Advocacy & Safety - to serve and protect

I know there are scads of exemplary law enforcement officers out there. I also know that there are many who perpetuate their own prejudices in a rather extreme manner.

This thread chilled me. Granted, it's from 2002 -- tried to search for newer stuff, but you have to be a LEO to register and search. Tried searching for cycling-related content in the forum through Google, but no luck.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showtd.php?t=3214 (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3214)

If there are any LEOs on this list, your input is very much welcomed. Any evidence indicating that the officers posting on this thread are in the minority would be greatly appreciated.

As a long-time cycling advocate, I know that it's no fun being put in the hot seat, having been asked to defend oneself against a wrong perpetrated by a member of 'my' group. I'm just looking for information.

I've always found that individual anecdotes are not nearly effective and calming as are policies and education that have been enacted...and followed up with action.

Thoughts?

Allan

The words of one of the LEOs is very telling:
"I don't remember what the vehicle code in Dallas or Texas says about bicycles (I don't ride one so did not pay much attention to it)"

"The overwhelming majority of bicycles are a menace to society."

What?! Blimey, i thought i was just a bit of a punker/hippy (other people's description not mine... :_D ) trying to get to work. Turns out i'm as dangerous as a doctor with a jeep full of gas bottles...

UK police are slightly more reasonable, certainly less immediately aggressive. Its probably the not-being-armed thing. Give some people a hat and a gun, and they think they're the sherriff. This video is a bit old, but its the opening scene that gets me; a 12 year old cuffed by an armed adult for riding a bike where he wasn't supposed to be riding. 'kin ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmhU2597PCM

Pretty much reinforces what I have found is the opinion of most motorists... here expressed by law enforcement. Classic.

I think it gives a good insight as to why we are treated so poorly. Even from the perspective of law enforcement, the majority of the people they see on bikes aren't following the traffic laws and are thus putting themselves at risk.

Now settle down. I said perspective. Just like the hundreds of motorists that pass us with plenty of room and in a safe manner, that don't honk their horns or yell obsenities or throw things don't really register with us, cyclists riding properly often don't register with drivers. When going with the flow of things, it's like seeing another car, but when doing something that stands out, you think "idiot" and remember them.

There was certainly plenty of misguided thoughts expressed there, but I thought it just gave another perspective of how we are seen due to the actions of those that don't follow the traffic laws.

Read this BikeForum thread about an overzealous policeman who pulled me over....but soon regretted it!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=317160

The opinions expressed on that forum are what I would expect. They are the opinions I see from most of the local cops here. When you seethem on the road, use the same caution you would around any other vehicle. Maybe even more, since most of them feel they ARE the law.

Still the only truly bad experience I've had with a car, was a police Lt. from my own town in his cop car.

They are right though, until the majority of cyclists follow the rules of the road, all of the advocacy in the world won't do any good.
I suggest kicking people of of rides if the won't follow the law. I also would agree with tickets written to cyclists who ignore stop signs and lights, but with such poor quality law enfocement, abuses would surely follow.

all of the same typical arguments. i hear "cyclists are a danger"

no one on the forum addressed the fact that a cyclist is 200 pounds of danger compared to 2000+ pounds.

Its the classic 'i will when they do' argument... The average driver breaks the speed limit at least every time they get in their car, thats why there's such a fuss over here about speed cameras. They force people to slow down! And if you're a cyclist doing 30mph in a 30 limit downhill, they still want to get past you...

As road cyclists, we are particularly vulnerable to drivers who have become increasingly more aggressive, distracted, and selfish. It should be the duty of policemen to protect cyclists whenever they can. But the police don't need to protect cyclists from themselves. Arresting cyclists for minor traffic violations is not how policemen need to protect us.

They are right though, until the majority of cyclists follow the rules of the road, all of the advocacy in the world won't do any good.
I suggest kicking people of of rides if the won't follow the law. I also would agree with tickets written to cyclists who ignore stop signs and lights, but with such poor quality law enfocement, abuses would surely follow.

A big problem here is that many (likely most) of the real problem riders are not in any ride to be kicked out of.

