<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts About Reed Bates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/</link>
	<description>Expert Advice for Central Florida Bicycle Users</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:50:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tarot visa</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>tarot visa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-760</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a3361234</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-647</link>
		<dc:creator>a3361234</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-647</guid>
		<description>3361234 beers on the wall.  sck was here</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3361234 beers on the wall.  sck was here</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JM Palacios</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-605</link>
		<dc:creator>JM Palacios</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-605</guid>
		<description>I know this is an old thread, but I would observe that you are not required to give them your driver&#039;s license in the first place. You&#039;re on a bicycle, a driver&#039;s license is not required. If they ask for ID, pull out some other ID and tell them you don&#039;t have a driver&#039;s license to show them. That first step will catch them off guard. Turns out cops don&#039;t know what to do when handed something different. Then you can make polite conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know this is an old thread, but I would observe that you are not required to give them your driver&#8217;s license in the first place. You&#8217;re on a bicycle, a driver&#8217;s license is not required. If they ask for ID, pull out some other ID and tell them you don&#8217;t have a driver&#8217;s license to show them. That first step will catch them off guard. Turns out cops don&#8217;t know what to do when handed something different. Then you can make polite conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Registered nurse</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>Registered nurse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-463</guid>
		<description>Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mighk makes right (sense). &#171; Dallas Jeep</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-450</link>
		<dc:creator>Mighk makes right (sense). &#171; Dallas Jeep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-450</guid>
		<description>[...] a Transportation Planner/Bicycle Coordinator for Orlando Metroplan in Florida (an MPO). He has some thoughts and observations on Reed Bates (a.k.a. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a Transportation Planner/Bicycle Coordinator for Orlando Metroplan in Florida (an MPO). He has some thoughts and observations on Reed Bates (a.k.a. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fred_dot_u</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>fred_dot_u</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-447</guid>
		<description>With traffic stop number twenty, citation number three and traffic stops from Port Orange PD counts now at five or six, some of Mighk&#039;s advice would not have been practicable.  I would not be able to obey the officer beyond ordinary commands (provide driver&#039;s license) as he did not make any other demands. Oh, yes, I did sign the citation.

The chief of police was the initiator of the traffic stop that generated the first citation, so a letter to that individual probably holds no value. Two calls to the City Manager went un-answered.

Looks like I&#039;ll be filing a motion to dismiss once again.

Details to follow, likely on another forum...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With traffic stop number twenty, citation number three and traffic stops from Port Orange PD counts now at five or six, some of Mighk&#8217;s advice would not have been practicable.  I would not be able to obey the officer beyond ordinary commands (provide driver&#8217;s license) as he did not make any other demands. Oh, yes, I did sign the citation.</p>
<p>The chief of police was the initiator of the traffic stop that generated the first citation, so a letter to that individual probably holds no value. Two calls to the City Manager went un-answered.</p>
<p>Looks like I&#8217;ll be filing a motion to dismiss once again.</p>
<p>Details to follow, likely on another forum&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MighkW</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>MighkW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-446</guid>
		<description>Steve:

You make good points and it gets me thinking that we should be thinking more strategically and less reactively.

A strategic approach would be to obey the advice of the officer unless it poses immediate risk of harm or is outright illegal.  The first priority would be to take the officer&#039;s name, badge number or vehicle number, then note how much of your time was wasted with the stop, and what difficulties and additional risks you suffered due to the stop.  Then write a very polite and professional letter to the chief or sheriff explaining why the stop was unwarranted and note all the difficulties you experienced because of it.  Those of us in Florida can also point to FBA&#039;s Bicycle Law Enforcement Guide, FLBikeLaw.org, and the development of our curriculum.

When stops also involved citations, advocacy organizations should be encouraging cyclists to challenge them in court and give as much support as they can muster.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve:</p>
<p>You make good points and it gets me thinking that we should be thinking more strategically and less reactively.</p>
<p>A strategic approach would be to obey the advice of the officer unless it poses immediate risk of harm or is outright illegal.  The first priority would be to take the officer&#8217;s name, badge number or vehicle number, then note how much of your time was wasted with the stop, and what difficulties and additional risks you suffered due to the stop.  Then write a very polite and professional letter to the chief or sheriff explaining why the stop was unwarranted and note all the difficulties you experienced because of it.  Those of us in Florida can also point to FBA&#8217;s Bicycle Law Enforcement Guide, FLBikeLaw.org, and the development of our curriculum.</p>
<p>When stops also involved citations, advocacy organizations should be encouraging cyclists to challenge them in court and give as much support as they can muster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve A</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-445</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 17:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-445</guid>
		<description>IMHO, the time to discuss the law is NOT while you are pulled over. When pulled over, the only thing to communicate to the officer that is confused about the law is the required identification, if requested. Even if you are 100% correct, it is still not the time to attempt to educate an officer who is discharging what he/she sees as his/her duty. The time to discuss the law is afterwards, when you can request that the officer in question be educated about the law and ask for follow-up. You do NOT want to become a target should you run across the officer again while riding legally.

Do not agree to perform illegal acts at the officer&#039;s request. Do not disagree with the officer. In the traffic stops I saw, Chip&#039;s biggest mistake is he did not follow that advice. He was undeniably polite, and the officers understood that, but he might still have been treated much worse, with anything he said used as an excuse.He might have &quot;accidentally fallen&quot; down the stairs at the jail.

