Advocacy & Safety - Cops don't know the law

Long story short: yesterday, riding downhill into Englewood, NJ, taking the lane. Unmarked cop flashes lights, boxes me into the parking lane. Old timer, distinguished looking, like a police chief, tells me that I need to say as far right as possible. I opened my big mouth and told him he doesn't know the law and that it's as far right as practical. He wants nothing of that and tells me that I could cause an accident, never mind that 1) he boxed me into a dangerous spot and 2) had to go over the speed limit to do it (I was going downhill, remember) and 3) at my speed taking the lane is well within the interpretation of the actual law. WTF is it with these idiots?

The law, BTW:


Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the right roadside as practicable exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

Edit: two lanes each way, to boot!

I know it is totally irrelevant to the situation and the law, but I am curious if you were traveling close to the speed limit when this happened.
Al

Long story short: yesterday, riding downhill into Englewood, NJ, taking the lane. Unmarked cop flashes lights, boxes me into the parking lane. Old timer, distinguished looking, like a police chief, tells me that I need to say as far right as possible. I opened my big mouth and told him he doesn't know the law and that it's as far right as practical. He wants nothing of that and tells me that I could cause an accident, never mind that 1) he boxed me into a dangerous spot and 2) had to go over the speed limit to do it (I was going downhill, remember) and 3) at my speed taking the lane is well within the interpretation of the actual law. WTF is it with these idiots?

The law, BTW:



Edit: two lanes each way, to boot!

Idiot?

He doesnt Understand the Law= ingnorant
Or possibly he was in a bad mood = Leo looking for someone take out his frustration on.

You stand on the street and argue with cop that is in a bad mood = ?

This is the kind of thing I wont let slide.

If an LEO tells me I am in violation of the law, and I disagree, I would find out for sure.
And I dont mean read the book and make my own interpretation.
Then if I could prove that I was right, I would insure that the LEO in question was corrected.

You have every right and some obligation to follow up on this.

I personaly read possible and practible the same.

It isnt possible for me to ride any farther to the right with out cars trying to pass me unsafley.
Or
It isnt practible for me to ride any farther to the right with out cars trying to pass me unsafley.

For some reason I like "possible" better.

I know it is totally irrelevant to the situation and the law, but I am curious if you were traveling close to the speed limit when this happened.
Al

Indeed, I was.


Idiot?

He doesnt Understand the Law= ingnorant
Or possibly he was in a bad mood = Leo looking for someone take out his frustration on.

Idiot, yes. Claims I'm in complete violation of the law, but does two additional stupid things himself. One alone, maybe not idiot. :D I was pissy (feel bad for my ride partner that day) for a while but eventually let it go. Thought about it again today and figured it was post-worthy. I suppose I could have taken the guy's badge number, etc but I was so taken aback by the self-righteousness that after my fruitless attempt at retort, I shifted meekly into "yessir" and "nosir".

I know of other cyclists who have had a problems in Englewood, NJ. Some of the cops there don't know the law. I know of one cyclist who was pulled over for being in the left hand lane of Palisade Ave to make a left hand. 2 lanes in both directions. Was not holding up traffic. I know of another who was yelled at for taking the lane on Engle St/Grand Ave which is also 2 lanes one way. He was in the right lane travelling 22 mph and at points the lane is narrow with cars are parked on the right. The cop pulled up to him and yelled at him to get over further. When he said he was trying to avoid being doored, the cop yelled at him again "move over or get a summons".

I bicycle up Palisade Ave frequently. Was this the road you were going down?

I myself was pulled over by an unmarked car going down a hill in a town not far away.
http://75.126.17.35/showthread.php?t=104611

Yes, indeed, Pallisade it was. Thanks for the vindication. :)

Indeed, I was.



Idiot, yes. Claims I'm in complete violation of the law, but does two additional stupid things himself. One alone, maybe not idiot. :D I was pissy (feel bad for my ride partner that day) for a while but eventually let it go. Thought about it again today and figured it was post-worthy. I suppose I could have taken the guy's badge number, etc but I was so taken aback by the self-righteousness that after my fruitless attempt at retort, I shifted meekly into "yessir" and "nosir".


