Wiretapping Charges Dismissed Against Man Who Videotaped Cop
A Massachusetts man who was arrested on wiretapping charges for videotaping a cop during a traffic stop had his charges dropped last month.
Eli Damon was stopped on March 20 after he was riding his bicycle in the middle of the street. He had a video camera strapped to his helmet, not unlike Anthony Graber did when he was stopped on his motorcyle that same month.
Graber's case was thrown out last month as well, indicating that judges are not buying into the mentality that videotaping police in public constitutes illegal wiretapping.
However, authorities still have not returned Damon's confiscated camera, even though the charges were dismissed on September 14.
This is how he explains it on his blog:
The district attorney's office is holding on to the possibility of appealing. It has thirty days from when the decision was issued in which to file for an appeal. That means that the appeal period will expire on 10/14/2010. The district attorney's office will not give me my camera back until the appeal period expires.
Click on these four links to see footage of the exchange between Damon and the officer.
We can also see cell phone footage that the officer recorded of Damon riding his bicycle in the middle of the street.
Massachusetts law does not permit people to secretly record others in public without their consent, but Damon had the camera on his helmet, making it anything but a secret.
- Tagged with:
- Massachusetts
- wiretapping
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?




























Comments
Wow, he got stopped for absolutely no reason at all and the cop didn't even say why he stopped him.
The law needs to be challenged in MA so that you can record secretly as well.
He got stopped for a reason, being a typical bike asshole that rides in the middle of the street and refuses to pull over for cars when his speed is below what the speed limit is. I see a LOT of these guys, dressed in spandex and weaving all over the road. He absolutely deserved that ticket, but he did not deserve felony wiretapping charges just for having a helmet cam. That law does need to be changed, but good luck there. Trying to get rid of ANY law in Mass, no matter how stupid or unreasonable is almost impossible. Instead we have a full time legislature resembling the people in the movie idiocracy making even more retarded laws.
I'd have to comb over vehicle codes to see if a bike needs to go to the right to allow traffic to pass him in a two lane street. I thought that a bike is considered a vehicle when it's on the road and afforded the same rights as a car(meaning he doesn't have to pull off to the shoulder and let cars squeeze into the lane with him).
He may have been pulled over for that reason but the cop didn't tell him that till he had already issued him the ticket. That's not normal. Usually the officer should tell you why you were stopped, not just demand ID right away.
Anyhow, I'd like for the DA to appeal so that MA can set a precedent to overturn the wiretapping statute. Would suck for the guy unless he got help from the ACLU.
Huh, that took about three seconds to Google.
http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/
http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/bike-law-update/
I don't see anything there about bicycles having to get to the right *as fast as a typical asshole in a car wants them to*.
Or perhaps any random asshole who thinks people following the law are assholes...
also
"If a cyclist is being passed by a faster moving vehicle, the cyclist is expected to move to the right of the lane, if it is safe to do so."
from http://www.amherstma.gov/index.aspx?NID=1138 but pretty much standard in most places anyway.
As there was a left lane for vehicles going in the same direction, it looks like there wasn't even much need for that.
The officer even states in his report that he thought it was "dangerous" for the cyclist to ride there. Whether any random cop thinks it's too dangerous to ride on a road doesn't change the law, however. Bikes still have all the rights and responsibilities of any other vehicle.
BTW, Carlos: "the middle of the street" is where the double-yellow line is. The rider in the cell phone video is in the right lane, "taking the lane," which is actually right where he belongs. He's in the middle of the *lane*. You might want to correct that error.
After he gets his name the cop tells him he is getting a ticket for failure to keep right. It's about 55 seconds into the second part.
Hey, if someone on a bike can pedal the speed limit I have no problem with them being in front of me, on the other hand as is far more typical they are going 15mph in a 35mph speed zone, law or not please pull the fuck over. BTW I used to bike a LOT and never felt the need to ride it directly in front of cars(unless taking a l-turn of course) or weave all over the road.
