Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Delaware Cyclist Ticketed for Riding His Bike (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/932080-delaware-cyclist-ticketed-riding-his-bike.html)

joejack951 01-30-14 10:14 AM

Delaware Cyclist Ticketed for Riding His Bike
 
Have you ever been ticketed…just for riding your bike?

Joe Jackson has. [Again ;)]

http://www.bikede.org/2014/01/27/del...ding-his-bike/

genec 01-30-14 10:25 AM

The solution of course is that the state needs to post a Cyclists May Use Full Lane sign on these substandard width lanes... to inform motorists that this is a substandard lane.

We seem to need to tell motorists "everything," and this is no exception.

njkayaker 01-30-14 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16453205)
The solution of course is that the state needs to post a Cyclists May Use Full Lane sign on these substandard width lanes... to inform motorists that this is a substandard lane.

A cop (presumably) wrote the ticket. I doubt that the cop would have paid attention to any signs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16453205)
We seem to need to tell motorists "everything," and this is no exception.

There's some indication that too many signs causes people to ignore them.

Standalone 01-30-14 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453370)
A cop (presumably) wrote the ticket. I doubt that the cop would have paid attention to any signs.

Why? Cops mess up all the time. It should happen less, of course, but that's what courts are there for.

A sign would have helped educate the officer.

I grew up riding N. Delaware. My high school wasn't too far from there. The area north of Wilmington is quite well off and insular. The officer might have seen her or himself as ticketing the "riffraff..." It's kind of a "Fancy SUV's only" area...

njkayaker 01-30-14 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16453611)
Why? Cops mess up all the time. It should happen less, of course, but that's what courts are there for.

This sort of ticketing is a very rare event (as far as we know). It doesn't seem reasonable, at all, to expect that a few more signs would keep cops from "messing up" or change the rates of these rare tickets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16453611)
A sign would have helped educate the officer.

Dubious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16453611)
The officer might have seen her or himself as ticketing the "riffraff..." It's kind of a "Fancy SUV's only" area...

And a few signs wouldn't change that.

If there are signs on substandard roads that say "may use full lane", might people presume that cyclist are never allowed to take the lane on wide roads?

joejack951 01-30-14 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453370)
A cop (presumably) wrote the ticket. I doubt that the cop would have paid attention to any signs.

There's some indication that too many signs causes people to ignore them.

My first ticket was on a road with "Share The Road" signs. Delaware has since written the use of "BMUFL" signs into their MUTCD (and removed "Share The Road") but I have yet to see one posted. I don't believe anything will change based solely on different signage.

noglider 01-30-14 03:58 PM

Joe, I hope this is dismissed without much trouble to you. I hope this whole thing results in more people being aware that it is not an offense to ride the way you (and I and many others) do.

In general, how do you feel traffic treats you in your area? In general, I don't get a lot of hostility.

-=(8)=- 01-30-14 05:05 PM

You are to be commended on constantly fighting this stuff. :beer:

Standalone 01-30-14 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joejack951 (Post 16454281)
My first ticket was on a road with "Share The Road" signs. Delaware has since written the use of "BMUFL" signs into their MUTCD (and removed "Share The Road") but I have yet to see one posted. I don't believe anything will change based solely on different signage.

I don't see BMUFL signs as area-specific so much as they are useful in generally educating drivers and cyclists.

It is so backwards for you guys to argue that somehow LESS knowledge imparted to road users is BETTER...

By the way, this thread led to an enjoyable internet time-wasting of google maps powered exploration of my old hometown environs. Used to drive my little Subaru wagon all over those parts-- but I'd mainly get pulled over for having grateful dead stickers! :)

Standalone 01-30-14 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453826)
This sort of ticketing is a very rare event (as far as we know). It doesn't seem reasonable, at all, to expect that a few more signs would keep cops from "messing up" or change the rates of these rare tickets.

why? do police pay no mind at all to other signs? speed limits?