It is very post worthy.
And you dont need to have a badge # to follow up.

If you were indeed not violating a law I would not let it slide.

It would not take much time for you to visit a local LEO office and discuss the matter with someone.

The Cheif of Police in my town wants to know if any of his officers are being knuckleheads.
I will say he doesnt like it when I come in calling them all Idiots,but he does apreciate it when a concerned citizen takes the time to follow up on questionable behaviour of his officers.

I have usually been able to talk my way out of a cycling ticket, but I wonder if this is one instance where you should have insisted that a ticket be written... so you would have not only the badge number, but the time and location and code for the incident.

Then you take it up with a judge...

Obeying the immediate command of a cop is pretty much always the right thing to do, even when the cop is being an idiot. Then, call and ask to meet with a supervisor. That would take less time than fighting a summons the next time the cop sees you riding in the appropriate spot.

Obeying the immediate command of a cop is pretty much always the right thing to do, even when the cop is being an idiot. Then, call and ask to meet with a supervisor. That would take less time than fighting a summons the next time the cop sees you riding in the appropriate spot.

Yeah, I realized that after the guy insisted he was right, so I gave up arguing.

I had the same thing happen to me. Two lanes in my direction, I was on my road bike and attempting to go fast. I was going aboput the same speed as traffic, since in three blocks, only one car had passed me on the left. Cop gets on his bullhorn "Move to the right". I keep riding in the middle of the lane and wave him up to me.

We get into it. I tell him to get out the statute book and read to me where it says I have to ride to the right. He only quotes the first part of the statute about "as far to the right as practicable" but doesn't read the part about being able to take the lane if a car and a bike can't safely occupy the lane at the same time. I ask to him read the whole statute and he grudgingly agrees that that is what the statute says, but tells me I still have to ride to the right. I tell him "Then give me a ticket". He hems and haws and says something about not wanting to waste his time.

So even cops, who are supposed to know the law, are part of the "bikes shouldn't be on the road" attitude that most have towards bicyclists.

Don't expect cops to help you or be on your side.

Don't expect cops to help you or be on your side.

I know to many "cops" to fall for this one.
There is damn sure some doofuses wearing badges,and there is some really good people wearing badges.
Dont expect all cops to know all the laws about everything.

I do Expect cops to help me and to be on my side if Im in the right.

If you guys keep letting them of the hook, they will continue their questionable behaviour.

Take the time to follow up, its not that hard to do.

Cops are motorists first, bicyclists never, usually.

If you guys keep letting them of the hook, they will continue their questionable behaviour.

Take the time to follow up, its not that hard to do.

Excellent point, one which I will keep in mind.

Cops are motorists first, bicyclists never, usually.

I get all my info on Texas cycling laws from a Texas state Trooper who is an avid cyclist.

I thought cops on bicycles was getting pretty common?

I know to many "cops" to fall for this one.
There is damn sure some doofuses wearing badges,and there is some really good people wearing badges.
Dont expect all cops to know all the laws about everything. . . .
I agree. Folks, look around your office/workplace. I'd bet that most of the people are basically decent, but there are a few "doofuses" and power-hungry jerks. Cops are the same.

In San Diego County, we occasionally have similar issues with certain law enforcement officers, although the situation APPEARS to me to be improving steadily.

I personaly read possible and practible the same.

It isnt possible for me to ride any farther to the right with out cars trying to pass me unsafley.
Or
It isnt practible for me to ride any farther to the right with out cars trying to pass me unsafley.

For some reason I like "possible" better.

They're not. Possible makes no provisions for feasibility or effectiveness, while practicable does. For example, it may be possible for me to ride 1mm from the curb, but it's not feasible or effective.

"Practicable" is indeed the term used in most states, and it is the word we want, as opposed to "possible," or even "practical."

They're not. Possible makes no provisions for feasibility or effectiveness, while practicable does. For example, it may be possible for me to ride 1mm from the curb, but it's not feasible or effective.
This is the official position of the city prosecutor in Ann Arbor, which the LAB laughably considers a "Bicycle Friendly" city. Here's what Assistant City Attorney Kristen D. Larcom said:


. . . according to court decisions and to traffic law experts, the word practicable is defined as possible with the available means, a law that therefore requires a cyclist to ride as far right as possible without having to carry a shovel to fill in the potholes at the edge of the roadway. That’s what’s stated in the book.

