-3

This actually seems logical to me. He is riding in a way that is riskier than what most others are exposed to, so he dons a lid. The only unfortunate thing would be if he engages in that risky behavior in part because he thinks that the helmet will save his life if his number comes up. That would be very, very unfortunate, and is exactly the reason why it is important people know the limitations of their gear.

But I have no problem with the principle.

In the video here about the accident in which the actress Nicole Kidman was hit on the sidewalk by a cyclist in NYC, at around the middle into the video, I hear:

"NYPD told us that the ...[cyclist] was ultimately given 3 summons: reckless driving, riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, and riding without a helmet".

But "riding without a helmet" is not in violation of a law in NYC as we know? Also, "reckless driving"?

This is the serious charge which will land him in court; the other two are probably just civil infraction type stuff.

He wasn't driving. He was riding a bike.

Within NYC commercial cyclists, including messengers & restaurant delivery riders have to wear helmets, and meet other requirements, that don't apply to the general public. This was done as a workaround of the state regulations by declaring it a workplace rule rather than a bicycle regulation. It remains to be seen if a paparazzo is considered an employee rather than a private individual in this situation.

Fact is the reckless driving (cyclists are treated as drivers under the law) is probably the most expensive charge he'll face unless NK seeks civil damages.

Thanks. I didn't know any of these. I did wonder why the pizza delivery men are always so "careful" about safety by wearing helmets but without any lights. Also didn't know reckless driving applies to cyclists.

it cracks me up when I see the delivery guys riding their electric bikes and mini-scooters against traffic wearing their helmets and reflective vests with the name of the restaurant taped on with shipping tape. Yay safety! :p

The helmets are usually loosely worn. And the baggy pants :D Everything sloppy except they wear helmets while most others don't. Now I know why.

Bicyclists have the same rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. You are, according to the law, operating or driving your bicycle.

There's no statute for reckless riding; bicycles are considered vehicles; bike riders are technically the driver of the bicycle vehicle.

"1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates. Every person riding a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application."

"§ 1212. Reckless driving. Reckless driving shall mean driving or using
any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any
power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in
a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of
the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public
highway. Reckless driving is prohibited. Every person violating this
provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Uh-oh... doesn't look like he can be charged with reckless driving while on a bicycle... unless NYC laws differ from NYState laws...

Laws pertaining to motor vehicles don't apply to bicyclists.

Laws pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles by drivers also generally apply to the operation of bicycles on public highways by bicycle riders. Section 1231 of NY Vehicle Law statutes clearly says as much.

Which is why the reckless driving law also quoted above is an anomaly and worth comment, i.e. because it specifically exempts bicyclists where most other traffic law does not.

All laws that govern cars on the road apply to bicycles. You can get a DUI on a bike, you can get a ticket for running a stop sign, speeding, etc.

Ya mean I need a driver's license, insurance, turn signals, seat belts, pollution control devices, etc.? Well I'll be darned, I didn't know that, thanks!

Wrong.

If the word "motor" is used in the law, it can't apply to bicyclists. That is as clear as clear can be!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

Keep in mind that the traffic laws are basically the same in all cases. "Vehicle" laws apply by default to bicycles but "motor vehicles" do not.

You know you don't have to have a license to ride a bicycle or register it.

Exactly why they thought there was a need to explciitly mention "muscle power" (which includes horses too) isn't clear.

Not here, unless it's an Electric bike... ;)

Unless you claim that laws pertaining to "vehicles" don't also apply to motor vehicles, I am most certainly right.

Motor vehicles and cyclists are bound by traffic law pertaining to their specific respective subclasses, but more generally by laws referencing "vehicles" which comprehensively encompass motor vehicles, bicycles, and pretty much all road users.

If you thought I was claiming otherwise, which your reply clearly indicates, then you misread my original statement.

No, laws pertaining to "motor vehicles" do not apply to "vehicles" generally.

No, your original statement was wrong.

Laws that say "motor vehciles" don't apply to "bicycles". Including the word "motor" provides an exclution for bicycles.

Laws that say unqualified "vehicles" applies to all vehciles (motor vehicles and bicycles).

Remove the "motor" and this statement would be correct. With the word "motor" is wrong.

Don't be ignorant...wait, nevermind, I understand that's a bit of a struggle.

Laws pertaining to "vehicles" generally apply to motor vehicles. Yes?

What do drivers of motor vehicles drive? Anything other than motor vehicles?

Are they not bound to the same general traffic law as bicyclists?

If most traffic law focused specifically on motor vehicles, you'd be correct about my original statement, but since motor vehiclists for the most part fall under the same road use laws as bicyclists, I say again that you are wrong in your misreading of my original statement.

You want to make a mountain out of a semantic molehill. Knock yourself out.

Laws pertaining to vehicles apply to motor vehicles (and bicyclists). Laws pertaining to motor vehicles (mentioned explicitly) do not apply to general vehicles (bicyclists are excluded).

You aren't really up with the whole logic of set theory stuff.

"motor vehicles" is a subset of "vehicles". Bicycles are not members of that subset.

Laws applying to the superset applies to subsets. Laws applying to a subset explicitly do not apply to the superset.

Laws pertaining to vehicles apply to motor vehicles (and bicyclists). Laws pertaining to motor vehicles (mentioned explicitly) do not apply to general vehicles (bicyclists are excluded).

No, the qualifier "motor" is used for laws that pertain only to "motor vehicles". If they intended to for the law to apply to vehicles generally they would not have included the word "motor"!

Your original statement doesn't make sense.

No, the care-and-feeding mammals applies to horse and cats. If you are taking about mammals generally, it's a failure of communication to mention horses specifically.

Your failure to communicate isn't my problem.

:rolleyes: You clearly don't understand the sematics. You are the one effectively classifying bicycles as "motor vehicles" (which is absurd).

Let me try one more time. Let's change the language but not at all the meaning of what I said:

Laws pertaining to the operation of automobiles by drivers also generally apply to the operation of bicycles on public highways by bicycle riders.

Does that make things clearer? When I said "motor vehicles" in the original quote, I was not referencing laws referring specifically to motor vehicles, but rather the type of vehicle being driven by drivers of automobiles, light trucks, trucks, etc. I was just trying to be inclusive of operators of all kinds of motor vehicles.

That's worse!

What about trucks? Motorcycles?

"Automobiles" are a proper subset of motor vehicles. You are still talking about vehicles with motors!

??? Huh? What? You say things that you aren't referring to??

Why say "motor vehicles" if you are not specifically talking about motor vehicles?

What you need to do is drop the reference to "motor vehicles". Just reference "vehicles"! You'd be correct then. It's not that hard!

If a law specifically mentions "motor vehicles", it does not apply to bicycles (since bicycles are not motor vehicles).

Just to be clear then, you are stating that motor vehicles and bicycles do not generally share the same rules of the road?