CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Techniques (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Cyclists triggering red light cameras (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=257322)

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 14th 19 06:54 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:


There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried
vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it
is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution.


Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars.

But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?

If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I
certainly know people that believe that is justified.

Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently
a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid
theft by employees.

We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft.

No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil
deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be
obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the
law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at
one's convenience?


John, you're sounding so naive!


Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to
prevent crimes or to make society safer.


Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.


Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be
determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle
was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to
be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming
fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic.


Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski[_4_] April 14th 19 06:56 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/13/2019 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:10:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:06:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote:

I think you are forgetting some things.

If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized?

Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off
the hook" excuse for guilty motorists.

There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

The troll alert is beginning to sound...

And while I am at it....

Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes.

Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert!

(Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?)

Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc.

Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the
roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence.

I see Frank. You are arguing that when a bicycle/motor vehicle crash
occurs that the bicycle does not come off worse?


No, I'm saying that Andy's post was generally anti-cyclist, and the
final "it doesn't matter" sounds like he's hinting that cyclists should
abandon their right of way. That's bull****.


Was it "anti-cyclist" or simply the reality that when a motor vehicle
and a bicycle collide that invariably the bicycle and rider suffer
injuries while the motor vehicle gets, perhaps, a dent in the fender.


When that's said to enforce "Bicyclists should ride in the gutter" as
Andy did, then yes, it is then anti-cyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi April 15th 19 02:14 AM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 9:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:


There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried
vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it
is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution.


Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars.

But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?

If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I
certainly know people that believe that is justified.

Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently
a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid
theft by employees.

We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft.

No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil
deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be
obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the
law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at
one's convenience?

John, you're sounding so naive!

Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to
prevent crimes or to make society safer.


Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.


Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be
determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle
was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to
be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming
fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic.


Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."


Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.



I don't know.
I suspect the issue of fidelity to The Law is larger and
more complex than it first appears.


The Supremes upheld order #9066 in the various related cases
/Korematsu/ , /Hirabayashi/ and /Yasui/ (a man I knew
personally). Well argued /coram nobis/ petitions were
rejected. So that's where we are now.

Legally owned firearms are a niggling portion of firearms
involved in crime. Yet the bulk of charges for felon in
possession or use of a stolen firearm and related wrondoing
are dropped in the first round of negotiations, often
swapped for a misdemeanor charge. Cue the chorus of 'more
gun laws' as if that would help.

Dallas' newly elected DA says prosecuting crime doesn't
always draw his interest and besides you just can't expect
law-abiding behavior from Those People:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas...incarceration/


I could go on but The Law in practice is neither logically
consistent with itself nor sensible to the citizenry in
enough areas as to obviate any simple aphorism.

I suspect that the egregious examples are not different from
traffic law except by degree, that is, "as far right as
practicable" may be interpreted differently at different
times by different people in different situations. [Glad I
ride in jurisdictions where punishments do not include caning].

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971



Joy Beeson April 15th 19 04:49 AM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 04:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

My buddy bicycling buddy whilst bicycling one night
slowed way down at a red light, looked and saw no other
vehicles moving on either road and then proceeded through
the red light. Unfortunately for him there was a "letter
of the Law police officer sitting in a cruiser and that
officer gave my buddy a ticket.



Was the cruiser hiding beind a billboard? Camouflaged as a parked and
empty private car?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net



Rolf Mantel[_2_] April 15th 19 10:22 AM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
Am 13.04.2019 um 01:29 schrieb John B.:
But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?


In Germany, we distinguish between "law" and "regulations".

Philosophiocally speaking, the law is what ensures a peaceful society,
regulation is what ensures a smooth-running society.

For a peaceful society, you need "protection of life", "protection of
property" and "no incitement of civil unrest".

Technically speaking, in Germany law is made in Parliament by primary
legislation, regulations are made by administration as secondary
legislation.

As you do not envisage a Parliament to decide "At the junction of 47th
ave and 36th road, there shall be an all-way stop", this law is slightly
less important than "thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's property".

Traffic law is mostly on "regulation" level, except massively dangerous
stuff like drink-driving or illegal car-racing in city centers.

You can be jailed for breaking the law (e.g. theft), not for regulations
(e.g. jaywalking).

AMuzi April 15th 19 02:08 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On 4/15/2019 1:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 20:14:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/15/2019 9:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:


There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried
vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it
is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution.


Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars.

But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?

If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I
certainly know people that believe that is justified.

Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently
a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid
theft by employees.

We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft.

No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil
deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be
obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the
law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at
one's convenience?

John, you're sounding so naive!

Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to
prevent crimes or to make society safer.

Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.

Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be
determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle
was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to
be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming
fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic.

Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."

Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.



I don't know.
I suspect the issue of fidelity to The Law is larger and
more complex than it first appears.


Certainly it is and there are many laws that are no longer valid
either because the problem has gone away (selling guns to Indians) or
no longer considered a crime (Massachusetts colonial law providing a
penalty for not attending Church on Sunday). In fact some years ago
the State of Maine had a project in the Legislature to review every
State Law to determine which were valid "today" and revoke those that
were no longer applicable.



The Supremes upheld order #9066 in the various related cases
/Korematsu/ , /Hirabayashi/ and /Yasui/ (a man I knew
personally). Well argued /coram nobis/ petitions were
rejected. So that's where we are now.


Was that concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066,
which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World
War II regardless of their citizenship ? If so it was decided in 1944,
if the Wiki is correct.

Legally owned firearms are a niggling portion of firearms
involved in crime. Yet the bulk of charges for felon in
possession or use of a stolen firearm and related wrondoing
are dropped in the first round of negotiations, often
swapped for a misdemeanor charge. Cue the chorus of 'more
gun laws' as if that would help.


Someone or another wrote, "We cannot penalize all Moslem for
terrorism because such a tiny minority of Moslems are terrorists but
we can penalize all Gun Owners for mass shootings although only a tiny
minority are mass murderers.

Dallas' newly elected DA says prosecuting crime doesn't
always draw his interest and besides you just can't expect
law-abiding behavior from Those People:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas...incarceration/

I suspect that the above was in actuality an attempt to reduce the
cost of the Texas, or the Dallas, prison system and had nothing to do
with enforcing the law. Legalize drugs, abolish the requirement for
bail and so on. I suspect that Texas law provides for being " release
on your own recognizance".

I could go on but The Law in practice is neither logically
consistent with itself nor sensible to the citizenry in
enough areas as to obviate any simple aphorism.

I suggest that the law is logical in the specific cases where the
judgment is made. In the case of the "Executive Order 9066" judgment
you mention above, in 1942 when the order was issued the U.S. was
truly afraid of the possibility of an attack on the N. American
continent, and in fact attacks did occur. There was evidence of Japan
spies in Hawaii. Mexico and probably other countries, according to a
book written by an individual who was a career Navel Intelligence
Officer. The fact that Navel Intelligence was not aware of any U.S.
citizens of Japanese origin or decent in the U.S. was not proof none
were there.

I was very small at the time but I do remember that people, at least
in my home town talked about a Japanese invasion of California, and
less face reality, the Japanese... and the Italian... the Irish...
and the Poles... and just about everyone else with a "funny name" was
thought of as sort of 2nd class citizen. My father's youngest sister
married a bloke named "Le Blanc" and my grandmother didn't talk to
here own daughter for a considerable number of years.

After all, the Japanese did "attack" the N. American continent. A
Japanese Submarine shelled Ellwood Oil Field on 23 Feb
1942, on June 21, 1942 a Japanese submarine shelled Ft. Fort Stevens,
in September 1942 a Japanese airplane, launched from a submarine
bombed Brookings, Oregon, the bombs actually fell on a nearby
wooded area. 1944, the Japanese military constructed and launched over
9,000 high-altitude balloons, each loaded with nearly 50 pounds of
anti-personnel and incendiary explosives. From 1944 to 1945, balloon
bombs were spotted in more than 15 states, some as far east as
Michigan and Iowa. A pregnant woman and five children were the only
kill, in an explosion after coming across one of the downed balloons.

I'm going on and on but given the sentiment that existed in the U.S.,
at the time, the Japanese Interment made perfect sense to, probably,
the bulk of the American People.

I suspect that the egregious examples are not different from
traffic law except by degree, that is, "as far right as
practicable" may be interpreted differently at different
times by different people in different situations. [Glad I
ride in jurisdictions where punishments do not include caning].

--
cheers,

John B.


All that's true but not to the point. Once our foundation of
individual liberty becomes subsumed by 'group rights'
(leading directly to group punishment) you get a natural
born American citizen, newly admitted to the Oregon bar, in
solitary confinement in the Multnomah county jail for the
duration. I can't square that with the Constitution as written.

