[PLUG] OT: PGP Sigs in Spam

AthlonRob AthlonRob at axpr.net
Wed Oct 15 00:07:01 UTC 2003


On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 23:08, Russ Johnson wrote:

> > Excuse me?  The speed limit is an UPPER BOUND, not a gauranteed rate of
> > travel.
> 
> Explain that to the 10 tickets I've had for impeding traffic. Look it up
> in ORS 811.130. I have been recently introduced to a case where an
> appeals court affirmed that bicycles are not subject to the impeding
> traffic statute. I happen to disagree with this ruling, but that's
> neither here nor there. Impeding traffic is dangerous. It IS coded, and
> it is the law. The court let the bicycling off on a technicality that
> they use "motor vehicle" in that particular statute. Striking the word
> "motor" from that section would do wonders. On top of that, he was
> STANDING with his bike, not riding it at the time of the citation. I
> would have argued that he was a pedestrian, and cited him for something
> a little more applicable. 

That sucks (the court case, that is).  There is absolutely no reason why
bicycles should not be held to the same law as the rest of traffic.  If
anything, they are *more* capable of pulling over and allowing regular
traffic to go by.

I think I'll write the my state representative about that one - get the
word motor out of that law.

It may be arguable from another standpoint, though, I don't know -
bicycles are bound to all the same laws a motorized vehicle is except
for those by their very nature they cannot follow.  That seems to
include them in the motor world, if you ask me...

> Yes. They can block traffic... By going slower than necessary to arrive
> at their destination. The purpose of a road is to travel (in whatever
> vehicle) from point A to point B. The purpose of the CM rides is to
> disrupt life. It's a statement, not a journey. 

It's downright disgusting.

> > > They cut in and out of traffic and ride on the line between lanes and
> > > between cars.
> > 
> > Lane changes and passing are legal.  And bicycles are an exception to the
> > "one vehicle per lane" law.
> 
> So you are saying that bicycle can share the lane with my Explorer? I
> realize they can ride several bikes abreast in a lane. I'm talking about
> passing between cars that are in adjacent lanes. That's not legal, and
> it's downright dangerous. 

Not just downright dangerous - I'd call it reckless driving.  At the
very least, I'd call it careless driving.  FWIW, I did have a woman who
tried to drive me off the road prosecuted for careless driving, took it
infront of the county judge, and won.  If you could ID these riders
riding like that, you may try a similar strategy.  I knew the woman in
question, and was able to get her license plate, so there is an obstacle
for this situation.  If you are able to ID them, just call the local
police department and tell them you wish to file a complaint.  They
should cite the individual then require you report to the local
(county?) clerk's office for a little paperwork, then you'll need to
testify before a judge.  It is all pretty informal.  If you go the
reckless route, though, it gets way more complicated (read - you need to
bring in the DA and convince them to prosecute).

> > > I know, as I almost hit one that was riding next to me on 4th street. He
> > > was next to me IN MY LANE!
> > 
> > Right... see above.  Bicycles are allowed to share the lane with motor
> > traffic and other bicycles.
> 
> Not when it's a car and a bicycle IN THE SAME LANE. There's not room for
> a car and a bicycle in the same lane. Show me law that states this is
> so. 

That idiot would have had a hard time explaining to his boss why he
couldn't make it to work the next day... "Ummm.. well... I was blocking
traffic and forced myself into a car..."

(that assumes, likely incorrectly, the individual is employed)

> > First, Critical Mass is not a staged event.  It is not arranged or
> > promoted.  It just happens.
> 
> Wrong. I know for a fact it's staged. The website even says it. The last
> Friday of every month @ 5:30. Meet at Waterfront Park, under the
> Burnside Bridge. 

Geeze - what is wrong with these people?  Maybe all of us with SUVs
should go take over some bike lanes.  Oh, no, I suppose that wouldn't be
right.

> > Second, convenience is one of the perceived evils that some Massers would
> > like to see questioned.  So that's somewhat the reverse of your argument.
> 
> I don't see convenience as an evil. It's convenient for me to ride Max
> to work, so I do. When it was convenient to drive, I did that. For some,
> it's convenient to drive everywhere. For others, it's just as convenient
> to bike everywhere. We do what is most convenient for each of us,
> according to our values.

And for many folks, riding Max or the bus just doesn't work at all.

Rob





More information about the PLUG mailing list