Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane

Old 12-15-09, 08:45 PM
  #1  
Kineticycle
On your right...thanks!
Thread Starter
 
Kineticycle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane

The Mission is simple: Deliver one consistent message "Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane, Change To Pass". www.baufl.org
Kineticycle is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:23 AM
  #2  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
yeah, unfortunately, not according to some of the bicyclists posting to bike forums, dude!

there's a growing movement afoot that bicyclists are expected to curbhug, or even get off the road for motorists!

it's pretty disgusting.

john forester wouldn't agree with your sticker. a month or so ago, he proclaimed, 'bicyclists in all 50 states are prohibited from riding away from the edge of the road unless a legal excuse is demonstrated".

it's sad. keep up the good work.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 07:38 AM
  #3  
mandovoodoo
Violin guitar mandolin
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,171

Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What about TN? Here we've got a FRAP law, but only where a car can pass in the same lane safely, and we've got the 3' rule.

55-8-175. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths — Penalty. —

(a) (1) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
. . . . .

(C) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, “substandard width lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


Seems to me that a bicycle isn't entitled to the lane where the lane is wide enough for the bicycle (2') and the 3' buffer (in our laws) and a car. A car is about 7 ft wide, so that's a 12' lane minimum. Many of our larger country roads have lanes wider than 12'.

How does the law match the message?
mandovoodoo is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:09 AM
  #4  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
FYI:

New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law
https://www.safeny.com/bike-vt.htm

Section 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skates lanes and bicycle or in-line skates paths.

(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skates shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skates lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.

(b) Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a shoulder, bicycle or in-line skates lane, or bicycle or in-line skates path, intended for the use of bicycles or in-line skates may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except that when passing a vehicle, bicycle or person on in-line skates, or pedestrian, standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates shall ride, skate, or glide single file. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall ride, skate, or glide single file when being overtaken by a vehicle.

***

My comments:

The above law gives plenty of exceptions not to ride next to the curb and leaves the decision up to the cyclist not the drivers. Cops will never force a cyclist to ride close to the curb unless it's totally safe.

Reasons to take a full line in NYC:

- parked cars, if you can't maintain a distance of 6 feet from the parked cars you can take the full line
- pedestrians standing on the street (very common and annoying in NYC)
- bus lines
- debris or uneven pavement close to the curb (very common in NYC)
- "droppings" from concrete mixers truck (very dangerous and city can't do anything to enforce that)
- grates, drains, manholes, etc (again, very common in NYC)
- cyclists riding wrong way (cops should really crack on those idiots)

It seems to me that more and more drivers are aware of of the above: I take full lane while riding in Manhattan and I remember only one case when a driver yelled at me (he then tried to educate me at a stop light and I cited this section of the law and told him to catch up on reading before opening his mouth in public) and cops never gave me hard time. If someone honks at me I wave them to pass and they normally pass without any fuss. The chances of getting doored or running into a pedestrian on Manhattan streets are extremely high. A lot of cyclists, including myself, ride at 20-25mph and avoiding a zombie at that speed while close to the curb is impossible. Basically riding close to the curb in Manhattan is out of question most of them time. In Brooklyn and Queens it's easier to stay closer to the curb so I do that whenever possible.

More on NYC bike safety and laws:

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bic...biketips.shtml

Adam

Last edited by AdamDZ; 12-16-09 at 09:24 AM.
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:35 AM
  #5  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,733

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10705 Post(s)
Liked 2,727 Times in 1,872 Posts
Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post
Cops will never force a cyclist to ride close to the curb unless it's totally safe.

Adam
We have a case in appeal right now of a cop believing that a cyclist should have been riding "close to the curb." So it does happen. The judge found him guilty initially, and the appeal process is pointing to acquittal.


Here is the transcript of the case:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - KEARNY MESA BRANCH

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW WOOLLEY,
Defendant.

Case No. Y769289

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ANDREW LISKA
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE PRO TEM
(Department KM3)
San Diego, California
August 6, 2009

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff: OFFICER DAVID ROOT
San Diego Police Department

For Defendant: ANDREW WOOLLEY
In Pro Per

Transcription Service: Mary Lou Lohr
Ad Hoc Reporting
110 West C Street, Suite 807
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-9325

SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009

(Call to order of the Court.)
THE COURT: Okay, this is citation Y769289. It was issued on March 6th of
this year at 12:05 p.m. on a Friday. It is for an alleged violation of
Vehicle Code Section 21202.
Officer, could you state your name and spell your last name for the
record, please?

OFFICER ROOT: Yes, my name is David Lincoln Root. The last name is spelled
R-o-o-t.

THE COURT: Officer, how are you employed and for how long, please?

OFFICER ROOT: I'm a police officer for the City of San Diego, so employed
for almost 22 years.

