tallard

Forgive me if this has been addressed in another thread, I haven't found it...

I foresee eventually getting ticketed for either not wearing a helmet or riding on the road instead of the mandatory cycle path, bylaws enacted by the city of Whitehorse (Yukon, Canada) in 2003.

I would like to preemptively start building up a legal defense file that I can refer to when that day eventually comes.

Although I've read many many papers on all sides of the debate, it's all been internet based on several different computers, so I haven't as yet collected all the relevant documents.

I would like this thread to strictly discuss ticket fighting strategies and legalese and stats and case files (such as this curly haired lady in Australia who is fighting her missing helmet ticket: https://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08...-fighting.html).

The Human Car

Australia is the world example why helmet laws don't work. I'm glad to hear someone is fighting it.

closetbiker

you can talk to a local lawyer (or advocacy group) but generally speaking, it'll cost more to fight it than pay it.

What area are you in?

tallard

I'm in Whitehorse, (Pop:20,000)... But wouldn't it be the case that if you win against an unjust city bylaw, the losing party, the city, would pay the court costs?

Either offence carries a 25$ fine, or seizure, I'm not sure I understand the implications of various paragraphs.

Whitehorse bicycle bylaw:
https://www.city.whitehorse.yk.ca/ver...386BC49%7D.PDF

I-Like-To-Bike

All depends on how you measure "works."

If success means reduction in the risk of head injury in any measurable manner you are correct - big darn failure. If success is measured by an increase in percentage of cyclists wearing helmets - big success story, at least for the Helmet promoters, even if the total population of cyclists is reduced by the MHL.

I-Like-To-Bike

I have no idea how Australian law works, but in U.S. lawyer costs incurred fighting traffic tickets are paid soley by the defendant regardless of outcome. There would be no "court costs" if the ticket is thrown out or the defendant found not guilty in traffic court.

tallard

I guess legally speaking there might be two defenses 1) fighting an unjust/unsafe law and 2)specifically fighting the ticket.

In Canada, fighting a ticket (2nd scenario) is often/usually done without lawyers, ie, many of my friends consistently contest parking tickets and mostly win because it's not cost-effective for cities to bother with. However in scenario#1, I admit, yes, I'd have lawyer fees.

Practical ticketing example of this city's cyclist segregation law:
-We have a "2-mile-hill" https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour...8&ie=UTF8&z=14 with enough of a grade to do 60 km/h on descent (60 km/h posted speed limit) and 4-5 km/h on ascent. The slightly curved un-intersected downlane side of the road has a weaving 2-way MUP, 10' from the roadway, ending abruptly at the bottom of the hill with a 90º turn to a pedestrian crossing. The similarly curved twice-intersected uphill lane has a beautiful sidewalk 10' away, then 5' farther a paved single bike lane with 90º "merges" onto the sidewalk in order to access the curb ramp, and 4 hairpin shaped wiggles in the steepest part of the hill, to facilitate the task for unfit cyclists.

This ridiculous configuration results in many downhill cyclists using the beautiful straight sidewalk or cutting a bare track across the grass connecting the hairpin turns, in order to keep a straight line upon descending, next to the uphill lane. On the downhill lane side, the MUP's weaving layout caused a fast cyclist to smash into a streetlight post. They have since padded that post, being that it's 1' from the MUP.

Neither of these have any shoulder or painted shoulder line, but the lanes are plenty plenty wide (this is the great white North I usually ride on the road if I'm feeling rebellious, and ride on the path, if I'm feeling wimpy and tired. But people have been ticketed, and my turn will eventually come. The bylaw states "usable bike lane" and I'd contend that it is unsafe, therefore unusable.

Do I stand a chance?

As for fighting a helmet ticket, I am considering three angles
1-Motorists ride closer to helmeted cyclists
2-Helmetlessness makes me drive more cautiously
3-Personal health concern. As a northern Canadian, I have never worn hats (tuques) in wintertime unless I'll be standing around doing nothing. I tend to overheat easily (I have thick curly long hair) and have black flashes. But as long as my scalp is well aerated I am fine, this was a MAJOR pain for my mother when I was a child!

