Advocacy & Safety - Teaching the police the bicycle laws

Most cops who have hassled me or who I have just had a conversation with just don't seem to know the bicycle laws. They don't know that we can take the lane, they don't know that you can't ride the opposite way of traffic, they just don't seem to know much. And this sucks when crap happens and the cops are involved because they automatically take the driver's side because they have no idea we have the same rights as the motorists. I'm thinking we should start our advocacy by having a meeting with the police departments in our areas so they know what the laws are. I know it is their job to know those laws, but it's the skweaky wheel that gets the oil. Good idea?

I think it's a good idea to meet with the police to share your concerns, but certainly be more diplomatic than that. Maybe ask to meet with a few representatives first about some concerns that you have, and see where that takes you. If you have a copy of the code, and can cite specific examples where it seems that officers did not know it, that would help.

Probably lamajo25, the police officer who posted on the "Pulled over for riding vehicularly" thread, would have some thoughts on this. I'd be interested in hearing them...

Its not just bike laws, cops at large are woefully ignorant of the bulk of laws they don’t' deal with on a weekly basis (which are usually speeding/accident related). If you look at the amount of training they receive, not to mention the quality of that training you would understand why.

I work as a Private Investigator and find myself teaching the cop’s laws pertaining to my job at least once a week, especially trespassing laws.

If a COP is wrong and giving you a hard time then get his badge # and the number for his Citizen Review Board, or equivalent. This usually shuts them up, if not then call the # and get the useless donut freak fired.

Its our job as citizens to police our Police, and for them to be ignorant of laws then take the next step and try to instruct you to do something that’s actually against the law is something that needs to be addressed or that officer needs to be removed from duty.

COP’s are like any other profession in that you have good ones and bad ones. The problem with COP’s is that a bad one can cause you far more problems due to the authority they have.

Send your police department a letter referencing this link: http://www.massbike.org/police

It's a very good source of educational materials developed in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for training police officers in bicycles and traffic laws.

It's worth a look, even if you're not a cop.

The cops' woeful ignorance of the law is readily apparent when they try to make you 'ride by rule' on Critical Mass...they've got the motorcycle maneuvers down, but not the law...

Most cops who have hassled me or who I have just had a conversation with just don't seem to know the bicycle laws. They don't know that we can take the lane, they don't know that you can't ride the opposite way of traffic, they just don't seem to know much. And this sucks when crap happens and the cops are involved because they automatically take the driver's side because they have no idea we have the same rights as the motorists. I'm thinking we should start our advocacy by having a meeting with the police departments in our areas so they know what the laws are. I know it is their job to know those laws, but it's the skweaky wheel that gets the oil. Good idea?

Apparently you have different laws in your state then we do in Florida. We can't take the lane, and must ride as far to the right of the roadway as practical except on a one-way road, where one can choose to ride on the far left. We cannot ride the opposite way of traffic on the roadway. The other day, I almost hit another rider as I was cranking down the road at 30 mph when this dumbass appeared suddenly in front of me going against traffic. I had to swerve into traffic from a designated bike lane to avoid taking us both out. Oh, and yes, there was a bike lane on the other side of the road also, where this alleged rider belonged.

Apparently you have different laws in your state then we do in Florida.

FWIW: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/BLEGuide-04.pdf

It can be found at the Florida DOT Web site:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/brochures/ped_bike_brochures_bicycle.htm

We can't take the lane, and must ride as far to the right of the roadway as practical except on a one-way road, where one can choose to ride on the far left. We cannot ride the opposite way of traffic on the roadway.


Part of it is in the interpritation
Practical
Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin practicus, from Greek praktikos, from prassein to pass over, fare, do; akin to Greek peran to pass through -- more at FARE

1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL <a practical failure>

Most of the time it is not Practical to ride right on the edge of the road. For your own saftey take some of the lane it is the only practical way to ride on the road with cars. Note: I am not advocating taking the whole lane all the time just when needed for your practical safty.

