• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

...
And yes, to me the video looks like both the cop and the bicyclist were trying to move out of each other's way, but ended up moving in the same direction - something that happens a lot. From the cop's perspective, if in his mind he knows he's trying to move, and the bicyclist steers in the same direction the cop is moving, I can understand why he would think the bicyclist steered that way deliberately. They did overdo it when it came to manhandling the guy, though.

I think your views about the problematic nature of critical mass have profoundly affected your ability to judge this video accurately.

Please examine the video again. The police officer not only accelerated towards the rider when the rider had nearly passed him, the police office finished the interaction by using his forearm to push the rider off the bike.

As has been noted many times above, it is conceivable that something preceded the incident that led the officer to believe that stopping and arresting this rider was required. But even if one assumes that, the police officer's actions are not consistent with how he described the incident in his report.
 
I think he was just upset that he didn't get to go and have fun at the RHC so he was making his own.
 
I think your views about the problematic nature of critical mass have profoundly affected your ability to judge this video accurately.

Entirely possible; I'm the type of person who genuinely laughs when a stopped motorist who insists on being a complete prick ends up being cited for (technically true) offenses that the issuing officer normally would not have cared about or even mentioned. Perhaps it's just me "wishing" more or less that there was a way it didn't have to be a case of out-of-line overzealousness (for whatever reason) on the part of the cop.
 
I absolutely agree that you most likely changed everyone's opinion a full 360 degrees. No argument there.
Heh.
Crashing lunch counters and staging bus boycotts in an effort to end racial segregation. Yeah, that's worth civil disruption.

But clogging the streets in an effort to get people to support spending tax money to do a favor for cyclists? Tell me, has that actually worked anywhere?
To some extent, it has here. Seattle has a layout that is relatively bicycle-friendly (to the extent it can be, seeing that our city is built on hills steeper than anywhere except San Franciso); and we were one of the first cities to put cops on bicycles.

Motorists here are a different matter. They simply do not watch for bicyclists, or are actively antagonistic. It hasn't always been this way; and has been steadily growing worse for the last couple decades, as our population increases and courtesy decreases. I used to cycle a lot; but am not sure I'd feel safe doing so in this town anymore. I've had far too many close calls as a pedestrial, and cycling is a lot more dangerous.

But it's not entirely the motorists' fault. Cyclists in this town tend to hassle and harrass motorists as well; and far too many of them are beligerent entitlement whores and self-righteous militant greeners. Bicycles are supposed to obey traffic laws, but few do. Particularly egregious are the legions of suicidally psychotic bicycle messengers. Hardly walk through downtown goes by I don't see a near-accident caused by one of these jackasses.

We also have one of the largest proliferations of massholes in the nation as well; and CM groups are populated with the same entitlement jerks and militant greeners. They've developed a technique for harassing drivers while staying just barely on the legal side of assault, or at least maintaining plausible deniability for their assault; and taking any retaliatory action by scared or enraged drivers as justification for attacking them en masse in "self-defense". If they are caught by police, they typically escape by riding (often illegally) through office campuses, pocket parks, and even trespassing on private property. They're rarely, if ever, held accountable for the damage they cause.
 
Bicyclist should be required to wear license plates as large as cars carry. Eliminating the anonymousness of cyclists would go a long way towards stopping traffic violations.
 
luchog, we had a similar situation (probably still do) in Gainesville, Florida.

Gainesville is a perfect town for cycling. Lots of bike lanes, wide flat streets, entire sections of the local college campus closed to cars. I drove my car only when I had to there.

Most cyclists obeyed the rules of the road, and we had absolutely no need for any kind of protest or mass demonstration.

But there were also plenty of jerks who decided to ignore their status as equivalent vehicles on roads with no bike lanes and illegally passed everyone at stoplights to get ahead of the column, which meant that everyone had to pass them all over again.

And there were the CM dramatists who held entirely unnecessary demonstrations which only served to tick everybody off.

When I moved to Athens, GA, we actually did need more bike lanes and better cooperation from motorists. Unfortunately, the CM idiots insisted on clogging up traffic during their pointless demonstrations, which inevitably resulted in a subsequent uptick of rudeness and harassment directed at cyclists for a time afterward and absolutely no improvement of the infrastructure or cooperation.

CM is all about acting out. It accomplishes nothing.
 
Most cyclists obeyed the rules of the road, and we had absolutely no need for any kind of protest or mass demonstration.
Let me say first of all that I also agree that cyclists should obey the rules of the road; I cycle regularly and I object to cyclists who jump red lights (which seems to be the main thing car drivers object to), partly because it's wrong, and partly because it gets cyclists a bad name.

