New bicycle law to increase safety (in IL)
At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
Please also consider joining the CBC:
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
Bfbc-talk mailing list
Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
Tags
isn't this just political posturing?
we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing laws we
already have would accomplish the same legal result on the road, though
it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same "Media
Opportunity" for the Gov.
cheers!
e
On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
> At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
>
>
>
>
>
> Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
> implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
> Please also consider joining the CBC:
>
>
>
> Roger Marquis
> _______________________________________________
> Bfbc-talk mailing list
> Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
> http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
isn't this just political
posturing?
we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing
laws we already have would accomplish the same legal result on the
road, though it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same
"Media Opportunity" for the Gov.
cheers!
e
On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
> we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing laws we
> already have would accomplish the same legal result on the road, though
> it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same "Media
> Opportunity" for the Gov.
Interesting position but not consistent with the practice or realities of
law enforcement. If this were true the prima facie speed limit would be
the only law needed with regards to speeding speeding. It isn't of
course, which illustrates why different and more specific laws are
sometimes needed to enforce the ones already on the books.
M
> On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
>> implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
>> Please also consider joining the CBC:
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Marquis
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bfbc-talk mailing list
>> Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
>> http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
> we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing laws we
> already have would accomplish the same legal result on the road, though
> it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same "Media
> Opportunity" for the Gov.
Interesting position but not consistent with the practice or realities of
law enforcement. If this were true the prima facie speed limit would be
the only law needed with regards to speeding speeding. It isn't of
course, which illustrates why different and more specific laws are
sometimes needed to enforce the ones already on the books.
M
> On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
>> implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
>> Please also consider joining the CBC:
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Marquis
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bfbc-talk mailing list
>> Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
>> http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
_______________________________________________
Bfbc-talk mailing list
Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
sorry, but with all due respect, the LEOs i've worked with share a
different perspective.
talk to an LEO that can/will speak frankly and you might find that
"realities of law enforcement" include directives issued WRT what laws
are to be priorities for enforcement; it simply already isn't possible
to focus equally (or arguably, fairly,) on all the laws already on the
books. you wouldn't have to look far to find examples of this; to use
"speeding speeding" [sic] as an example, you only need to think back to
the last time you heard of an enforcement program run on a local
roadway. the laws being enforced are the same laws as all the rest of
the time, they're just emphasizing enforcement of laws that obviously
aren't being enforced as much as they are during the program. (most of
us wouldn't have to think far back for an example of enforcement related
to cyclists being less than adequate, in spite of laws that we know were
already there.)
too many new laws are put on the books for political posturing,
when existing laws already exist that would serve the same purpose if
only LEOs had them prioritized as such. having another law put on the
books that isn't going to be enforced any more than the ones that
already aren't being enforced doesn't do much besides make a politico
look good.
we don't need more laws duplicating laws we already have,
especially if they're as vague as what i've read about this new one and
we don't have enforcement of what we already have. what's likely to make
more of a difference WRT this announcement is the portion related to the
education of (both cyclists and) drivers.
cheers!
e
On 08/Jul/10 20:26, M Hayes wrote:
>> we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing laws we
>> already have would accomplish the same legal result on the road, though
>> it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same "Media
>> Opportunity" for the Gov.
>>
> Interesting position but not consistent with the practice or realities of
> law enforcement. If this were true the prima facie speed limit would be
> the only law needed with regards to speeding speeding. It isn't of
> course, which illustrates why different and more specific laws are
> sometimes needed to enforce the ones already on the books.
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>> On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>
>>> At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
>>> implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
>>> Please also consider joining the CBC:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Marquis
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bfbc-talk mailing list
>>> Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
>>> http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
>>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
sorry, but with all due respect, the LEOs i've worked with share a
different perspective.
talk to an LEO that can/will speak frankly and you might find that
"realities of law enforcement" include directives issued WRT what laws
are to be priorities for enforcement; it simply already isn't possible
to focus equally (or arguably, fairly,) on all the laws already on the
books. you wouldn't have to look far to find examples of this; to use
"speeding speeding" [sic] as an example, you only need to think back to
the last time you heard of an enforcement program run on a local
roadway. the laws being enforced are the same laws as all the rest of
the time, they're just emphasizing enforcement of laws that obviously
aren't being enforced as much as they are during the program. (most of
us wouldn't have to think far back for an example of enforcement related
to cyclists being less than adequate, in spite of laws that we know were
already there.)
