Throw a few printouts of post #46 into the folder you take to court, Joe.... It might be useful in case you get nervous and forget some of that. Maybe the judge will allow and friend can video tape the proceeding? What an awesome youtube post that would make. Or at least maybe you can leave a request with the court steno to mail you a copy of the transcript?

Unfortunately Joe, Reality may prevail at the courthouse and if the policeman is present and tells his side of the story, you better bring your checkbook.

Finally, I'm so glad this happened!
??

Answered by JoeJack himself:

The precendent set by other cyclists, and now added to by this incident, has entitled motorists to believe that the traffic lanes on Naamans are off limits to cyclists. If this ticket helps me do something about that attitude then I'm really happy I received it.

Note the words at the top of the citation:


Whose words are those? Those of the officer? Or official "citation" words?

I mean, "is to ride to right of roadway" implies not on roadway, doesn't it? I mean, what if it is said, "ride to right of tree". Anyway, that' seems to be a blatant misinterpretation of 4196.

+1

But this basically violates the tenants of vehicular cycling and destination positioning... ARRRRRRRG!!!!:eek:
In order to not derail this one from discussing JJ's particular incident, I started a new thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335976) on the general topic of sometimes using right turns lanes for through travel in the VC subforum.

if other cyclists regularily ride this road further to the right, joe, why is that position not considered practicable by you?

and why not pull to the right to allow faster traffic to pass if the shoulder IS wide? versus making the traffic change lanes? i beleive jhon forestor suggests the shoulder as appropriate for VC riding at times when faster traffic is present.

I'm just playing the devils advocate, I regularily ride the lane of high speed roads, but I'm also able to recognize safe road position without getting all caught up in the 'I drive my bike, i need to be in the travel lane' VC radicalization of bicycling.

Aside from the negative interactions with same direction and right turning traffic, the reasons why I do not consider riding further right as practicable are:

1. Traffic entering the roadway either has, or uses the shoulder as, a merge lane to speed up and enter the roadway. They are not expecting traffic to be coming straight from the far right of the road and I do not want to be accidentally overlooked. Another thing traffic entering the roadway likes to do is to stop so far out from the intersection that they completely block the useable width.

2. In most places, the shoulder is too short for more than 1 or 2 vehicles to pass me before it turns into another turn lane. As I stated earlier, the packs of vehicles are almost always larger than this. Negotiating a quick merge left on this road is all but impossible (not helped by the attitude problem for sure). Where the shoulder is long enough to use for a significant period in between intersections, I will use if there is faster same direction traffic in both lanes or if there is a long line of FSDT in the right lane (so that they don't all have to change lanes to pass).

3. Buses stop in the shoulder to pick up passengers, garbage trucks stop in the shoulder to collect trash, and all vehicles use the shoulder as a place to pull over and stop/park for whatever reason. I encounter this often enough that it would be an annoyance to default to that portion of the road.

4. When reaching an intersection with a red light while travelling in the right hand turn lane, stopping for the red light can put you in an awkward position.

5. As with any shoulder, debris accumulates and with the heavy truck traffic this road sees, it can be significant and has included two by fours, blown out tires, bags of trash, and tons of sand after the winter snow storms.

VC/anti-VC sniping aside, contact local cyclist advocacy groups to see if they will help. At a minimum, they should be able to connect you with a lawyer who understands bicycle law. If you're goal is to strike a blow for cyclists, do it right. That means having a lawyer who knows the law, the court, and bicycling.

I dislike roads like these, because they require me to choose between multiple undesirable options: violating the traffic law by traveling straight in right-turn-only lanes, riding the lane line and experiencing potential close passes on both sides due to narrow lane width, or taking the narrow lane where traffic speeds and volumes are high. (I'll omit the option of not cycling.)

I dislike this road design for the same reasons. If it didn't serve so many of my common destinations (#1 being my home), and there was another convenient route, I'd be tempted to avoid it.

This is one of those places where I'm tempted to look for an engineering solution that would provide a better option and less potential social friction. So what would such a solution be? Additional space to the left of the RTOLs in the form of a WOL or striped bike lane? And if the total right of way could not be widened, what then? Eliminate the right turn lanes, or as some people have shown in other threads, create a combined right-turn and bike lane with cyclists staying away from the curb to avoid right hooks?