Source, LAB Reform (http://www.labreform.org/BFC.html).

Edit. Here's a quote (http://archive.michiganimc.org/newswire/display/88/index.php) from a brief Ms. Larcom wrote:


The bike ordinance cannot be interpreted to allow for defendant's (Ken Clark's) safety considerations. Applying the common definitions quoted above [the brief cites dictionary definitions of "near," "practical" and "practicable"] only permits construing the bike ordinance to require operation at the shortest distance from the right side of the road that the rider is physically capable of effecting.
So, a city can remain an LAB sanctioned "bicycle friendly" city (http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/May2005Pressrelease.htm) even after that city says a cyclist's safety considerations are irrelevant. Even the LAB appears not to care.

More information on Ken Kifer's site (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/annarbor.htm).

The lovely thing about this...

the word practicable is defined as possible with the available means
Is that the claim of being a poor rider allows for much more space. Just make sure to swerve around cops! :D

They're not. Possible makes no provisions for feasibility or effectiveness, while practicable does. For example, it may be possible for me to ride 1mm from the curb, but it's not feasible or effective.

You are right they are not the same.

And I just meant I dont strugle with the difference.
If an a LEO tells me I need to ride as far to the right as possible, I simply say I am riding as far to the right as posible given the current circumstances.

I would question whether it is possible to ride 1mm from the curb safely?

It is feasable that you could ride 1mm from the curb.
I dont believe it is possible to ride 1mm from the curb safely.

Sounds to me like a well phrased letter to the editor of the local paper is in order. A call to a local news station asking if they would be interested in the story might be a good move, too.

Make sure your position is concrete before you do this.

This is what the dictionary says.


practicable. prac·ti·ca·ble 
Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished : FEASIBLE <a practicable plan>
2 : capable of being used : USABLE <a practicable weapon>
synonym see POSSIBLE

I tell him "Then give me a ticket". He hems and haws and says something about not wanting to waste his time.

A police officer intimidating someone to cause alarm and wasting their time without legal purpose is harassment. Get a badge number and report.

If an a LEO tells me I need to ride as far to the right as possible, I simply say I am riding as far to the right as posible given the current circumstances.

Quantifying the current circumstances must limit the possibilities quite a bit, dontcha think? ;)

Quantifying the current circumstances must limit the possibilities quite a bit, dontcha think? ;)
Yes I do, at least as far as is practible.

At least I dont tell them I am riding as close to the curb as is posible while remaining within 24 inches of the center stripe.

The meaning of the word practicable is pretty much irrelevant when discussing the vehicle code. Aside from states which require cyclists to use the bike lane or shoulder when provided regardless of the speed of same direction traffic, the vehicle code says that cyclists (and other slow moving vehicles) should use the right hand lane for traffic in the presence of faster same direction traffic. If that lane is wide enough to share, cyclists (or any other slow moving vehicle) should move to right to allow faster same direction traffic to pass assuming it can be done within the same lane. Note that when faster same direction traffic is not present or if your destination requires you to use another lane, you can ride wherever you need to ride to get where you are going. The only time shoulder use is required is when a significant backup of vehicles has been caused by the slow moving vehicle (quantified as 5 vehicles) at which point, the slow moving vehicle is required to move into the shoulder to allow those faster vehicles to pass. Bike lanes fit the definition of a shoulder as defined by the vehicle code.

Oboeguy, it's the same everywhere. A few cops know their respective state or local bicycle laws, but many do not. A few try to legislate from the side of the road. This can lead to ugly and un-necessary confrontations. In the Boston area, law-abiding cyclists are frequently being stopped by state police, for riding on certain high-traffic roads where the state police have jurisdiction. State law clearly states that cyclists have the right to ride on all public roads in the commonwealth, except for divided, express highways that have been posted by the state department of public works. (The posting consists of a small sign that indicates that bicycles, horses, and pedestrians are prohibited.)

