-=(8)=-

As I mentioned earlier, I campaigned for Jackie Green and work with his agency promoting Twenty is Plenty and other bike related infrastucture. Thank you for helping out. If more people who complain about this stuff on BF actually showed up where it counted, this might not be the issue it is.

Yep. Poor poor me. The world is against me because people dont take me and my bike as seriously as I do. Poor me. The world owes me.
A google of an individual mentioned will yield some other items that could lead one to think some people just have a persecution complex

Earl Grey

If you didn't mean to imply "because of prejudice", civil rights is a clumsy example, very susceptible to misinterpretation. The responses demonstrate that; I have no dog in this fight, and I absolutely read it that way.

If your point is just that "there are bad laws and bad judgements", you might consider using a less charged analogy that won't alienate more people than it persuades - they aren't hard to find.

Well, I haven't spent much time here.

trailmix

Working with the system is often frustrating and excruciatingly slow but it is the only way I have been able to get anything done. Fayette county does a pretty good job for cyclists but Jessamine has basically no provisions for anything other than diesel trucks.

wphamilton

Wasn't there a lot of noise about how a bicycle shouldn't be on that road because it is used by autos driven at high speeds? If any of that was presented in court, having no legal underpinning, then it's reasonable that it would have had the purpose of prejudicing the court by choice of vehicle.

VTBike

That was the matter of an earlier proceeding against this bicyclist in which she prevailed. I guess judges in this area aren't as motor-centric as their detractors would want you to believe.

benjdm

It was a small traffic court. Trotwood v. Selz was also lost at this level and only won on appeal.

genec

Is this where we get to make some snide comment about single minded judges in traffic courts...

VTBike

This is evidence that the Kentucky traffic court was bicycle friendly. Ms. Schill had been charged earlier this year with a violation for just operating on the state highway. (Similar to Selz.) Unlike Selz, Ms. Schill won in the traffic court. So she is now batting .500. This just goes to show that this traffic court is willing to listen to both sides.

benjdm

The previous attempt was to attempt to get an injunction banning her from the road until the trial could be held. Shooting that down is not bike friendly, it's just not nuts.

Jessamine judge rules in favor of bicyclist - The Jessamine Journal: Local

trailmix

Schill has only had 1 trial in this case and is currently batting 0. I think she has a good chance on the appeal though.

PatrickGSR94

No, the DA tried to get a court order banning Ms. Schill from riding on 27 at all, which a judge blocked. Friday was her first court appearance.

PatrickGSR94

Commentary on the proceedings from one of the expert witnesses who testified:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4275...1399496281008/

This video shows some closeups of the shoulder conditions along Ms. Schill's route:

VTBike

It is not clear if the debris existed on the day she got her ticket(s) or on a different day when the expert witness was preparing for his testimony in this case. Does anyone know?

I didn't have time to watch the whole video, but from the first little bit I saw it appears to me that there were numerous times that she could have ridden safely to the right but for whatever reason she chose not to. Nobody here is arguing that she had to stay far right at ALL times. Rather, we are disputing her contention that it is never "practicable" for her to be on the right hand side.

trailmix

I think her argument is that it is safer to ride in the lane rather than weave in and out of the lane.

VTBike

I'm well aware of that.

dynodonn 

Another thing the video shows is how many motorists will change lanes and from a safe distance back, but then again, this video has been edited, possibly leaving out any "close encounters".

trailmix

You don't seem to be.

kickstart

Wish I had such nice shoulders to ride on my commute.

wphamilton

So the noise about her right to be on that road at all was brought up in the case. I thought I remembered that correctly.

Since it clearly had no legal basis, which is apparent even to a lay person, it's a good indication that the prosecution was was trying to prejudice the judge with auto-centric arguments. It's a very small point, but the only one I have here.

SpecialX

Let me preface by what I'm about to say with the fact that I do not own a car and I have been bicycling every single day back-and-forth to work and everywhere in between by bicycle for the past 10 years...

It seems to me that the area in question for her has more then a wide enough area for her to ride in on that shoulder area.

It seems to me the only reason she is riding the way she is, is because she thinks she's entitled to the full use of the road at every moment in time.

I may be wrong, but if I had access to a road like she has and had a shoulder that wide, I'd be enthused.

IF there was some (major - re :dangerous/tire flattening) debris on that shoulder, she had two options.

1.) Take a few hours and go pickup or move the debris herself.
2.) Call the county/whatever to complain about the debris and have them clean it up.
If they don't and she gets a flat or whatever, than she might have some legal recourse.

My signature basically says it all…

Paul Barnard

I'll happily ride on a clean shoulder. There are times that the presence of debris will force me into the travel lanes. The possibility of debris in my opinion isn't an for riding in the lane. If I am every stopped for riding in the lane of travel, I will be able to point out a specific hazard, rather than speaking of a generalized hazard.

Paul Barnard

Jeez d00d, I knew exactly what he was getting at. Either you are feigning indignation or you are hyper sensitive. In either case it's not pretty.

wphamilton

Me too.

But whether or not the shoulder is good to ride on, and I've yet to see anything really persuasive either way, the charges and court fight are the really interesting parts of this.

My understanding has been that nowhere in the USA are bicycles required to ride on the shoulder. They have use of the roadway - the part intended for travel by vehicles - and that excludes the shoulders. Evidently this judge ruled differently, and it may be legally justifiable with their local statutes but what I do know is that it's highly unusual.

I confess that I've gotten this through the filter of media and there will be some reasoning in his decision of which I am unaware, but my feeling is that the decision is probably wrong on legal grounds and could easily lose on appeal.

benjdm

Alaska explicitly requires bicycles to use shoulders. I've seen it said that New York does also but I don't see it when I read NY's law.

ETA: This site lists Colorado, Maryland, NY, and Alaska as mandatory shoulder states. I'll leave researching Colorado and Maryland to you.

Alaska

(emphasis added)

I agree.

rydabent

howsteep

No I mean the judge in the case that dont know what the conditions on the strip of road the cyclist was riding.