I'd love to brainstorm some ideas for what could be the best way to use the current space. The current design was the result of a long (5+ year) widening project. Much of the original road (pre-2000) was just two lanes plus shoulders with no turn lanes from what I remember (used this road to get to high school from '93-'97). Significant right of way was acquired to put the new design in place but I don't think it's enough to put in a WOL but keep two lanes in each direction plus turn lanes. I also don't think a 20+ foot wide outside lane would do anyone much good. A bike lane/right turn lane wouldn't eliminate the hazards of currently using the shoulder/right turn lane and would also require removing some pedestrian islands and gore zones (intended to keep people from using entering a right turn lane early). There's also an area east of my incident where the shoulder goes away and the road is only two narrow lanes with high curbs for about 0.5 miles.

With that said, I think a great design would be narrowing the road to remove the right turn lanes but keep the right lane wide in addition to lowering the speed limit (the last one being in an ideal world). A buffer zone could be added between the road and the sidewalk to make using the sidewalk more pleasant using the removed roadway space. Currently, you'll often feel the rush of wind as motorists enter the turn lanes at 50+mph and pass within 4-5 feet of you on the sidewalk. But this would be best discussed in another thread.

One good thing about actually cycling on unpleasant roads is that it encourages the government to actually think about how road design affects lawfully operating cyclists, rather than assuming that lawfully operating cyclists will simply go away or ought to act contrary to the law. A traffic ticket like this can be used to compel planners and engineers to do a better job of providing adequate overtaking space on important roads as well as compel bicyclist-friendly members of the city council (I'm sure you can find them) to direct the police department to better educate its officers about cyclists' rights on our roadways.

I agree and hope to use this case as leverage to improve some of the local roads especially this one, or at least change the attitudes of the local law enforcement.

He then went on to say that I had left him no choice but to ticket me because I was not cooperating. He stated the obvious, "I guess I'll be seeing you in court," to which I replied, "Sure will."

Sorry if this has already been asked, but exactly at what point were you not cooperating? You pulled over, per a police officer's direction. You produced ID on demand. I don't think you were confrontational at all.

Yes, I'd take it to court, but I would suggest retaining a attorney.

Was the officer saying you should go straight ahead from a right turn only lane? Isn't that advocating you to violate the vehicle code? He'd then be telling you to violate the same vehicle code that he used to write you a ticket.

His orginal comment was that I should be using the "bike path." Like many motorists (and cyclists) on this road, he seemed to be blind to the fact that the area of the road he was suggesting I ride in was for right turning or merging traffic only. So while he did not explicitly say to use the right turn lane, he obviously implied it. I don't know what kind of reaction I'd get from the judge if I brought that up. It would be my word against his in regards to that.

VC/anti-VC sniping aside, contact local cyclist advocacy groups to see if they will help. At a minimum, they should be able to connect you with a lawyer who understands bicycle law. If you're goal is to strike a blow for cyclists, do it right. That means having a lawyer who knows the law, the court, and bicycling.
A lawyer is probably overkill for a $25 ticket in traffic court.

Logical arguments based on the law go a long way in that context, and JJ has certainly proved capable of being able to do that. He probably knows the relevant laws better than the cop, the judge, or any supposed expert hired gun. Maybe he can find an unusually good one, but most of these do much more than bike law or even traffic law, and are not nearly as motivated to know and understand the details and subtleties. The hardcore VC engineers I have met in person or online (like Goodridge, Forester and LCI_Brian) seem to know the law much better than the bike lawyers I've met.

I've beaten two tickets in traffic court, though they involved driving. The first was running a stop sign (I didn't, and I showed with photos how the cop could not have seen that I stopped at the stop line, which I did). The second was for crossing a center dashed stripe on a 2 lane highway and then returning to my lane (which I did because I couldn't see around the truck in front of me, so moved left and then saw a highway patrol :eek: coming at me, so moved back). Actually, I got the fine reduced to $0 on that one, so I didn't exactly win. But in that case I was definitely wrong. I just didn't know it was illegal to cross the center stripe unless you're committed to a pass.