I can not speak for the rest of the world, but near me the vast majority ride the wrong way or on sidewalks (without any care when reentering the street). People on this board seem to like to point to things cars do, often that are technically not against the law while ignoring blatantly dangerous and illeagle actions by cyclists. Scanning the link I found most of the officers posting to be quite reasonable. Of course there were exceptions, but in many if not most areas the percentage of cyclists that ride like jerks is much higher than for motorists.

I would point out there are exceptions. Where I work is in Caslabassas (the Northern part). It is a major throughway for cycling. To date I have never observed a wrong way rider. Of course most of the riders are in kits of some sort, but not all. The car dirvers are a bit worse than average. If everywhere were like there we would fare much better in arguments over what kind of vehicle driver is worse.

Its the classic 'i will when they do' argument... The average driver breaks the speed limit at least every time they get in their car, thats why there's such a fuss over here about speed cameras. They force people to slow down! And if you're a cyclist doing 30mph in a 30 limit downhill, they still want to get past you...

Aint that the truth, I remember when they did a camera trial run in school zones, too many people got caught and complained so it was dropped even though they increased traffic fine by 200% and it would have cost the city nothing to install it.

This video is a bit old, but its the opening scene that gets me; a 12 year old cuffed by an armed adult for riding a bike where he wasn't supposed to be riding. 'kin ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmhU2597PCM
The whole video gets me. Mesa City Council and cops should visit Honolulu. Our Boarders. BMXers and Bladers are all allowed to use our stunt parks at the same time. There is a park near my home on my commute route. I often stop and watch all the kids from 5 to 30+ years old. The cooperation between all of them is amazing. Tells me the world will be in good hands when they grow up and take the lead (nice warm feeling inside). Especially if some baby boomer proved just how big a JAM he could be on the way home.

Do those JACs in the video really believe they can just take someone’s video and recorder who has not broken any law?

Do those JACs in the video really believe they can just take someone*s video and recorder who has not broken any law?
If they are *audio* taping the officer without the officers approval then they are breaking the law, felony wiretapping. And yes, even in a public place it is illegal to make audio recordings of others without their prior approval.

[EDIT]
Well actually, they are not *guilty* of the wiretapping charge at the time but they can be arrested and have their equipment taken on suspicion of wiretapping. And there are certain caveats in the law which allows certain agencies and wot-not to make recordings without prior approval.

Those laws do not apply to an area where there is no expectation of privacy, such as outdoors in a public park.
In a bathroom the law would apply.
Maybe you think the cops get a court ordered wire tap for each of those dashboard cam videos that the cops shoot during traffic stops.

Thanks for posting that, Allan_Dunlop.

A lot of the complaints in that thread are about cyclists who feel that such things as red lights and stop signs do not apply to them. I agree, we cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously as legitimate road users, while so many refuse to acknowledge a few simple safety laws. (out of ego, or some misguided attempt at making a political statement) I had the F-bomb tossed at me last Friday, by another cyclist. He apparently didn't like my stopping for red lights on Broadway. (Cambridge, MA)

On the other hand,,,,

On the "Menace to society" bit, who do they consider to not be a menace to society, other than themselves?

Here is a link (http://bikeblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/harassment-reaches-new-level-of-low.html) also old, about the ongoing campaign of harassment of cyclists, by the NYPD.

Question, not meant to go off-topic: Doesn't the NYPD have a long history of harassing persons or groups they just don't like? (Think stonewall in the late 60's, or Italian-Americans a few decades before.)

I need to point out that some police departments do have good relationships with cycilsts.

Those laws do not apply to an area where there is no expectation of privacy, such as outdoors in a public park.
In a bathroom the law would apply.

You can be arrested and charged under "felony wiretapping" for intentionally intercepting or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent. If those police officers felt this person was commiting this crime, wether or not the officer is right, they can take the equipment and arrest the person. It is then up to the judicial system to decide if the crime really was commited or not.

From within a car:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html
And even on your front porch, how's that for expectation of privacy!
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086



Maybe you think the cops get a court ordered wire tap for each of those dashboard cam videos that the cops shoot during traffic stops.
Where in the hell did you come up with this? Did I not state quite clearly that:

And there are certain caveats in the law which allows certain agencies and wot-not to make recordings without prior approval.

