Google sponsored links
Anyone have any experience with this? I was pulled over on my bike for failure to ride single file in an area where no signs regarding this unique municipal code were posted. The cop said that we were holding up three cars, none of which had honked or even come close to us. (my front wheel was alongside my buddy's back wheel -doubtful whether we were even in violation of the code.)
After getting the summons, a couple blocks later, a series of signs saying "ride single file $250 fine" were posted, however none of these had been posted in the area where I was pulled over.
I'm sure I have a decent legal case, and could get out of it if I showed up in court, but I am just curious if anyone else has had experience with the Piermont Police department and this rule. The cop's name was O'Leary.
thanks!
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Anyone have any experience with this? I was pulled over on my bike for failure to ride single file in an area where no signs regarding this unique municipal code were posted. The cop said that we were holding up three cars, none of which had honked or even come close to us. (my front wheel was alongside my buddy's back wheel -doubtful whether we were even in violation of the code.)
After getting the summons, a couple blocks later, a series of signs saying "ride single file $250 fine" were posted, however none of these had been posted in the area where I was pulled over.
I'm sure I have a decent legal case, and could get out of it if I showed up in court, but I am just curious if anyone else has had experience with the Piermont Police department and this rule. The cop's name was O'Leary.
thanks!
1) Signs detailing Municipal ordinances do not have to be posted for those ordinances to be enforceable -- ignorance of the law is not a defense.
2) Acting "Pro-Se" in municipal court is usually a waste of time. If it's your word against a cop's, you lose. Sorry, but that's the reality of what it is. The only way you may possibly win, is if you bring a number of credible witnesses to court with you who will testify on your behalf. Again, if you do this Pro-Se, you will probably lose since the Municipal prosecutor will run rings around you. If you really want a shot at winning, you must have a lawyer. Lawyers don't work cheap.
BTW, the towns in Bergen County, NJ and Rockland County, NY are getting fed-up with the clubbies that ride along 9W. You can expect to see a lot more of this type of harassment from the local cops.
You can expect to see a lot more of this type of harassment from the local cops.
I believe the word you wanted to use was enforcement.
I think you're scewed, sorry. I've seen people get tickets there. I guess I'm lucky, knowing that stretch of road is the bike equivalent of a "speed trap" so I never ride next to someone there. Cop should have given you a warning first, what a jerk!
That's an expensive ticket, but if you were breaking the law--even technically--you're probably in for it. Sort of like 'rolling stops'; they're not stops.
But you might still find it worth your while to show up and protest. I've spent a fair bit of time in traffic court as part of our legal clinic. In some states if the cop doesn't come your ticket will get dropped; and in any case you can usually negotiate a reduction because nobody feels like wasting the judge's time over whether or not you were biking single file. however if you actually go to trial and don't have any witnesses on your side, you will probably lose; judges like cops. bring your biking friend, perhaps? If you do bring your friend, make sure that they know he's there (and that he's prepared to testify) during the negotiations. They can't change their story at that point--the 'warning' won't help them any--and it makes your negotiating position stronger.
If you go to trial, focus on FACTS. Present them clearly. Were you actually overlapped? Were you passing or in the process of getting passed (that is probably legal; they can't force bicyclists to stay behind each other through the entire town)? Where was the cop? Could the cop have seen--from where he was--whether or not you were single file? Could your friend have known/seen whether you were overlapped? Was there a road condition or other circumstance that forced you to overlap temporarily? How long were you overlapped for? Was it intentional or an accident?
Also, read the law. Does it define 'single file'? An interesting question is whether 'single file' means that you can't overlap BIKES or you can't overlap RIDERS. You might successfully argue (if it was the case) taht the _intent_ of the statute is to avoid riders who ride abreast--thus increasing the space they take up--and that if you're not any farther to the left than you would be non-overlapped, you're riding 'single file' for the purposes of the statute.
Too bad you're not near my school, or I'd refer you to the law clinic just for kicks. Good luck.
I believe the word you wanted to use was enforcement.
If iridenyc was not in violation of the law, as he claims, it is harassment. I've seen quite a bit of this from municipalities that want to discourage bike riders from riding through their towns.