When pulled over by state police and ordered off the road, a few cyclists have quoted the law to the officers. The reply is along the lines of "I don't care, and if you say another word, I will arrest you".
The hard-line rule apparently seems to be that they cannot allow so much as a rumor that a civilian stood up to them and got away with it. That's just a theory of mine, nothing more.

Boston PD, and some other local town PD's don't fare much better, with some cyclists being pulled over, and told "You shouldn't be riding here". One cyclist I know had a run-in three years ago, and was told to "get off the road, and ride your bicycle in the playground".

This is the type of thing that makes me wonder if maybe I don't belong somewhere else.

All you can do is the stuff we talk about frequently here: Record the date, time, and location of the incident, notify local advocacy groups, try to get the officers badge number if you can, contact local elected officials. If you have the financial resources, a consultation with a pro-cycling lawyer can help a lot.

This is life in a car-centric culture.

What really gets me about this entire thread is that if the cops don't know the laws, how can we expect motorists to even have the slightest clue?

I am sure some motorists believe that cyclists are not supposed to be on the road at all... and I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that in the states with the three foot rules, most motorists don't have a even the faintest idea.

This is why I would like to see PSAs that show proper road sharing and tell the motorists we are allowed to be there and in some states, that they should be three feet away.

A few well placed billboards, that is all it takes.

What really gets me about this entire thread is that if the cops don't know the laws, how can we expect motorists to even have the slightest clue?

I am sure some motorists believe that cyclists are not supposed to be on the road at all... and I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that in the states with the three foot rules, most motorists don't have a even the faintest idea.

This is why I would like to see PSAs that show proper road sharing and tell the motorists we are allowed to be there and in some states, that they should be three feet away.

A few well placed billboards, that is all it takes.


I really like the PSA Idea.

If television can sell some of the clothing I see to today to kids, I say it can sell any thing.

I will bet you 2 Eggos and a Banana that it would work better than kicking cars and sreaming at lunatics as they speed away.

PSA's might help, but they're no magic pill. Two years ago, Boston talk show host Howie Carr did one of his anti-bicyclist diatribes, complete with his listeners calling in with tales of how much they hated those "wussies" in lycra who got in their way. Carr finished up this segment of his show by saying "I don't care what the law says, you don't belong on the road".

Needless to say, this created quite the uproar in the Boston area cycling community. The Mass Bicycle coalition took positive action. The management of WRKO apologized on the air (Carr himself did not apologize) and offered Massbike the use of their facilities to produce PSA's that explained cyclists' rights
and status as vehicles. The PSA's were actually nicely done, and Carr has not attacked cyclists on the air since.

All fine and good, but any cyclist who rides in Boston regularly will tell you that not much has changed, either from motorists, or from the Boston or State PD's.

Oddly enough, the Boston PD does have a very active bike patrol unit.

PSA's might help, but they're no magic pill. Two years ago, Boston talk show host Howie Carr did one of his anti-bicyclist diatribes, complete with his listeners calling in with tales of how much they hated those "wussies" in lycra who got in their way. Carr finished up this segment of his show by saying "I don't care what the law says, you don't belong on the road".

Needless to say, this created quite the uproar in the Boston area cycling community. The Mass Bicycle coalition took positive action. The management of WRKO apologized on the air (Carr himself did not apologize) and offered Massbike the use of their facilities to produce PSA's that explained cyclists' rights
and status as vehicles. The PSA's were actually nicely done, and Carr has not attacked cyclists on the air since.

All fine and good, but any cyclist who rides in Boston regularly will tell you that not much has changed, either from motorists, or from the Boston or State PD's.

Oddly enough, the Boston PD does have a very active bike patrol unit.


Your talking small scale, short term, limited audience.

I am thinking 5 year national Television campaign.

They have signs on ute pass here that say "Be considerate share the road"

However I think I would be a total mental case riding up a winding narrow mountain
pass with traffic zoomming past me at 70 mph. I don't know how people can do it,
but they do.

I just consider myself invisable to cars and ride accordingly.

I have usually been able to talk my way out of a cycling ticket, but I wonder if this is one instance where you should have insisted that a ticket be written... so you would have not only the badge number, but the time and location and code for the incident.

