Bike Ticket: Ran Stop Sign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
I don't agree with many of your points. However, I grow increasingly weary arguing. You are rather emphatic, aren't you?

Tough crowd here on BITOG. Lots of cross-country mind-readers, speculation and conjecture. Plenty of B&W thinking to boot. Yet no one's ID'd themselves as a member of a court, nor a lawyer. Perhaps they're not bicycle riders and ignore this forum.

Time will tell.



I'm a cyclist like you. I agree that most on this board do not sympathize with cyclists because they view bicycles as getting in their way, slowing them down. Most car drivers think that unless a cyclist puts a foot down at a stop sign, they have not stopped, never understanding what a track stand maneuver is.

You mentioned that the cop sat through a full red, green, red light cycle without moving and looked like he was on a phone or computer. If he was, then he was blocking traffic unless he had his lights on.

I would stress that it appeared to you that the officer was head down and doing something busy on his phone or laptop, and it appeared to you that after failing to move after more than one full traffic light cycle, the officer was pre-occupied and not paying attention to driving. You were just going around and proceeding on your way.

Good luck.
 
Originally Posted By: MaxPilot

You mentioned that the cop sat through a full red, green, red light cycle without moving and looked like he was on a phone or computer.


OP never said that - light was red the whole time, never turned green ... at least not until the "incident" was over.
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
I don't agree with many of your points. However, I grow increasingly weary arguing. You are rather emphatic, aren't you?

Tough crowd here on BITOG. Lots of cross-country mind-readers, speculation and conjecture. Plenty of B&W thinking to boot. Yet no one's ID'd themselves as a member of a court, nor a lawyer. Perhaps they're not bicycle riders and ignore this forum.

Time will tell.


I'm a cyclist. I ride a cheap 1980's vintage Giant steel lugged frame that I "Rivendell-ized" with Brooks leather saddle, Nitto bars with cloth tape, etc..

I don't know which definition of emphatic you mean, but I am definitely jaded about our judicial system. It started 30 years ago when a DA of some sort offered to change my speeding ticket to defective equipment. I was going to fight the charge but took the spineless alternative instead.

I urge you to follow your convictions and take this before a judge. That is the only way you will find out if you can knock some sense into the system.

Understand that I think your ticket and expenses are dumb. I just don't think your zeal will play out favorably based on MY experiences over the past 4 decades. I truly believe that the plea bargain system is well oiled. I once sat through a sex offense trial (18 yr. old/ 6 year old) that was plea bargained to a 4th degree: Mich. Definition of 4th degree: "That other person is at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person."
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
I'm a cyclist. I ride a cheap 1980's vintage Giant steel lugged frame that I "Rivendell-ized" with Brooks leather saddle, Nitto bars with cloth tape, etc..

I don't know which definition of emphatic you mean, but I am definitely jaded about our judicial system. It started 30 years ago when a DA of some sort offered to change my speeding ticket to defective equipment. I was going to fight the charge but took the spineless alternative instead.

I urge you to follow your convictions and take this before a judge. That is the only way you will find out if you can knock some sense into the system.

Understand that I think your ticket and expenses are dumb. I just don't think your zeal will play out favorably based on MY experiences over the past 4 decades. I truly believe that the plea bargain system is well oiled. I once sat through a sex offense trial (18 yr. old/ 6 year old) that was plea bargained to a 4th degree: Mich. Definition of 4th degree: "That other person is at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person."
21.gif



While distaste for plea bargaining is understandable, without it our courts would be so backed up, that justice would take forever to be done, and we're supposed to have the right to a "speedy" trial. Plus it sometimes paves the way to get the "bigger fish" in a crime. Or we could multiply the number of judges and courts we have by a factor of 5 to 10 and pay significantly higher taxes.
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
...Tough crowd here on BITOG....

True that. And this one has gone about as I would expect.

My read and my read alone, thinking Fife having a bad day and looked at your half walk around to the right as not respecting his 'authoritah' while sitting at the light doing who knows what. Who knows if he saw you waiting behind him.

Is it too late to request a bench trial if you desire that now on advice of your lawyer friend? Considering you didn't have availability of advice of counsel at the time of the ticket, seems a reasonable request.

I wish you good luck, getting points on your license for this is absurd 'imo'. Keep us informed how it turns out. Interesting thread read.
 
Thanks. Actually I have filed a written request to change to a bench trial.

More discussions with others, as well as preparing a list of questions, a written summary, and some photos of the intersection. I also had a chat with my ins. agent.
 
what's the rule about passing a parked car, and what constitutes parking (illegally or legally?) I'd probably argue he was blocking the intersection.
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
what's the rule about passing a parked car, and what constitutes parking (illegally or legally?) I'd probably argue he was blocking the intersection.

There is no law REQUIRING anyone to turn right on red. It's at the driver's discretion. For that matter, starting off because the light turns green is not a strict law either.

A car in a travel lane, with the driver at the wheel, and the engine running, is by no definition "parked".
 
Last edited:
Since bikes ride in the road they have to follow the rules of the road. If you were in a car you wouldn't have gone around the police car. Just because you could squeeze by him doesn't mean you should do it. So the OP is saying a motorcycle could go around a car waiting to turn right. I think he had a lapse of judgment like we all do. I recently passed a cyclist and soon after came up to a red light. He stayed right behind me at the intersection. I was kind of wondering what he was going to do since if he went around me then I'd have to go around him again and make sure it was safe to do so. I stopped riding my bike in the road because of all the close calls. It wasn't enjoyable anymore.
 