Cops don't initially tell you what they pull you over for, they pull the "gotcha" game: "do you know why I pulled you over?" This is so they can claim you admitted to speeding or whatever else it was they pulled you over for if it goes to court. I don't know why the cop didn't pull that one on the kid, maybe he didn't care enough to bother. I'm glad the biker walked on the wiretap charge, that was absurd. Hopefully the prosecution won't appeal the case.
Sorry the law doesn't meet your preference. Or that people haven't been getting out of your way fast enough for your liking... I'm sure the those precious seconds of your time were far more valuable that anyone else's.
But they're not holding up traffic. They *are* traffic. Deal with it.
Looking at the type of street that was, it seemed to me that the bicycle rider had the right to occupy one full lane without having to pull over for other cars.
I'm not sure why the cop decided to be a dick and pull him over.
The wiretapping got thrown out, what about the traffic infraction? Hmm...
"But they're not holding up traffic. They *are* traffic. Deal with it."
Bullshit, a car going 15mph in a 35mph zone is holding up traffic, so is a cyclist. Laws vary, so it depends on where you are if it's legal to do that. If it is, that's a pretty easy ticket for that kid to beat. If your attitude is it's perfectly OK for you to hold up a line of people trying to get to work you really are an asshole. Just because you CAN be a douche, doesn't mean you HAVE to be one.
And BTW a spandex suit and beanie cap bicycle helmet isn't some kind of superhero suit, if you ride your bike like an asshole you are FAR more likely to be involved in an accident, one which YOU will be the one in the intensive care ward, not the car driver. Deal with that.
"Bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers."
You'd have an easier time listing the places where that *isn't* the law.
So yes, bicycles are traffic. Deal with it.
If you think the roads are there for your sole benefit, you really are an entitled asshole without a clue. If having to take an extra minute to pass slower traffic is causing you to be late to work, you need to leave earlier for work.
"And BTW a spandex suit and beanie cap bicycle helmet isn't some kind of superhero suit, if you ride your bike like an asshole you are FAR more likely to be involved in an accident, one which YOU will be the one in the intensive care ward, not the car driver. Deal with that."
Ah, and the threats of using the motor vehicle as a weapon. Of course as a commuting cyclist I lack the accouterments you so revile, so I guess you'll have a harder time spotting me. But if someone in a motor vehicle gets so angry at someone for not ceding the road to them (as is their imaginary right) and hits them, that's not an accident.
So how is your road rage different than a cop's 'roid rage? You just don't have a badge.
Michael,
Most states have laws on max and min speeds on the road. If you can't do it, you need to pull over. I've been on rural roads in Arizona where bicyclists have backed up traffic to over ten vehicles but the law is a maximum of five. Bicyclists often act as if the only laws that apply to them is those they choose.
And, yeah, I'm a bicyclist, and a motorcyclist, and a cage driver. I follow what is appropriate for the vehicle I'm on/in. I just recently watched cage after cage try to go around bicyclists going 15-20 mph in a 45 mph zone. Do you have any sense of responsibilty? Or do you just like to be a self-righteous road hazard?
By the way, bicyclists pay nothing for the cost of highways, they are a net negative. And if you think your time in a motorized vehicle counts, think again.
I've never said bikes don't ever need to pull over. Fawkes appears to be bitching that they're not pulling over fast enough for his liking. To which I still say, tough.
"Motorists often act as if the only laws that apply to them is those they choose"
also applies. Doesn't change the laws.
So... the motorists had to deal with slower traffic. So? Do you have such a sense of entitlement that you believe those motorists have *more* of a right to the road than anyone else?
Bicyclists pay nothing for highways... directly as bicyclists, because everyone pays for highways through taxes, local, state and federal.
I kind of wonder why you think anyone riding a bicycle has their fuel tax paid as a motorist negated. Fuel taxes barely pay for wear and tear. Guess which does more, a 2,000 lb. or so motor vehicle at 25-60 mph or 200 lbs. or so of bicycle at less than 25 mph? You'll note that heavy trucks often pay more in wheel taxes in a lot of places... because they wear down the road faster. Funny how equitably that works out. You might want to think again what the point of your sentence there even *was*.