Apparently you have different laws in your state then we do in Florida. We can't take the lane, and must ride as far to the right of the roadway as practical except on a one-way road, where one can choose to ride on the far left. The hell we can't. The law says as far right as practicable which means as far right as to avoid any road side hazards. If we are going at the speed limit in a section we have every right to take the lane.
We cannot ride the opposite way of traffic on the roadway. The other day, I almost hit another rider as I was cranking down the road at 30 mph when this dumbass appeared suddenly in front of me going against traffic. I had to swerve into traffic from a designated bike lane to avoid taking us both out. Oh, and yes, there was a bike lane on the other side of the road also, where this alleged rider belonged.While that's unfortunate you weren't responsible for his actions.

The hell we can't. The law says as far right as practicable which means as far right as to avoid any road side hazards. If we are going at the speed limit in a section we have every right to take the lane. While that's unfortunate you weren't responsible for his actions.

All that being said, and being totally in love with cycling, if I run into some ahole taking up the whole road, he will have guaranteed himself a pissing contest - my two bicyling stickers on my rear window notwithstanding. It's people like that that have so many drivers pissed off at us here in St. Pete.

All that being said, and being totally in love with cycling, if I run into some ahole taking up the whole road, he will have guaranteed himself a pissing contest - my two bicycling stickers on my rear window notwithstanding. It's people like that that have so many drivers pissed off at us here in St. Pete.
An example, the speed limit in downtown St. Pete (right down Central) is 15 mph. On this stretch if I'm doing 15 mph+ I'm taking the lane to hell with what anybody says. You pass me you're breaking the law. I have every right to the lane. I also use 16th St as a connector. I don't take the lane there but I damn sure take the room that I need. There's an entire other lane in which cars can safely pass. I've noticed that if I ride within the right 1/3 of the lane cars give me a safe berth when they pass, as opposed to if I ride closer to the curb, say the right 1/4. I also give myself enough room on streets where parallel parking is allowed to keep myself out of the door zone.

We can't take the lane, and must ride as far to the right of the roadway as practical except on a one-way road, where one can choose to ride on the far left. We cannot ride the opposite way of traffic on the roadway.


Part of it is in the interpritation
Practical
Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin practicus, from Greek praktikos, from prassein to pass over, fare, do; akin to Greek peran to pass through -- more at FARE

1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL <a practical failure>

Most of the time it is not Practical to ride right on the edge of the road. For your own saftey take some of the lane it is the only practical way to ride on the road with cars. Note: I am not advocating taking the whole lane all the time just when needed for your practical safety.

...in Florida. We can't take the lane, and must ride as far to the right of the roadway as practical except on a one-way road...

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_bikeLaws2.htm
Roadway position (Section 316.2065, F.S.) ---- A bicyclist who is traveling at less than the normal speed of other traffic must generally ride as close as practicable (safe) to the right hand curb or edge of roadway. (However, a cyclist going straight at an intersection should ride in a through lane, not in an exclusive right-turn lane. Section 316.074 requires the driver of any vehicle to obey all official traffic control devices, which include lane-use markings and signage.)

A bicyclist may leave the right-most portion of the roadway in any of the following situations: *when passing, *when preparing to make a left turn, *when necessary to avoid any hazardous condition, including, but not limited to, a parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard, *where a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side

A bicyclist operating on a one-way street with two or more traffic lanes may ride as close to the left hand edge of the roadway as practicable.


Who better to determine the practicable (safeness) of the right side than the rider of the bike! Unfortunately, a few Cops like to make that decision for you.

The last bullet states that you "may leave the right-most..." where the lane is to narrow to share ...

The one way street that you ride on has to have two or more lanes before you have the option of riding on the far left of the left most lane. Still required to ride right on single lane one-way streets.

d.tipton

http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/takethelane.html

Part of it is in the interpritation
Practical
Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin practicus, from Greek praktikos, from prassein to pass over, fare, do; akin to Greek peran to pass through -- more at FARE

1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL <a practical failure>....

Practicable not practical.
Florida traffic code uses the word PRACTICABLE followed by (safe).
Practicable: Capable of being effected, done, or executed; feasible.
So it's interpretation should be:
Capable of being effected ... safely
Capable of being done ... safely
Capable of being executed ... safely
Feasibly ... safe.

