Dealing with Wrong-Way Riders

Curtis L. Russell

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:13:11 +0800, Michael J. Klein
<usenet@asiancastings.com> wrote:

>As far as I can tell, the crosswalks in China are simply
>convenient places to run over multiple pedestrians with a single pass.

As long as everyone knows the rules and is sporting about it...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Hunrobe

>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu

wrote in part:


>I think you're probably wrong. Absent certain signage, that is.
>
>It seems to me it's legal to stop a bike by the side of the road, unless
>there's a "No standing or stopping" sign.

---snip---

I think you'd had either too much or too little coffee when you wrote this,
Frank. Again, read what Dennis wrote. He was not advocating simply stopping and
forcing the WWR to go around him. He wrote that he would stop and position his
bike *sideways in the lane stop the WWR*.

>I think this is another time that cyclists should be treated like
>motorists.

Exactly. Park your car sideways across the lane and wait for the police to show
up. When they do, tell the officer you parked like that to stop another vehicle
operator from violating a traffic law. Any bets as to whether or not you get a
ticket?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

frkrygow

Hunrobe wrote:

>>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu
>
> wrote in part:
>
>>I think you're probably wrong. Absent certain signage, that is.
>>
>>It seems to me it's legal to stop a bike by the side of the road, unless
>>there's a "No standing or stopping" sign.
>
>
> ---snip---
>
> I think you'd had either too much or too little coffee when you wrote this,
> Frank.

Nope. I never drink that stuff.

> Again, read what Dennis wrote. He was not advocating simply stopping and
> forcing the WWR to go around him. He wrote that he would stop and position his
> bike *sideways in the lane stop the WWR*.

I know. The way I'm visualizing it (based on the context of other
posts) is that there's MV traffic coming from behind. The portion of
the lane the guy would stop in is the rightmost portion, where bikes
normally ride.

Is it legal to stop a vehicle in that part of the road? In most places,
yes. Is it legal to stop a bike sideways? In most places, yes, because
it does not impede the normal flow of traffic. Naturally, that
"sideways" detail is different for a car - but a sideways bike (5.5
feet) takes no more space than a parallel-parked car. So what are you
going to ticket him for? It can't be for "impeding the normal flow of
traffic." Wrong way isn't normal, according to the law.


FWIW, I just got off the phone with one of my best friends, asking him
about this. He's a cyclist, a former cop, a professor of Criminal
Justice, on the board of directors for a police academy, etc. He's one
of those guys who gets interviewed frequently in the paper on law
enforcement issues. I consider him a good source.

He agreed with me exactly.

And in fact, it turns out he's stopped many wrong way riders - not only
when cycling, but even when driving his car!

As to the likelihood of getting a ticket for doing so, he said he
doubted any cop would ever do that. In his words, "At worst, they might
say 'You know, you probably shouldn't have done that,' but I doubt
they'd even say that much. Hell, you're just trying to keep the guy out
of an accident!"

I figure there may be _one_ cop in the country who might ticket the guy
who stopped the wrong way rider. But if the incident really came up, I
doubt even he would do it. ;-)


--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Hunrobe

>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu

wrote in part:

>The way I'm visualizing it (based on the context of other
>posts) is that there's MV traffic coming from behind. The portion of
>the lane the guy would stop in is the rightmost portion, where bikes
>normally ride.

Gee, I must have missed where Dennis said he'd block a "portion" of the lane,
just as I must have missed that part of his post that said he'd be doing it to
protect the WWR. Go back and re-read his post. He didn't say anything about
preventing any accident. He *did* mention quite emphatically his "right in my
state to perform a citizen's arrest".




Regards,
Bob Hunt


>FWIW, I just got off the phone with one of my best friends, asking him
>about this. He's a cyclist, a former cop, a professor of Criminal
>Justice, on the board of directors for a police academy, etc. He's one
>of those guys who gets interviewed frequently in the paper on law
>enforcement issues. I consider him a good source.
>
>He agreed with me exactly.
>
>And in fact, it turns out he's stopped many wrong way riders - not only
>when cycling, but even when driving his car!

