Mplsbike's Fictitious Legal Reasoning: Part One
[removed]
Posted Feb 27, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC
046
Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you.
20
Y'all getting trolled. Ban this dude and pay no extra mind.
19
I think you might need to step away from the keyboard for a bit.
You clearly have some obsession with u/mplsbikewrath because you only seem to pop up in his threads. Then you try to call him out by making up some total hot garbage and saying that's the law. When anyone tells you you're wrong, you just double down and call them names (like "little fry guy" What does that even mean? Is that supposed to be an insult?).
Over the course of his last few of his threads, I haven't seen you make a single coherent legal argument backed up by the law you cite or (mis)quote or any relevant evidence whatsoever. You literally just make up stuff and act really confident hoping no one will actually read the ridiculous crap you're typing.
Face it: you're a troll. You're not even good at trolling. You are not a lawyer despite how fancy you think you sound and you have fundamental misunderstandings about the American legal system. You are harassing u/mplsbikewrath and you need to move on.
For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/BikeCammers/comments/804e4z/usamnoc_most_days_commuting_into_the_suburbs_is/duvyyhy/
14
It often amuses me to read u/mplsbikewrath when he posts his legal opinions about biking law. After time, though, I became worried because people might rely on his unreliable legal opinions. To be certain, some of them are fully unsupported by any reading of the law and would get you in deep trouble. I thought I'd take time to address some as time permits. Here's the first.
And just what makes you an expert on these subjects?
Mplsbike often goes on and on about how important it is to ride in the middle of an automobile lane.
There is no such thing as an “automobile lane.” It is imperative if you understand this concept. These lanes are generally called traffic lanes or travel lanes. Note that an automobile is one type of motor vehicle, motor vehicles are one type of vehicles allowed to operate on public roadways, bicycles are another type of vehicle (or in some states “devices”) each of these are operated by drivers. Bicyclists have the same rights and duties in all states as drivers of other vehicles and this allows them to operate in these travel lanes. The purpose of bicyclists operating in the center of the lane is in part so they can control their space and, be visible and relevant to other drivers, and communicate the concept that other drivers wishing to overtake need to change lanes to pass or wait until it’s safe to pass.
This is true even when a perfectly good bike lane is available.
The only person who decides if a bicycle lane is safe and useful is the bicyclist themselves, not you, not me, not any other video viewer. There are a number of reasons in which it’s not safe or it’s not legally required (if in a mandatory use state) to operate in bike lanes. These include passing others, preparing for turns, avoiding hazards, or shockingly when you’re going the speed of the surrounding same direction traffic. Bike lanes were not created for cyclists or their safety, they were created to get them out of the way of motor traffic. However bike lanes pose a number of risks that standard vehicle driver behavior (aka lane control) does not including decreased visibility. Bicyclists using bike lanes are at a significantly higher risk of common sources of collisions which include right hooks, left crosses, drive outs, doorings, and sideswiped.
Mplsbike will explain that he is not obliged to ride in a bike lane and may use a full lane when certain safety conditions are present.
Mplsbike’s reasonings are sound and 99.9 percent of competent cycling advocates would agree with his justifications for not using the bike lanes.
One logical fallacy Mplsbike engages in is classifying everything as a safety condition.
These aren’t fallacies. Mplsbike is correct in pointing out these issues as safety hazards.
He can't ride on sidewalks because he might encounter a crack (didn't pass police review).
Bicycling on sideWALKs is hazardous for a number of reasons, this should be common sense to you. Cracks and pavement defects are legitimate safety concerns on roadways and on pedestrian facilities.
He can't ride on a bike lane because there is snow. And so on. It's amusing. It's also wrong.
Snow and ice present a slipping hazard, even with studded tires. Cities often don’t maintain bike lanes free of ice and snow in the winter but the constant passing of vehicular traffic out in the travel lanes plus salt treatment create for a better surface condition. Snow or ice in the bike lanes may cover up other issues such as debris or potholes which could cause a crash.
The primary rule underlying the regulation of roads is safety and not to impede the flow of traffic.
The rules of the road, a concept you hilariously lack an understanding of does not state this. Right of way is first come first served, all users impede others at some point.
Bicycles are an outdated, slow technology that impede traffic and cause safety concerns.