And hey, those groceries you got at the store recently? That stuff you bought at the retail store? How the hell do you think it got there, a motherfucking *zeppelin*? If you call for an ambulance, is a helicopter immediately dispatched to land in your back yard? Is your mail delivered by a guy wearing a fucking jetpack?
Fuck no, you self-centered moron. The road isn't just about *you* using it and falsely/ignorantly claiming you paid for it exclusively to justify that belief!
Guess what? *EVERYONE* pays for roads out of their taxes, because *EVERYONE* benefits from them, *regardless* of what they drive or ride, or even if they don't! It's infrastructure, not a special right of self-centered motorists who think roads exist simply so they can haul their asses to Wal-Mart to buy cheap plastic shit from China any time they want.
You've got some stones claiming that cyclists are the selfish ones without any sense of responsibility, with such a self-righteous view of road ownership.
"Massachusetts law does not permit people to secretly record others in public without their consent, but Damon had the camera on his helmet, making it anything but a secret."
Strange. Isn't that exactly what the officer was doing with his cell phone? It's not a cruiser cam, and I would seriously doubt that the precedent has been set for that department to use cell phones (esp. without a warrant, given the law). So where are the wiretapping charges against the officer?
Well it seems the wiretapping law in MA only prohibits secretly recording audio. Recording video of someone secretly is fine.
The law has been totally twisted. I don't know who made it but it totally flouts the spirit of it's original design.
1. This is my first comment on the new blog. FYI, I hate it. Readability is way down. I'm sorry to say I have already reduced my visits. I think the old blog was awesome and hope the new one gets better.
2. Once again we see how speaking to the police is a no-no and only gets you headaches. We all need to remember this - just say "am I free to go? I refuse to answer any questions."
3. Could he have broken this think up into a few more parts?
4. In addition to changing the law to explicitly allow recording of police and to provide for a cause of action against those charged including attorneys fees and high damages, we need a law forcing douchebags on bikes to keep right. the idea that the odd bicycle rider can basically eliminate a complete traffic lane while travelling at so low a speed is not only infuriating tot the driving public for whom the roads were built and who paid for them with gas taxes, but creates an unsafe road hazard.
The League of American Wheelmen started the Good Roads Movement before the automobile even existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Roads are generally paid for through property and other taxes. Gas taxes don't even tend to cover wear and tear.
You might want to try a little less ignorance there. The only person creating a road hazard in your scenario is the entitled motorist that road rages the moment they have to share the road with others.
Actually roads were originally created for foot traffic and horses, not bicycles. Things change. I bet you wouldn't like it being on your bike stuck behind a bunch of people walking or worse, behind a horse while it drops some nice turds.
But the cyclists lead the way to the modern paved roads you enjoy, that aren't exclusively for your benefit or entitlement.
People walking aren't vehicles, and don't have the same rights and responsibilities as a vehicle in the roadway. Why would they be there? That's why bicycles shouldn't be on the sidewalk.
I can pretty easily avoid road apples. Had problems with that in your car before? XD
Horseshit,
The modern road system is a product of the period after the Model T (1909). It went up exponentially under Eisenhower, guess the Depression got in the way. They weren't thinking of bicycles, ever.
Bicyclists have not "lead the way to the modern paved roads you enjoy". That is pure unadulterated crap. The paved road system was developed in this country because of cars and trucks. I'd like to claim motorcycles were responsible for the system (it'd be more justifiable than your claim), but in this country the 200+ manufacturers disappeared in '29, leaving only Schwinn, Harley, and Indian as viable. Schwinn gave up in '31. But the car and truck manufacturers just kept going on. It was the Model T and A (that is chronological not tittilating) that created this modern system in the US. Bicycling is a foot note on page 12.
Jesus, read something about the history of the US road system. Bicycles, like motorcycles (read about Italy's and Britain's motorcycle history, for example), were important in Europe, but not here. Their importance in vehicular travel ended early in the US, doesn't mean kids and some adults didn't ride them though.
Have a nice steaming cup of shut the fuck up, Ariel:
The Good Roads Movement occurred in the United States between 1880 and 1916. Advocates for improved roads led by bicyclists turned local agitation into a national political movement.
