http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Jessamine-Co-bicyclist-charged-with-reckless-driving-sparks-court-case-257068461.html
Wonder what our bicyclists here think about this?
^ I'm not sure that article is telling the whole story.
Does Kentucky have a law requiring slow moving vehicles to pull over and let other pass every now and then?
Agreed that there must be something missing here, because otherwise it doesn't pass the smell test.
Looking at a map of Jessamine County, there are parts of 27 where I bet you could get away with legally banning bicycles where there are practical alternate routes, but in other places I don't see where they could get away with that.
Courts have long upheld that roadways are for everybody, not just cars- you can't deny access on a public road unless you provide a practical alternate (which is why WSDOT has to allow bikes on I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass, for instance), so I can't see how this would go anywhere. In Montana, we have a couple stretches where bikes are allowed too because there is no practical alternate- in that case the DOT maintains the shoulder and requires cyclists to use that, but that sounds like it's not the case here.
If she is violating a slow-moving vehicle law, that's another thing entirely, but you'd think they'd go ahead and say that. Typically on a divided highway laws requiring slow traffic to pull over wouldn't apply, since there is a passing lane, but there could easily be something else (where is her orange triangle?)
As it's presented, this seems like a case where the relevant authorities need to figure out what minimal accommodation (seriously, just run the sweeper over the shoulder every once in a while, post some "bikes must use shoulder" signs every once in a while, and the problem is solved- depending on Kentucky law you may not even have to run the sweeper) needs to be made to allow for cyclists as opposed to trying to punish somebody for using a public road as a public road clearly within the bounds of the law. If we're missing something, that would explain a lot. I look forward to the court decision tomorrow.
It seems to me that it chalks up to there being a lot of local ire over the fact that this woman essentially creates a traffic jam by taking up the right lane on US 27, as any slow moving vehicle on a well traveled road will do.
You would think that simply maintaining the shoulder and telling bicyclists to use that would be a simple and easy solution.
But nope, this is America, where the solution to every problem is to ban something or impose stricter enforcement. God forbid we actually examine why something is happening and address the root cause.
Most roads have minimum speed limits, even if they're not signed. She claims she can't use the shoulder because of trash and debris. For some reason, I doubt that is the real reason.
Note that she says she decided to ride her bike to work because, basically, the money isn't there to has up the vehicle. Late in the article though appears to be the real reason: her license is suspended. So there's a lot more to this story.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 11:08:19 PM
Most roads have minimum speed limits, even if they're not signed. She claims she can't use the shoulder because of trash and debris. For some reason, I doubt that is the real reason.
Note that she says she decided to ride her bike to work because, basically, the money isn't there to has up the vehicle. Late in the article though appears to be the real reason: her license is suspended. So there's a lot more to this story.
There probably is more to the story, but none of that would change her actual right to use the roadway. Kentucky law says she has to be in the right lane on the right edge of the roadway (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6367 PDF WARNING), not on the shoulder (roadway is defined as : ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two (2) or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively" http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6291 PDF WARNING), so it wouldn't be fair to ticket her for using the shoulder. Maybe the law needs to be changed, but ticketing her doesn't accomplish that.
Having a suspended driver's license would have nothing to do with her right to use the road or not (see KRS Chapter 186, it's clearly tied to the operation of a motor vehicle, not the use of the road, as it is in most states).
I've never heard of roads having blanket minimum speed limits, except maybe controlled access highways. It's usually something like what Kentucky's law (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40137 PDF WARNING) says:
"A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law"
but a bicycle doesn't meet the definition of "Motor Vehicle," and even if it did it would be covered under the second clause.
I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow, but I'd be very surprised to see a judge uphold the ban unless we're missing something really obvious. There's definitely more to the story from the personal angle, but from a "does she have the right to ride her bike on the road" angle, which is the one that matters, I don't see how it would be legal to exclude her.
The only thing I could see a judge using in support of a ban is
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6338 (PDF again)
"The secretary of transportation may restrict or regulate traffic upon state-maintained highways in such a manner as is reasonably necessary to promote the safety of the traveling public."
But that loops back to restricting access to bikes on non-limited access highways, and there's already a whole load of case law that says that doesn't fly unless you provide a reasonable alternate route.
I guess the tickets are probably based on:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6364
"The operator of any vehicle upon a highway shall operate the vehicle in a careful manner, with regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other vehicles upon the highway."
But I'd have a hard time believing that the very operation of a vehicle constitutes not operating in a careful manner, as long as the vehicle meets all other applicable safety standards.
