J.C. Koto

Probably because the thread was hijacked and turned into a 9-page bikeforums A&S circus.

Right proper good show though my dear lads and lasses.

Digital_Cowboy

WP,

I apologize for any confusion. My using a defective traffic control device was to give an example of when the law recognizes that there are times because of circumstances beyond a vehicle operators control that they find that they have to do something that is usually illegal.

Jaywalk3r

And you seem completely incapable of differentiating that behavior from the behavior I have described.

Good. Then we're in agreement. Neither I, nor anybody else, advocated blowing through red lights or stop signs.

You're contradicting yourself here. Fortunately for me, my risk assessment process doesn't involve asking for your opinion. You've made it clear in this thread that your risk assessment skills are deficient. (Remember back when you absurdly claimed that the most logical reason a large group of cyclists would be blocking the MUP was because they were "spoiling for a fight"?

Digital_Cowboy

Unterhausen,

I apologize if my conduct has been interpreted as being harassing. Yes, I have a problem with the way that Joey rides.

The problem that I have with his riding style is that is that he makes it sound as if it is a “safe” or “polite” way for “everyone” to ride. And that because now according to him that there is a “culture” where “everyone” rides that way, that that somehow makes it right.

So again, I apologize for my conduct it’s just that I do have a problem with Joey’s riding style and the way that he portrays it.

Digital_Cowboy

As I have said more then once it is based on actions that I have witnessed.

I suggest that you go back and re-read some of the posts.

My suggestion was based on what the OP had posted. The OP was the first one to suggest that the other group was looking for a fight.

Jaywalk3r

And the witnessed actions you've described are wholly different from the actions I've described. Hence, you're simply attempting to build a straw man to knock down.

Yet, most of us were able to see the absurdity of such a claim, and how the OP's behavior was the primary instigating factor of the confrontation.

superslomo

I'm pretty sure when I lived in the city, and as I do the citibike commute on some days to get to my commuter train, that I treat all red lights as stop signs, and all stop signs as yield signs. It's just what I've always done, and no one has ever objected, and it sort of seems like what everyone else does. Yes, you look both ways, just because one doesn't obey stupid laws doesn't mean one is utterly stupid, either...

If anyone decides to execute a citizens arrest, I'll be so thoroughly overcome with the hilarity of it all that they actually stand a pretty good chance of succeeding... it'll be worth it for the expression of incredulity on the NYPD officer's face when he/she shows up to the call, with the vigilante fuming at my law-scoffing behavior.

In our little idyllic town on the Hudson, someone complained about the police not responding to their complaint that someone was "trespassing in their rental dumpster" which was parked on the street. The police department didn't send out the swat team, let's just say... and why would they, really? They heard the complaint, slapped their foreheads, hung up the phone and gave a heavy sigh before returning to actually pressing business. I'm pretty sure that the police would ask you if you were kidding if you called to complain about people on bicycles, standing around on a bicycle path. I think they would probably be more mad at the caller for calling than they were at the other folks you were mad at.

Finally, these things are always filtered through the view of the one person reporting them... to which, I have to come back to a good response to these things "Okay, but what would THEY say?" They'd probably say some guy gave them attitude, and impolitely ordered them out of the way when they felt they were within their rights. Repeatedly. Then, perhaps, one of them went to tell him not to be an unpleasant crank about it, and they ignored them completely while loading bicycles onto their car/truck whatever. I think perhaps that no one was spoiling for a fight, but that we can all try and remember to not be unpleasant, and just take it a little bit easier than we want to... as my great grandmother said, "nothing gets eaten as hot as you cook it." Though, she did say it in German, for whatever that's worth.

Some of the folks in here must be LOADS of fun at parties. I'm heading back to the 41, where I can worry about whether my seat wedge is too big, and whether I should be shaving off my body hair... it seems almost wildly reasonable now after 10 pages of this

loky1179

Actually, that is not true, at least not in Minnesota. We recently had an interesting case where a woman got a DWI after hopping in her car to escape her seriously abusive husband. Drove the car only a mile to get away from him, and was arrested for DWI. The MN Supreme court upheld the conviction.

