WWYD Bike Ticket?

[Bootsie]

WWYD if you received a $180 ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a 4-way stop sign on your bicycle when:

• You claim you did come to a complete stop which was a track stand (where you stand on your pedals, not moving, balanced on your bike)
• there were no cars or pedestrians at the intersection
• the time the officer puts on the ticket was two hours off--you were not even on your bike at that time for which the ticket was written
• the only "evidence" is the officer's word

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Most tickets have an option to contest it in court. Sounds like you have grounds to fight it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ailaena]

If I knew I had done nothing wrong, I'd go to court and plead not guilty. Burden of proof is on them.

[zoobie]

Fight it.

[MEmama]

I fought a similar ticket (except I was driving, not cycling) when I was 16. My mom backed me up and we went to court, but I lost. On our way home we checked the intersection and sure enough the officer wouldn't have been able to see from where he said he was hidden, there was so much foliage.

 

It's the only ticket I've ever had. Grrrr.

 

Definitely fight it. Prove you know the laws--the evidence of innocence falls on you, unfortunately. Good luck.

[MommyLiberty5013]

Look at your email and phone/text records two hours from the time you say you were there. Can't email or be on the phone or text while cycling. Your own phone could prove your innocence.

[bettyandbob]

when you fight it, the officer will probably want to say that since you did not put your feet down you could not have stopped. So, find out if there's a way you can demonstrate that you can actually balance stationary in court (IOW bring your bike). Request permission ahead of time to bring the bike in to prove this. 

[bettyandbob]

Look at your email and phone/text records two hours from the time you say you were there. Can't email or be on the phone or text while cycling. Your own phone could prove your innocence.

 

definitely do this

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm curious how you got the ticket if it was made out two hours after you were on your bike. I mean, bicycles don't have license plates so how would they contact you? I'm thinking that I have misunderstood something here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zoobie]

when you fight it, the officer will probably want to say that since you did not put your feet down you could not have stopped. So, find out if there's a way you can demonstrate that you can actually balance stationary in court (IOW bring your bike). Request permission ahead of time to bring the bike in to prove this.

This is a good idea. If you can't bring your bike into court, you could get someone to video you on your phone and ask the judge to review the footage. I say ask because they can always refuse. Still photos won't really do the same thing, but that is a typical form of evidence to present. They can't hurt.

[Bootsie]

I'm curious how you got the ticket if it was made out two hours after you were on your bike. I mean, bicycles don't have license plates so how would they contact you? I'm thinking that I have misunderstood something here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ticket was presented to the rider who was on the bike at 3:30, but the officer put that the time of the ticket was 1:30.  The rider was at home at 1:30 that day.  

[gingersmom]

The ticket was presented to the rider who was on the bike at 3:30, but the officer put that the time of the ticket was 1:30. The rider was at home at 1:30 that day.

If you can prove she was home at 1:30 I would fight it. Actually, either way I would fight it.

[Random]

 

WWYD if you received a $180 ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a 4-way stop sign on your bicycle when:

• You claim you did come to a complete stop which was a track stand (where you stand on your pedals, not moving, balanced on your bike)
• there were no cars or pedestrians at the intersection
• the time the officer puts on the ticket was two hours off--you were not even on your bike at that time for which the ticket was written
• the only "evidence" is the officer's word

 

 

Based on what you've said, I would fight the ticket.

 

I know you probably know this...but I wouldn't bring up the bolded.  It doesn't matter if the intersection was clear.  You still have to come to a complete cessation of movement at a stop sign.

[Bambam]

 

WWYD if you received a $180 ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a 4-way stop sign on your bicycle when:

• <snip>
• there were no cars or pedestrians at the intersection
• <snip>

 

 

Just because there are no cars or pedestrians at the intersection is no reason to not observe the legal requirement to STOP.

I see bicycle riders here (TX) do this ALL the time. In TX bicycles are required to follow the rules of the road same as motorized vehicles.

 

If I don't stop in my car because there is no one there, I would be guilty of breaking a law and would deserve a traffic citation.

 

Because you noted this, I think perhaps you aren't 100% sure you stopped because this is a rationalization not evidence that you did stop.

 

If I didn't stop, I'd pay the ticket because I did break the law. If I did stop, I'd take it to court but be prepared to lose and pay my ticket and court costs.

