Advocacy & Safety - Police interpretation of bikes in traffic...

Originally posted by lamajo25
I don't want to do this again, but I have to, to defend the Law Enforcement Community. It is the duty of every law enforcement officer to enforce all laws and to ensure the safety of the public. I don't care if you've ridden through there for 10 years before this person has become an officer, if he feels you life may be in danger he has the duty to have you get out of the road. If you refuse you are in violation of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer.

Do you not see the logical conflict inherent in your argument, Lamajo25? The law is quite clear: cyclists have a LAWFUL RIGHT to use our all of our PUBLIC roadways except limited-access freeways, and in many locations they are expected NOT to use sidewalks. In what sense was the officer in question "enforc[ing] all laws"? My "life may be in danger" every time I breathe, every time I drive, every time I walk on the sidewalk, etc.

Defend the Law Enforcement Community all you wish to, but please do not attempt to defend officers who are so completely clueless regarding lawful vehiclular bicycling! They are a major part of our problem.

Originally posted by lamajo25

Secondly don't refuse or refute something an officer tells you to do. Yes that officer may have gotten out of bed on the wrong side that morning, but they are the legal authority and can tell you what to do, if you refuse you are disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. In most states that is a law.


It's not a lawful order if it requires you to do something unsafe and there's no reason or explanation for the order.

This is still America, martial law has not been declared, and the police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us.

RichC

John, the unfortunate thing is you are one of the people that law enforcement hate. I do not dispute the fact that all cyclists have a legal right to the roadway. Not in one bit. The part that you guys aren't getting is if the officer tells you to do something and you argue it you aren't abiding the laws yourself. As I said before, a law enforcement officer has the duty to enforce the law and ensure the safety of the public.

Police officers are supposed to know the laws that they are sworn to enforce; that's all we're trying to tell you. If they don't know the law, then they are not properly trained. If they try to enforce nonexistant laws, then they are not being professional. Just because they're cops, it doesn't mean you have to do any old arbitrary thing they tell you to do--usually the standard for obeying an order from an officer is that their request is 'reasonable'.

Law enforcement in general has a well-deserved reputation for not listening to community members in the communities they are supposed to be serving (remember 'protect and serve'?); and police departments have an equally poor reputation of being too insular, and resistant to suggestions as to how they could be doing their jobs better.

Simply put, cops that don't know traffic law should not be assigned to traffic duty, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

This may be a bit off the subject, but it may prove a point. Because of the incidents across the country of people being pulled over by police impersonators, the public was advised that if they don't feel safe when asked by a police officer/car to pull over they have the right to drive to wherever they feel safe, like a fully lighted and public area before being pulled over.

Well, couldn't it be said that the bicyclist had a right to wait until he felt safe to pull over? There is not a law on the books that says a person must risk their well being to pull over at the request of a police officer.

Police officers are supposed to know the laws that they are sworn to enforce

First of all they are supposed to have a general knowledge of the laws in their area with a reference book to be able to look up any additional laws. I guess you guys don't understand or realize, there are more than just the bicycle laws in a law book. To include criminal codes (i.e. homicide, criminal damage, trespassing) along with traffic codes (i.e. speeding, impeding traffic, D.U.I.) to alcohol laws (i.e. minor consuming, providing alcohol to minors, consuming alcohol in a public place) and many other laws. Police Officers are not know it alls by any means. Like I said before, if you have a question you can ask them to dig out their book to check, or one better have them call for a supervisor, they have to call for one.


28-622. Failure to comply with police officer; classification: A. A person shall not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

The funny thing is I actually found that under traffic laws in Arizona. I sure all other states have this law. Yes you are allowed to go to the nearest place where you feel safe to pull over without any problem.


Just because they're cops, it doesn't mean you have to do any old arbitrary thing they tell you to do--usually the standard for obeying an order from an officer is that their request is 'reasonable'.

I see no where in that law that it states "reasonable". No ifs and or buts. And like I said it directly relates to traffic regulation. If he says move, you have no choice in the matter.


Simply put, cops that don't know traffic law should not be assigned to traffic duty, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

If it's a smaller town or area then they may not actually have "Traffic Enforcement Officers" but have beat officers that are assigned to actually Serve and Protect, along with enforce traffic violations within their beat. That's how it is at my department.


Law enforcement in general has a well-deserved reputation for not listening to community members in the communities they are supposed to be serving (remember 'protect and serve'?)

As you said "(remember 'protect and serve'?)". Protect, as I said in an earlier post, they are there to protect you. If they do not feel that you are in a safe position they have the duty and obligation to make it safe for you whether you disagree or not. They took the oath to protect and serve, not to pester and piss you off. They are doing thier job whether you like it or not, and whether you disagree with their actions or not.

Take it to court and see which person the judge sides with. He may throw it out, but as you guys said the law in Michigan is very vague on lane usage by cyclists. This may mean that he may have to just go ahead and pay the ticket.

THAT SO RIDICULOUS!! Some cops have nothing better to do. I took the advice from someone several months ago and I'm so happy I did. This has been the season for ticketing cyclists for whatever reason.

Solution: Get a helmet cam because they know what it looks like immediately. Not only for safety reasons but you will be one step ahead of the BULL. I love the cam and I wouldn't ride without it.

Surprisely, many people asked, what is that on my helmet? Most think is mini "light". LOL.

Seriously, if he was wearing one, I'm sure that cop's behavior would have been totally different.

Officer: Jump off the Golden Gate Bridge!
Lama Jo: Yes Sir right away Sir!

:lol: :lol:

Seriously, if he was wearing one, I'm sure that cop's behavior would have been totally different.

And the person on the bike was in perfect behavior. As I see it he challenged the officers knowledge with attitude.