You, the rider of the bike, may interpret the road conditions to be unpracticable and/or unsafe. Unfortunately that COP may "feel" that's it perfectly safe to ride a bike there. Uneducated in the law AND uneducated in the practice. That's a hard hill to climb.

d.tipton

You, the rider of the bike, may interpret the road conditions to be unpracticable and/or unsafe. Unfortunately that COP may "feel" that's it perfectly safe to ride a bike there. Uneducated in the law AND uneducated in the practice. That's a hard hill to climb.

d.tiptonI'd take the ticket and go to traffic court with it with a copy of the law and photo's of the area in question.

An example, the speed limit in downtown St. Pete (right down Central) is 15 mph. On this stretch if I'm doing 15 mph+ I'm taking the lane to hell with what anybody says. You pass me you're breaking the law. I have every right to the lane. I also use 16th St as a connector. I don't take the lane there but I damn sure take the room that I need. There's an entire other lane in which cars can safely pass. I've noticed that if I ride within the right 1/3 of the lane cars give me a safe berth when they pass, as opposed to if I ride closer to the curb, say the right 1/4. I also give myself enough room on streets where parallel parking is allowed to keep myself out of the door zone.

I certainly have no issue with any of that, but I find that Central Avenue is probably not the safest riding venue, and I rarely see anyone obeying the 15 mph limit. I either avoid it, or use it briefly only to get to Florida Bicycle Sport.

I'm not saying taking the whole lane all of the time. Just when it is necessary. I'm mostly talking about staying out of the door zone and stuff like that. It's just frustrating to have to explain to a cop what the laws are since it is their job to know (especially traffic laws).

I used to think it was just a few bad cops that gave the rest a bad name. I'm not so sure anymore. What type of training to they get? Shoudn't a college degree be the least amount of education for people who are to inforce the law? Do they need a college education? I'd be interested to know what it takes to be a cop.

I'm not saying taking the whole lane all of the time. Just when it is necessary. I'm mostly talking about staying out of the door zone and stuff like that. It's just frustrating to have to explain to a cop what the laws are since it is their job to know (especially traffic laws).

I used to think it was just a few bad cops that gave the rest a bad name. I'm not so sure anymore. What type of training to they get? Shoudn't a college degree be the least amount of education for people who are to inforce the law? Do they need a college education? I'd be interested to know what it takes to be a cop.

You would be surprised at how many police officers do have college degrees. Having said that, with the crap pay, crap hours, having to put up with an "interesting" element, how can you require a college degree?

I was a police officer for 5 years, and was going to law school, when the opportunity to become an airline pilot arose. In the area in which I was a police officer, the San Francisco peninsula, officers tend to be highly educated and qualified. I can't speak for the state of NC.

I'd take the ticket and go to traffic court with it with a copy of the law and photo's of the area in question.

And in most parts of the country you'd lose because a JP's traffic court is an organised racket.

In most cases, the ticket is a guilty verdict; the judge a rubber stamp.

whas jp?

Justice of the Peace

I don't think this has anything to do with how educated the police may or may not be vis a vis college. IMO it has more to do with police culture and their value system. In Portland most cops live in the suburbs and they're pretty much living and enforcing the motorist lifestyle. In that frame of reference bikes and bicyclists are a mere annoyance and they probably see no reason to see things from a bicyclist's perspective, or truly learn the law as it applies to bicyclists. It's not a college education they need, it's more on the job training.

And in most parts of the country you'd lose because a JP's traffic court is an organised racket.

In most cases, the ticket is a guilty verdict; the judge a rubber stamp.
Not hardly.

FWIW: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/BLEGuide-04.pdf

It can be found at the Florida DOT Web site:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/brochures/ped_bike_brochures_bicycle.htm

Thanks Mark for the proper response . So often we see the Law Enforcement people taking a bad rap for doing there job. How often have we seen cyclists run stopsigns or change lanes improperly or ride out in the lane of traffic for no reason and then say that they are being singled out.

I don't think this has anything to do with how educated the police may or may not be vis a vis college. IMO it has more to do with police culture and their value system.
IMHO the police are just a reflection of the majority point of view. Most folks feel that Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) traffic can't be safely integrated with Motor Vehicle (MV) traffic.