---snip---

If he's in the habit of "stopping" WWR to effect a citizen's arrest I *REALLY*
doubt he's a retired cop. That sounds more like someone who once received a
paycheck from a police department.
BTW, I know several people that are regularly interviewed by the media on law
enforcement issues. Some of them even have a vague idea of what they are
talking about. <g> That's not to say that your friend doesn't know what he's
talking about, just that being interviewed on a subject doesn't make one an
expert. Hell, since being released from federal prison former US Rep. Dan
Rostenkowski has even been interviewed for an "Ethics in Government" piece. ;-)


Regards,
Bob Hunt

occupant

> This dope is a regular commuter.

Arrogant and disrespectful to call someone a dope.
By regular commuter, do you see him cycling daily?

> but he doesn't wear a helmet
Not your issue. It is his insurance/injury issue.

> he hauls a large load in a backpack
His business not yours. So what?

> he invariably rides on the wrong side of the road.
Broad statement. Does he cycle for miles on the wrong side of the road
or just a small portion that permits easy access to a bridge or shopping
mall? Details about what this cyclist does and for how long
would assist in understanding his conduct.

> best way to pass this bozo
Bozo is again disrespectful. If you give/gave all the particulars of
where you were and where he was, we may be able to make some
suggestions. Anyone who is cycling or driving a vehicle who does not
clearly indicate their intention requires other cyclists and vehicle
operators to slow down and proceed with caution until out of danger.

> what would you say to him about his illegal, inefficient, unsafe, stupid way of riding?

Given your use of language, I would say nothing because your tone of
voice would likely be less than polite and possible offensive. You are
entitled to your view that his riding was illegal, inefficient, unsafe
and stupid but it may be your perspective and not fact.

Let me give you an example. I believe it is perfectly legal for a
cyclist to commute on almost any normal street where vehicles are
permitted. We all see these cyclists who exercise their right to ride
on the major streets all decked out in the proper riding equipment, all
holding up (slowing down) buses and cars, all perfectly legal because as
a well trained cyclist in good standing with the finest of local bike
clubs, he is doing everything legal and by the book. No tickets for
this guy.

Then we have the guy who is cycling in hiking boots, backpack,
travelling on side streets whenever possible, riding no hands most of
the way. His route take him across parking lots at an angle, on the
occasional sidewalk, wrong way down a one-way alley to get to the
office.

Who do you think causes more traffic problems, danger, and is more
hated, the Fred or the legally riding cyclist?

If you are not sure, ask your colleagues at work. They complain about
these perfectly legally riding cyclists all the time on the major
routes, especially the truckers.

frkrygow

Hunrobe wrote:

>>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu
>
>
> wrote in part:
>
>>FWIW, I just got off the phone with one of my best friends, asking him
>>about this. He's a cyclist, a former cop, a professor of Criminal
>>Justice, on the board of directors for a police academy, etc. He's one
>>of those guys who gets interviewed frequently in the paper on law
>>enforcement issues. I consider him a good source.
>>
>>He agreed with me exactly.
>>
>>And in fact, it turns out he's stopped many wrong way riders - not only
>>when cycling, but even when driving his car!
>
>
> ---snip---
>
> If he's in the habit of "stopping" WWR to effect a citizen's arrest I *REALLY*
> doubt he's a retired cop. That sounds more like someone who once received a
> paycheck from a police department.

Since he disagrees with you so thoroughly, I'm not surprised you'd doubt
his qualifications.

But the guy's extremely well respected by the community at large, and by
every cop I know. He's not literally a "retired" cop, since he didn't
retire from that job, he just moved beyond it, but he was a beat cop for
years. Again, he now teaches master's level courses in Criminal
Justice. He's tough, he's very smart, and his professional and academic
credentials are beyond reproach.

Based on what you've written in this forum, I respect you quite a lot.
But I respect this guy much, much more.


--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Pete

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote
>
> If they're only looking in one direction before pulling out they're stupid
> too ... don't forget, joggers are supposed to be on the "wrong" side of
the
> road. Any driver should always look both ways, and all around them all
the
> time.

I think people tend to:
Take in about 50' to the right as they approach the intersection (noone in
that area, I don't have to think about it anymore)
Look left
Glance right (is there a ped or jogger? ok..assume they're moving at 3mph.
no problem)
Look left hard to see if there is space to pull out.
Pull out.

