Abuse of Power
#1
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Abuse of Power
On a recent ride, I choose a familiar loop that would dump me onto State Highway 34 for the west-bound leg back into Ennis and a headwind.
SH 34 is signed 55 MPH with a single 12 foot lane each direction, with occasional improved shoulder. The traffic was moderate, and I was overtaken by four semi-tractor trucks during the three and a half miles.
I was also overtaken by an off duty cop, unfortunately. He tried to bully me into obeying his view of how things ought to be.
He drives up beside me (On my right, on the shoulder) in a small car with a young girl sitting next to him. He slows to pace my speed and when I look at him, he displays his badge and orders me to pull over throgh his open window.
So he gets out of his car and a lecture ensues. He tells me I can't ride so far in the lane. (I was positioned in the left tire track.) I tell him I need to for my safety and the law permits it. He says I need to keep on the shoulder because I am "impeding traffic" and violating the far to the right rule. I ask him if he is going to cite me. He says no. I then ask him if I can be on my way then. He says he didn't order me to stop- he didn't flash any red lights... I cut him off with a raised voice; "You stopped me under the authority of law by flashing your badge at me!"
I mark that as the point that the "traffic stop" became something different- more of a conversation than a confrontation. I'll try to describe it in broad strokes rather than specifics, but some of his assertions are real gems.
So he tells me I can proceed on my way, and I turn to mount my bike. He then said; "But don't be riding out where you were or I will have to call one of my on duty friends to meet you." I am about to retort "You had better call him, then!", when he asks if we could talk for a minute. I calm myself down and face him, and agree to talk.
He now asserts that he is just concerned for my safety. We discuss the relative merits of riding on the shoulder and in the travel lane. It is impossible for him to imagine that I would be at greater risk of inattentive drivers when riding on the shoulder. I tell him that there are no restrictions on where I can ride laterally in the lane if the lane is less than 14 feet wide. He asks how wide I think the lane is, did I measure it?
I tell him it is easy to get an accurate estimate. (Most cars about six and a half feet wide; Can two of them travel side by side within the lane?) At this he laughed, and he said he knew quite well they were less than 14 feet from accident investigations.
He says; "Maybe it's within your rights to ride there, but you'll end up dead right." (Yes, he actually said that!)
We talked about the danger of distracted drivers drifting onto the shoulder, I quoted to him the law and we realized neither of us would persuade the other.
So I was compelled by a law officer who took it on himself to enforce (through intimidation) laws that only existed in his car-centric prejudices.
SH 34 is signed 55 MPH with a single 12 foot lane each direction, with occasional improved shoulder. The traffic was moderate, and I was overtaken by four semi-tractor trucks during the three and a half miles.
I was also overtaken by an off duty cop, unfortunately. He tried to bully me into obeying his view of how things ought to be.
He drives up beside me (On my right, on the shoulder) in a small car with a young girl sitting next to him. He slows to pace my speed and when I look at him, he displays his badge and orders me to pull over throgh his open window.
So he gets out of his car and a lecture ensues. He tells me I can't ride so far in the lane. (I was positioned in the left tire track.) I tell him I need to for my safety and the law permits it. He says I need to keep on the shoulder because I am "impeding traffic" and violating the far to the right rule. I ask him if he is going to cite me. He says no. I then ask him if I can be on my way then. He says he didn't order me to stop- he didn't flash any red lights... I cut him off with a raised voice; "You stopped me under the authority of law by flashing your badge at me!"
I mark that as the point that the "traffic stop" became something different- more of a conversation than a confrontation. I'll try to describe it in broad strokes rather than specifics, but some of his assertions are real gems.
So he tells me I can proceed on my way, and I turn to mount my bike. He then said; "But don't be riding out where you were or I will have to call one of my on duty friends to meet you." I am about to retort "You had better call him, then!", when he asks if we could talk for a minute. I calm myself down and face him, and agree to talk.
He now asserts that he is just concerned for my safety. We discuss the relative merits of riding on the shoulder and in the travel lane. It is impossible for him to imagine that I would be at greater risk of inattentive drivers when riding on the shoulder. I tell him that there are no restrictions on where I can ride laterally in the lane if the lane is less than 14 feet wide. He asks how wide I think the lane is, did I measure it?
I tell him it is easy to get an accurate estimate. (Most cars about six and a half feet wide; Can two of them travel side by side within the lane?) At this he laughed, and he said he knew quite well they were less than 14 feet from accident investigations.
He says; "Maybe it's within your rights to ride there, but you'll end up dead right." (Yes, he actually said that!)
We talked about the danger of distracted drivers drifting onto the shoulder, I quoted to him the law and we realized neither of us would persuade the other.
So I was compelled by a law officer who took it on himself to enforce (through intimidation) laws that only existed in his car-centric prejudices.
#2
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
HH used to make that same baseless claim about "greater risk". You have any more evidence for this impossible to believe claim than he did? If not, why would/should any person, who is not deluded by VC ideology, believe it?