THE COURT: Officer Root, on the date and time of the citation, were you on
duty in uniform in a marked patrol unit?

OFFICER ROOT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Would you please tell the Court what caused you to contact the
Defendant?

OFFICER ROOT: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I was patrolling on my police motorcycle
near the area of the 4300 block of EI Cajon Boulevard, depicted by this
diagram that I've drawn up here [not attached]. This is not to scale, but
it's a fair, accurate representation of that particular roadway.
El Cajon Boulevard is pretty much a main thoroughfare that travels east
and west through East San Diego.
At this particular location, there's two lanes of travel in each
direction. There are other areas where there's three lanes in each
direction, but this particular location there's two.
Traffic is usually very heavy along this roadway. I was in traffic
traveling westbound on my marked San Diego Police motorcycle. I was in the
number-1 lane or the lane closest to the center of the roadway. Traffic was
pretty backed up. It was creeping in little stages forward because of the
heaviness of the traffic. I was approaching 44th Street. I was a couple --
three or four car lengths back from the intersection of 44th Street that
goes north off of El Cajon Boulevard. That road kind of splits, and the
other half of 44th is here (indicating).
As I was creeping my way through traffic, traffic was backed up in both
lanes. The Defendant pedaled by me on his bicycle between the number-1 and
the number-2 lanes of traffic, between the cars in this lane and this lane
(indicating). He pedaled right past me right here and was pedaling down the
center of the roadway, right along the dotted line.
Knowing the Vehicle Code that I do and knowing that he's supposed to be
over here to the right, I went ahead and worked my way through traffic. As
we came up here, as he was passing the traffic, the traffic kind of surged
forward a little bit, and there was a car here that was either changing
lanes or had veered over here or something, and it had to stop because of
the backup of traffic, and I saw the Defendant had to severely hit his
brakes on his bicycle, almost coming to a stop.
He made -- you know; I don't know, a shaking head or something that
looked like he was kind of annoyed at that guy, came around and continued on
down, kept pedaling past all these cars, came down to the limit line here.
I went ahead and turned my emergency lights on, came down here, and as
we crossed the intersection here at Fairmont, I pulled up behind him, and I
just activated my PA system and said, "Hey, I need you to pullover to the
side of the road."
He pulled over here (indicating). I pulled up behind him. I contacted
the Defendant, who's sitting here at the Defendant's table that I recognize,
not only now but also at that time (indiscernible) information, and I told
him that the Vehicle Code required that he ride over here along the
righthand side of the roadway.
Making that statement, he was immediately annoyed and agitated that I
apparently was not using the terminology that he wanted me to use and, in
fact, corrected me and told me no, the Vehicle Code says that he has to ride
(indiscernible) practical. It does not say he has to ride to the right-hand
edges of the roadway.
I told him that was semantics; it was pretty much the same thing that
the right-hand end of the roadway is as far to the right as is practical for
a bicyclist to ride.
He told me no. He said that, due to the traffic backup and the potential
for people turning right along here (indicating), that he felt that part of
the right of practical was to ride between the lanes of traffic. I told him
I'm sorry he felt that way. I certainly don't have a problem that, if he's
corning along the right-hand edge of the curb line and there's a car turning
right here, that he certainly has the right to go out around that car, he
certainly can do that. If there was some construction or something was
broken down, for whatever reason, he certainly has the right to
(indiscernible) go around that traffic, but he certainly can't ride just
right down the center of a two-lane roadway between lanes of traffic for
well over a block as he passed me back here prior to 44th Street and went
all the way through this block here (indicating), between Fairmont and 44th
Street before coming out down here.
I told him -- I explained to him that -- my feeling of the Vehicle Code
and how it explained -- and I tried to explain to him some examples and why
we have such a problem up here with bicyclists getting involved in
automobile accidents, that vehicles have a hard enough time seeing them as
it is without them being someplace that they're not expected to be.
I issued him a citation for failing to ride on the right-hand side of
the road, which he did sign with his written promise to appear. We had some
additional contact down the road that's irrelevant to this particular
violation, but I -- he signed his ticket and I released him from there.

THE COURT: Officer, was there anything along that right-hand curb area that
prevented a bicycle from riding there? Was there --

OFFICER ROOT: No, sir, just the traffic. In fact, I have an aerial
photograph here [not attached] of that particular intersection, which I'll
show to you. I'll pass this over to him as well.

MR. WOOLLEY: I've got photos [not attached].

OFFICER ROOT: This here is the street I'm talking about. This is Fairmont.
This is 44th, so this street here is this one here next to the big building
(indicating), and we were here. You can obviously see the street there.
Parking is permitted back here in front of this building but not here,
so obviously coming out around these parked cars would be fine -- no problem
with that.
But I was -- I was just about where this last parked car -- there's a
white car parked there. I was just about there when he went past me, past
44th Street, all the way through this block here, and then was stopped over
here by these palm trees here.

