Victory - Ron Lacy with SDCBC support appeals 21202 violation

[karlos]

[This just in from Jim Baross, SDCBC and CABO]

Appeal won! A small but significant step toward re-training Sheriff and traffic enforcement personnel in general where and when bicycling may legally occur - "in the way" when warranted. We should provide a loud Thank you to Ron Lacy for making the significant effort to bring this about.

Now it's important for us to help anyone bicycling to Ride Right; but not too far to the right. And if cited while doing it right, to consult with SDCBC locally or CABO Statewide, to determine when to fight back. Please spread this information to your club, friends, family, etc.

Here's what just occurred.

This morning, July 18th, I sat through several traffic court appeal hearings at SD Superior Court under Superior Court Judge Kerry Wells[edited]. I was there to observe and provide moral support to Ron Lacy for his appeal of a CVC 21202 citation he had been given by SD Sheriff Officer Garcia. Ron had been cited on southbound Pacific Coast Highway south of Swamis for not riding as far to the right per CVC 21202. Officer Garcia claimed that Ron riding slightly to the right of the center of the number 2 (outside) lane was illegally positioned and that this was further established as illegal since another bicyclist road next to and by Ron on his right - that bicyclist thereby being as far right as required.  At that trial expert (LCI trained) witness testimony was provided by SDCBC's Board member Serge Issakov - Serge is also active as an Area Director for CABO. Trial Commissioner/Pro Temp Judge Codaz found Ron guilty. Ron paid his fine and decided to appeal that court's decision - he didn't think that he'd been treated fairly, that there was evidently bias against him as a bicyclist, and that the commissioner and Sheriff were not applying the law accurately.

Today Superior Court Judge Wells decided in favor of Ron's appeal, reversing the decision of the Commissioner. The judge stated that the testimony of Ron and the expert witness about the exceptions to the "... ride as far to the right as practicable" law, CVC 21202 (copied in full below) were not rebutted at the original trail, that riding "in the door zone" can be considered a potential hazard that it is appropriate to avoid by riding further out into a lane. Ron and you won another step toward proving our roadway use rights!

It may be that Judge Wells was more likely to be amenable to considering Ron's lane positioning as reasonable since, as she stated, she and her husband ride bicycles ("my husband is an avid bicyclist") and are aware of the lane positioning issues. We'd do well to encourage more traffic enforcement personnel to become bicyclists, familiar with traffic laws and best practices; cops, sheriffs, commissioners, judges, attorneys.

Some notes of the appeal hearing:
1. There was no evidence presented at the original trial that the exceptions in 21202 did not apply; there was no rebuttal to Ron and the expert witnesses assertion that the exceptions were applicable.
2. The opposing attorney tried to bring up that Ron was not riding single-file when the other bicyclist was next to him; the judge state that there is no CVC against two-abreast riding... that single-file riding is not required.
3. The opposing attorney mentioned that Ron was impeding other traffic - a fact disputed by Ron's testimony (and Ron was not cited for CVC 22400 [karl edit])
4. The opposing attorney was asked by Judge Wells if she was a bike rider; the attorney said she rode a bike but not much in traffic.
5. The judge would not accept that there was any evidence at the original trail establishing that there was bias shown by the Commissioner or the Sheriff Officer (maybe the reversal of the verdict will send a message to Garcia and Codaz).
5. Judge Wells suggested that bicycling advocates might pursue legislative changes and more Bike Lanes to help make roadway positioning rules more clear.

I recommend that we all make all our bicycling associates to ride lawfully but is cited inappropriately, to contact SDCBC or CABO to discuss options; fighting bad tickets is one way to turn around the bias against our roadway rights.
..........

CVC 21202.  (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

Jim Baross
​CABO President
SDCBC Spokesperson
LCI #185​
San Diego, CA

[karlos]

[Here are some comments from Serge Issakov, who has the audio transcript of the appeal hearing. Quotes are directly from the audio]

I can't tell you how wonderful it is to hear our interpretation of CVC 21202 coming from the lips of a Superior Court judge.  It's so exciting that I've sacrificed some sleep to transcribe the key sections.

To me, these are the two main points:

• "[21202] doesn't say that they have to ride in single file.  I mean they could easily say, 'bicyclists must ride single file [laughs] on the roads', but it doesn't say that." [13:44]
• "[Agrees the intent of 21202 is to try to prevent bicyclists from obstructing faster traffic].  But it also says a bicyclist gets to obstruct traffic if it's unsafe to be any closer to the right hand side of the lane. [14:26]

I thought it was interesting that the judge referred to the law that requires motorists to look before they open their doors, said that we all have to assume that others will obey the law ("you have to assume that people are complying with the law" [7:15]), but yet accepted (and even argued in favor of) our position that it is not practicable to ride in the door zone.  That initial line of reasoning could easily have gone against us with a less understanding judge.