However;
But there were also plenty of jerks who decided to ignore their status as equivalent vehicles on roads with no bike lanes and illegally passed everyone at stoplights to get ahead of the column, which meant that everyone had to pass them all over again.

Maybe the law is different where you are, but I've never heard any suggestion that this is illegal in this country (and that includes the cycling proficiency training I received, which was given by police officers). Passing traffic is one of the benefits of cycling, making up for the lower top speed, and is even encouraged in some places in the UK by the advance stop lines at traffic lights referred to earlier in this thread. As for the cars passing bikes after the lights, I've not noticed it being any more than an occasional minor inconvenience for cars in this country, where the roads are much narrower than they tend to be in the US.

The only time I've not passed stopped traffic is when it's not been safe to do so, which was mostly when I rode a recumbent which was not so manoeuverable. Some drivers don't like being passed, but seems more like jealousy than anything, that someone is going faster than they are. A cyclist means one fewer car in front of them.
 
Maybe the law is different where you are, but I've never heard any suggestion that this is illegal in this country (and that includes the cycling proficiency training I received, which was given by police officers). Passing traffic is one of the benefits of cycling, making up for the lower top speed, and is even encouraged in some places in the UK by the advance stop lines at traffic lights referred to earlier in this thread. As for the cars passing bikes after the lights, I've not noticed it being any more than an occasional minor inconvenience for cars in this country, where the roads are much narrower than they tend to be in the US.

The only time I've not passed stopped traffic is when it's not been safe to do so, which was mostly when I rode a recumbent which was not so manoeuverable. Some drivers don't like being passed, but seems more like jealousy than anything, that someone is going faster than they are. A cyclist means one fewer car in front of them.

It's been some time since I had to take the test, but when I went thru driver's ed and took the license exam, I was instructed that if you're on the right-of-way -- in a car, motorcyle, or bicycle -- then you all observe the same rules.

Passing someone on the right when traffic is stopped at a light in order to get ahead of them isn't legal. I don't think there's an exception for cycles that are not in a bike lane. Perhaps things have changed, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

And yeah, it ticks folks off because we got a lot of narrow, hilly, windy, shoulderless 2-lane roads, and you can get stuck behind a cyclist for a good ways without a safe opportunity to pass. It's ok if you only have to pass the guy once. But to have him then pass you on the right at a light -- to get, what, half a dozen car lengths farther forward than he would have been had he waited in his spot? -- and then to have to maneuver around him again... it's pointless and it gets folks angry at cyclists.
 
It's been some time since I had to take the test, but when I went thru driver's ed and took the license exam, I was instructed that if you're on the right-of-way -- in a car, motorcyle, or bicycle -- then you all observe the same rules.

Passing someone on the right when traffic is stopped at a light in order to get ahead of them isn't legal. I don't think there's an exception for cycles that are not in a bike lane. Perhaps things have changed, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

Well, it is legal in the UK. All the Highway Code says about it is that cyclists should not overtake on the inside approaching a junction if the vehicle is about to turn left:
72

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Do you have an equivalent document in the US? While in general all rules apply to all road users in the UK, there are variations for different types of vehicles.

And yeah, it ticks folks off because we got a lot of narrow, hilly, windy, shoulderless 2-lane roads, and you can get stuck behind a cyclist for a good ways without a safe opportunity to pass. It's ok if you only have to pass the guy once. But to have him then pass you on the right at a light -- to get, what, half a dozen car lengths farther forward than he would have been had he waited in his spot? -- and then to have to maneuver around him again... it's pointless and it gets folks angry at cyclists.

Well, it's not pointless from the cyclist's point of view; approaching lights, I'm often able to keep moving and not have to stop at all. It's partly a matter of perception; you may think that a cyclist is delaying you, and you may have to drive slowly for a short while, but I think it's rare that a cyclist actually increases your overall journey time since you then catch up with the car in front; not to mention the fact that you do get past him which you may not have done if he was in a car.

I don't know what the roads are like in Gainesville, but as I said before, it's not a big problem in the UK, and our roads tend to be much narrower than in the US.
 
Last edited:
Why do you get angry at the cyclists when the problem is clearly the engineers that didn't provide a bike lane or shoulder when they designed the road.
 
Why do you get angry at the cyclists when the problem is clearly the engineers that didn't provide a bike lane or shoulder when they designed the road.

Good point; it's not as if bicycles are a new fangled invention, either. In fact, my understanding is that it was the 19th century fashion for cycling that led to the improvements in roads that enabled the early motor cars to catch on, at least in the UK.
 
Why do you get angry at the cyclists when the problem is clearly the engineers that didn't provide a bike lane or shoulder when they designed the road.

Oh, there's a lot of blame to go around. Where I live, there's a car-worship culture. Everyone has to have their own vehicle, the bigger the better, carpooling's for sissies, the bus is a hassle, cyclers are hippies and yuppies, on and on.