Cyclists are drivers and are a part of traffic. A cyclist operating following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicle as Mplsbike often does poses no safety concerns to others. You cannot blame the inattention or incompetence of others and how they drive on the bicyclist. It is the duty of all drivers to follow the basic speed rule, maintain safe following distances, obey traffic controls, understand and yield right of way. With the exception of limited access expressways, which are solely designed for high speed motor traffic, all other roadways are safe and usable for slow vehicle operators including bicyclists.
We have bike lanes and encourage sidewalk use so the main occupants of roads--automobiles and trucks--may continue at a regular, normal speed.
This is somewhat correct but the policy of shoving other road users to the side is discriminatory and not appropriate. It in part is a huge driver of cyclist inferiority mindset of which you have a severe case of.
Not using the bike lane, except for truly emergency situations, impedes traffic and creates safety problems for automobiles designed to be on roads.
The facts about bike lanes were already addressed.
This is not just my opinion. Many courts, when analyzing whether a bicyclist had a duty to ride in the bike lane, reached similar conclusions.
When expert witnesses are brought into these cases they are often decided in favor of the bicyclist.
Their concern is repeat and familiar: bicycles should not be engaged in the business of impeding the good speed and traffic of automobiles.
This is your option, not the opinion of the courts.
State v. Potter, 185 Or.App. 81 (2002);
This case pertained to a critical mass ride. The devil is in the details. The bicyclists occupied both travel lanes whereas they at a minimum should have left one available for use by overtaking traffic. This is an extremely important detail you neglect to mention.
Damon v. Hukowicz, 964 F.Supp.2d 120 (D.Mass 2013);
The case of Eli Damon is best explained here: http://iamtraffic.org/equality/making-the-case-for-equality/ Anti cyclist bigots with anti cycling bigotry thinking like your “opinions” and local discriminatory laws contributed in the trouble Eli had. He’s since defeated them. By the way, Eli has a vision disability which does not allow him to legally possess a driver’s license. Public transit and other means of transportation do not serve his needs therefore he resorted to bicycling.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 2016 WL 7403785 (Penn. 2016).
This case had nothing to do with impeding traffic, it had to do with a bicycle rider operating his bicycle with no hands which in most states is illegal.
In each instance, the impediment of the smooth flow of traffic is the law's concern, not "preserving the infrastructure for fragile users" or "protecting bicyclists who are at risk."
Not even close.
These simply are not the concerns of the court or of the law. They are the concerns of Mplsbike, but that does not make them legal, or legally relevant in a court of law.
Lmao.
When you see Mplsbike going off about how you can take up the lane just about whenever you'd like, think twice.
No, each state based their traffic laws off the UVC which is explained very well in this video: https://online.cyclingsavvy.org/courses/26967/lectures/578438#/questions/1
Bicyclists are allowed to control the lane far more often than you think.
This is advice coming from a real bad guy, a law breaker who encourages others to impede traffic.
Lol a “real bad guy”? What’s he doing? Raping your mom? Shooting cops? He’s fucking riding his bicycle operating as a vehicle driver. 100 percent legal. You use that word “impede” like you know what it means. Fun fact, a motorist traveling slightly slower than everybody else is impeding traffic, red lights and stop signs impede traffic, other slower moving vehicles such a delivery trucks, mail trucks, and street sweepers impede traffic. Another fun fact, in almost every state “impeding traffic” only applies to motor vehicles and in many instances only on two lane roads. It’s impossible to argue one is impeding traffic on a multi lane road especially if they are in the correct lane (slower moving traffic uses right lanes) Here in California bicyclists can be cited for impeding traffic but it’s only on two lane roads when five or more vehicle get behind and the cyclist has neglected to use a designated turnout.
I've encouraged him more than once to come clean with the law so he doesn't find himself on the wrong end of it one sad, gray day. I hope you find this guidance helpful.
You’re full of shit. Go get some education and take a good look in the mirror at yourself.
13
The case of Eli Damon is best explained here: http://iamtraffic.org/equality/making-the-case-for-equality/
While browsing through the website, I came across this interactive page that allows you to adjust the lane width, whether the cyclist is "sharing" the lane or controlling it, and the type of vehicle passing the cyclist.
It clearly shows what I've been saying all along. If state code has the substandard width lane clause from the UVC, there is no need to ride as far right as practicable given the typical lane width of 10 feet on most streets people ride on.
3
Yep! You get it too!
What’s amazing is how much wording is devoted in each of these laws to listing the exemptions, and how few roads have lane widths and traffic conditions that make lane sharing safe and practicable. States (and the UVC) could word things much better and clearer and maybe there wouldn’t be so much confusion.