I think my chances of fighting the bike lane ticket are much better than the helmet ticket...

closetbiker

My first step to find out more would be to contact:

Cycling Association of Yukon

4061 4th Avenue
Whitehorse, YT Y1A 1H1

Sue Richards, President
867.668.4990 (home)
867.667.8212 (work)
Sue.Richards@gov.yk.ca

Aaron Foos, Treasurer
867.334.7623 (home)
rafoos@pdarcom.com

The Human Car

Ha, you got me on that one.

tallard

Sigh..., as usual with the Sport Yukon website, member sport associations contact info is outdated. Emails to both names failed, but I'll try phoning them during the week. I suspect they will be in favor of both the helmet aspect and the mandatory bikeway aspect of the bylaw, but here's to hoping I'm wrong...

closetbiker

just remember if you want to take a stand against what you feel is wrong, you'll be in for a bit of work.

Laws are hard to get rescinded, there's a of of status quo and reputation on the line and politics is a hard game.

The best way to not have unjust laws is to be involved from the beginning. Missing the genesis of unjust laws makes everything much harder to undo harm in the future.

I suppose one of the first steps in getting things changed is having both public and police opinion on your side. If it makes political sense for an elected official to comply with the public and if the police are not enforcing the law because they feel it makes no sense, an elected official can see an advantage to make the change.

The trouble lies in the public perception that cycling around motor vehicles is dangerous, cycle helmets save lives in collisions with motor vehicles, and cyclists die from simple falls to the ground.

The regular joe doesn't consider that it's the way we interact with each other (on foot, cycle small car, large car, truck) on the road that keeps us alive, cyclists almost never die from simple falls and helmets are not made for collisions with motor vehicles that do kill cyclists.

tallard

Yes I certainly appreciate that, and as a returning full-time student, I may not even in reality have time for such an endeavor. I am hoping this thread will provide me with ammunition from experienced activists who have seen success, such as this one, from the Another "on the sidewalk, son" thread

Makes me hopeful

closetbiker

it might be of help to note that BC had a mandatory side path rule revoked in (I believe) 1996.

I'm not sure who is the go to person who knows all the details but my first step would be to contact the Vancouver Area Cycling association.

tallard

Yep contacted them (her). Says that regarding MHL in Whitehorse, there was no fight, no public talks that she can remember. And anyway, "why on earth would that be any concern to you, helmets are good..."

thank you
good bye !

tallard

I really like this opinion regarding MHL and the link to healthcare costs. So many helmet-pushers state: "not wearing the helmet costs society more, therefore you must wear one". Whereas the truth of the matter is: motorist sedentarity is by far the most costly behaviour. A great point to be made in the eventual repeal of such ridiculous laws.

https://joondalupweekender.inmycommun...-law/7535221/#
Repeal this bike helmet law
10/Sep/2009

Peter Weygers, president, Council for Civil Liberties in Western Australia Inc.

THE Federal preventative health taskforce proposal to subsidise bicycle use through tax breaks and other incentives highlights the absurdity of Australia’s discouragement of cycling through the imposition of mandatory helmet laws.

There is ample evidence that public cycling participation has not fully recovered from the 30 per cent decline caused by the introduction of helmet laws almost 20 years ago, despite a lack of police enforcement in WA.

Hospital admission rates per cyclist on the road have been substantially higher since helmets became mandatory and a health benefit model developed by Macquarie University suggests the law incurs a national public health cost of about half a billion dollars every year.

State governments would encourage preventative health, fitness and longevity, and reduce injury rates, by repealing helmet laws that punish people who enjoy regular, healthy cycling exercise.

tallard

A little morality story about politics and bikes (well ok motorbikes not cycles, but still...)

https://www.b4bs.net/
Monday, November 2, 2009
Election Eve

Tomorrow is the big payoff: Election Day.

Everything that can be done, has been done. There are no more campaign signs to deliver. No more doors to knock on. No more envelopes to lick, no more stamps to stick. The stage has been set. In just a few hours, poll workers will be at their stations before dawn. Soon after, the morning voters will line up and cast their ballots. As the day wears on, more and more "I voted" stickers will appear on shirts and blouses.

America will again exercise its right to decide. We've been doing it pretty much the same way for 233 years. One man, one vote. Majority rules. Winner take all. But something is different this time, too. In races across America, bikers are having their say like never before. Candidates hear us because they see us, supporting their campaigns and helping them win.

