I'm posting Joe's request here as it is of interest to the general bicycling community. Please read on, and show up for the court hearing on 5 December. This could affect any of us.
Relevant article HERE in the Daily Post.
Khal
======================
In May 2012, I (Joe Wermer) was involved in a bicycle-car accident during the morning commute. I was riding from my house in North Community to my workplace just before 8:00 am. I was wearing a “highway yellow” long-sleeve jersey and other gear, including a helmet and gloves.
As I passed Metzger’s Mobil across from the high school, the car traveling beside me made a right turn into the Metzger’s parking lot (in front of the service bays). As the car crossed into the bike lane on the right turn, it struck the left side of my handlebar, causing me to careen off into the parking bay area and wipe out. Bicyclists commonly call this a “right hook” collision, and this is one of the perils of the road for bicycles. I sustained lacerations and a separated shoulder in the crash. The car driver said that he had “checked his mirrors” before the crash. That tells me that he did not turn his head to check the blind spot.
In the most bizarre turn of events, the LAPD officer gave me a citation for the crash. He cited me for a violation of statute 38-454, “Crossing at other than crosswalks.” This comes out of the pedestrian section of the code, and applies to jaywalkers. With the help of Diane Albert, a Motion to Dismiss was submitted to the Court. However, the Court refused to dismiss the charge without a hearing.
The Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday, December 5, 2012, at 10:00 am before Municipal Court Judge Alan Kirk, at the Justice Center (entrance near Ashley Pond). If the charge is not dismissed, then a court trial on the charge will begin right away. Municipal Court meets in the Los Alamos County Justice Center next to Ashley Pond. As this type of incident affects all of us, I would like to see as many of my fellow cyclist in the courtroom as possible.
--Joe Wermer
13 comments:
I hope you will be able to post a "good news" update for those of us outside of the Greater LA area.
For those unable to attend your hearing, is there another way to show support? Thanks.
As far as support, let's see what happens on Wednesday and then plan for what to do. I'm temporarily being an optimist and hoping this plays out right.
Best thing for all to do is ride lots and send Council an email or ten letting them know we are out there and expect fair treatment.
countycouncil@lacnm.us
This is fricken ridiculous! So the motorist didn't get a 'failure to yield' or anything?
If I could be there, I'd advise Joe Wermer to avoid bike lanes in future. As far as I know, NM has no mandatory bike lane law.
I'm going to try to make it to show support. I'm pretty disgusted...
I think the best support we can show is an education campaign for the community--cyclists, police, and motorists. Citing a cyclist for a pedestrian violation makes no sense. Not knowing how to negotiate a turn on a street with bike lanes is not a good thing. Cyclists need to be aware of the conflicts inherent in bike lane design in an urban area. There is lots to learn.
Let's make lemonade out of this. I'm happy to start holding seminars with the LAPD, on my dime and my time.
So how on earth could an LAPD officer be so "uninformed?" How could this officer believe a cyclist riding in a BIKE LANE knocked to the ground by a car crossing that lane could be in the wrong and deserve a citation. If I got handed a citation in that situation I would have been given a ride to the jail instead of the hospital.
I wasn't there to see what happened. It does seem to me that there would be damn limited scenerios where fault would be with the cyclist.
The basic law is this: When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety.
I do not believe the judge will be sympathetic to bicyclists. In fact, I believe he will be quite the opposite.
(explanation to my previous comment) By the letter of the law, the motorist complied. The motorist ascertained he/she could do so using mirrors, but "did not see" the cyclist. A judge who does not ride a bicycle will not be sympathetic to the cyclist's predicament. The rhetoric will likely be something like "the cyclist needed to take responsibility for his/her own safety and failed to do so adequately."
As the saying goes, its always darkest before you run aground on the reef. I'll not comment till after tomorrow.
Post a Comment