A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Urban Cycling Video NYC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 12th 19, 01:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:09:59 AM UTC-7, 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.


True, but corralling a cyclist with a car is probably not deadly force
unless the car or the bike are going 60mph. I also assume the cops had
lights on and were sounding a siren, at least in bursts -- SOP for
pulling over cars.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?


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

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?

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?


This raises an interesting point -- when does sinage turn into "the
law?" Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't -- and probably not
when placed by a private contractor. Some bridges and roads are
clearly closed to everyone, and violating the closure results in
serious penalties. I rode up to the gate on Larch Mountain after the
Eagle Creek fire. The gate was closed, and there were all these "road
closed" signs with about a dozen cited CFRs (it's national forest) and
statutes cited for authority to shoot you if you
proceeded. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2465/5...752ff7cd_b.jpg
(minus all the nasty signs with CFRs). Well, maybe not shoot you, but
make you legally miserable. I looked up the road and said, nah.


Here in Mass one often sees signs that say "Road construction Pass at
your own risk". They look real to me, not spray painted on stolen
plywood or anything, but they don't cite any statutes. Usually there is
no reasonable alternative to going forward by the time you see one, so
if they have any actual legal meaning they're the road equivalent of a
shrink wrap license.

However, not exercising the same restraint, I rode past a barricade
with a similar sign on the Gorge highway, and lo and behold, a state
policeman popped out of nowhere and busted me. I talked my way out of
a fine, penalty and certain death and just turned around and rode back
to Vista House and home.

What I hate is when the sign says "bridge out," and I ride ten miles
to the bridge to find out that it is REALLY out -- and then I have to
backtrack ten miles because I'm not going to swim across a river
holding my bike. Optimism is a good thing, to a point. If I were
Joerg, I would have a pannier filled with an inflatable raft or a
hovercraft or something.


Ads
  #22  
Old July 12th 19, 04:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

In a just world, bullying with a car is always aggravated assault. Battery with a car is always attempted murder. Leaving the scene always proves intent.

How else are we to rein in the roadways' least responsible and least ethical users? We already lose something like 1.2 million worldwide every year to car drivers, which doesn't even count the larger number of seriously injured and disabled victims.

I hope I live to see the day that driving your own car on public roads gets you jail time. Time is swift now, and it's not an unreasonable hope.

  #23  
Old July 12th 19, 05:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:56:22 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 11:00:03 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Today's world doesn't have much intermediate education
process between nothing and shot dead.

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


That's an indictment of an entire society. Armed police who go in fear of their lives are likely to react with lethal force.

Except when I lived part of every year in the States, and in a couple of political exiles when I lived in South America, where the violence is merely less well-organised than in the States, I've always lived in places where the bobby on the beat goes unarmed and fearless, and is (or at least was) as likely to clip a teenage hooligan in the ear and send him on his way to sin no more rather than criminalise him for life by sending him to the criminal grad school of jail. And corruption was the bobby on the beat helping himself to an apple in passing the greengrocer and not paying for it.

I rather miss those fearless societies. Which is why I like living in rural Ireland and rural France, because there they still persist.

Andre Jute
Come back, Officer Krupsky, all is forgiven


There is a rather large difference between some Irish teenager getting in fights with one another and the rolling gun battles on the streets of Oakland. Police have good reason to fear for their lives and criminal youths look forward to companionship of their kind in prisons. You don't get any "street creds" until you've done time.
  #24  
Old July 12th 19, 05:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:50:32 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.


Seemed. Who cares?

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."


"ahead of the rider and stopped"? Nope, that would yield a different pictu
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/07/07/nypd-used-deadly-force-to-stop-cyclist-suspected-of-running-red-light/

Apparently, they wanted instead for the cop to share donuts with the jerk on the
bike. Apparently, no bicyclist should ever be asked to obey a traffic law.


Apparently, the weather at your place isn't suitable to take a walk or spin
to vent.

A lot of bicycle advocacy is absolutely nuts these days.


The lack of adequate police tactic and training in dealing with actual or
imagined traffic violations of non-cagers is a human rights issue. Would
you call pedestrian advocates nuts if they criticized running Police SUVs
into jaywalkers?


Perhaps you or I could judge this case a great deal easier with actual knowledge of the case. Running red lights is a no-no under any conditions and with anyone regardless of experience. I found myself frightening people yesterday by what appeared to be running red lights but under California law wasn't. At T-intersections with a continuous bike lane you are allowed to go through a red light. Of course this requires people turning left to stay in their lane which most people find impossible to do. In fact, here most people turning left require both right lanes and the bike lanes to complete a left turn.

But I have watched bicyclist ride directly through red lights with heavy cross traffic slamming on their brakes. So I do not believe moronic articles by bicycle "advocacy groups" because their reports are invariably distorted..
  #25  
Old July 12th 19, 05:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:25:18 AM UTC-7, 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.

Apparently, they wanted instead for the cop to share donuts with the
jerk on the
bike. Apparently, no bicyclist should ever be asked to obey a traffic law.

A lot of bicycle advocacy is absolutely nuts these days.

- Frank Krygowski


--


A cop is permitted to pull over ANY vehicle by cutting them off. That is not excessive force but THE LAW.
  #26  
Old July 12th 19, 05:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:09:59 AM UTC-7, 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.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?