As far as my earlier comment about safety triangles, that is specifically not required for bikes in Kentucky:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6464
Actually, her argument is exactly that: A bike IS a motor vehicle and can use the road:
QuoteThis bicycle is not a toy, it is legally defined as a vehicle," sad Schill
A vehicle is not a motor vehicle.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=6291 (PDF)
(19) (a) "Vehicle" includes:
1. All agencies for the transportation of persons or property over or
upon the public highways of the Commonwealth; and
2. All vehicles passing over or upon the highways.
(b) "Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles, as defined in paragraph (a) of this
subsection except:
1. Road rollers;
2. Road graders;
3. Farm tractors;
4. Vehicles on which power shovels are mounted;
5. Construction equipment customarily used only on the site of
construction and which is not practical for the transportation of
persons or property upon the highways;
6. Vehicles that travel exclusively upon rails;
7. Vehicles propelled by electric power obtained from overhead wires
while being operated within any municipality or where the vehicles
do not travel more than five (5) miles beyond the city limits of any
municipality; and
8. Vehicles propelled by muscular power
Quote from: corco on April 28, 2014, 09:02:10 PMLooking at a map of Jessamine County, there are parts of 27 where I bet you could get away with legally banning bicycles where there are practical alternate routes, but in other places I don't see where they could get away with that.
I can. The matter being decided tomorrow is not adjudication of the case--rather, it is the prosecutor's application for an injunction in advance of the jury trial, which is currently scheduled for August.
The question of whether a highway authority can ban bicyclists from a length of road, whether alternate routes are provided or not, is really separate from the matter being considered at tomorrow's hearing, which is whether a judge should order a
single specific person to refrain from cycling along US 27.
I agree that a route ban applying to all cyclists is legally problematic except on controlled-access facilities. However, given that this cyclist has evidently been causing traffic problems, which can reasonably be expected to continue if she is allowed to continue cycling on US 27 in the time remaining before her trial, then the prosecution's application for injunctive relief is reasonable.
Whether the injunction is granted will depend in part on a preliminary assessment of the prosecution's likelihood of prevailing at trial. This likelihood will be quite high if they can show that there is some unusual feature of this woman's cycling behavior that makes her an obstruction to traffic. I seriously doubt they would win at trial if their argument amounted to, "She rides a bicycle, therefore she is an obstruction," since the relevant lengths of US 27 are apparently surface streets which are open to all road users.
QuoteWhether the injunction is granted will depend in part on a preliminary assessment of the prosecution's likelihood of prevailing at trial. This likelihood will be quite high if they can show that there is some unusual feature of this woman's cycling behavior that makes her an obstruction to traffic. I seriously doubt they would win at trial if their argument amounted to, "She rides a bicycle, therefore she is an obstruction," since the relevant lengths of US 27 are apparently surface streets which are open to all road users.
I totally agree on that. As others have said, we must be missing something if there's even a chance of some kind injunction on her cycle riding, which would presumably be caused by some unusual feature of her behavior.
From what is presented in the article, it sure sounds like they're arguing "She rides a bicycle, therefore she is an obstruction," and I don't think they can enjoin her based on that- so we would have to be missing something.
I assume it would go back to how they're arguing that:
"The operator of any vehicle upon a highway shall operate the vehicle in a careful manner, with regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other vehicles upon the highway."
is the case- and you probably can argue that that is the case, but if she's otherwise in compliance with all laws, I don't see how you can make that argument. This is where I'm obviously not a lawyer (I do a lot of statute interpretation as part of my living, but I'm no lawyer)- why wouldn't it be more appropriate to try to enjoin all cyclists from using that stretch of road until the laws can be revised or accommodations can be made, if anybody legally cycling on that stretch of road is the danger and not her specifically cycling on that road that is the danger? I guess it's cleaner to enjoin when it's temporary relief in advance of a trial, but don't the courts have the authority to do sort of blanket injunctions with a directive to a legislative body to fix the problem immediately? Who would have to initiate that?
Because it sure looks to me like anybody riding a bike on that road, under existing Kentucky law, is probably doing something dangerous.
Kentucky Statute 601, Section 9: Operation of Bicycles. A bicycle shall be operated in the same manner as a motor vehicle except the following traffic conditions shall apply:
(1) A bicycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway;
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/601/014/020.htm
The problem with the law is that I doubt no one seriously thought a bicycle would be ridden in a highway at such a slow speed that would seriously impede traffic. The theory behind the law is OK; but should probably be limited to highways of a certain speed limit. It should probably also be written as to make riding on the shoulder mandatory, unless obstructions exist that would potentially harm the bicyclist.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2014, 08:16:55 AM
Kentucky Statute 601, Section 9: Operation of Bicycles. A bicycle shall be operated in the same manner as a motor vehicle except the following traffic conditions shall apply:
(1) A bicycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway;
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/601/014/020.htm
The problem with the law is that I doubt no one seriously thought a bicycle would be ridden in a highway at such a slow speed that would seriously impede traffic. The theory behind the law is OK; but should probably be limited to highways of a certain speed limit. It should probably also be written as to make riding on the shoulder mandatory, unless obstructions exist that would potentially harm the bicyclist.
Agreed. The law as it stands is pretty ugly, but it doesn't look like she's violating it as she is currently operating.
I did some spot checking along the cyclist's reported itinerary and it looks like all of US 27 in Jessamine County between Nicholasville and the Fayette County line/Lexington corporate boundary (the two are governmentally consolidated) has shoulders. (In Jessamine County, including the lengths that are not involved in this court case, US 27 has cross-sections ranging from rural expressway with shoulders, freeway with shoulders, and five-lane with shoulders and TWLTL.) The article says that the cyclist avoids the shoulder and rides in the right third of the right-hand lane. The latter is indeed good cycling position on city streets that do not have shoulders, but on roads with shoulders I would be cycling on the shoulder.
Given that the court action is being brought in Jessamine County, I suspect the prosecution's argument is that she is riding in the right lane instead of using the shoulder. I do have some sympathy for the debris counterargument, but I don't find it compelling. In her case she has a sharper than usual incentive to avoid punctures due to debris because her commute is so long--a tire puncture that happens halfway through the commute can easily extend her trip home by an hour and a half (the difference between cycling at an average speed of 12 MPH and walking the bike home at a maximum speed of 4 MPH). However, open drainage means the shoulders carry less of a debris load than a curb on an urban street and still get some sweeping effect from passing vehicles. Plus, utility cyclists have the option of investing in slightly more expensive puncture-resistant tires, which is what I did when I was a cycle commuter in Oxford. (On occasion I took cycle trips down the A34 between Oxford and the M40 junction, which are somewhat comparable to this cyclist's trips down US 27. However, the speed limit was higher--70 MPH versus 55 MPH--and I never wanted to be in the nearside lane, which was full of forty-tonne lorries that were so loud I could hear them go by despite > 90% hearing loss in both ears. Instead I cycled close to the back edge of the left shoulder, which did indeed have plenty of debris, but nothing that ever punctured a tire.)
If the judge rules that the cyclist must use the shoulder until her case goes to trial, then I would consider the precedent set to be far less damaging than, say, a ruling that cyclists must hug the gutter on urban streets with curbs. IANAL myself, so I don't know whether the judge can issue an injunction that is binding on parties not represented in the case, such as a directive to KyTC to sweep the shoulder or to post signs requiring cyclists to use the shoulder. I also don't know if court precedent in Kentucky or elsewhere makes it probable that the cyclist will be found guilty of obstruction or "reckless driving" (my question: is it really possible to "drive recklessly" on a bicycle?) for refusing, for a specious reason, not to use the shoulder provided.
I saw the story when it aired live on WKYT-TV and was anxious to post the link here and on Facebook to see the opinions. I have not gone back and watched the story online. However, I seem to remember from the story that she works on the north side of Lexington, requiring a trip through downtown.
This action is being taken in Jessamine County, not Fayette. If she lives in Nicholasville, there are not a lot of good options for her to use other than US 27 to get to Lexington. She could cross over on Catnip Hill Road (KY 3xxx) to Clays Mill Road, but those are two-lane roads with no shoulders, so she would become even more of a traffic impediment.
I wonder what the prosecutor would do if an Amish buggy was being used every day on US 27? They use four-lane roads in other parts of the state quite often, although probably not on a road as busy as US 27. I know there have been some rear-end collisions on Alternate US 41 between Hopkinsville and Fort Campbell, which is a busy route but not as busy as this stretch of US 27.
I have my doubts as to whether the shoulder is really as littered with glass and other debris as she claims. I don't travel that road very often -- indeed, I try to avoid US 27 on the south side of Lexington as much as possible -- but I don't recall debris on the shoulder being a real issue on most other four-lane state highways in the Lexington area.
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/14052699994" title="2014 Hampton Roads-Delmarva Trip Day 1 - 239 by H.B. Elkins, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14052699994_d138c73da0.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="2014 Hampton Roads-Delmarva Trip Day 1 - 239"></a>
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14052699994_d138c73da0.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="375")
(Looks like Flickr is being obstinate again...)
