From this (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6207958&postcount=183):

If a cop gets me for running a red, I'll take it like a man. In Miami, road rage capital of the world, I run reds right in front of cops all the time, at least twice this month, and I have never had a cop come after me. I just do what I always do, I make sure that my running the red does not interfere at all with anyone's right of way, ESPECIALLY the cops, and just go.


To this (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6337115&postcount=1):

I got a $200 ticket for running a red light which I'm going to contest.

...in less than a month...

:lol:

I re-iterate. THREE police cars to bust 50-100 flagrant red-light runners at the same time is a REALLY EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES.
Now call the police and grumble about the speeders.

I re-iterate. THREE police cars to bust 50-100 flagrant red-light runners at the same time is a REALLY EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES.

who cares how efficient it is?

:rolleyes:

The police are supposed to be responsible for public safety, that means they are supposed to make judgements regarding the relative risks of various law-breaking activities and act accordingly. Too bad they generally identify with motorists, despite the fact that law breaking motorists create a much higher public safety risk than law breaking cyclists.

Let me make sure I have this straight. You and a bunch of other cyclists knowingly broke the law? Yourself and some others got caught and ticketed? And you want to take it to court?

Hmm, let's think this through a little further. In court you can expect to be asked why you didn't stop. If you say this:
The light turned yellow as those in the front crossed the intersection. Its a group of over 50 riders packed together like sardines, what were the riders who got caught by the red suppoed to do, slam on the brakes and crash everyone in back of them?
You will be admitting that cyclists in groups regularly engage in what amounts to reckless driving by following too close. You will have just handed anybody in law enforcement in your area with the desire, the ammunition to crack down on this kind of behavior. Say good-bye to riding in pace lines, maybe even group rides in any instance where 316.192 Reckless driving, 316.1923 Aggressive careless driving or 316.1925 Careless driving, may apply.

One bike and rider = one vehicle and driver. You knowingly broke the law, got caught and ticketed. Pay up.

From this (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6207958&postcount=183):




To this (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6337115&postcount=1):



...in less than a month...

:lol:

Good eye for that.. Now that is worth quoting.:D

Now, he shouldn't have run the light, but he definately should take it to court. Every citation should be contested, so it doesn't become too easy to give false citations.

Let me make sure I have this straight. You and a bunch of other cyclists knowingly broke the law? Yourself and some others got caught and ticketed? And you want to take it to court?

Hmm, let's think this through a little further. In court you can expect to be asked why you didn't stop. If you say this:

You will be admitting that cyclists in groups regularly engage in what amounts to reckless driving by following too close. You will have just handed anybody in law enforcement in your area with the desire, the ammunition to crack down on this kind of behavior. Say good-bye to riding in pace lines, maybe even group rides in any instance where 316.192 Reckless driving, 316.1923 Aggressive careless driving or 316.1925 Careless driving, may apply.

One bike and rider = one vehicle and driver. You knowingly broke the law, got caught and ticketed. Pay up.

Could you and the many other sanctimonious, morally superior, "follow the law to the letter in every situation" nannies who have responded to my post get off your high horses, stop wagging your finger and lecturing for a moment and READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

I'm not saying that running a red light is excused by the fact that many riders were in a large group. I'm complaining that the cops limited time and my tax dollars are wasted when they intentionally target bicyclists to prevent behavior that does not threaten anyone when the cops could be stopping drivers who are going twice the speed limit and seriously endangering the safety of drivers, cyclists and peds. Why can you not comprehend this and stop repeating "You are a bad boy, you deserved what you got." You totally miss the point.

Or are you seriously arguing that the scourge of pack riding bicyclists is more dangerous to the general welfare than drivers that drive at twice the speed limit?

I'm not saying that running a red light is excused by the fact that many riders were in a large group. I'm complaining that the cops limited time and my tax dollars are wasted when they intentionally target bicyclists to prevent behavior that does not threaten anyone when the cops could be stopping drivers who are going twice the speed limit and seriously endangering the safety of drivers, cyclists and peds. Why can you not comprehend this and stop repeating "You are a bad boy, you deserved what you got." You totally miss the point.