[Bootsie]

Just because there are no cars or pedestrians at the intersection is no reason to not observe the legal requirement to STOP.

I see bicycle riders here (TX) do this ALL the time. In TX bicycles are required to follow the rules of the road same as motorized vehicles.

 

If I don't stop in my car because there is no one there, I would be guilty of breaking a law and would deserve a traffic citation.

 

Because you noted this, I think perhaps you aren't 100% sure you stopped because this is a rationalization not evidence that you did stop.

 

If I didn't stop, I'd pay the ticket because I did break the law. If I did stop, I'd take it to court but be prepared to lose and pay my ticket and court costs.

I am not the person who received the ticket.  

 

The fact that there were no cars or pedestrians at the intersection was mentioned to point out: 1) there are no witnesses-it is the cop's word against the cyclist's word.  and 2) to make it clear that the cyclist was not accused of preceding through the intersection out of turn at a four way stop.  

[wintermom]

I'd do some research as see if you can find any definition of "complete stop on a bicycle" in your city/county. If a complete stop means a foot must touch down, then it wasn't a complete stop. There are rules for stops on motorcycles, so perhaps there are similar rules for bikes in your area. In our province, a motorcyclist has to put the left foot down.

[Bootsie]

There is no special definition for a "complete stop on a bicycle" such as having to have your foot touch the ground.  This individual is a very good cyclist who conducts weekly bike safety classes for free to children in the community and knows the laws.  

 

For cyclists who clip in, unclipping and putting a foot down at every stop sign can be cumbersome.  The track stand stop is safer and more efficient for them.  One reason this conversation came up is because DH, who is not such a proficient cyclist was riding, came to a stop sign tried to get unclipped to put his foot down, lost his balance, and fell--and now is recovering from shoulder surgery because of the fall.  This is part of what prompted the conversation with the ticketed cyclist.

[City Mouse]

Traffic tickets are usually just the police officer's word and no witnesses, so I don't think that would be any defense.

 

It could probably get thrown out on a technicality since the time is incorrect, but that will depend on the judge and the officer. The officer could rewrite the ticket right then with the correct information and that would still be a valid ticket.

 

The argument that the person was stopped without taking his feet of the pedals might work in court or it might not.

 

I would say it is 50/50 as to if the cyclist would be found guilty if it goes to court.

[MEmama]

Unfortunately that is a very common time and way to fall. It is most embarrassing. :(

 

Holding a track stand for the length of time for 3 other cars at a 4 way intersection--had there been any--would be very, very difficult. I can understand why a police officer would disregard a track stand as a full and complete stop, and I say this as a cyclist. Foot down means the cyclist is fully prepared to wait their turn regardless of what situation arises. A track stand is a temporary suspension; not a move I as a driver at that intersection would trust. I never leave room for doubt.

 

Regardless, the person ought to fight it if they feel the officer was in the wrong. I would disagree with using phone usage during that time as evidence, however, because in reality it's meaningless. I see people daily talking on their phone or texting while riding; it is very common and any officer will know this.

 

Good luck. Being accused without proof is frustrating.

[bettyandbob]

Traffic tickets are usually just the police officer's word and no witnesses, so I don't think that would be any defense.

 

It could probably get thrown out on a technicality since the time is incorrect, but that will depend on the judge and the officer. The officer could rewrite the ticket right then with the correct information and that would still be a valid ticket.

 

The argument that the person was stopped without taking his feet of the pedals might work in court or it might not.

 

I would say it is 50/50 as to if the cyclist would be found guilty if it goes to court.

 

 

Not so. I got out of ticket because only the police officer showed up in court, not the witness. When my case was called the judge called for the witness and then dismissed the case because she wasn't there. 

 

My situation was completely different, but I would not assume that it's just the police officer's word and it all goes in his favor. 

 

Do you have any local road bike clubs in your area? Contact them and get information on applications of local traffic laws to bicyclists. 

[thessa516]

I would check your laws as they pertain to cyclists. Many areas allow for an "Idaho Stop" for cyclists. There are some news articles about what happens when cyclists follow motor vehicle laws as opposed to cycling-specific laws, particularly in regard to the Idaho Stop.

[Seasider]

Can't email or be on the phone or text while cycling.