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453826)
Dubious.

And you think it would have no chance whatsoever of informing law enforcement or even helping to change attitudes in general??

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453826)
And a few signs wouldn't change that.

If there are signs on substandard roads that say "may use full lane", might people presume that cyclist are never allowed to take the lane on wide roads?

I suppose signs do nothing whatsoever? Why have any? Sometimes people cross striping on roads, too. Shall we stop painting roads?

njkayaker 01-30-14 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16454973)
why? do police pay no mind at all to other signs? speed limits?

:rolleyes: Cops give out, what?, 10,000 speeding tickets for every ticket to a bicyclist. Probably, very, very few speeding tickets are given out after referencing a speed limit sign. Obviously, it's exactly the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16454973)
And you think it would have no chance whatsoever of informing law enforcement or even helping to change attitudes in general??

:rolleyes::rolleyes: We are talking about informing cops. It seems very likely that the any "informing" is very small. Whether they "help" generally is different discussion (not anything that I'm commenting about).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16454973)
I suppose signs do nothing whatsoever? Why have any? Sometimes people cross striping on roads, too. Shall we stop painting roads?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pedaleur 01-30-14 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16453826)

If there are signs on substandard roads that say "may use full lane", might people presume that cyclist are never allowed to take the lane on wide roads?

I'm starting to get down on BMUFL signs, because drivers seem to think cyclists are not allowed to take the lane on narrow roads where there's no sign.

Standalone 01-31-14 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16455287)
:rolleyes: Cops give out, what?, 10,000 speeding tickets for every ticket to a bicyclist. Probably, very, very few speeding tickets are given out after referencing a speed limit sign. Obviously, it's exactly the same.


:rolleyes::rolleyes: We are talking about informing cops. It seems very likely that the any "informing" is very small. Whether they "help" generally is different discussion (not anything that I'm commenting about).


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You've addressed none of my challenges to your logic.

Are you trying to say that because bicycle traffic tickets are few, that proves something???

You have used the word "seems" in both of your posted replies to me. Whether or not it "seems" one way or another to you means no more than this: you have a different opinion, no matter how many "sarcastic" smilies you put.... :)


To address your points directly, your point about the number of tickets shows that BMUFL signs are likely to have a *disproportionately LARGE* impact on tickets. The mathematics are the same as penny stocks.

Your second point, in bold, that "Hey we're talking about coppers here" is simply your low opinion of the police. The proportion of high and low quality policing is about proportional to the quality of performance in the general workforce, IME. They should be held to a higher standard. Or... wait for it... *educated.*

Standalone 01-31-14 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedaleur (Post 16455387)
I'm starting to get down on BMUFL signs, because drivers seem to think cyclists are not allowed to take the lane on narrow roads where there's no sign.


What's your evidence of this?That may be, or may not be. I do not think it is likely. I have never seen such a sign on a particularly narrow road.

Anyway, there's that word again. "seems."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill S.
If it be, why "seems" it so particular with thee?

I know not "seems."


rydabent 01-31-14 08:31 AM

Im glad Bike Deleware is assisting in this case. It should be an easy win.

Further the court should inform the local police that ignorance of the law is no excuse to write illegal tickets.

Also------------FRAP can only be determined by the cycist on any stretch of road, because conditions vary.

njkayaker 01-31-14 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedaleur (Post 16455387)
I'm starting to get down on BMUFL signs, because drivers seem to think cyclists are not allowed to take the lane on narrow roads where there's no sign.

It's kind of a confusing message. Though, some people here think they have magical properties!!

njkayaker 01-31-14 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16455964)
To address your points directly, your point about the number of tickets shows that BMUFL signs are likely to have a *disproportionately LARGE* impact on tickets. The mathematics are the same as penny stocks.

