Hi Kevin,

Thanks for commenting and linking to Duae Quartunciae.

Many of your points are good ones. It gets tricky as you go into fine details, but I suspect you are right about the most appropriate way to implement a stop. Although, as a cyclist, I think I’d find a siren worse than a shout at making me jump.

I can see less than perfect actions on both sides, and differences in the accounts from both sides, and I have preferred not to focus too much on matters of style. There was good cause for a stop and a check; as I see the road situation there. I’m sure it could have been managed better. I suspect that the police were in a hurry; since they were on a call at the time to look for a teenage runaway.

I absolutely agree with you about wanting to get away as quickly and quietly as possible. One of the problems for Mr Orsak is that he chose not to. He was given a perfect opportunity to leave legally and safely very early in the exchange, and by his own account he chose to stay and argue the law with the police. That’s by his own account.

My point about taking matters up with superiors is that this is always a better option in comparison with trying to argue police into your perspective on the matter at the time. That’s pure pragmatics. You have the right to argue your case. It’s just not a very sensible approach. The ACLU guide, which is linked at one of my blog comments, gives some solid good advice on protecting yourself when stopped by police.

Yes, I do think that you should simply obey when stopped by police; unless the instructions are likely to cause you harm. That wasn’t a problem in this case. Legally, I think that the police are empowered to “direct traffic” and though you might well dispute their judgment, the laws do actually provide for this. I think that is pragmatic good sense, frankly.

To obey the police, in this instance, would have meant minimal inconvenience to Stephan, and a safer ride.

I’m not saying yield unconditionally, if we are going to get into extremes. Some of the comments at Stephan’s blog are extremely crude, and speak of just bending over and let’s not go there any further. But when it comes to straightforward traffic directions, just do it is excellent advice. It’s best legally, it’s best for your personal protection in the risks of an encounter going bad, and it does not prevent you making complaints later when they have more chance of actually being effective. You can of course ask a question or propose an alternative. Do it politely, for your own safety, but don’t argue the matter.

What strikes me most forcefully about this is that when Stephan decided to break off the discussion, he chose to ride away from police on foot, going against traffic on a one way road, after having been told specifically to walk. This makes nonsense of the byline on Stephan’s blog that he did nothing illegal, and that he was tasered merely for riding at the airport.

That one action stands out in the whole unfortunate account. Everything else might have been done unwisely or unfairly or aggressively. But with that act, it moved up a notch into deliberately illegal; and with him on a bike and riding away from police on foot, there was no way it could end gently.

I doubt that Stephan’s protestations about the illegality of the original stop are well founded. How it was done could be debated endlessly, but there seems to be good grounds to stop a cyclist on that road, even if there were no signs to prohibit bicycles at the time.

Cheers — Duae Quartunciae