Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Cyclist Wrongly charged on Taking the Lane, Wins (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/924221-cyclist-wrongly-charged-taking-lane-wins.html)

wsbob 12-01-13 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalfiend (Post 16291160)
If the motorist had struck a slow moving tractor or construction vehicle would the police still have charged the driver of the other vehicle? Probably not, right. I can only assume the motorist would have received a ticket for "performing an unsafe pass" or similar infraction - but hey, in this case it was just an unprotected person on a silly two wheeled toy so, clearly, the cyclist's fault.

It's really hard to fathom the logic in issuing the ticket to the cyclist. Furthermore, you would have to assume that this road, however narrow, if designated as a two lane road there should have been enough room for the passing vehicle to enter the oncoming lane and safely pass the cyclist (presumably in the middle of the lane) without hitting them. Is it too much to ask that drivers actually be able to, oh I don't know, drive safely?


Has anyone reading here had an opportunity to read the police report for this collision, or have links to local news stories that may have been written about the collision? I'm wondering why, aside from an apparently incorrect conclusion on the troopers' part that the cyclist wasn't riding far enough to the right side of the road, the trooper didn't find that conditions called for the driver to be cited for colliding with someone the driver approached from behind. In addition to the story on the court outcome, following the link in the OP's post leads to a piece by By Gary Harty: 'Cycling Law and the Roadways', in which, among other things, he says (fourth paragraph down),

"...And as I sat through the continuing examinations and cross examinations, I thought of the “common sense” notions that I believed should be the foundation of law. As a new driver, I learned from Denver Police Officers that if a driver ran into the car in front of them there would be a presumption of guilt found upon the trailing driver. ..."

phoebeisis 12-01-13 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalfiend (Post 16291160)
If the motorist had struck a slow moving tractor or construction vehicle would the police still have charged the driver of the other vehicle? Probably not, right. I can only assume the motorist would have received a ticket for "performing an unsafe pass" or similar infraction - but hey, in this case it was just an unprotected person on a silly two wheeled toy so, clearly, the cyclist's fault.

It's really hard to fathom the logic in issuing the ticket to the cyclist. Furthermore, you would have to assume that this road, however narrow, if designated as a two lane road there should have been enough room for the passing vehicle to enter the oncoming lane and safely pass the cyclist (presumably in the middle of the lane) without hitting them. Is it too much to ask that drivers actually be able to, oh I don't know, drive safely?


My guess is the driver lied. He probably claimed the rider was FRAP
then suddenly-intentionally- the rider moved to the middle or left after he-the driver- started his pass.

There is probably some ill will there between drivers and bike riders in that area.

It is a bit unclear-
did the driver rear end the cyclist?
or did he just suddenly come over and wipe him off the road?

In any case-safe bet he claimed the cyclist changed position-after he started his pass.

phoebeisis 12-01-13 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimagnolo (Post 16290999)
Only Black Hawk and Central City have gambling.
Both towns have since turned into holes that are nothing but parking lots around monster casinos.
And here are the punchlines for the Black Hawk ban:
- The speed limits are 15mph.
- There is no record of there ever having been a cyclist/auto collision.

Shimagnola- no bus/car/bike collisions- but they enact the law anyway. Very clear that this law was punitive-locals were angry that bicycles were slowing down the buses and cars(despite the 15 mph speed limit)-so they passed a "safety law"
This is ALWAYS how towns cities enact back door bike bans-claiming concern for bike riders.
So because there was no alternative within 450 feet-it was unconstitutional.
If bike riders had been a bit more proactive-meeting with locals-perhaps making a effort to spend a few $$ at local stores-drinks ,fruit, -
maybe it could have been avoided.
Spending $$-greases the wheels.

Maybe not of course-the rural folks vs bike riders ill will is an ongoing problem. Locals vs outsiders- ancient theme.

Shimagnolo 12-01-13 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16291647)
Shimagnola- no bus/car/bike collisions- but they enact the law anyway. Very clear that this law was punitive-locals were angry that bicycles were slowing down the buses and cars(despite the 15 mph speed limit)-so they passed a "safety law"
This is ALWAYS how towns cities enact back door bike bans-claiming concern for bike riders.
So because there was no alternative within 450 feet-it was unconstitutional.
If bike riders had been a bit more proactive-meeting with locals-perhaps making a effort to spend a few $$ at local stores-drinks ,fruit, -
maybe it could have been avoided.
Spending $$-greases the wheels.

