Dreaded cyclists

[narf]

Mopeds have an engine.

 

[prizrak]

Mopeds have an engine.

So?

Electric cars don't have an engine, do they not need to be licensed and registered?

 

[narf]

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine they do: "a machine for converting any of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion"

 

[prizrak]

Colloquially it's a motor not an engine but that distinction is not massively important, what is important is that despite the fact that EVs use different motive power from ICEs we don't treat them differently. By that same token there are bicycles with electric motors in them and yet they are treated same as purely human powered ones.

And yet again you have not given me any reasons why we should treat bicycles differently. What difference does it make what causes the forward motion?

 

[narf]

Colloquially it's a motor not an engine but that distinction is not massively important, what is important is that despite the fact that EVs use different motive power from ICEs we don't treat them differently. By that same token there are bicycles with electric motors in them and yet they are treated same as purely human powered ones.

And yet, you chose to make that distinction

Over here at least, bicycles with electric motors are treated differently. Unless it fits into a very narrow set of limitations (max 250W, only powered when you pedal, no power beyond 25km/h iirc), a bicycle with an electric motor needs insurance and plates and a helmet and a license.

 

[prizrak]

And yet, you chose to make that distinction

To illustrate the point.

Over here at least, bicycles with electric motors are treated differently. Unless it fits into a very narrow set of limitations (max 250W, only powered when you pedal, no power beyond 25km/h iirc), a bicycle with an electric motor needs insurance and plates and a helmet and a license.

So if I'm reading it correctly even though a bicycle is powered in some way by a motor it is still treated as a bicycle so once again, motive power is not the deciding factor, therefore I ask you yet again, what is the reasoning behind exempting certain vehicles and operators from basic requirements?

 

[narf]

Below a threshold it's not considered powered by the motor, but powered by the rider with aid from the motor. The motor won't propel you along on its own, you need to pedal along with it and if you want to do more than 25km/h you have to do that on your own with no motor aid.
Similar thresholds exist for ICE vehicles too. Take my brother-in-law's tractor, it has a diesel engine and can legally go on the road... but it has neither plates nor MOT. It's officially below 6km/h, so it's below the threshold for requiring those.

 

[prizrak]

Below a threshold it's not considered powered by the motor, but powered by the rider with aid from the motor. The motor won't propel you along on its own, you need to pedal along with it and if you want to do more than 25km/h you have to do that on your own with no motor aid.
Similar thresholds exist for ICE vehicles too. Take my brother-in-law's tractor, it has a diesel engine and can legally go on the road... but it has neither plates nor MOT. It's officially below 6km/h, so it's below the threshold for requiring those.

So again, what is your reasoning? You have yet to provide any legitimate argument to support your position

 

[narf]

I've told you a million times, in general the distinction is "powered" vs "not powered", whether that's ICE, gas turbine, battery, fuel cell, etc. At the low end of powered-ness there are exceptions and relaxations, as always the world isn't black and white.
The legal definition over here is "land vehicles which are moved by machine power without being bound to railroad tracks."

 

[SirEdward]

Below a threshold it's not considered powered by the motor, but powered by the rider with aid from the motor. The motor won't propel you along on its own, you need to pedal along with it and if you want to do more than 25km/h you have to do that on your own with no motor aid.

Boy, you should try the electric bikes, they go -fast-. And the human motion is just the way you activate the motor, after which, you make almost no effort at all. It's a circular accelerator pedal, if you want.

And 25 kph is -fast- for the slim tires and weak brakes and low weight of a bicycle. Don't forget that in many areas 30 kph are deemed -too fast- for cars, and unlike the bicycles cars can stop in the blink of an eye at that speed.

25 is indeed fast, it's fast enough to kill, it's fast enough to do damage, it's way faster then what is needed to make it impossible for cars to see them if they are turning right and they should yield. And the rider does almost no effort at all. I have tried them, and a friend with very bad knees has one exactly for that reason. And they are -heavy-

So you have higher mass, at higher speed, pushed by a motor. Yet electric bikes don't need insurance, registration, helmet, licence... why?

