General Cycling Discussion - Paid my bicycle traffic ticket

Well folks. I paid my first bicycle traffic ticket for cutting a red light in New York City. Here’s what happened.

I got to the violations bureau early in the hopes of seeing other cases so I would be able to defend myself. I checked the “board” to see what time my hearing was scheduled and was quickly approached by some young girl in tight pants and high heals. She started talking to me really sweetly and coming onto me like I was her boyfriend. Seriously. I though this was my lucky day! Get this folks. The girl then asks to look at my ticket and tells me she has a lawyer who would represent me for $120.00 dollars.

I’m now starting to get a stinking feeling what this is all about. Needless to say, I give her the money and she takes me to a room where I meet this “lawyer” and he assures me he can get the ticket off and I don’t even need to be there! Furthermore, I’m told “don’t say a word and he would do all the talking”.

Well I decided to stick around and see the action. Believe it or not, I was the one ticked who bothered to stay around. Once you paid these “lawyers” you could just walk out and go home! In the end, I was really saddened and depressed at how our traffic violations bureau system works. The system is NOT about justice and fairness, as people would think. There were people in the waiting room with 15 points but were still able to drive as the lawyers knew whom the “right” judges were to keep them from getting their licenses suspended. Others were being told by these “lawyers” NOT to pay the ticket and ask for a extension to get a better judge who would let them slide! Most of the people in the waiting room looked like they were down to their last dollar while paying these “lawyers” were walking around with a wallet full of tens and twenties making money off other peoples misery. It was like I was walking into a drug den but it was the lawyers who were walking around with and waving the cash. In fact, when I asked this lawyer if I could pay him by credit card, his assistant (hot looking girl) rubbed up against me and said “We would really prefer cash”. That just goes to show you how sleazy the whole thing is folks. I can go on an on but it’s really a travesty.

Look. I was guilty. I would have paid the fine and pleaded guilty. But the traffic fines in New York City are ridiculously high and they are designed this way to extract as much money from the motorists as possible. It’s not about fairness at all. I forgot the exact amount but collections from traffic violations are in the city of New York is the hundreds of millions and used pay for police and firemen. As a result, the cyclist gets caught up in this whole scam and the only way out is pay one of these lawyers. The fine would have been $130.00 dollars, which includes court costs, three points on my license, and a surcharge of $30.00. That surcharge needs to be paid for four years and my insurance company would have been notified of the infraction that would mean a higher premium the following year. Overall, I estimate that traffic ticket would have cost me over $1,000.00 dollars between the fine, surcharge and higher insurance.

During the court proceedings, the judge who was in shorts and a wacky tie was laughing at the police as they presented their cases. The lawyers and court assistants were also laughing to the extent at how the patrol officers had to go to get a conviction. It was insane.

My case never went that far as my patrol officer simply met with my lawyer outside the court room and walked away. The whole thing was dismissed in ten seconds.

I don’t know if I should be happy or sad about what happened today. It doesn’t surprise me why cyclists are killed and no one is punished. It doesn’t surprise me why drivers with multiple suspensions are still driving. The rules of the road are the following. THERE ARE NO RULES. It’s every man and woman for themselves and if that driver behind wants to take you out. He can.

A lawyer will be there at the proceedings to make sure he doesn’t even pay the fine.

Wear those helmets folks.

Absolutely insane, but not too surprising given the completely wacked out nature of the big city. I am as enraged as I am glad I don't live in New York City.

One of the absurdities of your story is that insurance and your drivers license would even be involved in this. What would have happened if you didn't have a license or insurance?

government couruped?? NAWWWWWWWW

So you broke the law, you paid a lawyer $120 (quite reasonable in any court) and saved yourself a net of $880. And that makes you unhappy.

Next time, don't run the red light and it won't cost you a penny or a minute of time. Or do run the red light, don't pay the lawyer, and pay $1,000.

For $120, your lawyer made your case go away. You done bad, your lawyer done good.

FYI -- you are supposed to stop at those red lights so the cars don't crash into each other trying to avoid you. Even in New York City. The only place your "lawyer" failed you was in not yelling at you to drill this point.

