FBinNY 

The video clearly shows an arsehole cyclist intentionally confront a cop doing his job, and looking to provoke an incident. As for the left turn, IMO it was illegal because there wasn't a clear gap, though ultimately that'll be for a judge to decide.

In any case the officer was parient until pushed beyond his limit (which under the circumstances was higher than mine would have been).

If an officer had confronted a cyclist this way, there'd be no dispute at all and it might make another segment on the evening news. BUT here we're talking about a total moron who as far as I'm concerned brought it on himself, by confronting a cop who was focused on something else with a belligerent attitude.

He's lucky he only got a ticket, if he keeps going through life that way it's be a short one.

MRT2

Call BS on that. Look, there are laws I don't like or agree with, and a lot of stuff still on the books is crap. The remedy is to organize to change the laws you don't like, not to act like all laws are BS. What if some a--hole was trying to mug you for your bike? Are laws against stealing just excuses to extort money from citizens?

Brandonub

Let's agree, for the moment, that the cyclist is a Dbag. So what? Does that make the cop legally correct? Does it objectively justify his behavior? I'm less concerned with a private citizen being a bit of an idiot than I am with an officer of the law abusing his authority.

MRT2

Kind of rude to accuse people who disagree with you of being in a cult.

PedalingFool

Slow your horses, cowboy... I only said most laws.
When you do things that effect the lives of others then those are the laws we need.

But if I chose to not wear my seatbelt why should I get a $75 (or whatever the extortion fee is these days) ticket for it? My choice to not wear a seatbelt effects only me and not anyone else. It's my consequences to pay if I should get injured as a result of not wearing some strap around me. It's just another money grab to get your money from you.

I think that would fall under "effecting the lives of others."

Brandonub

I suppose it's rude, but the thing is that there's quite a bit of sociological data indicating that authoritarian mindsets are quite different than non-authoritarian thinking. It's not just a subjective matter of opinion, these are entirely different worldviews, one in which people who are in positions of authority are usually (or always) right and should be accorded respect above private citizens, and one in which that is not the case.

MRT2

Don't know if the turn was legal or not. It is hard to tell from the video. The cyclist can fight it out with the city attorney, or better yet, hire a lawyer to do it for him (which, BTW, would be my advice, as that sort of attitude will get him nowhere with either the city attorney or the judge). It isn't as if he got pepper sprayed, got his ass kicked, or had to spend a couple of days in jail.. (all of which have happened to my clients over the years) Don't get me wrong. If a citizen wants to get himself a ticket or even charged by being a D Bag, fine with me. Like stupid criminals, people with bad attitudes are a kind of job security for lawyers.

FBinNY 

As I said, I agree with the cop that the left turn was illegal because of failure to yield to oncoming traffic. That's a judgement call, but removes any halo from above the cyclists head.

Meanwhile what is the cop supposed to do. They're human too, and have only the same limited patience as the rest of us. Also as cops, they have fewer options when confronted with belligerent ***holes. From all appearances the cop had no intention of citing the cyclist or engaging him in any way. So IMO the ticket was a "get the f*ck out of my face" statement or object lesson. One I'm sure the cyclist won't learn from.

The initial video makes it clear that the cyclist was looking for trouble. He should be happy he found it.

MRT2

You can think what you want, but in fact, laws can reflect prevailing social mores, and societal notions of public safety as well. This is mostly what traffic laws, seatbelt laws, and bike and/or motorcycle helmet laws are about. Moreover, laws can even reflect prevailing morality, as in laws against prostitution, public displays of nudity, pornography, offensive language or conduct.

You might not like it, and you are always free to run for local or state office on a platform of changing them.

chipcom 

Let's call a spade a spade here...those are nanny laws. While government may have the power to pass laws concerning the general public safety, they have no right, IMO, to pass laws concerning my personal safety. Whether I wear a helmet or a seatbelt only has an impact on my personal safety, not the safety of the public as a whole.

Funny how in one instance the law protects an individual's right to choose what they in regards to their own selves (abortion for example), then in another denies that choice (nanny laws).

PedalingFool

And our country becoming a society of people that believes that stuff is why the "Land of the Free" has the most laws on the books than any other country as well as the largest prison population that's populated with over 80% of people committing victimless "crimes."

MRT2

Actually read up on the many anti abortion laws passed in recent years that restrict access to abortions, all supposedly in the interest of public safety. In the 90s, the Supreme Court ruled that states can restrict access to abortion to protect public safety as long as said laws are not present an undue burden. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You can have an opinion about so called nanny laws, and I might even agree that some of them are pointless or worse, harmful to the values of a free society, personal responsibility, etc.... But just because you don't think those laws should exist doesn't mean that they don't, or can't exist.

MRT2

Yes, but that is another story. Things like blue laws have been on the books for hundreds of years. Maybe 18th century Americans were also "drinking the Kool Aid". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

chipcom 

I did my time in office trying to change/prevent them...so please spare the preaching for the kids.