Don't overclassificate things in order to make a point: an electric bike is not a car or a motorbike, but it isn't a regular nor a small bike either, so if you divide by motorised/non motorised, electric bicycles -do have- a motor, if you divide by speed, electric bicycles can do on their own almost what is deemed too fast for cars (and with far less stability and braking abilities), if you divide by use, electric bicycles are used on the roads as other motorised vehicles.
They can be stolen like other vehicles, they cost a lot, they can inflict severe or lethal damage, they have a lot of energy.

So why should they be treated differently than any other vehicles?

BTW, it is clear that registration, insurance, regular inspections -have- to cost -a lot- less than for other vehicles, as it is clear that the driving licence for a bicycle should be -far easier- to get, requiring probably a tenth of what is needed for a car.

But it should be there nonetheless. It is terrible that it is possible to avoid fines by saying "I didn't know it was forbidden".

 

[Juge]

Prizrak:

Actually you can buy and register a car, for example without indicators, and be fully street legal and literally the only requirement for that is that the car was built before those lights became mandatory. If I remember correctly, indicators became mandatory in mid 1950's, Spectre might remember the exact date for that.

Here's the info for when the indicators became mandatory in California on different types of vehicles.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=24951

And around here, those hand signals, traffic rules, needed equipments, etc. etc. are taught in the elementary school. So it's not possible to avoid fines by saying "I didn't know".

 

[narf]

Boy, you should try the electric bikes, they go -fast-. And the human motion is just the way you activate the motor, after which, you make almost no effort at all. It's a circular accelerator pedal, if you want.

And 25 kph is -fast- for the slim tires and weak brakes and low weight of a bicycle. Don't forget that in many areas 30 kph are deemed -too fast- for cars, and unlike the bicycles cars can stop in the blink of an eye at that speed.

25 is indeed fast, it's fast enough to kill, it's fast enough to do damage, it's way faster then what is needed to make it impossible for cars to see them if they are turning right and they should yield. And the rider does almost no effort at all. I have tried them, and a friend with very bad knees has one exactly for that reason. And they are -heavy-

So you have higher mass, at higher speed, pushed by a motor. Yet electric bikes don't need insurance, registration, helmet, licence... why?

Don't overclassificate things in order to make a point: an electric bike is not a car or a motorbike, but it isn't a regular nor a small bike either, so if you divide by motorised/non motorised, electric bicycles -do have- a motor, if you divide by speed, electric bicycles can do on their own almost what is deemed too fast for cars (and with far less stability and braking abilities), if you divide by use, electric bicycles are used on the roads as other motorised vehicles.
They can be stolen like other vehicles, they cost a lot, they can inflict severe or lethal damage, they have a lot of energy.

So why should they be treated differently than any other vehicles?

BTW, it is clear that registration, insurance, regular inspections -have- to cost -a lot- less than for other vehicles, as it is clear that the driving licence for a bicycle should be -far easier- to get, requiring probably a tenth of what is needed for a car.

But it should be there nonetheless. It is terrible that it is possible to avoid fines by saying "I didn't know it was forbidden".

I'm not the one overclassifying here, just stating what our sensible rules have to say. All in all, traffic works fairly well with them.
As for higher mass, would a 4ft slim person on an electric bike need less insurance than a 6ft fatso on a regular bicycle? For even higher mass I'd go back to my brother-in-law's Fordson, it needs neither plates nor MOT to diesel along the roads.

As for the last bit, does claiming ignorance really work in Italy? Why do you even have police?

 

[SirEdward]

As for higher mass, would a 4ft slim person on an electric bike need less insurance than a 6ft fatso on a regular bicycle?

If he can do 25 kph with little to no effort... But then again, insurance is not the same for everyone...