More false equivalence. They aren't "penny stocks". There is no reason to expect tickets would work like them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16455964)
Your second point, in bold, that "Hey we're talking about coppers here" is simply your low opinion of the police. The proportion of high and low quality policing is about proportional to the quality of performance in the general workforce, IME. They should be held to a higher standard. Or... wait for it... *educated.*

You really like putting words in other people's mouths. The cop in this case didn't know the law.

Cops give out lots of speedning tickets (one might expect that they'd get good at that).

They very rarely give out bicycling tickets (and, appear not to always understand the bicycling law). It isn't reasonable to expect that a few extra signs which they just might not see or even be looking for will change how they issue those very-rare bicycle tickets.

Standalone 01-31-14 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16456217)
More false equivalence. They aren't "penny stocks". There is no reason to expect tickets would work like them.


You really like putting words in other people's mouths. The cop in this case didn't know the law.

Cops give out lots of speedning tickets (one might expect that they'd get good at that).

They very rarely give out bicycling tickets (and, appear not to always understand the bicycling law). It isn't reasonable to expect that a few extra signs which they just might not see or even be looking for will change how they issue those very-rare bicycle tickets.

Not false equivalence. I put an analogy to help you understand the mathematics. Here's an oversimplified version for you.

Year one-nine

2 wrongful bicycle tickets/ year.

year ten, after signs introduced

1 wrongful bicycle ticket/ year.

50% reduction.



Year 1-9 500 wrongful MV tickets.

Year 10 499 wrongful MV tickets.

0.2% reduction.

Your next argument remains flawed, too. You're just saying "It isn't reasonable to think what you think." Just because you think it does not make it true. You've also conceded that signs would have an impact in post #11 , though your "very very few" qualification is unsupported.

All the evidence you give supports my point. You say that cops are less knowledgeable of bicycle relevant laws. And yet you think that means that policy should not even attempt to educate them and road users with signage.

And I have not put words in your mouth. you said
Quote:

Originally Posted by NJkayaker
(sarcastic faces)remember we're talking about cops here. It seems very likely that the any [sic] "informing" is very small

What if I said "[sarcastic face]hey, remember we're talking about cyclists/women/ethnic minority/New Jerseyans here... you can't expect much learning to go on."

My point is that the anti-cop sentiment negatively affects the validity of your argument that signage is not useful.

buzzman 01-31-14 11:01 AM

Bummer.

Looks like it will be dismissed. Too bad it had to happen in the first place.

Good luck!

njkayaker 01-31-14 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16456484)
Not false equivalence. I put an analogy to help you understand the mathematics. Here's an oversimplified version for you.

Year one-nine

2 wrongful bicycle tickets/ year.

year ten, after signs introduced

1 wrongful bicycle ticket/ year.

50% reduction.



Year 1-9 500 wrongful MV tickets.

Year 10 499 wrongful MV tickets.

0.2% reduction.

??? Did you make this up?

Exactly what magic do you thing exists to make the signs yield a reduction of "50%" in wrongful bicycling tickets. Without real data, one has to assume that any effect is going to be the same at best!

Thus, if it's a 0.2% reduction for speeding tickets, then 0.2% of 2 bicycling tickets would be 0.04 tickets. Which means that there would be no effect!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16456484)
Your next argument remains flawed, too. You're just saying "It isn't reasonable to think what you think." Just because you think it does not make it true.

You have no support for the weird notion that it would have any effect! Imagining that tickets work like "penny stocks" is absurd!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16456484)
You've also conceded that signs would have an impact in post #11 , though your "very very few" qualification is unsupported.

??? No, I said that giving tickets for speeding is very different that giving tickets for bicycling. If speed-limit signs effect very few speeding tickets, BMUFL signs woulld effect zero bicycling tickets because there are a tiny number of them!

CommuteCommando 01-31-14 12:15 PM

If you look up the word "Practacable" you will see that it does not mean FRAP. In California, and I suspect elsewhere, it is interpreted as "Practical and safe". This is a case where taking the lane ". . . is as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway…”

njkayaker 01-31-14 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommuteCommando (Post 16456769)
If you look up the word "Practacable" you will see that it does not mean FRAP.

