Years ago, I was accelerating down a long hill on a state highway when a beat-up old car passed me. Someone in the car stood up through the sunroof, shouted something indistinct, and threw a full can of beer at my head. The impact against the side of my helmet and my own startled reaction almost made me crash.

The can dented my helmet a quarter-inch deep, right through the outer shell and into the styrofoam underneath. That beer can would have split my head open for sure.

This happened more than 15 years ago. I always cycle with a helmet now. I figure, if my helmet prevents a head injury, saves my life, or preserves my dignity, even once during a lifetime of cycling, it’s worth it.

1) We support higher fines and jail sentences for drivers who hit highway construction workers. Mr. Wilson would contend that the courtroom wife in his parable should (rightfully) be outraged that the plaintiff in her husband’s case received a much lower fine than that of the driver who killed the highway worker. I think most reasonable people would agree that the courts got it right.

2) Helmet laws. Mr. Wilson says that cyclists ” account for about six percent of traffic-related brain injuries, and three percent of all brain injuries.” While that seems like a low number at first blush, remember that cyclists account for far fewer than 3% of all traffic (actually less than 0.5%). In that light, cyclists are far overrepresented with respect to brain injuries.

3) More helmet laws. Mr. Wilson would contend that mandatory seatbelt laws for drivers/passengers reinforces the belief that driving is dangerous.

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’ll be filing a motion to dismiss once again.

Details to follow, likely on another forum…

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’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’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.

Do not agree to perform illegal acts at the officer’s request. Do not disagree with the officer. In the traffic stops I saw, Chip’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 “accidentally fallen” 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.

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’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′ 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’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.

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 “see” a problem.