I'm not the one overclassifying here, just stating what our sensible rules have to say.

You are already out of the discussion. Me and Prizrak, and Spectre, all say (regardless of our differences) that our rules are not sensible at all.

You can't therefore use your idea that rules are "sensible" as a basis to build your argument, or you do and you show that you are talking alone because you are not listening to anyone else, or you are mocking other people. Either way, it doesn't work as a useful tool for conversation.

Your choice, but in case you don't want to confront your ideas, only listen to your own echo, I don't think there's much we can share and therefore not much interest in the discussion, apart from showing and laughing at yout deafness. So, in this case, you may well go on and talk to yourself, because what I could show I already did.

As for the last bit, does claiming ignorance really work in Italy? Why do you even have police?

If you are not required to know the law, why shouldn't it work? You may also argue that it was the other person that should have paid attention, since they were the ones knowing the rules.

That's a mess.

 

[prizrak]

I've told you a million times, in general the distinction is "powered" vs "not powered", whether that's ICE, gas turbine, battery, fuel cell, etc. At the low end of powered-ness there are exceptions and relaxations, as always the world isn't black and white.
The legal definition over here is "land vehicles which are moved by machine power without being bound to railroad tracks."

Again and again and again and again and again, why does motive power matter and if it does then why is it that bicycle is the only thing human powered that's allowed on the road?

Prizrak:

Actually you can buy and register a car, for example without indicators, and be fully street legal and literally the only requirement for that is that the car was built before those lights became mandatory. If I remember correctly, indicators became mandatory in mid 1950's, Spectre might remember the exact date for that.

Here's the info for when the indicators became mandatory in California on different types of vehicles.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=24951

And around here, those hand signals, traffic rules, needed equipments, etc. etc. are taught in the elementary school. So it's not possible to avoid fines by saying "I didn't know".

And again, an edge case that doesn't matter on any level. How many pre-1950s cars do you actually see on the road? How many come up for sale? It's right up there with a horse and buggy that narf posted, not widely used enough to cause any real issues.
I never went to elementary school in the US so no idea if they were taught or not in NY, though once my kids are older I'll find out. That in and of itself is actually part of the problem, you can't expect that all people went to elementary school (many bicycle riders here are delivery who are often first wave immigrants who came here as adults) that taught these hand signals. Nor can you realistically rely on something that is not commonly used being retained for decades after elementary school. Not to mention things like difficulty seeing hand signals in the dark. Motorcycles have factory lights and signals, don't see why bicycles can't, LEDs are cheap.

 

[Spectre]

Prizrak:

Actually you can buy and register a car, for example without indicators, and be fully street legal and literally the only requirement for that is that the car was built before those lights became mandatory. If I remember correctly, indicators became mandatory in mid 1950's, Spectre might remember the exact date for that.

Here's the info for when the indicators became mandatory in California on different types of vehicles.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=24951

And around here, those hand signals, traffic rules, needed equipments, etc. etc. are taught in the elementary school. So it's not possible to avoid fines by saying "I didn't know".

You cannot, however, buy a *new* car from a dealership that is missing indicators, lights, etc., and have it be immediately street legal. In fact, aside from specialty racing or off-road vehicles, you *can't* buy a new car that doesn't come with lights, indicators and everything else. Prizrak's point still stands as you can buy a bicycle advertised as being for street use and it won't come with lighting or indicators or anything.

Hand signals and traffic rules are no longer taught in most American schools and haven't been for 20 years or so. Even when they were, they were not taught until high school and you were about 15-16. And that was an optional class to start with, so you didn't have to learn it.

Part of the point of a license is to show that you did, indeed, learn the rules of the road and have agreed to obey them and will accept the penalties for bad behavior. No license means that the bicyclist can *and usually does* claim that they didn't know the rules and there's f**k-all the authorities can do about it.