Then you take it up with a judge...

This is my policy after a run in ( very nearly a real run in, he nearly hit me) with a know-nothing, dangerous driving, police Lt. If they are so sure you are violating the law, then have them write you a ticket, if they don't, then they are just blow hard bullies. Oh yeah, and the "share the road" signs, my police Lt. say those are meant to tell bicyclists to get over, and ride in the gutter.

PSA's might help, but they're no magic pill. Two years ago, Boston talk show host Howie Carr did one of his anti-bicyclist diatribes, complete with his listeners calling in with tales of how much they hated those "wussies" in lycra who got in their way. Carr finished up this segment of his show by saying "I don't care what the law says, you don't belong on the road".

Needless to say, this created quite the uproar in the Boston area cycling community. The Mass Bicycle coalition took positive action. The management of WRKO apologized on the air (Carr himself did not apologize) and offered Massbike the use of their facilities to produce PSA's that explained cyclists' rights
and status as vehicles. The PSA's were actually nicely done, and Carr has not attacked cyclists on the air since.

All fine and good, but any cyclist who rides in Boston regularly will tell you that not much has changed, either from motorists, or from the Boston or State PD's.

Oddly enough, the Boston PD does have a very active bike patrol unit.


Do the PSAs still run? How often? Is it just one radio station?

Ask him for a ticket of the law you borke. That should shut him up, or atleast send him to court.


I had a Mesa cop squeeze me, I was even taking my lane at the time.

Do the PSAs still run? How often? Is it just one radio station?

No, the PSA's no longer run, and they only ran on WRKO. Of interest: WRKO is now a sponsor for Massbike's annual Bikefest. Article and photos (http://www.massbike.org/news/2006%20Festival%20Report.htm) I believe the PSA's were done by former Massbike president, Dorie Clarke.

Believe me, this is not a ground-breaking incident. Police, throught North America, have little time or concern for traffic laws as they apply to cyclists. They only keep track of the very basic ones rather than look at the more interpretive ones such as 'far to the right as practicable' (and for the poster who replied that 'practicable' and 'possible' are the same thing, indeed they are not: while it is possible for me to move more to the right, it is not practicable as I now place myself in danger).

I had an officer escorting cars through an intersection where a traffic accident had occured tell my son and I to go down to the next block and cross with the light when we waited our turn to be escorted. I politely advised him that crossing at a light is neither legally required as we are legal vehicles with the same rights and restrictions as all other vehicles nor a particularly wise suggestion for if one were to ride across the cross-walk, they would be in violation of city by-laws and the highway traffic act and returning to the accident intersection after being under a railway bridge might well create a more dangerous situation than what already existed. I also reminded him that if he wasn't at the interscetion, I would have stopped at the stop-sign (as required) and proceeded when safe to do so. He looked at me with a stunned expression while I asked if he was now going to direct traffic as he had for everyone else. With a shrug, my son and I proceeded across on our own.

No, the PSA's no longer run, and they only ran on WRKO. Of interest: WRKO is now a sponsor for Massbike's annual Bikefest. Article and photos (http://www.massbike.org/news/2006%20Festival%20Report.htm) I believe the PSA's were done by former Massbike president, Dorie Clarke.
After seeing the effect of the PSA on WRKO, do you think that if every local radio station in your area
were runnning PSA 8 times a day for 24-36 months wuld have an effect.
What if we added the local printed media to the mix?

Believe me, this is not a ground-breaking incident. Police, throught North America, have little time or concern for traffic laws as they apply to cyclists. They only keep track of the very basic ones rather than look at the more interpretive ones such as 'far to the right as practicable' (and for the poster who replied that 'practicable' and 'possible' are the same thing, indeed they are not: while it is possible for me to move more to the right, it is not practicable as I now place myself in danger).