Matariki

The cyclist's crusade for right may be laudable, but the question to ask is, "Does good result from his actions?" In my mind, I see a bunch of negative consequences, that although unintended, still could affect us all through the ripple effect. Do any of us want to be the next cyclist (or motorist) that this cop encounters? The balance sheet probably will show that this crusader is doing society more harm than good.

The left turn was iffy, BTW.

ephin

Good luck with that! Many of "us" do not pay their salaries (ie don't pay taxes - especially in california) and the rich pay a disproportionate share of their salaries. As a taxpayer who's paying a disproportionate share, I resent d**ches like this interfering with cops trying to do their job and wasting my disproportionately confiscated, hard earned money.

FBinNY 

Actually, the very next person may be better off. IME being the next person after an axhole often works out to ones favor. I've found I've done very well at busy airports, customs checkpoints, and other places by being next after some raving lunatic. All it takes is a smile and a reasonable attitude, and you look so good by comparison, that folks are relieved and happy to cut you some slack.

If I'm at an airport where everyone is going crazy trying to rebook flights after cancellations or weather delays, I try to find some loud mouthed lunatic and get behind him. When my turn comes I'll open with something like "now that we've had our entertainment... Is there anything at all you can do for me". The success rate is amazing.

Angio Graham

So if the turn by the cyclist was indeed illegal, how come the officer waited so long to mention it and then to make a stop for it ? Why didn't the officer, who was clearly doing traffic duty, stop the cyclist once the "illegal" turn was made ? The video is very clear that the police officer became upset with the cyclist exercising a constitutional right to film police and a constitutional right to free speech and the officer decided to retaliate. The ironic thing is, the cyclist has over 30 minutes of video of the officer making the exact same left turn and cutting cars off. I think a judge will like to see these videos in court....if the officer even shows up.

UberGeek

Because the LEO was going to let it slide, until the cyclists pushed an object lesson while berating the cop for not "doing his job". So, the LEO decided to do his job, and cite the cyclists, who was in violation of the laws of the road (In the eyes of the LEO).

I'm still not understanding WHY exactly the cyclist turned back around, and confronted the LEO here... I mean, I've got no love for most LEO's (Many are power tripping, almost as bad as roid freaks; but in this case a reasonable LEO, doing his job was pushed into delivering an object lesson.

Brandonub

Being a human myself, my reaction would have been, "oh, that's probably right. I'll go ahead and get off the sidewalk. Have a good day!". Of course, what we observed instead was an interaction between two remarkably self important morons.

I do not observe an officer behaving reasonably in this video. I see a self important dick refusing to admit he's in the wrong, then deciding to teach a lesson about what happens to anyone that would dare question his actions.

FBinNY 

Cops let stuff slide by all the time. They exercise discretion in deciding who or what to cite among the myriad infractions they observe every minute. The cop was using radar to catch speeders and was perfectly willing to ignore a minor bicycle violation (otherwise we'd be here saying "why are they ticketing cyclists when there are speeders all over?".

Don't equate free speech with a license for in your face speech. The cyclist was clearly looking for trouble and, no surprise, found it.

Brandonub

Indeed, the spirit of free speech is obviously intended only to protect your right to say, "top of the day officer!". Anything more impolite than that should be met with questionable legal charges.

ephin

What a ******. Appears to me he rode along in the painted island for a little and then pulled a ubie to get to the cop. At a minimum (even if his cycling was perfectly legal) he's interfering with a policeman doing his job. Calling him "bacon" didn't help the situation, either. I thought the cop showed great restraint - ie until you kept pushing it. If he is a "rogue" cop, what makes you think he'll be receptive to your "constructive" criticism? ******s like you make cops MORE likely to ticket us. Thanks alot. You got what you deserved. I hope you waste alot of time and money fighting this. Let us know how your fight with city hall turns out.

FBinNY 

Side comment,

Why do we need another acronym for cop? You were perfectly willing to refer to him that way once, why not keep it simple and stay with it? BTW- there already is an acronym for cop, as used in many police departments, that's PO for police officer or patrol officer, I don't think we need an acronym for a three word term to describe what used to be a two or one word thing.

IMO when one refers to a LEO or Law Enforcement Officer, is sounds more like a high school student or College sophomore trying to make a paper sound more impressive. Firse we get bloated English, then we get acronyms for bloated English because the bloated language was too clumsy.

UberGeek

Are you aware that LEO's, in the name of operational need, are allowed to break laws that you and I are not allowed to?

Such as:
* Speeding
* Running red lights
* Doing a U-turn where there's a "No U Turn" sign
* Park in "No parking" zones
* Not pay meters
* et al

The cop, in this case, was not breaking the law. There was an operation need, to clock vehicles, while not obstructing traffic.