Originally posted by gtdroadie
So you broke the law, you paid a lawyer $120 (quite reasonable in any court) and saved yourself a net of $880. And that makes you unhappy.

I think you missed the point of the original post.

Interesting story. I still find it absurd in this country that bicycle violations can be counted against your driver's licence and auto insurance. :confused:

Originally posted by booyah
Interesting story. I still find it absurd in this country that bicycle violations can be counted against your driver's licence and auto insurance. :confused:

What's so absurd about it? If you run red lights on a bike, it would be reasonable to asume you run red lights in a car. It's about behaviour of the person, not the vehicle.

Not really supcom. I occasionally run red lights on my bike if it's safe, but don't in my car. Your logic just doesn't cut it. I am not ashamed of this either.

And as far as I know, I don't need a drivers license in my area to operate a bicycle. Therefore violations committed on a bicycle should not affect my drivers license. The difference is this: A car is an extremely dangerous machine, capable of harming OTHER PEOPLE. A bike is not dangerous to other people. Driving laws and drivers licenses are presumably there to protect the general public, not the individual.

>>>So you broke the law, you paid a lawyer $120 (quite reasonable in any court) and saved yourself a net of $880. And that makes you unhappy.
Next time, don't run the red light and it won't cost you a penny or a minute of time. Or do run the red light, don't pay the lawyer, and pay $1,000.<<<<<

You missed the point. No one did right. Not me. Not the Judge. Not the Lawyer.

The implications of such a system is far broader than one might expect. If the system is corrupt, then what really is justice? Is running red lights illegal? Or is it really legal so long as I have a lawyer who can abuse the system? Do you understand what this means to the cyclists who is seriously injured by a motorists with multiple infractions?

I'm sure New York City is the only town that is this corrupt. One would like to think the law cannot be bought but that is not the case. The moment we lose sight of what really is the law we are all in trouble.

Furthermore, I did not like the attitude of the judge and asistants who thought this was one big joke. I had no idea these tickets were tossed out by the truck loads. You see folks. They know the traffic ticket situation is corrupt and used to make millions for the city. This is why it's not taken seriously and tickets are discarded once counsel shows their face.

You seem surprised to learn it's all about money.

I've already decided that if I ever get stopped on my bike, I am not showing the cop a driver's license. I will show him several other ID's, but not a driver's license.

I asked a county policeman with whom I am acquainted what would happen and he said "probably nothing." The "probably" is kind of scary, though!

I run red light all the time, when I used to live in WA state, the difference is, I jumped out of a bike and run like pedestrians running a red light. Hopefully, that won't count for violating the law :), especially here in NY.

Originally posted by Nam
I run red light all the time, when I used to live in WA state, the difference is, I jumped out of a bike and run like pedestrians running a red light. Hopefully, that won't count for violating the law :), especially here in NY.

Hmmm... wouldn't that be considered jaywalking?

Originally posted by TrekRider
I've already decided that if I ever get stopped on my bike, I am not showing the cop a driver's license. I will show him several other ID's, but not a driver's license.

I asked a county policeman with whom I am acquainted what would happen and he said "probably nothing." The "probably" is kind of scary, though!

That doesn't work in Montreal, you still get the ticket, when they get back to the SAAQ (government bureau in charge of this stuff) you will get the points tacked onto your liscence.

Originally posted by booyah
Interesting story. I still find it absurd in this country that bicycle violations can be counted against your driver's licence and auto insurance. :confused:
Bicycle is suppose to have the same rights to the road as a car so it should be ticketed the same when breaking the same laws.It makes us all look bad when a cyclist runs a stop sign or a light or other wrong stuff because the car public already hates us.

Originally posted by Mtn Mike
Not really supcom. I occasionally run red lights on my bike if it's safe, but don't in my car. Your logic just doesn't cut it. I am not ashamed of this either.

And as far as I know, I don't need a drivers license in my area to operate a bicycle. Therefore violations committed on a bicycle should not affect my drivers license. The difference is this: A car is an extremely dangerous machine, capable of harming OTHER PEOPLE. A bike is not dangerous to other people. Driving laws and drivers licenses are presumably there to protect the general public, not the individual.

