iridenyc

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!

cruentus

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.

dobber

I believe the word you wanted to use was enforcement.

oboeguy

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!

ehammarlund

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.

cruentus

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.

ehammarlund

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.

cruentus

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.

Metieval

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.

ehammarlund

"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 "****" 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.

DCCommuter

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 https://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.

slvoid

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.

Elvish Legion

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

Randymac

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.

Laika

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.

trekets

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.

trekets

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?

dobber

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?

Roody

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.

anders

$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.

Bikepacker67

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.

anders

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.

Bikepacker67

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 if you like -- idealists often emulate Don Quixote - but the windmills you choose to tip can kill ya.

anders

He said none of the cars had come close and none had honked, so what the helle are you talking about.

Gonna lose what?

Metieval

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


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!!