Maybe not of course-the rural folks vs bike riders ill will is an ongoing problem. Locals vs outsiders- ancient theme.

You need to understand something about Black Hawk and Central City
These are *not* towns governed by the population;
These are *casinos* located where there were once towns.
The *casinos* own the towns, and call all the shots.
Think of the "company town" situations in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

I-Like-To-Bike 12-01-13 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsbob (Post 16291358)
Has anyone reading here had an opportunity to read the police report for this collision, or have links to local news stories that may have been written about the collision? I'm wondering why...

As usual, a lot of thread outrage and speculation based on a one sided report from an interested party, with no actual evidence of what actually occurred at the accident site. Perhaps the cyclist really was a victim of a reckless driver and a wacky law enforcement organization, maybe not. Without any facts who actually knows what precipitated the collision. The actual police report or news reports about the collision, not just what happened in the ER, might shed some light on this incident.

phoebeisis 12-01-13 12:27 PM

So these were little mining towns-gone to seed-
and Casino interests come in-tell the locals what great jobs they will provide-how they will support schools-cops roads-
locals buy it-end up doing $10/hr service jobs-

I lived in a Company Town in the late 1950's-really a hold over from another time.
New Town in Gramercy Louisiana-we all lived in low cost(rents) company owned houses (Colonial Sugars-North American Sugar).Repairs and maintenance was done by company employees.They were a benign Corp-but wages were somewhat low-they had had a nasty strike just before we arrived.Must have been tricky to strike, if you are living in company houses.
Obviously this was at the end of the Company town era-and the company wasn't anything like the old mining or coal company towns.
Remember the line from the Tenn. Ernie Ford Song "Sold my sold to the company store"

Hmmm no wonder they could spend 3 years pursuing the case-plenty of $$.

Colorado was foolish to let Casino Gambling in-just as NOLA was.
Instead of spending money in local restaurants stores clubs-locals blow it on BS gambling-video poker-and the $$ goes out of state.
Yeah Casino gambling is LOSE LOSE for most residents.

Geez-I shouldn't have gotten started on Casino Gambling-Video Poker-there was a good reason all that crap was illegal

I-Like-To-Bike 12-01-13 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16292061)
Remember the line from the Tenn. Ernie Ford Song "Sold my sold to the company store"

I remember, "Sold my soul to the company store."

phoebeisis 12-01-13 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16292029)
As usual, a lot of thread outrage and speculation based on a one sided report from an interested party, with no actual evidence of what actually occurred at the accident site. Perhaps the cyclist really was a victim of a reckless driver and a wacky law enforcement organization, maybe not. Without any facts who actually knows what precipitated the collision. The actual police report or news reports about the collision, not just what happened in the ER, might shed some light on this incident.


Zero chance that the driver said "He was in the middle of my lane so i ran him over"
I guess we will never actually know what happened.
Slight aside-I spend time on a MPG forum(clean) a Prius chatting forum and a GM truck forum.
No one has ever said ANYTHING negative about bicycles or bicycle riders.
Now the GM guys-have ripped the Prius-and one or two of them buy the "Dust to dust-Prius worse for environment than a Humvee" BS
But they have NEVER said anything bad about bike riders.Besides-they rip Fords much much worse.
Many Folks on all the forums ride bicycles

My point-drivers don't hate bicycles or bicycle riders.
Frankly they rarely think of them.There isn't any deep ill will-drivers vs bicycle riders.
The areas where ill will boils to the surface-NYNY- San Fran- the San Diego Sign-Colorado casino town bike ban- really isolated.
Not the rule at all.

phoebeisis 12-01-13 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16292115)
I remember, "Sold my soul to the company store."

Right- this computer- old apple mac book a friend gave us-constantly corrects me-I suspect I mis-spelled soul somehow-and it made a best guess on what I meant-decided sold was a winner-maybe I wrote sol?
It constantly is correcting me-I spell something wrong-and it selects a different-correctly spelled-word.
Yeah I read various quotes of mine-and go WHAT??
Thanks
Charlie
"Sixteen tons and what do you get-another day older and deeper in debt" or something like that.

spare_wheel 12-01-13 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16292029)
As usual, a lot of thread outrage and speculation based on a one sided report from an interested party, with no actual evidence of what actually occurred at the accident site. Perhaps the cyclist really was a victim of a reckless driver and a wacky law enforcement organization, maybe not. Without any facts who actually knows what precipitated the collision.