His orginal comment was that I should be using the "bike path." Like many motorists (and cyclists) on this road, he seemed to be blind to the fact that the area of the road he was suggesting I ride in was for right turning or merging traffic only. So while he did not explicitly say to use the right turn lane, he obviously implied it. I don't know what kind of reaction I'd get from the judge if I brought that up. It would be my word against his in regards to that.
This is yet another example of how people, even cops, associate the terms "bike path" and "bike lane" with very different concepts from what bike paths and bike lanes actually are. This type of usage is akin to those who yell "get in the bike lane" on roads without bike lanes. What this shows is that what "bike path" and "bike lane" really mean to these people is something generic like, space for bicyclists to use that is out of the way of cars.

This is not surprising.

it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. when's your day in court, joe?

I'm sending my "not guilty" form in tomorrow. I need to call in a few days to find out when my court date will be.

A couple wonderings...

I wonder if you had been riding in the right tire track (i.e. a few feet from lane line edge) but still in a 11' lane (which would have caused same passing delay as if you were centered) if the officer would have still pulled you over. After all you would have caused the officer delay, yet you would have been then as close as practable to the right edge of thru lane.

I wonder what other 'delayed' motorists thought when you were pulled over? Probably wrongly re-enforced to them that cyclists should not be on the road and the 'law was on their side.'

Al

It would be an interesting experiment to see their reaction to me causing the same delay by riding further right but I think I'd rather have the discussion in person than deal with a few days/weeks of doing so in hopes of baiting a police officer into pulling me over again. We'll both just have to wonder about that one.

And Al, no need to remind me of the negative impact on motorists that this police stop has to have had :mad: ;)

I dislike roads like these, because they require me to choose between multiple undesirable options: violating the traffic law by traveling straight in right-turn-only lanes, riding the lane line and experiencing potential close passes on both sides due to narrow lane width, or taking the narrow lane where traffic speeds and volumes are high. (I'll omit the option of not cycling.)

Yeah, 'tis a thorny one. I tend to favour the choice that results in the fewest 'conflicts'.

Riding in the lane, while it may be legal, if it results in backed up traffic, I'd avoid it. If it was wide enough to share, or traffic was light enough that they could readily pass in the other lane, that's where I'd be.

Riding right on the line results, as you say, in close passes from both side. Not ideal.

Riding in the RTOL, while arguably less legal, would probably be my choice. But, I would not take a line near the kerbside , as that only invites right-hooks, nor in the centre, as that puts me too far away from the flow of traffic I'm following.

I'd probably take a line just to the right of the lane divider, claiming enough of the lane to discourage turning motorists from passing, but close enough that I can move into the lane proper if I need to with minimum conflict. If a car comes up behind me in the turning lane, and I may move into the lane to allow them to pass if it's safe to do so, otherwise, they can wait. So, I'm still claiming a lane, but the one with the least traffic in it. It's not cowardice (I'm talking to you Foam Head), it's pragmatism.

That said, joejack wasn't doing anything actually illegal, and shouldn't have been ticketed. Requiring motorists to change lanes isn't a crime.

Note the words at the top of the citation:


Whose words are those? Those of the officer? Or official "citation" words?

I mean, "is to ride to right of roadway" implies not on roadway, doesn't it? I mean, what if it is said, "ride to right of tree". Anyway, that' seems to be a blatant misinterpretation of 4196.

When I read the citation after getting to work, I thought the same thing. It makes no sense. What I believe he wanted to cite me for was impeding the flow traffic or possibly just riding too far to the left/not far enough right. But either of those last two would only apply if I was impeding the flow of traffic, assuming the officer understands the reasons behind the laws. Faster same direction traffic must be present for the far right rule to even apply. A citation for not being far enough right is really meaningless without further details IMO.

FWIW, here are DE's impeding traffic laws:

§ 4171. Minimum speed.

(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) A minimum speed limit, below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, may be displayed on appropriate traffic-control devices. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 4171; 54 Del. Laws, c. 160, § 1; 57 Del. Laws, c. 670, § 13A; 60 Del. Laws, c. 700, § 8; 60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 44.)

[Not applicable. I was not driving a motor vehicle and there's no minimum posted speed limit.]

§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)

[Not applicable. This was a 4 lane highway.]

Unfortunately Joe, Reality may prevail at the courthouse and if the policeman is present and tells his side of the story, you better bring your checkbook.

What's this "Reality" you speak of? If it's that the police and the judge I may get are unaware and unconcerned with cyclists legally operating on the roadways, then I'm willing to accept that and challenge it even further after this court case. Eventually, I ought to be able to find someone who's willing to recognize that the law really does allow me to do what I was doing and that this officer (and possibly the first judge) were wrong. If the "Reality" is that it's illegal to ride centered in a narrow lane then clearly our laws need changing (and so do many other states').

