs, failure to
> >yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped and prosecuted
> >for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.

> Wow, Mr. Stern seems to believe that such prosecution is impossible
> because cyclists don't have licenses, or insurance... Well Mr. Stern
> what do you say to this?

I say "Terrific!"

-Stern

06-13-2004, 02:24 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in part:

> 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.

Well, the original poster (Daniel Stern) seems to believe
cyclists and our bicycles should be subject to similar
bureaucratic requirements as drivers in re: licensing,
registration and insurance, in order to facilitate traffic
law enforcement.

As I understand his posts, he refers to some sort of major
mayhem cyclists wreak on motor vehicles, to support
his position.

That last part just sounds a little topsy-turvy to me.
Or at least, over-stated. I'm sure Mr. Stern would get
his wish as soon as bicycles & riders routinely do to
cars & drivers, what cars & drivers can currently do to
bicycles & riders. In the meantime, as other posters have
attested, traffic law enforcement with cyclists is already
alive and well. Alive, anyway. Heck, in the original post
Mr. Stern himself gives an account of his eyewitnessing a
cyclist getting pulled-over and chewed-out.

Besides, even I - a liberal, see such bureaucratic bloat as
a waste of focus and resources that would be better spent
on other, more important things. Gee, maybe the original
poster is a fellow liberal, since he appears to actually /want/
bureaucratic bloat? :-)

But I do think having third party liability insurance is a
good idea. Fortunately, as you no doubt know, but I'm just
saying it for the benefit of other readers who might be
interested: it's available via membership in some cycling clubs.

cheers,
Tom

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

06-13-2004, 02:24 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in part:

> 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.

Well, the original poster (Daniel Stern) seems to believe
cyclists and our bicycles should be subject to similar
bureaucratic requirements as drivers in re: licensing,
registration and insurance, in order to facilitate traffic
law enforcement.

As I understand his posts, he refers to some sort of major
mayhem cyclists wreak on motor vehicles, to support
his position.

That last part just sounds a little topsy-turvy to me.
Or at least, over-stated. I'm sure Mr. Stern would get
his wish as soon as bicycles & riders routinely do to
cars & drivers, what cars & drivers can currently do to
bicycles & riders. In the meantime, as other posters have
attested, traffic law enforcement with cyclists is already
alive and well. Alive, anyway. Heck, in the original post
Mr. Stern himself gives an account of his eyewitnessing a
cyclist getting pulled-over and chewed-out.

Besides, even I - a liberal, see such bureaucratic bloat as
a waste of focus and resources that would be better spent
on other, more important things. Gee, maybe the original
poster is a fellow liberal, since he appears to actually /want/
bureaucratic bloat? :-)

But I do think having third party liability insurance is a
good idea. Fortunately, as you no doubt know, but I'm just
saying it for the benefit of other readers who might be
interested: it's available via membership in some cycling clubs.

cheers,
Tom

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

06-13-2004, 02:24 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in part:

> 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.

Well, the original poster (Daniel Stern) seems to believe
cyclists and our bicycles should be subject to similar
bureaucratic requirements as drivers in re: licensing,
registration and insurance, in order to facilitate traffic
law enforcement.

As I understand his posts, he refers to some sort of major
mayhem cyclists wreak on motor vehicles, to support
his position.

That last part just sounds a little topsy-turvy to me.
Or at least, over-stated. I'm sure Mr. Stern would get
his wish as soon as bicycles & riders routinely do to
cars & drivers, what cars & drivers can currently do to
bicycles & riders. In the meantime, as other posters have
attested, traffic law enforcement with cyclists is already
alive and well. Alive, anyway. Heck, in the original post
Mr. Stern himself gives an account of his eyewitnessing a
cyclist getting pulled-over and chewed-out.

Besides, even I - a liberal, see such bureaucratic bloat as
a waste of focus and resources that would be better spent
on other, more important things. Gee, maybe the original
poster is a fellow liberal, since he appears to actually /want/
bureaucratic bloat? :-)

But I do think having third party liability insurance is a
good idea. Fortunately, as you no doubt know, but I'm just
saying it for the benefit of other readers who might be
interested: it's available via membership in some cycling clubs.

cheers,
Tom

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

06-13-2004, 02:24 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in part:

> 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.

Well, the original poster (Daniel Stern) seems to believe
cyclists and our bicycles should be subject to similar
bureaucratic requirements as drivers in re: licensing,
registration and insurance, in order to facilitate traffic
law enforcement.

As I understand his posts, he refers to some sort of major
mayhem cyclists wreak on motor vehicles, to support
his position.

That last part just sounds a little topsy-turvy to me.
Or at least, over-stated. I'm sure Mr. Stern would get
his wish as soon as bicycles & riders routinely do to
cars & drivers, what cars & drivers can currently do to
bicycles & riders. In the meantime, as other posters have
attested, traffic law enforcement with cyclists is already
alive and well. Alive, anyway. Heck, in the original post
Mr. Stern himself gives an account of his eyewitnessing a
cyclist getting pulled-over and chewed-out.

Besides, even I - a liberal, see such bureaucratic bloat as
a waste of focus and resources that would be better spent
on other, more important things. Gee, maybe the original
poster is a fellow liberal, since he appears to actually /want/
bureaucratic bloat? :-)

But I do think having third party liability insurance is a
good idea. Fortunately, as you no doubt know, but I'm just
saying it for the benefit of other readers who might be
interested: it's available via membership in some cycling clubs.

cheers,
Tom

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