Advocacy & Safety - Bike v. Police

Bicyclist:
(A) nearly hit by car.
(B) discombobulated, veers momentarily across yellow line
(C) pulled over, harassed, and ticketed by policeman who "saw the whole thing" and accused the cyclist of unsafe riding.

Is there anything that can be said in favor of the police position here? Am I missing something?

Worst thing: I've been told that if the cyclist tries to use this video in court he will be thrown in jail for recording the police without telling them. Can that possibly be true?

Recorded on helmet cam, here:
Bike vs. Cop (http://contour.com/video/work-home-ticketed-8-3-2010-4-30pm)

Wow, that sucks... why doesn't the guy in the SUV get a ticket for crossing the line?
I do have to wonder why you didn't pull over when he first put on his siren before the traffic light? That probably didn't help his mood.


Worst thing: I've been told that if the cyclist tries to use this video in court he will be thrown in jail for recording the police without telling them. Can that possibly be true?

Possibly... lookup the guy in maryland who got pulled over on his motorcycle... not only arrested but all his equipment confiscated... the surveillance laws are being abused by police in these cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ
That doesn't mean you can't try, it depends on the judge, and the local laws on wiretapping.

FWIW, this is not me! Just a video that got posted today and I thought might be of interest here, and am particularly interested in laws pertaining to using a helmet cam, because I wear one myself from time to time, and always thought that the scenario of getting harassed by police would be one good use for it.

wow, if this cop followed me home, i would receive over 100 citations in less than an hour

what a doosh-nozzle

Honestly, it looked to me like the biker could've been further to the right. He looked to be dead-center in the lane.

Not stopping when first signaled by the police certainly didn't help him.

Losing one's balance is probably not a good excuse for crossing the center line. Someone driving a car wouldn't get off w/that excuse.

Honestly, it looked to me like the biker could've been further to the right. He looked to be dead-center in the lane.

And depending on local & state laws, that may have been perfectly legal. Here in Texas, if the lane is less than 14 feet wide, as far to the right as possible does not apply.

1. Don't argue with cops. They have (a) guns, (b) arrest authority, and frequently (c) an attitude. State your position and shut up.
2. Pull over when they first signal. Failing to do so contributes to (c) above.
3. In Florida, at least, recording such an encounter is completely legal.
4. I don't think the video helps you. There is a lot of traffic, space to the right of the white line (though it seems to fade away at times - hard to tell if it's safe for riding), and you clearly did cross the yellow line. It is rare that you will win a citation because someone else (here, the driver that passed you unsafely) broke the law.

B-Jack - Sorry, just read the post stating this wasn't you.

Again, according to Texas law, the crossing over the yellow line may have been legal; One may cross the double yellow to avoid an accident. If by swerving right the rider avoided the accident but had to swerve left to regain his balance (which appears to be the case), that would be a legal maneuver. Failing to pull over at the first signal damned the rider to a ticket in this case I think.

Yeah, agreed. That was profoundly dumb. On first viewing I thought maybe he was confused about who was being signalled, but that neither makes sense nor matters. He should have pulled over. Very dumb.

Unmarked cop car, un-uniformed cop ... I'd be reluctant to stop until I was sure too. What was that guy, anyways? He had a badge, but he didn't write the ticket. And what a jerk!

Sounds like a good situation to have recorded -- the video shows the extremely close passing, shows a slight loss of control, shows him only crossing the line for a few seconds, etc. Should be instrumental in getting the ticket thrown out, however ...

Massachusetts is one of the states that has a "two party consent" wiretapping law, and indeed it's one of the states that has used these laws against the taping of the police (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/massachusetts-wiretapping-law-strikes-again). So while most states are more reasonable in their laws, this was taken in one of the bad states. So this video could get the guy who took it in trouble.

Based on the site and the wide-angle, it's a CounterHD mounted to his camera. It's quite obvious, though the cops (?) never made any reference to it so maybe he didn't notice?

Unmarked cop car, un-uniformed cop ... I'd be reluctant to stop until I was sure too. What was that guy, anyways? He had a badge, but he didn't write the ticket. And what a jerk!

Sounds like a good situation to have recorded, however ...

Massachusetts is one of the states that has a "two party consent" wiretapping law, and indeed it's one of the states that has used these laws against the taping of the police (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/massachusetts-wiretapping-law-strikes-again). So while most states are more reasonable in their laws, this was taken in one of the bad states. So this video could get the guy who took it in trouble.

