General Discussion Triathlon Talk » ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??! Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 6
 
 
2008-04-28 6:05 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Pro
4100
20002000100
Wherever the trail takes me, WA.
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Whoa... This has gone way beyond what I thought, expected or planned...

I couldn't believe it happened so I needed to Complain... I also stated that I knew I broke the law, and finished by asking for advice.... I don't want it to effect my DRIVING RECORD, which in turn effects my job.

"I need advice from anyone- lawyers, cops, experienced (this before) people, etc.... "(from 1st post- 5 pages ago)


Sorry to everyone that is complaining about the thread still going! Not my intentions at all. Was just trying to seek advice.




Edited by swbkrun 2008-04-28 6:07 PM


2008-04-28 6:44 PM
in reply to: #1367808

User image

Champion
5781
5000500100100252525
Northridge, California
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
swbkrun - 2008-04-28 4:05 PM

Sorry to everyone that is complaining about the thread still going! Not my intentions at all. Was just trying to seek advice.




As one of the people who commented on the length of the thread, I probably should just let it drop, but just for future reference, if the above was your priority in posting, then "ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!" as your subject line...esp. with the caps and the exclamation points...just might have been sending the wrong signal. (As opposed to, for example, "Traffic ticket on bike--need advice ASAP" or something like that.) Just a thought.

Hope you don't suffer too much for the ticket...nobody likes to see that.
2008-04-28 8:11 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Veteran
383
100100100252525
The ATL
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
I think my husband just sucked it up and paid the ticket. It still hurts....
2008-04-28 8:51 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Master
1240
100010010025
Knightdale/Raleigh
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

Sorry for bumping, but I read the 1st page this afternoon and then saw something relevant in a BikePed list serv. I have not verified this, but its from a neighboring state.

                                  TITLE  49
                                MOTOR VEHICLES
                                  CHAPTER 7
                           PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
    49-720.  STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
    (2)  A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.
    (3)  A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section
49-643, Idaho Code.
    (4)  A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not
less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before
turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand
is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.

2008-04-28 11:04 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Extreme Veteran
644
50010025
Anaheim
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

I think the cop was a weenie. If he wanted to raise awareness or promote safety he could have warned you. I say haul @$$ his to court on his day off and see how much he enjoys having his day messed up. There I said it. If you feel its not worth your time then pay it.

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

2008-04-28 11:37 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Veteran
186
100252525
Denver
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
I feel you i have been pulled over twice by cops on my bike. One of my rides goes through a 15mph school zone that is active all day and it is at the bottom of a big big hill that i climb and turn around and descend. It was about 10:30am the first time. Did not see him got pulled over and when i told him i did not have a DL or anything on me he said he could take me to jail at least here in Reno. I looked it up and he could have in Reno if you have no ID and you are over 18 they can take you to jail. So i went and got a state ID card not a DL and keep it on my bike.
The second time was on a flat road same idea going about 25 got pulled over for it but i was right next to a car doing the same speed i guess he did not want to chase the car. No ticket either time just check my record and told me to obey speed limits. If i did that going down hills would be as much fun as going up.


2008-04-28 11:55 PM
in reply to: #1364423

New user
153
1002525
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
I don't know about you all but i have only gotten tickets when i have broken the law. No matter how petty i thought it was i did break it. So, i dont' know about you but if i look at what my salary is 120 dollar fine versus spending a couple hours in court and maybe paying the fine anyway it's cheaper to just pay the fine after all i did break the law....
2008-04-29 5:50 AM
in reply to: #1368363

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 12:04 AM

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

That argument holds up in court just fine. As soon as the judge asks you if you came to a complete stop, and you say "No, but...", you're guilty. Barring a life-or-death situation, there aren't really any extenuating circumstances.

And as far as not wanting to be treated like a vehicle, it's fine I guess to feel that way. But cyclists who do the stuff you apparently do give the rest of us a really bad name. I for one like being treated like a vehicle. It gives me some sway when people in cars tell me I don't belong on the road, because I sure as hell do. But with that privilege comes responsibility. If you want to be treated respectfully, you have to act respectfully.

2008-04-29 7:31 AM
in reply to: #1368512

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 5:50 AM
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 12:04 AM

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

That argument holds up in court just fine. As soon as the judge asks you if you came to a complete stop, and you say "No, but...", you're guilty. Barring a life-or-death situation, there aren't really any extenuating circumstances.

And as far as not wanting to be treated like a vehicle, it's fine I guess to feel that way. But cyclists who do the stuff you apparently do give the rest of us a really bad name. I for one like being treated like a vehicle. It gives me some sway when people in cars tell me I don't belong on the road, because I sure as hell do. But with that privilege comes responsibility. If you want to be treated respectfully, you have to act respectfully.

