| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2011 10:51:08 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by crowis:
For the record, I never said I belonged in the roadway. I was merely questioning it's legality. And when it comes to the risk, only an idiot would assume standing where I was standing was a risk free endeavor. However, when I want a shot, I want a shot, and if I want to put myself at personal risk, then that is my choice. There are many shots on this site, and others, where the photographer has put themselves in great risk to capture the moment they wanted. I was nice to the officer, did not give him any "grief" over the incident and left. I just found it funny that setting up a camera in a median (a pretty wide one where I was standing) was considered so hazardous that the police felt they had to put a stop to it. |
It seems you falied to read my previous post. I think you are overlooking the fact that you were risking not only your own safety but also the safety of others. Nobody would dispute your right to risk your own life, but not when you risk others at the same time, you don't have such right.  raish stated the same in a more entertaining way. |
|
|
|
12/18/2011 11:00:34 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
There are very strict safety standards for working in a state roadway. I am assuming the bridge is a part of the state highway system.
First of all from a personal safety standpoint, you must have a reflective safety vest and in some cases safety shoes (steel toe boots) and a hard hat. All items have to conform to the state department of transportation safety code.
Second, from a traffic standpoint, depending on the type of highway and the type and location of the work, signs and traffic control devices have to be placed according to the state department of transportation specifications. There may be laws governing the use of law officers for traffic control who may need to be present on the site at the expense of the operator.
Third, from a beaureaucratic and political perpective, there are permits and approvals to be acquired from the state department of transportation all subject to fees. This needs to be done well in advance to taking any action on the roadway. Knowing how government works, permits could take weeks to years in order to obtain.
Keep in mind the state DOT is a branch of government directly under the headship of the governor of your state who is also in charge of the state troopers who patrol the state roads.
So you did a bold but risky thing to get out in the middle of the median on a busy, state owned bridge to take such a fine looking shot. But keep in mind there are volumes of manuals written on the correct and proper procedures one must take in order to occupy a state right-of-way. |
This scares me.
If a person wants to stand in a public place and take photos... or whatever, a person should be able to.
It's not like he was attempting suicide (which is against the law, too *rolleyes*), he was taking photos on public property.
If drivers are distracted by people on the roadside, I suggest they not drive. People go about the Earth freely... so one should expect to see them about... especially in public places.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2011 11:16:23 PM · #28 |
I have read this thread with great interest. both as a driver and as a pedestrian.
I suppose it's obvious, but think of it this way:
Sidewalks are designed for walkers.
Roads are designed for cars.
I don't drive on the sidewalk, and as a pedestrian, I don't walk on the roadway...
or on the thin dividing strip between lanes. That strip/median is not a no-man's-land,
that is for a separation of traffic. |
|
|
|
12/18/2011 11:48:23 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by crowis:
For the record, I never said I belonged in the roadway. I was merely questioning it's legality. And when it comes to the risk, only an idiot would assume standing where I was standing was a risk free endeavor. However, when I want a shot, I want a shot, and if I want to put myself at personal risk, then that is my choice. There are many shots on this site, and others, where the photographer has put themselves in great risk to capture the moment they wanted. I was nice to the officer, did not give him any "grief" over the incident and left. I just found it funny that setting up a camera in a median (a pretty wide one where I was standing) was considered so hazardous that the police felt they had to put a stop to it. |
It seems you falied to read my previous post. I think you are overlooking the fact that you were risking not only your own safety but also the safety of others. Nobody would dispute your right to risk your own life, but not when you risk others at the same time, you don't have such right. raish stated the same in a more entertaining way. |
I read your prior post, and disregarded your argument with very little effort. Many people cross bridges, highways, and roadways on a daily basis. If someone standing near where you are driving causes you so much distress that it endangers yourself and/or other drivers then you need not to be behind the wheel. If people got into accidents every time something unusual happened in their field of vision the highway would appear much more Mad Maxian.
@General E: I have nothing but respect for the people (if not the laws they must sometimes uphold) who work in law enforcement. Being rude to a police officer is being rude to myself. If I don't like what an officer has done I can always talk to the captain/sheriff etc. after the fact. There is no reason to take it out on some poor guy who is doing what he feels is his job. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:41:03 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by crowis:
I read your prior post, and disregarded your argument with very little effort....... |
I know, I am no longer surprised. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 03:12:55 AM · #31 |
| This Newfie was hitchhiking with some friends, after a long stretch they decided to set up camp on the side of the road but the newfie just laid down on the yellow line which divides the roadway in half. The guys tried to get him to move but he didn't want to hear about it, he was sleeping right in the middle of the street! That night a car was driving down the road and saw him lying there, he swerved and hit the ditch. The Newfie got up and said "HAh! Good thing I didn't camp, I'd be dead too!" |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 06:01:16 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by crowis:
I wanted to sit in the large median between lanes, and thus get both sides of traffic streaming past me. Keep in mind, this is a No Drive Median. It is not protected by concrete barricateds, but I was standing very close to the concrete division.
