Received: by 10.66.86.102 with SMTP id o6mr303022paz.41.1352845363665;
        Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.240.103 with SMTP id vz7mr6550578pbc.10.1352845363646; Tue,
 13 Nov 2012 14:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Path: s9ni9761pbb.0!nntp.google.com!kt20no11248059pbb.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:22:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8fc896db-7b3d-429f-ae58-ad77c0aa7e8c@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.19.117.78; posting-account=dNDRHAkAAAAQCWf0XePN2XuMne1-D8DA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.19.117.78
References: <b57ef742-d897-4cd1-8937-136cb801ffd2@googlegroups.com>
 <0bd37f33-d206-4ac7-bda2-378caab52702@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
 <k7nbod$958$2@dont-email.me> <66c7abd1-9d0a-46be-84ed-8d2bb8087cf7@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <381999f4-78db-4499-a753-cae9df4b9542@googlegroups.com> <4ba11bd2-d6c9-4b76-80e3-7bc4dc6531c8@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <066f4a6e-0728-4785-af37-e5eb55793641@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <20f24b3d-b4a1-4b4b-afbd-75abea2f731f@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
 <4h93a8lk52b0u5ja3o8ll96nsdds0q8p77@4ax.com> <k7shar$ljr$1@reader1.panix.com>
 <6127e671-fcf9-49d0-b9aa-246072caa5b8@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <47cb9c81-ffe3-45de-8080-8638ef0026f4@googlegroups.com> <8fc896db-7b3d-429f-ae58-ad77c0aa7e8c@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <01138a30-18c4-410d-b793-b50be09c98a3@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: OT: What's wrong with this picture?
From: frkry...@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:22:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:43:39 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:27=A0am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>=20
> > =20
> > In fact, I wonder if dedicated research could come up with 100 cases of=
 cyclists ticketed for obstructing traffic at all, in this huge country of =
ours. =A0If that does turn out to be possible, I'd bet that every one of th=
ose cyclists was at lane center for much, much longer than the ten seconds =
or so it takes to improve visibility through an intersection.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I have to wonder at the perversely joyous energy some here use to argue=
 against cyclists' safety and rights! =A0Why do you make arguments that wou=
ld get cyclists ticketed and convicted? =A0Why do you _want_ cyclists to be=
 restricted to the edge of the road?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > As with the "Bicycling is dangerous" crap, it seems very much anti-cycl=
ing. =A0It's just weird.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> You're going to have trouble coming up with a 100 reported cases
>=20
> involving people ticketed for much of anything -- except the random
>=20
> pissed-off attorney or bicycle activists (and excluding drunk driving
>=20
> and some more serious driving infractions that impact licensing).
>=20
> The deal is that most people do not appeal from a <$100 ticket.


I probably erred in using the word "cases."  If I'd remembered how an attor=
ney would interpret that word, I'd have chosen "instances."  (For the rest =
of us, the terms are pretty synonymous.)

So to clarify:  I doubt that 100 people have been ticketed in the U.S. for =
briefly moving to lane center as they approached an intersection.

> All the confusion in Ohio and Indiana etc. comes from patchwork
>=20
> adoption of UVC provisions and unclear statutes.  Your Trotwood v.
>=20
> Selz/State v. Patrick would be decided in about .5 seconds in Oregon
>=20
> -- and against the bicyclist.=20

Written with confidence!  Would Bob Mionske agree?  Somehow, I think not.  =
See below - especially phrases like "... as close as practicable... " and "=
... including, but not limited to..."=20

Of course, I don't know what your case law is.  And I'm aware that bad case=
 law sometimes exists.  But Mionske must know; and his writing certainly se=
ems to agree with what I'm saying. =20

And I recall reading about the fairly high profile acquittal of the Portlan=
d cyclist (a city worker, wasn't he?) charged with leaving a door zone bike=
 lane. =20

Have you and Mionske talked about this?  I'd be curious to hear what he tel=
ls you.
=20
> 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a
>=20
> bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than
>=20
> the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place
>=20
> under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as
>=20
> practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
>=20
> the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the
>=20
> right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following
>=20
> circumstances:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is
>=20
> proceeding in the same direction.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> (b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> (c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including,
>=20
> but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
>=20
> vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other
>=20
> conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge
>=20
> unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is
>=20
> too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side.
>=20
> Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the
>=20
> requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to
>=20
> comply with those requirements.

- Frank Krygowski