"Federal ID" won't help as the courts have long held that Americans have no requirement to carry identification with them except if they are specifically legally required to for a specific task. If you are doing anything other than, say, operating a motor vehicle, entering a secured area like an airport or military facility, applying for welfare, etc. If you are just walking around, the government is forbidden from requiring citizens to carry identification. Because no license is required for a bicycle, no identification is required and bicyclists not only can but do lie to officers to avoid having to pay citations and the like.

Not to mention things like difficulty seeing hand signals in the dark. Motorcycles have factory lights and signals, don't see why bicycles can't, LEDs are cheap.

I will need to go look at the LimeBike rental bike (LOL, that's been a joke in the Dallas area) that someone abandoned near one of my clients to check, but the ones I've seen have had lights and I think signals. Note: It's been abandoned for two weeks and LimeBike hasn't come to get their property back.

 

[prizrak]

Because no license is required for a bicycle, no identification is required and bicyclists not only can but do lie to officers to avoid having to pay citations and the like.

While the rules don't say anything about having an ID when operating a bike, from what I understand NYPD does have the right to detain you for up to 72 hours to confirm your identity. Granted that would apply to anyone who is walking as well, though last time I got stopped by 5-0 on foot (also the only time) they didn't ask for an ID at all.

I will need to go look at the LimeBike rental bike (LOL, that's been a joke in the Dallas area) that someone abandoned near one of my clients to check, but the ones I've seen have had lights and I think signals. Note: It's been abandoned for two weeks and LimeBike hasn't come to get their property back.

CitiBikes all come with front and rear lights, as per NY law they are only required from dusk till dawn, hand signals for the rest of the stuff, which I frankly still don't understand. LEDs are cheap, batteries in them last for literal years and they can easily be mounted on ends of handlebars. You know what is idiotically NOT required in any shape or form? A god damn rear view mirror, which means the tards often simply go into your path without even realizing it when avoiding open doors or the moon craters in the road. In fact I had a dent in the Z from just such a person...

 

[narf]

If you are not required to know the law, why shouldn't it work? You may also argue that it was the other person that should have paid attention, since they were the ones knowing the rules.

You're not required to know that theft, property damage, etc. are illegal either, yet claiming ignorance is hardly going to work.

 

[prizrak]

You're not required to know that theft, property damage, etc. are illegal either, yet claiming ignorance is hardly going to work.

I like how you are still completely dancing around the issue. And BTW it is possible to get out of administrative fines, which is what moving violations are, by claiming ignorance as it is the state's job to make sure statutes are known.

 

[narf]

I like how you are still completely dancing around the issue. And BTW it is possible to get out of administrative fines, which is what moving violations are, by claiming ignorance as it is the state's job to make sure statutes are known.

How is showing flaws in arguments dancing around? If the arguments itself are already irrelevant to the issue, well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

 

[prizrak]

How is showing flaws in arguments dancing around? If the arguments itself are already irrelevant to the issue, well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignora...is_non_excusat

Because yet again you have not made any argument as to why bicycles should be exempt.
Also your entire premise is flawed because you are comparing administrative and criminal offenses. I had a parking ticket dismissed before because of the sign not being clear enough (it was in a very strange location and didn't seem to have anything to do with where I parked). So I was ignorant of the fact that it was a no parking zone, and it was the city's job to make sure I was aware of it, they failed at their job and hence had to dismiss the fine.
Also your own link states the following:

In criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[SUP][4][/SUP] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

An absolute discharge is an unconditional discharge where the Court finds that a crime has technically been committed, but that any punishment of the defendant would be inappropriate, and the case is closed. In some jurisdictions, an absolute discharge means there is no conviction on the defendant's record, despite the plea of the defendant.

So you have completely and utterly failed to show any flaws and unsuccessfully attempted to dance around the bigger issue yet again.

You have not provided a single argument for your position beyond motive power, which is really a non argument as it is largely irrelevant. I honestly don't understand why you even bother with the discussion, you don't seem to be interested in it in the least.