If iridenyc was not in violation of the law, as he claims, it is harassment. I've seen quite a bit of this from municipalities that want to discourage bike riders from riding through their towns.
No, your conclusion is incorrect. So long as the officer thinks you are violating the law, he can generaly write you a summons (I won't get into the standards here in detail). If you were legally innocent the court will decide that, and find you not guilty.
"Harassment" is if a cop arrests you or gives you a ticket even though he knows you AREN'T violating the law. Harassment can also include selectively targeting certain people (e.g. blacks) for minor and not-normally-enforced violations, like jaywalking or the like.
However, as much as it may piss you off, generally enforcing a law designed to stop a certain type of behavior isn't harassment. Cops can focus on drunk driving by setting up sobriety checkpoints and it's not harassment. They can focus on speeding. And they can focus on illegal bike riding. (They can also follow you for miles and wait for you to commit an infraction)
In any case, just because you are innocent doesn't mean that cops won't be entitled to detain you, arrest you, ticket you, interrogate you, or hold you overnight in certain circumstances. This should have been obvious to you: cops aren't judges.
Towns usually don't ban bikes from the road entirely (though some do ban them from certain roads). But they will, and do, pass laws designed to keep their residents happy. If most of the residents were bikers, they might have passed a law restricting motor traffic to low speed limits, or asked the cops to focus on speeders or reckless passing. But they decided to focus on bikers instead, probably because they were pissed off. Now, I doubt that law is very old and I would bet it was passed in response to resident complaints. As a result, it's even less pleasant for bikers in that community.
No, your conclusion is incorrect. So long as the officer thinks you are violating the law, he can generaly write you a summons (I won't get into the standards here in detail). If you were legally innocent the court will decide that, and find you not guilty.
"Harassment" is if a cop arrests you or gives you a ticket even though he knows you AREN'T violating the law. Harassment can also include selectively targeting certain people (e.g. blacks) for minor and not-normally-enforced violations, like jaywalking or the like.
However, as much as it may piss you off, generally enforcing a law designed to stop a certain type of behavior isn't harassment. Cops can focus on drunk driving by setting up sobriety checkpoints and it's not harassment. They can focus on speeding. And they can focus on illegal bike riding. (They can also follow you for miles and wait for you to commit an infraction)
In any case, just because you are innocent doesn't mean that cops won't be entitled to detain you, arrest you, ticket you, interrogate you, or hold you overnight in certain circumstances. This should have been obvious to you: cops aren't judges.
Towns usually don't ban bikes from the road entirely (though some do ban them from certain roads). But they will, and do, pass laws designed to keep their residents happy. If most of the residents were bikers, they might have passed a law restricting motor traffic to low speed limits, or asked the cops to focus on speeders or reckless passing. But they decided to focus on bikers instead, probably because they were pissed off. Now, I doubt that law is very old and I would bet it was passed in response to resident complaints. As a result, it's even less pleasant for bikers in that community.
Selective enforcement is the key phrase here. I've seen it, laws that are enforced against out of town bike riders that are not enforced when the riders are townies or otherwise known to the cops.
harassment was the correct word.
I also saw, in reading his post, the selective targeting.....
Edit: Sorry to hear about the single file failure summons. As cyclist have the same rights to the road as autos, I find it bullchit they can make laws like this. Makes me glad I live in the midwest.
"Selective enforcement is the key phrase here. I've seen it, laws that are enforced against out of town bike riders that are not enforced when the riders are townies or otherwise known to the cops."
Nope. That is actually fairly legal (you can avoid enforcement by avoiding breaking the law). Cops have wide discretion in who to pull over and though they can't target a 'protected class' like blacks, women, etc, they are perfectly free to target red sports cars, cyclists in spandex, and the like. Basically, you CAN be selectively targeted just because they don't like the way you look, so long as you are breaking the law--unless you're a protected class.
You alsohave to consider that the townies might just know what the law is, and avoid breaking it, though that doesn't sound as fun to talk about.
