02Giant 

Which is it...do as I say or do as I do?

rekmeyata

Legal to Ride a Bike on a Sidewalk? - Law and Daily Life

But there are special circumstances in every state just about so you have to know what your law says for your particular state. Bike Law University: Sidewalk Riding | League of American Bicyclists

The key word in the law of a state is if the state sees a bicycle as a "vehicle", if so you can't be on a sidewalk.
Michigan spells out their rules quite well, see: Michigan Bicycle Law
VS Indiana which is very vague: https://bicycleindiana.org/images/Ind...cycle_Laws.pdf Here in Fort Wayne the cops don't enforce any part of the law on cyclists, not sure about the rest of the state. The interesting thing about the Indiana law is there is a provision for some future time to legally enforce a registration on bikes which includes charging a fee for such. I like the way Michigan spells it out, I think a lot of states, especially Indiana, should adopt that set of codes.

The other thing not addressed here is that it is more dangerous to ride a bike on a sidewalk then on the street because cars that are going fast on the road will swerve into a driveway area to go shopping or go to work, and never see the cyclist they ran over nor were expecting one to be there, and it can happen so fast that the cyclist didn't even think it was going to happen. I know personally I hate to encounter pedestrians when even riding on a designated bike path! So I won't ride on a sidewalk just because of that, plus I can ride faster on the street anyways.

Stucky

This is excellent information for the OP!

If riding on the sidewalk is legal in L.A., that explains why the flatfoot gave the OP a ticket for going against traffic: He knew he couldn't cite him merely for riding on the sidewalk, and obviously felt that giving a ticket to some guy on a bicycle was a safe and easy way to add to his quota.

All OP now has to do, is to cite the statute and demonstrate that he was obviously not "in the roadway" and that the statute is explicity for motor vehicles and not bicycles , and he will get the ticket dismissed- which I would definitely do if i were him, considering the amount of the fine, and the fact that since he is being cited for a V&T law, it will likely go on his driving record/against nhis driver's license.

And these stupid cops wonder why no one has any sympathy for them?!

And to the OP: Listen what Rekemeyata and others have said here. Learn how to ride on the roads properly and safely! The trick is, just think of yourself as a car; a slow-moving car, and act just like you are driving a car, in most circumstances. (Obviously, use common sense- like: You don't want to be in a position where you will be invisible until the last moment to a car that is coming around a blind curve or over a hill at 50MPH....)- And above all else: Make yourself conspicuously visible! Wear florescent day-glo jerseys, and have bright flashing lights which can be easily seen in daylight.

And for goodness' sake, if you don't already have one: GET A MIRROR!

coffeesnob

you need to move to richmond Va they let you ride where ever you want... in town Between moving cars, sidewalks, with traffic, against traffic, run redlights, stop signs etc doesn't matter.

locolobo13 

Look for alternate routes. Sometimes you have to ride down busy roads but I avoid them as much as possible.

Maelochs

Not always possible and when there are alternate routes they usually take longer----which on a bike, is a benefit.

tarwheel 

1. I would appeal or contest the ticket. It sounds like you were improperly cited.

2. Learn how to ride on the road. It is safer, assuming you take proper precautions. Such as -- wear highly visible clothes, use front and rear lights, wear a helmet, obey traffic signals and signs, remain constantly vigilant, don't ride within the door zone. Sidewalks are unsafe because you might collide with a pedestrian; also drivers do not look for cyclists on sidewalks when they turn into parking lots, driveways, etc.

Leebo

Try to check out a pedestrian or bike advocacy group, they would have some safer riding ideas and tips.

rekmeyata

Same is true for Fort Wayne Indiana, you can do whatever you want and the cops don't care, but I care so I follow the rules of the road like I was vehicle.

I asked a cop once why they don't ticket cyclists for doing such insane unsafe illegal riding practices, and he said because then if there is an accident it's pretty much a shut and close case that the cyclist was at fault. This is the same reason roundabouts are becoming all the rage in America, nor more arguing over who ran the stop sign or not, it's about yielding or failure to yield which is easier to determine.

