(no subject)
for very friend that is not a member of bike pirates :
another victory for cyclists:
The case involved two bicyclists who were riding abreast on a two-lane road.
A policeman was driving behind them, passed them, and observed that the bicyclists didn't single up even though there were two more cars behind them. The policeman stopped ahead and directed the bicyclists to stop, but they did not. The policeman then followed the bicyclists, turned on his lights and sirens. When the bicyclists still refused to pull over the policeman finally used his taser to stop the bicyclists.
The bicyclists were then charged with:
* Resisting arrest
* Disorderly conduct
* "Operating a bike in the roadway"
* Failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer
The judge ruled:
* The bicyclists may have been rude for riding two abreast but were breaking no law in Ohio--not the law requiring bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable (the lane was of non-sharable width), nor the law against impeding traffic, nor the law about riding abreast (which, in Ohio, does not require bicyclists to single up when impeding traffic)
* There is no law at all that bans "operating a bike in the roadway"
* Because the bicyclists were not breaking any law, the police officer had no basis to stop, detain, or arrest them and therefore all other charges were dismissed
The ruling is made more significant because (unlike most minor court rulings) this ruling has been published and so can be cited as a precedent in other cases.
fucking cool, ohio is ten times the state indiana is...also, im kind of a poser, as since snow has come i've not been riding my bike all to much. I'v ben at home way more, but just the same, two wheels. also, i have a huge folder on grand rapids brewery history. cool. also, pretzel bunz
another victory for cyclists:
The case involved two bicyclists who were riding abreast on a two-lane road.
A policeman was driving behind them, passed them, and observed that the bicyclists didn't single up even though there were two more cars behind them. The policeman stopped ahead and directed the bicyclists to stop, but they did not. The policeman then followed the bicyclists, turned on his lights and sirens. When the bicyclists still refused to pull over the policeman finally used his taser to stop the bicyclists.
The bicyclists were then charged with:
* Resisting arrest
* Disorderly conduct
* "Operating a bike in the roadway"
* Failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer
The judge ruled:
* The bicyclists may have been rude for riding two abreast but were breaking no law in Ohio--not the law requiring bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable (the lane was of non-sharable width), nor the law against impeding traffic, nor the law about riding abreast (which, in Ohio, does not require bicyclists to single up when impeding traffic)
* There is no law at all that bans "operating a bike in the roadway"
* Because the bicyclists were not breaking any law, the police officer had no basis to stop, detain, or arrest them and therefore all other charges were dismissed
The ruling is made more significant because (unlike most minor court rulings) this ruling has been published and so can be cited as a precedent in other cases.
fucking cool, ohio is ten times the state indiana is...also, im kind of a poser, as since snow has come i've not been riding my bike all to much. I'v ben at home way more, but just the same, two wheels. also, i have a huge folder on grand rapids brewery history. cool. also, pretzel bunz