Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 26 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

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, 04:13 PM

Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street about 4km
from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is far from straight).
Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River to the west border of the
current City of Toronto (formerly Metro Toronto), and in fact on
into Mississauga, the sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm
familiar with are certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at
any hour of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and Humber Rivers,
Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer lanes occupied by parking
except in the rush hour. Lane widths vary, but in general it's fairly
good cycling save for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door
zone, and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of peak
hours the on-street parking effectively provides traffic calming for
free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in the style
of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested in the
details.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

06-13-2004, 04:13 PM

Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street about 4km
from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is far from straight).
Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River to the west border of the
current City of Toronto (formerly Metro Toronto), and in fact on
into Mississauga, the sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm
familiar with are certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at
any hour of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and Humber Rivers,
Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer lanes occupied by parking
except in the rush hour. Lane widths vary, but in general it's fairly
good cycling save for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door
zone, and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of peak
hours the on-street parking effectively provides traffic calming for
free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in the style
of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested in the
details.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

06-13-2004, 04:13 PM

Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street about 4km
from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is far from straight).
Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River to the west border of the
current City of Toronto (formerly Metro Toronto), and in fact on
into Mississauga, the sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm
familiar with are certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at
any hour of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and Humber Rivers,
Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer lanes occupied by parking
except in the rush hour. Lane widths vary, but in general it's fairly
good cycling save for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door
zone, and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of peak
hours the on-street parking effectively provides traffic calming for
free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in the style
of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested in the
details.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

06-13-2004, 04:13 PM

Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street about 4km
from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is far from straight).
Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River to the west border of the
current City of Toronto (formerly Metro Toronto), and in fact on
into Mississauga, the sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm
familiar with are certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at
any hour of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and Humber Rivers,
Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer lanes occupied by parking
except in the rush hour. Lane widths vary, but in general it's fairly
good cycling save for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door
zone, and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of peak
hours the on-street parking effectively provides traffic calming for
free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in the style
of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested in the
details.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

06-13-2004, 04:13 PM

Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>(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.)

Just out of curiousity: exactly which intersection?

For out-of-towners, Bloor Street is a main east-west street about 4km
from the lake shore (on average; the shoreline is far from straight).
Bloor runs about 20km from the Don River to the west border of the
current City of Toronto (formerly Metro Toronto), and in fact on
into Mississauga, the sprawling city to the west. The parts I'm
familiar with are certainly busy, or at least far from deserted, at
any hour of the day or night; but the road conditions vary.

For about half the road's length, between the Don and Humber Rivers,
Bloor is a four-lane street with the outer lanes occupied by parking
except in the rush hour. Lane widths vary, but in general it's fairly
good cycling save for those who are so nervous as to stay in the door
zone, and except at peak times when it gets congested. Out of peak
hours the on-street parking effectively provides traffic calming for
free.

Further west the road gets wider and grows more lanes, in the style
of a US-suburban arterial road.

None of which is to dispute the claim; I'm just interested in the
details.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

06-13-2004, 05:47 PM

>> 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?

> John David Galt wrote:
>> Sounds like the usual over-enforcement directed at auto drivers, where the
>> cop says you "didn't stop" if you didn't wait 5 seconds before proceeding.
>> The law needs to recognize that when your car rocks back on its springs,
>> you've stopped.

Bob Newman wrote:
> It is not overzealous. It has been taken to court. That is the way the
> law reads.

Not around here or in any state I've looked up, it doesn't. Neither "5
seconds" nor "one foot on the ground" is mentioned. The statute as written
merely requires a complete stop.

06-13-2004, 05:47 PM

>> 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?

> John David Galt wrote:
>> Sounds like the usual over-enforcement directed at auto drivers, where the
>> cop says you "didn't stop" if you didn't wait 5 seconds before proceeding.
>> The law needs to recognize that when your car rocks back on its springs,
>> you've stopped.

Bob Newman wrote:
> It is not overzealous. It has been taken to court. That is the way the
> law reads.

Not around here or in any state I've looked up, it doesn't. Neither "5
seconds" nor "one foot on the ground" is mentioned. The statute as written
merely requires a complete stop.

06-13-2004, 05:47 PM

>> 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?

> John David Galt wrote:
>> Sounds like the usual over-enforcement directed at auto drivers, where the
>> cop says you "didn't stop" if you didn't wait 5 seconds before proceeding.
>> The law needs to recognize that when your car rocks back on its springs,
>> you've stopped.

Bob Newman wrote:
> It is not overzealous. It has been taken to court. That is the way the
> law reads.

Not around here or in any state I've looked up, it doesn't. Neither "5
seconds" nor "one foot on the ground" is mentioned. The statute as written
merely requires a complete stop.

06-13-2004, 05:47 PM

>> 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?

> John David Galt wrote:
>> Sounds like the usual over-enforcement directed at auto drivers, where the
>> cop says you "didn't stop" if you didn't wait 5 seconds before proceeding.
>> The law needs to recognize that when your car rocks back on its springs,
>> you've stopped.

Bob Newman wrote:
> It is not overzealous. It has been taken to court. That is the way the
> law reads.

Not around here or in any state I've looked up, it doesn't. Neither "5
seconds" nor "one foot on the ground" is mentioned. The statute as written
merely requires a complete stop.