I understand this feeling, but overall, say over the course of a year, are the resources really and substantially being taken away from motorist enforcement? This was one day out of the year. Sounds like the light running was getting out of hand (a straggler or two from a pack I understand, but 50-100 thru after light turns yellow is excessive I think)
So law enforcement needs to do something I'd say. Perhaps warnings would be better.
Now they can get back to focusing on motorists as cyclist in the areas will likely not be as flagrant in violating this law for a while as word has certainly gotten around in the cycling community, then in 6-12 months when it becomes bad habit again for 50-100 cyclist to ride thru a red light, then they can send out three cruisers again.

Al

I'm complaining that . . . my tax dollars are wasted

Are these Miami Blue working for Key Biscayne, or fiefdom of Key Biscayne public servants?

If they are KB PD, then it's really up to the citizens of KB to complain, isn't it?


Sounds like you need to break the training ride/races into smaller packs. Sounds like there are about 48 to 98 wheelsuckers out there. Go in groups of 20 with a minute or so between, and do some reasonable cool-down intervals on the fine boulevards of Key Biscayne ... rather like Critical Mass but observing all of the laws.

If you get dropped by having to stop at a light, pretend you're riding in one of the Classics and just had to wait at a train crossing ... get a workout catching up with the leaders.

And, have everyone in your group send letters to the mayor(s), the city council members, the chiefs of police, etc. decrying the speeders on the causeway. Get someone in the media to film and broadcast the unsafe driving. Ideally, counterpoise that with a clip of safe cyclists stopping for traffic lights, etc. (might have to train the group for that one!)

I understand this feeling, but overall, say over the course of a year, are the resources really and substantially being taken away from motorist enforcement? This was one day out of the year. Sounds like the light running was getting out of hand (a straggler or two from a pack I understand, but 50-100 thru after light turns yellow is excessive I think)
So law enforcement needs to do something I'd say. Perhaps warnings would be better.
Now they can get back to focusing on motorists as cyclist in the areas will likely not be as flagrant in violating this law for a while as word has certainly gotten around in the cycling community, then in 6-12 months when it becomes bad habit again for 50-100 cyclist to ride thru a red light, then they can send out three cruisers again.

Al

If it were an isolated incident, then yes, I would agree that one bust is no big deal. But unfortunately, there is a constant war on the causeway between the cyclists on one side and the residents and the cops on the other. Since the causeway is a very good place to bicycle, it gets pretty busy on weekends and even during the week, and the residents resent "their" causeway being "taken over" by cyclists and have the cops eating out of their hands.

Last year a cyclist got killed by a speeding car driver through no fault of the cyclist, but because of a combination of speeding on the part of the car and a design defect in the road, and whats the first thing the cops do? Do they enforce the speed limit that many drivers are doubling? No, they put out a dragnet to ticket every cyclist they can catch committing the most minor of offenses.

Instead of implimenting law enforcement that will save lives, the cops bend to the will of the residents and use a cyclists death as an excuse to crack down on cyclists.

Thats the reality of riding on the Key, so thats why I am so adamant about my position.

Are these Miami Blue working for Key Biscayne, or fiefdom of Key Biscayne public servants?

If they are KB PD, then it's really up to the citizens of KB to complain, isn't it?


Sounds like you need to break the training ride/races into smaller packs. Sounds like there are about 48 to 98 wheelsuckers out there. Go in groups of 20 with a minute or so between, and do some reasonable cool-down intervals on the fine boulevards of Key Biscayne ... rather like Critical Mass but observing all of the laws.

If you get dropped by having to stop at a light, pretend you're riding in one of the Classics and just had to wait at a train crossing ... get a workout catching up with the leaders.

And, have everyone in your group send letters to the mayor(s), the city council members, the chiefs of police, etc. decrying the speeders on the causeway. Get someone in the media to film and broadcast the unsafe driving. Ideally, counterpoise that with a clip of safe cyclists stopping for traffic lights, etc. (might have to train the group for that one!)