But back to the point. You asked if the cops in the video really believed that they could take the persons equipment and arrest them.
Yes, they can. It has happened before as shown in the two links I provided, and it will likely happen again.

Now I remember why I stopped participating in the Advocacy and Safety forum.

Both stories mention that it is a state law. I've never heard of anything like that (I live in California). California uses an "expectation of privacy" standard like CB HI mentioned. Videotaping and recording audio while a police officer performs a traffic stop in a public area would definitely not be illegal here. I did some searching and found a penal code section regarding audio taping of confidential conversations being illegal, but nothing regarding audio taping in a public place.

Both stories mention that it is a state law. I've never heard of anything like that (I live in California). California uses an "expectation of privacy" standard like CB HI mentioned. Videotaping and recording audio while a police officer performs a traffic stop in a public area would definitely not be illegal here. I did some searching and found a penal code section regarding audio taping of confidential conversations being illegal, but nothing regarding audio taping in a public place.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

That pretty much covers it. There's nothing confidential about a police officer performing his duties, so apparently it would be ok to use a hidden camera too.

That pretty much covers it. There's nothing confidential about a police officer performing his duties, so apparently it would be ok to use a hidden camera too.
what about the third paragraph there? It talks about recording a conversation where the parties would expect no one but the participating people to hear.
so if you were to secretly record a cop stopping you in traffic, would the cop not *expect* only the two of you to be able to hear that conversation?

But it's all useless symantics anyhow.
Never the less, the reason I got into this discussion was about wether or not the cops "believed" they could take the equipment and arrest a person for videotaping them. Obviously they can, so long as they "believe" said person is violating this law, even if the cops ARE wrong, you have still been arrested and the time from you has already been taken.

One of my criminal justice professors was with the LAPD for 22 years. He said as a police officer you have to expect that at all times while on the job you are being video and audio taped. He seemed like a pretty reasonable person to me, so yeah I'd say any reasonable police officer has to expect that more than the people in the vehicle might overhear the conversation, including people passing by on the sidewalk, or stopped in traffic in the lanes to the left of the vehicle.

Thanks for posting that, Allan.

A lot of the complaints in that thread are about cyclists who feel that such things as red lights and stop signs do not apply to them. I agree, we cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously as legitimate road users, while so many refuse to acknowledge a few simple safety laws. (out of ego, or some misguided attempt at making a political statement) I had the F-bomb tossed at me last Friday, by another cyclist. He apparently didn't like my stopping for red lights on Broadway. (Cambridge, MA)

Thanks, trackhub. One of the major items I focus on in my cycling courses is working with people to develop a positive attitude. That requires understanding not only what our rights are, but what elements of the mix are our responsibility..and what ones aren't.

How I ride and interact with others is my responsibility. How another cyclist rides and interacts is *not* my responsibility. As advocates, it's important that we not fall into the common trap of feeling we need to defend (or apologize for) the actions of another individual who rides a bike.

Do motorists (of which I'm one) in general feel they need to account for the lack of skills or courtesy of other drivers? Do they feel it their responsibility to undertake education of these scofflaw motorists, and that their own right to drive is diminished because there are others out there who act dangerously? Not in my experience.

So why should cyclists feel the need to do this?

Of course, I do need to understand that a driver's predisposition toward me may very well be influenced by dangerous/discourteous riders. Like many riders, I rarely have a problem with that, though. By riding with a vest and lights, communicating through signaling & shoulder-checking (and smiling/waving--the best signals ever), and riding like I care about my safety and that of others around me, I get a great experience every time I go out on the bike. No, not all the way through, every time, but things go well.

Sure, I meet the odd doughhead out there who hasn't thought things through and who has prejudices. But the dough in their head is not my responsibility :)

(Know that I've been fortunate where I've lived, and I understand that many people on this list live in areas where an excessive number of drivers are openly hostile to riders. I'm just sharing my experiences, and I know they're very different from what others go through.)

Back to the issue of law enforcement. Assuming members of a particular segment of society are the same ("menace to society," etc.) is commonly known as prejudice. Remove the term cyclist and insert a race, and we're talking racism. No difference between the two, really.