THE COURT: Okay.
(Pause. )
Anything further?

OFFICER ROOT: No, sir, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, do you have any questions for Officer Root?

MR. WOOLLEY: I'm still not clear he's ever actually read this Vehicle Code
--

THE COURT: Well --

MR. WOOLLEY: -- so at this time, can I have him actually read it out loud to
the Court and --

THE.COURT: Well, I have it right in front of me

OFFICER ROOT: And I have read it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I've read it.

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay. Well, he's still demonstrating a clear misunderstanding
of the law, and I completely agree with his assessment of what happened to
one -- one degree of conflict with what his interpretation was. I was not
riding down the dotted line. I was in the right-hand lane on the left-hand
side of the right-hand side, staying on the righthand side of the dotted
line, riding on the left-hand side of cars that were backed up.
So I was cited for a violation of Vehicle Code 21202. The very first
line of that sentence says,

"Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at the speed less than the
normal speed of traffic, moving in the same direction at that time, shall
ride as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
except under the following situations."

Before I even go into "following situations, " he says I was passing
vehicle, so clearly I was riding at the -- not less than the normal speed of
traffic at that time. We can get to that later if you want to worry about
what the normal speed of traffic is at any given time.

THE COURT: What is the speed limit on that -- posted on the street?

OFFICER ROOT: Thirty-five, Your Honor.

MR. WOOLLEY: The normal speed of traffic was not 35 as he stated. It was --

THE COURT: No, I asked --

MR. WOOLLEY: It was speed --

THE COURT: I asked --

MR. WOOLLEY: -- the speed limit --

THE COURT: I asked him what the posted speed limit is.

OFFICER ROOT: Yes.

MR. WOOLLEY: So under the following situations -- so the exceptions to this
rule are:

"(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same
direction ... "

The officer has already identified that I was passing vehicles proceeding in
the same direction. Exception to the rule
meaning that I'm not in violation of this rule by his own testimony.
Section (2) doesn't really apply. Section (3) talks about things in the
-- along the curb line making it unsafe for travel. I don't think.it was
unsafe there due to impediments in the curb line, so I'm not going to talk
to that one.
Number (4), "Approaching a place where a right-hand turn is authorized."
Right-hand turns are authorized at every turn along that way. He said I was
(indiscernible) 44th -- or 43rd there, when he saw me pass. A right-hand
turn is authorized there.
Obviously, this law does not apply in that situation. That's fairly..
clear. And those are the -- two of the four exceptions clearly are accepted
in this case, and then the fact that this law probably doesn't even apply
based on the fact I was traveling greater than the normal speed of traffic
at that time.
Now I don't really know if I need to say anything else. I've got other
things I can say.

THE COURT: Well, anything you want to tell me, you should tell me now.

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: Let me just explain. He gets the last word --

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: -- because the People have the burden of proof.

MR. WOOLLEY: Exactly.

THE COURT: So tell me everything you want to tell me --

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: sometimes what happens is I start talking, and then people want
to tell me additional factors, so just -- anything --

MR. WOOLLEY: So --

THE COURT: -- you think is relevant.

MR. WOOLLEY: My recollection of the situation -- I was traveling westbound
on EI Cajon Boulevard. Traffic was getting heavy due to cars making a
right-hand turn along that way. I was on the right-hand side, saw the cars
backing up, and knowing where the safest place for a bicycle to ride is to
the left of cars making a right-hand turn.
I can't think of a more unsafe thing for a bicyclist to do than pullout
around a car making a right-hand turn with other cars behind them. That is
clearly what this law is intending bicyclists not to have to do.
His interpretation of safe bicycle operation is very incorrect there.
I was to the left of those cars that were stopped. Some of them were
stopped; some were making a turn, but traffic was proceeding slowly with
several cars making right-hand turns.
So operating in conjunction with the law, I was to the left of those
cars, passing them down the left-hand side of that right-hand lane, passed
the officer on his motorcycle, saw him. Obviously knowing I was following
the law, I didn't think anything of the fact that I was riding past an
officer on a motorcycle -- continued along.
He mentioned a car doing something that caused me to hit my brakes
fairly hard. That is true. Traffic was starting to pick up as cars were
making their right-hand turn on the next block down, and I saw that traffic
was kind of opening up, so I moved back into the right-hand lane away from
the -- I was in the right-hand lane, but I moved back towards the center of
the right-hand lane so that I wouldn't be between the cars anymore, and the
car in front of me stopped, didn't make a lane change at that -- he stopped
hard -- or just didn't proceed with the rest of the traffic, so I did have
to swerve around him, and it was because -- I didn't swerve around him. I
had to hit my brakes to avoid running into him, and then I came around
because I was at that point proceeding faster than he was. He was reading a
map in his lap at that point.
Instead of, you know, taking care of this individual who's stopping a
car in the middle of traffic to read a map in his lap, the officer decides
to pull me over for having to -- I'm not going to say take evasive action
but having to respond to his -- the other driver's inappropriate behavior.
When we were pulled over -- or when I was pulled over by the officer, he
said he had pulled me over for not riding where I was supposed to be. I
said, "Where am I supposed to be riding?" And he said, "Along the curb
line." And I said, "That's not what the law says." And he said, "Oh, really?
What does the law say?" I said, "It says you're supposed to be close" --