And jeez, can you guys stop with the 'cyclists have the same right to the road' drivel? It's not your road, it's not my road, it's the state's road. They can legislate access to it any damn way they please, at least in this respect. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ROAD. For _anyone_. And the legislative right to the road only extends as far as the legislature sees fit. There's no 'right to the road' for an ATV for example, vehicle or not. Hell, there's basically no unlimited right to the road at all. And within those legislative limits, priority has been given to cars. Don't like it? Run for office. Lobby.
But this constant statement is about as true as saying "I have a constitutional right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". Which--hopefully--you realize is not true. I can't believe you're so obtuse that you don't understand your statement is factualy incorrect, so I'll just guess you're saying it wrong. I think your position is 'cyclists SHOULD have the same right to the road'. now that's a statement of opinion, which is absolutely correct. (sadly, it's no more 'valid' than saying "cyclists should stay the heck off the road")
Look, words have a meaning. "harassment" MEANS something--not this. Remember the days of the womyn's movement in the 90s, when many people claimed that the word "rape" included consensual sex which one partner regretted later? That didn't work very well. "harassment", "right", "road", "illegal" are, words with a fixed, legal, recognizable, meaning. You can say 'well, I call this harassment'. OK. DO you mean 'I believe this meets the definition' or do you mean 'I call it whatever the hell I want'? The first leads to a discussion. The second makes you impossible to argue with, or listen to.
In most states, local municipalities are severely limited in their ability to create traffic regulations, it's the sole province of the state. You can imagine the chaos that would result otherwise.
Since riding two abreast is specifically authorized by New York state law -- see http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1234 -- it's entirely possible that this local ordinance is not legal and should be struck down by a judge.
As others have noted, this is not something you are likely to be successful at without a lawyer. You may want to look into whether there are any local bicycle advocacy groups that can help you out.
9W is really popular with bikers so I have no doubt that people often do ride and take up the whole road. But for them to enforce a $250 fine (that's more than most AUTOMOBILE fines) is just absurd.
I'm sure it's pretty easy to defend in court, especially if no one honked at you. Cause what counts as single file? Is passing allowed? Overlapping? Taking the lane in a dangerous situation? If no warning is given for something as minor as this, I consider it harassment.
9W is really popular with bikers so I have no doubt that people often do ride and take up the whole road. But for them to enforce a $250 fine (that's more than most AUTOMOBILE fines) is just absurd.
I'm sure it's pretty easy to defend in court, especially if no one honked at you. Cause what counts as single file? Is passing allowed? Overlapping? Taking the lane in a dangerous situation? If no warning is given for something as minor as this, I consider it harassment.
Couldnt riding in a staggered line be considered single file? It would seem safer if a rider took a spill then not everyone would go down on top of him or her.
Elvish
Yes, I have. I was issued a warning with appearance required for failing to ride single file when I was 15.
Here's what the judge had to say.
Riding single file is for the cyclists safety. You are riding in an area dominated by cars and trucks. You are a small slow moving vehicle that has no physical protection. By riding double or triple, you greatly decrease your chances of being hit. Yes drivers should be more observant but, drivers also have the right to expect slow moving vehicles to be as far to the right safely possible. Then he offered this analogy, would you play croquet in the middle of a football or soccer game? of course not, you'd get mowed down. Same idea on the streets, except you are playing against guys weighing 2 tons or more and in a collision you will lose! I was then warned not to appear before him again for a cycling infraction.
A couple of weeks later I was talking with one of the officers that I knew. He tells me that I could have been cited for a bunch of issues. So, I asked like what? He says things like failure to yield, impeding of traffic and creating a hazard.
that's a pretty well-marked town, in terms of the single file thing, and river rd especially is rightly popular with cyclists. the police enforce cycling requirements pretty uniformly, but if it's any consolation, they're also absolute tyrants about the motor vehicle speed limit. no, they don't ticket everyone they pull over (locals usually get a warning) but it's the only place I've ever been pulled over for doing 28 in a 25. so they're looking out for everyone, not just motorists.
1) Signs detailing Municipal ordinances do not have to be posted for those ordinances to be enforceable -- ignorance of the law is not a defense.
