Unicycles and the law

General
1

Hi All,
after scanning over the posts about police issuing misdemeanours to unicyclists I thought that this would be an appropriate thread to kick off.

When I started unicycling in the late 80’s there seemed to be no clear definition of what a unicycle was under the current road rules. It made it tricky as by definition a unicycle was not a bicycle (keep off the footpath), a wheeled recreational device or a wheeled toy (keep off the road). The best bet that you had was to ride on a bike path or in a circus tent. It also meant that no helmet laws applied.

Then around 1994 I was talking to a lawyer at a party (OK - I was trying to chat her up). We got talking about road rules. A few days later she emailed me and told me that she had looked into the unicycle and the road rules dilemma and gave me the phone number of a friend who was working on the revisions and updates to the road rules and the bits pertaining to unicycles. After a few phone calls about definitions and rules I was assured that it would all be taken care of under the new updates. It was.

This is a brief (OK - not so brief) excerpt of the Queensland Road Rules that every unicyclist riding in Queensland should probably should be aware of. Most importantly is the definition… a unicycle is now classed as a bicycle for legal purposes. I have made questions about brakes and gears and I was told that a direct drive counts as a direct 1:1 gear drive and also as a braking system.
To the best of my knowledge it is still current and has not changed. If anyone has any updates I would love to hear them.

Wayne van Wijk

Unicycle Laws

Definitions
Schedule 4
Transport Operations (Road Use Management)
Act 1995

“bicycle”—
(a) means a vehicle with 1 or more wheels (including a pedicab,
penny farthing, scooter, tricycle and unicycle) built to be
propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears; but
(b) does not include a wheelchair, wheeled recreational device,
wheeled toy, or any vehicle with an auxiliary motor capable of
generating power over 200 watts.

“pedestrian” includes—
(a) a person in a motorised wheelchair that can not travel over
10 km/h; and
(b) a person in a non-motorised wheelchair; and
© a person pushing a motorised or non-motorised wheelchair; and
(d) a person in or on a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.

Schedule 6
Transport Operations
(Road Use Management—RoadRules) Regulation 1999

“approved bicycle helmet” means a helmet that complies with—
(a) AS 2063.1 and 2063.2; or
(b) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to
that standard.

“wheeled recreational device” means a wheeled device, built to transport
a person, propelled by human power or gravity, and ordinarily used
for recreation or play, and—
(a) includes rollerblades, rollerskates, a skateboard or similar
wheeled device; but
(b) does not include a golf buggy, pram, stroller or trolley, or a
bicycle, wheelchair or wheeled toy.

“wheeled toy” means a child’s pedal car, scooter or tricycle or a similar
toy, but only when it is being used by a child who is under 12 years
old.

Bicycle Laws

PART 15—ADDITIONAL RULES FOR BICYCLE RIDERS
Transport Operations
(Road Use Management—RoadRules) Regulation 1999

245 Riding a bicycle
The rider of a bicycle must—
(a) sit astride the rider’s seat facing forwards (except if the bicycle is
not built to be ridden astride); and
(b) ride with at least 1 hand on the handlebars; and
© if the bicycle is equipped with a seat—not ride the bicycle seated
in any other position on the bicycle.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

246 Carrying people on a bicycle
The rider of a bicycle must not carry more persons on the bicycle than
the bicycle is designed to carry.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

s 247 201 s 250
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road
(1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane
designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride
in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) In this section—
“road” does not include a road-related area.

248 No riding across a road on a crossing
The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of a road, on a
children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

249 Riding on a separated footpath
The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a part of a separated footpath
designated for the use of pedestrians.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

250 Riding on a footpath or shared path
(1) Subject to subsection (1A), the rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath
or shared path must—
(a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is
impracticable to do so; and
(b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person riding a bicycle on a
footpath if a local law otherwise provides.
(2) In this section—
“footpath” does not include a separated footpath.
s 251 202 s 252
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999

251 Riding to the left of oncoming bicycle riders on a path
The rider of a bicycle riding on a bicycle path, footpath, separated
footpath or shared path must keep to the left of any oncoming bicycle rider
on the path.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

