JReedEsq

WTF? You make some BS arguement comparing cycling to DUI with absolutely no statistics to back it up. Here's how I'm different from you: 1. I wouldn't make a claim like that without evidence to back it up. Btw, I'm probably ridden 100,000 miles in the last 10 or so years and managed not to cause any accidents. How's that possible since you think cycling puts everyone at risk? 2. I stick to what the law is. You make it up as you go along. I can see it now, "Your honor, I don't like that... why, why, it should be illegal, whoever does it should"get what is coming to them". That's it. That's all your posts rolled into one. I'm done with this BS.

You are mis-reading the word assault. It is limited to an intentional act. An example would be intentionally running someone off the road or intentionally throwing a heavy object at someone with intent to cause injury. Your situation is not what I'm talking about at all. Sounds like you did nothing wrong at all.

No, not at all. The difference is 1) that cycling can be done responsibly, regardless of your BS notions.

There it is. That's the statement that indicates it's OK to assault someone. you are justifying their behavior. 1. What reason could there be? You continue to imply that it is ok to assault someone based on them wasting a little bit of your precious time or because you don't like them. You don't like me using the word assault, but it is what it is, period. This is IMHO why you cannot be reasoned with. 2. I never said cyclists were defenseless. I said they are perceived as defenseless. 3. The fact that you resort to downgrading my profession by assuming we're all immoral and the reason that criminals are out on the street just proves you have nothing substantive to say about the subject at hand. 4. It's incredibly ironic that you would admit to writing citations you know can't hold up in Court and then you talk about sue-happy lawyers? What a load of BS! 5. In the incident you describe the cyclist is not even at fault so why can't you leave us the hell alone! Other than your BS hypothetical where the cyclist isn't even at fault, you've never been able to demonstrate how a cyclist places you in any danger. The bottom line is you don't like something so it shouldn't be allowed.

And that decision is left to each individual to decide for themselves.

That must be one of them in your avatar. Seriously if they are averaging 10mph in a group they must be really slow. I hope you're exgerating about the speed. As a cyclist, I'd probably be annoyed too. The difference is I'd say, "man I need to teach those guys how to ride in a group", instead of questioning their right to be on the road. I'd feel the inclination to say "get tight right", in cycling speak. I've been in lots of groups averaging 25mph in a 30mph zone. Even then there are folks who feel absolutely entitled to drive 55mph in that 30. Just remember those guys aren't all cyclists. Just remember that you don't want to be judged by the actions of gun owners in the news for accidental shootings etc... so you shouldn't make assumptions about all cyclists based on the actions of those specific riders. Are you sure you weren't behind some sort of organized charity ride or something? Those things are notorious for tons of people who just bought their bike last week. The cycling equal of the guys who muzzled everyone at your HCP class. Would you really want all gun owners judged based on those guys? I hope I understand you right that you are annoyed by these people. Not that you really want to send them all to the hospital by running them of the road with your car. I'm optimistic that we can find some common ground in this thread. I'm probably wrong though, I'm sure the next post will be someone referring to them in derrogatory terms and encouraging you to throw beer bottles at them for making you wait a while to pass them.

That's right there is always a Kwik in the world. You don't want all gun owners to be judged by Kwik, so all cyclists shouldn't be judged by a miniscule percentage right? FYI, before my wife decided to we needed to have 2 kids in the last 2.5 years, I used to be heavily involved in mountain bike racing. Among other things, the club I raced with was involved with mentoring junor (read high school age) racers with both mountain and road racing.... In short, I have experience not only with doing a lot of riding, but also teaching people how to ride in a group and "road ettiquite" etc.... and I've often been one of the more experienced riders in a group. Trust me if anyone in a group I was with was running red lights, taking up more space than they needed to or generally riding "squirrely" as cyclists call it, they would be either instructed to stop it immediately or find new people to ride with. Believe it or not, lots of new cyclists need basic work on their cadence, (pedal stroke) before they learn to ride smoothly in a straight line. I can deal the rules of the road, never have I said that driver's should always yield to cyclists, and I definitely yield to drivers when they have the right-of-way. I agree wholeheartedly that rights come with responsibilities. None of this does any good, however, if someone simply declares cyclists shouldn't be on the road and uses it for justification that "they get what they deserve" if they are rammed off the road or assaulted. That's the attitude of numerous others here. Somehow everyone keeps saying, "you guys just need to respect each other", but the respect isn't coming from the other side.

That's all I've ever advocated. Unfortunately, some people don't think cyclists have a right to the road.