THE COURT: I can just tell you -- all the Court considers is what happens.

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: Once there's contact made, hopefully that contact is friendly and
peaceful, but whether it's shouting at each other

MR. WOOLLEY: Well --

THE COURT: -- or shaking hands, it's just not relevant to the --

MR. WOOLLEY: Well --

THE COURT: -- case.

MR. WOOLLEY: -- one thing that I think is irrelevant -- is relevant -- is
that, when I said, "No, it's not the law; here's the law," at that point he
said, "I was going to give you a warning, but now I'm giving you a ticket
'cause you can't take a warning."
So if my offense was not worthy of a ticket, he wrote me a ticket
because I was trying to educate him, that's a whole 'nother issue, okay --
that needs to be dealt with.
But that's my -- that's what happened.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WOOLLEY: It's fairly clear that there wasn't a violation of this law,
and his understanding is still lacking. I called his supervisor that day to
ensure that he actually read the law as it's written so he doesn't pullover
cyclists in the future for operating safely on roadways and avoiding
dangerous situations like passing to the right of right-hand turning cars,
and his supervisor told me that he did talk to him about it, but clearly
given his talk up here, he doesn't understand safe operation of a bicycle on
a roadway.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

MR. WOOLLEY: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Officer, anything further?

OFFICER ROOT: Well, I think the Vehicle Code section is crystal-clear, Your
Honor. The gentleman has no clue how to predict what the traffic is going to
do in front of him.
According to his theory, El Cajon Boulevard is 15 miles long from
downtown to La Mesa.
According to his theory, he can ride down the center of this road that
entire roadway because there's hundreds of side streets with the potential
of a right-hand turn.
Any road he rides down is going to have right-hand turns; therefore,
according to his theory, he can ride down the middle of this roadway on any
road, anywhere he wants to at any time because there is always the potential
for a right-hand turn.
Those are hazards that every bicycle faces. It's crystal-clear that he
is required to ride along the right-hand edge of that roadway. I'm well
aware of the law; I've been enforcing it for 12 years. I'm well aware of it.
There was no need for me to review it. Yeah, I sometimes use lay terms
like "the red signal". Well, California law doesn't say "red signal", but it
says "circular, round, signal light."
There's a lot of lay terms that we use. Telling him the right-hand edge
is just a very layman's term (indiscernible) as far to the right as
practical.
It's -- I think that this certainly shows the hazards that are out here
in the roadway, even though this section doesn't say "hazardous" or anything
about it. you've got to ride to the right. It just says you've got to ride
to the right.
As I said, I'm very receptive -- the bicyclists come out here around a
car that's turning, around a --

MR. WOOLLEY: (Indiscernible) practice.

OFFICER ROOT: -- (indiscernible) very receptive to that. I don't have any
problem with it, and in fact, yes, I do that a lot unless I did say that he
-- you know -- I do have the potential and the tendency to give a lot of
warnings. I do that a lot unless I feel that a warning is not going to be an
effective enforcement tool in a particular situation, so it was obvious,
based on his immediate criticism of my stop and here I'm trying to bring
this to his attention, and he's immediately telling me I don't know what I'm
doing; I don't know what the Vehicle Code says.
I really didn't think that a warning was going to be an applicable
enforcement tool in this particular case, so I did issue a citation.
As I said, he has no way of knowing what those cars are going to do, and
in his case, if he's riding out here, and all of a sudden the traffic
changes and this is now going faster, now he has to jump back over here, and
now if it slows down, now he has to jump back over here, and now if it
speeds up, now he has to jump back over here.
He has no way to predict what that traffic's going to do. His obligation
on the bicycle is to ride down this right-hand side of the road and to avoid
things.
If, in fact, somebody makes a right turn, then he certainly has a right
to come around that. It does not give him the right to ride blocks down the
center of the roadway to avoid that traffic. I don't believe that's what
that section is even intended to say.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Sir, I agree with the officer. I think the law
requires you to be on the right-hand side. I don't find that the exceptions
that you cited are applicable to the facts that are before the Court.