252 No bicycles signs and markings
(1) The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a length of road or footpath to
which a no bicycles sign, or a no bicycles road marking, applies.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) A no bicycles sign, or a no bicycles road marking, applies to a length
of road or footpath beginning at the sign or marking and ending at the
nearest of the following—
(a) a bicycle path sign or bicycle path road marking;
(b) a bicycle lane sign;
© a separated footpath sign or separated footpath road marking;
(d) a shared path sign;
(e) an end no bicycles sign;
(f) the next intersection.
Examples—
No bicycles sign Bicycle path sign
s 253 203 s 254
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999

253 Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the
path of a driver or pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

254 Bicycles being towed etc
(1) A person must not ride on a bicycle that is being towed by another
vehicle.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not hold onto another vehicle while the
vehicle is moving.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Bicycle lane sign Separated footpath sign
Shared path sign End no bicycles sign
s 255 204 s 257
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999

255 Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle
The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 m of the rear of a moving
motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 m.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

256 Bicycle helmets
(1) The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not carry a passenger on the bicycle
unless the passenger is wearing an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted
and fastened on the passenger’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the rider of a 3-wheeled or
4-wheeled bicycle who is carrying a paying passenger.
(4) A person is exempt from wearing a bicycle helmet if the person is
carrying a current doctor’s certificate stating that, for a stated period—
(a) the person can not wear a bicycle helmet for medical reasons; or
(b) because of a physical characteristic of the person, it would be
unreasonable to require the person to wear a bicycle helmet.

257 Riding with a person on a bicycle trailer
(1) The rider of a bicycle must not tow a bicycle trailer with a person in
or on the bicycle trailer, unless—
(a) the rider is 16 years old, or older; and
(b) the person in or on the bicycle trailer is under 10 years old; and
© the bicycle trailer can safely carry the person; and
(d) the person in or on the bicycle trailer is wearing an approved
bicycle helmet securely fitted and fastened on the person’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) In this section—
s 258 205 s 260
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999
“bicycle trailer” means a vehicle that is built to be towed, or is towed, by
a bicycle.

258 Equipment on a bicycle
A person must not ride a bicycle or powered wheeled recreational device
that does not have—
(a) at least 1 effective brake; and
(b) a bell, horn or similar warning device in working order.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

259 Riding at night
The rider of a bicycle or powered wheeled recreational device must not
ride at night, or in hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility,
unless the bicycle or device, or the rider, displays—
(a) a flashing or steady white light that is clearly visible for at least
200 m from the front of the bicycle or device; and
(b) a flashing or steady red light that is clearly visible for at least
200 m from the rear of the bicycle or device; and
© a red reflector that is clearly visible for at least 50 m from the rear
of the bicycle or device when light is projected onto it by a
vehicle’s headlight on low-beam.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

260 Stopping for a red bicycle crossing light
(1) The rider of a bicycle approaching or at bicycle crossing lights
showing a red bicycle crossing light must stop before reaching the bicycle
crossing lights.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The rider must not proceed until—
(a) the bicycle crossing lights change to green; or
(b) there is no red bicycle crossing light showing.
s 261 206 s 262
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

261 Stopping for a yellow bicycle crossing light
(1) The rider of a bicycle approaching bicycle crossing lights showing a
yellow bicycle crossing light must comply with this section.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) If the rider can stop safely before reaching the bicycle crossing lights,
the bicycle rider must stop before reaching the lights.
(3) If the rider stops before reaching the bicycle crossing lights, and the
lights change to red, the bicycle rider must not proceed until—
(a) the bicycle crossing lights change to green; or
(b) there is no red or yellow bicycle crossing light showing.

262 Proceeding when bicycle crossing lights change to yellow or red
(1) If bicycle crossing lights at an intersection change from green to
yellow or red while the rider of a bicycle is in the intersection, the rider
must finish crossing the intersection as soon as the rider can do so safely.
Example—
Red bicycle crossing light Green bicycle crossing light
Example—
Yellow bicycle crossing light
s 263 207 s 265
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road
Rules) Regulation 1999
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) If bicycle crossing lights at a place on a road where the rider of a
bicycle is crossing the road change from green to yellow or red while the
rider is on the road, the rider must cross the road as soon as the rider can do
so safely.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) In this section—
“road” does not include a road-related area.

s 108 71 Transport Legislation Amendment s 108 No. 66, 1997

“road” means—
(a) an area of land dedicated to public use as a road; or
(b) an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as 1 of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles; or
© a bridge, culvert, ferry, ford, tunnel or viaduct; or
(d) a pedestrian or bicycle path; or
(e) a part of an area, bridge, culvert, ferry, ford, tunnel, viaduct or path mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).