I would be interested to know how one goes about finding out what the municipal ordinances are for specific towns. I have never met anyone who has actually done this. Can one simply go to town hall and request a copy of the ordinances? Do you have to be a resident of the town to get a copy? If anyone has any information on this, I would appreciate it.
In most states, local municipalities are severely limited in their ability to create traffic regulations, it's the sole province of the state. You can imagine the chaos that would result otherwise.
Since riding two abreast is specifically authorized by New York state law -- see http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1234 -- it's entirely possible that this local ordinance is not legal and should be struck down by a judge.
This is one of the things that I am confused about. Can the local law supersede the state law?
If NY state law allows 2 cyclists to ride 2 abreast, how can local law supersede this?
I live in New Jersey and I regularly bicycle on a bridge which is part of a short stretch of route 3 that goes over the Hackensack River. I have been told by police that there is a town ordinance that makes this illegal. But the state law in New Jersey states that I am allowed on all roads with a few exceptions, such as the Garden State Pkwy and NJ Turnpike. Route 3, while not safe for bicyclists, is not prohibited by state law. Are the local police right or wrong?
Since riding two abreast is specifically authorized by New York state law -- see
.
Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being overtaken by another vehicle.
So what qualifies being overtaken? If I'm going 25 and auto traffic is going 30, I'm in a constant state of being overtaken, right?
And jeez, can you guys stop with the 'cyclists have the same right to the road' drivel? It's not your road, it's not my road, it's the state's road. They can legislate access to it any damn way they please, at least in this respect. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ROAD. For _anyone_. And the legislative right to the road only extends as far as the legislature sees fit. There's no 'right to the road' for an ATV for example, vehicle or not. Hell, there's basically no unlimited right to the road at all. And within those legislative limits, priority has been given to cars. Don't like it? Run for office. Lobby.Unlike you, I am not a lawyer, but I have always thought that some law is not based on the constitution, but is even older and more fundamental in origin. Isn't there a legal concept called common law? I seem to remember that it is based on medieval English principles, and even goes back to the Roman Empire. Does this law provide a basis for allowing public access to public roads?
BTW, I haven't read the constitution in a while, but I'm not sure that says anything about roads and right of way.
$250 is outrageous. They should have given you a warning for the first time. And I don't think it is legal anyway because state law should prevail. I think we should organize a protest in piermont, ny. Don't pay the fine. Fight it in court. Contact bicycling advocacy organizations. Get a lawyer and fight this. And keep updating us on how it all goes whatever you decide to do, even if you just pay the fine, which I hope you don't do but I guess I would understand.
$250 is outrageous. They should have given you a warning for the first time. And I don't think it is legal anyway because state law should prevail. I think we should organize a protest in piermont, ny. Don't pay the fine. Fight it in court. Contact bicycling advocacy organizations. Get a lawyer and fight this. And keep updating us on how it all goes whatever you decide to do, even if you just pay the fine, which I hope you don't do but I guess I would understand.
Oh ya..
Throwing a temper tantrum over the right to UNNECESSARILY hold up traffic is gonna do wonders for Bicycle Advocacy.
Sometimes I wonder if half of the cyclists on this forum are also the morons that raise hell at G-8 meetings, thinking that folks will take them seriously if they act like 2 year olds.
Oh ya..
Throwing a temper tantrum over the right to UNNECESSARILY hold up traffic is gonna do wonders for Bicycle Advocacy.
Sometimes I wonder if half of the cyclists on this forum are also the morons that raise hell at G-8 meetings, thinking that folks will take them seriously if they act like 2 year olds.
You seem to miss the point everytime don't you?
And what evidence do you have that he was holding up traffic? And don't you understand that bicyclists are traffic? Or is that too complicated for you. If state law allows cyclists to ride 2 abreast and he got a ticket for doing something that state law allows, should he just accept it? No one is talking about throwing a temper tantrum. But stupid local laws can't be challenged if he simply pays the fine and keeps his mouth shut, as a moroon such as you would have him do.
You seem to miss the point everytime don't you?
And what evidence do you have that he was holding up traffic? And don't you understand that bicyclists are traffic? Or is that too complicated for you. If state law allows cyclists to ride 2 abreast and he got a ticket for doing something that state law allows, should he just accept it? No one is talking about throwing a temper tantrum. But stupid local laws can't be challenged if he simply pays the fine and keeps his mouth shut, as a moroon such as you would have him do.
