Court Victory for Cyclists
Thread started by
Joe Borfo at 12.3.09 - 4:37 pm
Stolen from Funkygecko:
Another Court Victory for Cyclists
From
http://mobikefed.org/2009/12/significant-ruling-in-ohio-about.php
The case involved two bicyclists who were riding abreast on a two-lane road.
A policeman was driving behind them, passed them, and observed that the bicyclists didn't single up even though there were two more cars behind them. The policeman stopped ahead and directed the bicyclists to stop, but they did not. The policeman then followed the bicyclists, turned on his lights and sirens. When the bicyclists still refused to pull over the policeman finally used his taser to stop the bicyclists.
The bicyclists were then charged with:
* Resisting arrest
* Disorderly conduct
* "Operating a bike in the roadway"
* Failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer
The judge ruled:
* The bicyclists may have been rude for riding two abreast but were breaking no law in Ohio--not the law requiring bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable (the lane was of non-sharable width), nor the law against impeding traffic, nor the law about riding abreast (which, in Ohio, does not require bicyclists to single up when impeding traffic)
* There is no law at all that bans "operating a bike in the roadway"
* Because the bicyclists were not breaking any law, the police officer had no basis to stop, detain, or arrest them and therefore all other charges were dismissed
The ruling is made more significant because (unlike most minor court rulings) this ruling has been published and so can be cited as a precedent in other cases.
reply
HaHa, 1 for the cyclists, 0 for the Union-backed whip-wielders!!!!!
Yeah, I may have wanted to be a cop at one time, but I'm a trucker, not an overpaid Union crybaby.
bentstrider12.3.09 - 4:43 pm
reply
So we can agree they got tazed for no reason. I hear people, it may not be common but it has happened, have died from being tazed before. I would seriously consider a lawsuit as my life was placed in danger without justifiable cause.
July12.3.09 - 5:15 pm
reply
Wow...a published decision that is pro cyclist.
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I read through the actual decision of the court, and I think I know why this case came down the way it did. Looks like the judge was a cyclist as well, which is great for the guys in this case. This is not to say that the decision is completely biased. It actually seems pretty well reasoned and fair, but it makes me wonder what the result would've been if the judge did not have the unique insight of a cyclist.
here's an excerpt:
"This case of course raises issues that the court will address in a strictly
legal nature. However, the case also broadly concerns the tension between bicycle riders and motorists using the same roadways. This judge is a licensed driver and also a regular bicyclist and therefore is familiar with both groups. There is certainly a tension between motor-vehicle drivers who do not want to be impeded or have to slow down for bicyclists and bicyclists who think they have an equal right to use the roadway.
{¶ 18} I have not recused myself from this case, because I do not personally
know the defendant in this case and believe that my knowledge of bicycling is not a
detriment and does not make me biased but is in fact a benefit, just as my knowledge
developed from operating a motor vehicle for over 35 years helps inform my decisions
concerning cases involving the operation of a motor vehicle.
{¶ 19} The court points out that reasonable bicyclists monitor traffic situations
and when there are motorists behind them, alert each other, usually by the verbal signal “car back,” which signals everyone to get in to a single file so that traffic can more easily pass. The defendant in this case is alleged not to have done that, and while that may practically be inconsiderate, rude, and possibly dangerous, the questions before the court is whether there was a legal requirement to do such and whether the officer had cause to stop and then finally to arrest the defendant under the circumstances presented in this case.
DJwheels12.3.09 - 5:27 pm
reply
So basically the judge is saying that if they hadn't been rude in the first place they wouldn't have been tasered.
Funny how that works.
chunk12.3.09 - 5:49 pm
reply
It's probably true.
That's the stupid thing about the 4th amendment and police procedures regarding detaining people. Even if you really didn't commit a crime, but a cop orders you to stop and you don't comply, it raises reasonable suspicion to substantiate a detention although there really was basis for a detention to begin with, and if you resist or struggle or fight back...may jeebus help you.
DJwheels responding to a
comment by chunk
12.3.09 - 6:09 pm
reply
meant to say:
*although there really was NO basis for a detention
DJwheels12.3.09 - 6:11 pm
reply
I read about this a while ago. If I remember correctly the cop told them to get off the road and they replied with something like "we have the right to ride on the road". So, I don't really see what's rude, but then I don't remember the whole story.
Gav responding to a
comment by chunk
12.3.09 - 9:06 pm
reply
{¶ 19} The court points out that reasonable bicyclists monitor traffic situations
and when there are motorists behind them, alert each other, usually by the verbal signal “car back,” which signals everyone to get in to a single file so that traffic can more easily pass. The defendant in this case is alleged not to have done that, and while that may practically be inconsiderate, rude, and possibly dangerous, the questions before the court is whether there was a legal requirement to do such and whether the officer had cause to stop and then finally to arrest the defendant under the circumstances presented in this case.
chunk responding to a
comment by Gav
12.4.09 - 10:10 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