Its Metro-Miami Dade County cops that patrol the causeway. Further down the road in the City of Key Biscayne you get the real lap dog cops that work for the city.

But you are right, fight fire with fire. The problem is that there is very little sympathy for cyclists. As you can see from this post, there are many here on the forums that are on the wrong side of the car/cyclist debate and cow tow to the almighty car drivers. So if Bike Forums cyclists won't back up cyclists, what are the chances of regular people doing so? Its frustrating.

Could you and the many other sanctimonious, morally superior, "follow the law to the letter in every situation" nannies who have responded to my post get off your high horses, stop wagging your finger and lecturing for a moment and READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

I'm not saying that running a red light is excused by the fact that many riders were in a large group. I'm complaining that the cops limited time and my tax dollars are wasted when they intentionally target bicyclists to prevent behavior that does not threaten anyone when the cops could be stopping drivers who are going twice the speed limit and seriously endangering the safety of drivers, cyclists and peds. Why can you not comprehend this and stop repeating "You are a bad boy, you deserved what you got." You totally miss the point.

Or are you seriously arguing that the scourge of pack riding bicyclists is more dangerous to the general welfare than drivers that drive at twice the speed limit?

Okay sure, sometimes some law enforcement agencies target drug dealers and sometimes they target johns. Not every agency has the resources to target all crime at the same time. Sometimes it's speeders, sometimes something else. <shrugs>

Could you and the many other sanctimonious, morally superior, "follow the law to the letter in every situation" nannies who have responded to my post get off your high horses, stop wagging your finger and lecturing for a moment and READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

I'm not saying that running a red light is excused by the fact that many riders were in a large group. I'm complaining that the cops limited time and my tax dollars are wasted when they intentionally target bicyclists to prevent behavior that does not threaten anyone when the cops could be stopping drivers who are going twice the speed limit and seriously endangering the safety of drivers, cyclists and peds. Why can you not comprehend this and stop repeating "You are a bad boy, you deserved what you got." You totally miss the point.

Or are you seriously arguing that the scourge of pack riding bicyclists is more dangerous to the general welfare than drivers that drive at twice the speed limit?

Fine, then use the same tactics that the home owners of the area used and call and complain...

The problem is you are not a home owner of the area; individual speeders do not bunch up and go all at once and you are an easy target.

The reality is that the home owners' tax dollars (and potential revenue from a bunch of sissy cyclists) is an easy invitation to the cops.

If you want to fight fire with fire, do a slow ride where each and every cyclist stops at each and every possible signal and sign and delays the motorists as much as possible... make sure you are legal in every aspect.

Good luck.

If it were an isolated incident, then yes, I would agree that one bust is no big deal. But unfortunately, there is a constant war on the causeway between the cyclists on one side and the residents and the cops on the other. Since the causeway is a very good place to bicycle, it gets pretty busy on weekends and even during the week, and the residents resent "their" causeway being "taken over" by cyclists and have the cops eating out of their hands.

Last year a cyclist got killed by a speeding car driver through no fault of the cyclist, but because of a combination of speeding on the part of the car and a design defect in the road, and whats the first thing the cops do? Do they enforce the speed limit that many drivers are doubling? No, they put out a dragnet to ticket every cyclist they can catch committing the most minor of offenses.

Instead of implimenting law enforcement that will save lives, the cops bend to the will of the residents and use a cyclists death as an excuse to crack down on cyclists.

Thats the reality of riding on the Key, so thats why I am so adamant about my position.

You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

The police have many things to do over the course of a day. These things include investigating crimes and motor vehicle collisions, responding to burglar alarms, 911 calls, answering a wide variety of calls for assistance, etc. They also respond to citizen complaints. These complaints run the gamut from unusual odors to criminal activity.