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I agree with what Broompatrol wrote.  I am not a car and don't want to be treated like one.  People follow my truck 20 feet off my arse when I'm doing 40 mph but the dang well better not do that when I'm on my bike!  When I approach an intersection 95% of drivers around here will yield to the bike - even if they have the righ-away.  When a vehicle goes around me, most of the time they will go way over in the other lane and give me a wide berth.  I don't see much difference in being on a bike and being a pedestrian and the pedistrian always has the right-away. 

Certainly my attitude is shapped by where I ride and the courtesy of the drivers around here.  I don't ride in rush hour and almost exclusively on country roads w/o much traffic.  I put myself in the shoes of the vehicles and try to bike like I'd want bikers to bike if I were driving a vehicle.  Maybe it's different riding in the city on crowded streets but I don't see the hostility you must see towards cyclists.  I love my city!

Interesting perspectives in this thread.  I know people have said we're beating a dead horse but I'm enjoyng the various insights and attitudes people have about themselves and their cities.

~Mike

2008-04-29 7:40 AM
in reply to: #1368363

User image

Expert
937
50010010010010025
Traverse Cityish
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 12:04 AM

I think the cop was a weenie. If he wanted to raise awareness or promote safety he could have warned you. I say haul @$$ his to court on his day off and see how much he enjoys having his day messed up.



They pretty much plan on being there anyway, they are used to it, you are not going to mess his day up.

The only thing you can do is go and ask to pay the fine and to go under advisement if your jurisdiction/state allows it.
2008-04-29 12:02 PM
in reply to: #1368512

User image

Extreme Veteran
644
50010025
Anaheim
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

 

run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 3:50 AM
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 12:04 AM

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

That argument holds up in court just fine. As soon as the judge asks you if you came to a complete stop, and you say "No, but...", you're guilty. Barring a life-or-death situation, there aren't really any extenuating circumstances.

And as far as not wanting to be treated like a vehicle, it's fine I guess to feel that way. But cyclists who do the stuff you apparently do give the rest of us a really bad name. I for one like being treated like a vehicle. It gives me some sway when people in cars tell me I don't belong on the road, because I sure as hell do. But with that privilege comes responsibility. If you want to be treated respectfully, you have to act respectfully.

Would you please explain what it is I do that give cyclists a bad name? Is it riding on the shoulder or not wanting to be run over? What part of my post did you interpret as a suggestion to be disrepectful?

 



2008-04-29 12:06 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Extreme Veteran
644
50010025
Anaheim
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Oh yeah, the cop was still a weenie.
2008-04-29 12:07 PM
in reply to: #1368611

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 8:31 AM

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

2008-04-29 12:10 PM
in reply to: #1369532

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 1:02 PM

 

run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 3:50 AM
Broompatrol - 2008-04-29 12:04 AM

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

That argument holds up in court just fine. As soon as the judge asks you if you came to a complete stop, and you say "No, but...", you're guilty. Barring a life-or-death situation, there aren't really any extenuating circumstances.

And as far as not wanting to be treated like a vehicle, it's fine I guess to feel that way. But cyclists who do the stuff you apparently do give the rest of us a really bad name. I for one like being treated like a vehicle. It gives me some sway when people in cars tell me I don't belong on the road, because I sure as hell do. But with that privilege comes responsibility. If you want to be treated respectfully, you have to act respectfully.

Would you please explain what it is I do that give cyclists a bad name? Is it riding on the shoulder or not wanting to be run over? What part of my post did you interpret as a suggestion to be disrepectful?

Maybe that was a little harsh and presumptive. I guess I'm talking about cyclists who routinely disobey traffic laws...jumping curbs onto the sidewalk to cut through crosswalks to avoid red lights, weaving in and out of traffic...that kind of stuff. We get respect when we follow the same rules drivers do. That's my opinion, at least. 

2008-04-29 1:30 PM
in reply to: #1369544

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 12:07 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 8:31 AM

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

 

Maybe I should have said judges have the discretion to determine the pudent application of laws.  That's what judges do.   That is why judges have the authority to dismiss a case even when the defendant clearly violated the letter of the law. 

If there is one absolute in the law it is that there are NO absolutes.

~Mike

2008-04-29 1:58 PM
in reply to: #1369840

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 2:30 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 12:07 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 8:31 AM

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

 

Maybe I should have said judges have the discretion to determine the pudent application of laws.  That's what judges do.   That is why judges have the authority to dismiss a case even when the defendant clearly violated the letter of the law. 

If there is one absolute in the law it is that there are NO absolutes.

~Mike

I'm, of course, not a lawyer or a judge, but it's always been my understanding that in cut-and-dried cases where someone clearly broke the law, judges don't have leeway in determining guilt or innocence. But, they do have leeway in assessing penalties. 

I, of course, could be wrong. 



2008-04-29 3:31 PM
in reply to: #1369934

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 1:58 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 2:30 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 12:07 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 8:31 AM

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

 

Maybe I should have said judges have the discretion to determine the pudent application of laws.  That's what judges do.   That is why judges have the authority to dismiss a case even when the defendant clearly violated the letter of the law. 

If there is one absolute in the law it is that there are NO absolutes.