Allan

But it's all useless symantics anyhow.
Never the less, the reason I got into this discussion was about wether or not the cops "believed" they could take the equipment and arrest a person for videotaping them. Obviously they can, so long as they "believe" said person is violating this law, even if the cops ARE wrong, you have still been arrested and the time from you has already been taken.
And that is why some JACs get fired, because they cannot understand the law any better than you have misstated it here.

And that is why some JACs get fired, because they cannot understand the law any better than you have misstated it here.
Good god man, you just don't give up do you?
Where in that post did I misstate any law? Where in that post did I state any law period?
Talking to you is pointless, now I remember why I had you on ignore for so long.
What is the source of your bitterness anyways? Old age getting to you? Woman leave you? Too much time aboard a submarine away from the opposite sex? Who cares... it's your problem and not mine.
I hope that when I get older I'm nowhere near as bitter, rude, and nearsighted as the older guys on this forum seem to be.

You never seem to make any meaningful posts. Just sarcastic ones to make yourself feel better. Do you have erectile problems and this is another form of ************ for you? Too much time in the sun perhaps? Why do you come here anyways, just to be a constant smart ass? Ever think about ending your misery instead of wallowing in it?
bleh
I'm leaving now...

Where in that post did I misstate any law? Where in that post did I state any law period?.
Do you read your own post?

If they are *audio* taping the officer without the officers approval then they are breaking the law, felony wiretapping. And yes, even in a public place it is illegal to make audio recordings of others without their prior approval.
Then you insult old folks as you are having a bitter melt down!:p

Talking to you is pointless, now I remember why I had you on ignore for so long.
What is the source of your bitterness anyways? Old age getting to you? Woman leave you? Too much time aboard a submarine away from the opposite sex? Who cares... it's your problem and not mine.
I hope that when I get older I'm nowhere near as bitter, rude, and nearsighted as the older guys on this forum seem to be.

You never seem to make any meaningful posts. Just sarcastic ones to make yourself feel better. Do you have erectile problems and this is another form of ************ for you? Too much time in the sun perhaps? Why do you come here anyways, just to be a constant smart ass? Ever think about ending your misery instead of wallowing in it?
bleh
I'm leaving now...

Bye, bye.:D

If they are *audio* taping the officer without the officers approval then they are breaking the law, felony wiretapping. And yes, even in a public place it is illegal to make audio recordings of others without their prior approval.

That's not correct. The reasonable expectation of privacy varies state to state.

If they are *audio* taping the officer without the officers approval then they are breaking the law, felony wiretapping. And yes, even in a public place it is illegal to make audio recordings of others without their prior approval.

[EDIT]
Well actually, they are not *guilty* of the wiretapping charge at the time but they can be arrested and have their equipment taken on suspicion of wiretapping. And there are certain caveats in the law which allows certain agencies and wot-not to make recordings without prior approval.

You do realize that wiretapping requires communication to take place over, say, a wire, right?

Do you read your own post?
Yes, but aparantly you only read what you want to out of other peoples posts.
I did not make that statement in post #23, which is the post you replied to and quoted when you said "like you misstated here".
Did I not also say:

Well actually, they are not *guilty* of the wiretapping charge at the time but they can be arrested and have their equipment taken on suspicion of wiretapping.
You just decided to ignore that part so that you could start this silly little argument of yours. It is like ************ to you isn't it? Some of us like members of the opposite sex, you get your rocks off by arguing on the internet. Is it because here you can make your ignorant remarks without fear of reprocussion?
Likely.



Then you insult old folks as you are having a bitter melt down!:p
Bye, bye.:D
No bitter meltdown here pal. It's not like I take your **** personal.
You on the other hand thrive on trolling, and then blame others for it.
What is that phrase you have used before.... oh yeah "dog chasing its own tail".
And I wasn't insulting old folks, just you.

Was it all those years in the military that has made you this way? For the life of me I can't figure it out. but I know if I were in your shoes I'd just kill my damned self and get it over with.

That's not correct. The reasonable expectation of privacy varies state to state.

You forgot to finish reading my post as well. Look at my next paragraph where I corrected myself saying that they are not necessarily guilty, but can be arrested on suspicion.

You do realize that wiretapping requires communication to take place over, say, a wire, right?