MR. WOOLLEY: Excuse me, Your Honor -- how --

THE COURT: I'm not going to argue with you.

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay, well --

THE COURT: I've found you -- I've listened to the facts. You've told me that
you told me everything you want to tell me.

MR. WOOLLEY: Can you explain to me --

THE COURT: My interpretation --

MR. WOOLLEY: -- how they don't apply? Can you explain to me how they don't
apply?

THE COURT: I don't think it's appropriate. I agree that there are continual
right turns, and I don't think that that -- that would negate the entire
purpose of the statute, and then --

MR. WOOLLEY: You know, on that one -- there's two other exceptions here. The
right turn is only one of three.

THE COURT: Yeah, but the speed limit on that street is 35, so I --

MR. WOOLLEY: Okay, there's still --

THE COURT: I'm not going to argue --

MR. WOOLLEY: -- one more --

THE COURT: Sir --

MR. WOOLLEY: -- which --

THE COURT: Sir, I am not going to argue with you. I have made a ruling.

MR. WOOLLEY: I'm not going to pay a fine for something I didn't do, and I
will --

THE COURT: You proceed to do whatever you feel you need to do, but I will
find you guilty. The fine is $165. Can you pay that today or --

MR. WOOLLEY: I'm not going to pay that today.

THE COURT: Okay, well, I'll give you 90 days to pay it.

OFFICER ROOT: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Proceedings concluded.)
genec is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:38 AM
  #6  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,030

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 249 Posts
Amazing. All I see of biking in NYC is 'gonzo' delivery cats on TV. Then again, it's hard to see anything else if you live in eastern Oregon.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:49 AM
  #7  
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Posts: 3,770

Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I like the core message that cyclists take the whole lane when appropriate and share when appropriate. "Allowed use," and "May take" do seem like useful driver education.

I do not like the notion of signage telling me when to take the lane or share it. In some settings, say dense low speed motor traffic when just puddling along, I am happy to share a marginal lane. In other settings, say glass and other debris on the right, I will take a wide lane.

There's also the issue of driver perception when signs are not present. If road "A" is signed "May take," what about road "B" that is unsigned? Readers here know full well we are responsible for making our own choices on "B," but your average driver does not.

The most import thing I learned reading here is that I am responsible for making it perfectly clear by my position when I am sharing and when I am taking.
gcottay is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:51 AM
  #8  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,030

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 249 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
We have a case in appeal right now of a cop believing that a cyclist should have been riding "close to the curb." So it does happen. The judge found him guilty initially, and the appeal process is pointing to acquittal.


Here is the transcript of the case:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - KEARNY MESA BRANCH

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW WOOLLEY,
Defendant.
Am I to understand the Defendant stated the veracity of the officer's knowledge was compromised?

Why does anyone argue like that and expect to get what they need?

You take a city employee, berate them when it's their job to cite violations and treat them as if the are more than just the guy seeing after the public's safety as if they were a prosecutor or a judge.

They are PEOPLE, people! If you act like a trapped rat, ipso facto. I'm sure you'll have the same problems driving.

By the way, ask for a jury trial if offered if you cannot directly deal with the judicial system. Appeals are made based on misconduct or errors, not the original pretense of your charges.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 10:08 AM
  #9  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
I like the core message that cyclists take the whole lane when appropriate and share when appropriate. "Allowed use," and "May take" do seem like useful driver education.

I do not like the notion of signage telling me when to take the lane or share it. In some settings, say dense low speed motor traffic when just puddling along, I am happy to share a marginal lane. In other settings, say glass and other debris on the right, I will take a wide lane.

There's also the issue of driver perception when signs are not present. If road "A" is signed "May take," what about road "B" that is unsigned? Readers here know full well we are responsible for making our own choices on "B," but your average driver does not.

The most import thing I learned reading here is that I am responsible for making it perfectly clear by my position when I am sharing and when I am taking.
If the states just took a bit more effort to ensure drivers understood that bicycles are vehicles, with the same rights and responsibilities, I figure we wouldn't need additional signage. Do we have signs stating that motorcycles or buggies or SMVs have the right to the full lane? Why not?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 11:40 AM
  #10  
Standalone 
The Drive Side is Within
 
Standalone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Haven, CT, USA
Posts: 3,398

Bikes: Road, Cargo, Tandem, Etc.

