Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Hadley, Mass. poised to settle federal case with bicycle advocate; agrees to pay... (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/924875-hadley-mass-poised-settle-federal-case-bicycle-advocate-agrees-pay.html)

rydabent 12-07-13 08:22 AM

Just one overridding point comes to mind in this case. It clearly says it was a 4 lane road. How can traffic be "impeaded" when all the drivers have to do is pass on the inside lane on the left?

rydabent 12-07-13 08:27 AM

One other thing occurs to me, Damon actually did cyclist everywhere a service. Other towns with pigheaded police that dont know the law will take notice.

Spld cyclist 12-07-13 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 16308714)
I've since learned to avoid such confrontations and so far have managed to cope with authoritative ignorance with some finesse.

Should I fail to do so and it results in a citation or arrest I will most certainly turn to the wisdom of the self appointed experts in the A&S sub-forum of BF for help and for your assistance in particular. :thumb:

We're here for you man! :hug:

mr_bill 12-07-13 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjdm (Post 16307970)
You're not offering logic. You're offering assertions and ignorance.

Here's an example (2, really) of cycling on the shoulder not being in accordance with traffic law:

http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2...riding-in.html

He wasn't cited for traveling on the shoulder. He was cited for "failure to exercise due care when passing a standing or slow-moving vehicle proceeding in the same direction."

And contrary to the blogger's assertion that cycling on the shoulder is illegal in New Jersey, cyclists on the shoulder simply "do not have special privileges."

And lets get to the "privileges" of cyclists in New Jersey.

Far more concern in Polzo v County of Essex, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that roads are for cars, trucks, and motorcycles, not bicycles. So a road hazard that is a hazard to bicycles, but not to cars, trucks or motorcycles, well, the commonwealth and its subdivisions is simply not liable. (Oddly, it seems that the only place the Commonwealth of New Jersey has responsibility to cyclists is designated bike lanes. Not even MUPs.)

-mr. bill

benjdm 12-07-13 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_bill (Post 16309871)
Far more concern in Polzo v County of Essex, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that roads are for cars, trucks, and motorcycles, not bicycles. So a road hazard that is a hazard to bicycles, but not to cars, trucks or motorcycles, well, the commonwealth and its subdivisions is simply not liable. (Oddly, it seems that the only place the Commonwealth of New Jersey has responsibility to cyclists is designated bike lanes. Not even MUPs.)

-mr. bill

No they didn't. They ruled that a person riding a bicycle traveling on the shoulder in New Jersey is not given the privileges and duties of a vehicle operator, because they are not operating on the roadway. If the cyclist was on the roadway NJ would have a responsibility.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jers...2/a-74-10.html
Quote:

3. In deciding whether the County was on notice of a dangerous condition on the roadway s shoulder, the Court considers basic principles of law governing roadways. The Motor Vehicle Code provides that a roadway is the portion of highway generally used for vehicular travel; the shoulder borders the roadway and is for emergency use; and vehicles are not bicycles. Bicyclists are directed to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. While they may be inclined to ride on the shoulder, they have no special privileges if they do

4. ...Plaintiff offered no evidence that the shoulder was routinely used as a bicycle lane, which might implicate a different standard of care. The generally intended purpose of the shoulder is for emergency use.

5. Even if the County had notice that the depression was a dangerous condition, a reasonable jury could not find that the failure to repair it was palpably unreasonable...A public entity might reasonably give lesser priority to the shoulder of a roadway, which is not intended for ordinary travel.
Relevant portions of the NJ laws:

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-...ic-regulation/
Quote:

39:1-1 Words and phrases defined.
...
"Driver" means the rider or driver of a horse, bicycle or motorcycle or the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, unless otherwise specified.
...
"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways, collectively.
Quote:

39:4-14.1 Rights, duties of bicycle riders on roadways, exemptions.

16. a. Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by chapter four of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes and all supplements thereto except as to those provisions thereof which by their nature can have no application.

Regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any highway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles subject to those exceptions stated herein.

b.A law enforcement officer operating a bicycle while in the performance of his duty, and who is engaged in the apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, a violation shall not be subject to the provisions of this section.

L.1951,c.23,s.16; amended 1999, c.283.

39:4-14.2. Keeping to right; exceptions; single file
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that any person may move to the left under any of the following situations:

(a) to make a left turn from a left-turn lane or pocket;

(b) to avoid debris, drains or other hazardous conditions that make it impracticable to ride at the right side of the roadway;

(c) to pass a slower moving vehicle;

(d) to occupy any available lane when traveling at the same speed as other traffic;

(e) to travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded.