Typical cyclist azzhole attitude.
Look, he wasn't riding in single file, while cars built up behind him.
That's just PLAIN FLUCKIN RUDE.
You can get on your high-horse all you want, but when push comes to shove you're gonna lose, bud.
Be a Rachel Corrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie) if you like -- idealists often emulate Don Quixote - but the windmills you choose to tip can kill ya.
Typical cyclist azzhole attitude.
Look, he wasn't riding in single file, while cars built up behind him.
That's just PLAIN FLUCKIN RUDE.
You can get on your high-horse all you want, but when push comes to shove you're gonna lose, bud.
He said none of the cars had come close and none had honked, so what the helle are you talking about.
Gonna lose what?
Typical cyclist azzhole attitude.
Look, he wasn't riding in single file, while cars built up behind him.
That's just PLAIN FLUCKIN RUDE.
You can get on your high-horse all you want, but when push comes to shove you're gonna lose, bud.
Be a Rachel Corrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie) if you like -- idealists often emulate Don Quixote - but the windmills you choose to tip can kill ya.
If I wanted to be an AZZhole I would buy a tractor and put the orange slow moving vehical sign on it and go 10 MPH up and down the road all day long :D
anyways I am very interested in knowing how local law can supercede state law, and if there is ever a petition to sign where cyclist can voice their opinions in #'s Put me down!!
And a petition is gonna change what?
Physics will still apply, and you will still be unnecessarily vulnerable thanks to your attitudinal habits.
"Selective enforcement is the key phrase here. I've seen it, laws that are enforced against out of town bike riders that are not enforced when the riders are townies or otherwise known to the cops."
Nope. That is actually fairly legal (you can avoid enforcement by avoiding breaking the law). Cops have wide discretion in who to pull over and though they can't target a 'protected class' like blacks, women, etc, they are perfectly free to target red sports cars, cyclists in spandex, and the like. Basically, you CAN be selectively targeted just because they don't like the way you look, so long as you are breaking the law--unless you're a protected class.
Ok it was "Selective enforcement " :rolleyes:
For sake of discussion on the terms of your definitions,
Is something right or wrong just because it is legal or illegal?
And a note of interest, I am in the Midwest so will never have to deal with this town or it's stupid (in my opinion ;) ) ordnances. but at the same time if cyclist across the US don't band together and lobby things for our benefits. In how many years will it spread until it is so far gone we can do nothing about things like this?
And a petition is gonna change what?
Physics will still apply, and you will still be unnecessarily vulnerable thanks to your attitudinal habits.
Petitions and demonstrations have changed many things.
I don't understand your second sentence. What does that have to do with the discussion? The cyclist did not put himself in danger by riding next to another cyclist.
I know this road too and the speed limit is very low and many of the people who drive there are also doing so recreationally - to see the sights along the hudson river or to go to restaurants in Piermont or Nyack and most of them take it slow themselves.
Are you just making stupid replies to annoy the readers?
Petitions and demonstrations have changed many things.
I don't understand your second sentence. What does that have to do with the discussion? The cyclist did not put himself in danger by riding next to another cyclist.
I know this road too and the speed limit is very low and many of the people who drive there are also doing so recreationally - to see the sights along the hudson river or to go to restaurants in Piermont or Nyack and most of them take it slow themselves.
Are you just making stupid replies to annoy the readers?
BINGO!
Petitions and demonstrations have changed many things.
I don't understand your second sentence. What does that have to do with the discussion? The cyclist did not put himself in danger by riding next to another cyclist.
I know this road too and the speed limit is very low and many of the people who drive there are also doing so recreationally - to see the sights along the hudson river or to go to restaurants in Piermont or Nyack and most of them take it slow themselves.
Are you just making stupid replies to annoy the readers?
Dingdingdingdingding!!! WINNAR!!!!
Wouldn't be the first time, either.
I would be interested to know how one goes about finding out what the municipal ordinances are for specific towns. If anyone has any information on this, I would appreciate it.