People who ride bicycles in the roads must follow the rules of the road same as an automobile. Bicyclists demand their rights to the road but don't want to obey the rules if it's inconvenient to them. Serves you right. If I were on the jury, you're guilty.
 
Originally Posted By: Lubener
People who ride bicycles in the roads must follow the rules of the road same as an automobile. Bicyclists demand their rights to the road but don't want to obey the rules if it's inconvenient to them. Serves you right. If I were on the jury, you're guilty.


Because as a motorist you are completely innocent?
Everybody speeds at times and let's not forget rolling stops, failing to indicate, tailgaiting, driving while tired or distracted, etc. Don't pick on cyclists because you don't like them. There's no excuse for any of these behaviours, it's simply motorists failing to "obey the rules if it's inconvenient to them".

Physician heal thyself.

A bike isn't a car and has to behave differently in traffic. There are different rules for different vehicles (special licenses for trucks & motorbikes, scooters aren't allowed on the highway (like bikes), trucks aren't allowed on the same streets, bikes have to ride "as far to the right as practicable", etc.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with what the cyclist did. It was perfectly safe, he did stop, and he was as far to the right as possible.
 
As a bicyclist, you are in the road, sharing the road and need to follow the rules of the road. That means stopping at stop signs and traffic lights. If you don't want to wait for a light, get off the bike, walk it on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk.Just because there is no engine involved, makes no difference.When the cyclist deviates from this accidents happen. Sure car drivers can be pigheaded towards cyclists, I am not defending them.
 
I do believe a lot of respondents are guilty of not reading completely. He did come to a complete stop behind the line. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the law in Texas specifies a specific distance. He walked the bike (technically while still on it) to the right of the officer's car. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing unsafe about that. Officer was stopped, not proceeding when traffic was clear. Yes, the law doesn't require him to proceed. but only someone who is either a complete idiot, or is preoccupied doesn't. The officer did break the law by not using his signal for the right turn. The officer was angry the bike went around him. It pointed out he was being a donkey, attempting to block the right turn lane without proceeding. The ticket for the red light violation was his response.
In order to prevail, the officer would have to testify he maintained 100% visual contact with the rider for the whole process, and the rider didn't stop at any time. Neat trick since he did stop behind the police car, and must have been in his blind spot for part of the time while toeing around him. Questions to ask the officer in court are "Were you at the intersection in the right turn only lane to make a right turn?" "If so, why were you violating the law by not signaling your turn IAW Texas statute xxxxx?" "Are you aware you can make a right turn on red if traffic permits you to do so safely?" "Do you usually turn right on red if you can do so safely?" "Was there traffic that prevented you from turning safely?" "Why didn't you turn right on red in this case?" "Were you preforming any other police duties while waiting in the right turn lane?" etc., etc.
I'm pretty sure if you time your questions correctly, you can lead him down the path of making him look like a complete idiot. Especially if he admits he was doing something else (which he will pretty much have to in order to explain why he didn't proceed when it was safe to do so), then tries to maintain he observed you 100% of the time and you didn't stop at any time behind the line of the intersection. I have been to court in traffic cases a few times. Judges usually give the officer the benefit of the doubt, unless the officer tells a lie, or otherwise proves to be an idiot. I have seen a judge throw one out of court, and ask the DA to review all other tickets he wrote in a particular location for dismissal because the officer wouldn't answer truthfully.
 
I do agree with your method of inquiry and intend to proceed along similar lines to paint a picture.

Thanks for your response!
 
Originally Posted By: Lubener
As a bicyclist, you are in the road, sharing the road and need to follow the rules of the road. That means stopping at stop signs and traffic lights. If you don't want to wait for a light, get off the bike, walk it on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk.Just because there is no engine involved, makes no difference.When the cyclist deviates from this accidents happen. Sure car drivers can be pigheaded towards cyclists, I am not defending them.


Except he did stop then proceeded to make a right-on-red which is legal where he lives.
 
Stopping behind another car doesn't count as stopping for the signal. You have to stop when you're first in line.

Otherwise when several cars were all stopped in a line waiting to RTOR, they could all just follow after the first one without stopping again when he goes. Clearly that could be dangerous, and it is illegal.
 
Last edited:
When a cyclist approaches a red light the safest thing to do is to move to the front of the queue in front of the first car. This way the cyclist can leave first and it prevents anyone pulling a right hook (overtaking then turning right in front of the cyclist causing a collision).

If I understood the OP correctly this is what he did. Once he was at the light he proceeded to make a right-on-red as he was entitled to do as the first vehicle in the queue.
 
If I was in that situation I would have got off the bike and walked down the side of the road around the corner on the grass.
When I ride I am a vehicle and act like it just saying. Non of this I'm special cause I am a biker just saying.
The only thing I do is not Hog the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Help fixing bike please
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
1K
JWC86
G
Classic Road Bikes
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
borgward
shortyb
Guess its my turn, lost a dog buddy
2
Replies
26
Views
525
alarmguy
Number_35
Weird start to winter, but finally using the fat bikes as intended
Replies
18
Views
921
Number_35
Jdeere562
Sweet Revenge
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
JimPghPA
Back
Top