Based on the site and the wide-angle, it's a CounterHD mounted to his camera. It's quite obvious, though the cops (?) never made any reference to it so maybe he didn't notice?

I thought the tapping laws did not come into play if audio is removed/not recorded?

I thought the tapping laws did not come into play if audio is removed/not recorded?Did you have your speakers turned off while watching the video? It has clear audio, you can hear and understand everything said. And I don't think removing the audio is sufficient -- it needs to not have been recorded to be safe, and really, if the video is clear enough to read lips from, that might make just the video sufficient. And the video has been published, which seems to be another violation according to my very quick skimming of the MA law.

Either way, the camera should have been fairly visible, which makes it harder to claim it was was done secretly. Sometimes that matters, sometimes not.

Florida has a two-party consent law, but only if the speaker has a reasonable expecation of privacy. It's ahard to argue that a police officer making a traffic stop on a busy street has any expectation of privacy.

Did you have your speakers turned off while watching the video?

No, I couldn't watch it :(. Flash keeps crashing on it, for some reason. Anyway, that's not what I was driving at...


It has clear audio, you can hear and understand everything said. And I don't think removing the audio is sufficient -- it needs to not have been recorded to be safe, and really, if the video is clear enough to read lips from, that might make just the video sufficient. And the video has been published, which seems to be another violation according to my very quick skimming of the MA law.

I would think removal of audio would be. If you bring a video to court with no audio, it's got no audio, period. Were it never posted before, there'd be no way of showing that he ever recorder audio of the cop. I wonder if there's any precedent there....

As to the violation by posting - yeah, you're likely right.

If the cyclist wants to fight the ticket he doesn't need to show the part with the cops to the court. Just the part with the car nearly running him over to explain his actions. Looks like compelling evidence - sounds like the car even hit the bike.

Either way the issue of video/audio taping cops is moot. The ticket is what he is fighting not the cops behavoir.

The cop seems pretty arrogant, but not pulling over for him didn't help.

There was an OK shoulder when the car passed. The cyclist could have been there, but wasn't. He may have to explain why he chose not to stay as far right as practicable in that section of roadway.

I don't have a helmet cam but have often thought one facing forward and one rear would be best. Facing forward only shows half the story.

Glad, overall, that the rider is OK in the end.

Hey....my first post!

Mike

Worst thing: I've been told that if the cyclist tries to use this video in court he will be thrown in jail for recording the police without telling them. Can that possibly be true?

During the Spanish Inquisition, sure; I'd hope not any longer.

Attorney: "Your honor, seeing as how the court is faced with the difficult task of reaching a decision in this case, may it please the court, I would like to present new information to help you reach an informed conclusion."
Judge: "No! Knowledge is evil! Break this man on the rack! Or just send his client to jail."


It is rare that you will win a citation because someone else (here, the driver that passed you unsafely) broke the law.

I wonder just how rare it really is. The whole point of self defense is that something that would otherwise be illegal is permissible in one particular situation, because somebody else broke the law. If I see somebody drowning in the lake I live on, it's perfectly legal for me to steal a boat to rescue the person; I would have to return it, obviously, but I can't take it in the first place except in this type of circumstance. It's a crime for a construction worker on a high rise to drop a hammer to see what will happen if it hits somebody, another crime to drop the same hammer hoping to hit somebody, and not a crime at all to drop that hammer accidentally having lost balance. What I'm saying is that in theory at least, the law is supposed to consider the circumstances, to distinguish between a guilty act and a guilty mind, etc. For a cyclist to cross the center line momentarily, while avoiding potential death from being hit by a car, is entirely different from doing it for fun, and the court should recognize that. Whether it will is another question.

Caveat: I didn't watch the video.

I would think removal of audio would be. If you bring a video to court with no audio, it's got no audio, period.Right. In this case, that would certainly work, removing the audio.

But if the cop had noticed the camera and wanted to be a REAL jerk, he could have asked if it's recording, then immediately arrest the guy after he says "yes" for unlawful wiretapping -- and then he'd never get a chance to erase the audio. Or in court, the judge could ask if there is also audio to go with the recording, and being under oath you're not supposed to lie -- pleading the 5th would be appropriate, but few would immediately realize that.

In any event, MA is one of those states that has the "bad" laws and has abused them in the past.

As for this case, audio is pretty important -- the timing of the yell and the siren are both very relevant. But everything after that could be edited out.

