Originally Posted by celephaiz
Yeah you CAN but until enforcement becomes regular on jaywalking, why make such a big deal about cyclists.
Ummm, Ok. I'm not sure what I CAN, but this is just a circular way of avoiding the question I posed. Why would you believe that bikes are exempt from the laws of both pedestrians and traffic?
Originally Posted by celephaiz
Obviously if you get caught you get caught and have to accept the consequences.
Apparently not. Some people go on thar interweb and exclaim that their freedoms have been violated!
Originally Posted by celephaiz
The question people are considering is whether its a) reasonable to hold cyclists to the same laws as cars (its clearly established in the laws that they ARE held, but that doesn't make it reasonable and
Yes, for the most part. Why would it not be reasonable? Even with the <sarcastic>outrageous</sarcastic> enforcement noted in this article, holding bicycles to the traffic laws designed for cars is really not much more than asking for you to play nice and respect others. It appears to me that you believe that
if special code of laws was for some reason made specifically for cyclists, it might actually be open for debate whether or not bicyclists would need to stop for red lights and stop signs? WOW!
Originally Posted by celephaiz
b) why there is no enforcement on jaywalking but, according to the article, seemingly unfairly weighted enforcement aimed at cyclists (when compared to pedestrians and cars)
From the article: "...Police decided to start on Halsted Street because business owners had complained about too many bicycles on the sidewalks, Chicago Police Sgt. Phil Greco said.". I don't believe any mention was made to a relationship or comparison between pedestrian/cyclist/traffic enforcement in the article. Also, why would you think that the actions described are "seemingly unfair"? I think everyone that the article mentioned got a WARNING, and everyone admitted to breaking a law that they were aware of.
Carl.