The time to complain is when you are no longer in a situation with someone who does not know the law, but that has a gun and a badge. The police are part of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. They do not make the laws, nor are they judges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IMHO, the time to discuss the law is NOT while you are pulled over. When pulled over, the only thing to communicate to the officer that is confused about the law is the required identification, if requested. Even if you are 100% correct, it is still not the time to attempt to educate an officer who is discharging what he/she sees as his/her duty. The time to discuss the law is afterwards, when you can request that the officer in question be educated about the law and ask for follow-up. You do NOT want to become a target should you run across the officer again while riding legally.</p>
<p>Do not agree to perform illegal acts at the officer&#8217;s request. Do not disagree with the officer. In the traffic stops I saw, Chip&#8217;s biggest mistake is he did not follow that advice. He was undeniably polite, and the officers understood that, but he might still have been treated much worse, with anything he said used as an excuse.He might have &#8220;accidentally fallen&#8221; down the stairs at the jail.</p>
<p>The time to complain is when you are no longer in a situation with someone who does not know the law, but that has a gun and a badge. The police are part of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. They do not make the laws, nor are they judges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-443</guid>
		<description>Brad,

Your comments about initiating a friendly dialogue with a smile vs. citing the text of the law may work if you have police or courts that know and respect the law and you don&#039;t mind allowing time for extended dialogues.  This may even work where you are (or may not).

This is not the experience I see locally.  While most of the local police know to allow a bicycle in the middle of a 10&#039; lane with parking on both sides, last year I was pulled over for trying to make a lawful left turn from the left lane on a 4 lane road in rush hour traffic.  The officer rejected what I thought would be a simple explanation that I was turning left, and said bicyclists are required to ride next to the curb with no exceptions for left turns, narrow lanes, or obstacles (all specifically listed in the law).  He also misunderstood that impeding traffic is a MOTOR vehicle offense.  His (unlawful) instruction to turn left from the right lane was not a safety instruction, and not something I could reasonably obey. (When he left I still had to cross both lanes).  Note this happened in traffic where the congestion reduces average motor speed to 10mph.

Other local cyclists have been cited for lawfully avoiding RTOL lanes, and convicted by lower courts that said the law was unreasonable and rejected the text of the law.  While these cases are dismissed on appeal, these are all situations where the cyclists are faulted cited for obeying the law, but held at fault in collisions when riding where the officers otherwise demand.  These are not situations where reasonable discussion will let the bicyclists ride legally. Some (not all but many) officers don&#039;t know the law and refuse to accept that the law really means what it says.  While bicyclists attempts to ride safely and lawfully may not be understood by many motorists, I do think bicyclists have a right to expect all officers to accept the law as written without being expected to ride as dictated by the personal opinion of whatever officer happens to be on the road.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brad,</p>
<p>Your comments about initiating a friendly dialogue with a smile vs. citing the text of the law may work if you have police or courts that know and respect the law and you don&#8217;t mind allowing time for extended dialogues.  This may even work where you are (or may not).</p>
<p>This is not the experience I see locally.  While most of the local police know to allow a bicycle in the middle of a 10&#8242; lane with parking on both sides, last year I was pulled over for trying to make a lawful left turn from the left lane on a 4 lane road in rush hour traffic.  The officer rejected what I thought would be a simple explanation that I was turning left, and said bicyclists are required to ride next to the curb with no exceptions for left turns, narrow lanes, or obstacles (all specifically listed in the law).  He also misunderstood that impeding traffic is a MOTOR vehicle offense.  His (unlawful) instruction to turn left from the right lane was not a safety instruction, and not something I could reasonably obey. (When he left I still had to cross both lanes).  Note this happened in traffic where the congestion reduces average motor speed to 10mph.</p>
<p>Other local cyclists have been cited for lawfully avoiding RTOL lanes, and convicted by lower courts that said the law was unreasonable and rejected the text of the law.  While these cases are dismissed on appeal, these are all situations where the cyclists are faulted cited for obeying the law, but held at fault in collisions when riding where the officers otherwise demand.  These are not situations where reasonable discussion will let the bicyclists ride legally. Some (not all but many) officers don&#8217;t know the law and refuse to accept that the law really means what it says.  While bicyclists attempts to ride safely and lawfully may not be understood by many motorists, I do think bicyclists have a right to expect all officers to accept the law as written without being expected to ride as dictated by the personal opinion of whatever officer happens to be on the road.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MighkW</title>
		<link>http://mighkwilson.com/2010/03/thoughts-about-reed-bates/comment-page-1/#comment-437</link>
		<dc:creator>MighkW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mighkwilson.com/?p=949#comment-437</guid>
		<description>If that were indeed the rationale, it is of course based on assumptions and not on experience or observations.  In a  less biased approach they would have observed Reed&#039;s riding and motorist reactions for a while instead of immediately stopping him.  No doubt the numerous 911 calls from uninformed motorists affected their assumptions.

When I was stopped by an OPD officer it was because a motorist had complained.  The sense I got from the officer was that that was the primary reason.  I was in plain sight of the officer for a while before the motorist pulled up alongside him and complained; only then did the officer &quot;see&quot; a problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If that were indeed the rationale, it is of course based on assumptions and not on experience or observations.  In a  less biased approach they would have observed Reed&#8217;s riding and motorist reactions for a while instead of immediately stopping him.  No doubt the numerous 911 calls from uninformed motorists affected their assumptions.</p>
<p>When I was stopped by an OPD officer it was because a motorist had complained.  The sense I got from the officer was that that was the primary reason.  I was in plain sight of the officer for a while before the motorist pulled up alongside him and complained; only then did the officer &#8220;see&#8221; a problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