Once we were on the shoulder, he once again asked me why I was standing in the median. To which I asked if it was illegal for me to stand there. He would not respond in the negative or affirmative (as he probably did not know), but instead advised me of the safety dangers of said behavior, scanned my license, and told me to be on my way.
I still have no clue if it is illicit to stand there (and yes, I am aware of the personal risk), but if I choose to take a risk for my art, who gives a crap? Obviously, the Kennewick Police Department. I have no desire to start a brawl with the local police over a single shooting location, but come on. . . |
RWC 46.61.250: Pedestrians on roadways. I interpret the law to say it was illegal for you to be in the median / middle of the highway since there are sidewalks for pedestrians. (It looks like there are sidewalks on both sides of he highway per Googlemaps street view.) |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 07:02:36 AM · #33 |
The crash barriers are there for a reason. Mostly for cars to bounce off of. Standing behind one isn't the best idea.
And if a cop sees you, smiles and drives on. Then gets the radio call 20 minutes later that some guy was flattened by a juggernaut, he'd probably get sacked. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 10:49:26 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This Newfie was hitchhiking with some friends, after a long stretch they decided to set up camp on the side of the road but the newfie just laid down on the yellow line which divides the roadway in half. The guys tried to get him to move but he didn't want to hear about it, he was sleeping right in the middle of the street! That night a car was driving down the road and saw him lying there, he swerved and hit the ditch. The Newfie got up and said "HAh! Good thing I didn't camp, I'd be dead too!" |
He won't get it. He is the guy that will run a red light and then blame you for t-boning him, because he thinks that "If people got into accidents every time something unusual happened in their field of vision the highway would appear much more Mad Maxian." (his exact own words).
|
|
|
|
12/19/2011 11:01:37 AM · #35 |
It's typically illegal to walk across or along anywhere in the easement for limited access roads.
Sounds like you're trying really hard to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Message edited by author 2011-12-19 11:02:23. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 11:38:32 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This Newfie was hitchhiking with some friends, after a long stretch they decided to set up camp on the side of the road but the newfie just laid down on the yellow line which divides the roadway in half. The guys tried to get him to move but he didn't want to hear about it, he was sleeping right in the middle of the street! That night a car was driving down the road and saw him lying there, he swerved and hit the ditch. The Newfie got up and said "HAh! Good thing I didn't camp, I'd be dead too!" |
He won't get it. He is the guy that will run a red light and then blame you for t-boning him, because he thinks that "If people got into accidents every time something unusual happened in their field of vision the highway would appear much more Mad Maxian." (his exact own words). |
Really, Kaspar. It seems that you don't read too well. I have more than admitted that standing where I was, was a personal risk--I have never denied that it was potentially dangerous. I understand this theory. However, their are legions of bungee jumpers and cliff divers who do riskier things everyday--so trying to imply that I am either stupid or over the top doesn't seem to ring true. And yes, Kaspar, if people over-reacted to everything they saw in their field of vision that was unusual then the roads would become a disaster zone.
Secondly, I really am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I just think that it is sad that virtually everything is illegal these days. BTW, in that arena, I found out that if a driver did manage to hit me there, he would be considered "at fault" as he would have to cross a double line to do so. Also, if he swerved and hit another driver, he would also be at fault for "crossing a lane of travel without adequate warning or signal". . . I also found out that the police officer that stopped to question my activity also broke the law, as my activities did not constitute an emergency by the local law enforcements definition and he should have parked away from traffic and approached me from off the road. . . And this is where I am getting at. Is everything illegal these days? Is the chance of the chance of the chance that something bad might happpen so great that the law has to provide a thousand stipulations on every type of imaginable behavior? Or is it possible to be able to just "take a risk" and suffer the consequences if you fail? Not in the US apparently.
And again, if I had argued with the officer or made a scene that would be another issue. But, I did not. I complied quickly and without argument, and was polite to the officer to boot.
Message edited by author 2011-12-19 11:39:07.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2011 11:59:34 AM · #37 |
The cop was telling you, basically, to leave before an accident was caused or someone, including you, got hurt.
unfortunately though you aren't easily allowed to take on personal risk in such a litigious society, think about it, you have to wear helmets on bikes and seatbelts in cars, when so many people dont assume accountability for their actions, its must be assumed they none of us do. we need to be protected of our own stupidity whether we want to or not.
if you want to take such a picture next time, call the local police and let them know you want to be out there. tell them where you plan to be, that you wont be on private property and ask them if its safe and if you are allowed, they may actually oblige.