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 39 Times in 26 Posts
over by the curb=buzzed by dangerous drivers.

taking the lane=buzzed anyway.

this needs to change. I'm for anything that works.
__________________
The bicycle, the bicycle surely, should always be the vehicle of novelists and poets. Christopher Morley
Standalone is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 11:48 AM
  #11  
tomg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south jersey
Posts: 1,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post

By the way, ask for a jury trial if offered if you cannot directly deal with the judicial system. Appeals are made based on misconduct or errors, not the original pretense of your charges.
If case goes to jury, how many in the jury drive cars? How many seriously ride bicycles? I think Woolley had valid points, believe in his view of the law, but see pre-judgement in police/court view. Jury may concure...
I would like to hear how this unfolds!
tomg is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 12:04 PM
  #12  
Elkhound
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,768

Bikes: Trek Mountaineer modified with a NuVinci; Montegue Paratrooper folding mountain bike; Greenspeed recumbent; Surly Big Dummy with Stokemonkey

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by tomg View Post
If case goes to jury, how many in the jury drive cars? How many seriously ride bicycles?!
That is what voir dire is for.
Elkhound is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 12:10 PM
  #13  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by mandovoodoo View Post
What about TN? Here we've got a FRAP law, but only where a car can pass in the same lane safely, and we've got the 3' rule.

55-8-175. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths — Penalty. —

(a) (1) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
I believe that if I'm not mistaken that part of the key as it were is that as above, the laws in most states say "as close as practicable," and doesn't say anything about us having to ride/hug the curb or ride/hug the gutter pan. What is the penalty in Tn if you're "caught" not hugging the gutter pan/curb?

Originally Posted by mandovoodoo View Post
. . . . .

(C) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, “substandard width lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


Seems to me that a bicycle isn't entitled to the lane where the lane is wide enough for the bicycle (2') and the 3' buffer (in our laws) and a car. A car is about 7 ft wide, so that's a 12' lane minimum. Many of our larger country roads have lanes wider than 12'.

How does the law match the message?
Here in Fl FDOT standards say that a road or lane should be at a minimum 14' wide. That allows 3' for the bike to operate in, the 3' buffer zone and 8' for the average motor vehicle. How many roads/lanes in Tn and in your area are 12' or less? I know that sadly it seems as if the majority of roads/lanes in my area are 14' or less thus legally giving cyclists the right not to ride as close to the right edge of the road as motorists (and some LEOs) like to think.

Also keep in mind that it isn't the motorists or the LEOs who get to determine how far to the right, but us the cyclists.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 12:59 PM
  #14  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, there are idiot cops everywhere. I forgot where I read about this but a cop somewhere was ticketing drivers for failing to come to a full stop at a yield sign.

Edit.:

After reading that transcript I'm not entirely convinced that the cop was wrong. If this cyclist was indeed riding along the dotted line, between lanes he would be most likely found guilty by any judge. The cop may have some valid points. The cyclist should have taken the lane then it would be perhaps different.


Adam

Last edited by AdamDZ; 12-16-09 at 01:21 PM.
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 01:42 PM
  #15  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,030

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 249 Posts
Originally Posted by tomg View Post
If case goes to jury, how many in the jury drive cars? How many seriously ride bicycles? I think Woolley had valid points, believe in his view of the law, but see pre-judgement in police/court view. Jury may concure...
I would like to hear how this unfolds!
Like any other jury is supposed to act...on the evidence. Prejudicial jury candidates are supposed to be found and excused in the selection process.

When did government/civics classes get replaced by paranoia?

When Casey Kasem stopped doing the Top 40?
Rollfast is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 01:45 PM
  #16  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kineticycle View Post
The Mission is simple: Deliver one consistent message "Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane, Change To Pass". www.baufl.org

Like the critical mazzhole "we aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic,'" it is a childish, simplistic jingo. By the way b.a.u.f.l. rhymes with awful, which is basically what this claim is. For decades, motorists and cyclists have coexisted, albeit not without some conflict, on the nations' roadways. The key to this success was not only the professionalism and courtesy of TransAmerica Trail riders, but that was a large part of it.

As I always claim, cyclists are an insignificant portion of the entire transportation matrix. By any measure....passenger miles, value added miles, tonmiles, cycling is a speck in the larger picture. This is true even in cities where activists hyperventilate about commuters. As such, I am hardly surprised to see that raodways are designed largely with cars in mind; any more than I am surprised that a playground is designed largely with children in mind. (Given how childish many cycling activists are, I couldn't pass up this analogy)


Futhermore, the 'vulnerability' that activists insist justifies claims like "full lane" and "3 feet" is a choice that we cyclists make and should live with; much as a motorcyclist, or someone who drives without seatbelts, or with the airbags nullified. The extent society decides to accomodate these risky roadies should be determined by its impact on transportation costs and safety overall; not exclusively by how much 'cyclists will benefit,' nor by how much those 'awful fossil fuelers should suffer.'