I’ve never looked through the codes in all states but most I’ve looked at have some sort of substandard width clause. Are you aware of a state that doesn’t have one?
Regarding as far right as practicable, you are riding as far right as practicable if you’re controlling a non-shareable lane or controlling one for safety reasons. Moving over any further to the right inviting potentially dangerous close passes and decreases your visibility and relevance to other traffic. That isn’t practicable.
2
I’ve never looked through the codes in all states but most I’ve looked at have some sort of substandard width clause. Are you aware of a state that doesn’t have one?
I recently checked Minnesota's law in a thread recently started by mplsbikewrath and it's worded similarly to the UVC, but uses the term "narrow width lane" instead of substandard width lane and doesn't define what it means. Virginia's law follows the UVC wording.
I remember reading somewhere that every state has some sort of substandard width clause, but I'm unable to find it now.
1
[removed]
-8
We don't need more trolls, thanks anyway
7
would love to impede you a bit
2
I appreciate you likely have good intentions, but you're simply factually incorrect on such a major point that it is hard to take your advice with any real seriousness.
"Bikes are slow, outdated technology that impedes traffic".
This is laughably wrong and unsupported by a broad evidence base accepted across a wide range of organisations and governments. I'm afraid that it immediately highlights that your education in this subject is not nearly as broad, up-to-date or as accurate as you portray. Unfortunately, this likely renders your whole argument moot.
Perhaps your time would be better spent getting to understand the basics before attempting to lecture others.
9
As a matter of fact, him stating that bikes are outdated technology did nothing but expose his bias.
I am getting this Is a punish-passing asshole.
9
I appreciate you likely have good intentions,
Look through his history in r/bikecammers for good evidence that he/she does not have good intentions. Apparently he/she's started stalking another frequent poster here in other subs she visits as well.
6
Is... is this Nautilator’s alt?
9
The primary rule underlying the regulation of roads is safety and not to impede the flow of traffic.
If you are not capable of passing a cyclist in a safe manner and are "impeded" by one, then you're an incompetent driver and should stop driving.
9
[removed]
-2
The law doesn't state that you have to get up to the speed of traffic when merging onto a highway, but that doesn't stop everyone else from considering such drivers as incompetent.
8
lol, op is a fucking tosser.
6
[removed]
-3
oh man, can't wait for part 2.
5
Go fuck yourself, Car Supremacist.
2
The post was removed, can you share what you wrote?
2
I quoted it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BikeCammers/comments/80qhas/comment/duxs4wf
2
Wait, so where?
1
Here it is:
It often amuses me to read u/mplsbikewrath when he posts his legal opinions about biking law. After time, though, I became worried because people might rely on his unreliable legal opinions. To be certain, some of them are fully unsupported by any reading of the law and would get you in deep trouble. I thought I'd take time to address some as time permits. Here's the first.Mplsbike often goes on and on about how important it is to ride in the middle of an automobile lane. This is true even when a perfectly good bike lane is available. Mplsbike will explain that he is not obliged to ride in a bike lane and may use a full lane when certain safety conditions are present. One logical fallacy Mplsbike engages in is classifying everything as a safety condition. He can't ride on sidewalks because he might encounter a crack (didn't pass police review). He can't ride on a bike lane because there is snow. And so on. It's amusing. It's also wrong. The primary rule underlying the regulation of roads is safety and not to impede the flow of traffic. Bicycles are an outdated, slow technology that impede traffic and cause safety concerns. We have bike lanes and encourage sidewalk use so the main occupants of roads--automobiles and trucks--may continue at a regular, normal speed. Not using the bike lane, except for truly emergency situations, impedes traffic and creates safety problems for automobiles designed to be on roads. This is not just my opinion. Many courts, when analyzing whether a bicyclist had a duty to ride in the bike lane, reached similar conclusions. Their concern is repeat and familiar: bicycles should not be engaged in the business of impeding the good speed and traffic of automobiles. State v. Potter, 185 Or.App. 81 (2002);Damon v. Hukowicz, 964 F.Supp.2d 120 (D.Mass 2013); Commonwealth v. Smith, 2016 WL 7403785 (Penn. 2016). In each instance, the impediment of the smooth flow of traffic is the law's concern, not "preserving the infrastructure for fragile users" or "protecting bicyclists who are at risk." These simply are not the concerns of the court or of the law. They are the concerns of Mplsbike, but that does not make them legal, or legally relevant in a court of law. When you see Mplsbike going off about how you can take up the lane just about whenever you'd like, think twice. This is advice coming from a real bad guy, a law breaker who encourages others to impede traffic. I've encouraged him more than once to come clean with the law so he doesn't find himself on the wrong end of it one sad, gray day. I hope you find this guidance helpful.
