BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I can't be there, but good luck.

you mean... appeal of conviction of being a dick. No grace either, sad that he can't accept his actions were uncalled for and move on.

I'll try to make it if the fact I have to get going really early (9:10ish) wouldn't be a distraction.

I'll try to be there assuming the roads arent too icy. I wonder what the driver thinks will get him off? I mean there's video showing what happened... unless he's hoping that the cop doesnt show (which is what happened in jonaweb's case).

Hmmm... Is it a "points-on-my-license" issue. It's not like the guy is some great law-abiding driver who made one mistake or anything. Do you get points for violating the 4 ft law?

Darn. I work literally across the street, but have a lot going on in the mornings. As to the situation, I'm amazed someone would even think of appealing. Or is it just how it works these days? Never mind fault, just try to win the case? Andy, what's the downside to you if this guy somehow wins?

I don't think pursuing a 4 foot law case is ever about "what's in it for me?" Directly, nothing. Maybe a little satisfaction, but certainly not enough to justify the effort. What it's really about is pursuing justice to make things better in the long run for your fellow rider. And if the only (or almost the only?) 4 foot law prosecution gets overturned, that's mucho bad news on that front.

I'm guessing that the guy is hoping either I won't show, or the officer won't show. He doesn't know either of us very well... Personally, no real downside to me if he wins. I just believe so strongly in the law, and that what he did was wrong, that I really don't like the idea of him getting away with it. Full report to follow tomorrow.

Still wondering: Will he get points for violating the 4 ft law?

I'd be happy if the judge let him off... following a sincere apology and acknowledgement of his dumbassery. Perhaps he only appealed for a chance to see you again, in order to apologize? (I can dream, right?).

Mick wrote:Still wondering: Will he get points for violating the 4 ft law?

Most people go in front of a judge to get the points taken away. Will be interesting if that is what he is going to try.

Sincere apologies and acknowledgement of dumbassery are good things mind you. But if that was the goal the driver wouldn't be filing an appeal, he'd be apologizing. We have an uncontrite a-hole here who really shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle again without some driver retraining, a psychological screening for sociopathy, and graduation from an anger management class. We won't get that, but whatever punishment is there needs to stand.

^that.

I'm done. To call what happened today a cluster fuck is to give it way too much credit. In short, neither the judge nor the DA had any clue about the law. The defendant muddied the water with his "he wasn't riding in the right place" argument and the judge found him guilty of lesser charge...

@aj, thanks for fighting the good fight. You're not going to win every battle.

I'm sorry about that Andy. I really appreciate your going through the process and extending yourself on behalf of all cyclists (which is kind of how I see this). This is the system's failure, certainly not yours. My respects to you fwiw.

And thanks Ben and Mikhail for hanging with me. Ben, be happy you had to leave before they called the case. It was maddening.

byogman wrote:Sincere apologies and acknowledgement of dumbassery are good things mind you. But if that was the goal the driver wouldn’t be filing an appeal, he’d be apologizing.

I should have used the sarcasm font...

Sorry Ajbooth. You made a good effort - for all of us. Thanks

ajbooth wrote:I’m done. To call what happened today a cluster fuck is to give it way too much credit. In short, neither the judge nor the DA had any clue about the law. The defendant muddied the water with his “he wasn’t riding in the right place” argument and the judge found him guilty of lesser charge…

What is a bike doing on the road??? THE ROAD? Where CARS DRIVE? It's MINE! MINE-O-MINE!!! BEEEEEEEEP. :( Thanks for trying AJ. Maybe you'll be able to sue him when he inevitably attempts to intimidate you again?

Aj, sorry I didn’t make it in this morning. That outcome is total BS. So the DA is going to try a case and doesn’t know the law? INCOMPETENCE!

That's awful. When I get a chance I'll be writing a letter here citing law down to the section that makes the case that they failed to. http://www.da.allegheny.pa.us/Contact/Default.aspx

Drewbacca wrote: I should have used the sarcasm font…

That's brilliant. I suspect the angle-bracketyness will screw this up, but here's my attempt http://web.archive.org/web/20121016195826/http://sartalics.com/ I'm so cool.