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

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?

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?


Tell you what - the article said that the bicyclist ignored orders to pull over. That automatically elevated the level of force permissible to that NECESSARY to stop the cyclist.
  #27  
Old July 12th 19, 05:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:19:04 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:09:59 AM UTC-7, 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.


True, but corralling a cyclist with a car is probably not deadly force unless the car or the bike are going 60mph. I also assume the cops had lights on and were sounding a siren, at least in bursts -- SOP for pulling over cars.

But anyway: What should the cop have done?


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

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?

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?


This raises an interesting point -- when does sinage turn into "the law?" Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't -- and probably not when placed by a private contractor. Some bridges and roads are clearly closed to everyone, and violating the closure results in serious penalties. I rode up to the gate on Larch Mountain after the Eagle Creek fire. The gate was closed, and there were all these "road closed" signs with about a dozen cited CFRs (it's national forest) and statutes cited for authority to shoot you if you proceeded. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2465/5...752ff7cd_b.jpg (minus all the nasty signs with CFRs). Well, maybe not shoot you, but make you legally miserable. I looked up the road and said, nah.

However, not exercising the same restraint, I rode past a barricade with a similar sign on the Gorge highway, and lo and behold, a state policeman popped out of nowhere and busted me. I talked my way out of a fine, penalty and certain death and just turned around and rode back to Vista House and home.

What I hate is when the sign says "bridge out," and I ride ten miles to the bridge to find out that it is REALLY out -- and then I have to backtrack ten miles because I'm not going to swim across a river holding my bike. Optimism is a good thing, to a point. If I were Joerg, I would have a pannier filled with an inflatable raft or a hovercraft or something.

-- Jay Beattie.


I continually argue that the police such as the Highway Patrol have JOBS of enforcing the driving laws and absolutely do not. While city cops have begun (JUST) to realize just how dangerous roadways are becoming with the total ignoring of driving laws, as a rule anything goes appears to be the driving laws in California today.

But the police not enforcing the driving laws with any efficacy doesn't mean that you can ignore a police officers order to pull over, truck, auto or bicycle.
  #28  
Old July 12th 19, 10:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mark J.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 840
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

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.
  #29  
Old July 13th 19, 06:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:50:32 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:


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."


"ahead of the rider and stopped"? Nope, that would yield a different
pictu
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/07/07/nypd-used-deadly-force-to-stop-cyclist-suspected-of-running-red-light/


A lot of bicycle advocacy is absolutely nuts these days.


The lack of adequate police tactic and training in dealing with actual
or imagined traffic violations of non-cagers is a human rights issue.
Would you call pedestrian advocates nuts if they criticized running
Police SUVs into jaywalkers?


Perhaps you or I could judge this case a great deal easier with actual
knowledge of the case.


Yes, even video links working here would make it easier. But we're not a
court of law, and Frank's invitation into "apparently"-land was just too
tempting.

Running red lights is a no-no under any conditions
and with anyone regardless of experience.


You are generalizing a bit. Not "running" red lights has gotten
code-abiding citizens killed because the vehicle operator behind did run it
(or because of inadequate, flasherless dynamo taillights, of course....)
Though in the NY case, "obeying" traffic lights seems to be part of a
rider's obligations with Citibike, as might be, refraining from jumping off
the bike to viciously guide-bomb it into peacefully assembled motor vehicles.

I found myself frightening
people yesterday by what appeared to be running red lights but under
California law wasn't.


Yes, many USians get frightened easily.

At T-intersections with a continuous bike lane you
are allowed to go through a red light. Of course this requires people
turning left to stay in their lane which most people find impossible to
do. In fact, here most people turning left require both right lanes and
the bike lanes to complete a left turn.


AFAIR you have already been begged to move away from that place. Either the
vehicles are too large or the driver proficiency is too awful in Oakland.

But I have watched bicyclist ride directly through red lights with heavy
cross traffic slamming on their brakes.


Yes, some Americans on bicycles do behave dangerously, but I must have
missed the evidence showing that Mr. Citibiker actually did dangerously
impede anyone.

So I do not believe moronic
articles by bicycle "advocacy groups" because their reports are
invariably distorted..


That's something they have in common with much traffic-related material fed
to "quality" media by "quality" police.
  #30  
Old July 13th 19, 04:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Urban Cycling Video NYC

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Running red lights is a no-no under any conditions
and with anyone regardless of experience.


You are generalizing a bit. Not "running" red lights has gotten
code-abiding citizens killed because the vehicle operator behind did run it
(or because of inadequate, flasherless dynamo taillights, of course....)


Are you hinting that you know of multiple instances of cyclists being hit from
behind and killed because they did not run a red light?

If so, I'd be interested in details and documentation.

- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK Urban cycling guide. DeF Australia 3 March 6th 07 05:37 AM
Times article urban cycling and heart disease Peewiglet UK 53 August 25th 05 11:30 PM
Urban trials + Muni video clip compilation unicus Unicycling 9 August 4th 05 04:49 PM
Real Urban XC ~Video~ Ride-A-Lot Mountain Biking 28 January 21st 05 06:14 PM
Urban Cycling - pretty good guidebook Badger_South General 3 August 6th 04 06:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.