Originally Posted by
HawkOwl
No one suggested the OP endanger either bike rider. I suggest that the case law you refer to is not applicable to a tandem bike riding down main street of a busy city; consideration of saftey to use your words.
We don't know traffic conditions because they weren't posted. But, assuming it was, in fact, a busy city street the cop did the OP a favor. Just sitting here and thinking of one mental image I can see several ways the cop could have handled the situation. What the cop did was the kindest and simplest and did not call into play any of the child protective laws or others that could have been used.
Actually it does sound as if the cop was expecting the OP to place himself and his daughter in jeopardy by popping in and out from between parked cars. And given that they were riding a tandem bike I would think that the space between parked cars would be even less inviting to ride in.
How do you figure that either
Trotwood v Selz, or the Ga case referenced in
Trotwood v Selz doesn't apply to a tandem bicycle? As if I am not mistaken I think that CB HI is referring to the
Trotwood v Selz case.
If as you are assuming that it was a "busy city street" then riding in a predictable manner is more important in maintaining everyone's safety. As if the OP is consistently riding along the right side of the leftmost lane because as he said "the right lane was pretty full of parked cars" he and his daughter were visible and motorists would be able to plan when and where it is safe to pass them.