Natche Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 This is just too funny not to pass on. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 That would be really funny if it wasn't true. Link to comment
Mike Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Sometimes the wheels of justice get slightly out of alignment. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 LMAO @ 2:50. :rofl: Link to comment
yabadabapal Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Wow! The things you gotta do to prove a point. I hope he survived all the crashes. Link to comment
SeanC Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I'm surprised the officer didn't arrest him for videotaping a police officer.... But it's an absurd law (if it's actually on the books). For instance, how is a bicyclist in NYC expected to make a left-hand turn if he's to remain in the bike lane? Link to comment
lawnchairboy Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Hmmmm... more cyclists = new revenue stream for city. not so hard to understand really. Link to comment
upflying Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Shame on the bicyclist for even stopping to get a ticket. A beat cop in a car in NYC? A bike can't pedal away into the crowd and disappear if he wanted to? Officer safety is so lackadaisical cop won't even get out of the car to issue a ticket? Link to comment
marcopolo Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 That guy sure went to a lot of trouble to make a point, I'll give him that. Link to comment
Bill_Walker Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Shame on the bicyclist for even stopping to get a ticket. A beat cop in a car in NYC? A bike can't pedal away into the crowd and disappear if he wanted to? Officer safety is so lackadaisical cop won't even get out of the car to issue a ticket? Hey, it was raining. Link to comment
Kitsap Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 And he didn't want to show the jelly doughnut stain on his lap. Link to comment
bakerzdosen Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I hate bad cops that give those that are actually trying to do their best a bad image... Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm surprised the officer didn't arrest him for videotaping a police officer.... But it's an absurd law (if it's actually on the books). For instance, how is a bicyclist in NYC expected to make a left-hand turn if he's to remain in the bike lane? Make 3 rights. Link to comment
Dave McReynolds Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I wonder if I'm going to end up in a plight similar to the guy in NY. When I sold the BMW motorcycle, I was left with no low-cost way to commute to work. I do occasionally bicycle to work, but it's just a little too far for me to do that regularly, and bicycling home on 105 degree summer afternoons is no fun. I was considering a motor scooter, but ended up getting a Hebb electric bicycle instead, since I can get exercise on it to the extent I want to, but also get an electrical assist when I need it. The Hebb is limited to 20 mph plus whatever you can add to that by peddling, and according to Hebb, that qualifies it as a bicycle for federal regulatory purposes. However, when I made discrete inquiries to Sacramento county, I was told that no way was an electric bicycle allowed in the bike lanes. I'm riding in them anyway, since I'm sure nobody, least of all me, wants me to be out in traffic going 20 mph. So far, nobody has tried to stop me, but I can imagine that someday I might meet somebody like the LEO that was featured in the video who might take it upon himself to try. Link to comment
Kitsap Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The electric bicycles are treated as bicycles up here. The first time I saw a weight challenged guy with a full grocery basket on an e-bike fly by a group of decked out roadies heading up the hill from the ferry I nearly bust a gut laughing, it looked like Pee wee Herman in the Tour De France. Link to comment
upflying Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This allows you to operate an electric bike in a bicycle lane in Ca. 21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows: (1) To park where parking is permitted. (2) To enter or leave the roadway. (3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection. (b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists. Link to comment
Dave McReynolds Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks Bob! I'll copy that and carry it with me. Link to comment
upflying Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Make a copy of this one too. 406. (a) A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is any two-wheeled or three-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an automatic transmission and a motor which produces less than 2 gross brake horsepower and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on level ground. (b) A "motorized bicycle" is also a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets all of the following requirements: (1) Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts. (2) Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on ground level. (3) Is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour. (4) Every manufacturer of motorized bicycles, as defined in this subdivision, shall provide a disclosure to buyers that advises buyers that their existing insurance policies may not provide coverage for these bicycles and that they should contact their insurance company or insurance agent to determine if coverage is provided. © The disclosure required under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) shall meet both of the following requirements: (1) The disclosure shall be printed in not less than 14-point boldface type on a single sheet of paper that contains no information other than the disclosure. (2) The disclosure shall include the following language in capital letters: "YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF THIS BICYCLE. TO DETERMINE IF COVERAGE IS PROVIDED YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY OR AGENT." Link to comment
Dave McReynolds Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks again! I'll copy that one too. Link to comment
DiggerJim Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (4) Every manufacturer of motorized bicycles, as defined in this subdivision, shall provide a disclosure to buyers that advises buyers that their existing insurance policies may not provide coverage for these bicycles and that they should contact their insurance company or insurance agent to determine if coverage is provided. Isn't that just nannyish? Sheesh...perhaps it should also be a law that warns the moto-bicyclist that "propelling the bicycle with electric or motor power will not result in the expenditure of calories by the rider and will not provide health and fitness benefits often associated with riding a bicyclist" (in 14 pt type of course...there on the other side...in the middle of the other side...away from everything else on the other side...in parentheses...capital letters...quotated...) or someone might successfully sue because they didn't lose weight after buying a motorized bicycle and riding it for 20 miles a day....after all, anyone riding a bicycle 20 miles a day would expect to lose weight would they not? It's a reasonable assumption that should have been the responsibility of the dealer or manufacturer to inform the buyer that it was not valid in this case. Or did I just give the CA legislature a stupid idea that will soon become law? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.