"Sweet Caroline...Oh Oh Oh..." Man...kids today.

Short answer: Her infringement isn't for violating the traffic laws is it, it's for second-degree wanton endangerment.


Do those pieces of farm machinery you speak of travel both ways in presumably peak hour traffic 5 days a week? They also would be told to make alternate plans don't you think? To expect to have a law that covers every single possible outcome is ridiculous, at some point you should concede to some practical, rational, and responsible, self control. Do you think that this women is being made an example out of, that all the other cyclists who do exactly the same thing every day are ignored? Or would you consider that perhaps this women stands out because she is the only one doing it, and that other cyclists somehow manage what is supposedly impossible for her? I could understand if she appeared to be pushing for the local authorities to clean the shoulder, but that doesn't appear to be top of her agenda.

So you are saying that you can be charged with wanton endangerment for following the law?

I haven't seen farm machinery everyday but every Wednesday morning at 7:15am I used to get held up by a huge tractor on a road very similar to this, 4 lane 55mph speed limit. He never got harassed by the cops or told he couldn't do it. I am sure if go back to that house I would see the same guy on a busy road at that time of the day struggling to get up a huge hill causing delays. Why hasn't a cop asked him to make alternate plans. She is most likely the only one riding on that road at that time and maybe she shouldn't but that doesn't mean that she should arrested and charged with a crime. Most people in Lexington don't ride their bikes to work, especially from that far out, but there is no law or reason that she shouldn't be able to ride her bike on that road at that time.

Basically I'm saying that if you are prepared to disregard common social decencies because the law can be interpreted in a certain manner then you are a menace. But since you bring up following the law, how is she following the laws that relate to wanton endangerment?

That only follows if you define 'breaking the law' in such as way as to make your claim completely tautological.

Which isn't the only reasonable definition.

Of course the nice thing about the law is that it is complex enough that you can find anyone guilty of breaking a law if you need to.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

To be charged with wanton endangerment you would have to prove that what she is doing is creating a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. So what this judge is saying is making cars change lanes is creating a substantial danger of death or injury. So what about slow moving trucks on a highway that doesn't have a minimum speed limit, is the driver going to be ticketed and charged going forward. I don't see how you can be charged with that for riding your bike on the road following all applicable laws. Based on this ruling any cyclist could be charged with wanton endangerment anytime they are out on the road since cars have to slow down and pass us. That ruling goes against the law that says we have a right to ride our bikes on any road, besides interstates.

https://www.youtube.com/...ed&v=rJ0bXvdPXEc

Really not seeing what the problem with the shoulder is. If I had to ride on that crappy road, I'd be as far to the right of the shoulder as I could get. @Robert, you can post as many links to articles about people in bike lanes who still got hit as you want, there's just no way what she is doing here is safer than riding 6 feet to the right of the white line.

I'm sure the Judge had a much more reasonable explanation, and that second-degree wanton endangerment has a slightly more complex description, but yeah. So there's your answer. So do you still claim that she wasn't breaking any laws?

By that argument don't speed limits go against the right to drive a vehicle on a road? That's a rhetorical question... I'm going to bed.

No she wasn't breaking any laws.

trimick wrote:

No she wasn't breaking any laws.

Seriously guys, she was found guilty in a court of law. That is the definition of breaking the law. Repeating this over and over again doesn't change that, the only thing that matters is what an appeals court says. And until that happens, there is now precedent.

Let's make this a little easier: I am allowed to cross the road at a cross walk. If I do so I am not breaking any laws, and in most juristictions now I have a right of way to do so.

1. Am I allowed to stop in the middle of a lane and obstruct traffic?

Do you see how that action, obstructing traffic, is different from simply crossing the road?

2. If a cop asks me to move am I required to?

3. If I do this twice a day, every day, and get asked 5 times to move, have a broken any laws?

Take a look at this article about creating a substantial danger of death:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1406647/jury-convicts-quebec-woman-who-stopped-for-ducks/

Your logic is flawed. As far as I know there is no law that says you can stand in the middle of the street. There is a law that says you can ride your bike on the road. So these two scenarios aren't similar at all.