FYI: My attempts to educate adults about driving HPVs in MV traffic have collided with the strong inhibition that most people feel about integrating the two types. In case you haven't already read them, here are links to two articles on that subject
America's Taboo against Bicycle Driving (http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page7.html) (2 page HTML)
Real or Just a Taboo? (http://www.trirats.org/docs/taboo.pdf) (1 page PDF)


Bruce Rosar
"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names." - Chinese Proverb

I kinda waited to see when the post petered off a bit before expressing my opinions and knowledge. Let's go back a little ways towards the beginning. LanceB made some comments about you advising officers about the laws. Especially Trespassing. Trespassing is probably one of the easiest laws to remember. You mentioned the quality and quantity of training for officers. Quality, depends on who is teaching the class. As for Arizona, we have to go through a 17 week course. 10-12 hours a day for 5 days a week. So go minimum hours a day that's 50 a week times 17, that's a minimum of 850 hours. Now I was told at the beginning of the academy that it was actually somewhere around 1100 hours. Now AZPOST, Arizona Police Officer Standard of Training Board, requires a minimum of 8 hours of additional training per year. 100% of all police departments exceed that within the first month of each year. To date, since January 1, I've been through approximately 20 hours of training. That includes a daily half hour to hour of training with my squad which is mandatory every week. I'm not sure where you got the quality information but I would say 90-95 percent of the trainers are excellent. The other 5-10 percent are just so dry and boring that it's hard to stay awake. As a private investigator what's your training like? I'd like to know. Send me a P.M. I don't want this to turn into a pissing match between you and I.

As for "Knowledge of Laws." I'm curious as to whether you people actually know how many there are in any given state. I do know that most laws are pretty much the same just some wording differences here and there. Here are the Titles for Arizona. Mind you there are sub sections and sub-sub-sections and so on.

Title 1 General Provisions
Title 2 Aeronautics (THIS TITLE HAS BEEN REPEALED)
Title 3 Agriculture
Title 4 Alcoholic Beverages
Title 5 Amusements and Sports
Title 6 Banks and Financial Institutions
Title 7 Bonds
Title 8 Children
Title 9 Cities and Towns
Title 10 Corporations and Associations
Title 11 Counties
Title 12 Courts and Civil Proceedings
Title 13 Criminal Code
Title 14 Trusts, Estates and Protective Proceedings
Title 15 Education
Title 16 Elections and Electors
Title 17 Game and Fish
Title 18 Repealed (THIS TITLE HAS BEEN REPEALED)
Title 19 Initiative, Referendum and Recall
Title 20 Insurance
Title 21 Juries
Title 22 Justices of the Peace and Other Courts Not of Record
Title 23 Labor
Title 24 Repealed (THIS TITLE HAS BEEN REPEALED)
Title 25 Marital and Domestic Relations
Title 26 Military Affairs and Emergency Management
Title 27 Minerals, Oil and Gas
Title 28 Transportation
Title 29 Partnership
Title 30 Power
Title 31 Prisons and Prisoners
Title 32 Professions and Occupations
Title 33 Property
Title 34 Public Buildings and Improvements
Title 35 Public Finances
Title 36 Public Health and Safety
Title 37 Public Lands
Title 38 Public Officers and Employees
Title 39 Public Records, Printing and Notices
Title 40 Public Utilities and Carriers
Title 41 State Government
Title 42 Taxation
Title 43 Taxation of Income
Title 44 Trade and Commerce
Title 45 Waters
Title 46 Welfare
Title 47 Uniform Commercial Code
Title 48 Special Taxing Districts
Title 49 The Environment

So there are 49 title Sections. On a day to day Basis I deal with Titles 4, 8, 13, and 28. Okay now there are these. Was going to Post all of the 4 sections I deal with but I realized they are about 7 pages long. I'll just give you the web sites to find them on. I ask you to actuall look at them to realize my point.