It would appear that in your case there have been complaints regarding the large group of cyclists routinely disregarding traffic signals. The paranoid conspirist in you would have us believe that the group of cyclists was targeted because they were using the bridge belonging to the rich people. This line of reasoning is silly and a scary. You were targeted because of complaints related to the failure to obey the traffic signals. Guess what, there is nothing illegal or improper about targeted enforcement. The police observed the violations and took appropriate enforcement action.

You keep going back to the position that the police should be ticketing the speeding cars instead of ticketing the cyclist running the red lights. So in your mind they police should always go after someone who, in your mind, is doing something more egregious than what you are doing. The little paranoid conspiracy theorist is popping his head up again.

In the end it is simply this. The police received complaints about cyclist running red lights and decided to take enforcement action to put an end to it. There is no conspiracy between the oppressive rich people and the mean police to suppress the poor, humble cyclist.

Just for the record I am a USCF licensed racer and I participate in group rides on a weekly basis. We let it be known on all the rides that traffic laws are to be obeyed. This is done to insure we do not receive complaints, that we do not appear to be a group of rude, obnoxious, arrogant cyclists, and for the safety of our riders.

It would not surprise me if the police show up for your rides next week and then again every few weeks after just to insure that everything is under control.

Fine, then use the same tactics that the home owners of the area used and call and complain...

The problem is you are not a home owner of the area; individual speeders do not bunch up and go all at once and you are an easy target.

The reality is that the home owners' tax dollars (and potential revenue from a bunch of sissy cyclists) is an easy invitation to the cops.

If you want to fight fire with fire, do a slow ride where each and every cyclist stops at each and every possible signal and sign and delays the motorists as much as possible... make sure you are legal in every aspect.

Good luck.


The narrowest roadway in the Key has two lanes in each direction..... lol There is no real way to impede the motor traffic, even if taking the lane.

You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

The police have many things to do over the course of a day. These things include investigating crimes and motor vehicle collisions, responding to burglar alarms, 911 calls, answering a wide variety of calls for assistance, etc. They also respond to citizen complaints. These complaints run the gamut from unusual odors to criminal activity.

It would appear that in your case there have been complaints regarding the large group of cyclists routinely disregarding traffic signals. The paranoid conspirist in you would have us believe that the group of cyclists was targeted because they were using the bridge belonging to the rich people. This line of reasoning is silly and a scary. You were targeted because of complaints related to the failure to obey the traffic signals. Guess what, there is nothing illegal or improper about targeted enforcement. The police observed the violations and took appropriate enforcement action.
You keep going back to the position that the police should be ticketing the speeding cars instead of ticketing the cyclist running the red lights. So in your mind they police should always go after someone who, in your mind, is doing something more egregious than what you are doing. The little paranoid conspiracy theorist is popping his head up again.

In the end it is simply this. The police received complaints about cyclist running red lights and decided to take enforcement action to put an end to it. There is no conspiracy between the oppressive rich people and the mean police to suppress the poor, humble cyclist.

Just for the record I am a USCF licensed racer and I participate in group rides on a weekly basis. We let it be known on all the rides that traffic laws are to be obeyed. This is done to insure we do not receive complaints, that we do not appear to be a group of rude, obnoxious, arrogant cyclists, and for the safety of our riders.

It would not surprise me if the police show up for your rides next week and then again every few weeks after just to insure that everything is under control.

You are completely making up facts so that you can make the argument you want. Where in my post did I say that the complaints were about running red lights?

Talk about conspiracy theories, the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is someone who makes things up to justify his position.

I want the police to enforce the laws against murder. I also want them to enforce the laws against rape. I even want them to enforce the laws against sexual abuse of children. I hope they will understand that all of these are important to a civilized society.

And I hope they will be smart enough to understand that law enforcement is not a zero sum game, in which, if they're enforcing laws against murder, they cannot also be enforcing laws against sexual abuse of children.

I hope they will, instead, understand that they can and should enforce all of these laws.

And with that understanding, why, I'd even like them to enforce the laws against speeding drivers, drivers who fail to yield, and yes, even cyclists who run red lights.

