bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 17 Jul 2007 10:28:00 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket ~ From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by the police chief. Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and the big-city bicycle bloggers. What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate in the cycling community over the next five days. The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and police officers. "It seems like there's always a big outrage," Maus said. Whitehead himself entered the online fray at one point. Since he came to North Plains four years ago, Whitehead says he has spent a small part of his eight-hour days at the busy intersection of Northwest Glencoe and West Union roads, just north of U.S. 26. The intersection sits on a popular cycling route that draws dozens of cyclists on weekdays and hundreds on weekends, said Whitehead, who claims to ticket anybody who blasts through the four-way stop. He said he probably writes five to seven cycling citations a month during the peak of cycling season -- and five to seven year-round for vehicles. By comparison, police in nearby Hillsboro -- which, at a population of 85,000, is roughly 50 times larger than North Plains -- issued a single citation to a cyclist for rolling through a traffic signal this past year, although they stop and warn several people a month, said Lt. Michael Rouches. The fine for that offense in Hillsboro is $242. North Plains charges $335. Whitehead said he ignores the vast majority of cyclists, including those "coming through the stop sign at a couple miles an hour, and it's obvious they're looking and making sure nobody is coming." But that's exactly how Tim Schauer, 39, said his group traveled through the stop sign July 5. The three, who pleaded not guilty to their citations, will be in North Plains Municipal Court on Aug. 6. Whitehead "sort of took the opportunity to tongue-lash us a bit," Schauer said. Whitehead mentioned recent bicycle fatalities and made it seem "like I'm a contributing factor to this really tragic accident," said Schauer, pointing out that O'Donnell was not violating any traffic laws when he was killed in June on a rural road north of Cornelius. Schauer later described the North Plains incident on the Oregon Bicycle Racing Association e-mail list: "During the rest of our ride to the coast, we discussed amongst ourselves the $1,005 in fines we were levied with compared to the $1,100 in fines levied against the driver who hit and killed the cyclist recently. It truly is a strange world sometimes." After Schauer went online, a few readers, such as Evan MacKenzie of Baker City, e-mailed Whitehead privately. MacKenzie, a recent Hillsboro resident, criticized Whitehead for "punishing cyclists" and wrote: "The area around North Plains is a wonderful place to ride, but not if the local police practice a skewed 'Dukes of Hazzard' observance of the law." Whitehead acknowledges fanning the flames with his response, in which he called MacKenzie a "complete idiot." MacKenzie decided to forward the exchange to BikePortland.org, where it prompted a flurry of hostility toward Whitehead -- as well as an effort to restore calm and defend the chief. "While that is certainly a steep fine, the truth of the matter is this," wrote "Dabby" on July 9. "It is illegal to not stop at a stop sign. Until it is legal to yield at a stop sign, if you do, and get caught, you deserve the ticket. . . . Pay the fine." Whitehead himself wrote: "There is nothing worse than responding to a crash with injuries or death. You think it's tough on you as a bike community? It's tough on us when we have to make a death notification and then second guess if we could have prevented such a tragic event." That hasn't happened in North Plains recently, where the only bicycle crash in the past few years was the fault of a truck driver turning in front of a cyclist who had the right of way, Whitehead said. It was not fatal. MacKenzie thinks some cycling time could help Whitehead better understand cyclists. "I invite you to go on a ride with me and see what it's like. I'll come all the way back from Baker City and ride with you," he wrote back after Whitehead's initial response. But Whitehead said he doesn't plan to join MacKenzie on the road, particularly if it's West Union Road, which he says is too dangerous for cyclists. And Whitehead doesn't think he could keep up for long. "It's a lot of endurance. I don't have that much energy to do what these folks do." ~   Date: 31 Jul 2007 19:01:28 From: Mr. Berg Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Paul J. Berg wrote: > ~ > > From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 > > On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three bicyclists > pedaling through Washington County earlier this month rolled past a stop > sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by the police chief. > > Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than > $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set off > a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and the > big-city bicycle bloggers. > > What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon after > Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a driver with a > suspended license who faced only fines for traffic violations, such as > careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone. They were also > annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief > Scott Whitehead. > Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains > story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate in > the cycling community over the next five days. > The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after > O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and police > officers. > > "It seems like there's always a big outrage," Maus said. > > Whitehead himself entered the online fray at one point. > > Since he came to North Plains four years ago, Whitehead says he has > spent a small part of his eight-hour days at the busy intersection of > Northwest Glencoe and West Union roads, just north of U.S. 26. > > The intersection sits on a popular cycling route that draws dozens of > cyclists on weekdays and hundreds on weekends, said Whitehead, who > claims to ticket anybody who blasts through the four-way stop. He said > he probably writes five to seven cycling citations a month during the > peak of cycling season -- and five to seven year-round for vehicles. > > By comparison, police in nearby Hillsboro -- which, at a population of > 85,000, is roughly 50 times larger than North Plains -- issued a single > citation to a cyclist for rolling through a traffic signal this past > year, although they stop and warn several people a month, said Lt. > Michael Rouches. The fine for that offense in Hillsboro is $242. North > Plains charges $335. > > Whitehead said he ignores the vast majority of cyclists, including those > "coming through the stop sign at a couple miles an hour, and it's > obvious they're looking and making sure nobody is coming." > > But that's exactly how Tim Schauer, 39, said his group traveled through > the stop sign July 5. The three, who pleaded not guilty to their > citations, will be in North Plains Municipal Court on Aug. 6. > > Whitehead "sort of took the opportunity to tongue-lash us a bit," > Schauer said. Whitehead mentioned recent bicycle fatalities and made it > seem "like I'm a contributing factor to this really tragic accident," > said Schauer, pointing out that O'Donnell was not violating any traffic > laws when he was killed in June on a rural road north of Cornelius. > > Schauer later described the North Plains incident on the Oregon Bicycle > Racing Association e-mail list: "During the rest of our ride to the > coast, we discussed amongst ourselves the $1,005 in fines we were levied > with compared to the $1,100 in fines levied against the driver who hit > and killed the cyclist recently. It truly is a strange world sometimes." > > After Schauer went online, a few readers, such as Evan MacKenzie of > Baker City, e-mailed Whitehead privately. MacKenzie, a recent Hillsboro > resident, criticized Whitehead for "punishing cyclists" and wrote: "The > area around North Plains is a wonderful place to ride, but not if the > local police practice a skewed 'Dukes of Hazzard' observance of the > law." > > Whitehead acknowledges fanning the flames with his response, in which he > called MacKenzie a "complete idiot." MacKenzie decided to forward the > exchange to BikePortland.org, where it prompted a flurry of hostility > toward Whitehead -- as well as an effort to restore calm and defend the > chief. > > "While that is certainly a steep fine, the truth of the matter is this," > wrote "Dabby" on July 9. "It is illegal to not stop at a stop sign. > Until it is legal to yield at a stop sign, if you do, and get caught, > you deserve the ticket. . . . Pay the fine." > > Whitehead himself wrote: "There is nothing worse than responding to a > crash with injuries or death. You think it's tough on you as a bike > community? It's tough on us when we have to make a death notification > and then second guess if we could have prevented such a tragic event." > > That hasn't happened in North Plains recently, where the only bicycle > crash in the past few years was the fault of a truck driver turning in > front of a cyclist who had the right of way, Whitehead said. It was not > fatal. > > MacKenzie thinks some cycling time could help Whitehead better > understand cyclists. "I invite you to go on a ride with me and see what > it's like. I'll come all the way back from Baker City and ride with > you," he wrote back after Whitehead's initial response. > > But Whitehead said he doesn't plan to join MacKenzie on the road, > particularly if it's West Union Road, which he says is too dangerous for > cyclists. And Whitehead doesn't think he could keep up for long. "It's a > lot of endurance. I don't have that much energy to do what these folks > do." > > ~ BEWARE CYCLISTS: Look who is also on West Union Road and driving drunk. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20055768/ `   Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:02:18 From: Steven Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 29, 1:30 pm, Paris' 1000 std's <stupidc...@whore.com > wrote: > > > Stop. Make a habit of it and you won't run one that gets you killed. > > > Defensive cycling. > > > I already ride defensively, and that includes stopping at most stop > > signs. I don't always stop because sometimes it confuses the people in > > cars and they start waving at me as if I'm on fire. I also don't > > usually stop crossing T intersections (especially when at the top of the > > T) if there is no entering traffic. Just another case of where using my > > brain makes me a bad person, I guess. > > Are you one of the motherfucking assholes who ride in downtown street > taking up the whole side of the street way under the speed limit fucking > up traffic? What are cars supposed to do? Keep calling 911 on their > fucked up asses till 10 cop cars come and give a bunch of tickets? > Tailgate and honk the shit out of cyclists till they turn off they road? You are required to yield to ANY vehicle in your path, you failed invitro session. Quit spamming the bicycle group or I'll catch up on my Rollfast and give you a massive, painful wedgie. You are sorta Communist.   Date: 29 Jul 2007 13:56:57 From: Mr. Berg Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Paris' 1000 std's wrote: > In article <1184961810.740873.174960@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Bob Beauchaine <b.beauchaine@comcast.net> wrote: > > > ump trucks. > > > > > Why not flat rate for > > > every moving violation? Why mess with all this complicated points stuff, > > > why have different licenses, registrations, inspections for different > > > vehicles? One size fits all. Simple. Maybe not fair or sensible, but simple! > > > > A fine point. Let's discuss it. > > > > What you would like to see is the fine for running a stop sign tied to > > the kinetic energy of the vehicle passing through the intersection. > > WHy not have it more simple? If you are not in a vehicle that can > easily kill someone, IE a pedestrian or a bicycle, small fine. If you > are in a vehicle that can easily kill someone, large fine. > > If you are drunk the same thing apples. If I am wasted and I bump into > someone, very minor damage. If I am wasted on a bike and ride into > someone, very minor damage. If I am wasted in a car and bump into > someone, DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!! If we take into consideration vehicle type for setting the amount of fine and/or jail time based on the most likely outcome of running a stop sign, what happens if the outcome doesn't fit the norm? Also, if we consider vehicle type, should we not also consider the type of victim? If the victim is a poor homeless person should there then be no fine or jail time? If the victim is rich and influential should the driver/rider be given the death penalty? The act is running a stop sign, all violators should be treated the same. Part of my reason for this is you don't what actions another driver/rider may take ta avoid hitting the violator and thereby causing possible harm to innocent third parties. Just this past week, I had to swerve into the oncoming lane because two bike riders ran a stop sign together, and made wide right turns in front of me. I was on the thru street obeying all traffic laws that applied to me at the time. If there had been an oncoming vehicle there is no telling what would have happen, except that the two bike riders would have most likely went on their merry way. I should note here (knock on wood), that next month I shall have had my drivers license for forty years. In that forty years, I have not had even one traffic violation (not even a parking ticket). I did have one traffic accident however. About ten years ago, when an unlicensed habitual drunk driver ran a stop sign in front of me. The other driver was drunk at the time and driving his girl friend's car. After investigation by both insurance companies, including the measurement of my skid marks, 100% blame was assigned to the other driver. For this accident, the drunk driver got his fourth DUII conviction, his penalty was an additional six months probation, no fine or jail time. `   Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:44:33 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 4:59 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't follow your doubt about the amount of the fines. The quote > is: "Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more > than $1,000 in total fines." If they owed that amount, ISTM that must > be the amount of fines levied. Unless they borrowed money from the > judge for some reason! Any fines levied will be owed only if and when the defendants are found guilty after a trial. The post appeared on July 17 and quoted a newspaper article also dated July 17. Speedy trial is one thing but arrest (in this case a mere citation), trial, and conviction all on the same day? That would have to be some kind of record. <g > Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 22 Jul 2007 22:14:57 From: Steven Subject: Re: Should we have a vote? There are 92 other posts, we shan't bother any further to vote.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 12:07:23 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Should we have a vote? ` What initiative would have a greater chance of success of getting enacted into law by Oregon voters: 1) A "roll and go" stop law for cyclists. OR, 2) A requirement that cyclists (18 or over) have a valid driver license. And, with traffic violations made by cyclists being a part of their driving record. `     Date: 22 Jul 2007 23:36:09 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Should we have a vote? "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote: > ` > > What initiative would have a greater chance of success of getting > enacted into law by Oregon voters: > > 1) A "roll and go" stop law for cyclists. > > OR, > > 2) A requirement that cyclists (18 or over) have a valid driver > license. And, with traffic violations made by cyclists being a part of > their driving record. > > ` > Neither. Particularly 2.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:19:19 From: Peter Principle Subject: Re: Should we have a vote? Paul J. Berg wrote: > ` > > What initiative would have a greater chance of success of getting > enacted into law by Oregon voters: > > 1) A "roll and go" stop law for cyclists. > > OR, > > 2) A requirement that cyclists (18 or over) have a valid driver > license. And, with traffic violations made by cyclists being a part of > their driving record. I vote that you discuss local issues only in the appropriate local groups rather than x-posting off topic drivel across the ether. Duh, duh, duh... -- Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right. ------ Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough? http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf © 1999 by the American Psychological Association December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments Justin Kruger and David Dunning Department of Psychology Cornell University ABSTRACT: ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 09:57:40 From: Steven Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 22, 8:27 am, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt...@hotmail.com > wrote: > "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1185071550.966412.208040@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > Jeebus~ > > > We had an arson fire at Baker Produce that destroyed 1 million dollars > > worth of onion crates last night and Monday-Thursday theyhad drivebys > > in New Plymouth, Meridian, Boise and a homicide in the Walmart parking > > lot in Caldwell in which the murderer made it here, turned around, > > tried to rob the SAGE PLAZA truckstop then crossed the highway to > > successfully rob the Flying J stop before being shot dead while > > fueling at the 10th Avenue Maverik. > > > Tell me when they can get to it and I'll still be using my common > > sense anyway. > > > PS Easiest way to get back online--buy back an old computer you built. > > A man looks out the back window of his house at night and notices the light > in on in his backyard shop. There are three burglers stealing his tools. > He calls 911 to notify the police and the dispatcher asks "Is everyone in > your house safe?" > > "Yes," the man replies, "they're only in my shop out back." > > "I'm sorry," the dispatcher tells him, "but we have no officers available at > this time. Remain in your house with the doors and windows locked and we'll > try to get someone out there in 30 or 45 minutes." > > At being told this the man gets pretty peeved, and hangs up the phone. Five > minutes later he calls back 911 and tells the dispatcher "Don't bother > sending anyone to my house now - I shot and killed the robbers." > > Three minutes later, four police cruisers, a sargeant, the shift commander > and the SWAT team arrive at the man's house and capture the robbers in the > act. The sargeant approaches the homeowner and asks "I thought you said you > shot the robbers?" > > At which the man replies "I thought you said no one was available?" > > The moral of this story? All enforcement is based on perceived priorities > > Cheers - Jonathan. They were here within 5 minutes of the driveby on 1 Jan 2006 and chasing the perp almost immediately after that. He wrecked in Parma, Idaho and was in jail PDQ. Idaho and Oregon State Police, Payette County Sheriff, Ontario PD, to name a few. SIX area fire departments responded to the fire. I think they do a good job about that.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 04:02:15 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <c1zoi.2342$ib7.1538@trnddc02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes: >> But at any rate, deal with it, 'cuz, like it or not, that's >> what you're stuck with. >> >> Don't forget to buckle your seatbelt. >> >> And please try not to hit/kill/maim anybody with your car. >> >> I think I'd have to kill myself if I ever injured anybody. > > Not if they blew a stop sign. Then bicyclists would still safely and unobtrusively ride through that intersection without incident. I dunno about drivers. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:46:59 From: Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication On Jul 21, 8:31 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > j...@phred.org wrote: > > I think we see these threads because most people are motorists, and are > > comfortable with the behavior of most motorists, even when that behavior > > is clearly illegal (speeding, rolling stops, failure to yield, > > tailgating, etc.). Bicycles are less common, so motorists are less > > likely to be familiar and comfortable with the typical behavior of > > cyclists, legal or not. > > One of the behaviors I see almost 100% of the time is motorists not > stopping on the stop line. It is a real nuisance when you are making a > left turn into their road. It's even worse when they keep rolling at you > while you're making the turn. Overshooting and creeping is so common > that motorists don't even seem to realize they're doing it. I've had > nothing but blank looks when I point it out (infrequently). Of course, > it's illegal. > > Then there are the multitudes that pull half out of a driveway or > parking lot exit and stay there waiting for a break in traffic -- > completely blocking the cyclist's normal path, perhaps not illegal, but > discourteous. Of course if they're making a left they often block half > the street, too. As long as we're piling on: One of my frequent gripes are the motorists who don't use turn signals. My biking and my driving would be significantly easier if they'd read the owner's manual and figure out how to turn on those blinking lights - and what they're for. Of course, turning or changing lanes without a signal is illegal. And then there are the folks who pull left turns onto a busy 5-lane (4 lanes plus center turn lane) using the center turn lane as their parking area until the other two lanes are clear. Based on comments at a local public meeting, they don't even know it's illegal, and illegal for good reason. And the poor dears complain about bikes! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:32:30 From: Steven Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Jeebus~ We had an arson fire at Baker Produce that destroyed 1 million dollars worth of onion crates last night and Monday-Thursday theyhad drivebys in New Plymouth, Meridian, Boise and a homicide in the Walmart parking lot in Caldwell in which the murderer made it here, turned around, tried to rob the SAGE PLAZA truckstop then crossed the highway to successfully rob the Flying J stop before being shot dead while fueling at the 10th Avenue Maverik. Tell me when they can get to it and I'll still be using my common sense anyway. PS Easiest way to get back online--buy back an old computer you built.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:27:11 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1185071550.966412.208040@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Jeebus~ > > We had an arson fire at Baker Produce that destroyed 1 million dollars > worth of onion crates last night and Monday-Thursday theyhad drivebys > in New Plymouth, Meridian, Boise and a homicide in the Walmart parking > lot in Caldwell in which the murderer made it here, turned around, > tried to rob the SAGE PLAZA truckstop then crossed the highway to > successfully rob the Flying J stop before being shot dead while > fueling at the 10th Avenue Maverik. > > Tell me when they can get to it and I'll still be using my common > sense anyway. > > PS Easiest way to get back online--buy back an old computer you built. > A man looks out the back window of his house at night and notices the light in on in his backyard shop. There are three burglers stealing his tools. He calls 911 to notify the police and the dispatcher asks "Is everyone in your house safe?" "Yes," the man replies, "they're only in my shop out back." "I'm sorry," the dispatcher tells him, "but we have no officers available at this time. Remain in your house with the doors and windows locked and we'll try to get someone out there in 30 or 45 minutes." At being told this the man gets pretty peeved, and hangs up the phone. Five minutes later he calls back 911 and tells the dispatcher "Don't bother sending anyone to my house now - I shot and killed the robbers." Three minutes later, four police cruisers, a sargeant, the shift commander and the SWAT team arrive at the man's house and capture the robbers in the act. The sargeant approaches the homeowner and asks "I thought you said you shot the robbers?" At which the man replies "I thought you said no one was available?" The moral of this story? All enforcement is based on perceived priorities Cheers - Jonathan.       Date: 29 Jul 2007 11:39:44 From: Paris Hilton Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <3PJoi.9711$tj6.4616@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote: > "I'm sorry," the dispatcher tells him, "but we have no officers available at > this time. Remain in your house with the doors and windows locked and we'll > try to get someone out there in 30 or 45 minutes." > > At being told this the man gets pretty peeved, and hangs up the phone. Five > minutes later he calls back 911 and tells the dispatcher "Don't bother > sending anyone to my house now - I shot and killed the robbers." > > Three minutes later, four police cruisers, a sargeant, the shift commander > and the SWAT team arrive at the man's house and capture the robbers in the > act. The sargeant approaches the homeowner and asks "I thought you said you > shot the robbers?" > > At which the man replies "I thought you said no one was available?" > > The moral of this story? All enforcement is based on perceived priorities > > Cheers - Jonathan. That is preety hot that they sent all those officers to capture dead burglars. That is what I, Paris Hilton what of done, sent the whole force to capture burglars who were supposedly already dead. Hot.       Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:32:59 From: Curt Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:3PJoi.9711$tj6.4616@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1185071550.966412.208040@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Jeebus~ > > > > We had an arson fire at Baker Produce that destroyed 1 million dollars > > worth of onion crates last night and Monday-Thursday theyhad drivebys > > in New Plymouth, Meridian, Boise and a homicide in the Walmart parking > > lot in Caldwell in which the murderer made it here, turned around, > > tried to rob the SAGE PLAZA truckstop then crossed the highway to > > successfully rob the Flying J stop before being shot dead while > > fueling at the 10th Avenue Maverik. > > > > Tell me when they can get to it and I'll still be using my common > > sense anyway. > > > > PS Easiest way to get back online--buy back an old computer you built. > > > > A man looks out the back window of his house at night and notices the light > in on in his backyard shop. There are three burglers stealing his tools. > He calls 911 to notify the police and the dispatcher asks "Is everyone in > your house safe?" > > "Yes," the man replies, "they're only in my shop out back." > > "I'm sorry," the dispatcher tells him, "but we have no officers available at > this time. Remain in your house with the doors and windows locked and we'll > try to get someone out there in 30 or 45 minutes." *Double take* Huh? What 911 center will tell someone that? > > At being told this the man gets pretty peeved, and hangs up the phone. Five > minutes later he calls back 911 and tells the dispatcher "Don't bother > sending anyone to my house now - I shot and killed the robbers." > > Three minutes later, four police cruisers, a sargeant, the shift commander > and the SWAT team arrive at the man's house and capture the robbers in the > act. The sargeant approaches the homeowner and asks "I thought you said you > shot the robbers?" Huh? What agency can put a SWAT team together in three minutes? > > At which the man replies "I thought you said no one was available?" > > The moral of this story? All enforcement is based on perceived priorities So it's not true then? Curt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:59:59 From: Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 10:50 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:20 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:36 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 9:54 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under > > > > those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally > > > > disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines > > > > for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. > > > > > And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually > > > > ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the > > > > rationale is defensible. > > > > The problem with your analysis is that if we were to adopt it as law > > > then in fairness the driver of the MiniCooper's fine for running the > > > stop sign would have to be lower than the fine imposed for the Toyota > > > Camry's driver which would have to be lower than the F-150's driver, > > > whose fine would be slightly higher than the driver of the Impala, > > > etcetera. > > > Actually, I'm not asking that it be adopted as law. > > > The current situation is this, from what I can tell: Almost all cops > > will ignore a cyclist who does a less-than-perfect stop at a stop > > sign. And only a few cops will ticket a cyclist who runs a stop sign > > in a somewhat dangerous manner. If a cop does ticket a cyclist, the > > fines levied are usually not onerous. When the fines seem out of > > proportion (as in the original story) there's likely to be political > > howling, which at least makes everyone think about the issue, and > > perhaps improve a bit next time - whether that improvement is better > > road behavior or more rational law enforcement. > > > It's not a perfect system, but it's a pretty practical one. Nothing > > is perfect! > > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think if you'll simply go back and re-read the original story you'll > realize two things. First, that "three citations later the trio owed > the municipal court $1000" (I'm paraphrasing from memory) doesn't mean > the court actually levied that fine but that it is the *possible* > fine. Second, according to the cop that wrote the tickets he seldom > tickets cyclists. He said he ignores those that slow down and proceed > with caution but wrote these three because they totally blew the sign. > I'd say that would qualify as rational law enforcement, wouldn't you? On the cops part? Yes, I would. I think cyclists who totally blow a stop sign should be ticketed. I don't follow your doubt about the amount of the fines. The quote is: "Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than $1,000 in total fines." If they owed that amount, ISTM that must be the amount of fines levied. Unless they borrowed money from the judge for some reason! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 21 Jul 2007 12:30:43 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1dSdnbCqQ9QLmT_bnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > writes: > The way this discrepancy is typically handled is via licensing. > Commercial vehicle license holders are held to different standards, with > additional standards for carrying passengers, dangerous cargoes, etc. On > the other end of the spectrum, we have bicycles, which require no > license in any state or jurisdiction. Why's that? Because bicycles are basically land-going canoes. How can anyone restrictively regulate canoes? Even in the shipping lanes where the trans-oceanic freighters go. The canoeists on land or water are generally heads-up enough to not get involved in collisions. So there isn't a need for laws that compel canoeists to avoid collisions, since that's what we're concertedly doing already, anyway. Might as well regulate shoes. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Jul 2007 08:04:20 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > You can raise the penalties to ridiculous levels but > you're still working against human nature. That's not the purpose of law. I've snipped the rest of your post because we obviously will never agree so our continued argument would be a waste of our time. I can't resist asking you though how you reached the above conclusion because curbing the self-centered urges inherent in human nature is *precisely* the purpose of law. If fairness and consideration of others were human nature we wouldn't need laws but it isn't and so we do. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:24:04 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> You can raise the penalties to ridiculous levels but >> you're still working against human nature. That's not the purpose of law. > > I've snipped the rest of your post because we obviously will never > agree so our continued argument would be a waste of our time. I can't > resist asking you though how you reached the above conclusion because > curbing the self-centered urges inherent in human nature is > *precisely* the purpose of law. If fairness and consideration of > others were human nature we wouldn't need laws but it isn't and so we > do. There's nothing wrong with self-centered urges if they don't impinge on others. Most human urges are self-centered and don't need governmental curbing. I always viewed the law as facilitating the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority, with the latter superseding the former in conflict. If you consider ROW rules as about efficiency, then you've got to balance the gain of efficiency for the minority against the loss for the majority. Ditto if you think it's about safety. I'm an efficiency man, myself. I think the "rolling stop" law as proposed (but not enacted) in OR is an example of a change I think is reasonable. I don't think it would have even been proposed if a lot of people didn't think it was fair and reasonable (to answer your question above). I don't think it's selfish to look for efficiency if it doesn't come at unreasonable (disproportionate) cost to others.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 10:15:37 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Hunt wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> You can raise the penalties to ridiculous levels but >> you're still working against human nature. That's not the purpose of law. > > I've snipped the rest of your post because we obviously will never > agree so our continued argument would be a waste of our time. I thought this was Usenet? ;) > I can't > resist asking you though how you reached the above conclusion because > curbing the self-centered urges inherent in human nature is > *precisely* the purpose of law. If fairness and consideration of > others were human nature we wouldn't need laws but it isn't and so we > do. In many cases, the purposes of laws are to establish an advantage of one group over another, and NOT to promote the best overall welfare of society. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:50:17 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 8:20 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:36 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:54 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > ... > > > I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under > > > those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally > > > disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines > > > for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. > > > > And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually > > > ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the > > > rationale is defensible. > > > The problem with your analysis is that if we were to adopt it as law > > then in fairness the driver of the MiniCooper's fine for running the > > stop sign would have to be lower than the fine imposed for the Toyota > > Camry's driver which would have to be lower than the F-150's driver, > > whose fine would be slightly higher than the driver of the Impala, > > etcetera. > > Actually, I'm not asking that it be adopted as law. > > The current situation is this, from what I can tell: Almost all cops > will ignore a cyclist who does a less-than-perfect stop at a stop > sign. And only a few cops will ticket a cyclist who runs a stop sign > in a somewhat dangerous manner. If a cop does ticket a cyclist, the > fines levied are usually not onerous. When the fines seem out of > proportion (as in the original story) there's likely to be political > howling, which at least makes everyone think about the issue, and > perhaps improve a bit next time - whether that improvement is better > road behavior or more rational law enforcement. > > It's not a perfect system, but it's a pretty practical one. Nothing > is perfect! > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think if you'll simply go back and re-read the original story you'll realize two things. First, that "three citations later the trio owed the municipal court $1000" (I'm paraphrasing from memory) doesn't mean the court actually levied that fine but that it is the *possible* fine. Second, according to the cop that wrote the tickets he seldom tickets cyclists. He said he ignores those that slow down and proceed with caution but wrote these three because they totally blew the sign. I'd say that would qualify as rational law enforcement, wouldn't you? Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:39:04 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket ~ Assuming that the three cyclists are also licensed motor vehicle drivers, does anyone know whether the failure to stop infractions will go on their driving records? ~     Date: 21 Jul 2007 10:14:06 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Paul J. Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote: > > Assuming that the three cyclists are also licensed motor vehicle > drivers, does anyone know whether the failure to stop infractions will > go on their driving records? It varies by jurisdiction, but generally the answer is no. In WA, OR and CA there are certain more egregarious transgressions that could cause problems. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11896.0.html -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well. I said, "No, I made a few mistakes." -- Steven Wright       Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:52:00 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson wrote: > Paul J. Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote: > >>Assuming that the three cyclists are also licensed motor vehicle >>drivers, does anyone know whether the failure to stop infractions will >>go on their driving records? > It varies by jurisdiction, but generally the answer is no. In WA, OR > and CA there are certain more egregarious transgressions that could > cause problems. > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11896.0.html With the added caution that, in oregon at least, your drivers license can be suspended for failure to appear on -any- violation. So if you blow a stop sign on a bike and kiss off the resulting citation, you might well find your driver's license suspended by the DMV. And remain suspended until you take care of the ticket. And, in the meantime, if you're stopped while driving a motor vehicle with that suspended license, you've entered the arena of big time driving offenses. Peace and justice,         Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:31:05 From: Curt Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote in message news:h4Kdnfvibp2fHT_bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Dane Buson wrote: > > > Paul J. Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote: > > > >>Assuming that the three cyclists are also licensed motor vehicle > >>drivers, does anyone know whether the failure to stop infractions will > >>go on their driving records? > > > It varies by jurisdiction, but generally the answer is no. In WA, OR > > and CA there are certain more egregarious transgressions that could > > cause problems. > > > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11896.0.html > > > With the added caution that, in oregon at least, your drivers license > can be suspended for failure to appear on -any- violation. > > So if you blow a stop sign on a bike and kiss off the resulting > citation, you might well find your driver's license suspended by the DMV. Good thing you've got that bicycle, then. Curt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:38:12 From: Bob Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication On Jul 21, 7:46 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bob Hunt wrote: > > On Jul 20, 10:19 pm, "Ermine Todd III" <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote > > in part: > > >> Arguably, a complete stop absent > >> other traffic would not seem to be required. > > > I've seen and heard this argument many times before about all kinds of > > traffic violations. No one making that argument has ever been able to > > explain how- if there truly was "no other traffic"- the cop that > > ticketed them observed the violation, stopped them, and gave them that > > ticket. Was the cop not "other traffic"? The usual weak reply is, "He > > was hiding", to which I reply, "If you didn't notice the marked police > > car with a mars bar on the roof just half a block away why should we > > trust your powers of observation at all?" > > What about the cop hiding on the freeway overpass crouched like a sniper > behind the railing with a radar gun? [1] Or the one in the aircraft with > a stopwatch - are light aircraft hundreds of feet or more in the air > something road users SHOULD be paying attention to? > > [1] I have observed this many times when traversing the overpass. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com This will be my last reply to Tom Sherman, at least until he learns to read what is written. Neither the cop "crouched like a sniper behind the railing with a radar gun" nor "in the aircraft with a stopwatch" are actually the ticketing officer. The ticketing officer is the one parked just down the road and almost always in plain sight if the road user is *looking* but that's beside the point since we are specifically discussing stop signs and signals. How may times has anyone observed officers leaping down from overpasses and parachuting out of light aircraft to ticket stop sign/signal violators? Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:19:07 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Bob <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote: > This will be my last reply to Tom Sherman, at least until he learns to > read what is written. Neither the cop "crouched like a sniper behind > the railing with a radar gun" nor "in the aircraft with a stopwatch" > are actually the ticketing officer. The ticketing officer is the one > parked just down the road and almost always in plain sight if the road > user is *looking* but that's beside the point since we are > specifically discussing stop signs and signals. How may times has > anyone observed officers leaping down from overpasses and parachuting > out of light aircraft to ticket stop sign/signal violators? Or clocking them with rader. Or timing them in aircraft. Sheesh!       Date: 21 Jul 2007 22:52:42 From: jbohren Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote in message news:v8zoi.2345$ib7.994@trnddc02... > Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote: > >> This will be my last reply to Tom Sherman, at least until he learns to >> read what is written. Neither the cop "crouched like a sniper behind >> the railing with a radar gun" nor "in the aircraft with a stopwatch" >> are actually the ticketing officer. The ticketing officer is the one >> parked just down the road and almost always in plain sight if the road >> user is *looking* but that's beside the point since we are >> specifically discussing stop signs and signals. How may times has >> anyone observed officers leaping down from overpasses and parachuting >> out of light aircraft to ticket stop sign/signal violators? > > Or clocking them with rader. Or timing them in aircraft. > > Sheesh! Some 30 years ago, the Washington State Patrol tried timing by air with a stopwatch. It got thrown out in courts because of human error.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 10:11:03 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read this publication Bob Hunt wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:46 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Bob Hunt wrote: >>> On Jul 20, 10:19 pm, "Ermine Todd III" <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote >>> in part: >>>> Arguably, a complete stop absent >>>> other traffic would not seem to be required. >>> I've seen and heard this argument many times before about all kinds of >>> traffic violations. No one making that argument has ever been able to >>> explain how- if there truly was "no other traffic"- the cop that >>> ticketed them observed the violation, stopped them, and gave them that >>> ticket. Was the cop not "other traffic"? The usual weak reply is, "He >>> was hiding", to which I reply, "If you didn't notice the marked police >>> car with a mars bar on the roof just half a block away why should we >>> trust your powers of observation at all?" >> What about the cop hiding on the freeway overpass crouched like a sniper >> behind the railing with a radar gun? [1] Or the one in the aircraft with >> a stopwatch - are light aircraft hundreds of feet or more in the air >> something road users SHOULD be paying attention to? >> >> [1] I have observed this many times when traversing the overpass. [Signature snipped since Google failed to do so] > This will be my last reply to Tom Sherman, at least until he learns to > read what is written. My reading comprehension is fine. If others are not clear in their writing and leave open multiple possibilities for interpretation, that is their problem and should not object to requests for clarification. > Neither the cop "crouched like a sniper behind > the railing with a radar gun" nor "in the aircraft with a stopwatch" > are actually the ticketing officer. The ticketing officer is the one > parked just down the road and almost always in plain sight if the road > user is *looking* but that's beside the point since we are > specifically discussing stop signs and signals. How may times has > anyone observed officers leaping down from overpasses and parachuting > out of light aircraft to ticket stop sign/signal violators? In the places I have seen it most often done, the police cars parked on the shoulder beyond the overpass are NOT visible until well AFTER the vehicles on the freeway are within radar gun range of the officer on the overpass. The same is true when aircraft are used. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:26:42 From: Curt Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read this publication "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:46a2156d$0$16381 > > > Neither the cop "crouched like a sniper behind > > the railing with a radar gun" nor "in the aircraft with a stopwatch" > > are actually the ticketing officer. The ticketing officer is the one > > parked just down the road and almost always in plain sight if the road > > user is *looking* but that's beside the point since we are > > specifically discussing stop signs and signals. How may times has > > anyone observed officers leaping down from overpasses and parachuting > > out of light aircraft to ticket stop sign/signal violators? > > In the places I have seen it most often done, the police cars parked on > the shoulder beyond the overpass are NOT visible until well AFTER the > vehicles on the freeway are within radar gun range of the officer on the > overpass. The same is true when aircraft are used. At least here in Portland, generally, we don't run one cop on an overpass and another one to do the pulling over part -- the guy on the overpass with the laser gun is the guy who will chase you down and ticket you. Just saying. Curt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:29:11 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 7:40 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bob Hunt wrote: > > ... > > Street racers are more likely to be injured or killed because of their > > actions than they are to kill or injure others yet I don't hear anyone > > saying let's allow street racing or at least lower the penalties. No > > one other than street racers anyway.... > > Motorized or human powered street racers? > > I have seen many club rides turn into impromptu races with no harm being > done. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com I would have thought it was clear that I was speaking of motorized street racers. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 10:03:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Hunt, who failed to honor the signature separator, wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:40 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Bob Hunt wrote: >>> ... >>> Street racers are more likely to be injured or killed because of their >>> actions than they are to kill or injure others yet I don't hear anyone >>> saying let's allow street racing or at least lower the penalties. No >>> one other than street racers anyway.... >> Motorized or human powered street racers? >> >> I have seen many club rides turn into impromptu races with no harm being >> done. For the sake of all that is good, would SOMEONE at Google figure out what "-- " means! > I would have thought it was clear that I was speaking of motorized > street racers. I asked the question, since it is possible to street race bicycles without violating any laws (at least in most jurisdictions). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 13:20:18 From: Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 21, 1:36 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:54 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > ... > > I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under > > those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally > > disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines > > for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. > > > And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually > > ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the > > rationale is defensible. > > > The problem with your analysis is that if we were to adopt it as law > then in fairness the driver of the MiniCooper's fine for running the > stop sign would have to be lower than the fine imposed for the Toyota > Camry's driver which would have to be lower than the F-150's driver, > whose fine would be slightly higher than the driver of the Impala, > etcetera. Actually, I'm not asking that it be adopted as law. The current situation is this, from what I can tell: Almost all cops will ignore a cyclist who does a less-than-perfect stop at a stop sign. And only a few cops will ticket a cyclist who runs a stop sign in a somewhat dangerous manner. If a cop does ticket a cyclist, the fines levied are usually not onerous. When the fines seem out of proportion (as in the original story) there's likely to be political howling, which at least makes everyone think about the issue, and perhaps improve a bit next time - whether that improvement is better road behavior or more rational law enforcement. It's not a perfect system, but it's a pretty practical one. Nothing is perfect! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 21 Jul 2007 03:09:11 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes: > If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > like the big kids. Actually, in practice that's fortunately not the case. In fact, the more visible we cyclists make ourselves with reflectives & lighting, the less we're picked-on by the cops. So as long as we're observable, the less observed we actually are when we commit our neutral traffic infractions. And that's just how it works. Like it or lump it. But at any rate, deal with it, 'cuz, like it or not, that's what you're stuck with. Don't forget to buckle your seatbelt. And please try not to hit/kill/maim anybody with your car. I think I'd have to kill myself if I ever injured anybody. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:11:20 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes: > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > Actually, in practice that's fortunately not the case. > > In fact, the more visible we cyclists make ourselves with > reflectives & lighting, the less we're picked-on by the cops. > > So as long as we're observable, the less observed we actually > are when we commit our neutral traffic infractions. > > And that's just how it works. Like it or lump it. > > > But at any rate, deal with it, 'cuz, like it or not, that's > what you're stuck with. > > Don't forget to buckle your seatbelt. > > And please try not to hit/kill/maim anybody with your car. > > I think I'd have to kill myself if I ever injured anybody. Not if they blew a stop sign.