That's debatable.

[Bootsie]

 

It could probably get thrown out on a technicality since the time is incorrect, but that will depend on the judge and the officer. The officer could rewrite the ticket right then with the correct information and that would still be a valid ticket.

.

Are you saying that an officer can rewrite a ticket weeks after an event, changing information on the ticket, and that is a valid ticket?  

[lanabug]

I agree with checking the "complete stop" rules as it applies to cyclists. There are cities/states that allow cyclists to "float" the stop sign. Some research has shown that is safer for cyclists as they can clear the intersection faster if they don't have to completely stop and lose all their momentum.

 

Lana

[Bootsie]

Unfortunately that is a very common time and way to fall. It is most embarrassing. :(

 

Holding a track stand for the length of time for 3 other cars at a 4 way intersection--had there been any--would be very, very difficult. I can understand why a police officer would disregard a track stand as a full and complete stop, and I say this as a cyclist. Foot down means the cyclist is fully prepared to wait their turn regardless of what situation arises. A track stand is a temporary suspension; not a move I as a driver at that intersection would trust. I never leave room for doubt.

 

Regardless, the person ought to fight it if they feel the officer was in the wrong. I would disagree with using phone usage during that time as evidence, however, because in reality it's meaningless. I see people daily talking on their phone or texting while riding; it is very common and any officer will know this.

 

Good luck. Being accused without proof is frustrating.

I can understand that it would be difficult to hold a track stand for three other cars to go through an intersection (I would not be able to do it at all).  But, I cannot see how the requirement is to hold the track stand for that length of time, no more than a driver of a motor vehicle must stop at the stop sign long enough for three cars to clear the intersection (when there are no other cars) to be considered "stopped".  

[KungFuPanda]

It's worth a shot to go to court. Odds are the cop won't show and it'll get thrown out.

[abacus2]

I don't know where people live who don't get tickets when the cop doesn't show, but that has not been my experience in TN. You absolutely either have to prove your innocence or plead for mercy from the judge.

[J-rap]

I'd say that the fact that the time is 2 hours off should mean everything is cancelled.  In our town, I'd start by going to our local police department and discussing.

[Ali in OR]

What I've heard in our town is that you always go to court and often the fine will be reduced if it isn't thrown out completely. If I did not witness the event myself and it was my kid's ticket, I would have to also consider the possibility that the kid may think she stopped or think a slow coast through the intersection is the same as a stop, etc. Kid says one thing, cop says another--I don't know if you can assume cop is wrong. I rarely see bikers in our college town come to a complete stop at any but the busiest intersections. They don't want to lose their momentum.

[katilac]

Look at your email and phone/text records two hours from the time you say you were there. Can't email or be on the phone or text while cycling.  

 

Definitely not true. Come visit my neighborhood and you'll see that within the hour. 

[Starr]

Are you in a state where you can write a letter to the judge? Have a friend that's a lawyer? Here the judge will evaluate the ticket, info in letter, your driving history and then decide what's what. It often reduces the fine.

[mamaraby]

It's always your right to contest a ticket. Yes a ticket can be rewritten for many reasons that have nothing to do with the officer doing something wrong. In my state, usually the original ticket is voided and a new one issued. Whether or not the officer needs to be there when it goes to court depends on the court/jurisdiction and whether or not the city/county attorney subpoenas the officer. However, depending on the municipality/court it's possible that there will be an opportunity to meet with the city/county attorney and get the ticket removed or reduced without having to go before a judge. Check the ticket, check with your city/county/whatever.

 

No, do not go to the police department that wrote the ticket. Once the ticket has been issued then it's in the hands of the court. That's your chance to contest it.

 

Have a reasonable, well thought out defense. "There were no witnesses" is not a good defense. The officer is the witness. You can argue the time, but it's also entirely possible that they can see when the ticket was written. Also, the ticket was presented to the rider. Going to be kind of hard to prove that the rider didn't do it since she received the ticket from the officer. Your best bet would be to familiarize yourself with the laws concerning what constitutes coming to a complete stop and prepare your defense accordingly.

[kroe1]

Personally, I would pay it. Whether I stopped or not would be relevant, of course. But, with my luck, I would really need the police in a few days and the same officer would show up to help. I sure would not want him to remember me as the lady who made him come to court on his day off.