Not in Florida. If you get past the stop line on the pavement BEFORE the light turns red, its not a stop light violation.

That's unfortunate, they should fix their law.

Funny enough, the last time i was in Miami I saw a group of about 40 cyclist riding and even as a fellow cyclist I thought, that if that was the normal size of their ride and the fact that they were going through, the lights just as you have described it would piss me off as a motorist.

The group came accross to me like "look out for us as we are a big group or else", so I am not surprised to hear that residents are complaining for a group of 100 riders.

Perhaps you guys need to ride in smaller groups.

Just my opinion.:)

Talk about conspiracy theories, the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is someone who makes things up to justify his position.

This appears to be the foundation for your original post which is peppered with assumptions to justify your position.

This appears to be the foundation for your original post which is peppered with assumptions to justify your position.

Identify the assumptions that I made in my original post.

#1 - Assuming the rich residents of Key Biscayne resent anyone using "their" causeway.

#2 - Assuming #1 is a "fact".

#3 - Assuming the police are more than willing to oblige them.

#4 - Assuming the police are doing so to rid Key Biscayne of bicyclists.

#5 - Assuming the police knew the exact time you would be on the causeway.

#6 - Assuming the "bust" tied up early morning rush hour traffic for miles.

None of these things are purely factual with the possible exception of #5 which could be determined from citizen complaints. These are assumptions which slant your account of the event.

#1 - Assuming the rich residents of Key Biscayne resent anyone using "their" causeway.

#2 - Assuming #1 is a "fact".

#3 - Assuming the police are more than willing to oblige them.

#4 - Assuming the police are doing so to rid Key Biscayne of bicyclists.

#5 - Assuming the police knew the exact time you would be on the causeway.

#6 - Assuming the "bust" tied up early morning rush hour traffic for miles.

None of these things are purely factual with the possible exception of #5 which could be determined from citizen complaints. These are assumptions which slant your account of the event.

Have you read my post? The police officer that gave me the ticket specifically said that they had set up the dragnet because of citizen complaints. The group rides at the same time every wed and fri, and has been doing so for over ten years, you can set your watch by it. They were waiting for us.

I personally saw the traffic tied up from my vantage point.

As for the rest of your assumptions, have you ever heard of a debating technique called hyperbole?

As for the rest of your assumptions, have you ever heard of a debating technique called hyperbole?

Yes I have. Your assumptions, though, are more manufactured opinion than exaggerated fact.

Or are you seriously arguing that the scourge of pack riding bicyclists is more dangerous to the general welfare than drivers that drive at twice the speed limit?

Well.. yes. In two ways.

One, biking was thrown into quite a bit of disfavor in Australia after a peleton of red light runners plowed over an elderly doctor who tried to use the crosswalk when he was legally supposed to do so. He died from injuries caused. Rest in peace, Mr. Gould, wherever you are; they know not what they do.

Two, you are part of the public. You put yourself at risk by ignoring traffic control devices. Here comes an pick-up truck looking at the light, "Oh perfect, i'll just make it when it turns green", crosses with the lights in his favor on a green light and plows through half of your paceline throwing cyclists every which way like bowling pins. The best tool a police officer has to keep that from happening is to make sure that the cyclists are obeying traffic control like the others on the road, and they do that by pulling them over and writing tickets until they don't have to anymore.

Is one single red light runner more of a danger in those two ways than one individual speeder? I don't know, I leave that to the statisticians who study these kinds of things.
But, as I pointed out, they took three cars and applied behavior modification on a piece of paper to between fifty and one hundred people simultaneously; it's not likely that they could get anywhere remotely near that sort of efficiency in that span of time chasing speeders.
So yes, they should chase the speeders, but in this case it was a more efficient use of their time to schedule one sting.

Yes I have. Your assumptions, though, are more manufactured opinion than exaggerated fact.

What part of "the police told me they had set up the sting because of resident's complaints" don't you understand? That is a statement of fact, certain specific words were used by a police officer. There is no manufactured opinion in the statement "we are stopping you because resident's complained.

