Eureka’s crazy bike ordinance; pulled!

LoCO is reporting that Eureka’s crazy bike ordinance has been sent back to the City Attorney for a rewrite. If Day-Wilson was responsible for its content in the first place, no wonder why it has been catching so much flak. Attorney Day Wilson has left behind a trail of bad legal advice wherever she’s gone.

Original Post:

Outlaw Bikers invade Eureka???

Outlaw biker

Outlaw biker? and her tricked out ride

The Examiner recently reported on the Eureka Police Departments priorities under the leadership of Chief Mills:

True to their promise, EPD is “Charging Forward” with pushing a new bicycle ordinance.

It’s great to see that they backed off of the ridiculous idea of turning your 8 year old child into a criminal for riding a bike on the sidewalk. However, the bonehead ideas just keep spilling out of Mill’s head. According to the Lost Coast Outpost, two of the provisions are:

“A person shall not leave a bicycle, except in a bicycle rack.” And if a rack’s not available, you must make sure it’s not blocking a driveway, sidewalk or door”

“No person riding or operating a bicycle shall perform or attempt to perform any acrobatic, fancy or stunt riding upon any public place in the City.”

WTF? No Seriously WTF?

bike 1

This is what this Chief wants to waste police department resources on, spending precious hours wasting officers and PSO’s time? Hey folks! We have two recent unsolved murders to deal with in this town.

bike 3

Here’s and idea! How about finding the person who stabbed the teenager to death or the person that shot down a man on 15th Street? It is beyond belief to think that officers in Eureka will be focused on writing tickets to young folks for “fancy” bike riding, instead of solving murders.

bike cart

Mills will probably recommend life in prison for this kid since he’s combined a dreaded shopping cart and a bike!



32 thoughts on “Eureka’s crazy bike ordinance; pulled!

  1. I followed a link to this? Tuluwat stupidity!
    You should be ashamed to call this journalism, or even anything close.
    Why not do an actual article about the entire ordinance?

    1st, and LAST time visitor!


  2. Punitive ordinances before bike lanes in one of the most dangerous cities in CA?


    Liked by 1 person

  3. Idea in general is right direction, but its designed to be ineffective and a question of equal rights protections.

    Fifteen and under versus sixteen and older

    Only one way roads instead of all roads

    Bikers intimidate walkers but

    Utility poles, fire hydrants, mail boxes, PGE vault boxes, etc are blocking sidewalks to the extent that ADA regulation can’t be provided.

    Bikers simply cause more accidents than bike supporters are willing to admit.

    Of course, to mandate bikers ride in unkept bike lanes is a danger legitimately.

    Get a street sweeper ordinance and nail two or more birds with one stone. Streets cleaned for gutter system and safer bike riding plus it moves vehicles from being stored on public street.


    • Ever since the “Eureka Citizen-Retired USAF Col-Paul P.-AmTex” Troll attacks here, other Trolls must have smelled blood in the blog waters. HOJ is a famous one.

      Liked by 1 person

    • There is no age discrimination. CA law splits the bike rules at the age of 16, since it is also the age when a person is able to obtain a driver’s license.

      The ordinance doesn’t just cover one-way streets. It was used as an example, but riding against traffic on any street has always been wrong.

      Bikes are defined as vehicles and are subject to the CA vehicle code, when the operator is 16 and over.

      This is really nothing new, just makes the offenses local, and easier to prosecute, than the state statutes.


      • what it makes easier is the profiling and harassment of people on bikes, including criminals and homeless among them.
        After one citation they impound your bike the second. Pretty harsh I’d say.

        And I would guess that if the EPD actually starts enforcing this (I have seen them enforce all the existing bike riding laws covering where and how ridden, as well as at lights and stop signs. They have no problem stopping people for bad riding practices, none.

        This is profiling and harassment.

        This will cost the city money in the inevitable legal challenges, one challenge might be that the very committee that proposed this has done nothing about obvious traffic dangers littering Eureka with very out of date conditions no modern town would dare allow…yet they propose this?…..and for no result except harassment.
        You vigilantes already want to do that, some even brag that they photograph, try to stop and ‘nicely talk to’ (intimidation is at least harassment almost assault) and one famous idjit even chased one recklessly thru town…and admitted it.