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 01:56:26 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <bggoi.9288$tj6.6636@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > writes: > > But in our SUV-Bicyclist-Stop Sign scenario, the results are the same (one > person goes home, the other goes to the hospital), and in this case the > infraction is noted specifically to assign blame/responsibility. Regardless > of which one runs the stop sign the results are the same so my argument is > that the penalty should be the same. It may seem patently unfair to charge > a cyclist who ends up in the ICU with an infraction that landed him there > (which may just be what some here are subconsciously arguing to a certain > degree), but guess what - it happens all the time. Cyclists don't want to be hit by cars, and by-&-large take care not to be hit by cars. We measure our judgments. Sure, mistakes can by made by drivers, riders or pedestrians. But we're not wanton squashed bugs on your windshield who haphazardly got in your path. Bike riders /do/ have eyeballs and know how to use 'em, y'know. We're not moths attracted to motorized flames, after all. It often pays more to watch the traffic, than to read the stoopid signs & signals. For some reason riders are generally more attuned to that fact than drivers. Of course, the worst riders are the worst drivers and the worst pedestrians -- they're just riding a bike instead of of driving or walking. Which just goes to show it's not about the vehicle; it's about the attitude. klahowya, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Jul 2007 01:32:02 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <TBfoi.9285$tj6.2034@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > writes: > Basing fines on anything other than "Run a stop sign, get a ticket" does > seem pretty silly in the final analysis. A bicycle is a land canoe. And a sea canoe is different from, say, the Exxon Valdez. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:46:27 From: Bob Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication On Jul 20, 10:19 pm, "Ermine Todd III" <anonym...@anonymous.com > wrote in part: > Arguably, a complete stop absent > other traffic would not seem to be required. I've seen and heard this argument many times before about all kinds of traffic violations. No one making that argument has ever been able to explain how- if there truly was "no other traffic"- the cop that ticketed them observed the violation, stopped them, and gave them that ticket. Was the cop not "other traffic"? The usual weak reply is, "He was hiding", to which I reply, "If you didn't notice the marked police car with a mars bar on the roof just half a block away why should we trust your powers of observation at all?" Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:46:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Bob Hunt wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:19 pm, "Ermine Todd III" <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote > in part: > >> Arguably, a complete stop absent >> other traffic would not seem to be required. > > I've seen and heard this argument many times before about all kinds of > traffic violations. No one making that argument has ever been able to > explain how- if there truly was "no other traffic"- the cop that > ticketed them observed the violation, stopped them, and gave them that > ticket. Was the cop not "other traffic"? The usual weak reply is, "He > was hiding", to which I reply, "If you didn't notice the marked police > car with a mars bar on the roof just half a block away why should we > trust your powers of observation at all?" What about the cop hiding on the freeway overpass crouched like a sniper behind the railing with a radar gun? [1] Or the one in the aircraft with a stopwatch - are light aircraft hundreds of feet or more in the air something road users SHOULD be paying attention to? [1] I have observed this many times when traversing the overpass. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:36:07 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 9:54 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:25 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman > > > > > > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jonathan who? wrote: > > > "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> max wrote: > > > >> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent > > >> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as > > >> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From > > >> that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent > > >> walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. > > > > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > > > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > > > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > > > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > > > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > > > There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > > > worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between > > > the fines. > > > Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red > > light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss > > cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor > > vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the > > scene uninjured. > > You and Jonathan are engaging in fantasy and misdirection. Let's get > back to the real question, Peter's answer, and the real likely > outcomes. > > Bob asked why the fines should be different for a cyclist and a > motorist who commit the same infraction. He noted that traffic laws > are intended to smooth traffic flow and promote safety. > > Peter said "I don't think that negligent operation of a bicycle > presents the same level of social threat as negligent operation of a > gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. > From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to > negligent walking." > > Jonathan has concentrated only on risk to the cyclist, ignoring the > fact that car drivers kill _others_ by their mistakes and violations. > Society is smart enough to hold different attitudes toward people who > injure themselves while voluntarily climbing cliffs, and people who > push others off cliffs. Jonathan should do the same regarding > cyclists. > > Johnny/Tom pretends that cyclist infractions cause injuries to > motorists as frequently as motorist infractions do. That seems > unlikely in the extreme. The much smaller speed, mass and width of a > bike mean that it's much less likely to do harm. It's for this reason > that most "pedestrian zones" I've seen permit cycling, but forbid > cars. > > Let's take a common violation and look at its consequences when it's > committed by a cyclist vs. a motorist. My little residential street > has a stop sign at a busy five-lane arterial. What if I roll up, > don't stop, but turn right? What if there's a car entering that > intersection, traveling in the outside lane from my left to my right? > > The motorist will be startled. They may swerve left a bit or hit > their brakes. But neither is absolutely necessary, because there's > enough lane width that I can fit alongside a car. If they do swerve > left, they may hit a car in the inside lane, but they probably won't, > because most of the time there would be an empty space alongside them, > and anyway, they needn't swerve far. If they hit their brakes, they > may get rear-ended, but probably not, because most of the time there's > nobody right on their tail. And if they do get rear-ended, the fault > is partly with that tailgating motorist. > > So the _likely_ outcome is "%#@*!! stupid bicyclist!" (with which I > agree) and no damage. > > What if a motorist pulls out in the same way? His car is much wider > and can't share the lane. Because of its width it's harder to avoid. > The driver with ROW would have to swerve much more to avoid a > collision, or brake harder. If there is a collision, the effect on > the momentum of the car with ROW is greater, and the possibility of a > chain reaction is thus greater. > > I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under > those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally > disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines > for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. > > And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually > ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the > rationale is defensible. > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The problem with your analysis is that if we were to adopt it as law then in fairness the driver of the MiniCooper's fine for running the stop sign would have to be lower than the fine imposed for the Toyota Camry's driver which would have to be lower than the F-150's driver, whose fine would be slightly higher than the driver of the Impala, etcetera. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:05:28 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:54 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under >> those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally >> disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines >> for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. >> >> And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually >> ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the >> rationale is defensible. >> >> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The problem with your analysis is that if we were to adopt it as law > then in fairness the driver of the MiniCooper's fine for running the > stop sign would have to be lower than the fine imposed for the Toyota > Camry's driver which would have to be lower than the F-150's driver, > whose fine would be slightly higher than the driver of the Impala, > etcetera. The way this discrepancy is typically handled is via licensing. Commercial vehicle license holders are held to different standards, with additional standards for carrying passengers, dangerous cargoes, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, we have bicycles, which require no license in any state or jurisdiction. Why's that? Boston passed a law requiring bike messengers to be licensed a couple of years ago after a well-connected citizen was struck (while jaywalking, apparently) by an (off duty) messenger. It was a pretty blatant case of pandering to an electorate and I doubt it would survive a serious legal challenge, but bike messengers are few, and poor.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:28:25 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 9:27 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > > Well, you snipped the first part of my response which says I don't > believe laws are intended to protect people from their own behavior, > only the consequences to innocent parties. > > The ultimate example of this is that suicide isn't a crime. If you try > and fail, you aren't charged with attempted murder. Actually, suicide *is* a crime in every State in the US but that's avoiding the central issue. The argument you make is the same argument made by proponents of legalizing narcotics but drug use- like traffic crashes- has a societal cost far beyond those immediately involved. Ask anyone who has lost a loved one to either. In a world inhabited by perfect road users that are never "looking the wrong way", I could actually agree with your proposed changes in traffic laws. We don't live in such a world though. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 08:57:35 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:27 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Well, you snipped the first part of my response which says I don't >> believe laws are intended to protect people from their own behavior, >> only the consequences to innocent parties. >> >> The ultimate example of this is that suicide isn't a crime. If you try >> and fail, you aren't charged with attempted murder. > > Actually, suicide *is* a crime in every State in the US but that's > avoiding the central issue. Actually, I think you're wrong: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide > "In the United States, suicide has never been punished as a crime nor penalized by property forfeiture or ignominious burial.[citation needed] Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma that repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification." > The argument you make is the same argument > made by proponents of legalizing narcotics but drug use- like traffic > crashes- has a societal cost far beyond those immediately involved. On the other hand, passing laws that don't have broad societal support only succeed in turning average citizens into criminals and eroding respect for the law. Witness the well known consequences of prohibition during the '20's. > Ask anyone who has lost a loved one to either. As to the question of whether the drug "war" is having the same effect as prohibition, I think a case can be made either way. Certainly the incarceration rate and the racial demographics of our prison population are deeply troubling. > In a world inhabited by perfect road users that are never "looking the > wrong way", I could actually agree with your proposed changes in > traffic laws. We don't live in such a world though. There are bad laws. A bad law may be characterized in many ways: overly punitive, impossible to enforce fairly, or just plain contrary to human nature. Even making some transgressions capital crimes (e.g. adultery, homosexuality in some countries) doesn't stop people. Traffic signals are for convenience, not safety. If one group (cyclists) perceives them as being overly inconvenient, there will be a low level of compliance. You can raise the penalties to ridiculous levels but you're still working against human nature. That's not the purpose of law.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:11:50 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 8:54 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > > > > > > > Jonathan who? wrote: > >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >>news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... > >>> max wrote: > > >>> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent > >>> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as > >>> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. > >>> From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to > >>> negligent walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. > > >> Greetings, > > >> Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with > >> a stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > >> 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the > >> bicyclist. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > >> 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the > >> 4500-lb SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > >> There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > >> worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference > >> between the fines. > > >> Over 20+ years in fire/rescue has taught me one incontrovertible fact > >> of life when it comes to auto vs. bicycle (or auto vs. pedestrian) > >> accidents: The car always wins. I have never, EVER seen an accident > >> involving a vehicle vs. bicycle where the bicyclist walks away > >> unscathed with "paint-only" damage to his bike but the driver ends up > >> in ICU with his vehicle totalled. You can argue till the cows come > >> home that bicyclists should be able to treat traffic control devices > >> differently than motorized vehicles for the sake of convenience, but > >> the facts - and reality - are dead against you (pardon the pun!). > > > Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red > > light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss > > cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor > > vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the > > scene uninjured. > > Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste > carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and > we lose Cleveland.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The difference between the two is simple. The second one has never happened while the first one has. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:32:34 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:54 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: >>> Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red >>> light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss >>> cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor >>> vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the >>> scene uninjured. >> Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste >> carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and >> we lose Cleveland.- Hide quoted text - > The difference between the two is simple. The second one has never > happened while the first one has. Well my point is that *any* scenario is conceivable, but, in the real world, you have to factor in likelihood. There are an infinite number of scenarios where a bicycle rider's failure to yield might trigger a crash involving innocent parties. In my view, anyone dumb enough to ride into the path of another vehicle can do it with or without stopping for a signal. I don't accept the causality you assume for any kind of vehicle, let alone bikes. Traffic signals are for efficiency, not safety. When traffic signals fail due to power outages, there isn't instant carnage (except in the movies), and that's when people may not be anticipating the lack of traffic controls. A cyclist who doesn't stop is well aware that there are ROW conventions and fully understands the situation. Sight lines are engineered for automobile traffic parameters and are usually completely over engineered for bikes. Requiring bikes to follow them is tantamount to requiring cars to drive 30mph on the highway. It just violates common sense and human nature, enforcement will be an uphill battle with the natural consequence of encouraging lawlessness. Critics always use the extreme case of a cyclist suicidally zooming through a red light without slowing. What's far more common (& would be my choice for the law) is stopping, looking and proceeding across. In this scenario, how is a cyclist different than a pedestrian? It's possible that an approaching vehicle operator may be harmed in consequence (chain reaction, or otherwise), but the likelihood is pretty much the same whether the red light crosser is a cyclist or pedestrian, and the liability to the innocent party in the more typical scenario (no chain reaction) is too.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:09:08 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 19, 11:11 pm, max <betat...@earthlink.net > wrote: > In article <1184903958.970456.46...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote: > > If I > > run a stop sign on a bike I'm decreasing road safety even more than > > I'd be doing if I ran the same stop sign in a car simply because > > without that steel cage around me the likelihood of serious injury or > > death increases in the event of a crash. I > > your analysis is completely self-centered; recalculate for X != violator. > > .max That's just the most obvious and clearcut risk. What about the driver that has to slam on his brakes to avoid me and gets hit from behind, hasn't he suffered harm because of my disregard for that stop sign? Let me guess- you think all the blame belongs to the second driver, the one that hits him from behind. Okay then- what if that second driver isn't a driver at all but a cyclist? I run the stop sign, he slams on his brakes, and the other cyclist ends up on the trunk. Do you then blame that second cyclist or is he just as immune to a citation for following too closely as I am to a ticket for running the stop sign? Street racers are more likely to be injured or killed because of their actions than they are to kill or injure others yet I don't hear anyone saying let's allow street racing or at least lower the penalties. No one other than street racers anyway. It all depends on whose ox is being gored I guess. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 07:40:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Hunt wrote: > ... > Street racers are more likely to be injured or killed because of their > actions than they are to kill or injure others yet I don't hear anyone > saying let's allow street racing or at least lower the penalties. No > one other than street racers anyway.... Motorized or human powered street racers? I have seen many club rides turn into impromptu races with no harm being done. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 20 Jul 2007 14:15:45 From: Bob Beauchaine Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 1:48 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > > Er, that was me. Sorry I can't read your whole post, it's too long and > rambling and I can't follow it. Then I propose you lack the mental agility required to make a decision about stopping or not at an intersection. Complex problems require complex discussions. Do try to keep up. "I can't be bothered to do my homework" hasn't been a valid excuse since high school. But I'll summarize for you: 1. The most likely outcome for graduated ticketing for a stop sign violation will be to increase violations. 2. Increased violations will result in reduced traffic control and higher accident rates, the damage from which will not be limited to the impact energy of your bicycle. Note that you did not say that stopping should be legally optional, only that you don't have to pay as much for the privilege of breaking the law. 3. All so that you don't have to put your foot down at a stop sign.     Date: 20 Jul 2007 21:58:17 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Beauchaine wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:48 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Er, that was me. Sorry I can't read your whole post, it's too long and >> rambling and I can't follow it. > > Then I propose you lack the mental agility required to make a decision > about stopping or not at an intersection. > > Complex problems require complex discussions. Do try to keep up. "I > can't be bothered to do my homework" hasn't been a valid excuse since > high school. But I'll summarize for you: > Thanks for the editing, now wasn't that easy? > 1. The most likely outcome for graduated ticketing for a stop sign > violation will be to increase violations. Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why so many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. This is the same principle used to set speed limits. If you want people to go 20mph on a road, you need to make a road that can only support 20mph. > 2. Increased violations will result in reduced traffic control and > higher accident rates, the damage from which will not be limited to > the impact energy of your bicycle. Again, this is speculation on your part. Traffic signals are used for efficiency, not safety. This is a fundamental misunderstanding you have. > Note that you did not say that > stopping should be legally optional, only that you don't have to pay > as much for the privilege of breaking the law. I personally favor red lights as stops and stops as yields with no requirement for stopping for right on red for cyclists. The fines for violating those should be equivalent to those for jaywalking in the jurisdiction. > 3. All so that you don't have to put your foot down at a stop sign. All for convenience, yes, what's wrong with that? That's the whole purpose of traffic controls.       Date: 21 Jul 2007 02:13:01 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why so > many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky.         Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:07:25 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Lobby Dosser wrote: > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why so >> many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. > > Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky. Thanks for the warmth.           Date: 29 Jul 2007 12:26:15 From: Paris' 1000 std's Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1dSdnbOqQ9SXmD_bnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why so > >> many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. > > > > Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky. > > Thanks for the warmth. Cyclists are ASSHOLES. They ride down the MAJOR downtown street where I live in a group of about 30 people , taking up the WHOLE FUCKING LANE. Now as I understand it there is a minimum speed limit and they ARE NOT OBEYING IT. What are cars supposed to do?? Car 911 on the pieces of shit that are taking up the whole car lane? Tail gate them constantly honking their horn until they get out of the way?             Date: 29 Jul 2007 15:34:04 From: Scratch Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Paris' 1000 std's <stupidcunt@whore.com > wrote in news:stupidcunt-F2A52F.12261529072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net: > In article <1dSdnbOqQ9SXmD_bnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Lobby Dosser wrote: >> > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's >> >> why so many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. >> > >> > Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky. >> >> Thanks for the warmth. > > Cyclists are ASSHOLES. They ride down the MAJOR downtown street where > I live in a group of about 30 people , taking up the WHOLE FUCKING > LANE. I've witnessed this as well. Not with 30 in the group though and then turn around and glare at ya like they are just daring ya to hit them. It was all I can do to keep from smaking the smart ass in the back of his head as I drive by. This has been a awhile back.           Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:11:48 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why >>> so many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. >> >> Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky. > > Thanks for the warmth. You're welcome. Suck it up.