2

ANUS vs. USA

I’ve been aware of some interesting court cases involving unicycles for a while, and this thread appears to open the door for posting them.

Here’s the case of ANUS vs. USA (edited for length, and to keep out the less interesting stuff - omissions marked by “* * *”). Guess who won?

==================================
WILLIAM NASSAU a/k/a SIDECAR WILLY, Plaintiff, -vs- UNIMOTORCYCLISTS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 97-527-Civ-Orl-22A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION

59 F. Supp. 2d 1233; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14303; 51 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1261

May 24, 1999, Decided
May 25, 1999, Filed

JUDGES: ANNE C. CONWAY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION

[*1234] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On April 29, 1997, Plaintiff, William Nassau a/k/a Sidecar Willy, commenced an action in this Court for trademark infringement, unfair competition, defamation, right of publicity, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages against Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc., David Turner, as the director of promotions and individually, Barry Glidden, as treasurer and individually, Terry Glid-den, as secretary and individually, and Jeffrey Hawkins, as president and individually. 1 Plaintiff asserts that his mark, American National Unimotorcyclists Society or “A.N.U.S.” possesses “immeasurable national and international [**2] goodwill, fame, reputation and recognition . . . .” (Doc. 33, P 16). As a result, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ mark, “Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc.,” is likely to cause confusion among consumers. Id., PP 18-19. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants have attempted to harm Plaintiff’s organization through slanderous and defamatory statements to the public” and by engaging in unfair competition. Id., PP 22, 35. This case was tried to the Court sitting as the trier of fact on March 5, 8, and 9, 1999.

1 In a personal bankruptcy action filed by Jeffery Hawkins, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging any claim for money damages by Plaintiff in this case. Hawkins remains a defendant in his capacity as an officer of U.S.A. See Doc. 114.

I. Findings of Fact
In 1991, Plaintiff invented the sport of unimotorcycle racing. A unimotorcycle is a vehicle that contains one wheel and a motor. The sport requires competitors to travel 100 feet from a standing stop while balanced [**3] precariously on one wheel. To promote this sport, Plaintiff founded the American National Unimotorcyclists Society, also referred to as A.N.U.S. Plaintiff chose the acronym A.N.U.S. as a marketing ploy.

[*1235] Plaintiff formed A.N.U.S. as a not for profit organization whose goal was to maintain accurate records of the fastest times in unimotorcycle racing and to provide a venue for setting those records. A.N.U.S. primarily organizes, sponsors, and promotes the “World Championships of One Wheeled Racing,” which occurs on the Friday of Bike Week and the Saturday of Biketoberfest in Daytona Beach, Florida. In addition to hosting events, the organization advertises regularly and sells paraphernalia containing its name. Throughout the years, A.N.U.S. has become well known in Day-tona Beach, and has been discussed in various national “biker” magazines and in some international articles.

To regulate its races, A.N.U.S. promulgated rules, known as the “Ten Commandments,” for unimotorcycle racing. The Ten Commandants are as follows:

  1. THOU SHALL only race from a standing stop to the end of a 100 foot strip which is constructed of an unpaved surface. Winner having the fastest time.
  2. THOU [**4] SHALL use only one (1) wheel.
  3. THOU SHALL only use a power plant that is over five (5) years old.
  4. THOU SHALL only use a power plant that is stock for whatever its intended use was.
  5. THOU SHALL NOT exceed the size limits of four (4) foot in width or eight (8) foot in length.
  6. THOU SHALL compete in any of these classes:
    A) 750 cc - Unlimited
    B) 440 cc - 749 cc
    C) 200 cc - 399 cc
    D) 0 - 199 cc
    E) Electric
  7. THOU SHALL employ a “Deadman’s Switch” which shall render the Beast inoperable in the event that the pilot is launched.
  8. THOU SHALL consider steering and brakes optional.
  9. THOU SHALL NOT touch the ground forward of the axle during any run.
  10. THOU SHALL touch the Ground only rear of the axle during any run but may not exceed size limitations.
    (Pl. Exh. 21).