Message edited by author 2011-12-19 12:00:42. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 12:27:19 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This Newfie was hitchhiking with some friends, after a long stretch they decided to set up camp on the side of the road but the newfie just laid down on the yellow line which divides the roadway in half. The guys tried to get him to move but he didn't want to hear about it, he was sleeping right in the middle of the street! That night a car was driving down the road and saw him lying there, he swerved and hit the ditch. The Newfie got up and said "HAh! Good thing I didn't camp, I'd be dead too!" |
He won't get it. He is the guy that will run a red light and then blame you for t-boning him, because he thinks that "If people got into accidents every time something unusual happened in their field of vision the highway would appear much more Mad Maxian." (his exact own words). |
Really, Kaspar. It seems that you don't read too well. I have more than admitted that standing where I was, was a personal risk--I have never denied that it was potentially dangerous. I understand this theory. However, their are legions of bungee jumpers and cliff divers who do riskier things everyday--so trying to imply that I am either stupid or over the top doesn't seem to ring true. And yes, Kaspar, if people over-reacted to everything they saw in their field of vision that was unusual then the roads would become a disaster zone.
Secondly, I really am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I just think that it is sad that virtually everything is illegal these days. BTW, in that arena, I found out that if a driver did manage to hit me there, he would be considered "at fault" as he would have to cross a double line to do so. Also, if he swerved and hit another driver, he would also be at fault for "crossing a lane of travel without adequate warning or signal". . . I also found out that the police officer that stopped to question my activity also broke the law, as my activities did not constitute an emergency by the local law enforcements definition and he should have parked away from traffic and approached me from off the road. . . And this is where I am getting at. Is everything illegal these days? Is the chance of the chance of the chance that something bad might happpen so great that the law has to provide a thousand stipulations on every type of imaginable behavior? Or is it possible to be able to just "take a risk" and suffer the consequences if you fail? Not in the US apparently.
And again, if I had argued with the officer or made a scene that would be another issue. But, I did not. I complied quickly and without argument, and was polite to the officer to boot. |
What you fail to understand is that it's not just your own safety you're endangering.
If you want to take a personal risk and suffer the consequences if you fail, there are plenty of activities I can suggest, like free-climbing or solo trekking through the backcountry. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:05:18 PM · #39 |
Fair enough. If everyone thinks I am endangering others by taking pictures in that locale then it must be a bigger issue then I realized. It's tough to get good angles sometimes. : (
|
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:09:18 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you want to take a personal risk and suffer the consequences if you fail, there are plenty of activities I can suggest, like free-climbing or solo trekking through the backcountry. |
and if you get lost or caught in an avalanche or fall off a ledge... they send people to help/save you (I mean most people doing that carry a radio to get help right)... in turn putting the rescuers lives at risk..... That not the case?? How is that any different? |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:11:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Fair enough. If everyone thinks I am endangering others by taking pictures in that locale then it must be a bigger issue then I realized. It's tough to get good angles sometimes. : ( |
Oh alright then. How about; "Booo to security guards and police! - You were well within your rights as a photographer. Here's a link to the 'photographers rights' PDF. Download that and show it to the cops the next time. And get their badge number"
That should cheer you up.. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:40:58 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by crowis:
Fair enough. If everyone thinks I am endangering others by taking pictures in that locale then it must be a bigger issue then I realized. It's tough to get good angles sometimes. : ( |
Oh alright then. How about; "Booo to security guards and police! - You were well within your rights as a photographer. Here's a link to the 'photographers rights' PDF. Download that and show it to the cops the next time. And get their badge number"
That should cheer you up.. ;-) |
Nobody is disputing his right to take a photograpph. It is his right to be in that median that is in question. It looks like he finally got it though, so, good for him. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 01:52:17 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you want to take a personal risk and suffer the consequences if you fail, there are plenty of activities I can suggest, like free-climbing or solo trekking through the backcountry. |
and if you get lost or caught in an avalanche or fall off a ledge... they send people to help/save you (I mean most people doing that carry a radio to get help right)... in turn putting the rescuers lives at risk..... That not the case?? How is that any different? |
I meant the family driving their minivan down the road to grandma's that would swerve to avoid him while he's playing Frogger on the expressway and they roll, causing them to spend the holidays in ICU or the morgue.