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded, but otherwise shall ride in single file except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
If the person riding the bicycle had been riding on the roadway, he / she would have been "granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle." But they weren't; they were on a shoulder.

rydabent 12-08-13 07:35 PM

It occurs to me that after the dust up in Blackhawk Co, cities and their B'crats would have learned their lesson. But it seems that the bike haters always have a few members on the city councils.

A question-------------------are there any states that dont allow bicycles all the rights of auto traffic?

Brian Ratliff 12-09-13 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16301427)
One thing is certain. The lawyer came out ahead.

Yup, and taxpayers got royally screwed, all because one guy wanted to hog a lane on a bike going 15mph.

Chris516 12-09-13 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 16313001)
It occurs to me that after the dust up in Blackhawk Co, cities and their B'crats would have learned their lesson. But it seems that the bike haters always have a few members on the city councils.

A question-------------------are there any states that dont allow bicycles all the rights of auto traffic?

That is subjective. For instance in Maryland, the state says no, but gives the counties the right to disagree. The counties turn around and allow the cities the right to agree with the county, or the state. The city nearest to my town, agrees' with the state. While the next city south of me, agrees' with the county.

But that is pursuant to riding a bike on the sidewalk. As far as the traffic laws in specific, that I am aware of, the same applies in all jurisdictions(except for the sidewalk).

benjdm 12-09-13 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16313568)
Yup, and taxpayers got royally screwed, all because one guy wanted to hog a lane on a bike going 15mph.

No, taxpayers got screwed because the police harassed one cyclist who was following the law instead of enforcing the actual traffic laws.

CB HI 12-09-13 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16313568)
Yup, and taxpayers got royally screwed, all because one guy wanted to hog a lane on a bike going 15mph.

You really do hate cyclists that do not ride like you.

njkayaker 12-09-13 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjdm (Post 16308594)
If only you had been there to present that incredibly compelling argument to the NJ Supreme Court! Alas, they only read the laws as written.

:rolleyes: The court didn't say you couldn't ride in the shoulder. They only said the rider can't expect that the state is going to maintain it so it is suitable for riding. The purpose of the shoulder isn't for travelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjdm (Post 16308594)
:rolleyes: We've argued this before, and I have shown you many instances where the left lane is referring to the opposing lane, including the NYS Driver's manual chapter on passing.

And you still are incorrect. It's "right HAND" lane that the law talks about. The opposing lane is never called the "left HAND" lane. And "left" isn't used to refer to the opposing lane in the law. And it's a "Driving manual", not the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjdm (Post 16308594)
Also court cases where vehicles in the right lane were found not guilty of violating SMV law even when they didn't use the shoulder

???? I've said repeatedly that drivers and cyclists are not required to use the shoulder. Why are you using a case that supports that against that? Bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjdm (Post 16307970)
You're not offering logic. You're offering assertions and ignorance.


Here's an example (2, really) of cycling on the shoulder not being in accordance with traffic law:


http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2...riding-in.html


:rolleyes: No.


In the Batista case, the cyclist would (likely) have gotten the ticket even if he had been riding in the roadway. In the other case, there wasn't any determination that you could not choose to ride in the shoulder. It only determined that you could not expect that the state was required to make it suitable for riding.

rydabent 12-09-13 07:56 AM

brian

The reason that the taxpayers got screwed is because of the cop and the administration that the taxpayers voted in. In effect the taxpayers screw themselves by bad decisions on who to vote for. Live and learn and try thinking for a change.

Brian Ratliff 12-09-13 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16313637)
You really do hate cyclists that do not ride like you.

Careful now, I might have to report you...

Brian Ratliff 12-09-13 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 16313991)
brian

The reason that the taxpayers got screwed is because of the cop and the administration that the taxpayers voted in. In effect the taxpayers screw themselves by bad decisions on who to vote for. Live and learn and try thinking for a change.

I saw this guy's videos. I've ridden a lot of places. There was no need to be doing what he was doing.

CB HI 12-09-13 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16314130)
I saw this guy's videos. I've ridden a lot of places. There was no need to be doing what he was doing.

Was he breaking the law?

Answer - no.

You just disapprove of his riding even though it is legal.

Brian Ratliff 12-10-13 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16316650)
Was he breaking the law?

Answer - no.

You just disapprove of his riding even though it is legal.

Yup, I suppose I do (don't look too hard in the mirror though). People who ride like that make it so drivers allow me less leeway when I take the lane in truly difficult situations.

You talked before about the so-called "FRAP" laws... well, rude cyclists such as this guy are the reason why the general public is not persuaded that it is in everyone's best interest to fix these laws. So, thanks for that...

Seriously though, yes, there are legalities, but there are also politics regarding riding on the road, particularly if the road is unimproved for cycling. Vehicular cycling is fundamentally a negotiation between us and vehicles which are bigger, faster, and less maneuverable than us. Distracting drivers by taking up a shared facility without good reason when better alternatives exist is not really in anyone's best interest.

