Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:55:21 PM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/11/2019 4:44 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:27:27 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:25:18 AM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 12:29:23 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/angry-biker...matic-protest/

Includes (predictably) editorial snark about hats

Interesting data point in that video: Last year 111 pedestrians
were killed, a
4.7% increase. As always, that's _far_ above the number of dead cyclists.

But they somehow neglected to say about the peds, "Many without helmets."

Vaguely related: Yesterday Streetsblog (IIRC) posted a rabble
rousing rant about
"Police using deadly force." Most of the commenters seemed to want
every police
officer hung.

I gather there is some problem with police attitude toward NYC
bicyclists - as
in, when a cyclist is killed (say, from a right hook crash with an
irresponsibly
driven truck) the NYC cops respond by ticketing only cyclists, even if the
dead cyclist broke no law. That's wrong, IMO.

But the Streetsblog event was different. A guy on a bikeshare bike
crashed red
light after red light, ignoring the cop following in a cruiser
order him to stop
the bike. The biker kept looking back at the cop, but riding on,
through light after light.

The cop finally cut into the bike lane ahead of the rider and
stopped. The biker
ran into the cop car. Streetsglob called that "Deadly force."

It plainly was "deadly force". If anyone but a cop were to cut off a
cyclist with an SUV, causing an intentional collision, I think even you
would call it so. Cops *are* permitted to use deadly force under some
conditions, whether this was one of them ought to be the question.

As I understand it, the cyclist is still alive. That seems to prove the "force"
was not deadly in this case.

That's a ridiculous argument. Deadly force means force that *might*
cause death, people survive being shot all the time, but shooting is
plainly deadly force.

The cop did not apply the force. The cyclist ran into the cop car. The cyclist
applied the force.

Is it possible the cop pulled over so close to the cyclist that the cyclist
could not stop? Yes; but that's not proven. Given his behavior, it's as likely
that the cyclist was deep in la-la land.

He had sailed through multiple intersections and ignored the cop car, flashing
lights and megaphone. We don't know whether or not he was high or drunk. We
don't know if he was a Social Justice Warrior who rammed into the cop car on
purpose to trigger outrage. His behavior made no sense.

And BTW, while the reactionary anti-cop sites say he ran over the bike, or that
the bike ended up under the patrol car, photos show otherwise. The bike isn't
even on the ground. It's leaning, nearly horizontal, between the cop car and
a parked car, one bike wheel contacting each car. The bikes wheels look intact.
The bike looks undamaged. The police say the perp jumped off the bike before
the crash.


But anyway: What should the cop have done?

I haven't seen the video, was he using lights and siren? PA system?

The officer is saying he used all those.

Here's video of the discussion afterward. The cop seems quite rational.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1147293981694418944

So what should he have done?

And are you saying that no traffic laws should apply to bikes? And that bikers
are exempt from following police orders?

Of course not. I note that a few days ago you proudly described ignoring
warning signs that probably had the force of law, and ignoring the
protestations of a construction foreman who tried to prevent your using
an unsafe bridge. Would you have paid attention if he had been a cop?

Yes, if he had been a cop, I would have stopped. In fact, if a cop were guarding
the entrance to a closed bridge, I wouldn't even attempt to cross it.

On the other hand, I've gone past signs saying "Road closed, local traffic only"
even though I was not "local." Guilty as charged - but I don't know if the signs
had the force of law, and I doubt you do. The law may very well apply only to
motor vehicles. It almost certainly does not apply to pedestrians, and if I had
been challenged, I'd probably have been told I had to walk the bike. But you and
I both know that no cop would stop me.

BTW about a month ago, I went past a "Road Closed" sign in a nearby
neighborhood. The closure was because a broken water main had been spraying over
60 feet in the air across the road. This was on my way home to meet my wife.
Avoiding it would be a long detour. I rode up, joined the group watching the
cleanup, and asked the cop if I could go past. She said "Sure, just be careful."

I think you said something like "no bridge is closed for a cyclist".
Should *those* traffic laws not apply to bikes? Or just not to you?

Although it's too complicated for some folks, the reality is that laws are
seldom black and white. Do you do a complete stop at every stop sign? I'm
betting you don't, just as I don't. (I've done a not-quite-complete stop
directly in front of a patrol car, and I suspect the cop was pleased, because
that four-way stop sign often gets to be a "politeness war," holding everyone
up.)

Do you never break speed limits by a mile or two over? Do you signal EVERY turn?
(I almost never miss signaling, BTW.) Like it or not, society expects and
accepts these tiny transgressions. Judgment is applied.

But I don't want society to accept ignoring cops lights, sirens, verbal orders.
I don't want cyclists to decide that red lights don't matter at all.

I also don't want hyper-privileged liberals whining about "deadly force"
regarding a guy whose hair didn't even get mussed. The cyclist was wrong. He and
all his fans should just admit it.

- Frank Krygowski

Geeze Frank, don't you know that when a bicycle and an automobile
contact each other it is *always* the fault of the motor vehicle? I
had never realized that was a universal law until I started reading
this site where even a bicycle running into the rear of a parked car
it is deemed to be the car's fault... "He shouldn't have parked
there".
--

Cheers,

John B.

I know a guy that rode his bicycle into an opened car door. The bicyclist never slowed nor did he try to pass by moving into the adjacent lane which is required of motor vehicles. The bicyclist said the driver of the car opened the door and he (the bicyclist) hit it. The result? The bicyclist sued and was awarded $500,000.00

In Oregon at least, opening a car door into traffic without first
checking that it will not impede traffic (or maybe it's just if it
impedes traffic that's right there?) is a cite-able offense. I've
probably got the details wrong [Jay?]. In short, if you "door" someone,
you're liable.

I still avoid the door zone, and bike lanes that don't extend past it.

Mark J.


We got a law for everything!

ORS 811.490 Improper opening or leaving open of vehicle door

(1) A person commits the offense of improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door if the person does any of the following:

(a) Opens any door of a vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic, or with pedestrians and bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders.

(b) Leaves a door open on the side of a vehicle available to traffic, or to pedestrians or bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

(2) The offense described in this section, improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door, is a Class D traffic violation.


Crappy little Class D traffic violation. Make it a capital offense! BTW, if you ever wondered about making a citizen's arrest:

ORS 133.225 Arrest by private person

(1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255 (Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest).

161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).

(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

So, you can't make a citizen's arrest for getting doored, but there are a lot of "crimes" that are pretty low-watt, like "menacing."

ORS 163.190 Menacing

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor.

So, the next time a motorist menaces you, take him or her into custody.I carry handcuffs in my panniers, right next to the light-bar, siren, raft (when bridges are out), heart-lung machine and Loran, which I find far more accurate than GPS. https://tinyurl.com/y3j2c4op

-- Jay Beattie.