[catz]

What I would do would depend on whether I actually stopped or not. If I rolled through without coming to a complete stop I would pay it. I wouldn't try to get off on a technicality.

 

I hate to project, but bicyclists creatively follow traffic laws here all the time and it's a real problem. And I say that as someone who bikes and my DH regularly bike commutes.

[MEmama]

I can understand that it would be difficult to hold a track stand for three other cars to go through an intersection (I would not be able to do it at all). But, I cannot see how the requirement is to hold the track stand for that length of time, no more than a driver of a motor vehicle must stop at the stop sign long enough for three cars to clear the intersection (when there are no other cars) to be considered "stopped".

I meant that because that would not really be possible, the officer might have interpreted it as a mere pause, like a car who slows down but ultimately doesn't stop completely at an intersection. I don't agree, mind you, but in this case the way the officer perceives it matters.

 

Our local bike community is seeing great success working with the police on bike education (educating the officers, getting them on bikes on the road), but it's a slow process and probably not yet the norm.

[Bluegoat]

I would consider contesting it on the basis of the time being wrong.

 

But I would not be surprised if the officer just really didn't consider that a complete stop.  If the law doesn't say one way or the other, that doesn't always mean that the citizen's interpretation is the correct one.

[wintermom]

There is no special definition for a "complete stop on a bicycle" such as having to have your foot touch the ground.  This individual is a very good cyclist who conducts weekly bike safety classes for free to children in the community and knows the laws.  

 

 

If he knows the laws, then this seems like a good opportunity to go to court and either help to educate himself and/or the officer who issued the ticket about how the laws are actually enforced. Somehow there seems to be some misunderstanding of what is a complete stop and how to properly demonstrate this. It would be particularly important that he have this information if he is giving bike safety classes.

[Bootsie]

 

No, do not go to the police department that wrote the ticket. Once the ticket has been issued then it's in the hands of the court. That's your chance to contest it.

 

Have a reasonable, well thought out defense. "There were no witnesses" is not a good defense. The officer is the witness. You can argue the time, but it's also entirely possible that they can see when the ticket was written. Also, the ticket was presented to the rider. Going to be kind of hard to prove that the rider didn't do it since she received the ticket from the officer. Your best bet would be to familiarize yourself with the laws concerning what constitutes coming to a complete stop and prepare your defense accordingly.

The cyclist is a college student that DH work with and really respects an intelligent, responsible person.  The cyclist was told by the officer and the city clerk that this ticket would appear on his driving record the same as if he were driving a car, so for a young male, the impact of this ticket could be greater than the cost of the ticket itself.  DH has been giving the cyclist some guidance and moral support in navigating the process.  DH has been appalled by the process and treatment of the cyclist.  Things progressed as:

 

1)  Cyclist went to court and could either a)plead guilty and pay fine b) plead no contest, pay a reduced fine and take drivers ed course (entire cost more than paying fine but prevents being placed on driving record) c) plead non guilty and have a trial.  Cyclist convinced he stopped pleaded not guilty.  (both city prosecutor and judge are part of this court appearance)

 

2)  Pre-trial hearing is set.  Cyclist presents pictures of the intersection which show that a police officer positioned on the road where the officer was would not be able to see the feet or wheels of a bicycle that was properly stopped at the proper location of the intersection.  (I know the intersection and it would be difficult to see most of a cyclist stopped at the intersection)  Cyclist brought up the time on the ticket and provided evidence that he was not at the intersection at the time of the ticket.  Judge's response was, "Oh, we can change the time of the ticket before the trial."  Officer is not at pretrial hearing but the prosecutor says that he has seen the officer's body cam footage and will use it at the trial.  Prosecutor and judge tell cyclist to contact the Chief of Police to discuss it and see if the Chief of Police will dismiss the ticket.

 

  Cyclist requests a jury trial; trial date is set for end of May.  DH is with cyclist and asks about what the downside would be of a jury trial; specifically asking if cyclist must pay court costs if he loses.  Judge says that cyclist will not be responsible for any court costs--the worst it would be financially is to pay the full ticket.  Cyclist files request to see body cam footage and is told he will receive it in 10 days.  After 15 days still has not received footage.  After repeated requests receives an email from the Chief of Police saying that body cam footage was erased.