I've had pretty good luck using Web sites like this (http://www.municode.com/index.asp).
He said none of the cars had come close and none had honked, so what the helle are you talking about.
What?! Thats ridiculous. Are you saying that when drivers do feel held up they should honk and behave agressively by coming up close behind cyclists? No wonder so many drivers treat cyclists on the road like crap: We are apparantely asking for it.
It seems if these vehicles were being held up, the were staying courteously behind waiting for a safe time to pass - isn't that exactly what we want them to do?
Al
This is actually what he wrote:
...none of which had honked or even come close to us. (my front wheel was alongside my buddy's back wheel -doubtful whether we were even in violation of the code.)
What?! Thats ridiculous. Are you saying that when drivers do feel held up they should honk and behave agressively by coming up close behind cyclists?
Absolutely not. I am usually very aware of cars trying to pass me and try to oblige as often and as safely as possible. But I certainly don't mind a friendly tap on the horn if someone wants to get my attention in those rare instances that I don't pay attention.
But in any case, we don't know if that is what happened here. I assumed that if they were not close they were not interested in passing. I have ridden this road many times and often cars travel more slowly than the bicyclists do. But maybe I should not have assumed this.
Just like you should not have assumed the following:
It seems if these vehicles were being held up, the were staying courteously behind waiting for a safe time to pass - isn't that exactly what we want them to do? Al
How do we know the cars were waiting for a safe time to pass?
Just like you should not have assumed the following:
How do we know the cars were waiting for a safe time to pass?
I should have said: it is just as possible they were indeed waiting for a time to pass. I'm not flat out assuming they were, but if one is cycling cars behind you starting to line up, its pretty obvious that the most likely thing they want to do is pass and if they are not hounding you, it is pretty good to assume they are being patient.
Al
Some areas have traffic codes that specify the number of vehicles following behind before one must safely pull over.
See if there is such a law in effect here... you said there were 3 cars behind you... is three enough to pull over for?
....and if they are not hounding you, it is pretty good to assume they are being patient.
Al
and this happens how often??? 1 in a 1000 ?? :lol:
We'll never know for sure how close the cars behind them was or what their intentions were because we wasn't there.
But what really bugs me is it appears this town or city or township (who ever made this single file law) dislikes cyclist and it is beyond their power to prevent cyclist from riding on a public access road. So instead they make bullchit laws to annoy cyclist? why else would they do "selective enforcment" ?
The only point I am making (and not really specific to this situation) is that we as cyclists should never let or suggest that the way we want to learn that we are slowing or hindering a motorist is for them to follow close and/or honk. Far to many motorist already think they need to honk and be agressive to send a message, don't let this behavior be known as acceptable.
A cyclist who is paying attention to surroundings (road conditions, speed limits, number of cars behind them) should know with no special indication from motorist if they are holding up faster vehicles. A cyclist should be expected to not hold up any other vehicle if there is a safe and practical way not to and in my experience most reasonable cyclists will not intentionally hold up other vehicles.
Al
Al, I agree with you on that. And most times you can tell when a motorist wants around. Same rules from defensive driving can transfer to defensive riding, as in just being alert and paying attention.
I am not trying to be or sound like an azzhole cyclist that hates motorist, but at the same time I hate to see restrictions put on cyclist. And if cyclist on a whole allow these restrictions where do they stop? or when do they stop?
In most states, local municipalities are severely limited in their ability to create traffic regulations, it's the sole province of the state
....
Since riding two abreast is specifically authorized by New York state law -- see http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1234 -- it's entirely possible that this local ordinance is not legal and should be struck down by a judge.
As others have noted, this is not something you are likely to be successful at without a lawyer. You may want to look into whether there are any local bicycle advocacy groups that can help you out.
Technically the local municipality is the "Authority Having Jurisdiction." That said, have photos of the route where the signs are NOT, go before the judge, be EXTREMELY courteous, say nice things about the officer and state that you thought the law permits two riders abreast. When you see it going badly, cite the DOT Law that DCCommuter was really smart to point out. I don't believe it will get to this; if you are courteous enough, it will probably be reduced significantly. Good luck and go win one for us!