Maybe a simpler law like 'tax the rich' ? What could go wrong?

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/JOELOUIS.JPG

Law is messy because society is messy and simple rules turn
out not to be so simple /in extremis/ .

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971



jOHN b. April 15th 19 02:44 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 16:09:59 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
John B. wrote:

No, nor does forgetting to take a company pencil out of your pocket
when you go home at night.

But, on the other hand
https://www.incorp.com/help-center/b...nd-fraud-part1
has it that "Estimates range from $20 billion to $50 billion, making
it one of the most costly and widespread challenges faced in today's
business world."


My point remains that an obsession with petty criminals is misguided.
Nobody should pat themselves on the back for honking at a cyclist that
safely rolls a STOP sign (or a car doing the same, for that matter),
just like they shouldnít act like stopping Patty the pencil thief is a
major bust.


You use the word "obsession" as though it meant "obsession with only
major criminals" . So O.K.. we will be obsessed with only major
criminals... who decides who and what is major. The news has it that
Carlos Ghosn is charged with at least $8.8 million in fraud. Can we
say that anything less is inconsequential? Or do we use the term
"everyone knows" to decide what to condemn?

Someone who "rolls a stop" is committing a minor sin, unless it
doesn't turn out to have been safe and someone is badly injured or
dies as a result.

Please note that it isn't usually determined to have been unsafe un
till after the accident happens.

Companies lose money in all sorts of ways. Proper triage will identify
them and assign an objective priority. Itís always interesting how
*executive* theft is seldom addressed as the huge issue it is. Nor is
apparently the HR process ever called into question when it comes to
hiring all these terribly criminal employees.

Iím not sure why any of this belongs in the tech group, but most traffic
control technologies barely account for motorcycles, never mind bicycles.
So, again, for cycling, letís focus on the absolutely minimal ridership
there is (in the US, at least), the absolutely minimal damage that they
can do to others, and the inequity of laws when it comes to the rules of
the road. Anyone making a serious fuss about scofflaw cyclists is an
idiot.


I see. Given that although the California Highway Patrol in their
investigation of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions in L.A. County
determined that some 60% were caused by the bicycle no serious fuss
should be made?
Simply ignore the cause of more then half of all bicycle (in L.A.)
collisions over a period of a year were the fault of the bicycle?
--
cheers,

John B.


jOHN b. April 15th 19 03:04 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:


There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried
vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it
is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution.


Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars.

But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?

If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I
certainly know people that believe that is justified.

Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently
a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid
theft by employees.

We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft.

No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil
deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be
obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the
law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at
one's convenience?

John, you're sounding so naive!


Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to
prevent crimes or to make society safer.


Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.


Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be
determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle
was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to
be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming
fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic.


Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."


Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.
--
cheers,

John B.


jOHN b. April 15th 19 03:11 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:56:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:10:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:06:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 2:21 AM, AK wrote:

I think you are forgetting some things.

If a cyclist blows thru a red light and is struck by a car, don't you think the driver will be at least a tad bit traumatized?

Give me a break. "Traumatized" is used mostly as a "let my client off
the hook" excuse for guilty motorists.

There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

The troll alert is beginning to sound...

And while I am at it....

Cyclists should ride close to the curb while in bike lanes.

Bull**** alert plus flashing troll alert!

(Or is it just flaming, inexcusable ignorance?)

Whenever there is a contest between car and bike, the outcome is ALWAYS the same. The cyclist loses. It don't matter if you had the right of way, etc.

Fine. Whether you, Andy, are a cyclist or a motorist, just stay off the
roads. Your attitudes demonstrate critical ignorance and incompetence.

I see Frank. You are arguing that when a bicycle/motor vehicle crash
occurs that the bicycle does not come off worse?

No, I'm saying that Andy's post was generally anti-cyclist, and the
final "it doesn't matter" sounds like he's hinting that cyclists should
abandon their right of way. That's bull****.


Was it "anti-cyclist" or simply the reality that when a motor vehicle
and a bicycle collide that invariably the bicycle and rider suffer
injuries while the motor vehicle gets, perhaps, a dent in the fender.


When that's said to enforce "Bicyclists should ride in the gutter" as
Andy did, then yes, it is then anti-cyclist.


Your logic that some how we can ignore the fact that riding in the
gutter, or even getting off and walking is somehow a worse fate than
being hit by a car seems a bit strange.

Or are you arguing that in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision the
bicycle does not always receives more injuries than the motor vehicle
operator?