You folks would learn a lot by coming to Portland. Not the outer suburbs, and not the city core, but the surrounding old suburbs where there are a ton of cyclists, all making use of both cycling facilities and vehicular cycling techniques.

CB HI 12-10-13 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16316966)
Yup, I suppose I do (don't look too hard in the mirror though). People who ride like that make it so drivers allow me less leeway when I take the lane in truly difficult situations.

You talked before about the so-called "FRAP" laws... well, rude cyclists such as this guy are the reason why the general public is not persuaded that it is in everyone's best interest to fix these laws. So, thanks for that...

So now you jump to the blame other cyclists game, for motorist direct actions, how cute.

Brian Ratliff 12-10-13 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16316971)
So now you jump to the blame other cyclists game, for motorist direct actions, how cute.

There were actually no "direct actions" by motorists in this instance. I am simply blaming the cyclist here. He was out to make a statement. I don't agree with his statement, especially as he purports to represent me. Not everything that is technically legal is right.

CB HI 12-10-13 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16317017)
There were actually no "direct actions" by motorists in this instance. I am simply blaming the cyclist here. He was out to make a statement. I don't agree with his statement, especially as he purports to represent me. Not everything that is technically legal is right.

He was legally riding a bicycle and it was the police that decided they would make a statement. The police were too stupid to leave a legal cyclist alone.

rydabent 12-10-13 08:23 AM

CB +1

That is the whole truth in a nut shell.

Brian Ratliff 12-10-13 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16317065)
He was legally riding a bicycle and it was the police that decided they would make a statement. The police were too stupid to leave a legal cyclist alone.

Maybe so (about the police), god knows there aren't many people in this incident that come out looking good. Dude is no friend to cyclists' rights. My guess is someone in the Mass. legislature will start bringing up a FRAP law if you guys make a lot of noise about this. You'd better wish that nobody follows in this dude's footprints. Three guys riding like this will affect hundreds of people a day; a FRAP law will have very little effort achieving majority support. In turn, that will affect any effort in Oregon to overturn ours.

phoebeisis 12-10-13 09:26 AM

The rider is certainly a jerk- fanatic-no one anyone would care to spend time with.
Thje cops were overly aggressive fools who didn't like their authority questioned
The TAXPAYERS- footed the bill.
$27,000 PLUS whatever the city county spent to pursue this BS-BETTING MORE than the $27,000 that he spent
Plus whatever it costs to run these various courts
So figure maybe $75,000-$100,000 for this BS
All paid for by taxpayers-a full years pay benefits for someone
AH+ AGGRESSIVE FOOLS =we foot the bill FOR $100,000

CB HI 12-10-13 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff (Post 16317362)
Maybe so (about the police), god knows there aren't many people in this incident that come out looking good. Dude is no friend to cyclists' rights. My guess is someone in the Mass. legislature will start bringing up a FRAP law if you guys make a lot of noise about this. You'd better wish that nobody follows in this dude's footprints. Three guys riding like this will affect hundreds of people a day; a FRAP law will have very little effort achieving majority support. In turn, that will affect any effort in Oregon to overturn ours.

Hogwash. The Mass. legislature will not do a thing and none of this will impact OR. The cyclist winning the Motion for Summary Judgement and forcing a settlement which ends police harassment is a good thing. Only in a few cyclist minds here, is that a bad thing.

CB HI 12-10-13 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16317514)
The rider is certainly a jerk- fanatic-no one anyone would care to spend time with.
Thje cops were overly aggressive fools who didn't like their authority questioned
The TAXPAYERS- footed the bill.
$27,000 PLUS whatever the city county spent to pursue this BS-BETTING MORE than the $27,000 that he spent
Plus whatever it costs to run these various courts
So figure maybe $75,000-$100,000 for this BS
All paid for by taxpayers-a full years pay benefits for someone
AH+ AGGRESSIVE FOOLS =we foot the bill FOR $100,000

Sounds like the tax payers should fire some of their stupid police and prosecutors for costing the city $100,000 by harassing a cyclist.

phoebeisis 12-11-13 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16320016)
Sounds like the tax payers should fire some of their stupid police and prosecutors for costing the city $100,000 by harassing a cyclist.

Yes-someone with sense and authority- needed to tell them to back off.
Court more or less did-but $100,000 too late.
Guessing a little town like that-not a lot of serious crime-so cops apparently had lots of time on their hands.

Most places-cops would warn him-suggest he do it differently-drive off and forget about it.Sure as heck not going to waste time on BS like that.
It would be one of those self correcting situations. If what he was doing was sooooo dangerous-he would eventually pay a price.
If not-who cares.
The bike rider was baiting them-and they swallowed it whole. Just dumb


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:50 AM.