Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
http://blogs.mprnews.org/statewide/2013 ... de-dreams/“We believe that we can start manufacturing bikes right here in Minnesota. That’s in our game plan,” said Steve Flagg, chief executive of Bloomington-based Quality Bicycle Products.
It’s a risky idea, no doubt. Roughly 95 percent of bikes sold in the world are produced in Taiwan or China and production costs are a big question.
Good thing I don't live in Chanhassen. But if I did, I'd tell them about 169.06 SIGNS, SIGNALS, MARKINGS., Subd. 9.Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal. (a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions: ....This is good. Especially when you have cops in Chanhassen who pull bikes over for running reds after waiting for minutes
Being a motorcyclist I was lobbying for the change that made 169.06 a reality. You're reading it wrong if you think that telling the cop about it would make any difference though: it's an *affirmative defense*, which means that if you do it, the cop tickets you for it. You then go to the judge and plead that yes, you broke the law stating that you can't run a red light, but you did it under the affirmative defense legally stipulated in 169.06, subd. 9. The judge then considers the facts as you describe them surrounding why you ran the red light, and you are declared innocent by virtue of the fact that you couldn't have triggered the light. But the cops don't have to care, and the law explicitly does *not* exempt you from following the traffic lights; it just gives the judge the authority to consider the facts and decide that you were acting appropriately when you violated the law.Good thing I don't live in Chanhassen. But if I did, I'd tell them about 169.06 SIGNS, SIGNALS, MARKINGS., Subd. 9.Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal. (a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions: ....This is good. Especially when you have cops in Chanhassen who pull bikes over for running reds after waiting for minutes
Did she pass the sobriety test?It's Deputy Curtiss. The dudes a real jerk. He made my mom do a sobriety test at 11 pm for going 5 over the speed limit, then he calls in about 8 other officers for back up.
Do you know why it's an affirmative defense rather than just being legal? Seems like a waste of everyone's time to go to court over a silly little ticket like that.Being a motorcyclist I was lobbying for the change that made 169.06 a reality. You're reading it wrong if you think that telling the cop about it would make any difference though: it's an *affirmative defense*, which means that if you do it, the cop tickets you for it. You then go to the judge and plead that yes, you broke the law stating that you can't run a red light, but you did it under the affirmative defense legally stipulated in 169.06, subd. 9. The judge then considers the facts as you describe them surrounding why you ran the red light, and you are declared innocent by virtue of the fact that you couldn't have triggered the light. But the cops don't have to care, and the law explicitly does *not* exempt you from following the traffic lights; it just gives the judge the authority to consider the facts and decide that you were acting appropriately when you violated the law.Good thing I don't live in Chanhassen. But if I did, I'd tell them about 169.06 SIGNS, SIGNALS, MARKINGS., Subd. 9.Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal. (a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions: ....This is good. Especially when you have cops in Chanhassen who pull bikes over for running reds after waiting for minutes
(a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the bicycle or motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the bicycle or motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.