They also listen to us. These aren't the hurried and soon forgotten pitches that we deliver during the legislative session. Instead we shared our thoughts and dreams with candidates as we walked for miles, canvassing one neighborhood after another. Many of these candidates never really thought about motorcycling issues before. For most people, they aren't issues. But they definitely are for motorcyclists. So when motorcyclists spend time with the candidates, our issues become their issues.

Now the election is upon us. Tomorrow night we will find out who won, and who lost. But bikers won something that won't be in the newspapers any time soon. But it will be around for a long, long time.
Posted by Sturdi at 6:36 PM 0 comments
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Making New Friends

Back in May, a half-dozen candidates were running in a primary race for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. This race was in a "one-party" district, inside the Capital Beltway. Winner take all. After asking all candidates about helmet laws, most of them said they wanted to keep it "as-is." But one of them questioned helmet effectiveness -- as well as the need for ticketing. So we rolled up our sleeves and worked as campaign volunteers.

Investment:
Five emails, several weekend rides, several days of work.
Payback:
The first biker-friendly candidate from a district inside the beltway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September, an anti-repeal incumbent in Tidewater was running for reelection, and the challenger didn't have any position on the helmet law. So we asked the challenger, who then took a few days to think it over. The answer? "Let those who ride decide." So we rolled up our sleeves and worked as campaign volunteers.

Investment:
One phone call, one weekend ride, two hours of work.
Payback:
A strong-running candidate that now supports repeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September (a busy month) a pro-repeal incumbent, who is also a member of the House Transportation Committee, was facing a tough challenger. We asked the candidate from Prince William County how we could help. Not surprisingly, we rolled up our sleeves and worked as campaign volunteers.

Investment:
One conversation, several weekend rides, several hours of work.
Payback:
A strong-running committee member who wants to sponsor the next repeal bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October anti-repeal incumbent in Loudon County faced a challenger with no position on the helmet law. So we asked the challenger, who answered immediately: "Let those who ride decide." So we rolled up our sleeves ... again ... and worked as campaign volunteers.

Investment:
One email, one weekend ride, several hours of work. And one heck of a blister.
Payback:
A strong-running candidate that now supports repeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about you, but I think I'm beginning to see a trend here.

Campaign work
WORKS

When bikers work as campaign volunteers, they are making friends. And when it comes to helmet law repeal, bikers could use some friends ... in Richmond as well as every other state capital.

tallard

Another interesting website in New Zealand fighting for the repeal of MHL.

https://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/

ukmtk

One argument that I would use against mandated cycle path usage is that a cycle path is fine for weak cyclists or children. But it is dangerous for a fast cyclist to use a cycle path. They are in danger of being taken out by children or idiots with their unleashed dogs. I.e. a fast competent cyclist is in more danger on a cycle path than on the road!

closetbiker

amazing. someone figures somethings a good idea, next thing you know, everybody has to do it. doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, or that we're supposed to live in a free society, some one thinks something, therefore everybodys rights and views don't matter anymore.

Dchiefransom

The laws you linked to say that you cannot ride on the sidewalk, and the path has to be clearly marked for bicycles to make that mandatory.

tallard

Hello Dchiefransom,
I'm not entirely sure I got the jist of your post, but maybe... are you saying since the cycle paths on our 2-mile hill cut into sidewalks before crossing intersections, that would be cause (from a legal perspective) for not being in the cycle path at all?

Interesting thought, if that was the point you were making...

Dchiefransom

I believe that your law states that the cycle path must be specifically marked as a cycle path, or you don't have to use it. That means with a sign, to me. It also says that you cannot ride your bike on a sidewalk.

tallard

The cycle paths on the 2-mile hill are indeed labeled by signs on posts saying pedestrians to the left (sidewalk), cyclists to the right (bike path) which also has painted with cycle signs. But it's the sidewalk part I'm interested, hmm, I wonder if that would hold up in court.

"I could not get on the bike path cuz I would have had to ride on the sidewalk" maybe...

High Roller

Truer words never spoken.

AndrewP

You have to ride as close to the right hand side as practicable. It is up to the rider to decide what is practicable. The law that requires use of bike paths states "usable path". It is up to the rider to decide what is usable.