Minn. Supreme Court rejects DWI defense for fleeing abuse | Star Tribune

So while it may make good sense for Joey to blow red lights to escape street thugs, he may not escape the ensuing traffic ticket.

Digital_Cowboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r

And the witnessed actions you’ve described are wholly different from the actions I’ve described. Hence, you’re simply attempting to build a straw man to knock down.

I’m sorry, but you’ll never convince me that what you’re doing is either safe or polite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r

Yet, most of us were able to see the absurdity of such a claim, and how the OP’s behavior was the primary instigating factor of the confrontation.

Really, people blocking a public trail/MUP/path is alright? Had it not been for the larger group blocking the trail/MUP/path in the first place the OP wouldn’t have had to say anything to them. And had it not been for the wife of the possible leader telling her husband whatever it was that she said to him. That caused him to confront the OP. Nothing would have happened. Could the OP have handled things differently? Of course, could the other larger group had done things differently? Again, of course, but ha d the larger group not been blocking the trail/MUP/path nothing would have happened.

Jaywalk3r

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. The benefit is obvious.

It happens. If someone isn't willing to be okay with that, they should really avoid MUPs. Especially if that person is unwilling to interact with others in a polite manner.

wphamilton

I had to read it the decision to see what you were talking about . Being a half-full glass kind of guy, I see that decision as verification - it acknowledges the necessity defense and they note that it's an affirmative defense (ie, works all by itself), even while deciding that this case is an exception. Implied-consent technicality (by accepting the privilege of a license you imply consent to have it taken away for various reasons) and administrative action vs civil or criminal: basic legal twisting. But the upshot is that it most definitely IS true, even in the reasoning in that decision.

So Joey is safe. Unless he's DUI and running from an abusive spouse or something.

kickstart

Yes, lawlessness often does benefit the perpetrator* who's conveniently unable to recognize or understand how it effects the big picture.

I suppose some also believe Bernie Madoff is a good example of sound financial planning.






*for an undetermined time

Jaywalk3r

In this case, it benefits other road users, as well. In fact, there is no downside, except having to listen to people whine about the horror of it all on the Internet.

The big picture is that many traffic laws pertaining to bicyclists are ill-conceived.

kickstart

Maybe you perceive it that way, but that doesn't make it true, unless you truely believe a tiny minority are truely enlightened and the everyone else is wrong.
Sorry it doesn't hold water, that's why when I choose to transgress, I keep it real and don't try to fool myself that I do it for any other reason than because I want to.

Traffic laws work for everybody, if everybody does their part, but..........well that's another issue.

Jaywalk3r

If you want to claim that you're unenlightened, I certainly won't argue.

If you considered all of the possibilities, you would understand that, provided the cyclist yield when he/she is supposed to, which I always do, then there is no additional benefit for anyone if the cyclist comes to a complete stop. On the other hand, provided the cyclist yields when he/she is supposed to, proceeding through the intersection with stopping or without waiting for a green light can, and often does, save other road users time. Further, it often allows motorists to pass the cyclist in a safer location, where cars are not congregated.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Some laws are poorly designed. They need to be rectified. (Idaho has adequately rectified this particular problem, but the other 49 states are behind.) I'm not going to follow laws that serve zero purpose, benefit no one, and increase my risk exposure. You can call it civil disobedience or flagrant violation of the law if you want; I don't care. I call it smart cycling, and I'll continue practicing it. The safest intersection to ride through is an empty intersection.

kickstart

"I don't care" is a true statement I can't argue with, the rest is self deception, you do it because you want to. Why can't you just admit it? Are you afraid it will make you like the rest of us who transgress?

I'm not against Idaho stops, or other exemptions for cyclists.....if they are legal.