That is not necessarily true.
If you would have followed some of the links in this discussion before it turned into a CBHI ************ fest you'd see that wiretapping holds true to almost any type of communication, oral or electronic.

That is not necessarily true.
If you would have followed some of the links in this discussion before it turned into a CBHI ************ fest you'd see that wiretapping holds true to almost any type of communication, oral or electronic.

Sorry, thought you were referrring to the Federal wiretapping statutes as opposed to the various state/local privacy laws. You'll forgive me for missing some of the links buried in that thread. ;)

I'd say some of them need to be re-written - it should never be illegal to maintain vigilance over law enforcement's actions in a public place, and it should never be illegal to record interaction between yourself and the cops - for your own safety.

You forgot to finish reading my post as well. Look at my next paragraph where I corrected myself saying that they are not necessarily guilty, but can be arrested on suspicion. I read your post.
guilt is established by a court. it has nothing to do with whether a po can arrest someone. police arrest on probable cause not reasonable suspicion. don't toss terms around unless you understand them.

My reply to your post is accurate.

...I did not make that statement in post #23, which is the post you replied to and quoted when you said "like you misstated here"...
Sorry you are only able to relate back to your last post, some of us actually try to connect an entire discussion through the entire thread.:rolleyes:

Sorry, thought you were referrring to the Federal wiretapping statutes as opposed to the various state/local privacy laws. You'll forgive me for missing some of the links buried in that thread. ;)

I'd say some of them need to be re-written - it should never be illegal to maintain vigilance over law enforcement's actions in a public place, and it should never be illegal to record interaction between yourself and the cops - for your own safety.

Nothing to forgive. ;) I kind of figured you had missed the links posted due to the bad direction this thread headed.
And I agree with your last statement about the laws needing to be changed.

I read your post.
guilt is established by a court. it has nothing to do with whether a po can arrest someone. police arrest on probable cause not reasonable suspicion. don't toss terms around unless you understand them.

My reply to your post is accurate.

Of course your reply to my post is acurate, it is pretty much what I stated a few posts after my innitial one.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you, and clarified that in later posts.

Sorry you are only able to relate back to your last post, some of us actually try to connect an entire discussion through the entire thread.:rolleyes:

You're not following me here.
I made my innitial post a full 8 hours before the one that you replied to in order to make your comment about "just said". I work night shift and was sleeping those 8 houras, so to me that was a full day ago that I said that!
Stroke it some more fellah.
Tell you what, I'll let you have the last word in this since that is obviously what you need in order to reach your e-gasm. So I'll not reply to you anymore.

You can be arrested and charged under "felony wiretapping" for intentionally intercepting or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent. If those police officers felt this person was commiting this crime, wether or not the officer is right, they can take the equipment and arrest the person. It is then up to the judicial system to decide if the crime really was commited or not.

From within a car:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html
And even on your front porch, how's that for expectation of privacy!
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086


Where in the hell did you come up with this? Did I not state quite clearly that:


But back to the point. You asked if the cops in the video really believed that they could take the persons equipment and arrest them.
Yes, they can. It has happened before as shown in the two links I provided, and it will likely happen again.

Now I remember why I stopped participating in the Advocacy and Safety forum.

Hello, FAA? I'd like to report a hijacked thread :)

So much for that discussion. Back to lurking.

You can be arrested and charged under "felony wiretapping" for intentionally intercepting or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent. If those police officers felt this person was commiting this crime, wether or not the officer is right, they can take the equipment and arrest the person. It is then up to the judicial system to decide if the crime really was commited or not.

.

Interesting. Of course, to prove this in court, the police would have to prove it, which means playing the tape, allowing anything they did that broke the law into evidence. Not being able to find the tape or camera should result in a criminal charge of tampering with evidence.