Yeah so, the link above, try that style in a standalone webpage. Works there. Dan, can we get it here somehow? Would help social incompetents like myself (and probably a few other members...) Works on Chrome, Firefox, since it's webkit would work on Safari. On IE, naturally, it doesn't work. A rather interesting multi-layered case of Microsoft not getting it.

It works in IE 9 and later.

Very sorry to hear. The justice system continues to disappoint. So little incentive for people to drive responsibly and abide by the law.

Well, it's not like there's no incentive. The driver was convicted on a lesser charge, so there's whatever penalty there is for that. Also, he had to appeal, pay the fee there, spend his time, etc. It's disappointing, but I also think he won't be bothering cyclists again. The bigger issue is getting the DA and judge up to speed with the law.

What possible lesser charge is there than the four foot law? Who is the DA? Perhaps we can have a legislator who supported the law explain its intent to the DA

Ignorance is no excuse for violating the law. How should this be an excuse for a district attorney. Shouldn't they have to do prep work for cases like this if they are unfamiliar with the law, on which a ruling was made and appealed, and not waste your time, the defendant's time, and the court's time?

What is a bike doing on the road??? THE ROAD? Where CARS DRIVE? It’s MINE! MINE-O-MINE!!! BEEEEEEEEP.

These are almost exactly words of one of court clerk. And then she proceeded forward with words about paying for road with gas taxes and registration fees.

OK, so google PA Motor vehicle code, click the top link. Click Chapter 33: Rules of the Road in General. Scroll and get to: 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left. (a) General rule.--The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter: (1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and shall stay to the left of the other vehicle until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. (2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle and shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on suitable signal. (3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed. So, 3303.3 is the case. 2 minutes work to this point. Is that all that should be required? I believe, yes. There are cross references to this from other parts of the law, and IANAL, but my understanding is that cross references from other parts of the law in no way invalidate or narrow the context of applicability, they use 3303 to define their meaning, not the other way around. Also, Andy's riding (which by law and video evidence was fine anyway) is not what charges were brought about so that should have stop the conversation about riding to the right and the meaning of 3301(c) as a way to confuse the argument full stop.

Full text of my feedback through the contact form, others feel free to pile on. http://www.da.allegheny.pa.us/Contact/Default.aspx " There's vast ignorance about the laws applying to "pedalcycles" (overwhelmingly conventional bicycles). But a few minutes of web research informs all who care to find out. The DA failed to do basic duty here and this has terrible implications to any supposed meaning this law carries and negates any benefit of the law in terms of roadway safety. It's time to fix this, across the entire office. There are more cyclists every season and it matters more and more. To make the case, google PA Motor vehicle code, click the top link. Click Chapter 33: Rules of the Road in General. Scroll and get to: 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left. (a) General rule.–The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter: (1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and shall stay to the left of the other vehicle until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. (2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle and shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on suitable signal. (3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed. So, 3303.3 is the case (though 3303.1 has been violated too), and there's video evidence that establishes it incontrovertibly. 2 minutes legal research to this point. Is that all that should be required? I believe, yes, it really is that simple. There are cross references to this from other parts of the law, and IANAL, but my understanding is that cross references from other parts of the law in no way invalidate or narrow the context of applicability, they use 3303 to define their meaning, not the other way around. Also, Andy’s riding (which by video evidence was fine anyway) is not what charges were brought so this should have put a stop to the misdirection about riding to the right, full stop. And even if you do choose to waste your time in 3301(c) there's nothing in there to indict Andy's behavior either, no substantiation for the defense argument that he was trying to talk to Andy. On the contrary, he passed at signifcant relative velocity with window rolled up. So all the defense has shown by that story is the willingness to lie. The defense presented nothing whatsoever to merit a reduced penalty, just brought forward fuzzy headed FUD, not something that should be the basis for a successful defense let alone overturning a previous decision. That it was is a bad joke. Learn the law applicable to the case. Prosecute offenders. It's your job, take it seriously. "

Thank you very much for doing what you are doing regardless of this outcome. He will pay a fine and this is a start. The DA might have more and more cases in front of him over time and he will get off his lazy butt and learn a little I hope. Many of these DA's work one day a week and make over $50K. Yes, one day a week!