Honestly, you'll be better off calling a lawyer in the jurisdiction where you had the vandalism charge. You will likely be able to get it expunged and it really shouldn't be expensive. I won't tell you how much I charge for expungements because I'm not a vendor here, but it's the same as a simple will and it's about the cheapest service I provide. In short, don't expect to pay a lot, but if CA jurisdictions handle them like TN does, don't expect the lawyer to get it done overnight either...

+1

Yes, they do, period. You don't like it... I don't care... Just don't go spreading this BS about tickets for obstructing traffic. You can go on and on about what you think the law should be. That doesn't change what it is, and it doesn't justify people being assaulted.

1. What is the basis of your evaluation for accident liability? People you've talked to? There are tons of misconceptions about accident liability. So what? It doesn't make it reality. I don't harbor disrespect for LEOs. I've stuck up for LE many times on this forum. I've got to point out though, that much of the disinformation I hear about the law comes from LEOs (or things people have told me LEO have told them). 2. The reason I've represented several cyclists is because I know lots of them and lots of lawyers aren't interested in doing personal injury cases outside their normal scope of practice. I've also turned away cyclists when I didn't think the motorist was in the wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I don't make money on bad lawsuits. 3. I'm sorry you had stuff thrown at you. Here's a difference in my perspective. I'm not blaming you for being a LEO (or former LEO). Those people might have had a prior bad experience with an LEO so it's should be ok right? That's your logic. Why can't we simply agree that it's wrong to hurl hard objects at people? 4. Call me a "youngster" all you want but, I have a better understanding of the law than you do on the issue. You seemed content to spout off what you think it should be, rather than what it is. I got news for you. Cyclists aren't going away, the sport is rising in popularity. If gas goes up to $5 a gallon I'd much rather ride in to my office a few days a week than sell my CTS or my SUV to buy some stupid Prius. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it OK for people to be assaulted, period. If were going to blame the victims for crimes, how about we close down Memphis? How bout we make motorcycles illegal too? Should we ban short dresses and low-cut tops because they could encourage a sex crime? Maybe everyone should be required to drive cars with less than 50K miles to decrease the likelihood of someone breaking down on the side of the road and causing an accident? If we get rid of everything that might cause someone to get mad maybe we could all sing songs and hold hands. Or we could put the blame where it lies with the persons who commit crimes. Wouldn't that be a little easier? If cyclists are enough of a problem that you feel the law needs to change, you must have the rest of life really figured out. You mentioned people being self-absorbed and self-centered. How is it that people should be denied doing a 4-hour bike ride because it might cause you a 5-second delay when you have to pass them somewhere along the way?

That's because riding on the sidewalk is in many cases illegal. and when sidewalks cross the road, they create many intersections in which it is difficult for driver's to see cyclists. Hence, the law instructs cyclists to ride on the road with traffic.

Jamie: Where do you get the idea that it is assumed that the motorist is at fault in a bike vs car accident? This has to be something you've imagined. Part of my practice is personal injury and I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. I've had clients who had dufficulty getting a lawyer to even take their case simply because they were on a bike. I've even had one insurance adjuster flat out tell me that they don't "deal" with bike cases, since a jury might think the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road. I filed the lawsuit and they eventually changed their mind. This was in a case with a head-on collision where the driver admitted fault at the scene! Don't worry, we got ours, but not easily. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you might be referring to when a cyclist is hit from behind. This the only time I can think of where there is a presumption the driver is at fault and in this instance the law is just treating the cyclist like any other vehicle on the road. As for you not being able top avoid some cyclists, sorry. I fail to see how it's any different than any other driver on the road. Certainly you aren't in fear of being hit by my 17lb bike? If you fear being hit while trying to pass a cyclist, just make sure it's safe to pass before you do. It's just common courtesy, but it's not that common anymore. FYI: I've had bottles thrown at me, had people swerve at me, I've been brushed by a rear-view mirror at speed, and I've had a driver pull over and threaten me before retreating in surprise when I didn't cower in fear. You might take these things more seriously if they happened to you. On a positive note, if you divide the miles I've ridden by the number of incidents, you'll probably reach the conclusion that a huge majority of drivers aren't out to get cyclists. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Not one of these incidents occured when I was blocking traffic or doing anything to "bring it on myself", as you would say. You can justify these things all you want, but I'm completely convinced they are the result of cowardly, insecure people who are utter losers. They think someone is vunerable because they are on a bike so here is the driver's chance to exercise a power-trip. It's not about someone having to wait to pass. If that were the case, why don't people throw glass bottles at the folks buying lottery tickets when you buy gas? I'm always getting gas and coffee, I'm in line to pay and somebody takes forever because they are buying stupid lotto tickets. I don't play the lotto so I don't understand right? Would this mean they "brought it on themselves" if I threw hot coffee and/or a glass bottle at them. I don't think so. It's not about time, it's about basic respect for someone different than you.