The hardcore VC engineers I have met in person or online (like Goodridge, Forester and LCI_Brian) seem to know the law much better than the bike lawyers I've met.

Ha, HA!
A little more accurate to say some bicycle advocates think they know the law better than anyone in the legal system. See today's laffer at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23467 as John Forester whines about how nobody in the "legal system" can interpret the law correctly, only JF himself and his pals know the LAW. IOW everybody else is wrong except himself about the case he championed and was going to use straighten everybody else out about The Law .

What's this "Reality" you speak of? If it's that the police and the judge I may get are unaware and unconcerned with cyclists legally operating on the roadways, then I'm willing to accept that and challenge it even further after this court case. Eventually, I ought to be able to find someone who's willing to recognize that the law really does allow me to do what I was doing and that this officer (and possibly the first judge) were wrong. If the "Reality" is that it's illegal to ride centered in a narrow lane then clearly our laws need changing (and so do many other states').

The reality is you are going to tell the Judge your version of the events and apparently your interpretation of the applicable law, and the policeman and possibly a County prosecutor will provide their version of the Truth, and their version of your actions. Every been to Traffic Court?

Ha, HA!
A little more accurate to say some bicycle advocates think they know the law better than anyone in the legal system. See today's laffer at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23467 as John Forester whines about how nobody in the "legal system" can interpret the law correctly, only JF himself and his pals know the LAW. IOW everybody else is wrong except himself about the case he championed and was going to use straighten everybody else out about The Law .
That's totally different.

The issue there is given that streets and sidewalks are mandated by law to be designed and maintained to certain standards, and dirt paths are not, are paved bike paths like streets and sidewalks or like dirt paths with respect to whether they are mandated by law to be designed and maintained to certain standards.

The problem is that the law is not clear on this point, and the courts have chosen to rule that since there is no law that says paved bike paths are like streets and sidewalks in this respect, they must be like dirt paths.

Forester believes that interpretation is unreasonable. Anyway, that situation is way more sketchy than anything going on here.

Again, not as the antaogonist, reality only...
If the cops shows, you will lose.

Again, not as the antaogonist, reality only...
If the cops shows, you will lose.You only lose if the Judge has to choose between the cop's word and yours. The way you win is by not presenting the Judge with that choice.

You only lose if the Judge has to choose between the cop's word and yours. The way you win is by not presenting the Judge with that choice.
Indeed, what can the cop say that would make JJ guilty of violating 4196 if he can show that the lane was too narrow to be safely shared.

JJ, you might want to bring a witness/friend who goes with you to measure the width of the lane to substantiate how the measurement was done. That way it's not only your word about the lane width, in case that's what the cop challenges.

Better yet, have it measured by the local advocacy group and posted on their website or in their newsletter, then bring a printout of that.

I mean 4196(a)(3) is very clear: When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of roadway. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

I mean, that clearly obviates you from adhering to the main point of the law: shall ride as close as practicable to the right ... except under any of the following circumstances:

You only lose if the Judge has to choose between the cop's word and yours. The way you win is by not presenting the Judge with that choice.

It sounds like the officer and Joe's word (that is description of the events and the facts) may even be the same. The difference seems more to be about interpretation/application of the law.

Al

Again, not as the antaogonist, reality only...
If the cops shows, you will lose.

But reality is not welcome amongst the club house lawyers on BF. Reality tells me that what the law officer says in court may not match what the defendant thinks he will say.

Apparently there is some legal precedent for that nutty wording!


Section 9.56.050 Duty to keep to right of roadway.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right of the roadway as practical, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. (TC § 07-11-005)

http://www.vernalcity.org/mcode/Title_9/56/050.html

The crux might not be to prove that the rightmost through lane was too narrow, but that riding in the RTOL was not legal. Is it?

Get the width of the right only lane too. If it's too narrow, then the keep right does not apply there either. If the law does not apply, then you cannot be in violation of it.

It sounds like the officer and Joe's word (that is description of the events and the facts) may even be the same. The difference seems more to be about interpretation/application of the law.