I had an officer escorting cars through an intersection where a traffic accident had occured tell my son and I to go down to the next block and cross with the light when we waited our turn to be escorted. I politely advised him that crossing at a light is neither legally required as we are legal vehicles with the same rights and restrictions as all other vehicles nor a particularly wise suggestion for if one were to ride across the cross-walk, they would be in violation of city by-laws and the highway traffic act and returning to the accident intersection after being under a railway bridge might well create a more dangerous situation than what already existed. I also reminded him that if he wasn't at the interscetion, I would have stopped at the stop-sign (as required) and proceeded when safe to do so. He looked at me with a stunned expression while I asked if he was now going to direct traffic as he had for everyone else. With a shrug, my son and I proceeded across on our own.


OK so you wanted to be treated as the driver of a vehicle, but what about the next cyclist along... the one hugging the curb, or the one riding on the sidewalk... the cop was just dealing with you in the same manner that they might when dealing with the majority of cyclists they meet, or even the way they act when and if they cycle.

We would like to think that vehicular cycling and the use of the road is universal, but the majority of bicyclists out there do not ride in this manner... so the public makes assumptions based on their vision of cyclists.

OK so you wanted to be treated as the driver of a vehicle, but what about the next cyclist along... the one hugging the curb, or the one riding on the sidewalk... the cop was just dealing with you in the same manner that they might when dealing with the majority of cyclists they meet, or even the way they act when and if they cycle.

We would like to think that vehicular cycling and the use of the road is universal, but the majority of bicyclists out there do not ride in this manner... so the public makes assumptions based on their vision of cyclists.

The next cyclist coming along is immaterial. The officer is supposed to know and ought to know that a cyclist is classified as a vehicle and had every right to the same consideration and privelege as the motor vehicles he was escorting through the intersection. It is not a matter of wanting to be treated like a motorist. My son and I were navigating around a hazard like everyone else, regardless of what they were operating and the officer could have and should have simply escorted us across too, but he was either unfamiliar with the status of bicycles, assuming they are toys for kids or openly disrespecting us for his own amusement in the hope that I was unfamiliar with my responsibilities and rights. Politely, I reminded the officer that he too could get to do the good police jobs like investigating traffic accidents rather than directing traffic when he, too, knew the rules of the road.

The next cyclist coming along is immaterial. The officer is supposed to know and ought to know that a cyclist is classified as a vehicle and had every right to the same consideration and privelege as the motor vehicles he was escorting through the intersection. It is not a matter of wanting to be treated like a motorist. My son and I were navigating around a hazard like everyone else, regardless of what they were operating and the officer could have and should have simply escorted us across too, but he was either unfamiliar with the status of bicycles, assuming they are toys for kids or openly disrespecting us for his own amusement in the hope that I was unfamiliar with my responsibilities and rights. Politely, I reminded the officer that he too could get to do the good police jobs like investigating traffic accidents rather than directing traffic when he, too, knew the rules of the road.

We cant even come to an agreement on this board as to what this law means, and you expect some underpaid, over stressed cop that spends his day picking up bloody body parts from the roads, to know it?

The officer is supposed to know and ought to know that a cyclist is classified as a vehicle and had every right to the same consideration and privelege as the motor vehicles he was escorting through the intersection.


OK, hold on right there... while he should know the law (and probably doesn't) how does he know you do or anybody else expects to be treated "as a vehicle?"

The cyclist that may have come just before you might have been a sidewalk cyclist and wanted to know just exactly what he started to tell you.




It is not a matter of wanting to be treated like a motorist. My son and I were navigating around a hazard like everyone else, regardless of what they were operating and the officer could have and should have simply escorted us across too, but he was either unfamiliar with the status of bicycles, assuming they are toys for kids...

Not being treated as a motorist, but then again, you don't look any thing like a motorist... you fit this other picture in his mind... that of a kid on a bike... and that IS the picture that is most common in the heads of many Americans... be they cops or just the average driver... to them you are a "kid on a bike."

Hey I am not telling you this is a good thing, but this is indeed the image that many folks hold.

About 6 months ago I went to a local civic planning meeting to gain support for cyclists for a bridge and tunnel project to make a bike path safer... the rhetoric I heard was all based on some imagery of kids on bikes... never mind that it is commuting adults that are the main users of this thing. Even the responses from folks younger than myself just had me laughing inside... "well, we can and should improve this path for the kiddos... " That was the attitude. Period. I wanted to point out that I, a 50 year old man, was one of the "kiddos..." but I refrained.