Maybe you are awesome and can do it successfully, but many people on the road are not as awesome as you, they rely on rules and laws to help them make decisions. lawless behavior such as running reds can be distracting and confusing to them and they may react poorly. Not being aware of the down side doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jaywalk3r

What would you like me to admit? That I have put much careful thought and consideration into how I should pilot my bike in various situations in order to minimize my risk exposure, choosing safe cycling over following laws mindlessly? Sure, I'll admit that.

I challenge you to provide a single realistic scenario in which Idaho stopping increases danger or inconvenience for me or any other road users with whom I'm sharing the roads, compared to obeying traffic laws at every intersection. (No, "it makes all cyclists look bad" is not a legitimate response.)

Support your assertion if you're so confident in your position. I've already provided, upthread, examples of where Idaho stopping can increase my safety and increase the convenience for other road users.

Are you seriously claiming that they're safe in Idaho, but dangerous everywhere else? That's laughable, at best.

Who, exactly, do you think might be confused? Where is their position in the intersection that my behavior, which never involves failure to yield, might cause them to react poorly?

02Giant 

This thread serves no useful purpose and is deserving of a thread lock.

mikeybikes

So many train wrecks lately...

kickstart

The whole point that you're not getting is acts that are unexpected because they are illegal are riskier than acts that are expected because they are legal.
Its the same as speeding, it can be done safely if one is cautious, but someone wanting to pull out on the road the speeder is on is likely to make their decision that others are doing close to the limit, and may mistakenly pull out when its not safe due to the speeder.

I'm not saying you're a bad or careless person.....I sometimes take liberties too, I'm just suggesting that its a bad idea to think its safer, public service, or that one has the right to break laws.

I'll leave it at that.
Peace

JoeyBike

Unexpected by WHOM? The point that you are not getting is Jaywalk3r is not cutting anyone off. He is going when the coast is clear. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise? Who cares? No one is PRESENT to be SURPRISED by his actions. He isn't blowing through intersections wearing ear buds while texting. If he was, he would already be dead.

He is not some half-blind armadillo meandering across the highway in his own little world. If there is a unending string of crossing traffic he stops like the rest of you. If NOTHING is coming, he blasts off. No one is there to see the tree fall or be surprised by the "unexpected"!!

Yield to everyone. Go when nothing is coming.

It.....is.....SO......simple.

kickstart

Just witnessed a light runner get hit on my way to work, not good.

Digital_Cowboy

No, as I’ve said it is based on personal experience. And the simple fact that many of the roads that I use even though the sight lines would give one the impression that they can see “everything” there are for want of a better word “blind” driveways, i.e. driveways that are not readily visible from the intersection that can put cars not only on the road but into the interection. I will NOT risk my life by running a red light.

Again, had the larger group NOT been blocking the trial/MUP/path the OP would NOT have had to say anything to them. His interaction was polite enough, he could have just as easily said “Move your ****ing asses” or “move your ****ing bikes,” or something to that effect. Instead he just admittedly by his own admission he “gruffly” told them to move out of the way. Again, could the OP have handled things differently, of course. Could the larger group have handled things differently, again of course.

And given that according to the OP this is a path in a park the larger group could and should have either moved OFF of the trail/MUP/path to talk or to one of the either benches or picnic tables. As I am sure that there are benches and/or picnic tables around the park. I base that on my experience with the parks where I live. As most parks where I live have benches depending on their size, or picnic tables, or both. The larger group should have used a bench or picnic table to hold their gabfest.

The bottom line is that the larger group should NOT have stopped and blocked the trail/MUP/path making it impossible for anyone else to continue traveling.

JoeyBike

You made me quote myself.

jfmckenna

Snow boarders always sit down and block the whole trail too usually at the best points like a lip that you want to jump off of or in a blind corner. God I hate that! I wonder if there is a snow boarding forum I can go troll on.