Shouldn't the first sentence be:
"Students at Bryan College now can get piercings without violating campus standards."
So we have a 3-foot law and claim to be a bicycle-friendly city, yet, when new infrastructure is in progress (Ashland Terrace) nothing is done to widen that lane to allow for that buffer. I just don't understand how painting a bicyclist on the asphalt is any kind of investment on behalf of the city. A true bicycle friendly city has lanes for bicyclists and lanes for motorists. In my mind, the city needs to really start showing they are committed to this idea and stop bragging about something they don't support. AND... I agree about cyclists needing to follow the rules. I nearly hit someone TODAY who was on the sidewalk and chose, at the last second, to leave the sidewalk to follow the green light. Either ride on the sidewalk and follow the rules of a pedestrian or ride on the road and follow the rules of a vehicle! I want cyclists here because I do think it enhances the appeal of our city, but I'm just not sure we're there yet.
Is it really uninforceble? So let's run this scenario: Cop suspects that you're texting and notes the time he attempts the traffic stop (Let's say 2:15 pm). He/She pulls you over, asks to see your phone to see if there's a time stamp on the last sent or received text on or around 2:15. Does this fall under the category of "searching the vehicle" (which I understand you don't have to agree to)? Is there any policy/procedure that allows an officer to get that time stamp? Or will it take him writing the ticket and you fighting it in court? What a hassle.
Uh... someone may want to correct the headline on this story and perhaps read it again so that the subheadings don't just look like un-punctuated sentences.