Politicially, the chips will fall depending on how consistent cyclists demands are. Ask anyone who has been clocked by a delivery rider in a crosswalk about the "3 foot rule." As any pedestrian buzzed by a teen-moron on a sidewalk about why they should move for someone on a bike...anywhere, anytime. Thats why cyclng activists hide behind the law...forgetting that the law has its basis in the consent and approval of those who approve it. Since 99% of roadway snafus are neither 'legal matters' nor reported, even if they are, courtesy is what determines how well our roadways function; and on that, from what I can see, activists fail miserably.


roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 02:07 PM
  #17  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
Like any other jury is supposed to act...on the evidence. Prejudicial jury candidates are supposed to be found and excused in the selection process.

When did government/civics classes get replaced by paranoia?

When Casey Kasem stopped doing the Top 40?

Ask the defendant and his lawyer if they rode bicycles to the courtroom. That should settle the bias issue pretty quickly.

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 02:52 PM
  #18  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff View Post
courtesy is what determines how well our roadways function; and on that, from what I can see, activists fail miserably.
roughstuff
If cyclists depended on drivers' courtesy they wouldn't be able to go anywhere on a bike. We need to use the law to our benefit. There is no other way for cyclists in USA to get their place on the road but by enforcement of laws and regulations. I agree though that cyclists should be held responsible for their share of law obedience: cycling on sidewalks, riding the wrong way, riding between lanes, not stopping at red lights, not yielding to pedestrians, etc. should be eradicated for the cycling to regain respect and the approval of legitimacy among other road users.

I wouldn't say cyclists are insignificant. That depends on the area. On any given day during my commute in NYC there are more cyclists on the streets that motorcycles. Does that mean motorcycles are insignificant?

And yes, we are allowed to take a full lane. I see nothing childish or simplistic about it. It's a fact that most road users are oblivious to.

Adam
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 02:54 PM
  #19  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
If the states just took a bit more effort to ensure drivers understood that bicycles are vehicles, with the same rights and responsibilities, I figure we wouldn't need additional signage. Do we have signs stating that motorcycles or buggies or SMVs have the right to the full lane? Why not?
Well, to keep the Honolulu Police Dept. motorcycle cops from repeatedly ticketing motorcyclist legally riding in the car pool lane, the State finally got pushed into putting up signs under the carpool signs that say "MOTORCYLES OK". I got one of those tickets, but the cop was out of the court room before my argument and the judge dismissed the ticket.
CB HI is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 02:57 PM
  #20  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post
Well, there are idiot cops everywhere. I forgot where I read about this but a cop somewhere was ticketing drivers for failing to come to a full stop at a yield sign.

Edit.:

After reading that transcript I'm not entirely convinced that the cop was wrong. If this cyclist was indeed riding along the dotted line, between lanes he would be most likely found guilty by any judge. The cop may have some valid points. The cyclist should have taken the lane then it would be perhaps different.


Adam
In CA, it is legal for motorcyclist to lane split. So if cyclist must follow the same rules, what was this cyclist doing wrong?
CB HI is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 03:10 PM
  #21  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Posts: 3,165

Bikes: Fuji touring

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post
If cyclists depended on drivers' courtesy they wouldn't be able to go anywhere on a bike.
I got over a quarter of a million miles of almost trouble free riding to prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post

I wouldn't say cyclists are insignificant. That depends on the area. On any given day during my commute in NYC there are more cyclists on the streets that motorcycles. Does that mean motorcycles are insignificant?
By cherry picking places and times, you can prove anything. There wasn't a single bike on the road this past week when we had a blizzard. This proves bicycles are irrelevant? Well, in fact, it sure shows some of their limitations.

Originally Posted by AdamDZ View Post
And yes, we are allowed to take a full lane. I see nothing childish or simplistic about it. It's a fact that most road users are oblivious to.

Adam
And most cyclists as well. They fall into two groups...

(1) The critical mazzhole/delivery clique, who want a lane, 3 feet, and road rules except when it isn't convenient for them (aka hypicrites) and
(2) courteous rides such as myself, who have no problem with traffic going by me to my left when I am going 8 mph in a 35 mph zone. I am in my lane (the shoulder) they are in their lane, and we all lived happily ever after. When there is no shoulder and I am FRAP, the vast majority of vehicles give me more than enough room for them to pass safely. Whether that margin needs to be 3 feet depends on conditions.


roughstuff

Last edited by Roughstuff; 12-16-09 at 03:14 PM.
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 04:00 PM
  #22  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
In CA, it is legal for motorcyclist to lane split. So if cyclist must follow the same rules, what was this cyclist doing wrong?
I didn't know that, that changes things.