These statements were a bit troubling as well (my comments in Italics).

• "As a matter of practice people ride single file on a road like that." [7:20]
• "You weren't riding single file. You were riding out... and you were trying to take the road". [7:30]


• I do wonder what would have happened if Ron had said, "Yes Your Honor" to this.
• "A lot of cyclists say they are entitled to take the road." [7:35]

But that was all early on.  It all got better after that.  Much better!

• "So even when nobody is riding to your right, your practice is to ride that distance into the lane?" [8:09]
• "There are now lanes or roads where, you know, bikes have an equal right to take the lane." [8:46]


• This supports my theory that having sharrows and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs out there is making people (including this judge) aware of cyclist lane use rights in general.  More, please!
• "But it's your position that if it's not that kind of a lane, that you have the right to take the lane." [9:00]


• Ron answered "no" here, that he just tries to give himself that safe distance.  That's fine, but I would have said, "yes, if faster traffic is not present, or one of the 21202 exception situations is present, which is usually the case on almost all roads, primarily because I don't want to invite dangerously close within-lane passes.  When they have to straddle lanes to pass me safely, I want to take a position that causes them to change lanes completely - because 10 or 20 cars might be able to straddle pass safely, but that 11th or 21st one is going to find the adjacent lane occupied and will try to squeeze by anyway, unsafely.  If I'm not clearly using the full lane, I'm asking to be buzzed, and that's why the exception for lanes too narrow to be safely shared is in there."
• [Asking the ADA] "Where was the evidence that this exception does not apply?" [12:25]
• "The defense put on evidence that it was unsafe to be any closer than the defendant, because the cars or the distances - this is not a huge lane - the cars are there, it's busy, there are surfers, there's swimmers, those doors are opening... if he's any closer, and a door opens, he's splattered the road.  So did the People put on any evidence by way of expert testimony or by way of the officer testifying that it was safe for him where he was... [12:36]
• ADA: "Legislative intent was for someone to ride as far right as practicable, so perhaps the female bicyclist was as far right as practicable, or perhaps..." [13:22]
• Judge: "... or perhaps she wasn't?" [13:32]
• ADA: "... or perhaps..."
• Judge: "... she was riding in a really dangerous position"
• ADA: "... or perhaps Mr Lacey was.  Either way both of them were side by side for quite a while.  Legislative intent was for bicyclists to ride in a single-file line down the road."


• The ADA just admitted, "perhaps Mr Lacey was [as far right as practicable]", which concedes he may have been compliant with the only requirement of 21202, thus demonstrating that they did not have a case showing that he was clearly in violation.
• Judge: "Well, it doesn't say that they have to ride in single file.  I mean they could easily say, 'bicyclists must ride single file on the roads', but it doesn't say that." [13:44]
• "The defense raised the issue here.  This is dangerous to ride any closer,   in the door zone, it's dangerous, and the people never rebutted that.  Or  did they?  Did they?  Did they rebut that?"
• ADA: "I don't... I don't believe so, your Honor.  However, Mr Lacey was riding and obstructing traffic which is what the officers [sic] observed which is what this vehicle statute is trying to prevent. [14:15]
• Judge: "Trying to prevent.  But it also says a bicyclist gets to obstruct traffic if it's unsafe to be any closer to the right hand side of the lane. And, so they're saying it was unsafe for him to be any closer." [14:26]. 
• Judge: "Oh right, so the issue to me is kind of the sufficiency of the evidence of whether or not the defense was rebutted with any evidence. [14:56]
• Judge: "I thought it was interesting, although the commissioner pro tem clearly didn't want the defendant to put on an expert - he clearly was like, 'eh, come on, what are you gonna say?' - uh, but the expert did testify and he testified to cycling in the door zone - we're just gonna call it the door zone - is unsafe, and whether that young woman was -  or I don't know whether she was young - was riding in there, is really irrelevant if she's  quote unquote "being an idiot" [laughs] and he's being safe.  And, I, you know, I don't think the people responded to that.  So, I am going to reverse this conviction."  [15:52]

Logic and reason: +10
Anti-cyclist bigotry: -10

Serge

[Margareth Demery]

Twice in the same area about a month apart , the police officer (whether the same one or different, I don't know) spoke on the loud speaker, "move over to the right, you can't be in that part of the lane". I just said,"sorry sir, but I am avoiding the doors", and kept on riding.  They just continued on driving as well.

Ride safe,
~Peg