In that last interval, they've not expecting anything moving faster than a
walking pace to enter their space from the right A WWC violates this.
I had a fast sidewalk 'blader do this to me once. I looked right, saw him
"way down there", didn't realize his speed...looked left to get ready to
pull out. Way faster than I expected, the 'blader was at my right front
corner.

Pete

Kyralessa

"occupant" <electronicmailfixtosend@telust.net> wrote in message
news:4078E34D.B83B4B2C@telust.net...

> Let me give you an example. I believe it is perfectly legal for a
> cyclist to commute on almost any normal street where vehicles are
> permitted. We all see these cyclists who exercise their right to ride
> on the major streets all decked out in the proper riding equipment, all
> holding up (slowing down) buses and cars, all perfectly legal because as
> a well trained cyclist in good standing with the finest of local bike
> clubs, he is doing everything legal and by the book. No tickets for
> this guy.
>
> Then we have the guy who is cycling in hiking boots, backpack,
> travelling on side streets whenever possible, riding no hands most of
> the way. His route take him across parking lots at an angle, on the
> occasional sidewalk, wrong way down a one-way alley to get to the
> office.
>
> Who do you think causes more traffic problems, danger, and is more
> hated, the Fred or the legally riding cyclist?
>
> If you are not sure, ask your colleagues at work. They complain about
> these perfectly legally riding cyclists all the time on the major
> routes, especially the truckers.

Were you a cyclist yourself, you'd know that cycling on roads does NOT hold
up traffic. The only place where I hold up cars is where it's not safe for
them to pass me, and there are very few of those places on the roads I ride.
I will say this as gently as I can (noting your aversion to harsh language):
Please go out and do some road riding on a bike yourself, and then come back
when you've learned a few things from it. Until then your opinions will not
count for much here.

Hunrobe

>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu

wrote in part:

>Hunrobe wrote:

>> ---snip---
>>
>> If he's in the habit of "stopping" WWR to effect a citizen's arrest I
>*REALLY*
>> doubt he's a retired cop. That sounds more like someone who once received a
>> paycheck from a police department.
>
>Since he disagrees with you so thoroughly, I'm not surprised you'd doubt
>his qualifications.

Actually Frank, I'm not so much doubting his qualifications as I am doubting
that you accurately phrased both the question and my statements. That's not an
accusation BTW, simply a recognition that the situation you "visualized" is not
what Dennis wrote.
When next you speak to your friend ask him his opinion on a private citizen's
powers of arrest for non-jailable offenses. Better yet, look it up in your
State's statutes. In Dennis' case that State would be Alaska so read AS
11.81.390. That statute defines the permissible level of force a private
citizen may use to effect a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor (a jailable
offense) committed in their presence or a felony (an offense punishable by
State prison time) involving the use of force against a person. Note that WWR
is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony. IOW, forcing that WWR to stop as Dennis
described is *not* an authorized exercise of a citizen's power to arrest.
But enough of this... I'm going for a ride. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

frkrygow

Hunrobe wrote:

>
> Actually Frank, I'm not so much doubting his qualifications as I am doubting
> that you accurately phrased both the question and my statements. That's not an
> accusation BTW, simply a recognition that the situation you "visualized" is not
> what Dennis wrote.

Well, I was trying my best. I had your post up on my screen at the time
- the one this is from: "In the situation the OP described I'd
ticket both of them- the WWR for improper lane usage and the OP for
"stupid in
a no stupid zone" (No offense intended- it's just a cop phrase. The actual
citation would be for obstructing traffic.)"

Admittedly, I couldn't re-read the rest of the thread while I had him on
the phone, due to my dial-up connection. But I think I was pretty accurate.

> When next you speak to your friend ask him his opinion on a private citizen's
> powers of arrest for non-jailable offenses.

Oh, I mentioned what you said about citizen's arrest. And IIRC he
agreed that "citizen's arrest" wasn't legally recognized in a case like
this. Which I never doubted, BTW.

I think the difference is this: He has never had much compunction about
calling an ass an ass. He speaks his mind _very_ readily, and is not
shy about giving good-natured negative feedback. His attitude is the
opposite of my wife's, who feels one should always be polite to
everyone, no matter how rude or stupid they are being.

He does this with an easy skill I wish I had. Usually, he manages to be
quick to point out stupidity while somehow being pleasant enough that
the stupid don't get enraged. I wish I could describe his attitude -
sort of an incredulous "I can't believe you're doing that!" which is
somehow delivered as a good-natured "I'm just trying to help you be
smarter." The fact that his adjectives were all learned as an enlisted
man in the Navy make it even more amazing.