Kaze6

A citation DOES NOT mean that you have broken a law -- it means that the cop THINKS that you broke a law, and is willing to defend that belief in court.

The cite has three very important pieces of information. First, the code under which you were cited, second, the time and place, and third, when and where you can go to court to fight it.

In the United States, it is up to the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

When you are given a citation, look up the code and read every word. Look for exceptions, exemptions and conditions. If you find one that fits, take three copies of the ENTIRE code with you to court, marked "Defense Exhibit 1" and with the pertinent passage highlighted. You can only be prosecuted for the specific code written on the citation, UNLESS you volunteer something which proves a different violation, so keep your mouth shut unless you need to speak. That code is the one you're fighting.

If the cop doesn't show up to court the judge MAY ask if you are willing to accept the citation as the officer's testimony. DON'T DO IT. If the trial begins and the government isn't ready to present the case, you're not guilty. If you accept the citation as testimony, the judge can find you guilty.

Also, if you are asked to waive your right to a speedy trial, or accept continuances, DON'T DO THAT EITHER. They have a certain amount of time to bring the case to trial, and if they can't, you're not guilty. It is entirely possible that something like the sidewalk cite would get dropped in favor of more important cases.

You have the right to question the witnesses against you, which is probably just the cop. If he doesn't seem to have a clear memory of the incident, move for dismissal based on his uncertainty. Give one copy of the code to the bailiff (for the judge) and one to the prosecutor, then point out the passage which lets you off the hook.

Remember that cops are NOT experts on the law. You got cited because of the "Rude Rule" -- that is, you drew the cop's attention and he or she thought that it was a violation. If you just pay the fine, you are guilty even if you didn't break the law, and the cop won't know any better the next time someone does the same thing.

Unless you acted like a jerk, the cop won't take it personally if you beat the citation. There are so many violators out there that they can afford to lose now and then, and it goes with the job.

One problem which you have is that Ktown and Jtown are close to 100 West 1 (LAPD HQ), Superior Court and City Hall, so there are a lot of cops cruising through. Any LAPD cop can cite in any part of the city.

FBinNY 

+1 with a very minor quibble.

It's not the cop's job to defend his belief that you broke the law. It's the prosecutors job to establish the fact and violation, and the cop's job is only to say what he saw.

Anyway, Kaze is very right, it's important that at least some people are willing to keep the system honest, by challenging bogus (even honestly bogus) citations in court. IME, judges respect defendants who make honest effort and most will find ways to rule in your favor if there's any question.

I've even had prosecutors drop cases after a meeting outside the courtroom door.

At the very least, if the judge decides to find you guilty anyway, you can negotiate the fine. I don't know about California, but here in NY judges don't consider themselves tax collectors, and are very open to lower fines if given a reason, or sometimes simply if asked.

Kaze6

To DE-quibble, the cop has to defend that belief to the prosecutor, who decides whether to pursue the case based on what the cop says. If it goes to court, the cop's testimony is the People's case, which the prosecutor offers.

This is a good time to show (NOT give) the prosecutor Defense Exhibit 1. On something like the OP's citation, the chances are that the prosecutor hasn't bothered to look up the law. When you show that you HAVE, and that you found an exemption, in this case it would probably be "nol prossed," meaning that charges would be dropped.

California has a budget crisis, so I don't know if negotiation would work, but in the OP's case, the state has NO case. Judges hate seeing letters in the paper telling how they screwed up, so the OP would walk, IF that evidence were presented.

EcoBikeRider

I never understood why they give tickets for riding on the sidewalk. I know you might hit a pedestrian, but a car might hit you. I don't ride in busy commercial districts just for this reason.

FBinNY 

First of all there's a law and you're breaking it.

However, attitudes about how strictly to enforce laws like this vary by region. It seems that they enforce more strictly in California, where (by coincidence?) fines are very stiff. However, many places are like New York, where they tend to overlook stuff like this as long as it's a no harm, no foul situation. Judges in those states also tend to fine near the minimum.

adamhenry

Enforcement in CA varies by community. People on bikes can be observed weaving through pedestrians on the sidewalks downtown all day long. I live in a beach community and biking in general is ungoverned.

coffeesnob

I didn't know that about the roundabouts. They have been putting them in around town quite a bit and we wondered why?