:roflmao: :roflmao:


Officer: Jump off the Golden Gate Bridge! Lama Jo: Yes Sir right away Sir!

:roflmao: :roflmao:

That is a joke that I just can't stop laughing from. Bobatin, let's just say that I know your type and you are one just to argue for argues sake. You know that's actually worked for me once. I was in a critical incident training, where we were role playing. I was the communicator and had a suicidal person on the other end. We went round and round for 15 minutes with me trying to talk the other person down with no luck. We finally stopped, and the trainer, who has had many years of dealing with suicidal people, tells me to keep going. I asked if I can take it a route that I think might work. She said do as you need. I said cut yourself, nobody wants to hear it anymore. She was speachless, then said can we talk somewhere else away from the situation. I said sure you still want to kill yourself, she said no. I did it in training as a new employee on a supervisor running scenarios by me and he was baffled and commended me. So if you want to jump go for it.

I'll keep sticking by my traffic laws. Bobatin you have an attitude that unfortunately the next time you get pulled over is going to get you a ticket. You feel that the road is yours and that you have more right to it than anyone else. Keep trying though.


Solution: Get a helmet cam because they know what it looks like immediately. Not only for safety reasons but you will be one step ahead of the BULL. I love the cam and I wouldn't ride without it.

This may be a good idea. The thing is most law enforcement cars now have dash cams and microphones on the officers, and if not they carry voice recorders. If the officer chooses so, he can use it in court. The judge is going to go with the law enforcement tape before a personal tape. The law enforcement ones show both the officer and person contacted. Normally the body language speaks as loudly as the voice does. And if the judge can't see yours but can on the officers tape then you are probably screwed anyway.

Some of you so called senior members that feel that the road is yours need to go back to bike safety 101 and learn the laws as taught by a professional. You aren't a professional even if you've ridden a million miles. You have to get papers to be a pro.

La Majo--I wish you'd quit defending the cops no matter what and simply admit that they do make mistakes, sometimes quite frequently and/or quite egregiously. They're just people like the rest of us, so stop trying to make them appear infallible and somehow superhuman. Some people are good at their job and others aren't -- this goes for cops, too, and it could have something to do with the training that they recieve (or lack thereof) with regard to certain aspects of their job, such as traffic enforcement against bicyclists. And, unfortunately, poorly trained cops reflect poorly on the community that they are suppose to be serving.

I wish you'd quit defending the cops no matter what and simply admit that they do make mistakes, sometimes

If you find where I stated that cops don't make mistakes I will retract my entire posts and state that the person who argued with the officer was right.

I have stated that Officers have entirely too many laws to memorize that there are mistakes to be had. As everyone else here said Michigan's Cyclist in the Lane Law is very vague. He could be in the right.


They're just people like the rest of us, so stop trying to make them appear infallible and somehow superhuman.

I know they are because I work with them all the time. I know they make mistakes. The problem is, most citizens haven't a clue on how to challenge their way through a ticket. I'm giving adivise on how to get officers to realize that they may be in the wrong. As I said before, have them pull out their handy dandy little law book or call for a supervisor. Most of you are just under the impression that you are right but you aren't.

I think we have all come to agree that this law runs pretty much through every state in the U.S.


A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

You are subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, to include impeding traffic, failure to yield, failure to comply with a lawful order.

If you are in disagreement with an officers call and you feel he just has a lack of knowledge to your rights as a cyclist, it is your responsibility to pipe up and say, I think you are wrong I would like to speak with a supervisor. Do it and quit arguing, both with the officer and me. You as a cyclist are a lazy person and feel that everything should be handed to you.


Some people are good at their job and others aren't -- this goes for cops

Yes this is absolutely true. And the worst part is, I've actually seen some come and some go, and some are still there trying. I don't see you out there even trying. "Cops are stupid, they gave me a ticke." Cry about it, if you aren't going to do anything about it nobody should have to listen to you complain.


and it could have something to do with the training that they recieve (or lack thereof) with regard to certain aspects of their job, such as traffic enforcement against bicyclists.

Matter of public record. It is a Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement agencies to keep logs of any and all training for all of it's officers past and present. If you actually think officer's have a lack of training, you really are mistaken. And you can go in and request records to find that information out (Oh I forgot it's supposed to be handed to you so you know).


(or lack thereof) with regard to certain aspects of their job, such as traffic enforcement against bicyclists.

Just so you know :irritated they are just out there to give you a ticket, and that is their entire job. Not to keep you safe as a cyclist, just to make you mad.


And, unfortunately, poorly trained cops reflect poorly on the community that they are suppose to be serving.

Here is another unfortunatly known fact. Training requires money/funding from the public that the officer serves.

Let me guess, most of you arguing that officers are dumb and don't know their job, voted against a pay raise, or funding for your local public services. Most people that voted last time not to make it easier for public service employees by funding their department, are the first to complain about the service that they recieved. Whether it be slow service or a ticket they recieved due to lack of training (i.e. lack of knowledge of the laws).

If you actaully ask me, you people need to get a better knowledge of your local laws.

with all the drunk/stoned , stupid ,homicidal drivers , terrorists ,******* ,murder's ect,ect around you'de think this arsehole of a cop would find a better way to spend the taxpayers money !!!