This addresses the original post; I have not waded through all the responses. I am an LEO and a bicyclist, and I did take a look at some of the posts on that LE forum. Generally, it seems to me, LEOs have the attitudes toward cyclists that they had before they were LEOs, which around here seems to be that bicycles do not belong in the roadway, even if it's legal. Some seem to have missed reading in the traffic code that bicycles are vehicles. A recent trainee assigned to ride with me passed some bicyclists, and pressed on the horn as he drove past, while commenting that the cyclists needed to get on the sidewalk! I instructed him that bicycles are vehicles, and not only should be ridden in the street, but can be ticketed for being on the sidewalk in the central business district of the city. He seemed amazed to learn this. (I do not work for the home town shown in my profile.) OTOH, I can agree with the POV that all too many cyclists ride as if they are immune to all traffic laws; pedestrians and motorists seem to suddenly behave themselves when a patrol car is present, but cyclists often continue to do such things as ride against traffic, blow stop signs and red lights, ride on controlled-access roadways with minimum speed limits of 40 MPH, and charge down sidewalks, fully expecting the pedestrians to get out of the way. Some cyclists have seemed amazed when I have informed them that they must behave as the operator of a vehicle when in the roadway. BTW, I very rarely write citations to cyclists, but quite a few have received stern verbal warnings. Lastly, the scariest near miss I experienced as a cyclist was from a marked patrol car that made a right turn onto the street on which I was riding, swinging wide, and nearly nailing me head-on. He was attentive enough to see me and cut his wheels in time to get back onto his side of the road.

When a cyclist gets a speeding ticket, that'll be the day.

A speeding ticket for riding a bicycle, maybe 37 in a 30 zone, that's what I'm waiting for.

From then on, there will be "a shadow of a doubt" when a JAM is complaining about the bicycle "holding up traffic".

Please, if any of you get a speeding ticket while riding a bicycle, start a new thread in this forum and tell us. If you can scan the ticket and post it as an attachment, that would be nice.

...too many cyclists ride as if they are immune to all traffic laws; pedestrians and motorists seem to suddenly behave themselves when a patrol car is present,

Compared to motorists???

C'mon, EASILY 30% of motorists exceed the speed limits on surface streets.
9 out of 10 NEVER stop at the white line, but roll into the crosswalk.
They tailgate, they drive aggressively, they speed thru yellow lights... et al.

Maybe you boyz in blue should get your priorities straight, eh?

Not trying to argue, but when I am in my patrol car, most motorists who see me will usually slow down, come to very complete stops at stop signs, and tone down their aggressiveness. (Many do not see me, of course, being preoccupied with electronic devices carried somewhere in their descending colons.) Cyclists and motorists alike seem to have no idea that stop lines exist for a reason, that crosswalks should not be blocked, that tailgating is illegal, or that a yellow light means anything other than ACCELERATE. That being said, I have never, in over two decades, written a ticket to a cyclist who was simply out riding. **************************************************************************************************** ********************************************************** I have used "No Light on Bicycle at Night" and other citations to discourage those doing such things as riding against traffic or rolling through stops signs at certain locations notorious for unregulated pharmaceutical marketing, or to discourage those cyclists who are stopping and looking into parked vehicles and checking car door handles. (Imagine a guy with a ton of pocket change, wads of small bills, several pairs of sunglasses, a dozen cigarette lighters, and a widely varied CD collection.) **************************************************************************************************** ********************************************************** Let's please not get into this us-versus-them thing. Most police officers are simply doing a job, and were originally motivated to get the job by a desire to make the world a better place. We pin on the badge for 8 to 12 hours a day. We put up with endless loads of BS from our supervisors/admins, and get to listen to citizens vent about all kinds of things. Many of us work for amazingly small salaries, though admittedly some of us do pretty well. We see teachers, nurses, and EMT/EMS/firefighters as kindred spirits, and have great empathy for garbage men and janitors. Firefighters call us "blue canaries," because at hazardous materials incidents, police officers are the "canaries in the coal mine" who respond to unknown trouble, with little protective gear; the firefighters know to put on their air packs when there are blue canaries on the floor or ground. If we arrive upon a fresh collision scene on a freeway, before traffic has backed up, we get to dance with cars for a bit; a real dose of fun, I'll tell ya. It is quite true that a certain portion of police do resemble the south end of a northbound donkey, and I think they tend to gravitate toward the traffic enforcement positions. But then, the traffic enforcement guys are the ones pulling the most drunk drivers off the streets. **************************************************************************************************** ********************************************************** Most of us on this forum live in free societies, and police officers are the very living symbol of the limits of that freedom. I try to always remember that my state license very clearly states I am a certified PEACE OFFICER. Those two words are very important, with the first being the operative term. I live in a free society, not a police state. OK, rant over. Y'all stay safe and well. Life is good. :)