~Mike

I'm, of course, not a lawyer or a judge, but it's always been my understanding that in cut-and-dried cases where someone clearly broke the law, judges don't have leeway in determining guilt or innocence. But, they do have leeway in assessing penalties. 

I, of course, could be wrong. 

 

Not so.  Get a load of this.  A jury can find a defendent guilty as charged and the judge can throw out the jury's vertict and declare NOT GUILTY.  Judges have a great deal of power.  Certainly for a traffic citation they can do whatever they see fit. 

~Mike

2008-04-29 3:41 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Veteran
383
100100100252525
The ATL
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
I'm a lawyer (hey I don't know the answer to the issue, I do workers comp). Anyway, I think people were referring to mandatory sentencing, which is not applicable to a traffic violation and has a range anyway so it's a bit of a misnomer. Judges have considerable discretion.
2008-04-29 3:48 PM
in reply to: #1370303

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 4:31 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 1:58 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 2:30 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 12:07 PM
Rogillio - 2008-04-29 8:31 AM

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

 

Maybe I should have said judges have the discretion to determine the pudent application of laws.  That's what judges do.   That is why judges have the authority to dismiss a case even when the defendant clearly violated the letter of the law. 

If there is one absolute in the law it is that there are NO absolutes.

~Mike

I'm, of course, not a lawyer or a judge, but it's always been my understanding that in cut-and-dried cases where someone clearly broke the law, judges don't have leeway in determining guilt or innocence. But, they do have leeway in assessing penalties. 

I, of course, could be wrong. 

 

Not so.  Get a load of this.  A jury can find a defendent guilty as charged and the judge can throw out the jury's vertict and declare NOT GUILTY.  Judges have a great deal of power.  Certainly for a traffic citation they can do whatever they see fit. 

~Mike

Except, not a lot of juries in traffic court.

 

2008-04-29 3:50 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

Mike's point was that a judge under certain circumstances can throw out a jury verdict.  I.e., the judge has a lot of power

And yeah, a judge (more likely a commissioner) can throw out a traffic ticket, all he or she needs to do is say she doesn't believe the cop.

Just doing my part to get this thread to 6 pages

2008-04-29 3:51 PM
in reply to: #1370346

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

bboston88 - 2008-04-29 4:41 PM I'm a lawyer (hey I don't know the answer to the issue, I do workers comp). Anyway, I think people were referring to mandatory sentencing, which is not applicable to a traffic violation and has a range anyway so it's a bit of a misnomer. Judges have considerable discretion.

Discretion in sentencing, not in determining guilt or innocence. Again, when the judge asks him if he came to a complete stop and he says "no." And when the judge asks him if he ran the sign because of some life-or-death situation and he says "no", case closed.

The judge can of course, decide to fine him $1. That's where the discretion comes in.



2008-04-29 3:52 PM
in reply to: #1370376

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
ChrisM - 2008-04-29 4:50 PM

Mike's point was that a judge under certain circumstances can throw out a jury verdict.  I.e., the judge has a lot of power

And yeah, a judge (more likely a commissioner) can throw out a traffic ticket, all he or she needs to do is say she doesn't believe the cop.

Just doing my part to get this thread to 6 pages

In order to not believe the cop, the OP would have to lie and say he did come to a complete stop.

Anybody advocating perjury here? And yeah...me too.  

 

2008-04-29 3:58 PM
in reply to: #1370384

User image

Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
run4yrlif - 2008-04-29 1:52 PM
ChrisM - 2008-04-29 4:50 PM

Mike's point was that a judge under certain circumstances can throw out a jury verdict.  I.e., the judge has a lot of power

And yeah, a judge (more likely a commissioner) can throw out a traffic ticket, all he or she needs to do is say she doesn't believe the cop.

Just doing my part to get this thread to 6 pages

In order to not believe the cop, the OP would have to lie and say he did come to a complete stop.

Anybody advocating perjury here? And yeah...me too.  

Well, if he goes into court telling the truth, he should be prepared to suffer the consequences. 

2008-04-29 4:24 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!

You are assuming the judge is gonna ask him "did you come to a complete stop".  And even if he does, the defendant can say "No sir, I did not.  I could see there were no cars coming from either direction as I approached the intersection.  I slowed down as much as I could w/o unclipping my biking shoes from the pedals and when I saw it was clear, I prceeded thru the intersection." 

At this point the judge can declare "Case dismissed" or "Pay the fine and get out of my court"

I'm not a judge or a lawyer...but I've spent more than my share of time in court.  {Mike covers his shame and makes a quick exit} 

2008-04-29 4:48 PM
in reply to: #1364423

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??!
I do not bike on the streets because4 there are too many stop signs. Yes you have to come to a complete stop, unclip and touch the ground. Bike stands are highly illegal at intersections.

Many bike paths have 8 mph speed limits so I do not use those either.

one solution

TRAINER. never ever bike outside expect for races.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??! Rss Feed  
 
 
of 6