Greywolf, you know the funny thing is nobody said I was a police officer. And if you read my profile I'm a dispatcher (yes I know my laws here and am educated). I'm able to do so many things at one time you guys wouldn't even begin to be able to comprehend.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Greywolf, you know the funny thing is nobody said I was a police officer. And if you read my profile I'm a dispatcher (yes I know my laws here and am educated). I'm able to do so many things at one time you guys wouldn't even begin to be able to comprehend.
lamajo ,dont get me wrong here I,m refering to the cop in the original story , most cops do a good job, probably this one too ,just that day he was being an arsehole , it happens to us all at work at some time , argument with the boss, leave turned down, ect ,ect. I personaly make a good arsehole when pissed off at work;) :p ;)

Originally posted by lamajo25
Some of you so called senior members that feel that the road is yours need to go back to bike safety 101 and learn the laws as taught by a professional. You aren't a professional even if you've ridden a million miles. You have to get papers to be a pro.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Are you actually suggesting that more can be learned from reading a book than experience? As I've said, should I get any of this rubbish from a cop (and it's yet to ever actually happen), I'll go straight to the Queensland Chief commissioner of police.

Oh, and by the way - the road is mine until such time as I get a refund on all those dollars I've paid out in taxes to build it.

lamajo, I am not sure where you picked up from the beginning of this thread that the cyclist gave the officer attitude - he in fact did not. He simply waited until it was safe to proceed to the sidewalk, and while in process, was pulled over by the officer. He then asked, politely, as you suggested he should have, what he had done wrong. When the officer told him he was riding in the middle of the road, which was untrue, the cyclist didn't rant and rave and claim right to the road, he simply replied to the officer that cyclists can ride in the road. Remember, at this point, 200 yards after being told to move to the sidewalk, he was indeed moving to the sidewalk, and was then stopped by the officer. The officer then decided to write him up for impeding traffice, which he clearly was not doing.

The sad part is the cyclist may not fight this other than to show up in court for an informal hearing, and leave it in the hands of the judge. He could wind up paying a fine for having done nothing at all illegal, and in fact, attempting to comply with the officer's instructions.

I understand many of your points about officers in general, and carry a great deal of respect for the vast majority of them. I would never want to do the job that they do. I believe this is an isolated incident. In fact, on the way home that same day, the cyclist having passed through Sylvan Lake, was passed by an officer from neighboring Keego Harbor. That officer took the time to politely wave to him on his way by.

In Quebec it is illegal to ride a bike with wheels >20" on the sidewalk, so if a police officer tells me to ride on the sidewalk, it is no more legal than if he tells me to hold up a bank.

Are you actually suggesting that more can be learned from reading a book than experience?

Cris, my question to you is, do you think you can know more about a law by not reading it? Experience just means that you have been down that road. Have you been pulled over by an officer who has given you a ticket for something that you shouldn't have gotten one for? If not, doesn't that mean you have no experience with this topic? So all in all, if you haven't had that experience don't where would you go to find an answer in reference to laws? As you posted:


(and it's yet to ever actually happen),

Meaning you don't have any experience with traffic laws other than you experience from you 100,000+ miles ridden on your bike never having had to deal with law enforcement.

Greywolf, I appologize I though you were directly relating that towards me. I do agree with you, officers have bad days just like many other people. The unfortunate thing is many times (because I have experience with this situation) the aggravation comes when they contact a person and that person gives them attitude because they feel they have been wronged. Whether it be a true wronging or not.


As I've said, should I get any of this rubbish from a cop, I'll go straight to the Queensland Chief commissioner of police.

That's the first thing that I said to do. But you better be able to back it up.


Oh, and by the way - the road is mine until such time as I get a refund on all those dollars I've paid out in taxes to build it.

You and the how many other million people. Like I said before, you are a person that complains that you had to actually pay for something. You own it along with those million or so people that also paid for it. If you think that you need to go cut out the maybe 1/2 inch portion of the entire road that you ride on and take it home with you, because that might be exactly how much of the road you actually own from your taxes.

And you still need to go back to Bicycle Education 101 to learn these, since most of you are guessing at what you want to believe.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Cris, my question to you is, do you think you can know more about a law by not reading it? Experience just means that you have been down that road. Have you been pulled over by an officer who has given you a ticket for something that you shouldn't have gotten one for? If not, doesn't that mean you have no experience with this topic?

OK, I think there's been a misinterpretation here. I was referring to your earlier claim about an officer knowing more about the safety of a particular road or situation than someone who experiences it everyday. Fact is, they don't. The law may well give them the power to order someone off the road in any given situation, but does that make it right? I believe I do follow the laws of the road perfectly, and the fact that I have never had a ticket or even a warning in my life is testament to that.

Generally I have a lot of respect for the police and law enforcement generally. However, like any other profession (including the one in which I work), there are always going to be a few who should not be there, and the incident which started this thread is one of them. All I have said here is that if I ever encountered the rather ridiculous situation that was mentioned at the top of this thread (and I doubt I will because I believe most police officers have better things to do), I would not only fight the charge, but I would also take steps to ensure it never happens again.

Sure, I'd follow the cop's directions and get off the road at that point, but he isn't going to stand there with a big stick and watch me all day, and as soon as he's out of sight, I'll be going straight to lodge a formal complaint. I've long learned the futility of dealing directly with people who are abnormally stupid - so I don't do it.


Originally posted by lamajo25

You and the how many other million people. Like I said before, you are a person that complains that you had to actually pay for something. You own it along with those million or so people that also paid for it. If you think that you need to go cut out the maybe 1/2 inch portion of the entire road that you ride on and take it home with you, because that might be exactly how much of the road you actually own from your taxes.

Funny, everybody else only owns the same half-inch or so, too. I say funny because I see thousands of people taking more than that each day. So perhaps we can all go and take our little half-inch home. Or better yet, we can all learn to share it, get along, and wait our turn - regardless of the type of vehicle.