I came across this on my recent trip to Hampton Roads. It's on US 58 in Virginia, between Clarksville and South Hill. My initial reaction was, "Why isn't this %&%^@#*& using the shoulder?"
Looks like the injunction was not granted and she can keep using US 27.
http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Jessamine-Co-bicyclist-charged-with-reckless-driving-sparks-court-case-257068461.html (updated link)
I do believe that the law/signage needs to be changed to require her to use the shoulder (and if the shoulder needs to be maintained to allow for that, that's something that should happen), but you can't deny access and it didn't look like she was violating any laws as they stand today, even if she was lawfully creating a danger, so I'm glad to see this, even if it may not make much practical sense on the surface. Hopefully KYTC or whoever acts to actually solve the problem instead of harassing a law-abiding citizen, even if that law-abiding citizen might be kind of a jerk.
It is good that the judge didn't ban her from cycling on US 27 altogether. I am a little surprised she didn't enjoin her to cycle on the shoulder only (subject to the usual reasonable exceptions, such as maneuvering around stopped vehicles); perhaps this was because no party with standing in the case proposed such an injunction? (Maybe the judge herself is a cycle commuter?)
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 29, 2014, 11:09:14 PM
It is good that the judge didn't ban her from cycling on US 27 altogether. I am a little surprised she didn't enjoin her to cycle on the shoulder only (subject to the usual reasonable exceptions, such as maneuvering around stopped vehicles); perhaps this was because no party with standing in the case proposed such an injunction? (Maybe the judge herself is a cycle commuter?)
My worry with such an injunction is that, okay, you've now created a new law just for her (you must ride on the shoulder), when any other cyclist could still legally ride in the right lane. That...I guess maybe a judge could do that, but that feels messy.
I'm assuming the legal argument towards the reckless driving tickets, which the injunction would presumably be based on since the injunction lasts until the trial, is not based on her riding in the travel lane, since it's pretty clearly spelled out as being legal- such a restriction on her and her only would be fairly arbitrary.
Quote from: corco on April 29, 2014, 11:16:29 PMI'm assuming the legal argument towards the reckless driving tickets, which the injunction would presumably be based on since the injunction lasts until the trial, is not based on her riding in the travel lane, since it's pretty clearly spelled out as being legal- such a restriction on her and her only would be fairly arbitrary.
Here's how I would outline the argument for an injunction requiring her to cycle on the shoulder, if I were the prosecutor: by cycling in the travel lane when the shoulder is available, the cyclist is failing to show "regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other vehicles upon the highway" as required by law, and in so doing is creating a hazardous situation that promotes motor vehicle collisions and endangers life. Enjoining her to cycle on the shoulder empowers law enforcement to cure the hazard by putting her in jail (for contempt of court) whenever she fails to cycle on the shoulder.
Frankly, I would expect an injunction in favor of mandatory shoulder cycling to be easier for a prosecutor to get than a complete ban on cycling on US 27 altogether, which touches on constitutional freedom-of-movement questions. But this gets us back to the realm of unreported relevant facts.
Edit: Here's what the activist bikers (not Freds like me) think:
http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/945509-another-reckless-driving-case.html
There is the usual split between doves ("this is not the case to hang cyclists' rights on") and hawks ("this case will establish cyclists' rights to the traveled way once and for all").
And here is the cyclist's Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/cherokee_schill
My tentative impression, based on the cover image and reports of Amazon.com purchases: born-again fitness nut. Also, the tweets that deal with cycling all start in April 2014 (this month). While they might be automated updates pushed out to Twitter by a wearable activity monitor, they suggest this situation has escalated within a period of less than one month (which is also consistent with her having gotten three reckless driving tickets within one month).
Edit II: A local news source has uploaded her arrest documentation from April 18:
http://www.kylocalnews.com/news/kentucky/woman-busted-on-multiple-counts/10924576.html
It includes a mugshot and physical details (aged 41, 5' 5", 180 lb), plus charges (failure to appear and nonpayment of fines, if memory serves).
Though this flies in the face of "driver logic", what she did (ride partway into the driving lane) is exactly what she should have done, and ironically is the safest thing. Richard Moeur (former MTR regular who works in the bicycle unit at Arizona DOT) posted on the Freewayjim Facebook thread that statistics bear out that cyclists are far more prone to T-bone and sideswipe crashes than they are getting run over from behind. And her placement does make her a lot more visibile to drivers. If her placement was causing other crashes (as the prosecutor and deputy claim), that speaks far more to the inadequacies of other drivers than it does to where/how she was bicycling.
Personally, I'd prefer the shoulder. But if there's a lot of dirt or debris in the shoulder, then yes I will bike in the right lane.