dynodonn 

I guess it depends on the law, and one's perspective on it on how far they they are willing to be disobedient. Sometimes incidents like these can be the lightening rod to a change in a law.

degnaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P5jOoDDbI

Six jours

Just be sure to wear a condom. Otherwise the cops'll pepper spray you. For your own safety, of course.

honey locust

Delete this thread, not related to biking in the least.

AlmostTrick

OP used a misleading title title that guaranteed the A&S crowd would open it. Doohickie saved it from being a total waste of time. Good job both.

dynodonn 

After reading the comment section, I noticed that this incident happened over 3 years ago, and is pretty much a mute point by now. I'd be more interested in finding out if there was any changes in the PD's behavior after this incident, since I'm unable to find any info of the sort.

steve0257

A little late on this. Did anybody else notice the article was from Feb 2009?

wphamilton

If you're trying to be technical and legalistic, a moving violation is related to motor vehicles only.

Your objection, based as it is on legalistically defining a word I used, in order to use it entirely out of context and with an objection which has absolutely nothing to do with my observation, is rendered moot. When your objection is also itself in error based on a misunderstanding of the single word you examine ... you might want to reconsider that "laughable" part.

Six jours

The word you're looking for is "moot".

Though in actuality, "moot" is universally misused. The real meaning is "debatable". Originally (to the best of my knowledge) it was used to describe "practice" court in law school, and that is probably where it gained its secondary meaning as "useless" or "valueless". Of course, dictionaries follow precedent as much as they set it, so "moot" will doubtless come to mean exactly what most people think it means anyway.

So maybe "mute" would have been a better idea for the OP after all.

But then, just to bring it around to cycling, there's Moots Cycles, maker of largely irrelevant titanium mountain bikes. Mention of which should at least get Honey Locust to shut up and go away.

HTH!

dynodonn 

Ring the bell sucka, school is in. Thank you for the educational lesson, Prof. Jours.

CB HI

I am not going to spend the time now looking for the thread, but there was the woman that the NZ police ticketed. She fought it with the studies that show helmets are of little protection or even risky. Judge agreed and now police ignore her as she rides without a helmet.

dynodonn 

The bad part is that our local advocacy is now embolden by the fact that the last few bicycle/auto collisions, the helmeted cyclists survived and the non helmeted cyclists were killed. Whereas it's failed to be mentioned is that the helmeted cyclist collisions were side swipes and low speed impacts, and the non helmeted cyclist collisions were dead on impacts and at high speeds

Chris516

no!!!!!!

Stealthammer

I made no attempt at being "technical" or "legalistic". I simply based my response on the commonly understood or colloquial definition of "moving violation" based on the simple definitions of the two words:

mov·ing (mvng)
adj.
1. Changing or capable of changing position: a moving target.
2. Relating to or involved in a transfer of furnishings from one location to another: moving expenses; moving van.
3. Causing or producing motion.
4. Involving a motor vehicle in motion: a moving violation.
5. Arousing or capable of arousing deep emotion: a moving account of the tragedy.

and

vi·o·late (v-lt)
tr.v. vi·o·lat·ed, vi·o·lat·ing, vi·o·lates
1. To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example).
2. To assault (a person) sexually.
3. To do harm to (property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile.
4. To disturb rudely or improperly; interrupt: violated our privacy.


If you you want to get more "legalistic", I would suggest that you check with either most state DMV or most legal websites where the definitions are roughly: "any of various traffic violations committed while a vehicle is in motion, such as speeding, driving through a red light, or going the wrong direction on a one-way street." or even the most ambiguous definition that I could find: "a violation (as speeding or drunk driving) of motor vehicle or traffic laws that is made while the vehicle is moving."

Seems to me a bicyclist riding without a helmet is in motion, on a vehicle, and should be obeying traffic laws.


Your claim that "a moving violation is related to motor vehicles only." is even more asinine than your original observation. Your response here has moved you from "laughable" to "pitiful".

wphamilton

Is it something about the subject of helmets or pepper spray, or is it the whole forum that induces random unfounded attacks?

mprelaw

You're overlooking the fact that the cop stopped him once, and didn't give him a citation. He just told him to walk his bike. The guy waited until the cop was out of sight, and then hopped back on the bike. Now, he's not just breaking the law, he's also thumbing his nose at the cop.