I'm sure an insurance company would simply view it as a failure to obey traffic laws. It's immaterial whether you are riding a bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or tractor trailer rig. Whether a license is required to ride a bike is also immaterial. The fact that you have a drivers license only means that you have one less excuse for violating traffic laws.

Hmmm...It sounds like your 'lawyer' paid the cop off to not appear in the courtroom with part of the cash you gave him, resulting in dismissal. I seriously doubt the guy you paid was a real lawyer, and it also sounds to me like you could be indirectly guilty of bribing a police officer???

BTW--a first time stop sign or red light violation in Portland will cost you $175.00, soon to go up to $212.00, so NYC isn't the only place w/ exorbitant traffic fines for bicyclists.

Originally posted by TrekRider
I've already decided that if I ever get stopped on my bike, I am not showing the cop a driver's license. I will show him several other ID's, but not a driver's license.

I asked a county policeman with whom I am acquainted what would happen and he said "probably nothing." The "probably" is kind of scary, though!

If you don't want to show your DL to a cop, then leave it at home. If you have in your possession, you may be required to show it.

Originally posted by khuon
I think you missed the point of the original post.

I didn't miss the point. I've heard it before. The poster missed all the points.

Typical scenario: Guy breaks law. Guy gets busted. Guy hires lawyer. Guy gets plea bargain. Guy is better off. Guy is still pissed at "the system" and can't figure out that he got a good deal after doing a bad thing. So . . .

Eventually, it happens again. And again. And again. Guy does time. Guy pays fines. Still doesn't get it. And so on . . . .

The lawyer knows how to negotiate a deal and try the case, if needed. That's why you pay him to help you. It does not indicate corruption in the system. And if the judge is a jerk, well, the lawyer has to deal with that, too.

The only problem evident in the original post is that the lawyer might (depending on New York rules) have used inappropriate or unethical marketing methods.

What is obvious from the original post is that Guy broke law, Guy got good help, Guy got good deal, Guy doesn't get it, Guy is pissed at "the system", and it likely will happen again.

American laws, made by lawyers, enforced by lawyers. Who's best interest are the laws made for?? In this case guilty or not, seems as though NYC lost the fine and the lawyer pocketed the $$$. Fairly common. I'd rather be poor than do that for a career, but the system is made so that we can not do without it
- Sad.

I didn't miss the point. I've heard it before. The poster missed all the points.
It sounds like we've got a lawyer in the forum. And the old saying might be true, "everyone hates a lawyer until you need one".

The original poster broke the law and admitted to it. He was simply sharing his experience.
What is obvious from the original post is that Guy broke law, Guy got good help, Guy got good deal, Guy doesn't get it, Guy is pissed at "the system", and it likely will happen again.
Are you trying to say a system that allows this is an ideal system? I don't know a lot about the NYC legal system in question, but the fact that you even appear to defend this system takes away your credibility as an objective observer.

[i]Are you trying to say a system that allows this is an ideal system?[/B]

There's no ideal system. Not yet, anyway.

Originally posted by gtdroadie
I didn't miss the point. I've heard it before. The poster missed all the points.

Maybe I missed the point. To me it seemed like Dahon.Steve was a bit disheartened at a system that allows people in general to do all this in the way it's currently done. I think he was making a statement about how we as a society treat justice and about how when you boil it all down, it's really all about making a buck. I hope Dahon.Steve can correct me if my impression of what he was trying to say is wrong.

There's no ideal system. Not yet, anyway.


I think Mtn Mike should rule the world. Cycling would be manditory of course.

Khuon's dead right on my statement.

>>>>The lawyer knows how to negotiate a deal and try the case, if needed. That's why you pay him to help you. It does not indicate corruption in the system. And if the judge is a jerk, well, the lawyer has to deal with that, too.
<<<<<

That's the problem with the system. Why should I be able to "negotiate" a deal when I was dead wrong? Why did the patrol officer just walk away when confronted with the lawyer? Why was the judge and his assistants laughing at a patrol officer when he presented a solid case against a taxie driver only to have it watered down? Why were all these lawyers walking around around with a wallet full of tens and twenties like a bunch of drug dealers in the lobby?