But now, now that it's been published online, and people are looking at it, it's likely to come to the attention of the cop involved if it hasn't already. "Bad cops, here in our city? Hey, that's Bob (made up name)! <dials up Bob> ..." And Bob will look at the video, and his first inclination will probably be "oh ****, that makes me look bad" and his second will be, if he's a good cop will be to "hmm, I guess he was right after all" and if he's an average or a bad cop he'll go "hmm, how can I make this stop?" and if so, it's possible that the cyclist will be arrested for wiretapping charges.

There was an OK shoulder when the car passed. The cyclist could have been there, but wasn't. He may have to explain why he chose not to stay as far right as practicable in that section of roadway.
In the states where I've lived the legal definition of the roadway does not include the shoulder; i.e. the roadway is only the space between the foglines and riding as far right as practicable does not impose any burden to use the shoulder (although most states do allow bikes to do so if they choose). Haven't checked Mass. law on their definition of roadway but I'd be surprised if it didn't also exclude the shoulder.

Regardless the cyclist crossed the yellow line (as did the vehicle who passed) and that is what the cop is talking about. Also the siren sounded a couple times before it was considered a pursuit (the reason a uniformed officer arrived.)
The plain clothed officer (most likely the Chief or detective or some higher ranked) most likely saw only the cyclist crossing the yellow line considered it unsafe (which it was) and attempted to stop the cyclist to chew his ass (because plain clothed officer usually don’t write the tickets anymore) (traffic that is) but ended up having to pursue the cyclist.

Ego Mmmm, can’t say maybe a little, but what are you *****ing about? The car that almost hit you or the cop? If it’s the car go after the car if it’s the cop, I think you might want to put yourself in their position first.
Seriously think outside the box before you answer.

If the "two-party consent" law were in effect, then the cops' own dash cam footage would be inadmissable. AFAIK, as said above, "wiretapping" only applies to communications that are done with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Operating a vehicle on the public highways, you have no expectation of privacy. Performing her/his duty in public, neither does the cop. That doesn't stop them from trying to intimidate you into thinking otherwise, of course.

Is there anything that can be said in favor of the police position here? Am I missing something?

It's hard to tell how the lane violation was caused by the close pass.

As far as I know, the law on recording official actions varies state-by-state.

Two party consent doesn't apply in places where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy - like on the street.

If the "two-party consent" law were in effect, then the cops' own dash cam footage would be inadmissable.... unless it was permitted by law, and in this case it is.

From the law in question (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm) --


D. Exemptions. 1. Permitted interception of wire or oral communications.
...
c. for investigative and law enforcement officers ...
AFAIK, as said above, "wiretapping" only applies to communications that are done with a reasonable expectation of privacy.Yes, in other states that is there in the law. I do not find such a passage in the MA law here. It does seem to say that the recording must be secretive, however -- is a camera stuck to your helmet secretive? The helmet was put down after being pulled over -- that could be construed as trying to hide the camera ...

And again, people have been charged and convicted for wiretapping (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/massachusetts-wiretapping-law-strikes-again) for simply openly recording the police in MA before. That is not a hypothetical situation -- it did happen -- -- but that has not (yet?) happened to the guy who took this video that we're talking about.

It's a very real danger, I'd say. Most states have more reasonable laws regarding recording what happens in public, but a few have laws that have been abused by law enforcement to punish those who make them look bad or commit "contempt of cop".

. Failing to pull over at the first signal damned the rider to a ticket in this case I think.

Disagree The car that pulled him over seemed to be unmarked, and he was giving bursts of the siren, not a continuous siren. When he caught up with the car at the intersection, after the first siren, he looks back at the black car following him - it was not showing any lights, or other indication that it was a law enforcement vehicle.

One thought - it appeared as though the vehicle that made the close/unsafe pass in the first few seconds was a black Ford SUV - identical to the unmarked car that pulls the cyclist over. What are the chances that the vehicle making the unsafe pass was another unmarked police vehicle?

Disagree The car that pulled him over seemed to be unmarked, and he was giving bursts of the siren, not a continuous siren. When he caught up with the car at the intersection, after the first siren, he looks back at the black car following him - it was not showing any lights, or other indication that it was a law enforcement vehicle.

One thought - it appeared as though the vehicle that made the close/unsafe pass in the first few seconds was a black Ford SUV - identical to the unmarked car that pulls the cyclist over. What are the chances that the vehicle making the unsafe pass was another unmarked police vehicle?

Nope. 1st Small Unit Vehicle was blue, and obviously a civilian vehicle.