Seriously guys, she was found guilty in a court of law. That is the definition of breaking the law.

Lots of people break laws and are never found guilty in a court of law. Then, there are those that are wrongfully accused, sentenced to penalties, discovered later that they actually did not break any laws, and were exonerated (some after spending a lengthy stay in prison for crimes that they did not commit). Your definition needs work.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Some of you people sound like Republicans saying Obama is not really our president because he was born in Kenya. After reading this thread I am starting to understand the rage people feel towards cyclists.I wonder how many working Joes and Janes were late to work, and risked losing their jobs every day because this lady could not figure out how to move to the right. A few more idiots like her, and we won't have to debate the issue because it WILL be illegal to ride a bike on a road with cars present.

And for the love of God, no one said she could not ride on the friggin road. They said she could not do so in a manner that created a public risk.

As a final note, for those of you who have never set foot in a court of law, but feel compelled to explain with complete authority how our judicial system works...you are holding your breath too long while swimming. Spend less time on Slowtwitch and take a civics class.

This is like pounding sand down a rathole but...

Nobody is disputing that she has a right to ride her bike on the road. What is in dispute is the manner in which she chooses to do it.

And if she was all het up about her right to ride there, the time to fight it was after the first or second ticket. Not after her 5th overall.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Until said person is aquitted, they have broken a law, and were found guilty. This woman may in the future may win on appeal, at which point it will okay to say she hasn't broken any laws.

The fact that a cop issued a citation, and a judge ruled against her, means she has broken a law.

Okay, it seems you can recognize the difference between crossing the street (legal) and standing in the road blocking traffic in a way that has the potential to cause harm (illegal).

You are the only one suggesting that she was arrested for riding her bike on the road, which is stupid because that is legal. The issue is that she did so in a negligent way--something that is illegal, and something that a judge found her guilty of.

Are you able to see the difference?

I agree and found this to be true on my rides. The closer I am to the curb, the more the drivers try to give me a haircut. I don't ride full center, but I ride about a foot from the curb and most all drivers change lanes. Even on a two lane road with no congestion, I find drivers edging me out when/if I rode close to the curb. All they have to do is change lanes to give me some space and they refuse to do it. Quite frustrating.....

TriMick (just replying to this post as it was what I was reading when I hit reply):

To validate the definitions of the current law, you merely need to get the first citation and fight it all the way to the highest possible court or until you get the definition that you feel is correct. You do not need to repeatedly perform the act and then create outrage when you get repeatedly ticketed, and then arrested.

I have taken and passed the KY Bar exam (no longer licensed there) as well as exams in other states. I went to a grand liberal law school with a long tradition of civil rights activism and civil disobedience to protect civil and criminal wrongs. I had professors who marched with Dr. King, signed up voters during Freedom Summer and sat with the Weathermen while they planned the bombing of Sterling Hall in Madison. I get what you are saying about her rights and the law, but if you want to resolve the issue in the most expeditious way possible, this in not the route (pardon the pun). That is from the point of view of how to effectively and expeditiously assert and ensure your rights.

From a pure cycling point of view, there are too many outstanding roads to ride in this area to WANT to ride on Nicholasville Road. I get that it may be the most direct route or the fastest route but from a cyclist point of view, this road sucks. The traffic and the road conditions make this a really bad choice, regardless of her right to do so. I lived and worked in Frankfort, and rode with the Bluegrass Wheelmen team. To get to the rides, I had to transit from Frankfort to Lex, but I would not ride on 60, despite it being the best and most direct route. The pavement was lousy and the speed and traffic high. Old Frankfort Pike was a much better choice for my OVERALL needs.

I do not know what side of Nicholasville she lives in not where in Lex she was headed for work. It said she had an 18 mile commute and that takes her pretty far into Lex. Tates Creek would be a better cycling route, depending on her start and end points. There is not much to the west of Nicholasville, so I can sympathize with her plight. The area to the west is great for riding if you like hills but not so great for commuting. Roads are not oriented well towards Lex, except for Harrodsburg Road and that would be just as bad. I don't think she has good choice out that way. That being said, the 18 miles radius from Nicholasville would take her past most of the employment options to the West of Lex. So this seems more of a deliberate, provocative choice of routes.