I probably would have bribed the officer with a donut & cup of coffee, im sure he would changed his mind about the ticket (wink)

At the end of the day the cop is payed by the citizens taxes to serve & protect the citizens, he/she is a servant of the people & as such should be open to scrutiny & if he/she gets pissed off with a citizens 'attitude' thats just too bad , we all get pissed off with our employers now & again . Cops do deserve respect but no more or less than a firefighter, nurse , paramedic or the guy who works all night emptying garbage cans ect . All people who do an honest days/nights work need respect & have to take "attitude" from people they serve without packing a sad ! or resorting to petty revenge tactics.ie abusing the authority invested in them!

That is a very, very good post Greywolf.

Originally posted by lamajo25


{Quote**
28-622. Failure to comply with police officer; classification: A. A person shall not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.


The funny thing is I actually found that under traffic laws in Arizona. I sure all other states have this law. Yes you are allowed to go to the nearest place where you feel safe to pull over without any problem.


And yet the ticket was for 'impeding traffic', not for failing to comply to a direction from a police officer. Why are you persisting this line of argument? Even the issuing officer knew such a charge wouldn't stick.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Some of you so called senior members that feel that the road is yours need to go back to bike safety 101 and learn the laws as taught by a professional. You aren't a professional even if you've ridden a million miles. You have to get papers to be a pro.


Originally posted by lamajo25
In general if you treat them like egotistical A******s, they will treat you the same.

And you consider this to be professional behaviour?

Originally posted by lamajo25
Cris [sic], my question to you is, do you think you can know more about a law by not reading it? Experience just means that you have been down that road. Have you been pulled over by an officer who has given you a ticket for something that you shouldn't have gotten one for? If not, doesn't that mean you have no experience with this topic? So all in all, if you haven't had that experience don't where would you go to find an answer in reference to laws?

Maybe Chris hasn't but I certainly have. I have had a police officer, a Senior Sergent no less, try to tell me that I was supposed to ride on the footpath over a certain bridge. I argued with him, politely of course before you get your blood up, and didn't get ticketed because I knew the law and knew that he was wrong. He even tried to pull the old 'it's for your own safety line, and the 'you're holding up traffic' line, amongst others, neither of which was true and both of which I had counter arguments for. He then tried to tell me that a law had been enacted banning bikes from the bridge, but when I asked him to quote the exact law he came over all vague and had no more detail than a vague memory of some court case from a couple of years ago.

In the end he let me go claiming that he didn't want to have to waste time appearing in court when I contested the ticket, which I most assuredly would have. The real reason of course was that there was no legal reason why I shouldn't ride on the road.

You see, he can tell me to ride on the footpath for my own safety, but without a legally compelling reason to do so it can be nothing more than a suggestion, and the ultimate decision of where to ride rests with me. Maybe I should just be glad that Australia isn't yet quite the police state you imagine your own country to be. Or maybe, God forbid, you are wrong and this cop was just being a prick for no good or legal reason.

By the way, Queensland, as far as I know, is the only state in Australia that doesn't ban cyclists other than children and adult accompanying children from using the footpath. You see, I do know the laws here, and yes some police officers, even Senior Sergeants it would seem, aren't quite up to speed when it comes to bicycles and the law. Could it be a lack of exprience do you suppose?

He then tried to tell me that a law had been enacted banning bikes from the bridge, but when I asked him to quote the exact law he came over all vague and had no more detail than a vague memory of some court case from a couple of years ago.

Once again, I have noticed the fact that many of you actaully haven't a clue of the laws in your area other than your right to a lane. Allister, you are actually openly admitting that it's all possible that there may now be a law that bans you from a specific bridge, but you say that because he couldn't verbalize the entire law to you, you feel he's incorrect. Maybe you need to check the law again.


You see, he can tell me to ride on the footpath for my own safety, but without a legally compelling reason to do so it can be nothing more than a suggestion, and the ultimate decision of where to ride rests with me.

You are impeding traffic on a rainy day isn't a leagally compelling reason. I do understand that fact that there wasn't any other traffic in view of the cyclist.


And yet the ticket was for 'impeding traffic', not for failing to comply to a direction from a police officer. Why are you persisting this line of argument? Even the issuing officer knew such a charge wouldn't stick.

My question to you is did you read this post from the actual beginning all the way through. I was making a point that if an officer gives you an order, like get over to the sidewalk, just because you have ridden that road for the past 20 years and feel that you have a better judgement than an officer you still have to follow his orders. I've stated this many times in the post, kudos to the cyclist for finding a safe way onto the sidewalk, even if he felt the officer was wrong in telling him to move to the sidewalk. If the officer shows to court and the judge listens to both sides normally (and sometimes unfortunately) the judge will side with the officer. If the officer just once states, I felt that the suspect was not in a safe position on the road due to road conditions, then the judge is going to agree with him (even if the rider says but I've been riding that road for the last 20 years).

You guys aren't getting the fact that I have experience with court, and law enforcement and actually know what I'm talking about.

Allister, I don't consider it professional behavior when officers treat people like a**'s. Here's a little scenario. You go into work, your boss pisses you off, you go to your office or your work area and don't have to deal with anyone else for the rest of the day.

Officer goes to work, Seargeant gets on him for something, then responds to a call where the husband has been beating his wife, husband goes off on officer, then goes to Local shop to pick up a snack and grabs something quick and easy (normally something sweet *yeah it's probably a doughnut*) and some smarty pants in the back ground goes, hehe look the pig's eatin a doughnut (SurfNonAssfaulT), then goes driving down the road during a storm and finds a cyclist that is trying to avoid the puddles on the right side of the lane, tells him to move twice (which it may actually appear that the cyclist was trying to just ignore him not saying that the person riding wasn't actually finding a safe place to move over) to the sidewalk, then when he finally gets to a point of moving out of the road, the officer contacts him and the person questions his judgement. You tell me, does that seem to be an equal comparison? I know, officers are paid by you so they should just take it with a grain of salt and blow it off, because they don't have feelings because of where their pay check comes from.


At the end of the day the cop is payed by the citizens taxes to serve & protect the citizens, he/she is a servant of the people & as such should be open to scrutiny & if he/she gets pissed off with a citizens 'attitude' thats just too bad

Yes, my pay check comes from the local tax payers, I serve also. They thing is, all citizens feel they know the officers job better than the officer does. Where did you get your law enforcement training? Oh that's right, from your experience from riding your bicycle. No schooling, just your pedaling.


Cops do deserve respect but no more or less than a firefighter, nurse , paramedic or the guy who works all night emptying garbage cans ect .

No they don't, never said they do. Thing is everyone wants to see those people. But when a cop pulls them over they have automatically been wronged, and know it because the officer is paid by said persons taxes and you can have his job at any time because he is wrong and you aren't. That pretty much sums it up right? The next time you resort to that tactic try it. Actually follow through.


All people who do an honest days/nights work need respect & have to take "attitude" from people they serve without packing a sad ! or resorting to petty revenge tactics.ie abusing the authority invested in them!

Once again, when it comes from pretty much everyone that you don't know your job, it starts to wear after a year, 5 years, maybe even 10 years. I'm not agreeing that it's right for them to abuse their authority, but you can't prove that that's what they are doing just because you feel they are having a bad day.


Or maybe, God forbid, you are wrong and this cop was just being a prick for no good or legal reason.

Maybe he was, if you think so try that defense in court, see how far you get with it.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Once again, I have noticed the fact that many of you actaully haven't a clue of the laws in your area other than your right to a lane. Allister, you are actually openly admitting that it's all possible that there may now be a law that bans you from a specific bridge, but you say that because he couldn't verbalize the entire law to you, you feel he's incorrect. Maybe you need to check the law again.

There is no such law. I knew this at the time, which was why I questioned it. I wasn't aware af any court case at the time, but I confirmed it later with the actual person involved in the case, and it had no bearing whatsoever. It is required here that if a road is banned for cyclists it must be signposted as such. This one isn't and never was. Is that clear enough for you?

And yes, if he can't quote chapter and verse, or at least point it out to me in a book when I know that the law contradicts what he's saying, I will question it every time.

My knowledge of the road rules is comprehensive, make no mistake about that. If it was any less than that this officer would probably have gotten away with issuing an illegal ticket.



Originally posted by lamajo25
You are impeding traffic on a rainy day isn't a leagally compelling reason. I do understand that fact that there wasn't any other traffic in view of the cyclist.

What's with the obsession with rain? I never said anything about rain (there was none), and peloton stated categorically that rain wasn't an issue in the case he described. Is English not your first language or something?


Originally posted by lamajo25
My question to you is did you read this post from the actual beginning all the way through. I was making a point that if an officer gives you an order, like get over to the sidewalk, just because you have ridden that road for the past 20 years and feel that you have a better judgement than an officer you still have to follow his orders.

It has nothing to do with judgement. It has to do with the law. If there was indeed a legally compelling reason not to ride on the road I would not have hesitated to comply. The police, despite what you persist in arguing, do not have absolute authority. The officer I spoke to knew it, the officer dealing with peloton's friend knew it. Why is it still failing to sink into your thick skull?


Originally posted by lamajo25
I've stated this many times in the post, kudos to the cyclist for finding a safe way onto the sidewalk, even if he felt the officer was wrong in telling him to move to the sidewalk. If the officer shows to court and the judge listens to both sides normally (and sometimes unfortunately) the judge will side with the officer. [/B

That's funny. I thought they were supposed to side with the law.


Originally posted by lamajo25
[B]You guys aren't getting the fact that I have experience with court, and law enforcement and actually know what I'm talking about.

That's not what I'm getting.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Allister, I don't consider it professional behavior when officers treat people like a**'s. Here's a little scenario. You go into work, your boss pisses you off, you go to your office or your work area and don't have to deal with anyone else for the rest of the day.

Officer goes to work, Seargeant gets on him for something, then responds to a call where the husband has been beating his wife, husband goes off on officer, then goes to Local shop to pick up a snack and grabs something quick and easy (normally something sweet *yeah it's probably a doughnut*) and some smarty pants in the back ground goes, hehe look the pig's eatin a doughnut (SurfNonAssfaulT), then goes driving down the road during a storm and finds a cyclist that is trying to avoid the puddles on the right side of the lane, tells him to move twice (which it may actually appear that the cyclist was trying to just ignore him not saying that the person riding wasn't actually finding a safe place to move over) to the sidewalk, then when he finally gets to a point of moving out of the road, the officer contacts him and the person questions his judgement. You tell me, does that seem to be an equal comparison?

Not at all, which is why I would never want to be a cop. The level of detachment the job must require is mind boggling. If a cop can't practice that level of detachment at all times they are on duty, perhaps they would be better suited to a different job. There is no excuse for an officer letting emotions or personal opinions effect his actions.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Maybe he was, if you think so try that defense in court, see how far you get with it.

Well, I wouldn't use those words exactly. I would simply say that I had broken no law eg. you can't impede traffic if there isn't any, and that the ticket was unwarranted.

What's with the obsession with rain?

Here is the point you aren't getting. If the Officer feels that it's an unsafe condition for a person to be riding in the roadway during rain and tells him to get out of the road, by law you are to do as told by the officer.

How hard is it to understand that.


The police, despite what you persist in arguing, do not have absolute authority.

I have never said that they have absolute authority. They do, though, have the authority to tell you to get out of the road if they feel it unsafe.

I don't see what is so hard about that.


That's funny. I thought they were supposed to side with the law.

They do and exactly. If the officer says he felt it was unsafe for the person to be in the road due to adverse conditions, the the judge will side that way. And if the judge just flat out feels like the ticket was unwarranted then he'll throw it out.


There is no excuse for an officer letting emotions or personal opinions effect his actions.

You mean that because an officer carry's a gun, wears a badge and you pay his sallery, he isn't allowed to be human. Don't argue that because that's what you stated that due to his profession he isn't allowed to have emotions.

It's no use arguing anymore with an apologist for all forms of bad policing and bad police behavior. I don't buy any of it, and there are many cyclists right here with me in Portland, the 'Best City In America for Cycling' three times running, who will agree with me that the local constabulary knows Jack Squat when it comes to bicycling and the law. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Beyond that, I think it's just best that we all agree to disagree--IMO, no one here is likely to change their opinions because of a sudden flash of insight based on what someone else has written in this thread.

Where the F did these google ads come from all of a sudden, BTW?

That is ********, I hope he fights it. Pretty much anywhere in North America it is legal to take up the whole lane when on a bike, I do all the time, sometimes it is the only safe thing to do and my local city concil put out a brochure on safe cycling and it states that you are entitled to the whole road. Also pretty much anywhere in North America it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk. I think the cop needs to have his badge taken away.

Originally posted by randya
It's no use arguing anymore with an apologist for all forms of bad policing and bad police behavior. I don't buy any of it,

Neither do I. Allister has once again hit the nail on the head. It would seem there are one or two other people in this thread who would rather read a book on something than rely on real-world experience, that is fine, too. Either way, it isn't going to change the way I ride, because I live in the real world, not in books. I ride on roads, not paper.

I'm also done with this thread.

I just don't understand how you guys feel you know the law if you haven't even looked at them. I guess I'll get more law enforcement experience by riding my bike as you two have since the books don't seem to actually know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by lamajo25
I just don't understand how you guys feel you know the law if you haven't even looked at them.

I've not only looked at them , I've read them cover to cover, and have them sitting on my hard drive for instant reference. I did mention at least twice that I know the laws.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Here is the point you aren't getting. If the Officer feels that it's an unsafe condition for a person to be riding in the roadway during rain and tells him to get out of the road, by law you are to do as told by the officer.

How hard is it to understand that.

And rain or not, I would counter by saying that riding on the footpath is ALWAYS less safe than riding on the road, and may in fact be illegal. It certainly is in many states of Australia. Look, I'm not totally resistant to a reasonable direction from a police officer, but in the case that started this thread no such direction was given. You see, it comes down to the reasonableness of it all, and in the situation described getting off the road was anything but reasonable, whether the police officer thought so or not. It's all give and take in these situations, and such directions are always open to negotiation, not just blind obedience. In this situation the officer got pigheaded and decided, for whatever reason, to throw reasonableness out the window, and THAT is what I, and many others in this thread, have a problem with.



Originally posted by lamajo25
You mean that because an officer carry's a gun, wears a badge and you pay his sallery, he isn't allowed to be human. Don't argue that because that's what you stated that due to his profession he isn't allowed to have emotions.

Read it again slowly. He can have all the emotion and opinion he wants, but it should in no way effect the manner in which he performs his duty. I'm not sure I can explain that any more simply for the hard of thinking.

I don't notice lamajo citing chapter and verse in his defense of his position, either. "I know what I know because I know it" seems to be pretty much his whole case. Maybe he doesn't understand that veteran cyclists make it a point to know and understand the laws that apply to them specifically because they are so commonly abused by ignorant cops. I carry a copy of the traffic code, exerpted to highlight the laws that apply to cycling, on a laminated card in my bike bag. It has taken the wind out of more than one cop's sails over the years.

But lamajo knows what he knows. Everybody needs a hero.

RichC

"I know what I know because I know it"
He has read the laws but does not understand them. He purposely misinterpets the law to push his point that cyclists do not belong on "his" roads. He also carries a lot of preconceived notions and prejudices about cyclists, The majority of them negative. It must have something to do with a negative outlook on life.

Originally posted by lamajo25
I just don't understand how you guys feel you know the law if you haven't even looked at them. I guess I'll get more law enforcement experience by riding my bike as you two have since the books don't seem to actually know what they are talking about.

I have said it before and I will say it again. This person is a troll with little or no time on a bicycle to their name.

I am glad they are a dispatcher and not out harassing law abiding cylists with their "legal" interpretations. Very little they say has any relation to any actual law, its all opinion innuendo and FUD.

I would say not to feed the trolls and they'll wither and go away, but we all know how likely that is to ever happen on the internet ;)

take care,

Jester

He has read the laws but does not understand them. He purposely misinterpets the law to push his point that cyclists do not belong on "his" roads.

You know I came to this site to get some answers and possibly be able to help some poeple. But like most forums, you are also stuck on yourselves, and believe that nobody is correct.

This statement is the best.


I've not only looked at them , I've read them cover to cover, and have them sitting on my hard drive for instant reference.

It's so funny how you say you've read them front to back, and have them for reference, but have yet to actually post you areas laws. I think the funniest thing is I actually read them every day. Not just once then use a reference. I have to because I have to put in charges for why someone was arrested or cited. You know your laws alright.


He purposely misinterpets the law to push his point that cyclists do not belong on "his" roads.

Yeah that's it. Unlike most of you, I don't have time to ride to work everyday. So that automatically makes me a motorist? And yes I do prefer trails because it's peaceful and more stress relieving.


He also carries a lot of preconceived notions and prejudices about cyclists,

If this was the case, why would I have come into this post and made comments on how to make sure You get out of a ticket. Like make sure you have a good memory of how the conditions were that day. And be prepared to go to court, take a copy of the actual law. The officer may have been just being a dick, I don't know. But like all other people you just assume that because he told the guy to get out of the road he was being a jerk. You know the strangest thing is, you can pretty much chalk this one up to someone carrying a knife and not wanting to drop it right away. You know the consequences for that are quite a bit more harsh. If an officer orders you out of the roadway, do it. Stop your bike and do it. If you choose to get back in the road once he's gone so be it.