There was an OK shoulder when the car passed. The cyclist could have been there, but wasn't. He may have to explain why he chose not to stay as far right as practicable in that section of roadway.

I don't know about the state where this took place but if the law is similar to Florida's the legal definition of what constitutes the roadway specifically excludes the paved shoulder. So the legal requirement to ride as far right as practicable never includes a paved shoulder; although a cyclist may utilize a paved shoulder if they so desire.

If the shoulder of that road is intermittent or unridable for any reason in certain sections the cyclist was in the safest lane position he could establish in a narrow lane without zig-zagging from the center of the lane to the extreme right outside the lane; which would be very dangerous under the presented traffic conditions.

Not knowing the applicable laws in the state where this took place I can't comment on the LEO other than to say he was very arrogant and unprofessional. If what he said is correct about the motor vehicle having done nothing wrong, which I highly doubt, then that state has some really screwed up traffic laws. I also highly doubt the veracity of the LEO's statement that they were in the process of chasing a suspect. If that were so he was fooling around by making this stop when he should have been working.

Something else, too. The first time the LEO gave the cyclist a chirp of his siren the cyclists correct course of action should have been to pull over and stop to allow an emergency vehicle to pass; just as any other vehicle on the road should do for an emergency vehicle running code. That is likely what really earned him the ticket.

If that guy wants to ride in traffic he better learn to hold his line, close pass or not. Crossing the double yellow because he was flustered could easily have made his day go even worse.

The cop was full of crap stating that the "car did nothing wrong". The pass was clearly unsafe, no matter where the rider was in the lane.

As for the comment in here that he could have been farther right...that ain't no excuse for the driver's unsafe pass.

If that guy wants to ride in traffic he better learn to hold his line, close pass or not. Crossing the double yellow because he was flustered could easily have made his day go even worse.

As for the comment that he could have been farther right...that ain't no excuse for the driver's unsafe pass.

Finally, the cop was full of crap stating that the "car did nothing wrong". The pass was clearly unsafe, no matter where the rider was in the lane.

Agreed. If the cop ticketed the cyclist, he should have ticketed the SUV as well. (hate those SUVs)

This brings to mind a situation I had a few years ago on a group ride. There were about 20 riders and we were riding at a leisurely pace through a neighborhood with narrow roads, no shoulder, so our group was taking the lane and riding 2 x 2 until the local cops pulled up on us and warned us to ride single file over to the right or he would ticket us.

Agreed. If the cop ticketed the cyclist, he should have ticketed the SUV as well. (hate those SUVs)

This brings to mind a situation I had a few years ago on a group ride. There were about 20 riders and we were riding at a leisurely pace through a neighborhood with narrow roads, no shoulder, so our group was taking the lane and riding 2 x 2 until the local cops pulled up on us and warned us to ride single file over to the right or he would ticket us.

Does your state allow "not more than two abreast" like many do? If so, he'd probably try to write you for some other nonsense like obstructing traffic and hope you all didn't have the huevos to take it to trial.

I guess some of you don't know siren protocol. A continuous siren means, get out of the way.
A whoop whoop means they are signaling to someone nearby, to pull over. In this case, the demented lane hogger on a bicycle. Sure, he was going 24 mph likely, but he was in the left tire track most of the time. Does making a passing car go as wide as possible help at all ? NO.

Saying this bicyclist was almost hit, is silly. Deliberately buzzed, maybe. I guess it was the cyclist who did the yelp, beside the van. The driver, however, gets equal idi*t points. They both almost caused a 3 car and 1 bike calamity. I suggest he pay the fine , ride to the right and smarten up.

Why does the cop care so much about the bicyclist going over the yellow line and then stop his suv in such a manner that dozens of cars have to cross the yellow line to get around him while he's lecturing the cyclist?

The guy actually posted his whole commute here (http://contour.com/node/102810) -- he's taking the whole lane, including on some pretty high traffic arterials in a way that I would not do, and I don't think would be legal in here in Washington State (because he's not able to go at the speed of traffic). He gets plenty of beeps prior to the "buzz".

Legal or not, this is definitely the kind of riding that is guaranteed to create some conflict.

Bicyclist:
(A) nearly hit by car.
(B) discombobulated, veers momentarily across yellow line
(C) pulled over, harassed, and ticketed by policeman who "saw the whole thing" and accused the cyclist of unsafe riding.

Is there anything that can be said in favor of the police position here? Am I missing something?