AlThat's the idea-- you get the cop to agree that your evidence is accurate. Then you produce the statutes and do the maths to demonstrate how much passing distance sharing the road would allow. The judge then has to decide if a "reasonable person" would consider the remaining passing distance safe or unsafe under the existing road conditions, including the speed of traffic. It's not about whether either the cop or the cyclist thinks it's safe or unsafe, it's about whether a "reasonable person" riding a bike under the existing road conditions would think it's safe or unsafe.

That's the idea-- you get the cop to agree that your evidence is accurate. Then you produce the statutes and do the maths to demonstrate how much passing distance sharing the road would allow. The judge then has to decide if a "reasonable person" would consider the remaining passing distance safe or unsafe under the existing road conditions, including the speed of traffic. It's not about whether either the cop or the cyclist thinks it's safe or unsafe, it's about whether a "reasonable person" riding a bike under the existing road conditions would think it's safe or unsafe.

Thanks for stressing this point, Blue Order. Up until the point of "can the lane be shared?", the cop and I will be stating the exact same thing. If the judge thinks it's safe to put an 8 foot wide bus and a 2 foot wide cyclist in an 11 foot lane with a 30mph speed differential, we're all doomed :)

Apparently there is some legal precedent for that nutty wording!


Section 9.56.050 Duty to keep to right of roadway.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right of the roadway as practical, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. (TC § 07-11-005)

http://www.vernalcity.org/mcode/Title_9/56/050.html

The crux might not be to prove that the rightmost through lane was too narrow, but that riding in the RTOL was not legal. Is it?

Get the width of the right only lane too. If it's too narrow, then the keep right does not apply there either. If the law does not apply, then you cannot be in violation of it.

Lane striping is a traffic control device as far as I can tell in the vehicle code. The code goes on to say:

§ 4107. Obedience to and required traffic-control devices.

(a) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with this title, unless otherwise directed as authorized in § 4103 of this title, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this title.


Basically, it's illegal for me as a vehicle driver to not obey a traffic control device. So going straight from a right turn only lane is not a legal option. The lane width of the right turn lane is irrelevant.

Where did you find that website anyway and what/where does it apply to? It has some really outdated laws and wording.

Thanks for stressing this point, Blue Order. Up until the point of "can the lane be shared?", the cop and I will be stating the exact same thing. If the judge thinks it's safe to put an 8 foot wide bus and a 2 foot wide cyclist in an 11 foot lane with a 30mph speed differential, we're all doomed :)DO NOT ask the cop his opinion on whether the lane can be safely shared. Do NO ask the cop for his definition of "practicable."

DO ask the cop if your photographs and measurements accurately depict the roadway. DO ask the cop to confirm other details that can't easily be denied-- for example, that the roadway is 4 lanes there, that the posted speed limit is XX miles per hour, etc. Have photographs of the posted speed limit, the number of lanes, etc.

The rule of thumb for me on lane position is this: If I ride to the right of the right tire track, do passing motorists encroach on the left lane in order to safely pass me? If wide vehicles must do so, then ANY lane position has the same result- traffic must merge to safely pass. In that event, I take the lane.

I would encourage you to demonstrate this concept to the court by having a friend video tape cars passing you while riding to right of the lane. Cars encroaching into the next lane while passing you demonstrate that taking the lane is no more disruptive to traffic patterns while at the same time being safer for all involved. Naturally, we would love to see the video as well.

Are you required to present your drivers license to the officer in Delaware? (Not required here in Texas.) Be sure this doesn't affect your motor license/insurance rates! In looking over the ticket, it would appear that officer Boyd failed to properly fill it out! There is no description of the vehicle you were riding!

Is there a legal defense fund started yet?

Cheers and best wishes in court!

DO NOT ask the cop his opinion on whether the lane can be safely shared. Do NO ask the cop for his definition of "practicable."

DO ask the cop if your photographs and measurements accurately depict the roadway. DO ask the cop to confirm other details that can't easily be denied-- for example, that the roadway is 4 lanes there, that the posted speed limit is XX miles per hour, etc. Have photographs of the posted speed limit, the number of lanes, etc.

Good point, don't ask for opinion, just press for facts.

A lawyer is probably overkill for a $25 ticket in traffic court. . . .
If this were only about $25, you'd be right. But messing this up could seriously hurt the right of cyclists to use the road in that area.

Doing your own legal work is like doing your own home electical work. You'll probably get it right in a small case like this, but one little mistake, and your case could come burning down. And you might not discover mistake right away. It might not burn down your case until you try to appeal.

It's joejack's life, joejack's ticket, joejack's money, joejack's risk, joejack's decision.

Much of the "legal" advice in this thread is making me truly laugh out loud.

The advice is worth every penny joejack is paying.

No Make and Model information on the ticket? That's a shame -- would have been kind of funny.

Is there a legal defense fund started yet?


Free JoeJack!!!!!!!

Lane striping is a traffic control device as far as I can tell in the vehicle code. The code goes on to say:

§ 4107. Obedience to and required traffic-control devices.

(a) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with this title, unless otherwise directed as authorized in § 4103 of this title, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this title.


Basically, it's illegal for me as a vehicle driver to not obey a traffic control device. So going straight from a right turn only lane is not a legal option. The lane width of the right turn lane is irrelevant.

Where did you find that website anyway and what/where does it apply to? It has some really outdated laws and wording.
I googled for that nutty wording in quotes, and found that. It was enough to establish that the cop almost certainly did not make it up on the fly (if he did, it was a coincidence). Anyway, that just confirms what is actually meant by "keep to right of roadway" is: "as far right as practicable" but on the roadway.

I can't tell from the google image how well that right only lane is marked as right only. Are there signs and frequent pavement markings? Make sure you have pictures of those! A good question for the policeman:

Is it legal to go straight from this lane at this point (showing him a picture of a car in the rightmost lane)? At this point? (another picture same lane, further up the road). And so on...

If this were only about $25, you'd be right. But messing this up could seriously hurt the right of cyclists to use the road in that area.

Doing your own legal work is like doing your own home electical work. You'll probably get it right in a small case like this, but one little mistake, and your case could come burning down. And you might not discover mistake right away. It might not burn down your case until you try to appeal.

It's joejack's life, joejack's ticket, joejack's money, joejack's risk, joejack's decision.



The advice is worth every penny joejack is paying.
Actually, that is an important consideration. The legal treatment of paved bike paths as dirt trails in California, such that there is no legal mandate to design and maintain them up to standards (as there is for streets and sidewalks), arguably stems from a botched defense in which that precedent was allowed to be set, and all courts since then concurred.

I googled for that nutty wording in quotes, and found that. It was enough to establish that the cop almost certainly did not make it up on the fly (if he did, it was a coincidence). Anyway, that just confirms what is actually meant by "keep to right of roadway" is: "as far right as practicable" but on the roadway.

Ok.

I can't tell from the google image how well that right only lane is marked as right only. Are there signs and frequent pavement markings? Make sure you have pictures of those! A good question for the policeman:

Is it legal to go straight from this lane at this point (showing him a picture of a car in the rightmost lane)? At this point? (another picture same lane, further up the road). And so on...

Actually, there are no arrows on any of those right turn lanes in the vicinity of where I was pulled over. I've never paid attention to know if any exists on that road actually and it's too hard to tell from the satellite image. I'll try to remember to check on my way home tonight.

You can see how the pavement markings clearly direct traffic to the right when turning off Naamans and into the right lane when entering Naamans. Some of the intersections have islands that stick out far enough to block most of the space between the turn lane and merge lane too (presumably to discourage drivers from going straight through there), and even those do not have arrows. I'll have to take some pictures that show the area more clearly and post them.

Actually, that is an important consideration. The legal treatment of paved bike paths as dirt trails in California, such that there is no legal mandate to design and maintain them up to standards (as there is for streets and sidewalks), arguably stems from a botched defense in which that precedent was allowed to be set, and all courts since then concurred.

If for some reason I do fail to defend myself in this first court case, I will take it up to a higher level at which point I would hire a lawyer to help. Letting the cop win in this situation sets a terrible precedent in my opinion.

If for some reason I do fail to defend myself in this first court case, I will take it up to a higher level at which point I would hire a lawyer to help. Letting the cop win in this situation sets a terrible precedent in my opinion.

Exactly... which is why it is a good idea to check your local advocacy group and see if there is a lawyer that might do this pro bono.

If for some reason I do fail to defend myself in this first court case, I will take it up to a higher level at which point I would hire a lawyer to help. Letting the cop win in this situation sets a terrible precedent in my opinion.

What "higher level" than traffic court for a traffic ticket?

Joejack,

You have a private message re: this thread.

Joejack,

You have a private message re: this thread.