Title 4 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=4

Title 8 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=8

Title 13 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13

Title 28 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28

Now remember that each and every state has laws similiar to these in Arizona. Can you as a citizen remember all of those all the time? I seriously doubt it and you as a citizen shouldn't expect any officer to remember even half or a quarter of them. I know here in Arizona almost all departments issue a copy of the Arizona Revised Statutes book form to be kept in patrol cars and to be utilized if needed. I carry this book http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catalog?action=product&prod_id=43473&cat_id=SR&pcat_id=145&pub_id=&returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Fbookstore.lexis.com%2Fbookstore%2Fsearch%3Faction%3DkeywordSearch%26keyword%3 DArizona%2BCriminal%2Band%2BTraffic%2BLaw%2BManual for my reference book. I said reference book because that's just what it is. It's somewhat like an encyclopedia. You don't have to know what's in the entire set because it's there for reference. Most officers have a general knowledge of the laws and refer back to their title books more often than not. Even the old salty dogs that have 20-25 years on. Again as a citizen you shouldn't require or even demand that an officer remember all of that.

Some of you have some good ideas. Go to your local police station and speak with the higher ups and tell them your experiences with police officers. Whether they were good or bad and explain to them that it appears that several officers are not up to date with the current bike laws. As I look in the book as the internet does not have the information on it but my book does. The last legislative session that included bicycles was in 1996. That's less than 10 years ago. So if you've been on for 20 years that's amount of time from the time you went through the academy where you are informed of the laws and the time that they were either written or revised. Every year we have to watch a 3-4 hour video that tells us what has changed within the laws. All the laws not just those 4 titles. Let's just say it's not a very exciting movie to watch. It's definately no I Robots or Ladder 49. And it's definately not easy reading. Help the administration of the police departments know that you would like to see that their officers are trained a bit more on bicycle laws to assure that they are knowledgeable about them.

I've stopped two or three bikes here in my town. I had the one guy get off the roadway on the really snowy night. It was absolutely not safe for him there. He thanked me. He hadn't realized that the plows were out and about as there wasn't a cleared path at that time. I understood everyone's concerns in the other thread where I mentioned this but I'm looking out for the 'SAFETY' of all. One of the others was stopped for riding on the wrong side of the road, running a stop sign almost causing an accident, and riding on the sidewalk. Trust me you had to be there to understand why he got the warning for the sidewalk. I warned him for all but very well should have ticketed him. He was around 20-25 years old. He should have known better. Ignorance to the laws is no excuse. And the third person was stopped at somewhere around 1 or 1:30 in the morning for riding against traffic on the sidewalk, and didn't have a headlight on her bike. Arizona requires a headlight but not taillight. She was educated and sent on her way. I've seen her since and she is doing very well as a cyclist.

I made it a point in the academy, as I ride quite frequently on the roadways to get to my trails, to pay attention to the bicycle operation section and assure that when I stop someone it's to inform them of the laws if they don't know and to take care of business if needed. Very much so remember that all laws are subject to interpretation. By officers, citizens, and the courts. Officers are only required to have a knowledge of the laws and are to refer back to the statute books to confirm their knowledge if doubted. I would say that it is difficult to watch someone that is riding the proper way on the roadway and not fear for their life because of the vehicle's on the road. It just seems very unsafe. I've done it and chose to take side streets because the main drags and city streets are unsafe because of vehicular traffic. They are not watching for the small things like bicyclists and motorcyclists. Why do you think that motorcyclists have so many lawyers advertise on t.v. It's because they know the laws and know that people are not paying attention and know that they can get money out of them.

Here's another idea. Get a good lawyer. Matter of fact there has to be some here. Have them start a firm that mostly deals with bicycle laws and have them come to court and fight the battle with you to helpthe court understand your views. I'm not being sarcastic. Motorcyclist have them, D.U.I. drivers have them, Boaters have them. Why shouldn't you.

Remember this if anything: 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.

And thier first duty and responsibility if riding on a roadway is: A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.

4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

It's not difficult. It's subject to interpretation.

And one more thing. I do have my Associates degree. It doesn't help in any way shape or form other than it helps my understand why the laws are there and how to attempt to interpret them. I have about 130 credit hours from the time I graduated college, the academy, and my firefighter 1 & 2 course. As I said in another thread I'm a certified firefighter also. Yes we get college credit in the academy.