#3
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
greater risk riding on the shoulder and getting drifted into by inattentive motorists?
H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!
I'm all for the relative merits of taking the lane, do you really need to always do it? would you really find it necessary to take the lane here? or how about here?
H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!
I'm all for the relative merits of taking the lane, do you really need to always do it? would you really find it necessary to take the lane here? or how about here?
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-28-09 at 08:53 PM.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
Oh, but it's all about safety.
#5
Part-time epistemologist
Do you believe him?
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#6
Paramedic
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
Bikes: Marin Rockstar
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sounds like the cop wanted to show off for his gf and got pwn'd by a cyclist that actually knew what they were doing and talking about.
I would have loved to see the cops face when you quoted the laws on riding.
I would have loved to see the cops face when you quoted the laws on riding.
#7
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
I would and do ride well into the lane too, but if vehicle approaches from the rear and I get a sense they have noticed me (slowing, merging a bit left, signal on, honk,etc.) I'll move right, when and how far depends on the response of the rear approach driver, if there are following vehicles, the road/shoulder surface conditions current and up ahead, etc.
Typically all these factors taken into account on a moderately used rural road including a typical near drivers response to my position means I usually end up moving right or not having to move at all since the driver overtakes on my left well before I need to.
So I find it a bit odd that in this situation that if you noticed this vehicle rear approach and slowing (a signal they have noticed you) that moving over a bit would not have occurred before they had time to be on your tail.
Typically all these factors taken into account on a moderately used rural road including a typical near drivers response to my position means I usually end up moving right or not having to move at all since the driver overtakes on my left well before I need to.
So I find it a bit odd that in this situation that if you noticed this vehicle rear approach and slowing (a signal they have noticed you) that moving over a bit would not have occurred before they had time to be on your tail.
#8
8speed DinoSORAs
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Interesting incident. It sounds like he might have had a genuine concern for safety. It's also hard for drivers to understand why a cyclist would not ride in the shoulder, as few of them have considered the situation from a bicycle seat. Flashing the badge, abuse of power?.... well one might argue that if this approach for a discussion had been made by a civilian, you'd have waved him on... few of us take kindly to "advice" from motorists.
If I interpret your description of the road correctly, I would probably choose to ride just to the left of the white line, unless I could see that the shoulder is clean. Upon hearing/seeing approaching traffic, I consider it no trouble to take the shoulder for a second or two. Of course this is personal choice.
Ed
If I interpret your description of the road correctly, I would probably choose to ride just to the left of the white line, unless I could see that the shoulder is clean. Upon hearing/seeing approaching traffic, I consider it no trouble to take the shoulder for a second or two. Of course this is personal choice.
Ed
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
The law may permit this. If you base your notion of "your safety" on (let's say) because there are evil ghosts in the right tire track, I doubt you'd be very convincing. That is, it is unlikely the law would allow any/all private/personal notions of "safety". The basis for "safety" would have to be one that (at-least) seems reasonable to other people (ie, the judge in the case).
This is true in Texas.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-07-09 at 01:16 PM.
#10
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Interesting incident. It sounds like he might have had a genuine concern for safety. It's also hard for drivers to understand why a cyclist would not ride in the shoulder, as few of them have considered the situation from a bicycle seat. Flashing the badge, abuse of power?.... well one might argue that if this approach for a discussion had been made by a civilian, you'd have waved him on... few of us take kindly to "advice" from motorists.
If I interpret your description of the road correctly, I would probably choose to ride just to the left of the white line, unless I could see that the shoulder is clean. Upon hearing/seeing approaching traffic, I consider it no trouble to take the shoulder for a second or two. Of course this is personal choice.
Ed
If I interpret your description of the road correctly, I would probably choose to ride just to the left of the white line, unless I could see that the shoulder is clean. Upon hearing/seeing approaching traffic, I consider it no trouble to take the shoulder for a second or two. Of course this is personal choice.
Ed
I have to agree with Ed here... just to the left of the fog line, in the right tire track if you need to, and use the shoulder if it is clean, wide, and suitable.
I've seen plenty of good clean wide shoulder in places like Texas and Oregon... on the other hand, I've also seen places where "shoulder" is a very loose definition (California) or albeit clean and wide, very rough (Arizona).
But where the shoulder is smooth, clean and wide, and there are no up coming intersections... I have found that riding in the shoulder works quite well.
#11
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If a right is not exercised, does it exist? Yielding one's rights is capitulation.
#12
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
"Exercising one's rights" in the face of needlessness is often called "flouting."
v. flout·ed, flout·ing, flouts
v.tr.
To show contempt for; scorn: flout a law; behavior that flouted convention. See Usage Note at flaunt.
v.intr.
To be scornful.
n.
A contemptuous action or remark; an insult.
v.tr.
To show contempt for; scorn: flout a law; behavior that flouted convention. See Usage Note at flaunt.
v.intr.
To be scornful.
n.
A contemptuous action or remark; an insult.