No an officer doesn't have absolute power over the roads, that's why courts are made and you can contest you ticket. Yeah you have to take precious time out of your day to do so. But had you followed orders you wouldn't be in that position now would you have. I would more think that I respect law enforcement more than most of you because the profession is bashed more than any other profession not just because I work for it. You know, this is exactly how all of you think. Cops suck because all they do is write us tickets all day and don't know that cyclists have rights to roads. Yeah cyclists have rights to the road, but they also have to obey all other traffic laws. Not just within reason of those laws. Laws were set down to protect people from wrongdoings of others.

You know, something I learned many years ago in driver's ed. You don't have the right to drive, you have the priviledge to drive, that's why it can be taken away. You have the right to the road but if needbe, it can too be taken away. I realize most of you will turn that into what you want to believe but the next time you are driving a car and you do something stupid it will come to realization.


The majority of them negative. It must have something to do with a negative outlook on life.

No I don't have a negative outlook on life and most of my postings weren't negative. I think is pretty much because I have to deal with people like you with no COMMON SENSE IN YOUR BRAINS that think they know my job better than I do.


exerpted to highlight the laws that apply to cycling, on a laminated card in my bike bag.

I would have to say you need to go back and re-highlight the one that also states you have to abide by all other traffic laws. Just to make sure that you tell the officer that. You have no special priviledges. You must obey that law more explicitly than any of your cyclist have the right laws. As you will notice that law is normally posted at the beginning of the Bicyclist Rules and Regulations section. Normally when something is posted that way it means its significance is of more value than any other thing within its contents.


"I know what I know because I know it"

As usual you mis-interpret a comment. Because you have more right than me apparently. I know what I know because I DEAL with it day in and day out. Not just when I feel like pulling out the book and trying to make it right for me.


And rain or not, I would counter by saying that riding on the footpath is ALWAYS less safe than riding on the road, and may in fact be illegal.

I don't care if it's more unsafe than you think. How can it be more unsafe? Because it has more oil on it? No that can't be it. Because there is more people on it? I rarely see poeple walking on my sidewalks. I know there are more people in other areas that utilize the sidewalk so that doesn't reall count. Is it due to more debris? Can't be that because if the sidewalk is poorly maintained by the city, the first idiot walking that falls ususally can sue the city for their injuries. Do you think it's more of actual lack of control of your bike? I think that may be it.


You see, it comes down to the reasonableness of it all, and in the situation described getting off the road was anything but reasonable, whether the police officer thought so or not.

Can you actually explain to me why it's an unreasonable request? I can name several things why it is. The roadway is wet and slick due to oil. The tires on the person ticked on his bike are most likely road bike tires, which have little to no tread to them. Yes on warm dry conditions those tires will grab more than a treaded tire will. I know this because I also work on cars sometimes and have a vast knowledge of drag racing, and course racing. If there was any water on the road then you have to probablity of having problems in the eyes of the officer. It's only an unreasonably request if the conditions were completely different. I don't really care if you think that the conditions were not a problem or a consideration.

The officer has the duty to protect and serve. By serve, it doesn't mean don't write me a ticket or I'll cry about it for a week then go to court and try and get out of some crime I committed but don't think that the cop was right because he was mad. Wah Wah Wah. I feel no sorrow for any of you.

Once again, the law there in Michigan was very vague as to a cyclist right to use the lane. He can contest it in court and deal with it if the judge doesn't feel he is actually right.

Yeah I'll agree to disagree here but maybe one of these days you will get your turn with law enforcement. Try as you guys may the laws I go by are the written ones not the ones I have experienced because I've rode a million miles. Wait it's not experienced, it's the ones that came to me because I cycle, not because they are written down and I've read them like you guys.

Dude, chill out before y'all bust an artery. And don't take everything so personally, or you'll grow old before your time logging time on forums like this.

I've had many incidents with officers who have tried to tell me I was to be operating on the sidewalk. Some have been downright rude, and most end up putting their vehicle in such a way that if I WAS impeding traffic in my lane, he was impeding the REST of traffic travelling in our direction.

In Sep 1996 as I was bicycling home from a night class at Tacoma Community College, I had just started after stopping at a redlight, and I was about 3 feet from the curb. I was about 100 feet away from the redlight (on a very wide bridge with red rear blinker, panniers with reflective tape, clear front blinker AND headlight) when I heard a car shift into 2nd or 3rd and BANG! The next thing I remember is being on my hands and knees on top of my bike.

The office who responded was a beaut, too. While I was in the Emergency Room he was rude and had already made up his mind that I was the one at fault. (why is it when it's between two motorized vehicles whoever rearends the front vehicle is the one at fault, but if it's a motorized vehicle that rearends a bike, the bicyclist is made to feel like it is THEIR fault?) I told him I had a read blinker, he responded, "I SAW that blinker, it was very small." I found out later that it was the same one that the Tacoma Police Bicycle Officers use. I asked the officer if the driver was sober, he replied sarcastically, "Oh he was sober". I wonder if he even gave him a breathalizer test. To add salt to the wound I got a citation in the mail a week later for "riding on the road".

My LBS got me in touch with a local attorney who had defended bicyclists in court before.

My understanding was that if a police officer doesn't show up in court over the citations they hand out, that the citation is automatically thrown out. The officer never showed up. The citation was thrown out of court, though, when my attorney brought one of the blinkers to court and showed the judge how bright it is. The driver kept saying he didn't see me, and didn't see my blinker, and tried to say my panniers were covering it. But I had been seen by several classmates AND my instructor, my instructor said there was no way someone could say they didn't see me.