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 13:12:22 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: "Roll and Go Stop Sign" Legislation in Oregon ` Back in the 2003 Oregon Legislative Session, State Representative Floyd Prozanksi (D-Eugene) sponsored "roll and go stop sign" legislation (House Bill 2768). Here is the summary of that bill: "Permits person operating bicycle to enter intersection with specified traffic control device without stopping providing person operating bicycle slows to safe speed and yields right of way to traffic or pedestrians. Permits person operating bicycle to turn without stopping at intersection with specified traffic control device providing person operating bicycle slows to safe speed and yields right of way to traffic or pedestrians." The bill passed the House but never made it out of a Senate Rules Committee. No "roll and go stop sign" legislation has been introduced in the Oregon Legislature since. `   Date: 20 Jul 2007 13:03:30 From: Bob Beauchaine Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 10:08 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > By that logic, speeding should be flat rate, too. Speeding fines do not account for the weight of the vehicle, only for the speed involved, and I suspect that has kinetic energy as (at best) a secondary consideration to reaction time, speed differential, and controllability of the vehicle. The point is to avoid accidents entirely, not minimize the impact energy, or we'd have just the system you want. A full dump truck at 15 mph has the same kinetic energy as my Civic at 70 mph. Yet it would be considered absurd to have a 15 mph speed limit for dump trucks. > Why not flat rate for > every moving violation? Why mess with all this complicated points stuff, > why have different licenses, registrations, inspections for different > vehicles? One size fits all. Simple. Maybe not fair or sensible, but simple! A fine point. Let's discuss it. What you would like to see is the fine for running a stop sign tied to the kinetic energy of the vehicle passing through the intersection. So now we have to know both the speed and weight of vehicle plus rider in order to know what fine to impose. Currently, all a police office has to do is witness you not stopping. Now he has to gun you as well to properly write the ticket. Let's assume we all agree that this is silly and make a "simple" law that assumes all bikes and riders weigh 300 lb, and forget about the velocity since we don't already track that for powered vehicles. This gives a rough ratio of 7/1 for a 1 ton vehicle vs. a bicycle. Which, in round numbers, implies that the ticket for running a stop sign be reduced to about $50 for cyclists as opposed to the $335 quoted before. So what happens if the cycling community decides that the price of the ticket is worth the risk, considering the likelihood of getting caught and the out of pocket expense? What is the result? The law of unintended consequences will never be denied. The result is that intersections with bike traffic become essentially unmanaged. Stop signs do not exist merely to keep people from bumping into each other. They are also a means of traffic control, with well defined "rules of engagement". If we now have a class system that states that running a stop sign is a graduated infraction with a minimal fine, then some percentage of the riding population, larger than the current subset, will decide to risk it. That is a recipe for disaster at a controlled intersection, where other drivers MUST know what you are going to do. Don't think it will happen? Witness how many people break the speed limit by 5-10 mph as opposed to how many break it by 20 or more. This has much to do with the risk of getting caught, but I am just as sure that if the fine were higher, the infraction rate would be much lower (witness the flap in Virginia right now over just this issue, where a routine speeding ticket will cost you ~$2500). Dropping the infraction cost will absolutely increase the infraction rate. There's a three way stop at a four way intersection near my home. Since the three stop directions do not have a sign indicating that the fourth does not stop, it is a frequent source of confusion and accidents when non-locals arrive. People expect stop to mean just that, and their driving habits reflect that understanding. So I still stand by Stop means stop - and for far more reasons than how big a dent I might put in the grill of your Mercedes if I choose not to. I'm more in favor of the idea someone else mentioned that most of these stop signs, at least those with high visibility, should be treated as yields - possibly only in the direction of highest traffic density.     Date: 29 Jul 2007 12:20:23 From: Paris' 1000 std's Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1184961810.740873.174960@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Bob Beauchaine <b.beauchaine@comcast.net > wrote: > ump trucks. > > > Why not flat rate for > > every moving violation? Why mess with all this complicated points stuff, > > why have different licenses, registrations, inspections for different > > vehicles? One size fits all. Simple. Maybe not fair or sensible, but simple! > > A fine point. Let's discuss it. > > What you would like to see is the fine for running a stop sign tied to > the kinetic energy of the vehicle passing through the intersection. WHy not have it more simple? If you are not in a vehicle that can easily kill someone, IE a pedestrian or a bicycle, small fine. If you are in a vehicle that can easily kill someone, large fine. If you are drunk the same thing apples. If I am wasted and I bump into someone, very minor damage. If I am wasted on a bike and ride into someone, very minor damage. If I am wasted in a car and bump into someone, DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!     Date: 20 Jul 2007 16:48:04 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Beauchaine wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:08 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> By that logic, speeding should be flat rate, too. > > Speeding fines do not account for the weight of the vehicle, only for > the speed involved, and I suspect that has kinetic energy as (at best) > a secondary consideration to reaction time, speed differential, and > controllability of the vehicle. The point is to avoid accidents > entirely, not minimize the impact energy, or we'd have just the system > you want. > > A full dump truck at 15 mph has the same kinetic energy as my Civic at > 70 mph. Yet it would be considered absurd to have a 15 mph speed > limit for dump trucks. Yes, but not for that reason. It's certainly not absurd to require special licenses, inspections and registrations for such vehicles. >> Why not flat rate for >> every moving violation? Why mess with all this complicated points stuff, >> why have different licenses, registrations, inspections for different >> vehicles? One size fits all. Simple. Maybe not fair or sensible, but simple! > > A fine point. Let's discuss it. > > What you would like to see is the fine for running a stop sign tied to > the kinetic energy of the vehicle passing through the intersection. No, I like to see it proportional to liability. > > So now we have to know both the speed and weight of vehicle plus rider > in order to know what fine to impose. Currently, all a police office > has to do is witness you not stopping. Now he has to gun you as well > to properly write the ticket. > > Let's assume we all agree that this is silly and make a "simple" law > that assumes all bikes and riders weigh 300 lb, and forget about the > velocity since we don't already track that for powered vehicles. > > This gives a rough ratio of 7/1 for a 1 ton vehicle vs. a bicycle. > Which, in round numbers, implies that the ticket for running a stop > sign be reduced to about $50 for cyclists as opposed to the $335 > quoted before. > > So what happens if the cycling community decides that the price of the > ticket is worth the risk, considering the likelihood of getting caught > and the out of pocket expense? What is the result? The law of > unintended consequences will never be denied. > > The result is that intersections with bike traffic become essentially > unmanaged. Stop signs do not exist merely to keep people from bumping > into each other. They are also a means of traffic control, with well > defined "rules of engagement". If we now have a class system that > states that running a stop sign is a graduated infraction with a > minimal fine, then some percentage of the riding population, larger > than the current subset, will decide to risk it. That is a recipe for > disaster at a controlled intersection, where other drivers MUST know > what you are going to do. Wow, end of the world as we know it time. > > Don't think it will happen? Witness how many people break the speed > limit by 5-10 mph as opposed to how many break it by 20 or more. This > has much to do with the risk of getting caught, but I am just as sure > that if the fine were higher, the infraction rate would be much lower > (witness the flap in Virginia right now over just this issue, where a > routine speeding ticket will cost you ~$2500). Dropping the > infraction cost will absolutely increase the infraction rate. > > There's a three way stop at a four way intersection near my home. > Since the three stop directions do not have a sign indicating that the > fourth does not stop, it is a frequent source of confusion and > accidents when non-locals arrive. People expect stop to mean just > that, and their driving habits reflect that understanding. > > So I still stand by Stop means stop - and for far more reasons than > how big a dent I might put in the grill of your Mercedes if I choose > not to. > > I'm more in favor of the idea someone else mentioned that most of > these stop signs, at least those with high visibility, should be > treated as yields - possibly only in the direction of highest traffic > density. > Er, that was me. Sorry I can't read your whole post, it's too long and rambling and I can't follow it.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 11:54:06 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Some the posters to this thread really need to read this --WebTV-Mail-16122-6544 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit ~ <http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf > ~ --WebTV-Mail-16122-6544 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit <html ><embed src="http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf" ></html> --WebTV-Mail-16122-6544--     Date: 21 Jul 2007 03:19:24 From: Ermine Todd III Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message news:15800-46A104CE-355@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net... > ~ > > <http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf> > Note: that's a guide that they would like you to believe and follow - it's not the law. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/801.html As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. And appropriately 814.400 - 814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except: (a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. (b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section: (a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and (b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles. (3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335] -------------- Given the provision of (6) which uses the word "generally", 1a which could naturally be argued that Stop signs by the very nature of bicycles should be treated as yield signs, and the fact that section 814.4xx (the section that describes the rules for bikes) does NOT address traffic control devices, I believe a valid argument could be made for the interpretation that Stop signs do not apply other than under paragraph (3) which is advisory and requires "duty to exercise due care". Arguably, a complete stop absent other traffic would not seem to be required.       Date: 20 Jul 2007 21:34:05 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Ermine Todd III wrote: > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:15800-46A104CE-355@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net... > >> ~ >> >> <http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf> >> > Note: that's a guide that they would like you to believe and follow - > it's not the law. > > http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/801.html > > As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions > > (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject > to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. > Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the > vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. > > And appropriately 814.400 - > > 814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person > riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions > applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any > other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and > abandoned vehicles, except: > > (a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no > application. > > (b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code. > > (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section: > > (a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and > > (b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be > applicable to bicycles. > > (3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of > bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to > exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335] > -------------- > Given the provision of (6) which uses the word "generally", 1a which > could naturally be argued that Stop signs by the very nature of bicycles > should be treated as yield signs, and the fact that section 814.4xx (the > section that describes the rules for bikes) does NOT address traffic > control devices, I believe a valid argument could be made for the > interpretation that Stop signs do not apply other than under paragraph > (3) which is advisory and requires "duty to exercise due care". > Arguably, a complete stop absent other traffic would not seem to be > required. > Subsection (1) of 814.400 tells ya' everything you need to know. Bicycles are suject to ALL the provisions of the vehicle code -except- provisions which by their very nature can have no application or as otherwise specifically provided for. Can bikes stop at stop signs? Sure. Those provisions rather obviously can have an application to bikes. Are bikes specifically exempted from stopping at stop signs or are there specific alternative provisions addressing bicycles and stop signs? Nope. Bikes are not specifically exempt nor are there special bike rules. End of discussion. The judge might cut your fine 'cause he finds your argument either sufficiently amusing or sufficiently inventive but it ain't gonna get to first base legally speaking. Arguably or otherwise, you've no case. Peace and justice,         Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:44:37 From: Ermine Todd III Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote in message news:19Gdnde2s8kjETzbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com... > Ermine Todd III wrote: > >> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message >> news:15800-46A104CE-355@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net... >> >>> ~ >>> >>> <http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf> >>> >> Note: that's a guide that they would like you to believe and follow - >> it's not the law. >> >> http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/801.html >> >> As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions >> >> (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject >> to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. >> Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the >> vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. >> >> And appropriately 814.400 - >> >> 814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding >> a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to >> and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle >> concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned >> vehicles, except: >> >> (a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no >> application. >> >> (b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code. >> >> (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section: >> >> (a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and >> >> (b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be >> applicable to bicycles. >> >> (3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of >> bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise >> due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335] >> -------------- >> Given the provision of (6) which uses the word "generally", 1a which >> could naturally be argued that Stop signs by the very nature of bicycles >> should be treated as yield signs, and the fact that section 814.4xx (the >> section that describes the rules for bikes) does NOT address traffic >> control devices, I believe a valid argument could be made for the >> interpretation that Stop signs do not apply other than under paragraph >> (3) which is advisory and requires "duty to exercise due care". >> Arguably, a complete stop absent other traffic would not seem to be >> required. >> > > Subsection (1) of 814.400 tells ya' everything you need to know. > > Bicycles are suject to ALL the provisions of the vehicle code -except- > provisions which by their very nature can have no application or as > otherwise specifically provided for. > > Can bikes stop at stop signs? Sure. Those provisions rather obviously can > have an application to bikes. > > Are bikes specifically exempted from stopping at stop signs or are there > specific alternative provisions addressing bicycles and stop signs? Nope. > Bikes are not specifically exempt nor are there special bike rules. > > End of discussion. The judge might cut your fine 'cause he finds your > argument either sufficiently amusing or sufficiently inventive but it > ain't gonna get to first base legally speaking. > > Arguably or otherwise, you've no case. > > Peace and justice, I understand your argument, but I believe you are missing the relevant section that was quoted above - specifically: As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. - the point being that bicycles are NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE VEHICLE CODE THAT RELATE TO VEHICLES excepting for the provisions of the vehicle code that generally apply to bicycles as provided under 814.400 and traffic control devices are NOT one of the provisions specified or even implied under 814.400 excepting under the admonishment to exercise due care. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this interpretation would withstand a challenge to either precedent or legislative intent, but still, I think it has merit.           Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:42:39 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Ermine Todd III wrote: > "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:19Gdnde2s8kjETzbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com... -snip- >> Subsection (1) of 814.400 tells ya' everything you need to know. >> Bicycles are suject to ALL the provisions of the vehicle code -except- >> provisions which by their very nature can have no application or as >> otherwise specifically provided for. >> Can bikes stop at stop signs? Sure. Those provisions rather obviously >> can have an application to bikes. >> Are bikes specifically exempted from stopping at stop signs or are >> there specific alternative provisions addressing bicycles and stop >> signs? Nope. Bikes are not specifically exempt nor are there special >> bike rules. >> End of discussion. The judge might cut your fine 'cause he finds your >> argument either sufficiently amusing or sufficiently inventive but it >> ain't gonna get to first base legally speaking. >> Arguably or otherwise, you've no case. > I understand your argument, but I believe you are missing the relevant > section that was quoted above - specifically: > As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions > > (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject > to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. > Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the > vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. > - the point being that bicycles are NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE > VEHICLE CODE THAT RELATE TO VEHICLES No. NOT WITHSTANDING that "devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject", bicycles ARE specifically made so subject in the manner specified in 814.400. And 814.400 makes bicycles subject to the all provisions of the vehicle code with only the two exceptions previously noted. > excepting for the provisions of the > vehicle code that generally apply to bicycles as provided under 814.400 > and traffic control devices are NOT one of the provisions specified or > even implied under 814.400 excepting under the admonishment to exercise > due care. The Oregon Vehicle Code encompasses -all- of Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 801 through Chapter 826. Stopping at traffic control devices is clearly encompassed (ORS 811.260), as is due care (ORS 811.005) and careless driving (ORS 811.135). > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this interpretation would withstand > a challenge to either precedent or legislative intent, but still, I > think it has merit. I am, or at least was, a lawyer. Take it from me, it has no merit. Inventive, amusing, even original. But non-meritorious, at least in the legal sense. Peace and justice,           Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:33:26 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Ermine Todd III wrote: > > I understand your argument, but I believe you are missing the relevant > section that was quoted above - specifically: > > As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions > > (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject > to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. > Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the > vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. > > - the point being that bicycles are NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE > VEHICLE CODE THAT RELATE TO VEHICLES excepting for the provisions of the > vehicle code that generally apply to bicycles as provided under 814.400 > and traffic control devices are NOT one of the provisions specified or > even implied under 814.400 excepting under the admonishment to exercise > due care. > > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this interpretation would withstand > a challenge to either precedent or legislative intent, but still, I > think it has merit. This is the crux of my issues -- whether a bicycle should be reasonably considered a vehicle. I know it's convenient to do so, and I know some consider it a prerequisite to be "entitled" to be a road user, but I think that in the relevant ways, a cyclist is more comparable to a pedestrian, or perhaps somewhere in between. When the laws get too out of line with reality, you don't get good conformance, which just creates criminals. You can stiffen the penalties, but you're just sweeping sand against the tide.             Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:04:49 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Peter Cole wrote: > Ermine Todd III wrote: >> I understand your argument, but I believe you are missing the relevant >> section that was quoted above - specifically: >> As stated in the law: 801.026 General exemptions; exceptions >> (6) Devices that are powered exclusively by human power are not subject >> to those provisions of the vehicle code that relate to vehicles. >> Notwithstanding this subsection, bicycles are generally subject to the >> vehicle code as provided under ORS 814.400. >> - the point being that bicycles are NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF >> THE VEHICLE CODE THAT RELATE TO VEHICLES excepting for the provisions >> of the vehicle code that generally apply to bicycles as provided under >> 814.400 and traffic control devices are NOT one of the provisions >> specified or even implied under 814.400 excepting under the >> admonishment to exercise due care. >> I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this interpretation would >> withstand a challenge to either precedent or legislative intent, but >> still, I think it has merit. > This is the crux of my issues -- whether a bicycle should be reasonably > considered a vehicle. I know it's convenient to do so, and I know some > consider it a prerequisite to be "entitled" to be a road user, but I > think that in the relevant ways, a cyclist is more comparable to a > pedestrian, or perhaps somewhere in between. Whether bicycles "should" be considered a vehicle is more a philosophical question than a legal one. The answer to the legal question is clearer - legally bicycles ARE vehicles. ORS 801.590 “Vehicle.” “Vehicle” means any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway and includes vehicles that are propelled or powered by any means. “Vehicle” does not include a manufactured structure. Car as vehicles, trailers are vehicles, farrm tractors are vehicles, skate boards are vehicles, unicycles are vehicles, and, yes, bicycles are vehicles. There might be some ambiguity with roller blades but there is none with bicycles. > When the laws get too out of line with reality, you don't get good > conformance, which just creates criminals. The question of course is whether you get "good conformance". I would contend you do - while "conformance" is never 100% on any law, by and large most bicyclists conform to the rules of the road most of the time. Which is little different from most motorists - who likewise conform only most of the time. > You can stiffen the > penalties, but you're just sweeping sand against the tide. Most bicyclists observe the rules of the road most of the time. Whether increasing penalties would increase the rate of compliance is a separate question but certainly increasing the penalties would be unlikely to decrease the number of bicyclists observing the rules of the road. Peace and justice,               Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:27:30 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication Bill Shatzer wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > >> This is the crux of my issues -- whether a bicycle should be >> reasonably considered a vehicle. I know it's convenient to do so, and >> I know some consider it a prerequisite to be "entitled" to be a road >> user, but I think that in the relevant ways, a cyclist is more >> comparable to a pedestrian, or perhaps somewhere in between. > > Whether bicycles "should" be considered a vehicle is more a > philosophical question than a legal one. Right, I was making a philosophical statement. >> When the laws get too out of line with reality, you don't get good >> conformance, which just creates criminals. > > The question of course is whether you get "good conformance". I would > contend you do - while "conformance" is never 100% on any law, by and > large most bicyclists conform to the rules of the road most of the time. Maybe where you are. If cyclist conformance were as good as motorist conformance, we wouldn't have these threads, would we? >> You can stiffen the penalties, but you're just sweeping sand against >> the tide. > > Most bicyclists observe the rules of the road most of the time. > > Whether increasing penalties would increase the rate of compliance is a > separate question but certainly increasing the penalties would be > unlikely to decrease the number of bicyclists observing the rules of the > road. So, overkill to be safe?                 Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:32:07 From: Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication In article <kvGdnSveNcrSFT_bnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast.com >, peter_cole@comcast.net says... > Bill Shatzer wrote: > > The question of course is whether you get "good conformance". I would > > contend you do - while "conformance" is never 100% on any law, by and > > large most bicyclists conform to the rules of the road most of the time. > Maybe where you are. If cyclist conformance were as good as motorist > conformance, we wouldn't have these threads, would we? At least where I live, bicyclists are at least as likely to operate legally as motorists. But then, I live on a residential street with a 25mph speed limit, and not one driver in four obeys that law on this street. It's a fairly wide road, too, so many motorists fail to park within 12" of the curb. And they don't usually signal when they pull back onto the road. Motorists are so used to this illegal behavior that most of them probably don't even notice it. I think we see these threads because most people are motorists, and are comfortable with the behavior of most motorists, even when that behavior is clearly illegal (speeding, rolling stops, failure to yield, tailgating, etc.). Bicycles are less common, so motorists are less likely to be familiar and comfortable with the typical behavior of cyclists, legal or not. I would bet that if the officer in the original story sat at the same intersection and ticketed every motorist who slowed and made a rolling stop, he'd write more tickets. But a motorist slowing to 5mph has slowed much more than a bicyclist at the same speed, so the motorist gives an impression of greater compliance. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Braze your own bicycle frames. See <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >                   Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:31:51 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some the posters to this thread really need to read thispublication josh@phred.org wrote: > I think we see these threads because most people are motorists, and are > comfortable with the behavior of most motorists, even when that behavior > is clearly illegal (speeding, rolling stops, failure to yield, > tailgating, etc.). Bicycles are less common, so motorists are less > likely to be familiar and comfortable with the typical behavior of > cyclists, legal or not. > One of the behaviors I see almost 100% of the time is motorists not stopping on the stop line. It is a real nuisance when you are making a left turn into their road. It's even worse when they keep rolling at you while you're making the turn. Overshooting and creeping is so common that motorists don't even seem to realize they're doing it. I've had nothing but blank looks when I point it out (infrequently). Of course, it's illegal. Then there are the multitudes that pull half out of a driveway or parking lot exit and stay there waiting for a break in traffic -- completely blocking the cyclist's normal path, perhaps not illegal, but discourteous. Of course if they're making a left they often block half the street, too. I'm sure these are things people would stop doing if they ever rode bikes themselves. I think cycling has made me a more thoughtful driver.   Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:25:26 From: Bob Beauchaine Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 8:23 am, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <FVSni.13838$LH5.5733@trnddc02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > > > >> The offenses are Identical. > > > > It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. > > > IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign. > > That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action > is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. > Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles > have identical operation is sheer ignorance. > > -- > My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, > heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org There's a reason we don't make laws really complicated like that. 'Cause as soon as we pass one for you, I'm going to want a change for my motorcycle, and a different one for my Civic, a different one for that jerk in his H1, and for the farm truck that almost cost me my life a couple of years back when he did in fact blow through a stop sign. I really have no interest in seeing the legislature waste their time drawing up and maintaining a weight-fine schedule for what should be a really simple rule - if you want to use the roads, Stop at the big red octagon. Sometimes, one size fits all really is the right approach. It's actually kind of refreshing to hear about this cop handing out moving violations for something other than speeding. Don't even get me started on how some of these riding groups behave when they get out to the country around Hagg Lake where I live - apparently some feel that NONE of the laws governing cyclists apply once you're out of the urban zone. And yes, I am a rider too. I never did bother to learn how to balance a bike at zero velocity, so stopping means unclipping. Boo hoo. No pain no gain, right? If you're coming west on West Union to that stop sign in North Plains, you haven't seen a previous stop sign since what - Helvetia? Doesn't seem to be too onerous a task to me.     Date: 20 Jul 2007 13:08:37 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Bob Beauchaine wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:23 am, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@3q2007.subsume.com> > wrote: >> In article <FVSni.13838$LH5.5733@trnddc02>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>>> The offenses are Identical. >>>> It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. >>> IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign. >> That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action >> is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. >> Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles >> have identical operation is sheer ignorance. >> >> -- >> My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, >> heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org > > There's a reason we don't make laws really complicated like that. > 'Cause as soon as we pass one for you, I'm going to want a change for > my motorcycle, and a different one for my Civic, a different one for > that jerk in his H1, and for the farm truck that almost cost me my > life a couple of years back when he did in fact blow through a stop > sign. I really have no interest in seeing the legislature waste their > time drawing up and maintaining a weight-fine schedule for what should > be a really simple rule - if you want to use the roads, Stop at the > big red octagon. > > Sometimes, one size fits all really is the right approach. It's > actually kind of refreshing to hear about this cop handing out moving > violations for something other than speeding. Don't even get me > started on how some of these riding groups behave when they get out to > the country around Hagg Lake where I live - apparently some feel that > NONE of the laws governing cyclists apply once you're out of the urban > zone. > > And yes, I am a rider too. I never did bother to learn how to balance > a bike at zero velocity, so stopping means unclipping. Boo hoo. No > pain no gain, right? If you're coming west on West Union to that stop > sign in North Plains, you haven't seen a previous stop sign since what > - Helvetia? Doesn't seem to be too onerous a task to me. > By that logic, speeding should be flat rate, too. Why not flat rate for every moving violation? Why mess with all this complicated points stuff, why have different licenses, registrations, inspections for different vehicles? One size fits all. Simple. Maybe not fair or sensible, but simple!   Date: 20 Jul 2007 07:54:49 From: Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 20, 9:25 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Jonathan who? wrote: > > "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... > >> max wrote: > > >> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent > >> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as > >> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From > >> that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent > >> walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. > > > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > > There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > > worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between > > the fines. > > > Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red > light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss > cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor > vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the > scene uninjured. You and Jonathan are engaging in fantasy and misdirection. Let's get back to the real question, Peter's answer, and the real likely outcomes. Bob asked why the fines should be different for a cyclist and a motorist who commit the same infraction. He noted that traffic laws are intended to smooth traffic flow and promote safety. Peter said "I don't think that negligent operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent walking." Jonathan has concentrated only on risk to the cyclist, ignoring the fact that car drivers kill _others_ by their mistakes and violations. Society is smart enough to hold different attitudes toward people who injure themselves while voluntarily climbing cliffs, and people who push others off cliffs. Jonathan should do the same regarding cyclists. Johnny/Tom pretends that cyclist infractions cause injuries to motorists as frequently as motorist infractions do. That seems unlikely in the extreme. The much smaller speed, mass and width of a bike mean that it's much less likely to do harm. It's for this reason that most "pedestrian zones" I've seen permit cycling, but forbid cars. Let's take a common violation and look at its consequences when it's committed by a cyclist vs. a motorist. My little residential street has a stop sign at a busy five-lane arterial. What if I roll up, don't stop, but turn right? What if there's a car entering that intersection, traveling in the outside lane from my left to my right? The motorist will be startled. They may swerve left a bit or hit their brakes. But neither is absolutely necessary, because there's enough lane width that I can fit alongside a car. If they do swerve left, they may hit a car in the inside lane, but they probably won't, because most of the time there would be an empty space alongside them, and anyway, they needn't swerve far. If they hit their brakes, they may get rear-ended, but probably not, because most of the time there's nobody right on their tail. And if they do get rear-ended, the fault is partly with that tailgating motorist. So the _likely_ outcome is "%#@*!! stupid bicyclist!" (with which I agree) and no damage. What if a motorist pulls out in the same way? His car is much wider and can't share the lane. Because of its width it's harder to avoid. The driver with ROW would have to swerve much more to avoid a collision, or brake harder. If there is a collision, the effect on the momentum of the car with ROW is greater, and the possibility of a chain reaction is thus greater. I don't condone a cyclist or a motorist running a stop sign under those circumstances. But it's fantasy to say that both are equally disruptive to traffic flow and road safety. Consequently, the fines for motorists and bicyclists should not be equal. And, BTW, I think most cops know this, which is why they usually ignore cyclist infractions. I don't think that's ideal, but the rationale is defensible. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 21 Jul 2007 04:50:15 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1184943289.595913.87170@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Jonathan has concentrated only on risk to the cyclist, ignoring the > fact that car drivers kill _others_ by their mistakes and violations. > Society is smart enough to hold different attitudes toward people who > injure themselves while voluntarily climbing cliffs, and people who > push others off cliffs. Jonathan should do the same regarding > cyclists. > There are a few points here that I cannot debate you on - it is very true that cars cause more damage/injuries than bicycles, and more than likely cars hurt more "other" people than themselves in these accidents than do bicycles (poorly worded, but I think you get what I mean). Just because a bicylist is more exposed than the SUV driver, or does not affect as many other people with his/her actions, or has a lesser potential to do damage then they shouldn't be held to the same standard - which appears to be your argument when you state that "ignoring the fact that car drivers kill_others_by their mistakes and violations". Lobby your local lawmakers if you want the "one size fits all" policy changed about stop sign infractions and not someone who has made a career out of cleaning up the mess. However, in your cliff-climber example the reason why society holds a differing attitude is that a person who falls while voluntarily climbing the cliff seldom if ever affects anyone else when he falls (I'm not talking about having to rescue him/her afterwards, just that the climber never if ever also wipes out a busload of nuns on his way down); while the guy who pushes someone off a cliff is obviously deliberately affecting other people, specifically the "pushee". I think its fair to say that the vast majority of both bicyclists and drivers who don't come to a full stop do not do so with the intention of hurting anyone else. But in our SUV-Bicyclist-Stop Sign scenario, the results are the same (one person goes home, the other goes to the hospital), and in this case the infraction is noted specifically to assign blame/responsibility. Regardless of which one runs the stop sign the results are the same so my argument is that the penalty should be the same. It may seem patently unfair to charge a cyclist who ends up in the ICU with an infraction that landed him there (which may just be what some here are subconsciously arguing to a certain degree), but guess what - it happens all the time. Cheers - Jonathan   Date: 19 Jul 2007 20:59:18 From: Bob Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 18, 3:58 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote in part: > I don't think the punishment > fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped at > $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines for cars > & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. I'm curious as to why you think different fines for the same infraction are okay or even preferred. Fines are imposed for violating traffic laws to discourage violations and traffic law is written to enhance road user safety and ensure smooth orderly traffic flow. If I run a stop sign on a bike I'm decreasing road safety even more than I'd be doing if I ran the same stop sign in a car simply because without that steel cage around me the likelihood of serious injury or death increases in the event of a crash. I'm also interfering with a smooth orderly traffic flow just as much on a bike as in a car so I don't quite understand your reasoning. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 20 Jul 2007 04:11:46 From: max Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1184903958.970456.46580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote: > If I > run a stop sign on a bike I'm decreasing road safety even more than > I'd be doing if I ran the same stop sign in a car simply because > without that steel cage around me the likelihood of serious injury or > death increases in the event of a crash. I your analysis is completely self-centered; recalculate for X != violator. .max       Date: 20 Jul 2007 07:21:30 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket max wrote: > In article <1184903958.970456.46580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote: > >> If I >> run a stop sign on a bike I'm decreasing road safety even more than >> I'd be doing if I ran the same stop sign in a car simply because >> without that steel cage around me the likelihood of serious injury or >> death increases in the event of a crash. I > > your analysis is completely self-centered; recalculate for X != violator. > > .max That's about it, I know it gets into deep philosophical waters, but I don't think laws should protect people from their own behavior. Of course, that question only arises if you assume there's a significant increase in risk (to the "perp"). As I've said, I favor allowing cyclists to treat reds as stops, stops as yields, and allow right on red without stopping. My rationale for this is that signals are more about convenience than safety and I don't believe that these changes would inconvenience motorists greatly while they would greatly improve cyclist convenience. I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent walking, and I think the fines should be proportional.         Date: 20 Jul 2007 10:03:51 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent > operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as > negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. > From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to > negligent walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. Oddly, even the insurance industry understands this and charges *much* less to insure an oh-so-dangerous motorcycle compared to an oh-so-safe SUV. The fact bicycles are vehicles that don't even require insurance is evidence that their "social threat" is essentially zero. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org         Date: 20 Jul 2007 13:04:40 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... > max wrote: > > I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent > operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as > negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From > that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent > walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. Greetings, Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between the fines. Over 20+ years in fire/rescue has taught me one incontrovertible fact of life when it comes to auto vs. bicycle (or auto vs. pedestrian) accidents: The car always wins. I have never, EVER seen an accident involving a vehicle vs. bicycle where the bicyclist walks away unscathed with "paint-only" damage to his bike but the driver ends up in ICU with his vehicle totalled. You can argue till the cows come home that bicyclists should be able to treat traffic control devices differently than motorized vehicles for the sake of convenience, but the facts - and reality - are dead against you (pardon the pun!). Cheers - Jonathan           Date: 20 Jul 2007 10:18:29 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <Ip2oi.8682$rR.6464@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote: > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between > the fines. Wow, it's like you not only didn't read the OP, but you don't even follow the logic in your own post. By your own analysis, *all* the danger is from the SUV to the cyclist, so *all* the fines should be against the SUV driver. Do you not understand what the word proportional means? > Over 20+ years in fire/rescue has taught me one incontrovertible fact of > life when it comes to auto vs. bicycle (or auto vs. pedestrian) accidents: > The car always wins. Duh! That's the whole point of this discussion. It is blindingly obvious to everyone that the two vehicles don't carry the same kinetic energy . . . everyone but the lawmakers, it seems. By your logic, the car also always wins against pedestrians, so do you also believe that there is no proportional difference there? Should they, too, be given nothing but a mandatory false dichotomy to obey or be "dead" wrong? -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org           Date: 20 Jul 2007 10:27:29 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Jonathan wrote: > "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... >> max wrote: >> >> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent >> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as >> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From >> that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent >> walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. > > Greetings, > > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between > the fines. Well, you snipped the first part of my response which says I don't believe laws are intended to protect people from their own behavior, only the consequences to innocent parties. The ultimate example of this is that suicide isn't a crime. If you try and fail, you aren't charged with attempted murder. There is a possibility that a cyclist violating a ROW rule could cause a serious accident and injure innocent parties, but so could a pedestrian, (arguably) with somewhat equal likelihood. The two scenarios you sketch both result in the cyclist dead, one at his own fault, the other at the motorist's. I think the liability issue is very different in each case. In neither case was the motorist harmed or very likely to be harmed. Traffic signals are primarily for efficiency rather than safety. They clearly indicate which stream of traffic has ROW so that ROW doesn't have to be continuously negotiated. In the case of a stop sign, for instance, I'd argue that a cyclist who's dumb enough to ride through one into oncoming traffic is dumb enough to ride into oncoming traffic after a complete stop. This is not an uncommon sight. The efficiency gains of stop signs are lost on cyclists, since they have to expend so much energy getting back up to speed. Given the fact that (most) bicycles dynamically balance, a full stop requires a (partial perhaps) dismount, a further inconvenience that (most) motorists aren't subject to. For a right turning cyclist, moving from a lane share on one road to a lane share on another intersecting road doesn't cause any inconvenience to traffic if done properly. In many intersections there's enough of a shoulder to do this without even entering the travel lane proper. For those reasons, I think it makes sense to have cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs and not require full stop on right turning. I mean that in the sense I think the ROW laws should be modified that way, if a cyclist wants to ride that way in spite of the current laws, that's up to them, I don't have an ethical problem with it as I think it follows the spirit of the law.           Date: 20 Jul 2007 14:14:42 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On 2007-07-20, Jonathan <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote: > > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. You missed another: 3. Bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and hits a pedestrian. Both are severely injured or die. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)             Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:39:08 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: > On 2007-07-20, Jonathan <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a >> stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: >> 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. >> The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. >> 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb >> SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > You missed another: > > 3. Bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and hits a pedestrian. Both are > severely injured or die. I would rather by hit by a cyclist as a pedestrian than hit a pedestrian while riding an upright bicycle. Hitting someone even half your size can pitch you over the handlebars and bend your fork, while they are relatively unharmed (been there, done that). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 20 Jul 2007 08:25:29 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Jonathan who? wrote: > "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... >> max wrote: >> >> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent >> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as >> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. From >> that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to negligent >> walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. > > Greetings, > > Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with a > stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: > 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the bicyclist. > The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the 4500-lb > SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. > > There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two > worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference between > the fines. > > Over 20+ years in fire/rescue has taught me one incontrovertible fact of > life when it comes to auto vs. bicycle (or auto vs. pedestrian) accidents: > The car always wins. I have never, EVER seen an accident involving a > vehicle vs. bicycle where the bicyclist walks away unscathed with > "paint-only" damage to his bike but the driver ends up in ICU with his > vehicle totalled. You can argue till the cows come home that bicyclists > should be able to treat traffic control devices differently than motorized > vehicles for the sake of convenience, but the facts - and reality - are dead > against you (pardon the pun!). Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the scene uninjured. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:54:15 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > Jonathan who? wrote: >> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:MbydnUdJeZokBz3bnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com... >>> max wrote: >>> >>> I think punishment should fit the crime, I don't think that negligent >>> operation of a bicycle presents the same level of social threat as >>> negligent operation of a gasoline tanker, or even a 4,500lb vehicle. >>> From that liability POV, negligent cycling is roughly equivalent to >>> negligent walking, and I think the fines should be proportional. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Untrue. Using your example and circumstances (auto vs. bycyclist with >> a stop sign) there are two distinct worse-case possibilities: >> 1. The 4500-lb SUV cruises through the stop sign and hits the >> bicyclist. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. >> 2. The bicyclist cruises through the stop sign and is hit by the >> 4500-lb SUV. The bicyclist is severely injured or dies. >> >> There is no "proportional" difference between the results of these two >> worst-case scenarios, so there should be no proportional difference >> between the fines. >> >> Over 20+ years in fire/rescue has taught me one incontrovertible fact >> of life when it comes to auto vs. bicycle (or auto vs. pedestrian) >> accidents: The car always wins. I have never, EVER seen an accident >> involving a vehicle vs. bicycle where the bicyclist walks away >> unscathed with "paint-only" damage to his bike but the driver ends up >> in ICU with his vehicle totalled. You can argue till the cows come >> home that bicyclists should be able to treat traffic control devices >> differently than motorized vehicles for the sake of convenience, but >> the facts - and reality - are dead against you (pardon the pun!). > > Alternative hypothetical scenario: Bicyclist runs stop sign or red > light. Operator of motor vehicle with the right-of-way swerves to miss > cyclist, and is injured or killed by a collision with another motor > vehicle or fixed object. Bicyclist that caused the accident leaves the > scene uninjured. > Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and we lose Cleveland.               Date: 21 Jul 2007 03:35:49 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:8oGdnTmhoO8ZIz3bnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com... > Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste > carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and > we lose Cleveland. I'm not seeing the downside to this scenario... Cheers - Jonathan               Date: 20 Jul 2007 14:11:38 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On 2007-07-20, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > > Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste > carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and > we lose Cleveland. That warrants a reward, not a fine. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)                 Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:36:47 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: > On 2007-07-20, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Alternate-alternate: cyclist careens into the path of a nuclear waste >> carrying truck, truck swerves into a chemical factory which blows up and >> we lose Cleveland. > > That warrants a reward, not a fine. Wake for the Mistake by the Lake! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 18 Jul 2007 22:30:59 From: limeylew@gmail.com Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 17, 12:28 pm, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > ~ > > From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 > > On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three bicyclists > pedaling through Washington County earlier this month rolled past a stop > sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by the police chief. > > Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than > $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set off > a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and the > big-city bicycle bloggers. > > What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon after > Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a driver with a > suspended license who faced only fines for traffic violations, such as > careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone. They were also > annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief > Scott Whitehead. > Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains > story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate in > the cycling community over the next five days. > The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after > O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and police > officers. > > "It seems like there's always a big outrage," Maus said. > > Whitehead himself entered the online fray at one point. > > Since he came to North Plains four years ago, Whitehead says he has > spent a small part of his eight-hour days at the busy intersection of > Northwest Glencoe and West Union roads, just north of U.S. 26. > > The intersection sits on a popular cycling route that draws dozens of > cyclists on weekdays and hundreds on weekends, said Whitehead, who > claims to ticket anybody who blasts through the four-way stop. He said > he probably writes five to seven cycling citations a month during the > peak of cycling season -- and five to seven year-round for vehicles. > > By comparison, police in nearby Hillsboro -- which, at a population of > 85,000, is roughly 50 times larger than North Plains -- issued a single > citation to a cyclist for rolling through a traffic signal this past > year, although they stop and warn several people a month, said Lt. > Michael Rouches. The fine for that offense in Hillsboro is $242. North > Plains charges $335. > > Whitehead said he ignores the vast majority of cyclists, including those > "coming through the stop sign at a couple miles an hour, and it's > obvious they're looking and making sure nobody is coming." > > But that's exactly how Tim Schauer, 39, said his group traveled through > the stop sign July 5. The three, who pleaded not guilty to their > citations, will be in North Plains Municipal Court on Aug. 6. > > Whitehead "sort of took the opportunity to tongue-lash us a bit," > Schauer said. Whitehead mentioned recent bicycle fatalities and made it > seem "like I'm a contributing factor to this really tragic accident," > said Schauer, pointing out that O'Donnell was not violating any traffic > laws when he was killed in June on a rural road north of Cornelius. > > Schauer later described the North Plains incident on the Oregon Bicycle > Racing Association e-mail list: "During the rest of our ride to the > coast, we discussed amongst ourselves the $1,005 in fines we were levied > with compared to the $1,100 in fines levied against the driver who hit > and killed the cyclist recently. It truly is a strange world sometimes." > > After Schauer went online, a few readers, such as Evan MacKenzie of > Baker City, e-mailed Whitehead privately. MacKenzie, a recent Hillsboro > resident, criticized Whitehead for "punishing cyclists" and wrote: "The > area around North Plains is a wonderful place to ride, but not if the > local police practice a skewed 'Dukes of Hazzard' observance of the > law." > > Whitehead acknowledges fanning the flames with his response, in which he > called MacKenzie a "complete idiot." MacKenzie decided to forward the > exchange to BikePortland.org, where it prompted a flurry of hostility > toward Whitehead -- as well as an effort to restore calm and defend the > chief. > > "While that is certainly a steep fine, the truth of the matter is this," > wrote "Dabby" on July 9. "It is illegal to not stop at a stop sign. > Until it is legal to yield at a stop sign, if you do, and get caught, > you deserve the ticket. . . . Pay the fine." > > Whitehead himself wrote: "There is nothing worse than responding to a > > crash with injuries or death. You think it's tough on you as a bike > community? It's tough on us when we have to make a death notification > and then second guess if we could have prevented such a tragic event." > > That hasn't happened in North Plains recently, where the only bicycle > crash in the past few years was the fault of a truck driver turning in > front of a cyclist who had the right of way, Whitehead said. It was not > fatal. > > MacKenzie thinks some cycling time could help Whitehead better > understand cyclists. "I invite you to go on a ride with me and see what > it's like. I'll come all the way back from Baker City and ride with > you," he wrote back after Whitehead's initial response. > > But Whitehead said he doesn't plan to join MacKenzie on the road, > particularly if it's West Union Road, which he says is too dangerous for > cyclists. And Whitehead doesn't think he could keep up for long. "It's a > lot of endurance. I don't have that much energy to do what these folks > do." > > ~ I think that ticketing cyclists for not complying with the law is a GREAT idea. The purpose of traffic laws is, largely, to make everyone play by the SAME rules. This makes peoples action more predictable, which makes conditions on the road safer for EVERYONE. After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad reputation. Lewis. *****     Date: 19 Jul 2007 09:36:36 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket limeylew@gmail.com wrote: > After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists > doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad > reputation. I hate to see old guys on bikes, it ruins our image, too.       Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:55:01 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <br6dnc7Nv9t_9QLbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > limeylew@gmail.com wrote: > > > After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists > > doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad > > reputation. > > I hate to see old guys on bikes, it ruins our image, too. No kidding. A few weeks back I had this old gray-haired coot pass me . . . on a fixie . . . with fenders! It was all I could do to draft him for a couple miles until the end of my ride. What a jerk! :-) -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org       Date: 19 Jul 2007 07:16:47 From: Scratch Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole wrote: > limeylew@gmail.com wrote: > >> After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists >> doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad >> reputation. > > I hate to see old guys on bikes, it ruins our image, too. it's already ruined with your pencil thin legs and fanny packs LOL :)         Date: 19 Jul 2007 10:39:28 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Scratch wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> limeylew@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists >>> doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad >>> reputation. >> >> I hate to see old guys on bikes, it ruins our image, too. > > > it's already ruined with your pencil thin legs and fanny packs > > > LOL :) I agree, old guys are always wearing fanny packs, and crew socks!     Date: 18 Jul 2007 21:55:49 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket [cross-posts snipped] limeylew@gmail.com aka "Barefoot Lewis" wrote: > ... > I think that ticketing cyclists for not complying with the law is a > GREAT idea. > > The purpose of traffic laws is, largely, to make everyone play by the > SAME rules. This makes peoples action more predictable, which makes > conditions on the road safer for EVERYONE. > > After I retired, I went 'car-free' and I hate to see 'idiot' cyclists > doing 'stupid' things in traffic that give all cyclists a bad > reputation. Now you went and pissed off Zoot Katz and Peter Cole! What did you have to do that for? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 17 Jul 2007 21:34:33 From: aeiouy Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... > ~ > > From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 > > On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three bicyclists > pedaling through Washington County earlier this month rolled past a stop > sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by the police chief. > > Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than > $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set off > a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and the > big-city bicycle bloggers. > > What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon after > Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a driver with a > suspended license who faced only fines for traffic violations, such as > careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone. They were also > annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief > Scott Whitehead. > Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains > story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate in > the cycling community over the next five days. > The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after > O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and police > officers. > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to put a foot on the ground. The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a couple of years.     Date: 18 Jul 2007 10:59:17 From: KarlS Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:34:33 -1000, aeiouy wrote: > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd > realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to put a > foot on the ground. I have read quite a bit about this (I live in Oregon) since the initial news story. It seems as though the cop WAS allowing the bicyclists to roll through the stop sign so they would not have to put their feet on the ground. The three who were arrested RAN the stop sign. This, of course, does not make for a good news story.     Date: 18 Jul 2007 13:52:44 From: Bert Hyman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket aeiouy@vowels.com (aeiouy) wrote in news:469dc76b$0$4708$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike > they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without > having to put a foot on the ground. Most of the time, someone driving a car can safely roll through a stop sign too. But that's not what the law says, is it? -- Bert Hyman       Date: 18 Jul 2007 06:47:43 From: aeiouy Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com > wrote in message news:Xns99715A5221AA5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1... > aeiouy@vowels.com (aeiouy) wrote in > news:469dc76b$0$4708$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > >> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >> they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >> having to put a foot on the ground. > > Most of the time, someone driving a car can safely roll through a > stop sign too. Neither you or I were there so we don't know how these guys went through the stop but yes you can come to a stop on a bike without having to put a foot down. To take it one step further; in your opinion, if a jogger came to that intersection and didn't stop jogging for 1 second before continuing would they be guilt of jay walking? > > But that's not what the law says, is it? > > -- > Bert Hyman         Date: 18 Jul 2007 14:20:04 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket aeiouy wrote: > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message > news:Xns99715A5221AA5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1... >> aeiouy@vowels.com (aeiouy) wrote in >> news:469dc76b$0$4708$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >>> they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >>> having to put a foot on the ground. >> Most of the time, someone driving a car can safely roll through a >> stop sign too. > Neither you or I were there so we don't know how these guys went through > the stop but yes you can come to a stop on a bike without having to put > a foot down. To take it one step further; in your opinion, if a jogger > came to that intersection and didn't stop jogging for 1 second before > continuing would they be guilt of jay walking? Stop signs specifically do not apply to pedestrians. Stop signs specifically do apply to bicycles. At non-signalized intersections, a pedestrian's sole obligation is to not enter the roadway and move into the "path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." Bikes, however, are legally obligated to observe stop signs the same as any other vehicle. Let's try and stay on focus, here. Peace and justice,         Date: 18 Jul 2007 10:57:16 From: Scratch Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket aeiouy wrote: > > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message > news:Xns99715A5221AA5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1... >> aeiouy@vowels.com (aeiouy) wrote in >> news:469dc76b$0$4708$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >>> they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >>> having to put a foot on the ground. >> >> Most of the time, someone driving a car can safely roll through a >> stop sign too. > > Neither you or I were there so we don't know how these guys went through > the stop but yes you can come to a stop on a bike without having to put > a foot down. To take it one step further; in your opinion, if a jogger > came to that intersection and didn't stop jogging for 1 second before > continuing would they be guilt of jay walking? > >> >> But that's not what the law says, is it? >> >> -- >> Bert Hyman         Date: 18 Jul 2007 16:52:06 From: Bert Hyman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket aeiouy@vowels.com (aeiouy) wrote in news:469e442c$0$4735$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > To take it one step further; in your opinion, if a jogger came to > that intersection and didn't stop jogging for 1 second before > continuing would they be guilt of jay walking? My opinion has no bearing on this, and I have no idea what the law has to say about it, if anything. -- Bert Hyman     Date: 18 Jul 2007 06:45:39 From: Scratch Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket aeiouy wrote: > > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >> ~ >> >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >> >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three bicyclists >> pedaling through Washington County earlier this month rolled past a stop >> sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by the police chief. >> >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than >> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set off >> a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and the >> big-city bicycle bloggers. >> >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon after >> Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a driver with a >> suspended license who faced only fines for traffic violations, such as >> careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone. They were also >> annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief >> Scott Whitehead. >> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains >> story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate in >> the cycling community over the next five days. >> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after >> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and police >> officers. >> > > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd > realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to put > a foot on the ground. > > The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a couple > of years. so you think traffic laws should not have to be obeyed by bicyclist's on public roads? Where is it written that they get that right!     Date: 18 Jul 2007 08:43:41 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com > wrote: > > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >> ~ >> >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >> >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three >> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month >> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by >> the police chief. >> >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than >> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set >> off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and >> the big-city bicycle bloggers. >> >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon >> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a >> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic >> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing >> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from >> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. >> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains >> story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate >> in the cycling community over the next five days. >> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after >> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and >> police officers. >> > > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd > realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to > put a foot on the ground. If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just like the big kids. > > The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a > couple of years. Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. > >       Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:08:40 From: Harold Burton Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: > > > > > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... > >> ~ > >> > >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 > >> > >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three > >> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month > >> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by > >> the police chief. > >> > >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than > >> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set > >> off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and > >> the big-city bicycle bloggers. > >> > >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon > >> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a > >> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic > >> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing > >> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from > >> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. > >> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains > >> story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate > >> in the cycling community over the next five days. > >> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after > >> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and > >> police officers. > >> > > > > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd > > realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to > > put a foot on the ground. > > If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > like the big kids. Except the "big kids" don't.         Date: 21 Jul 2007 02:14:35 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com > wrote: > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message >> > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >> >> ~ >> >> >> >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >> >> >> >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three >> >> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month >> >> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over >> >> by the police chief. >> >> >> >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than >> >> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what >> >> set off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town >> >> cop and the big-city bicycle bloggers. >> >> >> >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon >> >> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a >> >> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic >> >> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing >> >> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from >> >> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. >> >> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North >> >> Plains story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated >> >> online debate in the cycling community over the next five days. >> >> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after >> >> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and >> >> police officers. >> >> >> > >> > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >> > they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >> > having to put a foot on the ground. >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > > Except the "big kids" don't. > And they pay the $335.00 when and if they are caught. Simple.           Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:21:46 From: Harold Burton Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <f_doi.67$zJ4.30@trndny03 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > >> > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... > >> >> ~ > >> >> > >> >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 > >> >> > >> >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three > >> >> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month > >> >> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over > >> >> by the police chief. > >> >> > >> >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than > >> >> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what > >> >> set off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town > >> >> cop and the big-city bicycle bloggers. > >> >> > >> >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon > >> >> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a > >> >> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic > >> >> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing > >> >> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from > >> >> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. > >> >> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North > >> >> Plains story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated > >> >> online debate in the cycling community over the next five days. > >> >> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after > >> >> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and > >> >> police officers. > >> >> > >> > > >> > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike > >> > they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without > >> > having to put a foot on the ground. > >> > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > >> like the big kids. > > > > > > Except the "big kids" don't. > > > > And they pay the $335.00 when and if they are caught. Simple. Except enforcement isn't uniform. What percentage of people who exceed the speed limit by, say, 10% and are observed doing by police it are ticketed? My guess, virtually none. That's a law that bicylists don't violate and cars do. So why enforce a law that bicyclists violate but not one that cars violate? A bit of selective enforcement there, eh?             