Thanks for the excellent post, lamajo. It's nice to get a police officer's perspective here regarding cycling and cyclists. We could use more reasoned opinions here from others who deal with cyclists so that we can understand each other's issues. Good communication is the key to understanding and accomodation between all of us who share the public roads.

I hope you'll continue to contribute to these forums both as a cyclist and an officer.

Lamajo,

Sent you a PM.

Its great that you are an officer well versed in the law. As I've never lived in AZ I can not comment on the quality of its officers.

In my job I have dealt with well over a hundred stupid COP's who think they can make up whatever law they like, and enforce it. They find out quickly that is not true.

My best man was a COP, now an investigator, who has informed me how lacking the training is. After nine years on the force I can still take his gun, or asp without hardly trying and he can't cuff me (I teach him martial arts so we train on such things from time to time with an Airsoft pistol). The training is lacking to the point of being criminal.

I still encourage everyone to learn the laws of your state, and call a COP on it if they are bullying you. They only have the right to enforce the law, not make them up. They are there to Protect and Serve, but again within the confines of the law.

Here's another idea. Get a good lawyer. Matter of fact there has to be some here. Have them start a firm that mostly deals with bicycle laws and have them come to court and fight the battle with you to helpthe court understand your views. I'm not being sarcastic. Motorcyclist have them, D.U.I. drivers have them, Boaters have them. Why shouldn't you.


I have no doubt there may be a market for lawyers specializing in recovering damages for cyclist injured/killed in accidents/collisions.

Cycling oriented lawyers would starve if their business was dependent on recovering $ from actionable cases of "injustice" inflicted on cyclists by law enforcement personnel. How many cyclists really have a need to fight questionable cycling tickets or are willing to pay any $ for a lawyer over a relatively minor traffic citation? I can hardly imagine any lawyer making a living based on cases that seem to occur more frequently in Internet chat rooms than on the street.

There may be cases of police harassment of cyclists related to something other than a warning about perceived danger or infraction of law; i.e. suspected pattern of cyclist traffic stops or warnings based on racial profiling or some other individual's non-law related agenda. What a private lawyer can do about a cyclist's suspicion along these lines without some STRONG evidence (like a Rodney King videotape) is questionable.

...stoped for riding on the wrong side of the road, running a stop sign almost causing an accident, and riding on the sidewalk. ...stopped at ...riding against traffic on the sidewalk, and didn't have a headlight on her bike. ... She was educated and sent on her way. I've seen her since and she is doing very well as a cyclist.

... I would say that it is difficult to watch someone that is riding the proper way on the roadway and not fear for their life because of the vehicle's on the road. It just seems very unsafe. I've done it and chose to take side streets because the main drags and city streets are unsafe because of vehicular traffic.
I apprciate all you wrote. I think it is very appropriate to stop and warn (and if appropriate ticket) wrong way cyclists on road, dangerous cyclist on sidewalk, etc. This not only makes it safer for them, but for other cyclists and peds. It must be nice to see the results of your work.

As to your comment about roads being dangerous and recommeding taking alternate routes. What if one can not? It is impossible to transport oneself for purpose (vs. recreational riding) between any two points in metro-phx without having to use non-residential streets. For example I could not get to and from work or to the grocery store without them. Sticking to residential streets can only be done if one is recreationally riding and even then this can be limitting.

I wonder how one balances the time spent ticketing/warning cyclists for dangerous/illegal riding on residential streets vs. dangerous/illegal motorists on the main roads. The later would probably make cycling more safe per unit time spent.

Al

...Now remember that each and every state has laws similiar to these in Arizona. Can you as a citizen remember all of those all the time? I seriously doubt it and you as a citizen shouldn't expect any officer to remember even half or a quarter of them....

....He was around 20-25 years old. He should have known better. Ignorance to the laws is no excuse...

I know that this isn't very nice, and lamajo went to a lot of trouble to post a thoughtful and helpful statement. But I just couldn't help but point out the irony of an officer saying that knowing half or even a quarter of the laws is an unreasonable expectation and THEN saying ignorance of the law is no excuse in the case of a citizen..

I know that this isn't very nice, and lamajo went to a lot of trouble to post a thoughtful and helpful statement. But I just couldn't help but point out the irony of an officer saying that knowing half or even a quarter of the laws is an unreasonable expectation and THEN saying ignorance of the law is no excuse in the case of a citizen..