Folks. If this isn't corruption, I don't know what is? The city tried to stop this at one point but failed. I'm sure New York City is the only city in the country that has this problem.

>>>>>>The only problem evident in the original post is that the lawyer might (depending on New York rules) have used inappropriate or unethical marketing methods.<<<<<<

Having girls walking around the lobby in sexy clothing is only a small part of a much larger problem.

Look folks. I'm happy and sad at the same time. I'm happy that I don't get stuck paying over a grand for a ticket that in my opinion should have been far less. This still does not change my overall feelings of the system that is designed to protect the public. You see folks when cities accross the country start setting fees so high, it creates employment for a middle man to come in that will extract revenue from the system.

If my lawyer can make a red light green, I find something terribly wrong with this. What's wrong with stating this? I know the difference between right and wrong. What I saw was wrong. I can only imagine how many drivers are on the road this evening that shouldn't be driving at all. I can only imagine what would happen to me if I wanted justice after getting hit by some wreckless driver.

While sitting in the lobby and watching all of what was going on, I started staring at these 'Lawyers' with a sad eye on what they were doing to system. Listening to these lawyers say out loud to each other "I can't believe you got him off with all those points" and "He still owes me $15.00 dollars or I'm not showing" was just incredible. I was looking at them shaking my head in disgust at what I was seeing. You know what folks. I made them feel uncomfortable. They knew what they were doing.

The author of "Effective Cycling" mentions the injustice the cyclists often face when struck by motor traffic. I believe the problem is far deeper than what the author imagined and it effects EVERYONE that rides and walks on city streets.

OK. Maybe your experience was not consistent with how our system is supposed to work. But in general . . .

The negotiation happens because we live in a world that simply is not black and white, but the written law can only reflect extremes (guilty or not, no in between). Punishments are often left to a judge's discretion. Facts that seem obvious to one can seem vague to another, or be differently interpreted.

So you were guilty. But you were presumed by the law to be innocent until proven guilty. Defense lawyers like the one you hired make it harder for prosecutors to make that proof. The prosecutors know it, and they need to keep high win/loss statistics to keep their jobs, so they make deals.

Everyone wins. The prosecutor keeps his healthy "win" statistic by getting an easy conviction or by "voluntarily" dismissing the case. The defendant gets a lesser charge or a lesser punishment, and avoids the risk of something more serious. The defense lawyer gets paid for knowing how to make this happen.

Why was the judge laughing? I don't know. Why did the cop walk away? I don't know. Maybe he did something wrong, and the lawyer said it would be pointed out. Maybe he just had more important things to do.

Heck, I don't even know the exact law under which you were charged. Maybe the lawyer just pointed out the foolishness of holding a bicyclist to the same standard as a motorist, if both would have been charged under the same law.

I still don't see the problem. You were guilty, and you got punished only it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Good for you. The lawyer made it easier for you, and for that you paid him a reasonable fee. Good for him. His assistant is a hottie. Good for her. The judge laughed like an idiot, well, maybe he is an idiot. The cop walked away to do more important things. The prosecutor chalked up another "win". Good for him.

Sounds to me like a good, practical adjustment to an otherwise imperfect system.

Not really supcom. I occasionally run red lights on my bike if it's safe, but don't in my car. Your logic just doesn't cut it. I am not ashamed of this either.

And as far as I know, I don't need a drivers license in my area to operate a bicycle. Therefore violations committed on a bicycle should not affect my drivers license. The difference is this: A car is an extremely dangerous machine, capable of harming OTHER PEOPLE. A bike is not dangerous to other people. Driving laws and drivers licenses are presumably there to protect the general public, not the individual.

right on!

traffic laws are in general there simply to prevent people from killing other people: i.e. as motor vehicles are large and dangerous w/o rules people in autos would probably kill lots more people. a bike does not present anywhere near the same danger (a bike-car collision is unlikely to kill or seriously injure a motorist and a bike-pedestrian accident is also MUCH less likely to kill than a car-pedestrain)

i do run stop lights on a bike (treat like a stop sign: stop, wait till clear, go only if safe). on a bike i present little danger and i am risking only my own life and i take responsibility for that. i NEVER run lights in a car as that endangers the lives of others and that right i DO NOT have!

the logic that what you do on a bike affects what you do in a car is just not right: and the danger to the public and others is NOT the same: a bicyclist running red lights vs a car running red lights.