too many new laws are put on the books for political posturing,
when existing laws already exist that would serve the same purpose if
only LEOs had them prioritized as such. having another law put on the
books that isn't going to be enforced any more than the ones that
already aren't being enforced doesn't do much besides make a politico
look good.
we don't need more laws duplicating laws we already have,
especially if they're as vague as what i've read about this new one and
we don't have enforcement of what we already have. what's likely to make
more of a difference WRT this announcement is the portion related to the
education of (both cyclists and) drivers.
cheers!
e
On 08/Jul/10 20:26, M Hayes wrote:
>> we already have laws that prohibit endangering others; enforcing laws we
>> already have would accomplish the same legal result on the road, though
>> it might not have been so dramatic or presented the same "Media
>> Opportunity" for the Gov.
>>
> Interesting position but not consistent with the practice or realities of
> law enforcement. If this were true the prima facie speed limit would be
> the only law needed with regards to speeding speeding. It isn't of
> course, which illustrates why different and more specific laws are
> sometimes needed to enforce the ones already on the books.
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>> On 08/Jul/10 10:40, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>
>>> At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
>>> implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
>>> Please also consider joining the CBC:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Marquis
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bfbc-talk mailing list
>>> Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
>>> http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
>>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Bfbc-talk mailing list
Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
> sorry, but with all due respect, the LEOs i've worked with share a
> different perspective.
Law enforcement consists of much more than LEOs (officers). Enforcement
also requires judiciary and prosecution.
> it simply already isn't possible
> to focus equally (or arguably, fairly,) on all the laws already on the
> books
Sounds like an argument for requiring less education from LEOs while also
giving them broader powers. No surprise that the LEOs would hold this
opinion, however, it is inconsistent with the public interest as the
outcome of other deregulations of the past decade have illustrated.
> most of
> us wouldn't have to think far back for an example of enforcement related
> to cyclists being less than adequate, in spite of laws that we know were
> already there
Agreed, however by specifying safe passing distances the IL law provides
defendants the opportunity to "prove" a violation. This addition of an
objective measure can only improve enforcement of the existing subjective
statutes. Whether it increases or decreases the number of cases brought,
or increases or decreases LEO's workload is of far less importance.
M
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
> sorry, but with all due respect, the LEOs i've worked with share a
> different perspective.
Law enforcement consists of much more than LEOs (officers). Enforcement
also requires judiciary and prosecution.
> it simply already isn't possible
> to focus equally (or arguably, fairly,) on all the laws already on the
> books
Sounds like an argument for requiring less education from LEOs while also
giving them broader powers. No surprise that the LEOs would hold this
opinion, however, it is inconsistent with the public interest as the
outcome of other deregulations of the past decade have illustrated.
> most of
> us wouldn't have to think far back for an example of enforcement related
> to cyclists being less than adequate, in spite of laws that we know were
> already there
Agreed, however by specifying safe passing distances the IL law provides
defendants the opportunity to "prove" a violation. This addition of an
objective measure can only improve enforcement of the existing subjective
statutes. Whether it increases or decreases the number of cases brought,
or increases or decreases LEO's workload is of far less importance.
M
_______________________________________________
Bfbc-talk mailing list
Bfbc-talk@mailman.lmi.net
http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk
hi again Mark!
On 09/Jul/10 12:07, M Hayes wrote:
>> sorry, but with all due respect, the LEOs i've worked with share a
>> different perspective.
>>
> Law enforcement consists of much more than LEOs (officers). Enforcement
> also requires judiciary and prosecution.
>
agreed; but Law Enforcement typically *starts* with LEOs on the
street. what they get told to focus on has a very large influence on
what makes it to the point of where judicial and prosecution actually
comes into play. the directive and actions of LEOs on the street are by
no means insignificant in this regard.
