Rolling coal violations

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Doesn't even need to get that far. I see the so-called "bicycle activists" pushing for bicycles to be taken seriously as a vehicle, so they should act accordingly, instead of acting much like a bunch of spoiled brats as if the streets were the backyard of their parents' house. I never had any issue against people who use a bicycle responsibly on the streets.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Doesn't even need to get that far. I see the so-called "bicycle activists" pushing for bicycles to be taken seriously as a vehicle, so they should act accordingly, instead of acting much like a bunch of spoiled brats as if the streets were the backyard of their parents' house. I never had any issue against people who use a bicycle responsibly on the streets.

True. When I was driving bus I once came up on a green light to cross a major street. I still looked both ways just in case an ambulance or firetruck were on the highway. What I saw was a bicycle almost become a pancake under my tires as I slammed on the brakes.

Another friend of mine was hit in his car by a cyclist. The cyclist had a stop sign, but was threatening to sue my friend. The police showed up and cited the cyclist and put that he was to pay for damages to the car for not stopping at the stop sign.

When I ride my bike I follow the rules. I signal before turning, I signal to stop, I stop at all stop signs or at least slow down enough I can stop, I use a light when riding at night, etc.

Some of these cyclists seem to have a death wish. Sadly, the people that I've known who were ran over were riding fine.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

I'll describe one situation that demonstrates why a guy on a bicycle riding on public roads should be charged with DWI just like a motorist:

I get on my bicycle drunk and wander off into the traffic lanes like a good drunk is wont to do. A mom in her minivan full of kids hits me right after I turn in front of her, she panics and swerves into an 18-wheeler which then crashes into a school bus full of kids.

It doesn't matter what I weigh, either.

Argument by analogy is unconvincing.

Biden gets elected and in response someone jumps off a cliff to their death, so that should be illegal (extreme example to show it's not persuasive).

The risks are much different, so the punishments should be very different. There is already a law called manslaughter that covers unintentional causing of death.

There is already another law called public intoxication that more aptly covers someone riding a bike while intoxicated. The reason that it's illegal to be intoxicated in public is because it exposes others to unnecessary risk, which is exactly what riding a bike drunk is.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Some of these cyclists seem to have a death wish.

Some of them are simply stupid, while others might actually have some mental disease.

[MeteorGray]

Quote: "There is already another law called public intoxication that more aptly covers someone riding a bike while intoxicated. The reason that it's illegal to be intoxicated in public is because it exposes others to unnecessary risk, which is exactly what riding a bike drunk is."


So, is not the reason for DWI for motorists is because "it exposes others to unnecessary risk?"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

So, is not the reason for DWI for motorists is because "it exposes others to unnecessary risk?"

I don't know why I try with someone who is being intentionally obtuse. Do you really not understand varying risk, or are you just trolling?

The reason jaywalking isn't a life in prison sentence is because the risk is very low. The calculus isn't a binary "risk exists" or "risk doesn't exist".

You can argue that riding a bicycle intoxicated should carry the same penalty as driving a 2-ton motorized vehicle, but you'd need to supply a better reason than "there's some risk". Failing to to signal is risky too, so why doesn't it also carry lengthy prison sentences for multiple infractions?

As an aside, bicyclists routinely disobey motor vehicle laws, such as not stopping at stop signs, and I never see them cited. Why do you think that is?

[freebeard]

Because the stopping distance of a bicycle is less than the length of an automobile?

Automobile drivers don't have to put one foot down when they're stopped?

[Piotrsko]

How about there's no requirement to have a bike license? Radar cop once tried to give me a speeding ticket in a 25 zone, and when he asked for a picture ID, I gave him my college ID with a picture that didn't look anything like me.

What do you do about a 6 year old (below the legal age of reason) who runs a stop sign?

[MeteorGray]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't know why I try with someone who is being intentionally obtuse. Do you really not understand varying risk, or are you just trolling?

The reason jaywalking isn't a life in prison sentence is because the risk is very low. The calculus isn't a binary "risk exists" or "risk doesn't exist".

You can argue that riding a bicycle intoxicated should carry the same penalty as driving a 2-ton motorized vehicle, but you'd need to supply a better reason than "there's some risk". Failing to to signal is risky too, so why doesn't it also carry lengthy prison sentences for multiple infractions?

As an aside, bicyclists routinely disobey motor vehicle laws, such as not stopping at stop signs, and I never see them cited. Why do you think that is?

Let's try not hurling personal attacks, ok? Using logical arguments should not incite such responses.

Bicycles generally are allowed by law to operate on public roads and travel and otherwise interact with motor vehicles. As a consequence of this privilege, they are expected to follow all traffic laws. This includes laws against being out there with a load of booze under the belt because drunk bicyclists have the potential of causing death and destruction as I have already illustrated. If you disagree, that's ok. I respect that.

To further answer your points, about jaywalking, failing to signal and running stop signs, I could do so but it would take more room than it's worth, and I doubt very much you'd agree with me anyway. I'll just say that I'm sure that some tickets are given for all those offences.

As to why you never see bicyclists being ticketed for traffic infractions, I suppose it's because you aren't reading court records. I'm certain they are, but I will admit that in the current state of "defund the police" demands in the US while our cities burn, I'm sure such tickets are not being emphasized very much nowadays.

Again, I'm not intentionally being obtuse. I'm just trying to get and exchange information and express my point of view on topic that interest me. That's what I think these forums are for. If that is defined as trolling, then I don't understand the term.

[freebeard]

That's what I think these forums are for

Agreed. But I've been ticketed for failing to signal a lane change (right in front of the County courthouse!) on my bike. Bicycles filled the roads before cars came along. 'Jaywalking' was invented as a perjorative.

https://www.vox.com › 2015 › 1 › 15 › 7551873 › jaywalking-history
One of the keys to this shift was the creation of the crime of jaywalking. Here's a history of how that happened. When city streets were a public space. Manhattan's Hester Street, on the Lower

The only pedestrian I ever saw struck by a car was in a cross-walk.