Her actions were selfish and self-centered, designed to draw attention to herself and not designed to most effectively assert and define the rights she was looking to solidify. She made herself unlikeable in that setting and set the police up to escalate. The judge looked at her and found her unsympathetic and a person who needed to be shown a lesson, regardless of whether the facts exactly fit the law. It may be overturned on appeal, but the judge won't be out any time or money, it won't be on his permanent record, he was not charged and paraded publicly in the news and papers. It won't affect his ability to get a job. He did not poison the local police against bikers. Cops let cars get away with a lot of stuff that they could legitimately stop them for. Cops sometimes use the same areas of leeway to nail cyclists rather than letting these things slide. Wouldn't it be better to work with them and help them come to see that bikers are reasonable users of the road and can be given the same leeway as cars? Or is it better to beat them over the head?

---

Alan Stewart

Fixed that for you. :-)

With our Criminal Justice system, the only person that can say that she broke a law is a Judge.

The Cops can say that she broke the law, and charge her or arrest her but it's an allegation at that point and not a proven fact.

Then it goes to Court, the evidence is heard, she presents her side of the story and the verdict comes in: she broke the law. Now she is facing the entirely self-chosen consequences of her actions.

This is obviously one of those situations where you can present your side of the argument, and the other side can present theirs. In your own mind you're right and the other person is wrong and there is nothing that you can say or do to make the other person change their mind. Of course, without these arguments (and porn) the Internet would have dwindled out a long time ago. :-p

Trimick, clearly you feel very strongly about this. So....when are you going for your solidarity ride?

I have commuted the same road for years. The reason that person was noticed is they did not share back the lane easily. The shoulder is not a small gutter. It is 6 foot clear, has no potholes and is no dirtier than any other major 4 lane road. It's easy to let any backed up traffic be released. What I saw was this person quick with gestures and responses towards motorists. I am still paranoid about my commute as the goodwill here was compromised. I happened up on one of her stops by the police where she got a citation. Behavior was quirky at best. During this time I offered up any help I could give her and regretted saying it 10 minutes later while I was riding and talking with her. Attitude towards passing cars and interactions with police was not handled well.

How many are you going to anger on your commute? Be free with your mean gestures and mouth to people that pass you everyday - it just promotes more hostility. This person I understand has moved away and I am still nervous that someone she angered will mistake me for her. A wave or a smile (if you can muster it) at every opportunity. It works better for me when I am driving, bicycling, roller skating or walking.

It's bad enough that cyclists are put at risk, but now we are endangering Chinese dumplings. For me, that is a step too far.

Wanton =/= wonton.

She doesn't look like a triathalete, fuck her.

Hello Robert and All,

http://www.gofundme.com/8uvfkw

http://ballotpedia.org/Cherokee_Schill

Excerpts:

Cherokee Schill was a Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky in the 2015 election. She announced plans for a lieutenant gubernatorial run along with gubernatorial candidate Geoff Young on November 17, 2014.[1] Schill withdrew from the race on January 27, 2015, with Johnathan D. Masters replacing her as Young's running mate.[2]

Biography

Schill gained notoriety in 2014 for repeated run-ins with police in Lexington, Kentucky over her use of a bicycle on busy roadways. She was arrested and charged in October 2014 for wanton endangerment after riding her bike on U.S. Route 27.[3] Schill argued on her blog that she was following state law allowing cyclists to share roads with motorists.[4]
Elections 2015 See also: Kentucky gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2015
Schill was running for the position of Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky in 2015. She filed candidacy papers with the Kentucky Secretary of State on December 1, 2014.[5] Schill withdrew from the race at the filing deadline on January 27, 2015.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

So, the court of appeals reversed? If so, that's a sound ruling.

But, it's situations like this that keep me off the roads. Believe me, you can't please motorists. They want cyclists on the sidewalk, or on some local neighborhood cul-de-sac. Hell, most of the motorists want other MOTORISTS off the road. Given the number of horn beeps, fingers flying, and reckless disregard for traffic regulations I see, I'd say we've totally lost control of our highways. That's certainly true in N.J.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank