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.

The connection is letting yourself be led down a primrose pathon legal issues by self appointed/self annointed Legal Gurus with a personal agenda.

Mr. Prokop was used as a sacrificial lamb for Forester and pals to challenge the legal professionals and courts who (rightfully) consider Forester a chump and his legal arguments without merit.

Other California legal beagles appear snapping at the bit to do the same with Joe's (currently) $25 ticket.

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.
It was a gamble in which everyone involved who paid a stake, including Forester and Prokop, thought it was worth it. No one guaranteed a win.

Nothing is for sure in the legal world. JJ seems fully aware that he might lose, as well he might.

Hmm. Any chance you want to get the local media involved? Maybe a reporter who belongs to a bike club?
My sphere of influence ends rather sharply at the Susquehanna River and the Bay but I could try something if JoeJack is interested.

I wish better luck for you than the two seperate
occasions, years apart, that I had when I went to
court in Exton and Lancaster. Both cops obviously
couldnt even remember who I was so they just
made stuff up on the spot. When I pointed these
things out both judges(?) said they were going to cite
me for contempt. I still lost despite them not even
remembering the incident they were defending.
I wish you well and dont lose your cool no matter what !!!!!

I wish better luck for you than the two seperate
occasions, years apart, that I had when I went to
court in Exton and Lancaster. Both cops obviously
couldnt even remember who I was so they just
made stuff up on the spot. When I pointed these
things out both judges(?) said they were going to cite
me for contempt. I still lost despite them not even
remembering the incident they were defending.
I wish you well and dont lose your cool no matter what !!!!!
I don't know what the relevant facts were in your case, but there doesn't seem to be much room for the cop to make up stuff in this case, particularly since JJ is not denying that he was doing what the cop basically says he was doing. The only question is whether doing it violated the particular vehicle code section or not.

It's like being cited for running a stop sign at an intersection without a stop sign.

a certain advocate, named Johh Forester ... Moral of the story:
Is don't involve John Forester, nothing else can really be implied.

Is don't involve John Forester, nothing else can really be implied.

????

????

It was supposed to be read as a whole:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
a certain advocate, named Johh Forester ... Moral of the story:

Is don't involve John Forester. Nothing else can really be implied.

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.Actually, if the cop wins, *no* precedent is set. A different judge-- or even the same judge-- hearing the same set of facts could decide for the cyclist the next time. There is only precedent on appeal.

And *that* is where you have to be careful about establishing bad precedent. Too many people bring bad cases to appeal (I'm not saying your case is bad) and when they lose on appeal, they establish bad precedent (if the court gets the law wrong.). There's even a saying: Bad cases make bad law.

So yes, if you lose your trial, and you decide to appeal, you should most definitely seek competent legal representation-- from an attorney specializing in bicycle law-- to handle your appeal, or you run the risk of establishing bad precedent.

Or, if you lose, you could just pay your ticket and no precedent is established.

Of course, if you do appeal, you also have the possibility to establish good precedent (although I'm not at all convinced of the wisdom of taking the full lane on a road with those kinds of speed differentials.).

Of course, if you do appeal, you also have the possibility to establish good precedent (although I'm not at all convinced of the wisdom of taking the full lane on a road with those kinds of speed differentials.).
FWIW MD's Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Assess says it is illegal to use a right hand turn lane to go straight regardless of speed differentials. I disagree but that’s another topic of conversation.

It was supposed to be read as a whole:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
a certain advocate, named Johh Forester ... Moral of the story:

Is don't involve John Forester. Nothing else can really be implied.

OK I understand. Agree, don't involve John Forester or his acolytes who think they became legal experts or constitutional scholars from watching the People's Court TV and reading/believing the Gospels of Effective Cycling.

FWIW MD's Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Assess says it is illegal to use a right hand turn lane to go straight regardless of speed differentials. I disagree but that’s another topic of conversation.I just tend to agree with what San Rensho said in another thread about the difference between cycling that is legal and cycling that is prudent. While we don't want a diminution of our rights, sometimes it's just not prudent to ride on certain roads.

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 .

:lol:

+1

EDIT: C'mon ... any prepared lawyer is going to be much better at interpreting the law than just about any non-lawyer in the forums.

Joe,

Would the ticket add points to your driver's record?

-G

BTW JJ, as others have mentioned, I think contacting the local advocacy group(s) would be quite helpful. In addition to (potential) access to lawyers within the group(s), there is a good chance that you will find others with similar local experiences which would be more relevant to your case.

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 checked out the road on my way home tonight and noticed that the portion of the road starting at 202 and going another mile or so east has the right turn lanes marked with arrows. After that and approximately at the same time that the pavement goes from looking newer to older, the arrows disappear but the striping remains the same.

As to giving 5 feet, I'd say that most of the intersections do provide that much space though not all of them do. Some are more like 2 feet between the bulb out (or island, or whatever you want to call it) and the right hand right lane stripe.

My sphere of influence ends rather sharply at the Susquehanna River and the Bay but I could try something if JoeJack is interested.

Let me see how far I get with the local guys in Delaware. If they are not interested, I might be in touch with you. I'm not holding up too much hope for them based on what I've read so far on their site which seems to be very bike lane and path biased without much mention of road rights (doesn't feel quite right to me).

Joe,

Would the ticket add points to your driver's record?

-G

I can't imagine that it would. It's not like I ran a stop sign or anything. I do need to look into that though just in case.

Please publicize your day in court as I think it is every bicycle commuter's responsiblity to support you. I may just take a trip to Delaware just to the law know that they are responsible for knowing the law.

Please publicize your day in court as I think it is every bicycle commuter's responsiblity to support you. I may just take a trip to Delaware just to the law know that they are responsible for knowing the law.

Advice to Joe: Don't let any of the well wishers know when/where your traffic court appearance is until afterwards. Self appointed enforcers of responsibility in the gallery are not likely to favorably impress a traffic court judge. It might be fun for them but is not likely to help you.

I can't imagine that it would. It's not like I ran a stop sign or anything. I do need to look into that though just in case.

A bud in Pennsylvania did a track stand at a red light once. Since he did not put a foot down the officer issued him a ticket for failing to stop at a red light. Points were added to his drivers license and his insurance cost was adjusted accordingly.

Judging from this experience--albeit in another state--if your ticket is a moving violation, then it is feasible that points could be issued.

Good luck JJ.

-G

Advice to Joe: Don't let any of the well wishers know when/where your traffic court appearance is until afterwards. Self appointed enforcers of responsibility in the gallery are not likely to favorably impress a traffic court judge. It might be fun for them but is not likely to help you.

+1

A bud in Pennsylvania did a track stand at a red light once. Since he did not put a foot down the officer issued him a ticket for failing to stop at a red light. Points were added to his drivers license and his insurance cost was adjusted accordingly.

Judging from this experience--albeit in another state--if your ticket is a moving violation, then it is feasible that points could be issued.

Good luck JJ.

-G
Did your friend contest that ticket?

Did your friend contest that ticket?

I believe Rich talked to someone at Penn State (lawyer type) and was told that he would lose the case. So no.

A bud in Pennsylvania did a track stand at a red light once. Since he did not put a foot down the officer issued him a ticket for failing to stop at a red light. Points were added to his drivers license and his insurance cost was adjusted accordingly.Did your friend contest that ticket?I believe Rich talked to someone at Penn State (lawyer type) and was told that he would lose the case. So no.There's nothing in the law that says "stop=foot down." But if the courts want to start enforcing that definition, I have yet to see a driver of a motor vehicle put a foot down at a stop. Should make for some nice revenue enhancement.

There's nothing in the law that says "stop=foot down." But if the courts want to start enforcing that definition, I have yet to see a driver of a motor vehicle put a foot down at a stop. Should make for some nice revenue enhancement.

I agree that it's a ridiculous ticket. A red light ahead of you doesn't necessarily mean you need to stop. You need to stop once you reach the stop line (where that is is often debateable as well), but prior to that, there's nothing saying you can't be moving. I often roll slowly up to red lights while waiting for the green in order to avoid putting a foot down or completely stopping my momentum in a car (especially when driving a manual transmission).

I agree that it's a ridiculous ticket. A red light ahead of you doesn't necessarily mean you need to stop. You need to stop once you reach the stop line (where that is is often debateable as well), but prior to that, there's nothing saying you can't be moving. I often roll slowly up to red lights while waiting for the green in order to avoid putting a foot down or completely stopping my momentum in a car (especially when driving a manual transmission).But in the case of the friend who was ticketed, he was stopped. What counts is the cessation of forward momentum, not the foot down. If a cyclist can do a track stand while all forward momentum has ceased, the fact that the cyclist hasn't put a foot down shouldn't be interpreted to mean that he's still got forward momentum.

And I agree with what you're saying, if the light changes to green before you reach the stop, you're not required to stop first before proceeding.

I have yet to see a driver of a motor vehicle put a foot down at a stop.

Your motorcyclists can trackstand? :D

But in the case of the friend who was ticketed, he was stopped. What counts is the cessation of forward momentum, not the foot down. If a cyclist can do a track stand while all forward momentum has ceased, the fact that the cyclist hasn't put a foot down shouldn't be interpreted to mean that he's still got forward momentum.

And I agree with what you're saying, if the light changes to green before you reach the stop, you're not required to stop first before proceeding.

We're arguing it from two different angles. I agree with what you're saying though. My point was that his track stand was the equivalent of slowing approaching the stop line but never actually crossing it until the light turned green. There's nothing illegal about that. It becomes a little more gray (in court at least) when a stop sign is involved although I'm still in agreement with you there. Stopping forward momentum is stopping, foot up or down, automatic transmission in drive or park. (With manual transmissions, it's actually much less gray as you need to put the car in neutral (either by shifting to it or pushing in the clutch) to come to a complete stop.) If trackstanding were said to be illegal for cyclists, it should follow that automatics should be put in park (however briefly) at stop signs, right? :)

Your motorcyclists can trackstand? :DFirst time I got on my friend's motorcycle (I was buying it), it leaned to one side, and kept leaning, and kept leaning, until it went down. :lol:

And that was with my foot down. It was a big motorcycle. :p

If trackstanding were said to be illegal for cyclists, it should follow that automatics should be put in park (however briefly) at stop signs, right? :)Exactly what I was thinking.

I believe Rich talked to someone at Penn State (lawyer type) and was told that he would lose the case. So no.
Lousy legal advice, I suspect.

And in anticipation of ILTB's inevitable little eyeroll thingy, no I'm not a lawyer, nor do I live in Pennsylvania. But the advice from this "lawyer type" still sets off my crap detector.

Lousy legal advice, I suspect.

And in anticipation of ILTB's inevitable little eyeroll thingy, no I'm not a lawyer, nor do I live in Pennsylvania. But the advice from this "lawyer type" still sets off my crap detector.

You guys got me. I can only tell the story the way it was told to me. I can tell you that Rich usually stands up for himself. But if he was in college at the time, this would have been at least 10 years ago.

But the important point is that points were added to his license for a cycling "moving" violation.

Well, that's one thing that California got right.

No points for cycling violations.

DE has this special cycling clause that certainly gives me some hope for not receiving any points:

§ 4198J. Bicycling on highways under influence of drugs or alcohol.

(a) No person shall ride a bicycle on a highway of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or narcotic drugs to a degree which renders such person a hazard.

(b) Whoever is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall, for the 1st offense be fined not less than $150 nor more than $1,150 and for subsequent offenses, be fined not less than $400 nor more than $1,500 or be imprisoned not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days, or both. A subsequent offense must have been committed within 2 years of the prior offense.

(c) No violation of this section shall be entered on a driver's motor vehicle record. (70 Del. Laws, c. 265, § 3; 74 Del. Laws, c. 282, § 2.)

Well, that's one thing that California got right.

No points for cycling violations.

Same thing with DC. In fact, there is a cap on cycling moving violations that is often less than the equivalent motor vehicle violation.

I still need to look up what happens in Virginia.

+1
Granted there are all types of Cycling “Advocates” but I am curious what sort of commotion that you have seen that supports cyclists should not show any form of solidarity? For me the biggest thing working against us is our lack of solidarity.

If I had the time I would love to go down not only to show support but also to observe how things transpire. Being involved in politics and government it is really helpful to have real world examples. It also helps to see how the arguments unfold to help better understand the anti-cycling “think.” This helps to better cycling advocates arguments for better police training and for better laws for cyclists to government (not there in the court room.) Cycling advocates have one major disadvantage in that they mostly hang out with other people who support cycling, so seeing first hand how something negative goes down is an extremely helpful educational experience and if things go well a good hi 5 never hurt anyone.

@ JoeJack: Anyway I can vouch for Scrunge13 as being extremely cool as well as being well liked/supported in his community so if you don’t want to make the date and location public PM him.

Granted there are all types of Cycling “Advocates” but I am curious what sort of commotion that you have seen that supports cyclists should not show any form of solidarity? For me the biggest thing working against us is our lack of solidarity.
There is a time and place for cheerleading and pep rallies; and for demonstrating concern that government representatives discharge their duties properly. Strangers doing it from the back row of traffic court while a $25 ticket is being discussed is not that place.

There is a time and place for cheerleading and pep rallies; and for demonstrating concern that government representatives discharge their duties properly. Strangers doing it from the back row of traffic court while a $25 ticket is being discussed is not that place.

Who said anything cheerleading, pep rallies and demonstrating in traffic court? Have people actually done that (with negative results) or are you just fear mongering and putting up a straw man argument? So far you have not mentioned any examples that involve traffic court.

I’m not sure the best way to phrase this but with any crime it helps to have a witness (in this case meaning a bad out come for the cyclists.) JoeJack can go at this solo and get bad results and at the end of the day there will probably not be much he can do with it. But had a knowable friend that well help verify what transpired and at the end of the day there will be options on what can be done.

I believe the offer was to go a friend and not as someone who wishes to take over and use this for their own objectives.

Granted there are all types of Cycling “Advocates” but I am curious what sort of commotion that you have seen that supports cyclists should not show any form of solidarity? For me the biggest thing working against us is our lack of solidarity.

If I had the time I would love to go down not only to show support but also to observe how things transpire. Being involved in politics and government it is really helpful to have real world examples. It also helps to see how the arguments unfold to help better understand the anti-cycling “think.” This helps to better cycling advocates arguments for better police training and for better laws for cyclists to government (not there in the court room.) Cycling advocates have one major disadvantage in that they mostly hang out with other people who support cycling, so seeing first hand how something negative goes down is an extremely helpful educational experience and if things go well a good hi 5 never hurt anyone.

@ JoeJack: Anyway I can vouch for Scrunge13 as being extremely cool as well as being well liked/supported in his community so if you don’t want to make the date and location public PM him.
No evidence. I just wouldn't post my court location/date/time on the internet openly inviting any yahoo to show up. A PM to someone, sure.

Im a pragmatic pessimist when it comes to PA-Del-Jersey
"law enforcement". Its selective and vindictive. I cant help
but think that the cop, who has to be of vindictive nature
to issue a ticket in the first place, and the "judge" (DJ's
arent even real judges) arent going to see this as an
overt act of antagonism and render the verdict accordingly.
The 'judge' will have already determined that you will need
to pay for wasting his precious time before you even get there.
That's why it's important to show up with plenty of relevant evidence. Whatever biases the judge may have, your best bet to override them is to present clear, concise logical arguments backed up by relevant evidence.

Based on your posts to this forum, I suspect you might have a difficult time doing that.
Based on JoeJack's posts to this forum, I suspect he will have an easy time doing that.

HH, I think £em in Pa is basically right, at least about what he said in post 141. Your take down was out of line.

I also still think the OP is best off with a lawyer who knows the local court and the judge who will hear the case. Be your own lawyer at your own risk.

What do you base this childish insult on ?
The general lack of logical coherency in many of your posts on this forum, coupled with the poor results you say you have achieved in court.

I wish better luck for you than the two seperate
occasions, years apart, that I had when I went to
court in Exton and Lancaster. Both cops obviously
couldnt even remember who I was so they just
made stuff up on the spot. When I pointed these
things out both judges(?) said they were going to cite
me for contempt. I still lost despite them not even
remembering the incident they were defending.
I wish you well and dont lose your cool no matter what !!!!!

HH, I think £em in Pa is basically right, at least about what he said in post 141. Your take down was out of line.

I also still think the OP is best off with a lawyer who knows the local court and the judge who will hear the case. Be your own lawyer at your own risk.

Maybe it was out of line, I don't know. I think the point had to be made, that there is probably a lot of difference between a case presented by JJ and a case presented by Lem.

Maybe it's just me, or maybe I have him confused with someone else, but I seem to recall having a hard time following Lem's line of thinking in the past.

In contrast, the few times I've had any issues with understanding JJ, he has been able to quickly clarify.

Look, you're both right. The success of a case will generally depend on the ability of the defendant to present a cogent defense. Occasionally, the defendant may draw the wrong judge. It's not at all true that you will lose just by virtue of having received a ticket, nor is it necessarily always true that you will win with logic.

If you read my stuff before you commented you will see
I was not even allowed to make my case.
Real experience with the court system in that area.
Obviously not as useful as cheerleading and opining from
thousands of miles away, however.
:rolleyes:I do not believe for one instant that you were not allowed to present a defense. I do believe that you were admonished not to interrupt the prosecution.

Look, you're both right. The success of a case will generally depend on the ability of the defendant to present a cogent defense. Occasionally, the defendant may draw the wrong judge. It's not at all true that you will lose just by virtue of having received a ticket, nor is it necessarily always true that you will win with logic.
Agreed.

I'm just saying that if the outcome does depend on the defendant's ability to present a logical case, I think JJ in particular would has an excellent chance of winning. Lem? Not so much (sorry Lem).

If you read my stuff before you commented you will see
I was not even allowed to make my case.
Real experience with the court system in that area.
Obviously not as useful as cheerleading and opining from
thousands of miles away, however.
:rolleyes:
I read what you wrote, including this: "When I pointed these things out both judges(?) said they were going to cite me for contempt. "

Perhaps if you had calmly and logically presented evidence in your favor you wouldn't have been threatened with a contempt citing. I'm just saying...

Pulling one totally irrational and unfair judge is hard enough to believe. But two in a row?

I do not believe for one instant that you were not allowed to present a defense. I do believe that you were admonished not to interrupt the prosecution.
That too. But, again, given Lem's record on this forum, I'm not all surprised this was his take on it: "I was not allowed to make my case". In two separate cases. Two different judges. Right. :rolleyes:

We can go back and forth on this all day, but I leave when
a thread gets to this level. I was not allowed to make my case.
You dont have to believe it and I really dont care. Why is this
so far out of some peoples realm of thinking ?
The officer spoke, I was given about ten seconds to rebut and then
cut off abruptly. Thats was all there was to it. If I said any more,
it was 'contempt'.
Have you ever considered that the reason you were cut off might have been related to the irrelevance of what you were saying?

Maybe what you thought was "presenting your case" was recognized as the type of irrelevant rambling that you are prone to share with us on this forum as well? Coincidence?

Two cases. Two judges. Both times cut off and not allowed to present your case? Come on. I'm sure that what you think happened.

I read what you wrote, including this: "When I pointed these things out both judges(?) said they were going to cite me for contempt. "

Perhaps if you had calmly and logically presented evidence in your favor you wouldn't have been threatened with a contempt citing. I'm just saying...

Pulling one totally irrational and unfair judge is hard enough to believe. But two in a row?Any defendant who bases his defense on disputing the cop's testimony on the facts is arguing a losing case. You have to get the cop to agree with the set of facts that support your defense (i.e,., where the alleged violation occurred, what the conditions were, etc.). If the cop testifies that traffic speed was 50 mph, you will not be able to convince the court that traffic speed was 25 mph, absent some independent objective proof of your claim. Therefore, your defense should never consist of "the cop is lying." And if you insist on interrupting the court to say "the cop is lying," you will be flirting with a contempt of court citation.