>> it simply already isn't possible
>> to focus equally (or arguably, fairly,) on all the laws already on the
>> books
>>
> Sounds like an argument for requiring less education from LEOs while also
> giving them broader powers.
i don't know where you got this from; certainly not anything i
said. it's far enough off base that i don't feel the need to address it
other than making it clear that this is not what i said, meant, or believe.
> Agreed, however by specifying safe passing distances the IL law provides
> defendants the opportunity to "prove" a violation. This addition of an
> objective measure can only improve enforcement of the existing subjective
> statutes. Whether it increases or decreases the number of cases brought,
> or increases or decreases LEO's workload is of far less importance.
>
i haven't searched through the states code pages to read the actual
wording of the new law yet, but haven't seen anywhere in the links that
were provided that specifies any distance that is to be deemed "safe".
this leaves the interpretation subjective, and basically the same as
what we already have in most states. (it's not likely there is any
benefit to specifying any "safe" distance anyway, since you're not
likely to be able to prove in court how many feet of clearance there
were at any given instance without actual contact, leaving the
enforcement and prosecution of a minimum number of feet difficult, at best.)
i agree that we are trying to discuss the benefit of the law,
unrelated to the workload of LEOs. however, if you're arguing that this
new IL law is beneficial, it is indeed precisely about the ability of
bringing cases.
my point was (and still is) that we don't need this new law to
bring cases if we have enforcement of the laws that most (if not all)
states already have, and that this new IL law isn't going to make any
difference if it's unenforced in the manner of the laws we already have.
again, i'm in full support of better enforcement of cyclists as (at
least) equal roadway users, but think the hoopla about this new
legislation (whatever it actually is) is a much overblown political
camera opportunity. i feel that cyclists in most states would be better
of putting our efforts towards encouraging enforcement than putting
another law on the books, with the possible exception of laws that
relate to the difference of cyclists from motor vehicles for the benefit
of all (like the 'Stop as Yield' law, for example).
the largest benefit of the IL event would seem to be the related
education of road users (both cyclists and motorists), and we could
benefit from that in many places!
cheers!
e
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
hi again Mark!
On 09/Jul/10 12:07, M Hayes wrote:
agreed; but Law Enforcement typically *starts* with LEOs on the
street. what they get told to focus on has a very large influence on
what makes it to the point of where judicial and prosecution actually
comes into play. the directive and actions of LEOs on the street are by
no means insignificant in this regard.
i don't know where you got this from; certainly not anything i
said. it's far enough off base that
i don't feel the need to address it other than making it clear that
this is
not what i said, meant, or believe.
i haven't searched through the states code pages to read the actual
wording of the new law yet, but haven't seen anywhere in the links that
were provided that specifies any distance that is to be deemed "safe".
this leaves the interpretation subjective, and basically the same as
what we already have in most states. (it's not likely there is any
benefit to specifying any "safe" distance anyway, since you're not
likely to be able to prove in court how many feet of clearance there
were at any given instance without actual contact, leaving the
enforcement and prosecution of a minimum number of feet difficult, at
best.)
i agree that we are trying to discuss the benefit of the law,
unrelated to the workload of LEOs. however, if you're arguing that this
new IL law is beneficial, it is indeed precisely about the ability of
bringing cases.
my point was (and still is) that we don't need this new law to
bring cases if we have enforcement of the laws that most (if not all)
states already have, and that this new IL law isn't going to make any
difference if it's unenforced in the manner of the laws we already have.
again, i'm in full support of better enforcement of cyclists as (at
least) equal roadway users, but think the hoopla about this new
legislation (whatever it actually is) is a much overblown political
camera opportunity. i feel that cyclists in most states would be better
of putting our efforts towards encouraging enforcement than putting
another law on the books, with the possible exception of laws that
relate to the difference of cyclists from motor vehicles for the
benefit of all (like the 'Stop as Yield' law, for example).
the largest benefit of the IL event would seem to be the related
education of road users (both cyclists and motorists), and we could
benefit from that in many places!
cheers!
e
At least IL is looking out for the safety of cyclists:
Help California catch up by forwarding these links, with a request to
implement the same law here, to our representatives in Sacramento.
Please also consider joining the CBC:
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
Ebbc-Talk@lists.ebbc.org
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org