A judge decided that law enforcement wrongly cited a victim of a violent encounter. Given historical precedent and the common view of cyclists as an "out group" its not a stretch to speculate about bias. And if it's the speculation that you are upset about...then internet fora are probably not your jam.


Quote:

The actual police report or news reports about the collision, not just what happened in the ER, might shed some light on this incident.
I doubt that a police report written by law enforcement officers who were ruled to have misapplied the law will shed light on this incident.

I-Like-To-Bike 12-01-13 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16292194)
"Fifteen tons and what do you get-another day older and deeper in debt" or something like that.

Complete lyrics are at:
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/c...ord-14930.html

Video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

I-Like-To-Bike 12-01-13 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16292207)
A judge decided that law enforcement wrongly cited a victim of a violent encounter. Given historical precedent and the common view of cyclists as an "out group" its not a stretch to speculate about bias. And if it's the speculation that you are upset about...then internet fora are probably not your jam.




I doubt that a police report written by law enforcement officers who were ruled to have misapplied the law will shed light on this incident.

Tickets and prosecutions get dropped for all sorts of reasons, sometimes because the accused is obviously not guilty of the charges, sometimes for other reasons too numerous to mention.

I have no objection to speculation when the speculators can recognize, or are even aware that, that is what they are doing.

phoebeisis 12-01-13 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16292208)

Thanks-great song
memory so tricky
in any case many steps up from "Hoes *****ez Pigs Benjamins etc"

lastostrogoth 12-01-13 02:28 PM

I do all of my riding on two lane roads in my area, just over 2000 miles this year. My policy is to maintain a safe, predictable line as close to the right side of the road as I can. Where a rideable shoulder exists, I use it. Despite this, I get harrassed by moron drivers who think they are being funny or cute about once every two or three rides. One particular guy has done it on several occasions. He drives a large piggyback semi dirt truck. He comes about as close to me as he can when there is simply no reason to do so, no traffic coming from the other direction and a clear view ahead. Other drivers of similar rigs swing out enough to give me space. My view is that I am vehicle on the road with the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. This conforms to state law in Washington. Drivers who wish to pass me need to pass with the same caution as passing any other vehicle. The ones that most bother me are ones who pass me while another car is passing in the oncoming lane which restricts the passing driver in my lane to our side of the road. Common sense says slow down, let the other vehicle pass, and then pass. Common sense is in limited quantities. I have never been hit, although with more than 100,000 miles of riding over the last 20 or so years, I have had more than my share of close calls. As a general rule in Washington state, if a car hits you, he going to pay for the accident. However, you need to be alive to collect.

wsbob 12-01-13 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsbob (Post 16291358)
Has anyone reading here had an opportunity to read the police report for this collision, or have links to local news stories that may have been written about the collision? I'm wondering why, aside from an apparently incorrect conclusion on the troopers' part that the cyclist wasn't riding far enough to the right side of the road, the trooper didn't find that conditions called for the driver to be cited for colliding with someone the driver approached from behind. In addition to the story on the court outcome, following the link in the OP's post leads to a piece by By Gary Harty: 'Cycling Law and the Roadways', in which, among other things, he says (fourth paragraph down),

"...And as I sat through the continuing examinations and cross examinations, I thought of the “common sense” notions that I believed should be the foundation of law. As a new driver, I learned from Denver Police Officers that if a driver ran into the car in front of them there would be a presumption of guilt found upon the trailing driver. ..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16292029)
As usual, a lot of thread outrage and speculation based on a one sided report from an interested party, with no actual evidence of what actually occurred at the accident site. Perhaps the cyclist really was a victim of a reckless driver and a wacky law enforcement organization, maybe not. Without any facts who actually knows what precipitated the collision. The actual police report or news reports about the collision, not just what happened in the ER, might shed some light on this incident.


In a search 'cyclist collision' of the Denver Post and the Daily Camera, I didn't manage to bring up articles about this particular collision. A lot of articles though, about other collisions between bikes and motor vehicles in Colorado. This brings up questions about what the laws in Colorado regarding road use by people with bikes are, and how well Coloradans understand those laws.

I-Like-To-Bike 12-01-13 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsbob (Post 16292354)
This brings up questions about what the laws in Colorado regarding road use by people with bikes are, and how well Coloradans understand those laws.

