WWYD Bike Ticket?

[Bluegoat]

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

 

Kelly

 

It was actually pretty straightforward.  When she was a girl - so the 30's - she was going down a long hill in her village and ended up going quite fast.  The policeman at the bottom of the hill stopped her and said she'd been going over the limit and gave her a ticket.

[Carol in Cal.]

It was actually pretty straightforward.  When she was a girl - so the 30's - she was going down a long hill in her village and ended up going quite fast.  The policeman at the bottom of the hill stopped her and said she'd been going over the limit and gave her a ticket.

I had friends this happened to.  The speed limit was 15 or 20 MPH in a sleepy little town, and they were biking side by side and exceeded that.  They got matching speeding tickets.  Ironically, these went on their driving records, and since they were married, they counted as two points and raised their automobile insurance.  They were infinitely ticked off, but to no avail.

[QueenCat]

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

 

When you are riding on public roads, it's just like being in a car. You must obey the traffic laws. For everyone's safety.

 

[Seasider]

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.

Good idea! Sounds like maybe they're trying to make an example out of him or use this case for some kind of precedence-setting. Perhaps it's on their agenda to increase revenues via aggressively ticketing cyclists.

[Ravi B]

You have no legal right, for example, to be riding your bike in the crosswalk

 

Maybe this depends on where you live?  I live in the Boston area, and here as long as it's legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk (legal most places around here except central business districts), it's legal to ride in the crosswalk.  It looks like you're in California.  Here's a blog post that claims with evidence that in the Los Angeles area, it's legal to ride a bike in a crosswalk:

http://bikinginla.com/2016/02/18/attorney-solves-the-great-mystery-of-the-no-biking-in-crosswalk-signs/

 

[MEmama]

Maybe this depends on where you live? I live in the Boston area, and here as long as it's legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk (legal most places around here except central business districts), it's legal to ride in the crosswalk. It looks like you're in California. Here's a blog post that claims with evidence that in the Los Angeles area, it's legal to ride a bike in a crosswalk:

http://bikinginla.com/2016/02/18/attorney-solves-the-great-mystery-of-the-no-biking-in-crosswalk-signs/

It's regional. Here in Maine, cyclists and roller skiers have to dismount and walk their mode of transport on the crosswalk.

[Liz CA]

My nana got a speeding ticket on her bike once.

 

:lol:

 

[Laurie4b]

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.  

 

Am I correct that cyclist doesn't have an attorney? I would advise him to get an attorney. It's expensive, but it's necessary if you plan to do a jury trial. It's a good idea even if the trial is simply before a judge. 

[Davysmom]

Am I correct that cyclist doesn't have an attorney? I would advise him to get an attorney. It's expensive, but it's necessary if you plan to do a jury trial. It's a good idea even if the trial is simply before a judge.

 

I agree! It shouldn't be a lot. I had a weird situation with a ticket once, so I hired an attorney. It was like $250 (for the attorney.) I got it dismissed.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Davysmom

[Ravin]

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.  

 

It's kafkaesque when you don't know the system. It sounds pretty run of the mill to me (unfortunately). He would benefit from having a lawyer.

[111]

 

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

 

 

That sucks, but we all know how this usually plays out, sadly.

 

Legally speaking - I would pay the ticket since #2 and #3 are excuses, #4 is going to lose because the officer has the authority here, and #1 is like saying I did clean my room, I just put it all in the closet.

 

I believe you that the ticket was likely not fully justifiable, I know cops can be jerks, but from a legal standpoint you already lost sadly.  :001_unsure:

[MistyMountain]

I thought I came to a complete stop once when I got a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. I went to court but still got the ticket and now I have something that shows up in my states online court system. If I known that I would have just paid the ticket.

[SquirrellyMama]

It was actually pretty straightforward. When she was a girl - so the 30's - she was going down a long hill in her village and ended up going quite fast. The policeman at the bottom of the hill stopped her and said she'd been going over the limit and gave her a ticket.

I had an image of your 80 year old nana joy riding on her bike and getting a ticket :)

 

Kelly

[scoutingmom]

It was actually pretty straightforward. When she was a girl - so the 30's - she was going down a long hill in her village and ended up going quite fast. The policeman at the bottom of the hill stopped her and said she'd been going over the limit and gave her a ticket.

A friend of mine got a speeding ticket on a bike (similar story... going down hill). He went to court and got it overturned..... he went using his crutches and without his artificial leg..... they cancelled the ticket but the judge did say he better not be back.....

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[luuknam]

Here you'd show up at traffic court, and they'd likely change it into a parking ticket. For one, the city makes more money off parking tickets than off moving violations, since the latter go mostly to the state (or so I've been told).