#13
Senior Member
Sounds like Chipcom did the right thing. But I have rarely had a need to ride in left tire track, always ride in leftmost part of the right tire track. I find that give me the most space from cars.
#14
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
Don't confuse Chip Seal for Good Buddy Chipcom. You will rue the day and vengence will be his!
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
https://www.aarp.org/family/articles/...grown_ups.html
Keep out of harm's way. Failing to yield right of way gets drivers in trouble more often than anything else, according to Hayes. So, when do you have right of way? Actually, never. "There are instances when you must yield the right of way—at a yield sign, for example—but no instances where you are given the right of way," said Hayes.
#16
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Right of way" is not a right. You must always yield the right of way if yielding is the safer choice.
Keep out of harm's way. Failing to yield right of way gets drivers in trouble more often than anything else, according to Hayes. So, when do you have right of way? Actually, never. "There are instances when you must yield the right of way—at a yield sign, for example—but no instances where you are given the right of way," said Hayes.
Keep out of harm's way. Failing to yield right of way gets drivers in trouble more often than anything else, according to Hayes. So, when do you have right of way? Actually, never. "There are instances when you must yield the right of way—at a yield sign, for example—but no instances where you are given the right of way," said Hayes.
Don't be silly.
To whom is the responsibility for safe movement assigned in an overtaking maneuver- The one who is passing or the one who is being overtaken? The one who has the duty of exercising due care- Is he the one with the right-of way?
If I am approaching an intersection in which I wish to proceed straight ahead, but someone coming the other direction is signaling that they wish to turn left, ought I come to a stop for him so he can turn in front of me? (Yielding right-of-way to him?)
Do we expect folks who are traveling down a boulevard to stop for us when we emerge from an alley? (Yielding their right-of-way to us?)
Can we expect all traffic to pull aside for us when we are traveling faster than them?
The limited public space is distributed on a first come, first use basis. We have the use of the road space to the immediate front of us, unless occupied by a road user who has arrived ahead of us. This is a right of access, and our right of use. If we allow bullies to trample on these rights, and yield to them that which had once been our lawful place, do they in practice exist anymore? If our access to the public way can only be accomplished when there are no motor-cars around, then we really only have a conditional right to the PUBLIC roads, don't we?
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
The "right of way" does not mean you don't have the obligation to try to avoid a collision.
================
The limited public space is distributed on a first come, first use basis. We have the use of the road space to the immediate front of us, unless occupied by a road user who has arrived ahead of us. This is a right of access, and our right of use. If we allow bullies to trample on these rights, and yield to them that which had once been our lawful place, do they in practice exist anymore? If our access to the public way can only be accomplished when there are no motor-cars around, then we really only have a conditional right to the PUBLIC roads, don't we?
https://driversed.com/teen-drivers-ed...-Way-Laws.aspx
Right-of-way rules help people drive safely. These rules go along with courtesy and common sense. Bicycle riders, moped riders, and pedestrians must follow these rules, too.
Never insist on taking the right-of-way. Note that the law does not allow anyone the right-of-way. It only states who must yield. When a driver is legally required to yield the right-of-way but fails to do so, other drivers are required to stop or yield as necessary for safety. So, if another driver does not yield to you when he or she should, forget it. Let the other driver go first. You will help prevent accidents and make driving more pleasant.
Never insist on taking the right-of-way. Note that the law does not allow anyone the right-of-way. It only states who must yield. When a driver is legally required to yield the right-of-way but fails to do so, other drivers are required to stop or yield as necessary for safety. So, if another driver does not yield to you when he or she should, forget it. Let the other driver go first. You will help prevent accidents and make driving more pleasant.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-14-09 at 02:31 PM.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
If a rational person is riding in the shoulder, it's because he thinks doing so is significantly safer (to their understanding).
Talking about "capitulation" stuff is not relevant because it doesn't do anything to convince people that "taking the lane" is safer.
#19
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
OK, Chipseal... take a deep breath and count to 873.
You, sir, are part of the problem -- that sector of society that says, "damn the rest, give me my rights!"
Society functions through compromise; everyone gets SOME of what they want. And, it's never enough to some people... in your mirror, for example. I'm just sayin'........
Remind me not to go to the movies with you, especially a Clint Eastwood flick; he'll level a gun at some baddie, you'll yell, "FIRE!", and the place will get stampeded because the crowd will run for the exits. Then, when you are arrested for inciting a riot, you'll say, "I have a RIGHT to free speech!"
Uh,....yes; hyperbole.
You, sir, are part of the problem -- that sector of society that says, "damn the rest, give me my rights!"
Society functions through compromise; everyone gets SOME of what they want. And, it's never enough to some people... in your mirror, for example. I'm just sayin'........
Remind me not to go to the movies with you, especially a Clint Eastwood flick; he'll level a gun at some baddie, you'll yell, "FIRE!", and the place will get stampeded because the crowd will run for the exits. Then, when you are arrested for inciting a riot, you'll say, "I have a RIGHT to free speech!"
Uh,....yes; hyperbole.