You may not like the statement, it may not fit into what you wanted to happen on that day, but you look like a fool in arguing against specific facts.

That doesn't pertain to any of the six assumptions I pointed out. I believe you're so tangled up in your own bias you're no longer able to discern fact from fiction. You're clearly having difficulty employing logic as well.

So how many of the people on that ride called the police station to complain about speeding cars along that stretch of road? If you're so outraged about this waste of taxpayer money, have you contacted local news stations with the story? Filed a complaint with the police station of some kind or figured out where in the chain of command you should approach things?

What part of "the police told me they had set up the sting because of resident's complaints" don't you understand?
.


Where is the controversy? The police received complaints regarding cyclists disregarding traffic signals. They responded to the scene at the time that the offenses were reported to take place. They observed the violations and took enforcement action.

The police did exactly what they are tasked to do. They did exactly what any police department should do. They received a complaint of illegal behavior. They investigated. They observed the illegal behavior and they took corrective action.

What is your issue, I mean, other than paranoia. You rode through the red signal, you were caught and you were issued a summons.

Again, I fail to see the problem.

Face it, you were wrong. Pay the ticket and move on.

Where is the controversy? The police received complaints regarding cyclists disregarding traffic signals. They responded to the scene at the time that the offenses were reported to take place. They observed the violations and took enforcement action.

The police did exactly what they are tasked to do. They did exactly what any police department should do. They received a complaint of illegal behavior. They investigated. They observed the illegal behavior and they took corrective action.

What is your issue, I mean, other than paranoia. You rode through the red signal, you were caught and you were issued a summons.

Again, I fail to see the problem.

Face it, you were wrong. Pay the ticket and move on.

WHY DO YOU AND SO MANY OTHERS INSIST ON MAKING UP YOUR OWN FACTS WHEN IT SUITS YOUR PURPOSES? Where in my post did I say the citizen complaints were about illegal behavior? Read my post, the cop said that the department recieved complaints about cyclists, the COP NEVER SAID THE COMPLAINTS WERE OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR AND I NEVER WROTE THAT ANYWHERE.

What is your problem that you can't take the facts as given and not as you would want them?

:lol:

So the cops sent three squad cars because they got a complaint that people were riding their bikes?

:roflmao:

WHY DO YOU AND SO MANY OTHERS INSIST ON MAKING UP YOUR OWN FACTS WHEN IT SUITS YOUR PURPOSES? Where in my post did I say the citizen complaints were about illegal behavior? Read my post, the cop said that the department recieved complaints about cyclists, the COP NEVER SAID THE COMPLAINTS WERE OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR AND I NEVER WROTE THAT ANYWHERE.

What is your problem that you can't take the facts as given and not as you would want them?

Yes, the officer said that the police department received complaints about cyclists. I will accept that is what the officer said. He may have failed to elaborate on the nature of the complaint. Someone simply complaining that there are cyclists is akin to someone complaining that there are clouds. Do you really expect everyone to believe that you cannot comprehend fact that the police department was there, with multiple cars and looking for violations, because they received complaints about cyclist not obeying traffic laws?

So yes, they should chase the speeders, but in this case it was a more efficient use of their time to schedule one sting.

I don't think it is accurate to call this a sting. Otherwise, I agree 100%.

and we all know JZ never speeds in his car and comes to a full and complete stop on his bike at every stop sign he rolls up to, regardless of the presence of cross traffic....y'all should get in the shower, 'cause I smell hypocrisy.

:rolleyes:

I speed in my car...I've run the occasional stop sign on my bike...and if I get pulled over and ticketed for either, I'll own up to breaking the law and pay for it like a grown up. I will not complain that others were speeding, or that I was targeted because the police are out to get cyclists.

Now, if I am NOT breaking the law and get a ticket due to a sting...then I will complain.

Keep in mind that ALL law enforcement is targeted. They couldn't possibly enforce every law, all the time. Nor do they restrict themselves to the most serious crimes -- otherwise they would put all there resources into murder until all of the murders ever have been solved. Rather, the police put the resources they have toward offenses they think people care about, and where they think they have a chance at being successful.