Or perhaps "it is preferably to get hit by a car rather than suffer
the indignity of riding in the gutter"?
--
cheers,

John B.


jOHN b. April 15th 19 07:21 PM

Cyclists triggering red light cameras
 
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 20:14:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/15/2019 9:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:54:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2019 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2019 11:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 12/4/19 4:21 pm, AK wrote:


There is no valid excuse for cyclists to run lights and stop signs.

Yes there is. There are many places I've encountered where the buried
vehicle sensors do not reliably detect bicycles, and as a consequence it
is necessary to ignore the lights and proceed with caution.


Guess I am making a distinction between "run" ning lights and stop signs and not officially obeying the law down to the last letter. I think of "run" ning a light or sign as not stopping at all and just blowing right through them. That is wrong. But I consider it OK to not officially obey the letter of the law by a bicycle if they slow down and almost come to a stop but don't at a stop sign. Rolling stop I think its called. And for red lights, stop and look to see if anyone is coming and then cross illegally while the light is red if its safe and not wait for the light to change, if it will ever change if there are those magnets buried in the pavement that cannot detect bikes, only steel cars.

But, how does one determine the circumstances under which one can
selectively disregard the law?

If you steal someone's money can they get a gun and shoot you? I
certainly know people that believe that is justified.

Or perhaps, it is all right to steal from a large business? Apparently
a rather popular pastime from the care most companies take to avoid
theft by employees.

We're talking traffic laws and not employee theft.

No, we are talking about the fact that laws are made prevent some evil
deed from happening. If one argues that some law does not have to be
obeyed, or that everyone ignores it, than what is the reason that the
law was exacted? Are laws to be passed so that one can disobey them at
one's convenience?

John, you're sounding so naive!

Hardly. Perhaps a bit optimistic that laws are actually passed to
prevent crimes or to make society safer.

Perhaps.

But your theory that one doesn't have to obey laws that one considers
wrong, incomplete, or otherwise, is simply stupid.

Oh? Is that true of ALL laws? If so, on what basis? Just the following
paragraph?

That is, [in Los Angeles County] some 40% of the collisions, for which fault could be
determined, the motor vehicle was at fault and in some 60% the bicycle
was at fault. The bulk of the fault where motor vehicles were found to
be at fault was failure to yield the right of way and the overwhelming
fault of the bicycles was riding the wrong way - against traffic.

Well to begin: We certainly should take those bicycles and those motor
vehicles aside, line them up in a parking lot and give them a stern
lecture! (Related: I once saw the goofy kid down the street yelling at a
lawnmower that wouldn't start. Darned thing didn't seem to listen.)

But more to the point: Yes, I'm sure most traffic crashes are caused in
part by someone disobeying a law. But at the same time, I'm even more
sure that only a tiny percentage of illegal traffic moves cause a crash,
or even require anyone to take action to avoid a crash.

As I've said, half the motorists passing the stop sign in front of my
house do not do a legal stop. In my nearly 40 years living here, it has
never caused a crash, and I doubt it's caused a close call.

In practice (and like it or not) nobody expects perfect obedience of
many traffic laws. Cops almost always allow at least a couple miles per
hour over the speed limit. If sunset is 8 PM and someone turns their
headlights on at 8:05, they won't be ticketed. Lots of drivers omit
signalling before making turns, and even fewer do it before changing
lanes. These offenses happen even in sight of police, with no punishment.

So in many cases, one does not "have to" obey those laws exactly as
written. People prove that daily, with impunity.

And in some cases, actually obeying them would be detrimental. If every
motorist did a perfect stop at the stop sign I can see now, there would
actually be a little more noise, a little more gas consumption, a little
more air pollution, and no actual safety benefit - because there's never
been a real safety detriment to what they do.

I'm picturing an old guy sitting in a rocking chair on his farmhouse
porch, banging his cane on the floor and saying "Those whippersnappers
ought to all be in jail for breaking the traffic laws!" But the old guy
would never want to pay the taxes to maintain the police state that
would require.

And the old guy actually wouldn't stop his jalopy when he drove it to
the end of his driveway, before entering the quiet country road. He's
say "Hell, I can see there's nobody coming. That's different."


Frank, you seem to be denying what appears to be, based on the CHP
study, the fact that more than half of the bicycle - motor vehicle
crashes were caused by the bicycle and only about 40% were caused by
the motor vehicle.