But yeah, I still expect cyclists to conform to "same roads same rules" and not try to gain a few feet and then force everyone to pass them again. When I come to a light I move toward the center of the lane and take my place in line with the cars. What's so hard about that?
 
You'll find out when there are cyclists interspersed with the cars and the light turns green. The cyclists aren't going to accelerate as fast as your cars so there is a greater chance that you won't make it through that light cycle. Is that what you want?
 
Do you have an equivalent document in the US? While in general all rules apply to all road users in the UK, there are variations for different types of vehicles.

It varies from state to state. Each state sets its own laws. And counties and municipalities are allowed to place certain additional restrictions if they like, depending on the roadway.

In Georgia, there are certain statutes which apply only to bicycles, but otherwise, a bicycle is a vehicle just like any other and obeys the same rules.

As for passing, the law specifically states that a cycle should keep as far to the right (toward the outer edge of the roadway) as is safe, except when avoiding debris or when passing -- which means that passing must occur on the left (toward the center of the road) and passing on the right is illegal.

As far as I know, it is illegal for any vehicle -- motorcycle or bicycle -- to weave through traffic by moving between cars/trucks that are established in their lanes.

In short, when you come to a light, you maintain your position just like every other vehicle, and you do not pass other cars on the shoulder or between lanes.

Well, it's not pointless from the cyclist's point of view; approaching lights, I'm often able to keep moving and not have to stop at all.

Yeah, and if I roll through a stoplight or stop sign in my car, I don't have to stop, either. Still illegal and dangerous.

It's partly a matter of perception; you may think that a cyclist is delaying you, and you may have to drive slowly for a short while, but I think it's rare that a cyclist actually increases your overall journey time since you then catch up with the car in front; not to mention the fact that you do get past him which you may not have done if he was in a car.

It's not usually the time factor, but the safety, and a simple matter of politeness. Although the time issue is sometimes relevant, in many areas around here passing a bike is just dangerous because the lanes are narrow and hills and curves limit your sight distance. Some roads you can be stuck with the choice of following a bike at a crawl for half a mile or more or taking the chance and hoping an oncoming car doesn't force you to move back into the lane and thereby force the cyclist off the road, which in some cases would mean a very nasty fall down an embankment.

But politeness has a lot to do with it. A cyclist is another vehicle, plain and simple. We all take our places. Forcing people to pass you again and again and again is just rude.

I don't know what the roads are like in Gainesville, but as I said before, it's not a big problem in the UK, and our roads tend to be much narrower than in the US.

Gainesville was wonderful because the roads were wide and flat and there were plenty of ample bike lanes.

North Georgia is a different ball of wax. I had to stop riding my bike to work when I moved back up here, which was a real shame. :(
 
You'll find out when there are cyclists interspersed with the cars and the light turns green. The cyclists aren't going to accelerate as fast as your cars so there is a greater chance that you won't make it through that light cycle. Is that what you want?

Yeah, that's what I want. If the cyclist does not try to overtake other vehicles, then only the vehicles behind the bike have to pass it, and they only have to pass it once. If the cyclist moves forward at every light, everyone has to re-pass the bike multiple times, which slows things down worse than if the bike maintained its position. Of course, when the light turns green, the cyclist should move back toward the right to make passing as easy as possible.
 
So, you want the cyclists to be second class citizens while using the roads. You want them to move out of your way when you are moving faster and you want them to sit behind you when you aren't moving.

Each one of those cyclists pays the same taxes as you (except for gas taxes) so they should have the same rights to travel through the city. The solution is to accommodate both with paved shoulders and/or bike lanes. But the motorists are using up all the oil so now there is a shortage of asphalt to widen the road.
 
So, you want the cyclists to be second class citizens while using the roads. You want them to move out of your way when you are moving faster and you want them to sit behind you when you aren't moving.

Each one of those cyclists pays the same taxes as you (except for gas taxes) so they should have the same rights to travel through the city. The solution is to accommodate both with paved shoulders and/or bike lanes. But the motorists are using up all the oil so now there is a shortage of asphalt to widen the road.

Hey, I ride, too.

And no, I don't want bikes to be second-class.

By law, Georgia is a "same roads same rules" state.

Cars can't pass on the shoulder, neither can bikes. Cars can't weave between other vehicles by trying to make a third lane between 2 lanes, and neither can bikes or motorcycles.

I don't expect bikes to move out of my way when I'm moving faster. I pass them the same way I pass cars. When it's not safe to pass them, I don't. (I see cars make very scary passes sometimes, but I don't think it's worth it.) However, the law does make a logical exception for bikes -- they are required to keep right.

That's the law, that's the way it is.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom