It's the LAW!!!
Thread started by
Limeyfly at 05.24.10 - 6:46 pm
As the police chief said
share the road with bicyclists
give way to bicyclists and
share the road.
Now what 'we' need to do is be a part of that sentiment by
ALSO
sharing the road
following the rules of the road and CVC
AND therefore earn respect from our motorized road sharers.
It is literally a two way street and if we want respect from LAPD or any other PD and other road users we need to ride sensibly. Have fun on the road and KEEP TO THE RIGHT
reply
Its also a LAW to have One break at min. on your bike LOL
Alisha8805.24.10 - 6:48 pm
reply
Actually the law states that the bicycle must be equipped with a brake that can make one wheel skid on clean dry pavement, in the case of fixies, the brake is part of the drivetrain, however brakeless freewheel in no way falls under this category, and is not only illegal, but REALLY dumb.
read the equipment laws for yourself
FuzzBeast05.24.10 - 7:02 pm
reply
you also have to have a front light attached to your body...
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
snowcone05.24.10 - 7:04 pm
reply
a brake that's also a part of the drivetrain is an oxymoron
_iJunes responding to a
comment by FuzzBeast
05.24.10 - 7:07 pm
reply
either way you look at it you're using a lever to stop the wheel
Gav responding to a
comment by _iJunes
05.24.10 - 7:11 pm
reply
snowcone, check what you posted, it can be used in lieu of, in other words in place of
_ijunes, not really, a coaster brake is part of the drivetrain as well...
FuzzBeast responding to a
comment by _iJunes
05.24.10 - 7:13 pm
reply
yes, you can use a white light mounted on your body instead of one mounted to your bike, but you can't use one mounted on your bike without one mounted on your body. most people don't follow/know about this detail, and most cops don't either.
snowcone responding to a
comment by FuzzBeast
05.24.10 - 7:21 pm
reply
Interesting. So per the CVC a headlamp is adequate? I thought people have been written up in places like Burbank for not having a headlight attached to their bikes?
toweliesbong responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.24.10 - 7:23 pm
reply
i wouldn't doubt it. Someone told me the same thing happened to him, but it's just a case of the police not knowing the law
snowcone responding to a
comment by toweliesbong
05.24.10 - 7:28 pm
reply
ANYWAY THE POINT IS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I love big rides......... BUT ....................too many shenanigans, accidents, police involvement.............fracas with motorists.....................ETC ETC............
I want to go on big rides but .........We cannot seem to self police...............
Oh What to do...................
Oh yeah!!!! Go on small rides :)
Limeyfly05.24.10 - 7:32 pm
reply
I'll say it again for you: "Have fun on the road and KEEP TO THE RIGHT".
toweliesbong responding to a
comment by Limeyfly
05.24.10 - 7:34 pm
reply
More legalese written by over-edumucated desk jockeys.
These are about as garbled as FMCSA regs.
bentstrider05.24.10 - 7:35 pm
reply
you're wrong
666 responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.24.10 - 7:40 pm
reply
SET EXAMPLES..................... GOOD ONES!
Limeyfly05.24.10 - 7:59 pm
reply
EXEMPT are Wolfpack, ...Silverlake/ Northern, and Bicykillers
Dedicated818 responding to a
comment by Limeyfly
05.24.10 - 9:59 pm
reply
Wolfpack and BIcykillers, usually have better riders participating than most slower larger rides....don't you think?
Limeyfly responding to a
comment by Dedicated818
05.24.10 - 10:48 pm
reply
Where in the law does it say that? It says one may be used IN LIEU of a light on the bicycle, doesnt say you need one on your person.
FuzzBeast responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.24.10 - 11:58 pm
reply
i'm not sure i understand what you are saying
snowcone responding to a
comment by FuzzBeast
05.25.10 - 12:51 am
reply
HERE'S THE CVC IN A NUTSHELL:
DON'T BE A DOUCHEBAG, BE SEEN AT NIGHT AND DON'T GET DOORED.
i really like the wikipedia article on bike law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California
tortuga_veloce05.25.10 - 1:11 am
reply
Following this mantra has allowed me to stay off any radar I would rather not want to show up under.
bentstrider responding to a
comment by tortuga_veloce
05.25.10 - 2:13 am
reply
in lieu of means instead of, you can have a light on your person instead of your bike, you don't need both.