Outside cities, roads were dirt or gravel; mud in the winter and dust in the summer. Early organizers cited Europe where road construction and maintenance was supported by national and local governments. In its early years, the main goal of the movement was education for road building in rural areas between cities and to help rural populations gain the social and economic benefits enjoyed by cities where citizens benefited from railroads, trolleys and paved streets. Another important motivation was they wanted to ride their bicycles on good country roads.
The Good Roads Movement was founded in May 1880, when bicycle enthusiasts, riding clubs and manufacturers met in Newport, Rhode Island to form the League of American Wheelmen to support the burgeoning use of bicycles and to protect their interests from legislative discrimination. The League quickly went national and in 1892 began publishing Good Roads Magazine. In three years circulation reached a million. Early movement advocates enlisted the help of journalists, farmers, politicians and engineers in the project of improving the nation's roadways, but the movement took off when it was adopted by bicyclists.
Groups across the country held road conventions and public demonstrations, published material on the benefits of good roads and endeavoured to influence legislators on local, state and national levels. Good road advocates involved themselves in local politics. Support for candidates often became crucial factors in elections. Not only advocating road improvements for bicyclists, the League pressed the idea to farmers and rural communities, publishing literature such as the famous pamphlet, "The Gospel of Good Roads."
At the turn of the twentieth century, interest in the bicycle began to wane in the face of increasing interest in automobiles. Other groups took the lead in the Good Roads Movement. As the automobile was developed and gained momentum, organizations developed such cross-county projects as the coast-to-coast east–west Lincoln Highway 1913, headed by auto parts and auto racing magnate Carl G. Fisher, and later his north–south Dixie Highway 1915, which extended from Canada to Miami, Florida.
Horatio Earle is known as the "Father of Good Roads." Quoting from Earle's 1929 autobiography: "I often hear now-a-days, the automobile instigated good roads; that the automobile is the parent of good roads. Well, the truth is, the bicycle is the father of the good roads movement in this country." "The League fought for the privilege of building bicycle paths along the side of public highways." "The League fought for equal privileges with horse-drawn vehicles. All these battles were won and the bicyclist was accorded equal rights with other users of highways and streets."
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Yeah, except they weren't paved. Look up the miles of paved road prior to 1920 and the population. Jesus get some perspective.
But, OMG, the interest waned by 1900, because no one really cared until the automobile. That's in your quote. Ineffectual until the automobile (look up those paved roads). Movements sound good and words are nice, but action and reality is better. And I'm sure I can find a hundred quotes that contradict Mr. Earle, but then he was the "Father of Good Roads" so he engineered the design of concrete and asphalt roads? All those paved roads prior to 1920? Do you really think the roads would stay dirt/gravel with automobiles?
Ooh, I see a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument in that article.
Oh, so it's now it's a question of an arbitrary minimum number of paved roads, and it doesn't matter that the movement didn't actually start with automobiles.
Keep switching it up there, guy.
Your statement:
"The paved road system was developed in this country because of cars and trucks."
history:
"The Good Roads Movement occurred in the United States between 1880 and 1916. Advocates for improved roads led by bicyclists turned local agitation into a national political movement."
The movement started with cyclists and others, not just because of automobiles. They did in fact, help to lead the way to modern roads. I'm not saying "this first, therefore because of this." I'm stating historical fact that you attempted to deny.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is that this group from 1880 to 1916 (when it was in its total wane from 1900)is responsible for the modern road system. The historical fact is that it is a footnote. We could hold the Romans and the Incas just as responsible. Although their pavers sucked.
The definition of "good roads" matters and I know that this group doesn't meet anything defined near 1920, when automobiles were ascendant in the US. The terms "improved roads" or "good roads" are meaningless, the Apache Trail when graded is an "improved road" but its still dirt and gravel. The reason to look at paved roads by period isn't switching but it's to get some damn perspective.
Look, I'd really like to say that motorcycles and bicycles were responsible, because I like two versus four wheels, but that isn't true in the US, in Europe a bit, but the US, no. No matter how much you wish it differently.
Oh, so now you're claiming the beginning of the movement had absolutely *no effect* on the latter part of the movement. Like to see the evidence of *that*. I guess there were zero paved roads until automobiles, huh?
Now you're nitpicking about what "improved" means? Are you this desperate?