1
I quoted it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BikeCammers/comments/80qhas/comment/duxs4wf
2
Wait, so where?
2
I quoted it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BikeCammers/comments/80qhas/comment/duxs4wf
2
Wait, so where?
2
I quoted it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BikeCammers/comments/80qhas/comment/duxs4wf
2
Wait, so where?
2
Yes, MPLS can be a bit extreme when it comes to "bike rights", where if a police officer's shoelace is 1mm into a bike lane, he wants the officer arrested and thrown in jail (I'm exaggerating), but this is probably not the best way to address it, nor do I think it needs to be addressed at all because we kind of know he can go a bit off the deep end.
Premising your argument on bikes being outdated would then argue that pedestrians should all be run over because that mode of transportation is even older than bikes.
Furthermore, your argument that he can take up the lane wherever he wants assumes facts not in evidence. Most of his videos are of people blocking the bike lane where I suspect most of us are sitting there muttering, "Geez, just go around him", but MPLS refuses to go into the lane. So your whole point appears to be baseless.
The basic rule most cops in the 6 cities I ride through each day basically have three rules: don't be unsafe, don't be a dick, and let minor issues slide, particularly where the person doing them has a reason for doing so. So a delivery truck is going to be allowed to park in the bike lane for 5 minutes to unload, to MPLS's sheer horror. A cop will use a bike lane as a parking spot because it's nearest where he is and he might get an emergency call and need to run back as fast as possible to respond. Yes, MPLS will then go off the deep end instead of just noticing the obstruction and going around it, but most of us can see what an extreme position that is and ignore him rather than following him. I fail to see why you don't realize that people have a brain.
As for taking the lane, pretty much any jurisdiction will allow you to do so if you can't be passed safely while riding safely. I only read one of your cases (Damon v. Hukowicz), and it was from an equally nutty guy (they always have cameras) who always took the lane, even on state highways, and usually where traffic was much faster and there was plenty of room on the shoulder. The cops put a stop to it for reasons of safety, and in fact the guy had even been hit several times for his practice. This breaks the first two of the three rules.
So rest assured, no one is as extreme as MPLS bike, but not for the reasons you point out.
1
You failed to do proper research on Eli Damon’s case.
1
You apparently don't know that his case fell apart and he lost in 2013, little fry guy. Here you go: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130812640
0
[removed]
-5
We should instead trust your fringe suggestions based on nothing?
Honestly, no one should ever trust anyone else's online legal advice, ever.
Especially from retards like you.
6
You're acting as crazy as he is. Just take a deep breath and let it ride. You're both charging at windmills.
5
[removed]
-1
Christ, dude. You desperately need to see a therapist.
1
[removed]
-6
Traffic laws are set at the local and state level. Why are you citing Oregon, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania case law when arguing against someone riding in Minneapolis?
I could deconstruct your argument's fallacies point by point but it would take me an hour. The fact that you don't even know that basic fact of traffic laws in the United States should render that deconstruction unnecessary because it's clear your entire argument is based on a fundamental misinterpretation or misrepresentation of law.
Because parallel judicial reasoning in other state courts help identify leading trends in legal analysis. That's what lawyers do, anyway. In a minute, obscure area of law, that's the best we can turn up to provide helpful input on a complex area of law.
Since Mplsbike often provides misinformed and completely unsupportable legal musings, I felt it necessary to provide some actual legal input and guidance here.
Glad to help!
A ruling in a different state has nothing to do whatsoever with what the laws are in your state. Literally nothing whatsoever. The laws are completely different, and the case law arises out of interpretation of the statute.
This sentence describes what you're doing right now.
I think this person is trying to apply the logic of SCOTUS precedent but states disagree about interpretation of identical laws all the time.
SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of certain issues. This would have nothing to do with constitutionality unless it rose to the level of freedom to travel. And if that was the case, the odds of the SCOTUS siding with a broad restriction on your right to use a highway on a bicycle is pretty close to nil.