Date: 21 Jul 2007 03:59:31 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com > wrote: > In article <f_doi.67$zJ4.30@trndny03>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, >> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >> >> >> ~ >> >> >> >> >> >> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >> >> >> >> >> >> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three >> >> >> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this >> >> >> month rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were >> >> >> pulled over by the police chief. >> >> >> >> >> >> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more >> >> >> than $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them >> >> >> or what set off a flurry of snippy online messages between the >> >> >> small-town cop and the big-city bicycle bloggers. >> >> >> >> >> >> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming >> >> >> soon after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and >> >> >> killed by a driver with a suspended license who faced only >> >> >> fines for traffic violations, such as careless driving and >> >> >> passing in a no-passing zone. They were also annoyed by what >> >> >> they called "a lecture" from North Plains Police Chief Scott >> >> >> Whitehead. Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up >> >> >> the North Plains story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off >> >> >> a heated online debate in the cycling community over the next >> >> >> five days. The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that >> >> >> erupted after O'Donnell's death and remain heated among >> >> >> drivers, cyclists and police officers. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >> >> > they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign >> >> > without having to put a foot on the ground. >> >> >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws >> >> just like the big kids. >> > >> > >> > Except the "big kids" don't. >> > >> >> And they pay the $335.00 when and if they are caught. Simple. > > Except enforcement isn't uniform. Imagine That!       Date: 18 Jul 2007 12:02:34 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >> >> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd >> realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to >> put a foot on the ground. > > If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > like the big kids. Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. Now granted, that may not be what the previous poster was talking about. His paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. >> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >> couple of years. > > Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might be right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more serious than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to more serious charges then? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Time Lords rule! Everything. Forever.         Date: 19 Jul 2007 00:33:30 From: lein Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in news:an42n4-8pf.ln1 @curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org: > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >>> >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd >>> realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to >>> put a foot on the ground. >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a > complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm > not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. > > Now granted, that may not be what the previous poster was talking about. > His paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. > >>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>> couple of years. >> >> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. > > He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might be > right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more serious > than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. > > Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or > daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to > more serious charges then? > I don't get it, are all bicyclist now suppost to get a pass because a bicyclist was run over earlier? If they ran the stop sign, they deserved their ticket. No ifs, ands, or buts.           Date: 19 Jul 2007 09:34:54 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket lein <lein > wrote: > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in news:an42n4-8pf.ln1 >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >>> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws >>> just like the big kids. >> >> Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a >> complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm >> not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. >> >> Now granted, that may not be what the previous poster was talking > about. >> His paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. >> >>>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>>> couple of years. >>> >>> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of >>> it. >> >> He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might > be >> right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more > serious >> than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. >> >> Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or >> daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic > to >> more serious charges then? > > I don't get it, are all bicyclist now suppost to get a pass because a > bicyclist was run over earlier? If they ran the stop sign, they > deserved their ticket. No ifs, ands, or buts. You might want to try responding to a different post. I never argued any differently. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)         Date: 18 Jul 2007 21:50:53 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket [cross-posts snipped] Dane Buson wrote: > > He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might be > right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more serious > than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. > > Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or > daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to > more serious charges then? How much do I collect from the "wrongful death" lawsuit? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 18 Jul 2007 20:21:54 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >>> >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >>> they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >>> having to put a foot on the ground. >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a > complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm > not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. Good. I've done the same. Apparently the three who were fined did not do that. > > Now granted, that may not be what the previous poster was talking > about. His paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. > >>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>> couple of years. >> >> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. > > He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might > be right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more > serious than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. > > Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or > daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic > to more serious charges then? I'd be sympathetic to charges anytime. But I don't know all of the circumstances. And I don't think anyone else posting here does. If the cyclist had run a stop sign, would you still be sympathetic to serious charges? >           Date: 29 Jul 2007 15:58:06 From: Steven Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Jul 29, 1:26 pm, Paris' 1000 std's <stupidc...@whore.com > wrote: > In article <1dSdnbOqQ9SXmD_bnZ2dnUVZ_vbin...@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > > > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Perhaps, but you'll never get people to obey stupid laws, that's why so > > >> many cyclists run red lights/stop signs. > > > > Then keep running them. Perhaps the gene pool will get lucky. > > > Thanks for the warmth. > > Cyclists are ASSHOLES. They ride down the MAJOR downtown street where I > live in a group of about 30 people , taking up the WHOLE FUCKING LANE. > Now as I understand it there is a minimum speed limit and they ARE NOT > OBEYING IT. What are cars supposed to do?? Car 911 on the pieces of > shit that are taking up the whole car lane? Tail gate them constantly > honking their horn until they get out of the way? We know you've been vomiting extra hard lately because you use meth on top of the virulent cooties. Still, it's fair to mention that you will love what manslaughter or felony charges will to for your driving life if you don't mind your fucking beeswax and stop being a SPAMMY.           Date: 18 Jul 2007 13:31:32 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a >> complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm >> not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. > > Good. I've done the same. Apparently the three who were fined did not do > that. Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and stop their whining. >>>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>>> couple of years. >>> >>> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. >> >> He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might >> be right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more >> serious than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. >> >> Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or >> daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic >> to more serious charges then? > > I'd be sympathetic to charges anytime. But I don't know all of the > circumstances. And I don't think anyone else posting here does. If the > cyclist had run a stop sign, would you still be sympathetic to serious > charges? Yes. Because the driver was driving on a suspended license. There is no justification for him being behind the wheel in the first place. Now, would it be a mitigating circumstance if he had right of way and the cyclist did the proverbial 'blowing the sign' right into his path? Yes, I'd say so. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Did you know that a cow was MURDERED to make that jacket ?" "Yes. I didn't think there were any witnesses, so I guess I'll have to kill you too." - Jake Johansen.             Date: 18 Jul 2007 21:11:12 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >> >>> Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a >>> complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. >>> I'm not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, >>> stop. >> >> Good. I've done the same. Apparently the three who were fined did not >> do that. > > Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and > stop their whining. There is an agenda. Just as we have radical environmentalists, we also have radical cyclists.             Date: 18 Jul 2007 16:58:02 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson wrote: > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >> >>> Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a >>> complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm >>> not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. >> Good. I've done the same. Apparently the three who were fined did not do >> that. > > Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and stop > their whining. > I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense.               Date: 18 Jul 2007 21:14:10 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a >>>> complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. >>>> I'm not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, >>>> stop. >>> Good. I've done the same. Apparently the three who were fined did >>> not do that. >> >> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and >> stop their whining. >> > > I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment > fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped > at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines for > cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. > Why? It is the same offense.                 Date: 19 Jul 2007 09:33:33 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Lobby Dosser wrote: > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Dane Buson wrote: >>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and >>> stop their whining. >>> >> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment >> fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped >> at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines for >> cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. >> > > Why? It is the same offense. Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a par with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a fundamental principle of law.                   Date: 19 Jul 2007 22:58:48 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Dane Buson wrote: > >>>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and >>>> stop their whining. >>>> >>> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment >>> fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped >>> at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines >>> for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. >>> >> >> Why? It is the same offense. > > Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a par > with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a > fundamental principle of law. > The offenses are Identical.                     Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:09:43 From: Harold Burton Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <I0Sni.7794$Gx5.6640@trndny02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Dane Buson wrote: > > > >>>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and > >>>> stop their whining. > >>>> > >>> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment > >>> fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped > >>> at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines > >>> for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. > >>> > >> > >> Why? It is the same offense. > > > > Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a par > > with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a > > fundamental principle of law. > > > > The offenses are Identical. Only to fools.                       Date: 21 Jul 2007 02:39:25 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com > wrote: > In article <I0Sni.7794$Gx5.6640@trndny02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dane Buson wrote: >> > >> >>>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets >> >>>> and stop their whining. >> >>>> >> >>> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the >> >>> punishment fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving >> >>> violations are capped at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. >> >>> Sounds like same fines for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no >> >>> sense. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Why? It is the same offense. >> > >> > Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a >> > par with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a >> > fundamental principle of law. >> > >> >> The offenses are Identical. > > Only to fools. > Tell you what. Bike on out to North Plains and run the stop sign a few times. Be sure to tell the Chief he's a fool when you get your ticket.                     Date: 19 Jul 2007 19:54:53 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Lobby Dosser wrote: > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets and >>>>> stop their whining. >>>>> >>>> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the punishment >>>> fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving violations are capped >>>> at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. Sounds like same fines >>>> for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no sense. >>>> >>> Why? It is the same offense. >> Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a par >> with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a >> fundamental principle of law. >> > > The offenses are Identical. It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently.                       Date: 19 Jul 2007 23:59:33 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>>> Fair enough. Personally I think they should take their tickets >>>>>> and stop their whining. >>>>>> >>>>> I guess they'll have to eventually, but I don't think the >>>>> punishment fits the crime. Here in MA, the cycling moving >>>>> violations are capped at $20, which seems a lot more reasonable. >>>>> Sounds like same fines for cars & bikes in OR, which makes no >>>>> sense. >>>>> >>>> Why? It is the same offense. >>> Very different liabilities. Cycling ROW violations are more on a par >>> with jaywalking. The punishment should fit the crime, that's a >>> fundamental principle of law. >>> >> >> The offenses are Identical. > > It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. > IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign.                         Date: 20 Jul 2007 10:23:49 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <FVSni.13838$LH5.5733@trnddc02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> > >> The offenses are Identical. > > > > It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. > > IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign. That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles have identical operation is sheer ignorance. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org                           Date: 21 Jul 2007 04:05:07 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message news:droleary.usenet-458AA2.10234920072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > > That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action > is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. > Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles > have identical operation is sheer ignorance. > > -- > My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, > googlegroups.com, > heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org This is a spurious argument put forth by someone who obviously doesn't have much experience driving certain large vehicles. Many times a fully-loaded large truck will have a shorter stopping distance than when empty because the tires do not lose traction in a sudden stop (due to the weight on the axles from the load). You'd be quite surprised just how quickly a loaded sand hauler or semi can stop when full than when empty and the tires skid in the same stopping conditions. Knowing this reverses your (il)logic because in certain situations a heavier truck will have more kenetic energy but be safer because of improved stopping ability over an empty truck that has less kenetic energy but will skid. And the difference between types of vehicles makes your logic even more irrational. There is a good chance that a pick-up towing a 5th wheel camper weighing in at 15,000-lbs won't be able to stop as quickly or as safely as a loaded semi at 45,000-lbs just for the simple difference in vehicle design. Or do you want to add yet another level of complexity based on vehicle capacity/ability to your momentum/kinetic energy-based fine schedule? Basing fines on anything other than "Run a stop sign, get a ticket" does seem pretty silly in the final analysis. Cheers - Jonathan                             Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:43:49 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <TBfoi.9285$tj6.2034@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote: > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message > news:droleary.usenet-458AA2.10234920072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > > > > That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action > > is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. > > Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles > > have identical operation is sheer ignorance. > > > > -- > > My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, > > googlegroups.com, > > heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org > > This is a spurious argument put forth by someone who obviously doesn't have > much experience driving certain large vehicles. Many times a fully-loaded > large truck will have a shorter stopping distance than when empty because > the tires do not lose traction in a sudden stop (due to the weight on the > axles from the load). You'd be quite surprised just how quickly a loaded > sand hauler or semi can stop when full than when empty and the tires skid in > the same stopping conditions. Knowing this reverses your (il)logic because > in certain situations a heavier truck will have more kenetic energy but be > safer because of improved stopping ability over an empty truck that has less > kenetic energy but will skid. > > And the difference between types of vehicles makes your logic even more > irrational. There is a good chance that a pick-up towing a 5th wheel camper > weighing in at 15,000-lbs won't be able to stop as quickly or as safely as a > loaded semi at 45,000-lbs just for the simple difference in vehicle design. > Or do you want to add yet another level of complexity based on vehicle > capacity/ability to your momentum/kinetic energy-based fine schedule? > > Basing fines on anything other than "Run a stop sign, get a ticket" does > seem pretty silly in the final analysis. You lack an understanding of kinetic energy, particularly *when* it comes into play, so I suggest you return to school before posting again. It is all the more puzzling when you end your tirade on stopping by realizing it's the *NOT* stopping that gets you a ticket. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org                               Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:13:44 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message news:droleary.usenet-9AC331.09434921072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > > You lack an understanding of kinetic energy, particularly *when* it > comes into play, so I suggest you return to school before posting again. > It is all the more puzzling when you end your tirade on stopping by > realizing it's the *NOT* stopping that gets you a ticket. > > -- > My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, > googlegroups.com, > heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org Wow, I didn't think I'd have to dumb this down any more, but since you're pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation I'll lend you a helping hand (see, I can be condescending as well). Question: Why is trying to configure a fine structure based on (of all things) momentum and/or kinetic energy as you endorse just not practical? Answer: Because there are a myriad of other factors involved in safety and ability and circumstance that would affect the situation as well, and neither kinetic energy nor momentum is an absolute measure of how "bad" or how "good" any given situation will turn out. That wasn't too hard now, was it? Sorry if I went about making that argument "the long way" - maybe it's my penchant for enjoying discussion and debate that got in my way in the first place. Sometimes I tend to want to make my point by citing examples first and not last. The fact is, you'd have much better luck arguing something as simple as "time of day" and "day of the week" for a sliding scale of traffic fines because a simple review of FD and EMS run logs (which would be available for enourmous areas and possibly decades of time) could with great certainty determine the most dangerous times and adjust the fines accordingly. On the flip side, there exists practically NO viable historical information or long-term data that would indicate the applicablity of such things as momentum and/or kinetic energy in the outcome or severity of an incident (other than your "gut" feeling that it should). My "gut" feeling tells me that one of the main reasons why the fines are the same for all vehicles for identical infrations in most cases is that because we like to believe at some level that all are being treated equally - albeit not always fairly - under the law. Try to keep smiling when you get the ticket! Cheers - Jonathan                                 Date: 22 Jul 2007 11:38:41 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <sCJoi.10839$zA4.2003@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com > wrote: > Wow, I didn't think I'd have to dumb this down any more, but since you're > pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation I'll lend you a helping hand > (see, I can be condescending as well). Condescend all you want. I'm able to look beyond any *perceived* (or even intended) offense to see the point you're making. > Question: Why is trying to configure a fine structure based on (of all > things) momentum and/or kinetic energy as you endorse just not practical? > Answer: Because there are a myriad of other factors involved in safety and > ability and circumstance that would affect the situation as well, and > neither kinetic energy nor momentum is an absolute measure of how "bad" or > how "good" any given situation will turn out. You are being disingenuous, because you have already stated: > Basing fines on anything other than "Run a stop sign, get a ticket" does > seem pretty silly in the final analysis. So are not enough factors taken into account, or would any additional factors be silly? Or are you attempting to forward a religious fallacy that we must all simply do what a book says because the issue might be a bit complicated? Perhaps you should get your own position straight before trying to dumb it down. > That wasn't too hard now, was it? Sorry if I went about making that > argument "the long way" - maybe it's my penchant for enjoying discussion and > debate that got in my way in the first place. Sometimes I tend to want to > make my point by citing examples first and not last. Cite all the examples you like, but be aware that they should support your point. Stopping distances *do not* do that when the discussion is stop signs. That might seem like a paradox, but the reality is that the law is about what is happening *at* the sign. > The fact is, you'd have much better luck arguing something as simple as > "time of day" and "day of the week" for a sliding scale of traffic fines > because a simple review of FD and EMS run logs (which would be available for > enourmous areas and possibly decades of time) could with great certainty > determine the most dangerous times and adjust the fines accordingly. On the > flip side, there exists practically NO viable historical information or > long-term data that would indicate the applicablity of such things as > momentum and/or kinetic energy in the outcome or severity of an incident > (other than your "gut" feeling that it should). Again you are disingenuous, because it is not *my* gut feeling that buys ad time on TV stations broadcasting the message that "speed kills". I'm also not putting up signs limiting speed or ticketing people when *that* doesn't happen. You also engage in multiple logical fallacies. Your first is the straw man in raising alternative fine scales; that is at best a tangent, and I might even agree with it in a discussion about its own merit. Your second is assuming that because you have no record of something that it either favors your point or does not favor mine. So, again, you present an overall message that is muddled. > My "gut" feeling tells me that one of the main reasons why the fines are the > same for all vehicles for identical infrations in most cases is that because > we like to believe at some level that all are being treated equally - albeit > not always fairly - under the law. Then the law is wrong. The police are part of a system of checks and balances that can keep law makers from abusing their power. When they instead use it as the basis for their own abuse it damages the whole foundation of the country. > Try to keep smiling when you get the ticket! If you ever wonder why trust in public servants erodes, look in a mirror. Smug enforcement of unjust laws is what true Americans rebel against. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org                                 Date: 22 Jul 2007 09:56:46 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Jonathan who? wrote: > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message > news:droleary.usenet-9AC331.09434921072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... >> You lack an understanding of kinetic energy, particularly *when* it >> comes into play, so I suggest you return to school before posting again. >> It is all the more puzzling when you end your tirade on stopping by >> realizing it's the *NOT* stopping that gets you a ticket. >> >> -- >> My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, >> googlegroups.com, >> heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org > > Wow, I didn't think I'd have to dumb this down any more, but since you're > pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation I'll lend you a helping hand > (see, I can be condescending as well). > > Question: Why is trying to configure a fine structure based on (of all > things) momentum and/or kinetic energy as you endorse just not practical? > Answer: Because there are a myriad of other factors involved in safety and > ability and circumstance that would affect the situation as well, and > neither kinetic energy nor momentum is an absolute measure of how "bad" or > how "good" any given situation will turn out. > > That wasn't too hard now, was it? Sorry if I went about making that > argument "the long way" - maybe it's my penchant for enjoying discussion and > debate that got in my way in the first place. Sometimes I tend to want to > make my point by citing examples first and not last. > > The fact is, you'd have much better luck arguing something as simple as > "time of day" and "day of the week" for a sliding scale of traffic fines > because a simple review of FD and EMS run logs (which would be available for > enourmous areas and possibly decades of time) could with great certainty > determine the most dangerous times and adjust the fines accordingly. On the > flip side, there exists practically NO viable historical information or > long-term data that would indicate the applicablity of such things as > momentum and/or kinetic energy in the outcome or severity of an incident > (other than your "gut" feeling that it should). > > My "gut" feeling tells me that one of the main reasons why the fines are the > same for all vehicles for identical infrations in most cases is that because > we like to believe at some level that all are being treated equally - albeit > not always fairly - under the law.... Equal punishment would be fines that are a percentage of total financial wealth, not fixed monetary amounts. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 20 Jul 2007 22:10:34 From: Harold Burton Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <droleary.usenet-458AA2.10234920072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <FVSni.13838$LH5.5733@trnddc02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > > >> > > >> The offenses are Identical. > > > > > > It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. > > > > IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign. > > That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the action > is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was carried. > Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that both vehicles > have identical operation is sheer ignorance. Amen.                           Date: 20 Jul 2007 21:02:58 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <FVSni.13838$LH5.5733@trnddc02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >> >> >> The offenses are Identical. >> > >> > It must be so, they are both capital offenses apparently. >> >> IIRC, $300+ fine for not stopping at a Stop Sign. > > That's an arbitrary fine, which is irrelevant. How offensive the > action is would be defined by how much momentum or kinetic energy was > carried. Since you seem unwilling to do the math, your belief that > both vehicles have identical operation is sheer ignorance. > You seem to have a complete ignorance of how traffic laws are written. The math is irrelevant.         Date: 18 Jul 2007 12:10:48 From: Scratch Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dane Buson wrote: > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd >>> realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to >>> put a foot on the ground. >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > Err, how does that violate a traffic law? I can (and do) come to a > complete stop on my bike every day without putting my foot down. I'm > not talking a 'California' or rolling stop. A real, zero mph, stop. > > Now granted, that may not be what the previous poster was talking about. > His paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. > >>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>> couple of years. >> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. > > He killed someone while driving under a suspended license. You might be > right in that legally he can't be prosecuted for something more serious > than a traffic violation. If so, that's a sad thing to hear. > > Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or > daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to > more serious charges then? > Ask honu. He will tell you that dead is just dead nothing to get all het up about.           Date: 18 Jul 2007 14:03:42 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:10:48 -0700, Scratch <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut > wrote: >Dane Buson wrote: >> Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or >> daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to >> more serious charges then? >> >Ask honu. He will tell you that dead is just dead nothing to get all het >up about. It's OK to get het up about the death of a son or daughter. I've never suggested otherwise. They will, however, still be Just Dead -- and there's precious little to be done about that. The vengeance, personal or legal, is not about to bring him/her back or ameliorate the grief.           Date: 18 Jul 2007 13:01:14 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Scratch <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: >> >> Imagine, if instead of a random cyclist, they had killed your son or >> daughter, or your elderly grandmother. Would you be more sympathetic to >> more serious charges then? > > Ask honu. He will tell you that dead is just dead nothing to get all het > up about. Honu? Is that Xenu's younger brother or something? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "The more I work with computers, the better and better subsistence farming looks as an alternative." -- David Cameron Staples in asr       Date: 18 Jul 2007 06:57:30 From: aeiouy Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote in message news:1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05... > "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: > >> >> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message >> news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >>> ~ >>> >>> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >>> >>> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three >>> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month >>> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over by >>> the police chief. >>> >>> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than >>> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what set >>> off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town cop and >>> the big-city bicycle bloggers. >>> >>> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon >>> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a >>> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic >>> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing >>> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from >>> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. >>> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North Plains >>> story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated online debate >>> in the cycling community over the next five days. >>> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after >>> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and >>> police officers. >>> >> >> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike they'd >> realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without having to >> put a foot on the ground. > > If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > like the big kids. You never go 5 miles over the speed limit? > >> >> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >> couple of years. > > Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. From what was posted here I know enough to know that a) he was driving under a suspended license b) he was passing in a no-passing zone c) his actions killed a bicyclist. With that information I know he should haev been charged with involuntary manslauther at least. > >> >> >         Date: 18 Jul 2007 20:16:50 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com > wrote: > > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05... >> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message >>> news:17759-469CFC20-1292@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net... >>>> ~ >>>> >>>> From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 17, 2007 >>>> >>>> On a 100-mile ride from Portland to the Oregon coast, three >>>> bicyclists pedaling through Washington County earlier this month >>>> rolled past a stop sign in tiny North Plains and were pulled over >>>> by the police chief. >>>> >>>> Three citations later, the trio owed the municipal court more than >>>> $1,000 in total fines. But that wasn't what steamed them or what >>>> set off a flurry of snippy online messages between the small-town >>>> cop and the big-city bicycle bloggers. >>>> >>>> What aggravated them was the context of the incident, coming soon >>>> after Aloha cyclist Timothy O'Donnell was struck and killed by a >>>> driver with a suspended license who faced only fines for traffic >>>> violations, such as careless driving and passing in a no-passing >>>> zone. They were also annoyed by what they called "a lecture" from >>>> North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. >>>> Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, picked up the North >>>> Plains story for his bicycle blog July 6 and set off a heated >>>> online debate in the cycling community over the next five days. >>>> The comments reflected long-simmering tensions that erupted after >>>> O'Donnell's death and remain heated among drivers, cyclists and >>>> police officers. >>>> >>> >>> What a dickheaded cop. If any of them spent any time on a bike >>> they'd realize that you can safely go through a stop sign without >>> having to put a foot on the ground. >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > You never go 5 miles over the speed limit? Frequently. Sometimes more than that. If I get caught, I smile and pay the fine. I Don't call the cop a 'dickhead'. > >> >>> >>> The other driver sounds like he should have gotten a minimum of a >>> couple of years. >> >> Maybe. Depends on the situation. Apparently You don't know all of it. > From what was posted here I know enough to know that a) he was driving > under a suspended license b) he was passing in a no-passing zone c) > his actions killed a bicyclist. With that information I know he > should haev been charged with involuntary manslauther at least. With that information you have no idea whether he should be charged with manslaughter or not. > >> >>> >>> >> > >       Date: 18 Jul 2007 08:18:34 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > like the big kids. If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. Here's a fun physics follow-up: if a 5000lb SUV rolls through a stop sign at 1mph, how fast could a 250lb cyclist do it while carrying the same momentum? Or is it asking too much for the laws of the government to follow from the laws of physics? -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org         Date: 21 Jul 2007 01:39:30 From: Dennis Ferguson Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket On 2007-07-18, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* > obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. Here's a fun > physics follow-up: if a 5000lb SUV rolls through a stop sign at 1mph, > how fast could a 250lb cyclist do it while carrying the same momentum? > Or is it asking too much for the laws of the government to follow from > the laws of physics? 20 mph. Out of all the numbers you could compute for this comparison, however, momentum seems to me to be by far the least relevant to anything. A number which might be more relevant is kinetic energy. To match the SUV at 1 mph the bicycle would need to be going about 4.5 mph. Another might be the time someone else has to notice the vehicle is entering the intersection so they can avoid a collision. As this would seem to be proportional to velocity, it might be that to match the SUV at 1 mph the bicycle would need to be travelling the same 1 mph. A third might be a comparison of the minimum stopping distance of the vehicles, to avoid a collision should someone step out in front. To match the SUV at 1 mph, the bicycle would probably need to be going 0.625 mph. There are lots of numbers. Which ones should the government pay attention to? Dennis Ferguson           Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:24:23 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <slrnfa2ouh.89.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com >, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net > wrote: > A number which might be more relevant is kinetic energy. To match > the SUV at 1 mph the bicycle would need to be going about 4.5 mph. I'm comfortable going with kinetic energy, but then you'd have to be more precise with a velocity measurement since you end up working with the square. I simply guessed at 1mph as a typical rolling stop, and I don't know of any stats based on actual samples. Regardless, the vehicles are unequal in many respects, which is why it is questionable when fines are doled out as if they were equal. > Another might be the time someone else has to notice the vehicle > is entering the intersection so they can avoid a collision. As this > would seem to be proportional to velocity, it might be that to > match the SUV at 1 mph the bicycle would need to be travelling the > same 1 mph. For reaction time to be a factor, things would already have to have gone wrong. That is to say, vehicles should be aware of their path *long* before coming to an intersection. Another factor worth noting that the motor vehicle typically starts from a velocity that is higher than a cyclist's, so their reaction time has some built-in limitations if you consider them both blowing through a stop sign at full speed. > A third might be a comparison of the minimum stopping distance > of the vehicles, to avoid a collision should someone step out > in front. To match the SUV at 1 mph, the bicycle would probably > need to be going 0.625 mph. Putting everything into the perspective of stopping is a mistake. It is natural to think that way for cars because that's about the best thing they do. Take a motorcycle safety course some time and you'll get a better perspective on how sometimes even accelerating is the safer option. Getting back to your example, you really have to factor in how much smaller a target the bicycle is and how much more maneuverable it is. I'd need to see the stats that show bicycle stopping distance is a major factor in accidents. > There are lots of numbers. Which ones should the government pay > attention to? The ones that make the most sense. As it is now, everything seems rather arbitrary, or at least falls far short of taking into account *any* of the factors being discussed here. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org           Date: 21 Jul 2007 02:10:25 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net > wrote: > > There are lots of numbers. Which ones should the government pay > attention to? $335.00 for running the stop sign.         Date: 18 Jul 2007 20:13:21 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just >> like the big kids. > > If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* > obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. What part of "STOP" don't you understand? > Here's a fun > physics follow-up: if a 5000lb SUV rolls through a stop sign at 1mph, Called a California stop in Oregon. And Not Legal. > how fast could a 250lb cyclist do it while carrying the same momentum? > Or is it asking too much for the laws of the government to follow from > the laws of physics? Is it asking too much for cyclists to obey traffic laws? >           Date: 19 Jul 2007 08:02:17 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <Bvuni.6617$Gx5.2400@trndny02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com> wrote: > > > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws just > >> like the big kids. > > > > If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* > > obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. > > What part of "STOP" don't you understand? What part of "a brain is more useful than a metal sheet with paint on it" don't you understand? > > Here's a fun > > physics follow-up: if a 5000lb SUV rolls through a stop sign at 1mph, > > Called a California stop in Oregon. And Not Legal. Laws change at whim, so how about we instead have a discussion of what the *right* thing to do is? > > how fast could a 250lb cyclist do it while carrying the same momentum? > > Or is it asking too much for the laws of the government to follow from > > the laws of physics? > > Is it asking too much for cyclists to obey traffic laws? Yes, since it appears traffic laws are too much for the general population to obey. You might like to blame the people, but it is really the laws that are at fault. The laws puts your "STOP" signs everywhere, but the people know most of them should read "YIELD". The people know this regardless of the vehicle they use. That's why I attempted to move this to a reasonable discussion of physics, which is apparently beyond you. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org             Date: 19 Jul 2007 22:57:18 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > In article <Bvuni.6617$Gx5.2400@trndny02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, >> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> > >> >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws >> >> just like the big kids. >> > >> > If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* >> > obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. >> >> What part of "STOP" don't you understand? > > What part of "a brain is more useful than a metal sheet with paint on > it" don't you understand? How about the part that's paying a $300+ fine? > >> > Here's a fun >> > physics follow-up: if a 5000lb SUV rolls through a stop sign at >> > 1mph, >> >> Called a California stop in Oregon. And Not Legal. > > Laws change at whim, so how about we instead have a discussion of what > the *right* thing to do is? Stop. Make a habit of it and you won't run one that gets you killed. Defensive cycling. > >> > how fast could a 250lb cyclist do it while carrying the same >> > momentum? Or is it asking too much for the laws of the government >> > to follow from the laws of physics? >> >> Is it asking too much for cyclists to obey traffic laws? > > Yes, since it appears traffic laws are too much for the general > population to obey. You might like to blame the people, but it is > really the laws that are at fault. The laws puts your "STOP" signs > everywhere, but the people know most of them should read "YIELD". The > people know this regardless of the vehicle they use. That's why I > attempted to move this to a reasonable discussion of physics, which is > apparently beyond you. No, it is not. But the law and the reasons for the law are apparently beyond you. >               Date: 20 Jul 2007 09:50:04 From: Doc O'Leary Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket In article <i%Rni.7793$Gx5.5239@trndny02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com> wrote: > > > In article <Bvuni.6617$Gx5.2400@trndny02>, > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> What part of "STOP" don't you understand? > > > > What part of "a brain is more useful than a metal sheet with paint on > > it" don't you understand? > > How about the part that's paying a $300+ fine? Is that *really* the main reason you choose to act lawfully? If so, you are both morally bankrupt and a sucker at the government's coffers. Again, I'm interested in discussion what is *right*, not what has had an arbitrary cost attached to it. > >> Called a California stop in Oregon. And Not Legal. > > > > Laws change at whim, so how about we instead have a discussion of what > > the *right* thing to do is? > > Stop. Make a habit of it and you won't run one that gets you killed. > Defensive cycling. I already ride defensively, and that includes stopping at most stop signs. I don't always stop because sometimes it confuses the people in cars and they start waving at me as if I'm on fire. I also don't usually stop crossing T intersections (especially when at the top of the T) if there is no entering traffic. Just another case of where using my brain makes me a bad person, I guess. Also, you raise the issue of fatalities without backing it up. Please supply the statistics that show a significant number of bicyclist deaths are the result of their not coming to a complete stop at stop signs. It'd be nice if you really had an interest in safety, but I'm guessing you still don't care about anything other than your wallet. > >> Is it asking too much for cyclists to obey traffic laws? > > > > Yes, since it appears traffic laws are too much for the general > > population to obey. You might like to blame the people, but it is > > really the laws that are at fault. The laws puts your "STOP" signs > > everywhere, but the people know most of them should read "YIELD". The > > people know this regardless of the vehicle they use. That's why I > > attempted to move this to a reasonable discussion of physics, which is > > apparently beyond you. > > No, it is not. But the law and the reasons for the law are apparently > beyond you. Yes, they are. Please explain them to me. I am willing to explain the physics of momentum and kinetic energy to you if you don't understand why I've taken the position that the law is unfairly harsh to cyclists. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org                 Date: 29 Jul 2007 12:30:17 From: Paris' 1000 std's Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket > > > > Stop. Make a habit of it and you won't run one that gets you killed. > > Defensive cycling. > > I already ride defensively, and that includes stopping at most stop > signs. I don't always stop because sometimes it confuses the people in > cars and they start waving at me as if I'm on fire. I also don't > usually stop crossing T intersections (especially when at the top of the > T) if there is no entering traffic. Just another case of where using my > brain makes me a bad person, I guess. Are you one of the motherfucking assholes who ride in downtown street taking up the whole side of the street way under the speed limit fucking up traffic? What are cars supposed to do? Keep calling 911 on their fucked up asses till 10 cop cars come and give a bunch of tickets? Tailgate and honk the shit out of cyclists till they turn off they road?                 Date: 20 Jul 2007 21:00:43 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com > wrote: > Also, you raise the issue of fatalities without backing it up. Please > supply the statistics that show a significant number of bicyclist > deaths are the result of their not coming to a complete stop at stop > signs. It'd be nice if you really had an interest in safety, but I'm > guessing you still don't care about anything other than your wallet. I lived in Corvallis (home of Oregon State University) for a number of years. I've witnessed cyclists blowing through lights and stop signs. I've seen cars wrecked while swerving to avoid said cyclists. And I've seen cyclists scraped off the pavement. No, I don't have statistics. You do whatever the hell you want. Just be prepared to pay the fine, suffer the injuries and maybe get sued.         Date: 18 Jul 2007 13:48:36 From: Bert Hyman Subject: Re: Run a Stop Sign, Get a Ticket droleary.usenet@3q2007.subsume.com (Doc O'Leary) wrote in news:droleary.usenet-E3733C.08183418072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.ne t: > In article <1pkni.1080$I76.401@trnddc05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >> If you want to ride in traffic, you get to obey the traffic laws >> just like the big kids. > > If they rolled through a stop sign, it sounds like they *precisely* > obeyed the the traffic laws just like the big kids. How so, if the law requires a full stop? -- Bert Hyman