Worst thing: I've been told that if the cyclist tries to use this video in court he will be thrown in jail for recording the police without telling them. Can that possibly be true?

Recorded on helmet cam, here:
Bike vs. Cop (http://contour.com/video/work-home-ticketed-8-3-2010-4-30pm)

What I don't understand is that if the cyclist is in the wrong, so was the SUV for also crossing the double yellow... Yet no officer mentioned that... oh no, it was the cyclist as a "disruptive force" that was the problem... Sheesh. :rolleyes::notamused:

That fat lard idiot in the unmarked car needs to be clued in. Watching the video I thought the siren was meant for something else, when at about 40 seconds in, the cyclist looked back and didn't see anything... lights, markings or whatever on that vehicle... then lard bucket gets out and proclaims the cyclist as "jousting." Guess Lard man has never had the crap scared out of him by a large passing SUV and lost his balance. (doubt he has ever ridden a bike, much less walked much)

Sorry that the "Lard" references are so un PC, but I "felt" this situation when I watched the video. What I saw was the cyclist was "at fault" due to the attitude of police... who decided to enforce the law very unfairly. Jeeze, what a jerk.

Disagree The car that pulled him over seemed to be unmarked, and he was giving bursts of the siren, not a continuous siren. When he caught up with the car at the intersection, after the first siren, he looks back at the black car following him - it was not showing any lights, or other indication that it was a law enforcement vehicle.

One thought - it appeared as though the vehicle that made the close/unsafe pass in the first few seconds was a black Ford SUV - identical to the unmarked car that pulls the cyclist over. What are the chances that the vehicle making the unsafe pass was another unmarked police vehicle?

Exactly what I saw too...

Also in the full version, when he gets the citation from the uniformed policeman he tells him "Hey wait, this is not a bicycle citation. You need a bicycle citation for bicycles, you know that!?"

Sounds like he's had some experience with this before!

The policeman just ignores him.

Why does the cop care so much about the bicyclist going over the yellow line and then stop his suv in such a manner that dozens of cars have to cross the yellow line to get around him while he's lecturing the cyclist?

Amazing, eh? ;)

On the subject of whether the video would be admissible in court:

If for whatever reason he is not allowed to show his conversation with the police officer, I can think of no reason whatsoever he wouldn't be allowed to show the video of the unsafe pass and his reaction to in in which he crosses over the line,and just drop the whole talk with the cop Really, this is the only important part of the video as far as "did the cyclist actually do something wrong to warrant a ticket?" goes, and could be useful in court.

My take on what the cop said is that he was just using the cross over the yellow line as an excuse. He sounds like he's really just upset that the cyclist is taking the lane where it is sub-standard width.

According to the cop in yellow:

It is acceptable to unsafely pass a bicycle because the bicycle is an "obstruction".

The cyclist should consider himself glad he is white. If he were black and showed those cops this attitude he might have expected any or all of the following:

1. Run his name and arrest him if any old unpaid tickets or warrants turns up.
2. Search the cyclist because he seemed nervous, or combative, or the cops thought they spotted a concealed weapon, or a crack pipe, or because that street was a "high crime area", or because drug dealers are known to disguise themselves as cyclists.
3. If the cyclist upped the attitude just a little, kick his ass or tase him and arrest him for disorderly conduct , resisting an officer, or both. If while getting his ass kicked, the cyclist tried to defend himself and actually hit one of those cops, then he would be charged with a felony charge of battery to law enforcement.
4. If they find any drugs, weapons, or drug paraphernalia, arrest the cyclist for those offenses too.
5. Impound the cyclist's bike. Maybe he gets it back, maybe not.

I am a defense lawyer, and all of these things have happened to my clients over the years.

The SUV driver was an idiot, unsafe pass for cyclist and oncoming traffic. Take a look again and watch the oncoming car have to veer right to avoid a head on.

Cyclist needs to learn to hold a line better, especially with the idiot drivers on his route.

Cop is a bigger idiot, especially if he is telling the truth that he was on his way to a breaking and entering investigation, but then decided to stop and harass a cyclist who was riding legally and not illegally impeding as the cop claimed.

Agreed that the cyclist could cut the video just after the unsafe pass to fight the ticket.

But I would hope the cyclist would talk to the ACLU and see if they will appeal and fight the Michigan wire tap law if the District Attorney wants to try that BS.