Zix

This court process is so confusing and the law around Ktown on bikes does not help either haha, but you're all so informative and helpful. Man I'm really glad this forum exists, I can ask so many questions about bikes and how to be a good cyclist and I can count on you all. I'm getting better and more confident at being on the road thanks to everyone's tips

SkyDog75

Roundabouts (aka traffic circles) are becoming popular for safety reasons.

The Washington State Dept. of Transportation web page linked below spells out some statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roun...s/benefits.htm

The lower rates for injury and fatal collisions make sense when you think about the traffic flow through a roundabout. For one thing, cars going through a roundabout will be moving slower than cars going through a green light (or running a red light) on open highway. Secondly, because of the geometry of the intersection, there's little chance of t-boning someone.

FBinNY 

+1

The biggest benefit of well designed roundabouts is the elimination of the two most serious collisions. The ill timed left turn, and trying to beat the light by either jumping early or entering late (or when both happen at the same time).

One element of the design is enough of a bend that drivers have no choice but to slow down as they enter the intersection.

Maelochs

LOL ... road designers basically accepted that people are too stupid to drive, and decided to design traffic patterns which minimize the inevitable damage they are going to do.

FBinNY 

That's not new, designers have been trying to work around driver limitations (aka stupidity) for decades.

Also, roundabouts have higher flow rates at certain intersections, namely those where left turns are common and cause backups. This is part of the selection process

Paul Barnard

When is it not possible to look for another route?

rekmeyata

Yes they do reduce injury, but where I live accidents have actually increased, but due to the nature of the accident being mostly sideswipe type of accidents vs T-Boning accidents injuries are reduced. But the real reason the US is going this route is to eliminate the who was at fault in the accident, the situation where, the one driver says the other ran the red while the other says the other ran the red, and in today's world most people will no longer stop to and be a witness to an accident. The roundabout eliminates any questions as to who was at fault. So it's a win win for the insurance companies which is who this really benefits, because the claims are reduced, and the matter of fault is determined so only one insurance company has to pay. The other thing about roundabouts is that the safety issue really only applies to single lane roundabouts, accidents increase dramatically on multi lane roundabouts, but again these accidents since their not a T-bone accident at speed, are just sideswiped accidents at lower speeds, and granted here in the US roundabouts are a new thing which people will need time to get use to them but in the meantime there will be more accidents especially with multi lane ones.

Kaze6

Actually, the reason for the increasing popularity of traffic circles is because they are CHEAP.

First, the land is pretty much free, thanks to eminent domain and the tendency over the last several decades of getting lots of right-of-way when roads are laid out.

Second, the costs to install and maintain traffic signals are MASSIVE. Traffic circles are just a little more pavement and concrete than a standard intersection, are installed and maintained by unskilled labor, and don't require electricity to operate.

Third, there is pretty much nothing to hurt in an accident, while it seems that some cars are magnetically attracted to light poles and computer boxes if there is the slightest condition out of the ordinary.

Fourth, the government's liability goes WAY down (and thus the insurance or bond costs). You can't blame your accident on problems with the lighting control, burned-out bulbs, camouflaging of signal lights by other nearby lighting, etc. The fault nearly always belongs to the vehicle which entered the circle without yielding to the one that was already there.

The reasons given by other people are generally good ones, but the bottom line is the BOTTOM LINE. The town, city, county or state wouldn't let a single traffic circle be laid down if it COST them money rather than saving it.

Stucky

I thought the main purpose of traffic circles is that they keep the traffic moving, instead of letting lines of cars build up every few minutes while people have to sit and wait for the lights to clear for cross traffic and turning arrows, etc.? Also, they eliminate the most common type of accident at intersections: Making left turns across traffic. Accident rates may increase at first, since Americans are not used to roundabouts, and are often too ******** to figure them out...but once people learn how to use them, the rate goes way down, assuming the roundabout was well designed. I've never understood why they weren't put into use long ago.

For cyclists though, if the cyclist doesn't take the lane, and instead hugs the side, they could be a real danger, with everyone making right turns.....