That's the problem with the system. Why should I be able to "negotiate" a deal when I was dead wrong? Why did the patrol officer just walk away when confronted with the lawyer? Why was the judge and his assistants laughing at a patrol officer when he presented a solid case against a taxie driver only to have it watered down? Why were all these lawyers walking around around with a wallet full of tens and twenties like a bunch of drug dealers in the lobby?

Folks. If this isn't corruption, I don't know what is? The city tried to stop this at one point but failed. I'm sure New York City is the only city in the country that has this problem.

hey Dahon.Steve, i totally get your point, and i agree.

i also don't think NYC is the only place where this happens. many years ago as a teenager i was a big-time speeder (hey i grew up in Dallas TX)... anyway, i QUITE often did exactly the same thing: paid a lawyer to "make it go away". the lawyer even had set fees: 10 over = $80, 15 over = $100, $20 over =250, red light = $300, etc...

although i agree that there do need to be judges and lawyers involved to deal with the specifics of every case, the current system is all too often HEAVILY CORRUPTED ---- those who have money are not penalized as a) the fines/costs are minor and b) even for extreme cases (say drunk driving) they just pay a little more and the lawyer takes care of it. now for the poor people you either pay the fine or (if they know about it) maybe pay a lawyer like you did and get hit much more severely. this is just not right.

but i think the biggest point Steve was making is that b/c of the corruption in the system most drivers are not really punished for their bad driving and many drivers who should not be allowed to drive are still on the road simply b/c they wrote out a big check. yes, money plays a part in almost everything these days, but it should not be allowed to let people with money endanger others.

P.S. i also believe in the Scandanavian method of setting traffic fines relative to one's INCOME so that traffic fines are a more appropriate deterrant: i.e. $250 for someone working minimum wage is TOO high, but $250 for a CEO is chump-change and is NO deterrant.

Originally posted by supcom
I'm sure an insurance company would simply view it as a failure to obey traffic laws. It's immaterial whether you are riding a bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or tractor trailer rig. Whether a license is required to ride a bike is also immaterial. The fact that you have a drivers license only means that you have one less excuse for violating traffic laws.

I have a real problem with this. I pay insurance for my CAR, not my bike. I totally understand how a traffic violation in my car will raise my rates for my car. But in no way should what I do on my bike, or on foot, or in a canoe, have anything to do with my CAR insurance.

Allan

The most terrifying thing about it is that our country is run by lawyers. Politicians are lawyers.

I've always called traffic police Revenue Enforcement Officers, as it seems to me they ignore the truly unsafe behavior (tailgating, weaving, etc.)

Instead, they opt to go after the low hanging fruit like someone speeding on a deserted highway.

Speed limits are kept artificially low on some roads, why? they WANT you to speed. If you didn't speed, they would have no revenue and might have to drive a 2 year old police car.

I am as opposed to unsafe drivers as the next guy, I just don't think the way our system works is making drivers any safer. Here in MO, you can get a speding ticket reduced to a "noisy muffler" or "illegal parking" if you are willing to pay extra.

Its all about the money.

take care,

Jester

I have a real problem with this. I pay insurance for my CAR, not my bike.

Sort of. You pay liability insurance to cover you driving the car, this is the piece of insurance that pays "the other guy" when something bad happens. The insurance company gives you a rate based on your driving record (along with probably a million other variables).

And it doesn't matter if it's a car, motorcycle, truck, bicycle, you violated a traffic law. If you violate traffic laws on a bike, who's to say you don't do it in a car?