Why would he carry a radio, PLB or cell phone??...it's all about taking the risk and being personally accountable for the whole measure of that risk, right? |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 08:40:14 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by crowis:
To which I asked if it was illegal for me to stand there. He would not respond in the negative or affirmative (as he probably did not know) |
Most don't know, but if you're going to do questionable things, such as this, it's best that YOU DO KNOW. Besides, it's fun to correct law enforcement (citing specific code) when they are wrong. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/19/2011 08:53:38 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This Newfie was hitchhiking with some friends, after a long stretch they decided to set up camp on the side of the road but the newfie just laid down on the yellow line which divides the roadway in half. The guys tried to get him to move but he didn't want to hear about it, he was sleeping right in the middle of the street! That night a car was driving down the road and saw him lying there, he swerved and hit the ditch. The Newfie got up and said "HAh! Good thing I didn't camp, I'd be dead too!" |
He won't get it. He is the guy that will run a red light and then blame you for t-boning him, because he thinks that "If people got into accidents every time something unusual happened in their field of vision the highway would appear much more Mad Maxian." (his exact own words). |
Really, Kaspar. It seems that you don't read too well. I have more than admitted that standing where I was, was a personal risk--I have never denied that it was potentially dangerous. I understand this theory. However, their are legions of bungee jumpers and cliff divers who do riskier things everyday--so trying to imply that I am either stupid or over the top doesn't seem to ring true. And yes, Kaspar, if people over-reacted to everything they saw in their field of vision that was unusual then the roads would become a disaster zone.
Secondly, I really am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I just think that it is sad that virtually everything is illegal these days. BTW, in that arena, I found out that if a driver did manage to hit me there, he would be considered "at fault" as he would have to cross a double line to do so. Also, if he swerved and hit another driver, he would also be at fault for "crossing a lane of travel without adequate warning or signal". . . I also found out that the police officer that stopped to question my activity also broke the law, as my activities did not constitute an emergency by the local law enforcements definition and he should have parked away from traffic and approached me from off the road. . . And this is where I am getting at. Is everything illegal these days? Is the chance of the chance of the chance that something bad might happpen so great that the law has to provide a thousand stipulations on every type of imaginable behavior? Or is it possible to be able to just "take a risk" and suffer the consequences if you fail? Not in the US apparently.
And again, if I had argued with the officer or made a scene that would be another issue. But, I did not. I complied quickly and without argument, and was polite to the officer to boot. |
It was just a joke... XD
And for the record, yes... I do agree that cops to take things way too seriously, even more so in the US. I bet that if this would have happened in Canada, the cop would have either of waited and of had a nice conversation with you or they would have flagged the cars until you were done. Actually, that's what they do when they see me laying face first in the middle of the street. |
|
|
|
12/19/2011 11:58:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by raish:
Sunday, 6.00 pm, photographer ARTIST smeared across Columbia bridge in a brave attempt to snap a shot from the middle of the bridge. There were no other casualties, just a couple of drivers treated for shock after the accident, and a certain amount of vehicle damage due to collisions, etc. Both carriageways were reopened at around 8.30.
Actually, that didn't happen because an officer decided he could do without all that at the end of his weekend and moved the photographer on. |
This is the best summary of the entire thread. :) Except that there likely would've been other casualties. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 08:47:56 AM · #47 |
| How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:03:11 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by crowis:
... I was nice to the officer, did not give him any "grief" over the incident and left. I just found it funny that setting up a camera in a median (a pretty wide one where I was standing) was considered so hazardous that the police felt they had to put a stop to it. |
This is what I'm finding the most interesting in this, thread ... the number of "incidents" where the police/security officer makes a reasonable and polite inquiry, and the situation is quickly and amicably resolved -- quite a refreshing change from the usual stories ... |
I had this recently when taking this shot:
When trying to take a similar image from within the bollards a security guard came up to me and informed me it was prohibited to take photos with a tripod here. I said okay and started collapsing my tripod and as I's doing this enquired "so this is private property then?". His reply was that anywhere within the bollards is, but I was welcome to take pictures from the other side of the bollards... but then also said if I come back later when there are less people about they probably won't mind me using a tripod from within the bollards. It's nice to have conduct like that from a security guard. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:10:16 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
But it does make it worse for drivers. If you're driving along a motorway it's easy to start staring at something unusual (like someone sitting in the median) and get distracted.
If your eyes are looking out your driver window for even 5 seconds, that's a lot of ground covered at 80mph. It's that type of 'drive into the back of a traffic jam' accident that happens a lot.
And on the other carriageway the guys looking at the crash on your side end up crashing into each other as well.
But at least he got his shot. Just has to hope a 'motorway pile-up' speed challenge has started.
ETA: And if there was someone standing with a tripod and camera near a motorway, the first thing I'd think is 'speed camera' and slow down. Hoping the guy tailgating me slows down as well.
Message edited by author 2011-12-20 09:20:01. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:29:17 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
The idea behind limited access highways is to limit the distractions/obstacles for the driver to allow safe driving at a higher rate of speed.
The question really should be: "How often do drivers crash when distracted by someone's antics in the median or elsewhere?" |
|
