Traffic Court Results
As was posted back in February, I was cited for riding in the road. Yesterday (April 30) I finally had my day in court.
It was an interesting trial. There were 5 people (including me) on the calendar. They called my case last, so I got to watch everyone else. There were some interesting things there, but it mostly gave me a chance to watch the process.
When they called my case I went up and the officer came in. The prosecutor called him as the first witness and he basically went over what happened when he pulled me over. The only thing that I really disagreed with was when he said that I told him I could ride where ever I wanted. What I really said was that where I was riding was not against the law, but I didn't need to dwell on that.
During the previous trials, one of the things I noticed was that the prosecutor asked each officer how long he had been an officer and about his experience. In my case, Officer Lim stated that he had been an officer for 12 years and a patrol officer for 5. During my cross I asked him what experience he had as a bicyclist (mountain bike only) and what training he had as a road cyclist (only "common sense" training - not sure what that was supposed to mean, but I let it go). He had also stated that he noticed me because traffic was backing up trying to get around me. I asked him if he patrolled that area often at that time of day (5:00PM) and he said that he did. I asked if traffic didn't normally back up on that road at that time of day. He acknowledged that it did. Since this was a three-lane road (two traffic lanes and a center left turn lane), the judge asked him if there were many cars entering the center lane to make a left turn (thus preventing through motorists from moving over to pass me). Officer Lim stated that there was not.
Then it was my turn to testify. I pointed out that the law does not require bicyclists to use the shoulder, and I presented two Idaho Supreme Court cases (Maier v Mindoka County Motor Company and Kelley v Bruch. Thanks to Philip Cook - a fellow LCI from Moscow) that explicitly stated that bicyclists are not obligated to stay in the shoulder. The judge took a few minutes to review these cases and agreed that the law was in my favour there. I testified that I am a League Cycling Instructor and that I teach bike safety and the bicycling related laws. I explained that in a narrow lane it actually isn't safe for a bicyclist to be all the way over on the edge of the lane because it encourages motorists to try to squeeze by when it isn't safe. I presented photos of the area to show how narrow the road is, and a diagram from the Florida Bicycle Association (thanks to Fred Ungewitter in Florida) showing "How to Get more Passing Clearance' by riding further left in the lane. I pointed out in the Idaho Street Smarts manual (written by John Allen) the section that deals with narrow lanes. The Prosecutor had some concerns about where the manual came from.
The Prosecutor did ask me some questions during his cross, but I really don't remember what his questions were. I don't think they were very relevant.
After my testimony I called Mark McNeese (Idaho Transportation Dept. Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator) to the stand. I asked Mark about the Street Smarts manual and he explained that ITD and the Ada County Highway District had collaborated to have the book published. Mark stated that there was nothing in the book that contradicted Idaho law. Since the area where I was ticketed is a State highway, I asked Mark about the standard lane width (12 feet). I also asked what the recommended width would be for a "shareable lane". Mark presented the Idaho Design Manual which states that a lane should be 14 feet wide to be considered shareable. Mark also stated that a bicyclist needs to be visible and predictable. Part of being visible and predictable includes riding where motorists will be more likely to see the bicyclist rather than at the edge of the road.
In all my trial took over an hour, while the previous cases where all less than 1/2 hour each. Both the judge and the prosecutor commented that it had been a learning experience for them, and while the judge acknowledged that Officer Lim was just trying to do his job, given that the law is less than clear about what is "as far right as practicable", the final verdict was Not Guilty.
After my trial there was a Sheriff's department bike officer there who was talking to Craig Quintana from ACHD. The officer was interested in setting up some seminars for the Sheriff's department so that we could explain what the League of American Bicyclists is trying to teach in the Smart Cycling program and why. He took Craig's card and will contact him to see about setting something up. TVCA has also been in contact with the Sheriff's department and we met with representatives during the April Board meeting. One of the goals from that meeting was for TVCA to try to set up some seminars for the Sherrif's department to help the officer's to better understand what we are trying to teach bicyclists and why. Hopefully with requests for the seminars coming from multiple fronts it will help to convince the decision makers that it would be a good thing.
In all it was an interesting (if long) day.
Great job..
This is a pretty neat example of how the justice system listens to the community. I like how you narrated the responses to interrogatories. You did a terrific job of explaining your plight.
We're working on it
Bikeboy - this is why TVCA has started a dialog with the Sheriff's dept - not necessarily to tell them what their policy should be but rather to try to provide them with some insight into the issues that concern cyclists, including officer's interpretation of the cycling laws. As you mentioned, 98% of the vehicles on the road are motor vehicles, so that means that 98% of the traffic problems that the officers see involve motor vehicles, not bicycles. It's really not too surprising when officers aren't all that familiar with bicycling issues or why we interpret the laws the way we do. But as more and more people start to use bikes for transportation, this will need to change.
Hopefully TVCA will be able to continue the dialog and provide seminars or "brown-bag-lunch" talks to explain what we are teaching in the LAB Traffic Skills program and why.
Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work
it's rarely an accident
and far too often an avoidable crash, but I know what you're saying.
I agree that cops aren't giving bike violations a priority, but it would be more effective if they left along law-abiding citizens such as Dwight and myself and put more effort into the wrong-way riders, the red-light jumpers, the unlighted bike ninjas (night riders without lights) if they are going to be aiming at any people on bikes.
I very much agree that cyclists should be treated as vehicle operators, and especially, as you said, adhere to the laws.
Dwight is a League Cycling Instructor and has been trained in matters such as these. His expertise and knowledge is being spread with every class he teaches. I hope to learn soon if I've passed my LCI course, to join him in improving cycling for everyone, one student at a time.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress.
p.s., the comment about crash vs. accident was drilled into our LCI class two weeks ago. Even some news people are beginning to understand the semantics and the difference.
Bicycle Law Enforcement
As a general rule, the police seem happy to ignore bicyclists on the streets... unless they're perceived to be holding up traffic, or an accident is involved. Unfortunately. In fact, on several occasions I've been told flat-out, "Bicycles aren't a priority for the department." (As they explain why they ignore against-traffic bike riders, red light runners, etc.)
I don't expect this to change.
Now and then a cyclist will get smashed. There will be discussion and "heightened awareness" - for a week or so ('til after the funeral). Then we'll go back to Business as Usual.
I'd prefer to see cyclists treated as drivers of vehicles - expected to know the laws and adhere to them. Of course, then the police would have to be more familiar with bicycle traffic laws. And would have to enforce them from time to time. As long as 98% of the vehicles are motor vehicles, that's not likely.
An excellent result!
I've been hopeful that your situation would work out, since the first moment I'd read about it. You clearly were well prepared and your line of questioning was spot-on logical. I liked the fact that the judge asked a question supportive of your "side" of the case.
It should not be necessary for us as cyclists to have to go through this sort of experience. It would appear from your last paragraphs that some people would be willing to work to prevent it in the future. A nice positive outcome for you and for others as well.
Congratulations!