        I’ve been robbed by pedestrians and car driving criminals, no bikes that I know of involved.

        This is not about bikes and traffic safety, this is some arm twister’s Great Idea trying to look like ‘We’re doing Something.’ 5 ‘citizen’s proposed this..yeah, I think we know this approach by now…..

        It’s weak and shameful and embarrassing.

        And in a town where both sides of any politicized issue agree about excessive government intrusions on our rights, this is shameful to not oppose this obvious overreach.

        EPD, enforce the existing laws…as you have done and still can do.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Maybe a contact high from associating with stimulated people.


  5. This is classic Eureka, Criminalizing youth. Just like with skate boards. This dates back to the good old days of recruiting kids to pull greenchain at the mills


  6. In reading the LoCo article, it says that the idea of an ordinance was from the Transportation Safety Commission, yet the Tulatwat makes it sound like it came from Chief Mills. Which is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Chief Mills should put Capt. Brian Stephens incharge of this boondoggle. I just hope none of these kids has a BB pistol.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Perhaps Chief Mills has an ulterior motive. This ordinance surely must mandate a new LE elite bike corps for effective enforcement. How else will they be able to pursue and apprehend offenders? That should improve cardiovascular/weight problems normally associated with the LE profession.

    And, as Liberal Jon notes above, will foster more bike rack installations by businesses. Especially doughnut shoppes. Damn! Almost a good idea, Chief.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I can just see the massive bike rack installation at Happy Donuts.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I wonder if that will be Felony Failure to Park your Bike in a Rack, or Misdemeanor Failure to Park your Bike in a Rack? We might have to add this to the Prop 47 list. It does appear that the Chief couldn’t give a squat about real violent unsolved crime like, Murders?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. And NO SKIPPING! Cavorting, you’re on notice…..Respect Mah Authoroteh!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  12. “LoCO is reporting that Eureka’s crazy bike ordinance has been sent back to the City Attorney for a rewrite.”

    I have a better idea, toss the whole thing in the round file and enforce the laws that are already on the books instead of writing new, redundant, stupid ones just so it will look like you’re doing something.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Haven’t lived here long, eh?

    This city doesn’t belong to you, its owners haphazardly developed Eureka to suit the moneyed interests still in control, they could care less that our streets are among the least safe in this entire state to walk, bike or drive. They’ve done little to change that.

    Enacting, enforcing, and promoting broad, punitive cycling rules might inhibit enough bike riders from using Eureka streets and, therefore, reduce the horrendous statistics.

    Many of the bike riders cannot afford cars and are homeless. Loading them up with more sources of fines and court hearings, like the panhandling ordinance, will make sure they remain in debt for years.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. It will be very interesting to hear the back story on this. I suspect a council member or two raise concerns over being publicly embarrassed by this travesty.


  15. Skate or Die! Ill do tricks in your face!


  16. Woof TE..the Times standard via Fred has a sytory on a potential gold pore processing plant proposed for the pulp mill site to be heard at the thursday harbor meeting.

    Not a lot of notice to the public, Baykeepr is already on it.

    The 1500′ pipe to the ocean was not mentioned in the article as a benefit but lots of other things noted: sea access, mid west coast, potential custom ore milling the detritus to be incorporated into cast concrete items.

    There are a lot of toxic chemicals and the waste water concerns should be the biggest concern of all…assuming dust controls are , wait, assume noting.

    This would be right on the bay, right next to the oyster industry in the bay.

    Interesting the TS quoted the ‘jobs-jobs-jobs’ theme.

    Might this be the corp that ‘EC’ was yammering about?… an extractive industry seeking big concessions from us, sure fits that profile I predicted.

    Promises to be interesting. Crider:…’we’re just talking..’..which is all good fun until that becomes legal entanglements the taxpayers have to fund.

    we’ll see.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. yeah, see, this is why you get the big bucks..NOW for the link to the story:

    and fred:

    no doubt Baykeeper will be on or has been on KHUM maybe today and LOcCO and NCJ should be covering it as well.

    So..this has been known long enough to be scheduled for a Thursday meeting, yet nobody except the TS had the story?


    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s