I actually have to admire the restraint that the police showed in this case. It appears that they made an effort to enforce the law that actually exists, in the most limited way possible. This forum is full of anecdotes of cops who attempt to enforce a law that exists only in their own imagination. If this had happened in DC, it's plausible that the cops would have charged the cyclists with disorderly conduct and assembling without a permit, arrested them, confiscated the bikes -- or worse, left them on the side of the road. Then the perps would have been placed with their ankles chained to their wrists, and left on a concrete floor to cool off for a day or so. The crackdown would have been timed for the Thursday before a three-day weekend, so that the arrestees would have to stay in jail until they could appear before a judge Tuesday morning. Then the charges would be dropped. Crap like that happens here with pretty good regularity, and the city has paid out millions of dollars in the past few years in wrongful arrest lawsuits.

If this had happened to you, I would feel that you had been wronged. As it is, I consider you lucky to get a cheap lesson.

The OP says they will contest the ticket.

What issues do you plan to present, and how do you intend to plead? I'm not familiar with Florida traffic law, so do you plead not guilty or is there a mechanism where to request mitigation (essentially pleading guilty, but with circumstances).

the COP NEVER SAID THE COMPLAINTS WERE OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR AND I NEVER WROTE THAT ANYWHERE.

I also saw nothing I can recall to indicate to me that the complaints were NOT of illegal behavior. Only that the complaint referred to bicycles in some manner. In any case, the origin of the complaints is a complete and total non-issue. It does not matter WHY the police were there. That spot was likely just as good as anywhere to do their policely duties. They were there, you broke the law in front of them, you got caught.

The OP says they will contest the ticket.

What issues do you plan to present, and how do you intend to plead? I'm not familiar with Florida traffic law, so do you plead not guilty or is there a mechanism where to request mitigation (essentially pleading guilty, but with circumstances).

Easy. Not guilty. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed the infraction. To do so, the cop has to testify that he saw me run a red light, in the pitch black of night, in a group of 50-100 tightly packed riders, some of whom crossed an intersection on a yellow light, some on a red, while he was stopped at the side of the road.

He will have to perjure himself to testify that he picked me out of 100 riders and I am hoping that he will be honorable and simply tell the truth, that he thinks I was in the group but can't say for sure that I was. If he tells the truth, I am confident the judge will find a reasonable doubt and dismiss.

:lol:

So the cops sent three squad cars because they got a complaint that people were riding their bikes?

:roflmao:

Thats about right. There has been an ongoing fued for years between cyclists and drivers on the causeway. Its the typical mentality of bikes shouldn't use the roads. The drivers have enough clout to get the police to harass the cyclists. It comes in waves, for a while, there isn't much friction between cyclists and drivers, but in the last few weeks its been heating up, with the cops of course taking the drivers side, and since the cops have seen one bad cyclist, therefore they are all law breakers, right? Never come across that mentality have you?

He will have to perjure himself to testify that he picked me out of 100 riders and I am hoping that he will be honorable and simply tell the truth, that he thinks I was in the group but can't say for sure that I was. If he tells the truth, I am confident the judge will find a reasonable doubt and dismiss.

Or find Bike Forums where you've pretty much admitted to the offense. I suppose that self incrimination prevents them from asking you if you did it. Will you perjure yourself and say that you are innocent? Or carefully word your responses that you are not guilty?

Speedo

Easy. Not guilty. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed the infraction. To do so, the cop has to testify that he saw me run a red light, in the pitch black of night, in a group of 50-100 tightly packed riders, some of whom crossed an intersection on a yellow light, some on a red, while he was stopped at the side of the road.

He will have to perjure himself to testify that he picked me out of 100 riders and I am hoping that he will be honorable and simply tell the truth, that he thinks I was in the group but can't say for sure that I was. If he tells the truth, I am confident the judge will find a reasonable doubt and dismiss.