It all comes down to this: does a non-cop have a right to tell a dummy
he's being dumb? Does he have the right to obstruct his illegal path to
tell him that? My friend says yes, and he's well qualified to judge.
and I agree with him.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

frkrygow

occupant wrote:

> We all see these cyclists who exercise their right to ride
> on the major streets all decked out in the proper riding equipment, all
> holding up (slowing down) buses and cars, all perfectly legal because as
> a well trained cyclist in good standing with the finest of local bike
> clubs, he is doing everything legal and by the book. No tickets for
> this guy.
>
> Then we have the guy who is cycling in hiking boots, backpack,
> travelling on side streets whenever possible, riding no hands most of
> the way. His route take him across parking lots at an angle, on the
> occasional sidewalk, wrong way down a one-way alley to get to the
> office.
>
> Who do you think causes more traffic problems, danger,

You won't like the answer, but the guy riding legally is NOT likely to
cause the problems your hiking boot hero will cause.

I don't object to hiking boots, or backpacks, or side streets, or even
occasionally riding no-hands. But the wrong way riding, the parking lot
riding and the sidewalk riding are usually way more dangerous than
proper road riding.

There can be exceptions, of course. But if you visualize this chaotic
style as being generally safer, you're far wrong.

> ... and is more
> hated, the Fred or the legally riding cyclist?

First, I ride according to the rules of the road, and I don't get any
indication that I'm hated for doing so. Second, it's a rare thing for
me to have to hold up traffic, and if I do, it's only for a few seconds.
But third, it wouldn't matter to me. I know my riding style is the
most legal, safest, fastest and best. I'm not going to ride in a way I
know to be foolish just because someone else is intolerant.

> If you are not sure, ask your colleagues at work.

In my 32-year working life, I had only one colleague at work who
complained about cyclists. In the same rant, he complained about Amish
buggies and people walking on the side of the road.

Yes, he definitely wanted everyone out of the way of his old GTO. But
he was being an ass, and everyone in earshot seemed to recognize that.
His rant certainly wouldn't change the mind of anyone with any brain power.


--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Hunrobe

>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu

wrote in part:

>It all comes down to this: does a non-cop have a right to tell a dummy
>he's being dumb? Does he have the right to obstruct his illegal path to
>tell him that? My friend says yes, and he's well qualified to judge.
>and I agree with him.

I'd agree with that as well although with some reservations about any "right to
block his illegal path". You misstate the case though Frank. Apparently you
missed both Dennis' original post and my reply. My disagreement has never been
with anyone that simply stops in what's commonly referred to as a parking lane
thus forcing the WWR to stop themselves. Neither has it been with anyone that
tells a WWR that they are riding illegally and unsafely. My disagreement has
been and will continue to be with those that say they would position their
vehicle sideways across a lane of traffic to aggressively block traffic- legal
or otherwise- in order to effect a citizen's arrest on a traffic violator.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe

>occupant electronicmailfixtosend@telust.net

wrote in part:

>We all see these cyclists who exercise their right to ride
>on the major streets all decked out in the proper riding equipment, all
>holding up (slowing down) buses and cars, all perfectly legal because as
>a well trained cyclist in good standing with the finest of local bike
>clubs, he is doing everything legal and by the book. No tickets for
>this guy.
>
>Then we have the guy who is cycling in hiking boots, backpack,
>travelling on side streets whenever possible, riding no hands most of
>the way. His route take him across parking lots at an angle, on the
>occasional sidewalk, wrong way down a one-way alley to get to the
>office.
>
>Who do you think causes more traffic problems, danger, and is more
>hated, the Fred or the legally riding cyclist?

This is a three part question, right?
1- Who causes more traffic problems?
Answer- The one riding both illegally and unpredictably.
2- Which riding style is more dangerous to both the rider and other traffic?
Answer- See #1.
3- Which rider is more hated?
Answer- Who knows and who cares?

>If you are not sure, ask your colleagues at work. They complain about
>these perfectly legally riding cyclists all the time on the major
>routes, especially the truckers.
>

Imagine that. People complaining about traffic. Wow.

Regards,
Bob Hunt