 

3)  Less than a week before the trial date, cyclist receives a letter that trial date has been set for end of June.  About a week before that trial date, cyclist receives a letter stating that the trial has been moved to 9:00am on a date in August.  Ten days before that date, cyclist receives a letter stating that there is a pretrial hearing set for 9:00am and a jury trial scheduled for 1:30pm.  (This was the first indication of another pre-trial hearing).  Officer is not at pre-trial hearing.  Now prosecutor says he has the officer's body cam footage (but still does not make it available to cyclist).  Cyclist pleads not guilty and wants to go forward to to the jury trial in the afternoon.  He is told that the court has not summoned jurors and is not ready for a trial; the prosecutor and judge claim to know nothing about the letter (which has highlighted if the cyclist does not appear there will be a warrant for his arrest).  The prosecutor begins lecturing cyclist how his attitude is not going to serve him well in life and that he needs to learn a life lesson--he needs to be practical and just pay the ticket even if he is right.  He is told he would have to come back for a jury trial--and that might be 3 months, may be 6 months, may be 12 months, and that it wouldn't matter if he was away at college, even if he had exams that day, he would have to be there the day they chose or they would put a warrant out for his arrest.  He was also told that he would have to pay for courts costs if he lost.  (DH spoke up at this point regarding what the judge had said at the previous pretrial hearing and the judge denied saying anything.)

 

DH has come away from the experience feeling like he is in a Kafka novel.  

[Bluegoat]

Is a traffic ticket really likely to have some sort of life impact in the US?!

[bettyandbob]

Do you have a local cycling community. I'd contact a local cycling club, explain the situation and ask if there are any lawyers in the club who could handle this pro bono. I thought when you posted then person gad just gotten then ticket. This has progressed to the point the young man needs serious representation.

[Bootsie]

Is a traffic ticket really likely to have some sort of life impact in the US?!

For a young male, it can significantly impact his insurance costs

[SparklyUnicorn]

$180!!!!  Wow

 

 

[Liz CA]

Good Grief. This does sound rather Kafkaesque. Can the student scrape the money together to go to driver's ed so nothing will be on the record?

They are most certainly doing everything they can to discourage him from a trial and I am not sure what his chances are at trial and then there is the unresolved issue about who carries the costs of the trial.

 

Maybe the cyclist is so mad by now that involving the media (local news) may help? Things tend to get resolved a little quicker sometime when the public is alerted how slow and inefficient their public servants / system are.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Liz CA

[wintermom]

Does your city have a cycling committee where politicians and bicycle associations can work together (for making designated bike lanes, bike safety, etc.)?  If so, could he contact his local politician and/or the media to get shed some light and public focus on this issue. It really looks like he is being treated unfairly by the judge. He is being treated as if he is guilty and already being punished. It's ridiculous. A young man trying to obey the law, helping other young cyclists in his community does not need to be persecuted this way.

[mommyoffive]

Am I the only one who didn't know that you could get tickets riding your bike?  Wow.  I had no idea. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Having it put on his driving record seems very strange to me.  What if a bicyclist didn't have a car but only rode a bike?  Do bicyclists have driving records? 

[Bluegoat]

Am I the only one who didn't know that you could get tickets riding your bike?  Wow.  I had no idea. 

 

My nana got a speeding ticket on her bike once.

[MEmama]

Having it put on his driving record seems very strange to me. What if a bicyclist didn't have a car but only rode a bike? Do bicyclists have driving records?

I've never heard of this either, and I'm very surprised it would go on any record.

 

In this case, I would advise the young adult to contact his local cycling advocacy group. They are likely to have a lawyer who offer much more informed, local advice than we can.

[SquirrellyMama]

My nana got a speeding ticket on her bike once.

 

You can't just leave the story there! You must share.

 

Kelly

[Carol in Cal.]

I'd fight it, but in general, traffic laws that apply to cars mostly apply to bikes, too, and I'm glad they are trying to enforce them.  We see bicyclists blow through stop signs all the time here, and it's extremely dangerous.  

 

And in general:

You're not a pedestrian unless you get off and walk your bike.  You have no legal right, for example, to be riding your bike in the crosswalk, stopping traffic and endangering actual pedestrials.