I hope your friend is able to find an attorney that has defended bicyclists before. No, bicyclists should NOT be on the sidewalk, but sadly 49 of the 50 states actually HAVE "no bikes on sidewalk" laws on the book. As far as I know the only state that clearly states that bicycles are prohibited from operating on the sidewalk is California, and that for those over the age of 14 or 16 and only where it's clearly marked.

I hope your friend is able to get the ticket thrown out. I think most motorists forget that the speed limit is NOT the lower limit, but the UPPER limit. It's sad when officers get the same attitude.

~~Bren

First, let me say I'm not in law enforcement. But, I believe lamajo25 has some valid points. I've been to court numerous times as a witness at times and a juror another time. Pel-o-ton's friend better have his act together when it comes to his side of events. That's what I think he's trying to say. Yeah, I think the cop had a problem. But now the cyclist has a ticket. Let's just hope the judge isn't the officer's uncle and that HE didn't get up on the wrong side of bed. When is the court date?

Ooops! I meant to say 49 out of 50 states have no "no bikes on the sidewalks" laws in their Revised Code. California is the only state I know of which specifically states no adults may operate a bicycle on a sidewalk -- all other states basically state "when a bicycle is operated on the roadway. . ." leaving the option of the bicycle being able to be operated on the sidewalk.

The only RC law here in Washington states that if there is a sign "no bikes on bridge" then it is compulsory for the bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk of the bridge. BUT, if there is no sign to that effect, then bicyclists ARE allowed to operate on the roadway.

~~Bren

lamajo25,
you state, when responding to some of the posts, that the writer of the post has no formal training or experience in law enforcement. what was it you do again? dispatcher, wasn't it? FYI, my personal training and experience includes (and is limited to) the four years i served in the military as an MP and 3 of those years as a Reserve Deputy...how qualified does this make me? the one and only reason i DIDN'T become a police officer is i don't want to be shot!

i have also gotten a ticket for impeding traffic, by two bike cops that were riding on a sidewalk in a buisness district (it's not legal in minneapolis to ride on the sidewalk in a buisness district), but i was in a bike lane. now granted, i don't work as a cop, so my knowledge of laws and procedures might be lacking, but i'm interested in your take on this (i was in the bike lane, traveling with the flow of traffic on a one-way street, in a buisness district of downtown minneapolis, and the ticket was for impeding traffic, because a car was turning).

Actually, riding on the sidewalk in California is a local municipality issue. For example, it's legal in the city of Los Angeles as long you're not reckless, it's illegal in Santa Monica except for the bike paths at the beach, and in Culver City, it's legal except for in a business district, or by a public school, etc.

(i was in the bike lane, traveling with the flow of traffic on a one-way street, in a buisness district of downtown minneapolis, and the ticket was for impeding traffic, because a car was turning).

I'm not sure what you are implying with the rest of your post, but as for the ticket. If what you say is where you were, you are going to have to go to court to fight it. Was the car in a turn lane? Was the car initially in front of you or were you in front of it? You just have to have a good recollection of the incident to make sure you have a solid case in your defense.

My whole purpose in stating that I work for law enforcement is the fact that some people here (the ones in Australia) who have never dealt with the laws as written here in the U.S. keep trying to interpret them for the cyclist when here in the U.S. most states clearly state what is written in my signature. That is copied directly off of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Check your local laws. As I stated early on in my postings.


I think most motorists forget that the speed limit is NOT the lower limit, but the UPPER limit.

The lower limit is decided by the officer in that beat. As I said before most of them give 10-15 miles per hour either way. Upper and Lower. If the sign says 45 and you are only able to keep 35 (that's usually pushing it on a bike) you are 10 under. Now say that the speed limit is 40 and you are only able to keep 25, you are 15 under.

And I would include that comment in your own head. If the sign says 25 keep up. Nobody likes a person impeding traffic by going slower than the speed limit.

Originally posted by lamajo25
The lower limit is decided by the officer in that beat. As I said before most of them give 10-15 miles per hour either way. Upper and Lower. If the sign says 45 and you are only able to keep 35 (that's usually pushing it on a bike) you are 10 under. Now say that the speed limit is 40 and you are only able to keep 25, you are 15 under.

Since when are cyclists subject to minimum speed limits?

Since you are subject to all laws that govern traffic.

Here's a good theory.

If you want to be traffic and consider yourself as traffic maybe you should abide by the laws governing traffic. Since they govern people here but not there.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Since you are subject to all laws that govern traffic.

Here's a good theory.

If you want to be traffic and consider yourself as traffic maybe you should abide by the laws governing traffic. Since they govern people here but not there.

Let me rephrase the question: Which law states that cyclists must maintain a speed above the limits described in your earlier post? You can even use AZ law if you like.

Allister you can obviously see that you are from some foreign country. They normally don't know how to drive in the U.S.


Which law states that cyclists must maintain a speed above the limits described in your earlier post?


The lower limit is decided by the officer in that beat. As I said before most of them give 10-15 miles per hour either way.

It appears that you can't read either.

Officer's have discresion here in the U.S. All of them I work with either give 7-15 miles an hour over the posted speed limit before they write a citation. It's not a matter that the cyclist has to go faster than the speed limit. The cyclists does how ever, have to keep up with the flow of traffic.

If the posted speed limit is 35, then the speed limit is 35. If a cyclist is going 25 that's 10 miles an hour under the posted speed limit. If an officer feels, that is what you call impeding traffic.


Since when are cyclists subject to minimum speed limits?

Once again since you are required by law to follow all traffic laws.

I hope you get this soon. You don't to be understanding, we live in two different countries and you go by your laws.