...or openly disrespecting us for his own amusement in the hope that I was unfamiliar with my responsibilities and rights. Politely, I reminded the officer that he too could get to do the good police jobs like investigating traffic accidents rather than directing traffic when he, too, knew the rules of the road.

It probably was not open disrespect... but who knows, after all that is some of what we get when things are thrown at us and folks yell at us.

Here is the bottom line... the image of cycling is not all that positive... either we are "kiddos" or "racers" or messengers" or "lancewannabees" or "bumble bees" (local radio disrespective commentary)... but rarely are we just simple commuters on "vehicles," simply adhering to the rules of the road.

Change that image, and perhaps, just perhaps, we can get the respect of officers and others on the road.

Certainly since there is so much variation in how different riders use bikes; it is anybodies guess as to what you, or I, ARE... when we ride a bike.

He's mild. I've had a cop order me onto the sidewalk in a business district. The law says specifically that bicycles are not permitted on the sidewalk in a business district. The cop ordered me to break the law.

Did you get their badge number? Call in and complain. It can't hurt.

In my case, I asked for it and the cop blew me off. I got the license number of their car and called in. I got lucky and got a sympathetic sargent who later called me back to tell me that the offending office had been educated.

We cant even come to an agreement on this board as to what this law means, and you expect some underpaid, over stressed cop that spends his day picking up bloody body parts from the roads, to know it?

The fact that we on this board can't come to a consensus as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin has no bearing on anything.

Bicycle regulations are written laws which the police are charged with knowing, thats what we pay them for. Any law enforcement officer knows that "as far as practicable" is a sliding scale, based upon road design, traffic, etc. and that before he charges someone with a violation of it, he has to prove, that, given all of the conditions, it was practicable for the cyclist to be a foot, an inch, or however far away he claims the cyclist should have been from the curb.

Its the same as charging someone with "driving too fast for conditions". If you are going the speed limit and he charges you with that, he had better have some good evidence to back him up.

But I don't agree with your implied premise that "the cops just don't know", the poor things. If they don't know then law, then they shouldn't make assumptions and charge someone or pull them over. The reason the mess with cyclists is because they have a prejudice against cyclists. They have made up their minds and aren't going to let a pesky thing like the law sway them from their prejudice.

I don't expect, nor is it reasonable or practical, for a law enforcement officer to know every law, but I do expect that if they are going to enforce a law they know the law they are attempting to enforce with precision and accuracy.

Al

The fact that we on this board can't come to a consensus as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin has no bearing on anything.

Bicycle regulations are written laws which the police are charged with knowing, thats what we pay them for. Any law enforcement officer knows that "as far as practicable" is a sliding scale, based upon road design, traffic, etc. and that before he charges someone with a violation of it, he has to prove, that, given all of the conditions, it was practicable for the cyclist to be a foot, an inch, or however far away he claims the cyclist should have been from the curb.

Its the same as charging someone with "driving too fast for conditions". If you are going the speed limit and he charges you with that, he had better have some good evidence to back him up.

But I don't agree with your implied premise that "the cops just don't know", the poor things. If they don't know then law, then they shouldn't make assumptions and charge someone or pull them over. The reason the mess with cyclists is because they have a prejudice against cyclists. They have made up their minds and aren't going to let a pesky thing like the law sway them from their prejudice.


Me thinks your conspiracy theory stinks!

If you dont know the laws, how can you argue with a Cop that you say does know the law.

Please read this article and then explain your "cops are prejudice against cyclist" conspiracy theory after you have read it.

I don't expect, nor is it reasonable or practical, for a law enforcement officer to know every law, but I do expect that if they are going to enforce a law they know the law they are attempting to enforce with precision and accuracy.

Al

In an ideal world it would be this way.

Be we live in a world where there are much better ways to make a living than Law enforcement.

So we end you with what we are willing to pay for.

What if it were more along the lines that some cops have a prejudice against cyclists, some are uneducated about the laws, some are both, and some are good people trying to make a living?

Just a thought, as nothing seems to ever be black and white (other than the keys on my accordion).