Andrew

I never ever ever run red lights or stop signs in a car. I've never in my life done it (on purpose, there was that one time when the put in a new stop sign, thank goodness no one was there) but I routinely run them on my bike when safe to do so. I absolutely agree that they should be able to ticket cyclists (me included) for breaking traffic laws, however, what I do on my bike should not in any way transfer to what I do in my car. The last thing we need to do is discourage people from riding even more.

Why though? You may follow the traffic laws to the letter in a car, but not on a bike, but who says the next guy does the same? Liability insurance is just that, to cover the stuff that happens when you are at fault. As mentioned one of the factors in determining that is your driving record, it doesn't matter if you were driving a car, truck, motorcycle, bike you still have to follow the same laws on the road. Why does the bike get a pass?

And if this means less people ride then so be it, I want to ride on the roads with people who follow the laws of the road. Most pissed off drivers are pissed off because of the riders who are out there using up all the road, not watching where they are going, riding the wrong way down the street, not following the rules at a traffic light, etc (granted there are enthusiasts who do stupid stuff as well).

Andrew

You want to group bike infractions with motorized transport and give people points. I want to group bike infractions with non-motorized transport and not give those people drivers liscense points. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

As cyclist we demand equal access to the roads. Part of that deal is equal responsibility to obey the traffic laws. It's not just a matter of whether a bicycle can hurt someone else. Even so, a bicycle moving down the road at 15-20 mph can certainly injure a pedestrian. And an auto driver who swerves to avoid a cyclist who thought it was 'safe' to run a red light could crash into another car, bicycle, or pedestrian.

Why though? You may follow the traffic laws to the letter in a car, but not on a bike, but who says the next guy does the same? Liability insurance is just that, to cover the stuff that happens when you are at fault. As mentioned one of the factors in determining that is your driving record, it doesn't matter if you were driving a car, truck, motorcycle, bike you still have to follow the same laws on the road. Why does the bike get a pass?
as i understand your statement above you mean that because it can vary from person to person (that some cyclists who break traffic laws may also in a car and some not) that cycling incidents should be included. but from your own "reasoning" it should not: because everyone is different and some cyclists who break traffic laws may also in the car and some not, the DRIVING record should speak for itself. those who break traffic laws when driving should be ticketed and it affect their insurance record appropriately. Those who cycle and break traffic laws but not in the car DO NOT create anywhere near the same insurance/liabliity risk as a bike is SO much less likely to do severe damage or injury.

Please think about your OWN logic/reasoning here. seriously.

As cyclist we demand equal access to the roads. Part of that deal is equal responsibility to obey the traffic laws. It's not just a matter of whether a bicycle can hurt someone else. Even so, a bicycle moving down the road at 15-20 mph can certainly injure a pedestrian. And an auto driver who swerves to avoid a cyclist who thought it was 'safe' to run a red light could crash into another car, bicycle, or pedestrian.
as to points on a DRIVING license and how it relates to automobile/liability insurance. Regardless of whether bikes are subject to the same laws and punishment, what counts is one's DRIVING record and it most clearly predicts one's risk whether that is for LIABILITY insurance as well as FULL-COVERAGE auto insurance. it could be quite possible that a very skilled cyclist is a bad driver. or the other way around. they are 2 separate things. how does one's cycling behavior "represent" your driving skills/behavior to a significant degree?

i would actually argue, that barring extreme cases the more likely one is to have a BICYCLE infraction, the more likely that same person is to DRIVE safely and be less of an insurance risk. Why? b/c most people who would receive a bicycle ticket probably ride a lot and have therefore learned to be very safe road-users (b/c on a bike you HAVE to without the protection of all that metal and glass)... but this is just my speculation.