The 3 ft rule was put in place after a cyclist was killed. If you are passing within three feet you are putting someone in danger period. As far as your comparisons to open carry, cycling has a few things in common with OC. First, some areas are more appropriate than others. Second, they are both legal even though they make some people uncomfortable. You have a choice to participate or not. But either way you have no right to threaten, harass or assault someone because they've made a different choice than you. You don't like cyclists, don't buy a bike. It's your loss. I could care less. There are some people who may have been genuinely interested to know why someone would ride a bike on a public roadway. I hope I've provided some food for thought for those folks. Jaime, you seem dead set against understanding someone different than you. All you need to know is they have a right to be there. They pose no threat to you and all you have to do is leave them alone.

What did you do? And what are you charged with? Seriously, I don't represent child sex-offenders or people who assault cyclists. I have represented cyclists in personal injury suits after they were hit by cars though. FYI, name calling will double your retainer.

That citation would likely be pre-empted by the T.C.A. Statute that I posted earlier in the thread. The only way it would fly is if cyclists are riding more than 2 abreast or if there is obviously room to pass and the cyclist is intentionally blocking. Tennesse's statute is a compromise IMHO. It prevents the sort of "critical mass" rolling protests that have occured in some states but allows a cyclist to ride in the lane as far to the right as practicable and safe. In other words, the cyclist doesn't have to ride on the shoulder and has a right to "take a lane" when a road is too narrow to allow traffic to safely pass. However, the rider should allow traffic to pass as soon as it is safe for the cyclist. In other words, I don't see it sticking unless the rider is on video in the middle of the lane, intentioinally blocking. As a cyclist, I'd have no problem with someone being ticketed for intentional blocking. I think the statute is actually well written. People just need to respect that cyclists have a place on the road, they shouldn't intentionally block, traffic when it's not necessary, but the law allows them to do so when it is necessary to ensure their safety. I hope this was a friendly enough post for everyone.* *(Except those encouraging assaulting cyclists, you guys can reread my old posts if you've forgotten how I feel about you.)

Thanks David. We are in agreement. I'm sorry I couldn't have been as diplomatic as you.

Compared to someone's life, 5-15 seconds is unimportant period. It's not snarky, and I stand by it. I'm done with this thread. I believe can be judged on my previous posts and I am still appalled you would compare my tone with those folks that were name calling an insinuating that it's ok to throw things at cyclists. A small amount of time vs a stupid cowardous act that could cause serious injury. If you think what I said is in the same league with those postings you can't be reasoned with. I'm done here.

Context? How? I'm still totally lost on how it's snarky to refer to a 5-7 second delay, when I'm talking about a 5-7 second delay. That's sometimes all it takes for someone to wait until a safe time to pass a cyclist. As far as my reading comprehension comments. I posted numerous, lengthy posts with step by step reasons why cyclists shouldn't be on sidewalks, what the T.C.A. says about cyclists rights etc... I just don't see how you read these and think I'm the one being disrespectful.

What does both sides of the fence mean? This is where I'm confused about who you are saying could be arrested.

Just where did I say I'd do anything I could be arrested for? What I said was I'll get plates and call the authorities, and use any legal remedy. Maybe I should really work on being more polite to people who advocate acts of violence against me and call me names for no apparent reason. Again, you really think that referring to a 5-7 second delay is snarky? How?

Let the record reflect I've posted a long list of rational, reasoned posts. For some reason he called me a snarky a-hole. There is just no reasoning with some people. How dare I say I don't like my life being jeapardized and that I would use every legal rememedy available to defend myself in the case of an assualt. Guess that makes me an a-hole.

If you think saying I'll seek every remedy available against someone who is assaults you is being "snarky", then I guess I'm "snarky". Again, I don't see how that's disrespectful. Seriously, let me give you the benefit of the doubt, are you telling me you wouldn't take action if someone is putting you or your son at risk? I bet you would*. I just don't where anyone on "my" side of this issue has said anything that compares to the name-calling, ridicule, and threats coming from the other side. The only thing disrespectful is your post above. It's not to be taken literally. The point is that it's not disrespectful to stand up for yourself. If this doesn't make sense to you now I guess we just can't overcome that whole reading comprehension problem huh? *This means I'm not really calling you a coward see. I do however stand by my statements in earlier posts that it is a cowardly thing to throw something at someone and then drive off. I hope that doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

Did you actually read any of my posts explaining why cyclists ride where they ride? Just how am I encouraging them? Should I ask them to throw things? How's your reading comprehension?