Typical New England pig attitude, I deal with this where I live.
I would take the lane in that instance, the speed limit is only 25 on most two lane roads in suburban Mass ,Ct and R.I. and the gutter is full of crap. The cop was enabling speeding which is what they do here too.
The shoulder is not a bike lane and the rider was doing nothing wrong I doubt there was a parade of cars behind the fat cop, at least it didn't look like it to me.
Mass. has a three foot law and the cyclist has a good chance to beat the ticket.
I personally pull over when I hear a siren chirp I would have expected the cop to yell something at the light though instead of making a scene and blowing smoke about a B'n'E case makes it comical to me.
Most police in this area have similar attitudes about a cyclists right to the road and think we should get out of motorists way.
I guess we represent a non-conformist "lifestyle". I would use the close pass in court if I cleared it a lawyer to be on the safe side. I noticed the uniform looking directly at the camera several times and if "lard-ass" is a detective then you can see why I think it's ironic he didn't say anything about it.

Looks to that the cyclist was moving along at a pretty good clip, enough so to be able to take the lane. Totally amazed at the plain clothes officer's response, such zeal in going to court to testify against the cyclist crossing the double yellow line, pretty much vindicating the SUV's driver dangerous passing and subsequent crossing of the double yellow. :notamused: Definitely got my blood boiling watching it.

I have lived in places that had a lot more cyclists than anywhere in the U.S. currently has. One of the ways that people were convinced to go back to their cars was through aggressive, uneven enforcement of traffic laws with respect to cyclists. If a cyclist went through a stop sign at 0.01 mph: ticket, in spite of the 200 cars that went through at 15 mph while the cop waited for a cyclist. Unfortunately, my fellow cyclists are just ripe for such a strategy; most of us ride nearly as badly as the carcissists drive. It may be time to start learning how to stop at stop signs and red lights. Make the cops make **** up. They will, but the helmet cam will win.

By the way, where I live it is against police policy to do traffic enforcement. However, lately I have had several friends cited for running stop signs.

I have lived in places that had a lot more cyclists than anywhere in the U.S. currently has. One of the ways that people were convinced to go back to their cars was through aggressive, uneven enforcement of traffic laws with respect to cyclists. If a cyclist went through a stop sign at 0.01 mph: ticket, in spite of the 200 cars that went through at 15 mph while the cop waited for a cyclist. Unfortunately, my fellow cyclists are just ripe for such a strategy; most of us ride nearly as badly as the carcissists drive. It may be time to start learning how to stop at stop signs and red lights. Make the cops make **** up. They will, but the helmet cam will win.

By the way, where I live it is against police policy to do traffic enforcement. However, lately I have had several friends cited for running stop signs.

I have seen plenty of cyclists break the law. Running stop signs, riding at night without reflectors or lights, riding against traffic :eek:, changing lanes on a busy street without signaling. It is a problem. Cyclists need to be respected as vehicles, and cannot just ignore traffic laws when they feel like it.

The thing is, this is not one of those cases. That cop clearly has an attitude. I would hope it is one of those cases the city attorney would dismiss once he or she saw the video.

Sorry that the "Lard" references are so un PC, ...

Not at all. The LEO claimed to have been "chasing a suspect". I got the impression that the only thing he was chasing was his next donut.

Honestly, it looked to me like the biker could've been further to the right. He looked to be dead-center in the lane.

What would that have accomplished? Getting passed unsafely even more often?




Not stopping when first signaled by the police certainly didn't help him.

True.

If a lane is too narrow to share it doesn't matter where the cyclist is in the lane motorists are going to have to change lanes to pass. Riding too far to the right in this scenario invites getting side-swiped. There's not one thing wrong with this cyclists lane position.

As to "siren protocol" who the hell knows that other than LEO and other emergency personnel? If anyone in an unmarked vehicle gives me a siren woop, I'll certainly ignore them and take them to court on it. For instance, a young, maybe mid-20s at best, volunteer fireman in my former neighborhood mounted blue and red lights (illegal) and a siren on his personal pick-up truck, then would woop the siren anytime someone was driving slower than he liked, since he enjoyed speeding through the neighborhood on a regular basis. Maybe me reporting his license number to the police and the local VFD helped put an end to it.
As to the big swerve to the left crossing the line, seemed pretty useless to me.
Of course, no way in hell I'd ever live in the PRMA, or CT, or RI, or NY, or....well, you get the idea.

FWIW As far as I am aware video taping police is only clearly illegal in Illinois, Maryland has a test cases coming up on whither wire taping laws (recording private conversations) apply to police stops.