P.S. before i was a frequent cyclist i was a pretty typically bad driver - speeding, rolling stops, occaisonal tailgating, impatience, etc. after becoming a cyclist i have questioned the "auto culture" and realize that just b/c everyone else drives unsafely doesn't mean that i should and i drive MUCH MUCH more safely now. on the bike, i frequently go through lights on red (when safe) and other small infractions. if i were ticketed for these and they went against my driving record, would that appropriately approximate my insurance risk DRIVING A CAR? i think not. nor do i think i am an exception, rather the norm here: that many cyclists who are VERY SAFE drivers break traffic laws on the bike. --- before anyone goes crazy about "the law", just think about the speed LIMIT. how many drivers NEVER exceed the speed limit? my guess would be more than 95% speed frequently. should they? not sure. but they are not every occaisonal speeder is a "die-hard criminal"

While stopping at a stop sign may be the "law", it's not always the safest way to ride. Other vehicles may not offer you the same opportunity as a car when it's your turn to go. I think it's safer to go when the car you're beside goes. That car is then shielding you from the others. If there's a stop and there's a clear view that there's no one else around, I slow down but don't come to a complete stop. Traffic lights are a different matter.

We had a roadie holler at us on our tandem the other day for not coming to a complete stop at a 4-way, he was the only other 1 around. He yelled at us, but he didn't stop either!

If you are ticketed, it should definitely not go against your drivers license. Why should it apply to your license when those that don't have one won't get charged the same way?

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
The most terrifying thing about it is that our country is run by lawyers. Politicians are lawyers.

Who voted for them?

as i understand your statement above you mean that because it can vary from person to person (that some cyclists who break traffic laws may also in a car and some not) that cycling incidents should be included. but from your own "reasoning" it should not: because everyone is different and some cyclists who break traffic laws may also in the car and some not, the DRIVING record should speak for itself. those who break traffic laws when driving should be ticketed and it affect their insurance record appropriately. Those who cycle and break traffic laws but not in the car DO NOT create anywhere near the same insurance/liabliity risk as a bike is SO much less likely to do severe damage or injury.

So are you willing to pay the insurance premium so every person carrying insurance can have a specialized insurance policy put forth after the insurance company spends how many hours evaluating your cycling and driving ability?

I love to drive and pay a premium for it (single male), I also like to get to where I'm going. Now I won't say I'm the best driver in the world, far from it. But I've been to many high performance driving schools, race and auto-x cars many times per year. My ability to handle my car is far above the average dweeb on the road yapping on the cell phone. Yet I still get a ticket for going 60 in a 55 and the officer nor the judge care that I carry an SCCA regional license (or graduating from the above mentioned driving schools, etc).


as to points on a DRIVING license and how it relates to automobile/liability insurance. Regardless of whether bikes are subject to the same laws and punishment, what counts is one's DRIVING record and it most clearly predicts one's risk whether that is for LIABILITY insurance as well as FULL-COVERAGE auto insurance. it could be quite possible that a very skilled cyclist is a bad driver. or the other way around. they are 2 separate things. how does one's cycling behavior "represent" your driving skills/behavior to a significant degree?

And you keep highlighting the words DRIVING when talking about a license, do you not think you are driving when you are on a bicycle (what do you do on a motorcycle)? Do you not have to follow the same rules when riding a bike on a public road?

How is it logical that somebody who ignores traffic laws on a bike would be a safer driver? I think some of the confusion is that you are talking about the enthusiast bikers (people like us) who try and do the right thing most of the time. The laws have to cover everybody else though as well, since there is a probably a bicycle in every home in the world most people don't give a crap about riding them properly.


on the bike, i frequently go through lights on red (when safe) and other small infractions.

Why though? Why do you do it on the bike and not the car? If it's the middle of the night and there are no cars in sight, do you run redlights in your car?

Do you do it on the bike more so for some other principle, or is it that you are less likely to be caught and cited for the infraction?

Andrew

And you keep highlighting the words DRIVING when talking about a license, do you not think you are driving when you are on a bicycle (what do you do on a motorcycle)? Do you not have to follow the same rules when riding a bike on a public road?

you don't NEED a driver's license to ride a bike

as an experienced motorcyclist, my behavior on a motorcycle is something in the middle: i obeyed almost all traffic laws (as driving) as a motorcycle is larger and reaches much higher speeds than a bicycle (plus a license is required), although i rode much more safety-conscious than before i was a motorcyclist and only a car driver (b/c you are so much more vulnerable similar as on a bike except speeds are even greater)