Anyone have any experience with this? I was pulled over on my bike for failure to ride single file in an area where no signs regarding this unique municipal code were posted. The cop said that we were holding up three cars, none of which had honked or even come close to us. (my front wheel was alongside my buddy's back wheel -doubtful whether we were even in violation of the code.)
After getting the summons, a couple blocks later, a series of signs saying "ride single file $250 fine" were posted, however none of these had been posted in the area where I was pulled over.
I'm sure I have a decent legal case, and could get out of it if I showed up in court, but I am just curious if anyone else has had experience with the Piermont Police department and this rule. The cop's name was O'Leary.
thanks!
I think that you have a reasonable chance to beat this ticket, or at least get the fine reduced. Go to a Borders or other large bookstore, there are books on how to defend yourself in court against traffic tickets.
Here is how I would proceed
1) deny breaking the law, claiming that an overlapping wheel does not meet the definition of two abreast
2) get your friends who were riding with you testify that you were not riding alongside
3) take a picture of the road, showing that traffic being held upwa because the road is narrow, not because youwere riding in a way that blocks traffic
4) cross examine the police officer, challenging whether, from his vantage point, he could accurately determine your position relative to your friends'. Also challenge his interpretation of what two abreast means legally.
5) say that, even if you were riding two abreast, which you do not admit, you had no way of knowing the unique law of this town and had no reasonable way of knowing the law existed. In contradiction to a previous poster, ignorance of an arcane law that contradicts state law seems like a very reasonable excuse.
6) say that , even if you were riding two abreast, which you do not admit, challenge where the authority of the town exceeds the authority of the state.
Good luck, and I really encourage you to fight this goofy waste of time and taxpayer's money.
This is one of the things that I am confused about. Can the local law supersede the state law? Depends on the state. For example, Steve Goodridge notes that the N.C. General Statutes (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?0020) appears to deny local authorities the power to interfere with bicycle use on public streets.
§ 20-169. Powers of local authorities.
Local authorities, except as expressly authorized by G.S. 20-141 and 20-158, shall have no power or authority to alter any speed limitations declared in this Article or to enact or enforce any rules or regulations contrary to the provisions of this Article, except that local authorities shall have power to provide by ordinances for any of the following:
Regulating traffic by means of traffic or semaphores or other signaling devices on any portion of the highway where traffic is heavy or continuous.
Prohibiting other than one-way traffic upon certain highways.
Regulating the use of the highways by processions or assemblages.
Regulating the speed of vehicles on highways in public parks.
Here are Steve's notes about the two statutes referenced in § 20-169;§ 20-141's speed limit provisions allow minimum speed limit signs to be posted by municipalities but only applies such minimum speed limits to *motor* vehicles capable of such speeds, and § 20-158 covers only the installation of basic stop signs and traffic signals.
Note that § 20-4.01(49) defines the legal status of bicycles:... bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle...
To follow on, just as a for-instance, I recently came across the following from New Hampshire's laws (in this article about Segways http://www.bikexprt.com/witness/product/segway.htm ) :
265:149 Ordinances and Bylaws. – Any city or town shall have the power to make ordinances, bylaws or regulations respecting the use and equipment of bicycles, except mopeds as defined in RSA 259:57, on its ways, provided that any such ordinances, bylaws or regulations enacted with respect to such equipment shall be at least as stringent as the requirements of RSA 266:85-89. Any city or town may require that bicycles, except mopeds as defined in RSA 259:57, be licensed and may charge reasonable fees for such licensing.
So it's very much a state-by-state thing.
... I have always thought that some law is not based on the constitution, but is even older and more fundamental in origin. Isn't there a legal concept called common law? I seem to remember that it is based on medieval English principles, and even goes back to the Roman Empire. Does this law provide a basis for allowing public access to public roads?
Here's a little Q&A about the limits on government's power to impose additional restrictions on a citizen's right to travel.
Q. Why is the following observation from the Bicycles and the Traffic Law (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm) guide true in the USA?In all states, motor vehicle operators, but not cyclists, must meet additional requirements such as driver licensing, vehicle registration, and liability insurance.