FuzzBeast responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 4:49 am
reply
Wrong ... Im young , tan and not a women
OsnapsonJC responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 8:53 am
reply
being an older white jew didn't help me in any way....
barleye05.25.10 - 9:21 am
reply
What is the actual CVC law? Like exact number and stuff? I want to look it up myself.
goosegoose05.25.10 - 9:39 am
reply
You said: "you can't use [a white light] mounted on your bike without one mounted on your body."
This is untrue.
The law says that a light mounted on your body can be used in place of a front light. It does not say that you need a light mounted on your body even while you've got one mounted on your bike.
nathansnider responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 10:16 am
reply
Snowcode comes back and is at it again.....RTFM
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
Do you need a definition of in lieu?
Foldie05.25.10 - 11:24 am
reply
does it say you can use a front mounted white light in lieu of a light mounted to your body? no. it says you can use the one mounted to your body instead of the one mounted to your bike, but it never says you can not have the one mounted to your body.
maybe you should go to a legal expert to help you decipher plain english
snowcone responding to a
comment by nathansnider
05.25.10 - 1:56 pm
reply
speaking of da law...
somewhere it also says that you're supposed to stop at red lights and stop signs...
adrian05.25.10 - 2:04 pm
reply
It is pretty clear to me if you read (e) is not a requirement but an alternative to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) which is the one attached to the Bike.
Foldie responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 2:09 pm
reply
Plus if it were a requirement to ride at night which is what section (d) describes then it would be listed under there. If your logic were correct, (e) would be a requirement both day and night since it does not specify a period like (d) does.
Foldie05.25.10 - 2:24 pm
reply
You're a SQL guy right Foldie?
braydon responding to a
comment by Foldie
05.25.10 - 2:32 pm
reply
Yep, I deal with Logic all day long.
Foldie responding to a
comment by braydon
05.25.10 - 2:32 pm
reply
You're email isn't in your profile, can you send me an email to hello#braydonDOTcom ... I'm organizing a computer meetup ride, for software, etc discussions.
braydon responding to a
comment by Foldie
05.25.10 - 2:35 pm
reply
Federal uniforms, talk about biting the hand that feeds.
bentstrider responding to a
comment by barleye
05.25.10 - 2:50 pm
reply
Barleye whats the deal with this. I got a request from ALC regarding this years ALC ceremony. can you send me a link or a run down of what happened last year via email
Roadblock responding to a
comment by barleye
05.25.10 - 3:02 pm
reply
wow... of all people on MR to pick a smarty-pants fight with you choose nathan.
Good job snowcone... welcome back. And so much for the hope that you we're meditating in the Himalaya's finding yourself.
md2 responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 3:03 pm
reply
You pointed to the section of the law that allows you to satisfy the law with a body-mounted light. Can you point to the section of the law that
requires a body mounted light? No, you cannot, because it doesn't exist.
This is the dumbest internet debate ever.
THE END
nathansnider responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 5:38 pm
reply
to repeat..........
It's the LAW!!!
Thread started by Limeyfly at 05.24.10 - 6:46 pm
As the police chief said
SHARE the road with bicyclists
give way to bicyclists and
share the road.
Now what 'we' need to do is be a part of that sentiment by
ALSO
sharing the road
following the rules of the road and CVC
AND therefore earn respect from our motorized road sharers.
It is literally a two way street and if we want respect from LAPD or any other PD and other road users we need to ride sensibly. Have fun on the road and KEEP TO THE RIGHT - unless turning RIGHT....
It's the LAW!!!
Thread started by Limeyfly at 05.24.10 - 6:46 pm
As the police chief said
share the road with bicyclists
give way to bicyclists and
share the road.
Now what 'we' need to do is be a part of that sentiment by
ALSO
sharing the road
following the rules of the road and CVC
AND therefore earn respect from our motorized road sharers.
It is literally a two way street and if we want respect from LAPD or any other PD and other road users we need to ride sensibly. Have fun on the road and KEEP TO THE RIGHT - unless tuning left!
..........I rode with a group on monday night, not bad, for the most part stuck together, but when we came to a left turn lane some of the cyclists were spilled over into the next lane therefore not allowing cars to use that lane. This is not sharing guys :) Sharing - it works in many directions.....
Limeyfly05.25.10 - 10:01 pm
reply
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
part 1 says a light is requried.
part e says instead of part 1 you can have a light attached to the rider.