So are you willing to pay the insurance premium so every person carrying insurance can have a specialized insurance policy put forth after the insurance company spends how many hours evaluating your cycling and driving ability?
no, it's very simple. don't count bicycle traffic violations on your MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING RECORD (no license REQUIRED for a bicycle so no points should be deducted). then your driving record more accurately represents your risk cost to the insurance company of DRIVING a MOTOR VEHICLE.

and yes, i know that most auto insurance will cover you on a bicycle as liability insurance, but i really doubt the insurance companies take a beating here and loose millions by insuring "wreckless bikers"

I love to drive and pay a premium for it (single male), I also like to get to where I'm going. Now I won't say I'm the best driver in the world, far from it. But I've been to many high performance driving schools, race and auto-x cars many times per year. My ability to handle my car is far above the average dweeb on the road yapping on the cell phone. Yet I still get a ticket for going 60 in a 55 and the officer nor the judge care that I carry an SCCA regional license (or graduating from the above mentioned driving schools, etc).

i agree that paying a premium for being "young male" sucks, but the statstics back it up - is it right or fair, i don't know? but i would also say i was a HIGHLY skilled driver at the age of 18, but i also took major risks. at age 25 fewer. at age 30 very few and i expect in the future i will continue to take fewer rather than more risks. being skilled does not equal safe or low accident risk. insurance companies usage or the driving record is one way to help them estimate the costs of insurance so that not everyone has to pay for the ultimate idiot hot-shots... again, not sure if it is right, but that's the way it works and i really see no other "viable" system w/o too much overheard as you referred to. --- but the bicycle aspect should NOT be included in this estimate! not sure, but i would speculate that it the states not the insurance companies that include bicylce infractions on the driving record. i would expect IF it were up to the insurance companies they would study the statistics and find it not particularly predictive - ok, i'm speculating...

Originally posted by Ajay213
Sort of. You pay liability insurance to cover you driving the car, this is the piece of insurance that pays "the other guy" when something bad happens. The insurance company gives you a rate based on your driving record (along with probably a million other variables).

And it doesn't matter if it's a car, motorcycle, truck, bicycle, you violated a traffic law. If you violate traffic laws on a bike, who's to say you don't do it in a car?

Andrew

Yes it does matter. I pay insurance for the cost to repair/replace both my vehicle and the other person's (full coverage). There is NO WAY you can tell me that a wreck with my bike will cost anywhere near the cost of me hitting anything with my vehicle. Raising my AUTOMOTIVE insurance (it specifically states automotive insurance on my forms) for something that happens on my bike is just wrong.

Who's to say I dont do it in a car just because I may have done it on a bike? That is like saying "who's to say he hasnt killed a million people because he just murdered that roach". Come on, you cant just assume one thing from another. If you could, everyone ever caught with a weapon would be instantly convicted of murder.

Allan

There is NO WAY you can tell me that a wreck with my bike will cost anywhere near the cost of me hitting anything with my vehicle.

I love this line of logic. In that case my insurance should get cheaper when I buy a high end 2,000lb sports car as it will do less damage than an 8,000lb Hummer.


Raising my AUTOMOTIVE insurance (it specifically states automotive insurance on my forms) for something that happens on my bike is just wrong.

I see, so what happens if you have a motorcycle? Does that get an exemption as well? How about insurance for a commercial vehicle?

Your driving record reflects your ability to obey the traffic laws. Your insurance is based in large part on your driving record.


Who's to say I dont do it in a car just because I may have done it on a bike? That is like saying "who's to say he hasnt killed a million people because he just murdered that roach". Come on, you cant just assume one thing from another. If you could, everyone ever caught with a weapon would be instantly convicted of murder.

Yes, let's make up every way out there comparison we can to try and support a point.

Do you support the policy that people who drive public busses, commercial trucks, etc face serious ramifications by what happens to their driving record? A truck driver could lose their job by getting tickets in their personal car on their own time. You know why? Because those companies know that if you are willing to show bad judgement in a car you are more likely to show it in a truck.

Since you love ridiculous comparisons, would you trust an airline pilot with your families life if he has 50 DUI convictions in the past 2 years, even though he (so far) has never tested positive while flying?

Andrew