????

"FRAP" is used here as a short-hand for the "ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" law that most states have (an example follows).

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Quote:

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
Quote:

Originally Posted by CommuteCommando (Post 16456769)
In California, and I suspect elsewhere, it is interpreted as "Practical and safe". This is a case where taking the lane ". . . is as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway…”

I'm not sure what you are getting at. No one here is arguing that "practicable" has any other interpretation.

genec 01-31-14 01:18 PM

FRAP = Far Right as Practicable

Standalone 01-31-14 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 16456757)
??? Did you make this up?

Exactly what magic do you thing exists to make the signs yield a reduction of "50%" in wrongful bicycling tickets. Without real data, one has to assume that any effect is going to be the same at best!

Thus, if it's a 0.2% reduction for speeding tickets, then 0.2% of 2 bicycling tickets would be 0.04 tickets. Which means that there would be no effect!


You have no support for the weird notion that it would have any effect! Imagining that tickets work like "penny stocks" is absurd!


??? No, I said that giving tickets for speeding is very different that giving tickets for bicycling. If speed-limit signs effect very few speeding tickets, BMUFL signs woulld effect zero bicycling tickets because there are a tiny number of them!

1. um, yes, I made it up. It is a hypothetical illustration of how an effect size of a statistically smaller group can be much larger than the other group. This is the more probable statistical situation when comparing Speeding and Bicycling tickets. It is easier to impact less ingrained and less common behaviors.

The driving group is one that assumes a great deal of "education" has already occurred -- there are many more driving related signs for instance, and much more deeply ingrained cultural norms.

Look at driving and bicycling statistics in NYC during the J S-K changes. Bicycling increased by far more percentage than driving decreased. Smaller group, greater effect size.

2. Just because you call my "notion" "weird" doesn't make it so. It is inductive logic. Inductive logic involves probability, not absolute proof. It goes like this: A. All signage impacts behavior of a group to some degree. B. BMUFL is signage C. BMUFL will impact behavior. -- correlated with this: A. Police pay attention to laws to some reasonable degree. B. Signage is one major way that laws are communicated to all citizens. C. Police will learn from the signage to some reasonable degree.

If you want to argue either of my initial assumptions, go for it. But saying that "Signs mean nothing" and "Police care nothing for signage" will be pretty hard to argue.

Calling me "weird" and saying that my ideas are "notions" doesn't make your argument sound any more reasonable.

3. You said "It seems very likely that the any "informing" is very small." That is conceding my point to a degree. This is the part of post 11 that I should have quoted.

I await your further fallacies.

njkayaker 01-31-14 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16457083)
1. um, yes, I made it up. It is a hypothetical illustration of how an effect size of a statistically smaller group can be much larger than the other group. This is the more probable statistical situation when comparing Speeding and Bicycling tickets. It is easier to impact less ingrained and less common behaviors.

Err, based on something that you made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16457083)
Calling me "weird" and saying that my ideas are "notions" doesn't make your argument sound any more reasonable.

I said treating tickets as being the same as "penny stocks" was weird (they aren't anything alike).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16457083)
3. You said "It seems very likely that the any "informing" is very small." That is conceding my point to a degree. This is the part of post 11 that I should have quoted.

If the "informing" is very small, it will have no effect on the number of bicycling tickets! It makes no sense to twist that into supporting your claim that it will have any effect! Bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standalone (Post 16457083)
If you want to argue either of my initial assumptions, go for it. But saying that "Signs mean nothing" and "Police care nothing for signage" will be pretty hard to argue.

I didn't say this.

I said that this particular signage will have no effect on bicyclist ticketing (it's the null hypothesis). You are arguing against this by putting words in my mouth and making stuff up!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 AM.