Not trying to argue, but when I am in my patrol car, most motorists who see me will usually slow down, come to very complete stops at stop signs, and tone down their aggressiveness. (Many do not see me, of course, being preoccupied with electronic devices carried somewhere in their descending colons.) Cyclists and motorists alike seem to have no idea that stop lines exist for a reason, that crosswalks should not be blocked, that tailgating is illegal, or that a yellow light means anything other than ACCELERATE. That being said, I have never, in over two decades, written a ticket to a cyclist who was simply out riding. I have used "No Light on Bicycle at Night" and other citations to discourage those doing such things as riding against traffic or rolling through stops signs at certain locations notorious for unregulated pharmaceutical marketing, or to discourage those cyclists who are stopping and looking into parked vehicles and checking car door handles. (Imagine a guy with a ton of pocket change, wads of small bills, several pairs of sunglasses, a dozen cigarette lighters, and a widely varied CD collection.) Let's please not get into this us-versus-them thing. Most police officers are simply doing a job, and were originally motivated to get the job by a desire to make the world a better place. We pin on the badge for 8 to 12 hours a day. We put up with endless loads of BS from our supervisors/admins, and get to listen to citizens vent about all kinds of things. Many of us work for amazingly small salaries, though admittedly some of us do pretty well. We see teachers, nurses, and EMT/EMS/firefighters as kindred spirits, and have great empathy for garbage men and janitors. Firefighters call us "blue canaries," because at hazardous materials incidents, police officers are the "canaries in the coal mine" who respond to unknown trouble, with little protective gear; the firefighters know to put on their air packs when there are blue canaries on the floor or ground. If we arrive upon a fresh collision scene on a freeway, before traffic has backed up, we get to dance with cars for a bit; a real dose of fun, I'll tell ya. It is quite true that a certain portion of police do resemble the south end of a northbound donkey, and I think they tend to gravitate toward the traffic enforcement positions. But then, the traffic enforcement guys are the ones pulling the most drunk drivers off the streets. Most of us on this forum live in free societies, and police officers are the very living symbol of the limits of that freedom. I try to always remember that my state license very clearly states I am a certified PEACE OFFICER. Those two words are very important, with the first being the operative term. I live in a free society, not a police state. OK, rant over. Y'all stay safe and well. Life is good. :)

Thanks for the very honest reply and for doing a difficult, often, thankless job. (ug, blue canaries... not good)

I think the thing that strikes me the most is your comment on how people "straighten up" when they see a black and white. It is just amazing to me that so many motorists do what they can get away with... and try to pass it off as nothing, yet they are clearly aware of the laws and practices they are violating.

Just this morning for instance I watched 5 cars in a row run a red light... in a right on red situation while a police car was about 4 cars back waiting for the same light to turn green. Now granted, nobody was hurt... but that practice of just flying through a red light (without stopping as the law specifies) is one of those bad habits that does get folks hurt.

What would you suggest to get the word out to motorists about sharing the road with cyclists... what if anything might make an impact on the average driver you deal with? (please, that was not meant to be a pun)

Thanks for the reply Rex (although paragraphs are your friend [MY EYES!]) ;)

Yes, I can see how cagers go on their best behavior when they see a cruiser, but trust me, they're far and away more dangerous behind your back. Maybe ya'll should go in stealth mode.

I bet you could raise enough $$$ for all sortsa cool cop toys, if you'd just spend a month "undercover" in traffic.

Thanks for the reply Rex (although paragraphs are your friend [MY EYES!]) ;)


+1 <emphasis mine>

I experimented a bit to try to make paragraphs happen; either it is not allowing me to edit, or I just don't know how to do it on the internet. I assure y'all I do know how to use paragraphs on the computers at work, or on the handwritten page. When I try to use paragraphs on a forum, it all gets crammed together when I submit it.

Well, I experimented more; I give up. I added asterisks to break it up. Indenting five spaces, and inserting blank lines, did not work.