Here's the bottom line---if a cop gives you a break, and you show him (or her) up and/or make him/her look stupid, you're not getting another break and you're likely going to jail.

wphamilton

Maybe the cop was cutting him a break, maybe he was being a jerk. Maybe the cyclist got belligerent, or he was a paragon of reasonableness. I'm trying not to make any assumptions. The article told us he was trying to get to work, and a reasonable cop would warn him and let him go, or cite him the first or second time, but in any event an escalation, pepper spray and arrest means the cop let the situation get out of control.

mconlonx

Dude got sprayed for contempt of cop. Here in the US, you'd get tazered. It's happened... Not for not wearing a helmet, but certainly for the exact same reason.

CB HI

I am curious how many motorist with burnt out license plate lights the cop has stopped and ordered them to walk their car the rest of the way home?

Stealthammer

No maybe about it. The cop could have cited the rider immediately for not wearing the helmet, but he let him walk away with a verbal warning. He would have been negligent in his duties if he had allowed the rider to continue riding helmetless.

The rider could have accepted this and been on his way to work, but he chose to ignore the cops kindness, refused to comply with officer's instructions to walk the bike, and then attempted to evade the officer again, escalating the offenses.

The assumptions you are making is that nothing related in the article is accurate as regards to the police officer. From what I read the officer did in fact "warn him and let him go" and gave him a break by not "cit(ing) him the first or second time".

The cop didn't "let the situation get out of control", the rider did.



Apples and oranges. Equipment violation vs. moving violation. Had the rider been riding a motorcycle without a helmet in a state with a MHL, he would have been told to park the bike, and if he was found riding without a helmet a few minutes later, he would have been treated the same.

mprelaw

Now you're just making a ridiculous analogy. Not wearing a helmet, in a mandatory helmet jurisdiction, is more akin to not wearing a seat belt. Cop stops a car and lets the driver off with a warning and a "buckle up", happens a lot. 2 miles down the road, if that same cop sees the same driver in violation again, a ticket is being issued, and if the driver speeds away when the cop lights him up, he's getting arrested. In fact, an officer has the authority to order a car with defective safety equipment towed (the equivalent to telling someone to walk the bike the rest of the way), and this happens more than you probably realize.

Look. As much as it cuts against the grain of this idiotic forum, bicyclists are sometimes in the wrong, and do indefensible things. This was one of those occasions.

when

In general, all laws effectively carry the death penalty for breaking them. If you break a law, the State's agents will kidnap you and put you in a cage. If you resist, just like you would for any other kidnapper, they will kill you.

wphamilton

Happens seldom to never - they generally don't stop a driver for not wearing a seat belt.

You're dodging the point everyone's trying to get across. It's a trivial infraction regardless of technical arguments about whether it's a moving or non-moving violation, or more like a seat belt than a busted light. These distinctions are irrelevant. A trivial infraction which moreover does not even involve a motorized vehicle does not warrant even a citation, let alone following along to check up nor escalations. The cop's actions would appear to be unreasonable on the surface.

Again, on the surface the cyclist was unreasonable in trying to flee on his bicycle. We don't know the circumstances of that either. It may have been the foolish refusal to respect the cop's lawful orders and arrest that you suppose, or it may have been lawful and prudent, or anything in the range between. I'd need more facts to decide. The only things I can reasonably surmise from this account is that the cop behaved more aggressively than you'd normally expect, and the cyclist reacted imprudently.

SuncoastChad

Beg to differ. GA state patrol is VERY diligent about stopping for seat belts. We were stopped once leaving a restaurant in Perry and my son and his wife got tickets just outside Atlanta. Maybe it's just the FL plates - but seat belt, tail lights, etc. WILL get you pulled over in the Peach State.

Agree with the rest of the post. The LEO was a aggressive and the cyclist was not thinking very clearly. Copping attitude with a LEO rarely comes off well.

wphamilton

I'm sure you're right and it varies from state to state. In my experience the seat belt is just an add-on after they've already stopped you for something. I suspect you are right that it was a parochial outlook towards the FL plates. I got nicked here for a rolling stop with TX plates shortly after I moved in, nothing since.