A.N.U.S. began sponsoring events in 1993. In 1995, A.N.U.S. hosted its most successful event in terms of partici-pation and attendance. The competition occurred in a field in Samsula, Volusia County, Florida, but was stopped by the Sheriff’s Office due to zoning problems. The next year, to avoid any problems, A.N.U.S. contacted County officials, and they agreed on a location for the event. [**5] However, a few days before the competition, the County prevented A.N.U.S. from racing at that location due to traffic, noise and safety concerns.

Because of the recurring problems A.N.U.S. had in finding appropriate locations for races, some of the unimotor-cycle pilots, who had been members of A.N.U.S., approached Jeffrey Hawkins in March 1996 and asked him to repre-sent them and find them a legitimate place to race. As a result, Hawkins went to the county fairgrounds and negotiated an agreement. On the day of the race, Plaintiff arrived and ran the event pursuant to his rules.
Even after the event at the fairgrounds, the unimotorcycle pilots were disappointed with the type of racing that A.N.U.S. sponsored. For instance, at A.N.U.S. events, only one vehicle at a time was raced, and a stopwatch was used to record the times. The pilots were also frustrated with A.N.U.S.’ inability to secure a location for the races. Conse-quently, Hawkins, along with several pilots, formed the Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc. (“U.S.A.”). Shortly thereafter, Terry Glidden, Barry Glidden, and David Turner joined U.S.A.

The members of U.S.A. immediately attempted to distance themselves from Plaintiff’s [**6] organization. They chose a “cleaner” sounding name and wanted to become a family-oriented organization. In [*1236] addition, they of-fered a different type of competition. For example, U.S.A. offered side-by-side racing, it paid its pilots, and it used elec-tronic timing for accuracy. Moreover, the Defendants never used the A.N.U.S. logo, never represented that they were associated or affiliated with A.N.U.S. or American National Unimotorcyclists Society, never sponsored events using the name A.N.U.S. or American National Unimotorcyclists Society, and never sold merchandise containing the name A.N.U.S. or American National Unimotorcyclists Society.
On May 30, 1995, Plaintiff registered his mark with the State of Florida as:

American National Unimotorcyclists Society “A.N.U.S.” and Design of a One Wheeled Vehicle Sur-rounded by One Circle to be used as a mark under class(es) 0041.

(D-USA Exh. 2). He disclaimed the words “American” and “National.” Id. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 8, 1996. (D-USA Exh. 30). In response to the application, the Patent and Trademark Office stated, among other things, [**7] that “the applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording ‘American, National’ and ‘Unimotorcyclists Society’ apart from the mark as shown.” Id. Plaintiff responded: “I do not disclaim the wording ‘Unimotorcyclists Society’ as I am the sole member of the American National Unimotorcyclists Society and invented the word ‘Unimotorcyclists’ for my business.” Id. Again, the Patent and Trade-mark Office disagreed, explaining as follows:

the requirement for a disclaimer of ‘Unimotorcyclists Society’ is continued for the reasons previously set forth, to wit, applicant is a group or society of individuals who ride or are Unimotorcyclists. In addi-tion, to the NEXIS previously made of record the word is merely descriptive because it describes the fact that a unimotorcyclist or unimotorcycle is a motorcycle that contains only one wheel.

Id. Due to Plaintiff’s federal court litigation, the Patent and Trademark Office suspended his application. Id.

Defendants registered their trademark with the State of Florida on September 24, 1996. The registered mark is “Un-imotorcyclists Society of America, Inc,” and its logo “depicts an eagle with wings spread in flight clutching [**8] a wheel in its talons and encased in a circle with Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc. printed around the circle.” (D-USA Exh. 24). Defendants stated in their application that no claim was made to the exclusive right to use the term “Un-imotorcyclists Society of America, Inc.” apart from the mark as shown. Id. Defendants also use “Unimotorcyclists Soci-ety of America, Inc.” superimposed on an American flag to identify their organization.

II. Conclusions of Law

A. Trademark Infringement

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to protection for the following marks: “A.N.U.S.,” “American National Unimo-torcyclists Society,” “Unimotorcyclists” and “Unimotorcyclists Society.” He claims [*1238] that he coined the word “unimotorcycle” in 1991. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff’s logo in its entirety is entitled to trademark protec-tion. However, they do dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to protection for the word “unimotorcycle” or “unimotorcyclists society.” The Court agrees.