Considering just the traffic laws. There are regulations pertaining to all types of vehicles, not just cars and bikes. Commercial vehicles, large trucks, etc. all have rules applicable only to them. Unless Joe Citizen is a truck driver, he needs not know what the maximum gross weight of a truck can be. Similarly, Joe does not need to know the various types of assault or the difference between negligent and criminal homicide in order to stay out of trouble. Nor does Joe probably need to bother knowing how long a train can block an intersection. And neither Joe nor the officer probably needs to have in memory the conditions by which the owner of mineral rights may drill for oil in the middle of a shopping mall parking lot, when an apartment manager may deny a lease to a prospective tenant, or what real estate tax exeptions are applicable to active farmland.

As to your comment about roads being dangerous and recommeding taking alternate routes. What if one can not? It is impossible to transport oneself for purpose (vs. recreational riding) between any two points in metro-phx without having to use non-residential streets.

I understand your dilema. I would say just try and hit more residential streets than non. I drove for a pharmacy right out of highschool and was put out on the road in rush hour traffic all the time. It's dangerous out there.


I wonder how one balances the time spent ticketing/warning cyclists for dangerous/illegal riding on residential streets vs. dangerous/illegal motorists on the main roads. The later would probably make cycling more safe per unit time spent.

I can state that I spend way more time with vehicular traffic than cyclists. Here and there I see something with a cyclist that either causes a hazard or where they are breaking a law. I try and educate. I'm in no way trying to hinder their rights as a cyclist. I have yet to wright a ticket to a cyclist as compared to the hundreds written to motorists. And in all actuality, to make it fair, it will take both to assure safety of all.

Mars, I do see the irony there. But officers should have a general knowledge. The actual comment should be "Lack of Knowledge of the Laws is No Excuse."

Just to bring up one more point on knowledge of the laws. You also have to consider that there are local ordinances to remember also. When we took the oath of office we had to swear to uphold all local, state, and federal laws. Thank god we don't have to deal with federal laws too much. Where I work we have a indian reservation also and have to deal with some things out there. If it's a crime on the reservation that deals with the indians we call the F.B.I. and they take care of it. I do appreciate some of your comments and do hope I can help here and there. There are times that I or you will disagree with each other. That's perfectly okay.

He's not a cop.

For some reason Randya and Raiyn can't seem to get the fact that I am an officer and keep trolling.

For some reason Randya and Raiyn can't seem to get the fact that I am an officer and keep trolling.
Why even bring me into it? I haven't mentioned anything since you said you graduated last May. In the past you have presented yourself as a law enforcement officer when in fact you weren't. If they hired you as a cop good for them. Leave me the hell out of it.

In the past you have misrepresented yourself as a Cop

I never "misrepresented" myself ever. I never stated that I was a police officer in anyway shape or form. I advised several times that "at the police department I work for," and that "to my knowledge with a background in law enforcement." My profile was open to everyone and anyone that wanted to see and was just changed in the past week since you brought it to my attention that it was incorrect but still challenged it's authenticity a day later. If you remember, you are the one that copied my old profile and posted it saying "this is his old profile he just changed it after I called him out."

Last time I'm warning you on this. Leave me the **** out of any of your future posts. It's over and done with.
As far as I'm concerned as of this moment you don't exist and I won't make mention of you in any of my posts UNLESS you start it.
I'm putting you on my ignore list and that's final.
Any further mention of me by you will result in a harassment complaint.
Got it? Good.

I know that this isn't very nice, and lamajo went to a lot of trouble to post a thoughtful and helpful statement. But I just couldn't help but point out the irony of an officer saying that knowing half or even a quarter of the laws is an unreasonable expectation and THEN saying ignorance of the law is no excuse in the case of a citizen..

Gee, I guess we should make ignorance of the law an excuse - that would make an interesting system of jurisprudence. "Uh, yo honor, ize didn't know thats be illeagle." Yeah right. Why do you think lawyers who have JD degrees have shelves full of law books? You need to spend a day riding with a police officer, and then your logic will get a bit of an overhaul.