If you sent one, I did not receive it.

What "higher level" than traffic court for a traffic ticket?

According to what I've found online, the Court of Common Pleas will handle the case if you wish to appeal a conviction at the Justice of the Peace court. I'm glad you did ask this though because further reading has lead me to a site which says that I can only appeal if my ticket is over $100. Gives me something to think about.

Joejack,

You have a private message re: this thread.

Lemme guess: Don't let the Loopy Lawyers (wannabes) from the Left Coast put you in a Legal Kettle of Fish.

You might look up Mr. Prokop of California and ask him what happens to cyclists who take their legal advice from bicycle advocates with a personal agenda to prove at your expense.

ILTB, my private message was related to the fact that I am a law student at Temple University, though I'm not sure you care one way or the other.

I looked up Prokop of California and as far as I can tell, the case is under appeal. Since either side could win when the case is entirely over, I don't see that you can conclude much from what has happened already in that case.

Actually, there are no arrows on any of those right turn lanes in the vicinity of where I was pulled over. I've never paid attention to know if any exists on that road actually and it's too hard to tell from the satellite image. I'll try to remember to check on my way home tonight.

You can see how the pavement markings clearly direct traffic to the right when turning off Naamans and into the right lane when entering Naamans. Some of the intersections have islands that stick out far enough to block most of the space between the turn lane and merge lane too (presumably to discourage drivers from going straight through there), and even those do not have arrows. I'll have to take some pictures that show the area more clearly and post them.

My understanding is that the pavement markings make it fairly clear that the right lane is NOT for through travel. With intersection bulb outs or a gore area cyclists need 5 feet between the curb (not an “open” section or road) and the next lane stripe to be AASHTO compliant in accommodating cyclists and from my experience this is rarely done.

I would love to see a headline “Police order cyclist to disobey a traffic control device.”

FWIW MD has a state issued booklet that has a little section on how to deal with police and strongly implies that police do not always get the bike laws correct.

ILTB, my private message was related to the fact that I am a law student at Temple University, though I'm not sure you care one way or the other.

I looked up Prokop of California and as far as I can tell, the case is under appeal. Since either side could win when the case is entirely over, I don't see that you can conclude much from what has happened already in that case.
The CA Supreme Court decided not to review, so the appeal is over. Unless and until the legislature changes the law, paved bike paths in CA have the same legal mandate to be designed and maintained up to certain standards as do dirt trails: none.

Streets and sidewalks, on the other hand, must be designed and maintained to meet certain standards.

I would love to see a headline “Police order cyclist to disobey a traffic control device.”


Hmm. Any chance you want to get the local media involved? Maybe a reporter who belongs to a bike club?

The CA Supreme Court decided not to review, so the appeal is over. Unless and until the legislature changes the law, paved bike paths in CA have the same legal mandate to be designed and maintained up to certain standards as do dirt trails: none.
.
You forgot to include the background on the Prokop case. How a certain advocate, named Johh Forester was the instigator in encouraging the plantiff to appeal, change lawyers and follow the Forester's "legal" game plan, to include shopping for a new lawyer who would argue the case IAW Forester's scheme.
Costly for the plaintiff as well as the bicycle advocates who sent their $$'s to the Forester Branded lawyers at Forester's requests and pleas.

Moral of the story: bicycling advocates' interpretations of the law and legal advice is worth what you pay for it , and in some cases, (like Joe's) probably quite a bit less than that.

Lemme guess: Don't let the Loopy Lawyers (wannabes) from the Left Coast put you in a Legal Kettle of Fish.

You might look up Mr. Prokop of California and ask him what happens to cyclists who take their legal advice from bicycle advocates with a personal agenda to prove at your expense.

I really fail to see the connection of the State of California not wanting to be liable for building hazardous bike facilities and requiring cyclists to use those hazardous bike facilities and Loopy Lawyers (wannabes.) Are you implying that Mr. Prokop and all California cyclists will be better off if the just suck it up and pay for their own medical bills and California can just willy-nilly make cyclists ride in unsafe facilities?

I also fail to see how this one case is reprehensive of ALL cases involving cyclists. If you're implying that anytime a cyclists fights a ticket it will run into the six figures range and be the source of financial ruin … that is not having a firm grip on reality.

I strongly recommend quit hanging out in the chainguard forum and spend more time out in the real world.