After freely admitting here you disobeyed the red light it appears you're the one who plans to commit perjury while under oath to tell the truth.

After freely admitting here you disobeyed the red light it appears you're the one who plans to commit perjury while under oath to tell the truth.

No, he can plead not guilty without perjuring himself. That's not the same as saying he's innocent. It's basically saying, "prove it!"

Speedo

I don't know about anyone else, but irrespective of what my usual practice was, if I saw a cop sitting at the corner, I'd stop for the light.

It doesn't require 'slamming on the brakes' to stop at a light in a group any more than it does riding solo. Anyone within the group can make the call to stop even if some get to go through, and do it safely. If you can't you shouldn't be riding in a group that size.

I also reckon if I was a lawyer, I'd be scanning the interforums for references to the case, just for fun.

If you're looking for trouble, this story is an ideal lesson in how to find it.

I got a ticket for running a red light once. I took the apparently revolutionary tactic of just paying it and not whining about it on bike forums.

It doesn't require 'slamming on the brakes' to stop at a light in a group any more than it does riding solo. Anyone within the group can make the call to stop even if some get to go through, and do it safely. If you can't you shouldn't be riding in a group that size.

Exactly.

After freely admitting here you disobeyed the red light it appears you're the one who plans to commit perjury while under oath to tell the truth.

Of course I will not perjure myself. The state has the burden of proof and I do not have to testify at all. All I have to do is raise a reasonable doubt. I will simply cross examine the police officer and then move to dismiss. If the judge grants my motion, I won, if not, I will rest without testifying, so no perjury.

Thats about right. There has been an ongoing fued for years between cyclists and drivers on the causeway. Its the typical mentality of bikes shouldn't use the roads. The drivers have enough clout to get the police to harass the cyclists. It comes in waves, for a while, there isn't much friction between cyclists and drivers, but in the last few weeks its been heating up, with the cops of course taking the drivers side, and since the cops have seen one bad cyclist, therefore they are all law breakers, right? Never come across that mentality have you?It seems to me that when they sent those three squad cars, what they saw would be confirmation of any "all cyclists are lawbreakers" mentality you claim they might be harboring.

I still laugh at your assertion that they sent three squad cars simply because somebody complained that people were riding bikes. As another poster said, that would be like sending 3 squad cars because people complained that there were clouds.

Now, if you want to tell me that people repeatedly complained that 50-100 cyclists run red lights and violate everybody else's right of way twice a week, same time, same place, and the cops sent 3 squad cars in response to THAT complaint, I would believe that.

Easy. Not guilty. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed the infraction. To do so, the cop has to testify that he saw me run a red light, in the pitch black of night, in a group of 50-100 tightly packed riders, some of whom crossed an intersection on a yellow light, some on a red, while he was stopped at the side of the road.

He will have to perjure himself to testify that he picked me out of 100 riders and I am hoping that he will be honorable and simply tell the truth, that he thinks I was in the group but can't say for sure that I was. If he tells the truth, I am confident the judge will find a reasonable doubt and dismiss.Without bothering to look up Florida law, I would be very surprised if that is the standard. That is the standard for criminal convictions. As far as I am aware, in most states, perhaps every state, the standard for traffic convictions is much lower-- a "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But we'll probably never know what the actual nature of the complaint was, or even if there was a complaint at all, since the police normally don't divulge that information, they just allude to it.

In Portland, one complaint about cyclists running stop signs in Ladd's Addition can result in the equivalent of three squad cars (or more) showing up in response.

The only flaw I see in your argument is the chance that the entire event was somehow filmed...

If the police went to the trouble of videotaping the alleged infraction, they would have to have a camera that works at night, and they would have to identify you in the crowd.

Without bothering to look up Florida law, I would be very surprised if that is the standard. That is the standard for criminal convictions. As far as I am aware, in most states, perhaps every state, the standard for traffic convictions is much lower-- a "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Well then be very surprised because thats what the law is. But you'd better look it up yourself since you wouldn't believe me if I said the sun rose today.