MyBikeLane

It looks to me like these proactive police officers are performing enforcement. How can they otherwise enforce the bike lane restictions with that barrier restricting access?

They could be telling this fine man pulling the shopping cart that is unsafe and illegal for him to walk in the bike lane. They may also be preventing motorcycles and scooters from entering the lane.

They can do that from the point it splits off from the road, just like the law says. I don't think they're very worried that they have to be there in case the general lee comes along and jumps the barrier right in the middle of the bike lane JUST far enough along that they can't catch him. This is creating a life threatening hazard in a portion of road that is completely closed off to vehicle access. If there was an emergency to be responded to, the cop would have been moving, flashing and he would have been on the nearly EMPTY wide open road next to this bike lane. And why assume the poster is guilty of vilifying the cops by purposely not mentioning that he seemed to be responding to an emergency? I thought you were a proponent of innocent until proven guilty. Oh, I forgot, only for cops.

Lenser, what in the world are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the poster being guilty of vilifying the cops! I didn't say anything about these cops responding to an emergency either!

Can you tell me how this is creating a life threatening hazard? It may be an inconvience but a parked police car in a two lane bike path that is seperated from the main portion of road by a concrete barrier is not life threatening. And obviously this portion of road is not completely closed off to vehicle traffic, Lenser. If it is, how did the car in this picture get through.

Look at the sentence carefully. I know the Academy's reading comprehension req's have slumped of late, but bear with me. Here, I'll help by reposting it as a quote. "And why assume the poster is guilty of vilifying the cops by purposely not mentioning that he seemed to be responding to an emergency?"

See that "not"? It means that you curiously left out your go to excuse for this cop being here, because it obviously doesn't hold water; meaning I didn't say what you said I said, if that helps. You are responding to your own lack of reading skills, sir. Also, every time you've used this go to excuse, the police vehicles appeared in the same state, lights off and apparently unmoving; so why is there a double standard in your evaluation? The only thing you are doing here is declaring police in the right one hundred percent

A car is ALWAYS a life threatening hazard to ANY kind of cyclist. Especially if it just happens to be in a location all passing cyclists would naturally and legally assume would be free of such threats. Have you ever seen a car "brush" a person? The car could have a scuff or two, the person could be dead at worst, bruised and shaken at best.

And did I say *physically* closed off? Or should I have used a more specific term for you, such as "off-limits"? I would have gone for "prohibited," but I didn't want to strain you. The lanes are clearly marked to indicate a lawfully defined lack of motor vehicle traffic in that lane, that constitutes closed off enough for me.

And don't think I didn't see what you did there, ignoring my pointing out the nearly EMPTY ROAD next to this bike lane the officer would be much better suited enforcing the law from. If the dude on the cart was being enforced upon, there are several points. It is complete overkill, unless that dude has some blue sparks hidden in that cart. The cops can get out, walk up the sidewalk and ticket him, or call it in and have a beat cop correct him. No, this whole situation is unlikely, as a cop correcting someone for this kind of violation is rare in the highest degree, especially if they're breaking it themselves. If they were correcting that gentleman, it was most likely as an afterthought to their little break in the bike lane. If not, they were just being lazy, which isn't courtesy or professionalism last I looked.

Hmm, seems FF might have bugged on me, after "one hundred percent" should be - "of the time, slightly off from your declarations in a previous post of 'innocent until proven guilty'

Lenser says " And why assume the poster is guilty of vilifying the cops by purposely not mentioning that he seemed to be responding to an emergency?" And I replied by saying that I never assumed anybody was being vilified. The car does not seem to be responding to an amergency. I still don't understand your point.

If a cyclist can't see this big white and blue car sitting in an otherwise empty bike lane and not hit the car then there is something wrong with the cyclist and he should try walking instead.

There are countless places in this city where the flow of traffic is controlled by pavement markings and signs. Some of these pavement markings and signs are meant to restrict vehicular traffic. If they were completely effective then we would need so many judges at traffic court. Obviously signs are useless without enforcement.

You obviously know nothing about police work to claim that an officer in a passing car can call in a condition and have a "beat cop" respond to correct it. Whoever sees the problem corrects the problem. It doesn't get handed off for somebody else to take car of. Not to mention the fact that the cop in the car and the cop on foot (if one exists in that area) are the same rank. If you think I'm going to respond to something that you just drove past and didn't take care of yourself...you're out of your mind.

Paraderest, there is no excuse for this parking violation, and if you had ever actually been or seen this stretch of bike lane you would know so.

Given this thread has lost its ability for civil discussion, and instead has degraded into name calling and trolling, I am closing it down.