666 responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.25.10 - 10:16 pm
reply
there are five subdivisions of the bicycle equipment requirement: a - e
(a) states a requirement for a brake
(b) states a requirement for handlebars and their height
(c) states a requirement for bicycle size
(d) states with what a bicycle must be equipped at night
(e) states a requirement for the bicycle operator to have a light
note, (e) makes no reference to the amount of light/time of day... the operator must
always be equipped with a front headlamp
(e) also states that its requirement is enough to satisfy the requirement of paragraph 1 of subdivision d
Can you point to the section of the law that requires a body mounted light?
Yes, like I've said before, read subdivision (e)
i'm not making any claim as to the benefit of such requirements, i'm only reading the law as it is.
snowcone responding to a
comment by nathansnider
05.28.10 - 2:10 am
reply
all of you must get T bagged by me if you ride next to me....ITS THE LAW!
Huey55505.28.10 - 2:12 am
reply
Snowcone, you're a glutton for pain.
note, (e) makes no reference to the amount of light/time of day... the operator must always be equipped with a front headlamp
yes it does. you're not ready this stuff correctly and typical to snowcone, you don't back down from your stance (always crucifying yourself).
anyhow, (e) state "the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). "
and in (d) you will find: "A bicycle operated during darkness"
Get it? Probably not...so basically you need a lamp when riding in darkness (DARKNESS EVERYONE!!)
Now for the all the marbles
Slowcone,
Read the law top-down; notice section (d)???
(d) A bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway, a sidewalk where bicycle operation is not prohibited by the local jurisdiction, or a bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, shall be equipped with all of the following:
"A bicycle...shall be equipped"... Oh yeah, notice it ends with a colon, meaning everything below applies to " shall be equipped with all of the following:"
NOW, what immediately follows? Hey, a lamp requirement; lets all read together (aloud)!!
(1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle.
Notice anything about being attached to an operator? Nope, nope, nope... but we know at this point a bicycle shall be equipped with a lamp emitting blah, blah, blah... okay lets read on.
sections: 2, 3, 4 -- just ignore they dont mean anything.
Whoa, look an (e). This ust apply to (d) too. Lets read; shall we?
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
Guess what? You can use a lamp OR big mother f-ing OR a combination (lamp on bicycle and...) attached to the operator <--- what the hell? how did operator get in there???
I guess this means... you can attached a lamp to the operator "in lieu" of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d)... because you're so smart, Im just going to remind everyone else what that paragraph states:
(1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle.
Get it??? Get it???
Section (e) is an option to fulfill the requirement of (d), instead of paragraph (1) OR big mother f-ing OR -- you can do both!!!
Time to ride to work.
md2 responding to a
comment by snowcone
05.28.10 - 7:47 am
reply
I will highlight the important part for you:
(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu [remember, in lieu means instead] of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
Section (e) uses the word "may."
"May" does not mean "must."
"May use" means that you are allowed, not that "you have to."
Nowhere in section (e) is the word "required" or the word "must" or the word "shall" or any other synonymous word used. It literally says you
may use a body-mounted light
instead of a bike-mounted one. Where does it say explicitly that you must always have a body-mounted light? That's a rhetorical question. I already know it doesn't say that.
outerspace05.28.10 - 9:02 am
reply
jksmile, they actually did use the word "required." But they were talking about something else.
outerspace05.28.10 - 9:04 am
reply
Good thing Snowcode is not a lawyer.....He would epically fail...
Foldie05.28.10 - 9:56 am
reply
Well maybe he would be good if he were on the opposite side of the aisle.
Anyhow, his issue seems to be that he read (e) as a 5th requirement. as he lists above
a, b, c, d, e
He reads (e) as saying: now that we got (d) covered, lets talk about having a light attached to the operator. Okay, so a light must be attached to the operator and you can do this instead of attaching a lamp to the bike.
(Snowcone pumps his fist and heads into the daylight flashing his high beams)
BUT!!!
If there are 5 requirements, then what is the significance of requiring D-1 at all... you might ask (or you may be forced to because some can't just admit they're wrong)?
If you already HAVE TO (are REQUIRED to) attached a light to yourself (the operator), AND this is a satisfactory alternative to D-1 (meaning you dont HAVE TO do D-1, as Snowcone agrees)... then why even put D-1 in there?
The reason of course as we all know -- (e) is NOT a 5th requirement; its an alternative.
Personally, I've missed you Snowcone.
md2 responding to a
comment by Foldie
05.28.10 - 10:38 am
reply
actually, i didn't notice a comma. i was wrong about that, it's not required.
snowcone05.28.10 - 5:50 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