I think you also need to learn to read. You keep saying that the group was waning:
"But, OMG, the interest waned by 1900, because no one really cared until the automobile."
"The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is that this group from 1880 to 1916 (when it was in its total wane from 1900)is responsible for the modern road system."
except:
"At the turn of the twentieth century, interest in the bicycle began to wane in the face of increasing interest in automobiles."
All that says is the primary motivators of the movement switched to automobiles as they became more prevalent. Not that the *movement* was waning. Maybe you should be less concerned with trying to look smart with the Latin names for fallacies and more concerned with actually reading what's right there in front of your face.
Look, I think we can see here that you've got very little grasp of actual history, or reading comprehension. You might want to give up.
Michael,
Get a grip.
The group switched to automobiles, whoppee. That only means that the automobile was more important than the bicycle even before 1920, and our paved roads were insignificant before then which shows their lack of impact unless you think dirt roads are "good roads". The group had no effect accept that the dirt roads were graded better and those carraiges actually acknowledge bicyclists. No great change in paved roads. The automobile created the driving force for the modern road system in the US. But I am glad the group switched horses, not that that meant much regarding the bicycle or paved roads. Glad they knew where their bread was better buttered.
Sorry, but I have a great grasp (such arrogance) of the meaning of driving forces in history. I'm a generalist, meaning that I can see the forest while noticing the trees. How's it going getting out of that forest?
Actually, it means your statement:
"The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is that this group from 1880 to 1916 (when it was in its total wane from 1900)is responsible for the modern road system. The historical fact is that it is a footnote."
amongst others is entirely, factually wrong. And that you couldn't even read well enough to see that.
In fact, you're now trying to say they didn't improve the roads well enough, fast enough, for your new arbitrary definition.
You also seem to be implying that the movement itself was responsible for exactly zero paved roads. Yet you offer no actual evidence of this assertion.
First you said they had nothing to do with it, then you said the group was replaced when it wasn't, now you're saying that it's OK; the motorists joined a movement that was already started and nothing anyone did before them should matter.
I don't think you even have a grasp of what you've been trying to *say* in this thread, much less of history.
I'm getting tired, only because of your intransigence. THE GROUP HAD NO IMPACT BECAUSE IT ISN'T THERE PRIOR TO THE CAR. Your claims are fallacious because the group had no significant impact, they have no claim. The driving force was the automobile available to the middle class. The Model T and A killed motorcycling in the US and forced the improvement of roads locally and between towns and cities. It is that that led to improved roads in the US, prior to that there was no significant building of paved roads. So good intentions don't count. And when they switched to the good horse the other was obviously dead, long dead.
Your claim is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. They weren't the driving force for change, look at the record.
I'm still wondering if a "good road" means a graded dirt road...
So the Good Roads movement ceased to exist... and didn't exist when cars joined it, even though it didn't exist... and they never campaigned for paved roads until cars came along. Because apparently "good roads" can't mean "paved." Because cars are the only vehicles that require or benefit from paved roads. And there was no "significant" building of paved roads before the automobile. Whatever your personal definition of "significant" might be.
And so being members and founders of a movement doesn't count (though you can't seem to keep straight whether it was one movement that ended and another started, or a continuous movement as the historical record shows) because everyone started driving cars, and no one ever rode a bicycle on the road again, ever, until just recently. Because that horse was dead, long dead.
My claim is supported by facts that I've presented here, with references.
Your rambling assertions (which record should I be looking at to back them up, exactly?) aren't even consistent with themselves, much less history.
Fawkes said bicycles had nothing to do with modern roads. I noted that they were there at the start (yes, leading the way) pushing for better, more modern roads. You have yet, in all this rambling, to disprove that.
bla bla bla all this crap has nothing to do with the fact that a bicycle is still entitled to use his lane no matter how much motor motorized vehicles dont like it. period. get used to it. thats the way it is. so there. the last arrogant jerk that hit me now lives somewhere else because I own his house and am still garnishing his wages. so watch those mirrors jackass.
I honestly have no idea why Ariel is so dead-set on contesting historical facts that, in the end, really don't affect this particular situation.
Some people just *have* to be right, I guess.