The Court initially finds that the word “unimotorcycle” is a generic mark. Unimotorcycle suggests what the vehicle actually is: a one-wheeled vehicle with a motor. [**13] Plaintiff argues that the vehicle is a unicycle. However, a “uni-cycle” is defined as a “trick riding device with only one wheel, which is straddled by the rider, who pushes its pedals.” Webster’s New World Dictionary (2d Edition 1986). A unicycle does not have a motor. Because a unimotorcycle has a motor, that word suggests the basic nature of the vehicle.

In addition, based on the evidence presented at trial, the word “unimotorcycle” was common before Plaintiff began his business. David Lesizza, a defense witness, testified that in 1968 he built a motorized, one-wheeled motorcycle. He stated that at that time, the invention was called a unibike, a unicycle and a unimotorcycle. Hawkins specifically asked him: “Is it fair to say you’ve heard the word unimotorcycle before today and back in 1968, you heard it?” Lesizza re-sponded: “Oh, yeah, sure.” Therefore, because trademark law prevents a person from removing a word from the general language and appropriating it for his own trademark, Plaintiff cannot seek protection for the word “unimotorcycle.” See Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806, 810 (2d Cir. 1999).

Even if the word “unimotorcycle” was uncommon [**14] when Plaintiff formed his organization, the word can be-come generic if a substantial majority of the public uses the word “unimotorcycle” to refer to a one-wheeled motorized vehicle. See Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc., 874 F.2d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 1989). Defendants submitted newspaper and magazine articles demonstrating that the public and the media think the word “unimotorcycle” connotes the generic name of the product rather than a mark indicating the source of the product. For example, some of the articles state as follows: (1) “14 unimotorcycles carried their pilots the mandatory 100 feet…” (D-USA Exh. 9); (2) “Sidecar Willie, in his infinite madness, created a 1940 Indian Chief unimotorcycle and challenged Harley-Davidson to a unimotorcycle racing dual. Two Harley Sportster unimotorcycles showed up to answer that challenge . . .” (D-USA Exh. 12); (3) “This event turned out to be a wild party with unimotorcycles flying down the track . . . . In fact, many of the pilots of these one-wheeled motorcycles in their enthusiasm ran their “Beasts” (unimotorcycles) in fits of frenzy . . .” (D-USA Exh. 14); (4) “The Indian and Harley unimotorcycles [**15] will be unveiled to the public;” (D-USA Exh. 18) (5) “For the uninitiated, a unimotorcycle is a contraption with regular motorcycle running gear fitted atop a single wheel” (D-Ind Exh. 2); (6) “A unimotorcycle looks like a super-powered engine with handlebars and a wheel mounted to it, along with a place for a rider to sit” (D-Ind Exh. 13); and (7) “Unimotorcycles can reach speeds upwards of 70 mph on the short drag strip” (Pl. Exh. 11). This evidence is a strong indication of the general public’s perception that a unimotorcycle connotes something other than a machine built or used by Plaintiff or a service offered by Plaintiff.

In addition, Plaintiff himself used the word “unimotorcycle” in referring to the vehicle rather than specifically to his organization or races. Although Plaintiff referred to his events as “unicycle drag racing” in the beginning, in 1995 and 1996, Plaintiff referred to the events as “unimotorcycle drag racing.” (D-USA, Exh. 6). Moreover, in his questioning of the witnesses at trial, he referred to the word “unimotorcycle” in its generic sense. For example, he asked Donna Knuth, the secretary of A.N.U.S.: “Who currently runs unimotorcycle races at the Volusia [**16] County Fairground?” She responded: “Unimotorcyclists Society of America.” He also [*1239] asked Hawkins how many “unimotorcycle events” U.S.A. had sponsored over the years. Plaintiff further inquired: “isn’t it true that the community that frequent unimotor-cycle racing, the competitors, is a very small community and therefore pretty much known to each other?”