This thread is nothing but questions; and conjured "answers."

rmcleod 12-02-13 09:20 AM

This was a friend of mine, never made the news. This was in Arvada, Colorado, Near 80th and Alkire where 80th makes a dogleg at the railroad tracks. He took the lane, doing the nearly the speed limit, when a truck passed him, right when another car was coming from the other way, so the truck veered, plowed right into him, to avoid a head-on collision. If you know this road, it was stupid to pass there without knowing what was coming his way. He's made a remarkable recovery and back at work as a Denver Fireman.

Shimagnolo 12-02-13 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmcleod (Post 16293793)
This was a friend of mine, never made the news. This was in Arvada, Colorado, Near 80th and Alkire where 80th makes a dogleg at the railroad tracks. He took the lane, doing the nearly the speed limit, when a truck passed him, right when another car was coming from the other way, so the truck veered, plowed right into him, to avoid a head-on collision. If you know this road, it was stupid to pass there without knowing what was coming his way. He's made a remarkable recovery and back at work as a Denver Fireman.

Is this the spot?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=80th+...80005&t=h&z=18

As mild as that dogleg is, one would think you could see the oncoming traffic before passing.

phoebeisis 12-02-13 04:08 PM

rmcleod
Was The truck driver ticketed?
What was the violation?

phoebeisis 12-02-13 04:36 PM

Everyone here must have noted that "Taking the lane" was not protective in these cases.
Anyone care to speculate what the outcome might have been if they were FRAPing?

CB HI 12-02-13 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16295156)
Everyone here must have noted that "Taking the lane" was not protective in these cases.
Anyone care to speculate what the outcome might have been if they were FRAPing?

Since there is no shoulder on most of the road, the cyclist by definition would be taking the lane even when also riding FRAP, so your post seems ill informed and pointless.

You seem to also ignore the many cyclist hit on shoulders and in bike lanes.

wsbob 12-03-13 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmcleod (Post 16293793)
This was a friend of mine, never made the news. This was in Arvada, Colorado, Near 80th and Alkire where 80th makes a dogleg at the railroad tracks. He took the lane, doing the nearly the speed limit, when a truck passed him, right when another car was coming from the other way, so the truck veered, plowed right into him, to avoid a head-on collision. If you know this road, it was stupid to pass there without knowing what was coming his way. He's made a remarkable recovery and back at work as a Denver Fireman.


rmcleod...thanks for the info. Glad your friend is healing well, and back at work. If you come by any other news related to the collision that's available for posting in a public setting like this one, it would be interesting to hear it. The judge having found the cyclist not in violation for taking the lane, could possibly help refocus questions of responsibility for the collision, back onto the driver of the truck. Whether that will happen, depends on a lot of things, I suppose.

Yesterday, I did a rough browse of Colorado statute 42-4-1412, 'Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.' Link: http://bicyclecolo.org/articles/colo...-1412-pg45.htm

phoebeisis 12-03-13 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16295794)
Since there is no shoulder on most of the road, the cyclist by definition would be taking the lane even when also riding FRAP, so your post seems ill informed and pointless.

You seem to also ignore the many cyclist hit on shoulders and in bike lanes.

I should have been more clear.
These riders weren't riding as far right as they could have been riding
they decided it was practicable(for their safety) to to ride center or left of center.

CB HI 12-03-13 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16296442)
I should have been more clear.
These riders weren't riding as far right as they could have been riding
they decided it was practicable(for their safety) to to ride center or left of center.

Your severe bias is showing again.

The police & DAs believed the only place the cyclist was allowed to ride was ON the white line. There is NO indication that the cyclist was on the right tire track, center of lane or left tire track.

Quote:

"the Trooper in this case, as well as the Jeffco DAs, firmly believed that the cyclist was in the wrong for riding out in the lane instead of riding the white line."
So again, your post seems ill informed and pointless.

phoebeisis 12-04-13 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16299262)
Your severe bias is showing again.

The police & DAs believed the only place the cyclist was allowed to ride was ON the white line. There is NO indication that the cyclist was on the right tire track, center of lane or left tire track.



So again, your post seems ill informed and pointless.

You should have assumed I would check your quote.
The quote is from Megan Hottman- HIS LAWYER- and is NOT in on the citation.
Absolutely no evidence they -trooper or DA said it.
Kinda tricky to post it as if it was actually something they said.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 AM.