Actually, I was going to drop it but the sweet, bidirectional irony of your last was too enticing.
Reading all of this together, you make some clear category errors.
Regarding history, facts are what happened, the meaning derived from facts is an interpretation or "truth". You've been confusing the two throughout. Historians are kept busy interpreting facts to give meaning to history, and they often disagree. Like Moynihan said "you can have your own truths, but you can't have your own facts". A very nice aphorism.
At another point you confuse means of generating propulsion for the vehicle. A motorcycle operates under the exact same subset of physical laws as a bicycle (which only means "having two wheels" nothing more, motorcycle is a contraction for motorized bicycle) while a car doesn't (really don't go into dynamic mass, inertia, etc. as those apply to all moving objects). You might better understand the physics of your bicycle by reading Hough's "Proficient Motorcycling".
Anyway, good luck.
Actually, after this, I think you might just be slightly insane.
Look, if you have some direct evidence that the historical facts cited are wrong, take it up with the wiki editors and the now LoAB http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.php
Until then, you're just some random guy on the internet with a weird need to contest a pretty innocuous statement. I've got a lot more reason to believe these other sources than you.
And if it had tapped you a bit harder, you'd be enjoying someone giving you "bowel care" every day. Really, you expect and depend on others to watch out for you when you are on the road?
This just gets better and better.
That was a reply to jn. Should have shown up under his comment.
as a matter of fact in my case I was as far to the right as I could get and still got hit. am I still wrong?
Well, while I don't care for Pixiq's site at ALL, (The extremely short article blurbs combined with the link where the "read more" traditionally is on sites... all over the web, not just blogs, going to somewhere else not even related to the post, remind me of nothing except a spam blog.) the discourse has taken a serious turn for the worse as well. Ariel's actually made explicit threats of violence against bicyclists in general (which I have both given a thumbs down and flagged, the only reason I registered an account, I hope the management of Pixiq takes proper action, threats of violence are illegal, even online), something I never saw on Carlos' old blog.
And pretty much all the old commentators have left. Why? Probably like me they refused to create an account. Given how spammy the site's layout is, there's no way in hell I'll give my real info to Pixiq, I'm 99% certain I'll get spammed. I'm not even using my old nome-de-plume from earlier comments.
You do good work Carlos, and I understand you need to make a living. But Pixiq is a hideously bad fit for you. In fact, I think it's making you look LESS reputable. I'm not kidding about the spam blog bit, I've seen spam blogs that look less spammy than Pixiq. I just can't accept anything posted here as real news, except from you, and the site's so hideous I rarely come to see your posts either.
To be fair, I haven't had any uptick in spam since creating a Pixiq account.
But I also use Gmail for my email account. I also use Adblock Plus and NoScript in Firefox at all times, so Pixiq could be full of spammy ads and I would be blissfully unaware.
No, I didn't make explicit or implicit threats of violence to bicyclists. Period. Please go back and read. Here's the exact quote "Do me a favor, ride two abreast at rush hour with you on the outside. Like mirrors?". That's called sarcasm, in context it was about the practice of bicyclists riding abreast, not "I'll hit you with my mirror if you do", which would be a threat of violence. "Rush hour" should have been a real clue (high volume, high rates of speed, greater distraction, less room for avoidance, etc.) Like Carlos, I think sarcasm is appropriate at times. But at least it got you to sign up.
When you ride two abreast the outer rider, one, has nowhere to go when a distracted driver comes barreling up on them, or, two, nowhere to go when that driver realizes they can't move over in time (so mirror smack, it happens way too often for single file riders too for which there is no excuse). It's the exact same thing with motorcycles, but they always have mirrors and greater acceleration to possibly get out of the situation. Possibly. It is still considered a very bad riding practice. I don't do it on a motorcycle. On a bicycle, only when there are no cars coming and only on residential streets.
You can go on and on about rights and entitlements on the road, but ultimately you have to be aware that other drivers aren't aware. Your safety practices have to take that into account, not ignore it because you are entitled to do as you please.
As for the site, the thread function if working is a slight improvement. The rest no. But if it keeps Carlos well afloat, then it's a good choice.
Post new comment