Because evidence in the record exists that the word “unimotorcycle” was used as early as 1968 and because the word is commonly used to refer to the vehicle rather than to Plaintiff’s product or service, the word “unimotorcycle” is a generic term for a one-wheeled motorized vehicle. Thus, the word is unable to be protected under trademark laws.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:

  1. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of Defendants providing that Plaintiff, William Nassau a/k/a Side-car Willy, shall recover nothing on his claims and that Defendants Unimotorcyclists Society of America, Inc., Jeffrey Hawkins, Terry Glidden, Barry Glidden, and David Turner, shall recover their costs of action.
  2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
    DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 24, 1999.
    ANNE C. CONWAY
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

Also, for pics of the “unimotorcycles” and the responsible citizens who made them, see: http://unimotorcycle.fortunecity.com/id21.htm :astonished:

4

Thanks for the laugh! Obviously this has nothing to do with unicycling or even motorized unicycling (they are actually wheel propelled sleds) but damn! People who organize themselves under the name A.N.U.S. and races things like the “BOTTLE ROCKET” (see uniShark’s link) deserve some recognition. If only to be recognized as utter lunatics. Some nice beards there, too :smiley:

5

Yeah, I agree that calling those things unicycles of any type is a push. It hadn’t occurred to me to look for pictures until after my first post, and then my edit time expired or I might have retracted it.

6

I’m glad you didn’t, or I would have missed these awesome pics. :slight_smile:
“You know much that is hidden, Oh James!”

7

For anyone living anywhere else, please do NOT do this. Do not chat up lawmakers or anyone who might include unicycles in their laws.

It ruins it for all of us unicycle outlaws:p

8

All this sounds rather strange to me, living as I do in a country where cycling on the sidewalks is allowed everywhere, as long as you don’t endanger pedestrians (i.e. ride slowly when there are people around). This applies even on the (very very few) streets that have dedicated red colored bike lanes, you can still ride on the sidewalk right next to the bike lane. So you can ride anywhere you want - street, bike lane or sidewalk.

Usually we don’t have bike paths, only bike/pedestrian paths/sidewalks. So when I’m out on two wheels I have the choice between angering pedestrians by being too fast, or car drivers by being too slow. :slight_smile:

I don’t know if our laws consider unicycles equivalent to bicycles, but it really doesn’t matter here.

9

It seems like you have got the wrong definition for bicycle. A unicycle is not classed as a bike in Queensland, and it is classed as a wheeled recreational device, so all those bike regulations you posted do not apply. It is annoying how people keep posting misinformation on this topic, if you have current laws please reference them rather than posting random stuff as if it is fact. It is confusing enough having Police tell you wrong laws let alone unicyclists too- let us try to keep it real. The laws pertaining to Queensland are similar to the rest of Australia as far as I can tell, where you are a pedestrian and a wheeled recreational device.
Your old definitions:

Real definition from www.legislation.qld.gov.au Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
Reprinted as in force on 6 August 2010
Reprint No. 11I revised edition

I think that by saying unicycle is similar to skateboard, the law can be questioned if you are ever in trouble with it. A unicycle is definitely not similar to a skateboard or the other wheeled devices listed, and is much more similar to a pedestrian, and is also more similar to a bike which is excluded. Stay safe and keep out of trouble!

Don’t worry Billy, laws cannot be influenced that easily. The laws will still have to pass through whatever channels they do usually. Luckily this lawyer made a typo when defining the number of wheels a bicycle has.

10

hilarious…

Thanks for finding and posting that link, James. I was rolling! I bet Missoula is getting cold right about now. I lived there for a year in 1983. Go Sentinel High School!

11

How nice it must be to live in a place where they still give you a chance to just be sensible and responsible.

But cold. :slight_smile:

12

Yeah… the laws are lax because there are not that many cyclists, because of the cold (and hilly terrain). It is nice for us who are active though, and our numbers are increasing.

13

Or http://www.unicyclerace.be/

14

unicycles are not safe

It appears that to these judges, unicycles are less safe than hang gliders:

“Ordinary jurors’ expectations of safety of consumer goods often include the expectations that certain products are in fact not always safe. For example, ordinary jurors might not expect unicycles to be safe or hang gliders to always be safe or even certain chemicals to be safe. However, ordinary jurors would not expect to develop asbestosis from exposure to asbestos cloth present in their environment. In our opinion, ordinary jurors would expect asbestos, a substance that has been used in the insulation of homes, schools, offices and factories, as well as in hot pads in many kitchens, not to produce a disease such as asbestosis. Therefore, we hold that expert testimony on general public expectations as to what to expect of asbestos should not be necessary.”