In recent years bicycle deaths in the U.S. have averaged 782 deaths
per year (2013 - 2017) if 60% were caused by the cyclists then that is
459 deaths due to the malfeasance of the cyclists themselves and only
312 due to motor vehicles.

Would saving 459 individuals from dying equate with someone sitting on
the front porch banging their cane on the floor?

Or to put it another way, has wearing a helmet and having blindly
bright lights on the bicycle saved as many lives as simply obeying the
existing laws?

If willfully disobeying existing laws (my buddy is the sheriff) is
O.K. than why all the hoop ala about bicycle deaths, why bother with
the subject at all. After all shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a
subject for boasting.



I don't know.
I suspect the issue of fidelity to The Law is larger and
more complex than it first appears.


Certainly it is and there are many laws that are no longer valid
either because the problem has gone away (selling guns to Indians) or
no longer considered a crime (Massachusetts colonial law providing a
penalty for not attending Church on Sunday). In fact some years ago
the State of Maine had a project in the Legislature to review every
State Law to determine which were valid "today" and revoke those that
were no longer applicable.



The Supremes upheld order #9066 in the various related cases
/Korematsu/ , /Hirabayashi/ and /Yasui/ (a man I knew
personally). Well argued /coram nobis/ petitions were
rejected. So that's where we are now.


Was that concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066,
which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World
War II regardless of their citizenship ? If so it was decided in 1944,
if the Wiki is correct.

Legally owned firearms are a niggling portion of firearms
involved in crime. Yet the bulk of charges for felon in
possession or use of a stolen firearm and related wrondoing
are dropped in the first round of negotiations, often
swapped for a misdemeanor charge. Cue the chorus of 'more
gun laws' as if that would help.


Someone or another wrote, "We cannot penalize all Moslem for
terrorism because such a tiny minority of Moslems are terrorists but
we can penalize all Gun Owners for mass shootings although only a tiny
minority are mass murderers.

Dallas' newly elected DA says prosecuting crime doesn't
always draw his interest and besides you just can't expect
law-abiding behavior from Those People:

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas...incarceration/

I suspect that the above was in actuality an attempt to reduce the
cost of the Texas, or the Dallas, prison system and had nothing to do
with enforcing the law. Legalize drugs, abolish the requirement for
bail and so on. I suspect that Texas law provides for being " release
on your own recognizance".

I could go on but The Law in practice is neither logically
consistent with itself nor sensible to the citizenry in
enough areas as to obviate any simple aphorism.

I suggest that the law is logical in the specific cases where the
judgment is made. In the case of the "Executive Order 9066" judgment
you mention above, in 1942 when the order was issued the U.S. was
truly afraid of the possibility of an attack on the N. American
continent, and in fact attacks did occur. There was evidence of Japan
spies in Hawaii. Mexico and probably other countries, according to a
book written by an individual who was a career Navel Intelligence
Officer. The fact that Navel Intelligence was not aware of any U.S.
citizens of Japanese origin or decent in the U.S. was not proof none
were there.

I was very small at the time but I do remember that people, at least
in my home town talked about a Japanese invasion of California, and
less face reality, the Japanese... and the Italian... the Irish...
and the Poles... and just about everyone else with a "funny name" was
thought of as sort of 2nd class citizen. My father's youngest sister
married a bloke named "Le Blanc" and my grandmother didn't talk to
here own daughter for a considerable number of years.

After all, the Japanese did "attack" the N. American continent. A
Japanese Submarine shelled Ellwood Oil Field on 23 Feb
1942, on June 21, 1942 a Japanese submarine shelled Ft. Fort Stevens,
in September 1942 a Japanese airplane, launched from a submarine
bombed Brookings, Oregon, the bombs actually fell on a nearby
wooded area. 1944, the Japanese military constructed and launched over
9,000 high-altitude balloons, each loaded with nearly 50 pounds of
anti-personnel and incendiary explosives. From 1944 to 1945, balloon
bombs were spotted in more than 15 states, some as far east as
Michigan and Iowa. A pregnant woman and five children were the only
kill, in an explosion after coming across one of the downed balloons.

I'm going on and on but given the sentiment that existed in the U.S.,
at the time, the Japanese Interment made perfect sense to, probably,
the bulk of the American People.

I suspect that the egregious examples are not different from
traffic law except by degree, that is, "as far right as
practicable" may be interpreted differently at different
times by different people in different situations. [Glad I
ride in jurisdictions where punishments do not include caning].

--
cheers,

John B.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com