Adam
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 04:30 PM
  #23  
AdamDZ
Bike addict, dreamer
 
AdamDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Roughtstuff, cycling differs heavily between areas. I think we often make mistakes thinking about cycling without applying location filters. I made that mistake here. I based my post on my experiences in NYC, I should have said that. In NYC cycling is quite significant and drivers in NYC are really inconsiderate and rude. If I was to rely on their courtesy and goodwill I wouldn't get anywhere. I know that outside of metro areas drivers are nicer. All I have to do do is go upstate NY and it's different. But then roads are usually wide with clear shoulders to ride on. I believe that your experiences are different and I'm actually jealous, I do not enjoy riding in NYC as much as I'd somewhere else.

I have to take a full line here or I will be doored or side-swept or I will hit a pedestrian. I don't do this as a matter of principle just to be a dick to others. If the conditions are safe I happily ride all the way on the right side, I pick streets with bike lanes, I let the traffic pass on a narrow bridge, I wait at busy intersections until traffic clears, I yield to pedestrians and try to obey traffic rules as much as I can, yes, I do stop at most traffic lights. My problem is that drivers think that we must ride on the right side all the time. That we are not allowed to take a full line no matter what.

So if I'm riding at 20mph and taking full line I am not going to give way to a car that honks behind me because that's my right and by going to the right I'd put myself in danger and I don't have to/want to slow down. My speed is reasonable and if he wants he can pass me by changing lanes. If I was going 6-8mph I would ride closer to the right side but at 20mph it is not safe. In both cases I'm too slow for them, because they want to do 50mph in 30mph zone.

If it comes to confrontation between us I will shove that Section 1234 of NYS law into his face. Courtesy and respect works both ways: they need to learn the laws and not honk at me when I'm not doing anything wrong. I will go to the right side as soon as I deem it safe not when someone wants me too. I will not ride at the right side if I see broken glass, rocks, chunks of concrete and foot-deep-holes. If the driver behind me lacks the observation skills to realize why I'm not riding all the way to the right, well, not much I can do about that. I exercise my right because that's what I have to do. I will not dismount and walk on the sidewalk. I own a car too, I drive too, I know both sides of the coin.

I agree that there are plenty of self-righteous hypocrites who yell "it's the law" when it's only convenient for them. I'm not talking about those. I do my best to be respectful to other road users but there are times I have to use the law as a shield because the drivers won't let me ride safely otherwise.

Edit.: Oh, and by the way. NYPD released a Bike Safety Pamphlet a while ago, I can't find it on the net, but they actually did mention that a cyclist should maintain a safe distance from parked cars, I think it was more than 3 feet.

Since in NYC on almost all streets we have cars parallel parked almost everywhere so riding next to the curb is not realistic and riding all the way to the right is not safe, even according to NYPD, so taking a full lane is the only way to make sure we don't get doored.

Adam

Last edited by AdamDZ; 12-16-09 at 04:37 PM.
AdamDZ is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 04:50 PM
  #24  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
I like the core message that cyclists take the whole lane when appropriate and share when appropriate. "Allowed use," and "May take" do seem like useful driver education.

I do not like the notion of signage telling me when to take the lane or share it. In some settings, say dense low speed motor traffic when just puddling along, I am happy to share a marginal lane. In other settings, say glass and other debris on the right, I will take a wide lane.

There's also the issue of driver perception when signs are not present. If road "A" is signed "May take," what about road "B" that is unsigned? Readers here know full well we are responsible for making our own choices on "B," but your average driver does not.

The most import thing I learned reading here is that I am responsible for making it perfectly clear by my position when I am sharing and when I am taking.
It all boils down to what most of us have said time-and-time again, education, education, education.

Parents need to teach their children the basics, and the schools need to go beyond the basics. Such as working in conjunction with the LEOs and hold at least annual if not biannual bike rodeo's. And the cops need to learn and understand how the various laws really apply to cyclists. And of course we need more (not that there are a lot at least in my area) PSAs informing the public about things like the 3' law, sharing a lane, etc.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 05:06 PM
  #25  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
Am I to understand the Defendant stated the veracity of the officer's knowledge was compromised?

Why does anyone argue like that and expect to get what they need?

You take a city employee, berate them when it's their job to cite violations and treat them as if the are more than just the guy seeing after the public's safety as if they were a prosecutor or a judge.

They are PEOPLE, people! If you act like a trapped rat, ipso facto. I'm sure you'll have the same problems driving.

By the way, ask for a jury trial if offered if you cannot directly deal with the judicial system. Appeals are made based on misconduct or errors, not the original pretense of your charges.
That how it sounded to me. It also sound to me as if the Defendant tried to educate the LEO in the street. Granted not necessarily the brightest thing to do, nor should it be up to the individual to educate their LEOs, but by the same token we shouldn't be afraid to speak up if a LEO IS misinterpreting the law(s). It also sounded as if he was trying to teach the judge about the law.

I may be mistaken, but it doesn't sound as if there were any violations of procedure, so it doesn't sound like he has a leg to stand on for an appeal.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.