Gard v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 185 Cal. App. 3d 583, 229 Cal. Rptr. 861, 867 (1986 Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four; Not Citable - Ordered Not Published)

15

35 and raining. :frowning: It it were 10 degrees cooler it would be great weather.

16

Bad Clown – Unicyclist convicted of murder

State v. Gonzalez, 941 A.2d 989, 106 Conn. App. 238, 240-241 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008) (conviction affirmed) (excerpt):

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts relating to two separate homicides. The first homicide occurred on the evening of November 15, 2003. Detective Michael Sheldon of the Hartford police department participated in the investigation of this crime, which occurred in the area of Farmington Avenue in Hartford. In this shooting, Smaely Tineo shot and killed Michael Zuckowski, also known as “Psyche.” [*241] Zuckowski and Lamar Williams, the victim in the present case, were friends. During his investigation, [***3] Sheldon learned that the victim was seen removing a shotgun from the scene at Farmington Avenue and handing it to Jasenia Rodriguez, who had witnessed Tineo shoot Zuckowski. n2 Rodriguez was frightened and, following the victim’s instructions, took the shotgun to her home. The victim retrieved the shotgun later that night. Sheldon also became aware that [**993] Tineo “hung out” and “was friends” with a person known as “Clowny,” who was later identified as the defendant. About one hour after the shooting of Zuckowski, a video camera at a Taco Bell restaurant recorded the defendant, who performed at children’s parties as a clown, riding his unicycle while wearing his clown attire in a parking lot across the street from the Zuckowski murder scene.

n2 Sheldon testified that the altercation between Zuckowski and Tineo began when Zuckowski threatened Tineo with the shotgun.

With respect to the second homicide, which led to the prosecution that is the subject of this appeal, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. During the early morning hours of November 16, 2003, Robert Riley went to 198-200 South Marshall Street in Hartford to purchase drugs from the victim. Riley, the victim and [***4] another person were in the hallway conducting their transaction while a fourth individual, Anthony Mickens, went upstairs. The defendant, wearing a mask, entered the building and shot the victim two times. Officer Michael Kot of the Hartford police department arrived on the scene and found the victim on a landing with no pulse and dilated pupils. It was later determined that the victim died as a result of bleeding from his gunshot wounds. The defendant was arrested on December 9, 2003, for this shooting.

17

Thanks. See: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/7968-Costumes-of-Gen-Con-2010
This is Greg Tito’s “smattering of the best costumes I saw” at GenCon 2010, with the “Creepy Wizard” on page 10 of 22. Notwithstanding the name he gave me, I’m taking inclusion as a compliment of the most bizarre kind. :slight_smile:

18

New ways to harass unicyclists–but unicyclists attack back!

19

Great stuff :smiley:

20

I’m afraid this guy is going to ruin it for sidewalk unicycling

Lawsuit nothing to laugh at as circus performer files $3 million suit over summons for unicycling

BY JOHN MARZULLI
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Friday, November 19th 2010, 4:00 AM

Rosier for News
Kyle Peterson, 26, shows off some of his tricks in Coney Island. Cops weren’t so appreciative when he rode his unicycle on a sidewalk.
RELATED NEWS
For NYC classic, take ‘Pelham’
Voice of the People for July 4, 2010
Violent crime shoots up in New York City
Schumer: What the feds owe N.Y.
NYC’s Urban Search & Rescue team returns home
Louis: There’s safety in numbers
A circus performer slapped with a summons for riding his unicycle on a Brooklyn sidewalk is suing some cops for acting like a bunch of clowns.

Kyle Peterson, a trained acrobat who has performed in the Big Apple Circus, was pulled over at 3 a.m. on Dec. 4, 2007, on Classon Ave. in Bedford-Stuyvesant by NYPD officers in plainclothes, he claims in legal papers filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.

Peterson, 26, contends he was legally riding his unicycle on the sidewalk - and it appears the New York City administrative code backs him up.

The cops asked him to hand over identification, and he was detained “for approximately 30 minutes in the dead of winter while the summons was written,” the complaint says.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2010/11/19/2010-11-19_files_3m_suit_over_summons_for_unicycling_on_bklyn_sidewalk_wotta_bozo.html#ixzz15lEULqNj