A. From a state Supreme Court decision (http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/1996/93-2842.html):The right to travel has long been recognized by the courts as inherent in our constitutional concepts of personal liberty ... Because that right is fundamental, the [U.S. Supreme] Court reasoned, "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional."
The courts have consistently held that the extraordinary danger to others and their property posed by heavy equipment operation in a public way (i.e., driving most motor vehicles) is such a compelling government interest. On the other hand, human powered travel (whether on foot or wheel) is, almost without exception, never heavy enough to create a level of danger to others which is sufficient to justify additional government requirements for such travel.
Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society ... once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer.
-- Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
I didn't see that I was holding up even a single car. The office told me "three cars" when I challenged his significance as a human being.
me: (as officer O'Leary walks away) "how many of these tickets have you given out today?"
him: "I'm not going to get in a debate with you"
me: "I'm just wondering how many other bicyclists are going to be in court that night"
him: "people get into fistfights out here between bikers and drivers"
me: "I'm not looking to fight with anybody either"
him: "well, you were holding up three cars. you're lucky you didn't get hurt"
Thanks Bruce. I couldn't find it. :beer:
250 fifty dollars ticket for riding a bike?!?!??!?!
What if I tell you that I paid a similar amount for speeding way over the limit on an interstate (clear night, 2 am, wide awake, and with a deadline ... not doing it anymore) in TENESSEE. Imagine ... out of state, foreign, and minority. It could not be worse scenario.
I think the fine is outrageously expensive ... is not in proportion at all with the value and operating cost of the vehicle. Ridiculous.
,... and snowball chance in hell that you will get away with it.
i know this is coming way too late to do any good, but the piermont municpal law can be found here:
http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codebook_frameset.asp?t=tc&p=0612%5Fatp%2Ehtm&cn=1&n=[1]
and there were a few interesting parts in the municipal law:
first:
ARTICLE VII Penalties; Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 190-27. Penalties for offenses.
Every person convicted of a traffic infraction for a violation of any provision of this chapter which is not a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York shall, for a first conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $50 or by imprisonment for not more than 15 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second such conviction within 18 months thereafter, such person shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for not more than 45 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; upon a third or subsequent conviction within 18 months after the first conviction, such person shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
if i'm not mistaken, this was a first infraction...shouldnt of been fined more thatn $50
next:
§ 190-43. Bicycling and skating on public streets. [Added 10-21-1997 by L.L. No. 5-1997]
Notwithstanding the provisions of Subdivision (b) of § 1234 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon any public street within the Village of Piermont shall not ride more than one abreast and shall ride, skate or glide near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left-hand turn or when necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. This section shall supersede any provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that is inconsistent herewith. All other provisions of such law shall remain in full force and effect.
law clearly states riding abreast, of which merit has already been raised
rst of municipal laws can be found here as well:
http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codebook_frameset.asp?t=tcfull
1. If you honestly don't think the signage adequately informed you of the local traffic regulation applicable to that location, I'd get a lawyer and plead innocent.
2. As part of the defense, make a map of the route you took an mark the locations of the signs to illustrate why you missed them and did not intend to violate any law.
3. Investigate what the state law says about the ability of local municipalities to pass local traffic regulations. Explain why local traffic regulations that are not properly signed foster problems for people who travel from city to city, and how this resulted in the limitations placed on local regulations.
I would be interested to know how one goes about finding out what the municipal ordinances are for specific towns. I have never met anyone who has actually done this. Can one simply go to town hall and request a copy of the ordinances? Do you have to be a resident of the town to get a copy? If anyone has any information on this, I would appreciate it.Always available at City Hall, although it's possible that they might charge you for a copy. Often available online. And should be available at the library.
Somebody above said that the ordinance doesn't have to be posted. The accuracy of that statement depends upon what the ordinance actually says. For example, if the ordinance says something like "riding single file is prohibited where posted," then there would be a requirement for a sign to be posted in order for the ordinance to be in effect. On the other hand, if the ordinance merely says "riding single file is prohibited," then it's in effect within the town's jurisdiction, wherever that extends to.
If you're going to court, it's a really good idea to read the ordinance well-beforehand to see what it actually says.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.