He he...I'm willing to take my chances that they don't show up at court but if they're honestly not responding to written declarations like this person says, just tell the god's honest truth. They still have to respond to it and if they don't it just goes away.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Portland's freeway system works? What the hell is Tucson like?!

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

    Actually, all things are relative, I guess-- there are certainly a lot of faults in Portland, mostly when old roads get tons more traffic than the original planning ever expected. But there's still freeways that will get you within a short (one mile) drive of most locations across the city.
    Tucson, OTOH, has freeways that pass by the outside of the city, but not through it. There are three main roads the run east-west, which as the city is a long rectangle (for the most part) running that way, is the way most folks have to travel for, well, just about everything. Malls, restaurants, businesses, houses, all line both sides of the streets: think Sandy Boulevard with one more lane one each side. Except that the speed limit is posted at 45, and as this is the commuter routes, many drivers will close in on 60 given the chance. Add in lagging turn lights (one of the only places in the nation) and you have a recipe for lots of frustration, and a fair number of accidents, both cars and pedestrians.
    So yes, Portland has traffic jams, especially on I-5, but the frustration isn't there every single time you get on that stretch of road; a trip down Speedway in Tucson is a pain in the ass from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Saturday. And if you're a cyclist . . well, it scares the hell out of me, but then I have a good imagination, probably too good. I can walk to work now, and run most errands, and don't miss the hassle at all.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

If I run a stop sign on my bike, I am only putting myself at risk.

Until a car driver has to swerve or jam on his breaks to miss you and ends up causing a major accident.  I drive to work every day through a college town that has a lot of commuter and bicycle traffic, and I've seen far more traffic problems & near miss accidents caused by ignorant pedestrians and bicyclers than anything else.  Traffic laws go both ways!  They're meant to protect pedestrians and bicyclers, but for them to work everyone, not just car drivers, has to obey them!

Well, I'll admit there are a lot of idiot pedestrians and cyclists - but I've never caused a car to swerve or have an accident.  I don't just run stop signs/lights willy-nilly.  And again, I realize I am breaking the law - but sorry, stopping and starting on a bike every block just doesn't work for me - I'll take the ticket if they can catch me.

So I like talking to other bike commuters.  Most of them can give you a story about an accident they've been in, or at least a close call.  But one commuter I met, a gray-bearded guy who had been commuting regularly since the 1970s, told me he had never been in a single accident.  His secret?  Obeying traffic laws.  All of them.

When you come to a red light, carefully look all ways, confirm that there are no cars coming, and confirm that cars won't even have to brake because of you, then it is safe to run the red light.  Here is the problem: running red lights becomes a habit.  You grow accustomed to this ability, and you forget its inherent danger and the need to be very careful each time.  You eventually screw up.  By contrast, someone who makes a habit of obeying the law stays safe, every time.

Well, these days I am probably an atypical bike-commuter, as I have a 17 mile lone bike path 2 blocks from my door, that just so happens to take me to within about 10 blocks of work, so I only have about a mile each way on city streets.  But I used to commute 12 miles a day, right through the most dense parts of the city (Chicago).  Did that for about a year, never had a single accident, and never stopped for a red light or stop sign unless there was cross traffic.  Maybe graybeard is right, and it will catch up to me, but I think I am much more likely to get hit by a car whose driver is disobeying traffic rules, than I am to suffer or cause harm because of my own bad habits.

    The one time I got hit by a car was in broad daylight. Coming home from playing hoops at noon, a couple girls in an intersection turned left across my lane, and I ended up on their hood-- after braking for about five feet, which prevented any serious injury. (Went to work, actually, and had the bike fixed the next day.) So I'm not one to believe that following the laws studiously is enough. But the wise path is to follow them as much as possible, that's for sure. I never run red lights*, and only run stop signs in the back streets, when traffic is light and visibility is good.
    The problem for cyclists is that a "full stop" is, as I was taught, putting one foot on the ground; I believe that's the law for motorcyclists as well. Problem is, that's an absurdly high standard, a bit like having motorists turn off their motor at every light. That little bit of momentum between 2 mph and a full stop doesn't seem like much, but over a long ride, it adds up. And the safety reduction would need calculus to measure, it's so small.

     *It constantly amazes me what motorists will risk just to avoid a light. Sure, serious accidents are rare, but is it really necessary to risk life and limb just to save a minute or less off your trip? This is different from the slow stop for cyclists, I'd argue, but can see how someone would disagree. Just seems horribly unwise, is all I'm saying.
     

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

It amazes me when people say things like:

is it really necessary to risk life and limb just to save a minute or less off your trip?

When I drive aware/aggressive like I do most of the time (10-15 mph over the speed limit, pass people doing 5mph under the speed limit on the right, check all directions then run yellows under control) I shave 20-30 minutes off an otherwise 40-60 minute commute which is why I do it. Saving an hour of my day every day of the week is absolutely huge for me and that's absolutely the difference versus driving "safe" which is why I do it.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

If you're doing a low-speed California roll and actually looking both ways, I don't see a problem with that. What too many motorists and bicyclists do in the neighbourhood blocks here is just blast through the stop signs without looking. And they get angry if there's a near-collision (especially when you point out you have no stop sign).

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

There is no chance of my injuring a car's occupants if I hit a car, or a car hits me.

But dude...you could scratch the paint...of a car owned by an American.  Sacrilege!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I've been hit too many times by fast bicyclists to probably ever agree with that view.

Also, if I hit a bicyclist (with a car, never mind anyone's health), it will cost me money no matter who's fault it is. And even if it's better that some bicyclist should get a Darwin award, why should I be the executioner? I have enough trouble sleeping as it is.* Also, hitting a bicyclist with my motorcycle could very well kill me as well as the bicyclist.

*Now if Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin were alive and regularly rode bicycles, I could probably sleep just fine after running one of them over.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

I strenuously disagree.

If you go up and over you could go through the windshield become a human projectile and thus seriously injure or kill the occupants of the car.

I've seen it happen several times. I've also seen a guy on a bike get hooked up for DUI. THAT was hilarious.

So when you get arrested from cycling under the influence, what license do they take away?

I have no idea. However, the state I was in (NJ) allowed any tickets received on a bike to be charged to your driver's license. But if you had none, there really would have been nothing to suspend. I suppose they could have put you on the revoked list for a certain period of time.

In this guys case, the cops pretty much had to. The guy drove his bike off a bridge embankment down a cliff and so everybody had to go out there to save his ass. Needless to say he was pretty plastered. I assume the fuzz doesn't drive around randomly pulling over cyclists to give them sobriety checks.

Saw this six year old that was wobbling pretty badly on his bicycle. I'm sure he was drunk.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

Your driver's license if you have one. Really.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

Weird isn't it? I skimmed the code and only saw references to "motorized bicycle." But I assume it is in there, unless the guy in question got arrested for something else and the whole thing is just urban legend and superstition.

I always like to bring up this incident in these cases. It seems to vary by state, though. In California you specifically can't get a DUI while operating a bicycle. But you can get a CUI. Apparently some dude in Ohio got so pissed off about getting a DUI for walking his bicycle that he made a youtube movie about it. Washington state at least seems to be the most reasonable about it, while New Jersey is still kinda split. The worst, though, has gotta be getting charged with a DUI for operating your wheelchair. At least the judge threw that one out.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.