Support CBC’s bill to increase penalties for careless driving

From the California Bicycle Coalition

The California Bicycle Coalition is a non-profit education and lobbying organization working to improve bicycling conditions throughout the State of California. CBC’s mission is to create safe, healthy and livable communities in California by promoting bicycling for transportation and recreation.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

Support CBC’s bill to increase penalties for careless driving. On Monday, Apr. 19, the Assembly Transportation Committee will hear Assembly Bill 1951, authored by San Francisco Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and sponsored by CBC. The bill proposes tougher penalties for careless drivers who injure others.

This bill faces an uphill battle, so we need as show legislators there’s solid support among the advocacy community. The California District Attorneys Association has vowed to fight our efforts to criminalize rule-of-the-road violations that injure motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.

Please send a letter of support for AB 1951 to the Assembly Transportation Committee chair by Monday, Apr. 12. Letters received by Monday will be compiled by committee staff in preparation for the Apr. 19 hearing at the State Capitol.

BACKGROUND

Various sections of the California Vehicle Code define driving offenses and specify penalties. Section 21070 defines a violation of Vehicle Code Division 11 provisions (basic rules of the road) as an infraction.

Sec. 42001.19 imposes a base fine of $70 for a violation of Sec. 21070 that results in an injury; a violation causing great bodily injury is punishable with a base fine of $95.

AB 1951 amends Sec. 21070 to specify that a violation of Div. 11 that results in an injury is a misdemeanor. The bill amends Sec. 42001.19 to specify that a violation of Sec. 21070 that causes an injury is punishable by a base fine of $145 and from 5 to 90 days in jail.

Penalties for all injury-causing driving offenses must be comparable and must reflect the seriousness of the consequences for victims. The fines currently specified for injury-causing violations of Sec. 21070 are less than half the amount of fines for other kinds of injury-causing driving offenses, even though all use similar definitions of “injury” — Sec. 21070 fines are even lower than those for some non-injury misdemeanor driving offenses. Unlike all other injury-causing driving offenses (including some non-injury offenses), fines for Sec. 21070 violations are not punishable with a jail or prison sentence.

Criminal penalties for careless driving will help protect all road users, especially those most vulnerable in a collision with a motor vehicle, including bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, skateboarders, road construction workers and farm equipment operators. According to data published in the Alliance fo Biking and Walking’s 2010 Benchmarking Report, bicyclists and pedestrians in California are disproportionately at risk in vehiclecollisions, accounting for 20% of all vehicle collision fatalities.

Deterring careless drivers will help hold down costs borne by health insurers, employers and taxpayers. The San Francisco Injury Center for Research and Prevention at UCSF tracked the treatment of pedestrians hit by cars within San Francisco and added up their costs. From 2004-2008 that cost was almost $75 million, an average of more than $20,000 per injured pedestrian over those five years. In 2004, 76% of the total costs were publicly funded (e.g., Medicare, MediCal and other public funding sources).

HERE’S HOW YOU CAN HELP

Use the template below to write a letter to Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Bonnie Lowenthal and copy the committee members and Assemblymember Ammiano. If you can, write the letter in your own words using the template as a model, however, be sure to keep it brief — long letters aren’t necessary for showing support and may not get read.

[Date]

Hon. Bonnie Lowenthal

Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249-0054

Fax: (916) 319-2154

Re: AB 1951 – SUPPORT

Dear Assemblymember Lowenthal,

Every day bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists are injured by careless drivers. A driver found at fault for injuring someone while speeding or driving recklessly faces criminal penalties. But if the same driver injures someone while making an illegal right turn, failing to yield the right-of-way or ignoring another basic rule of the road, he or she faces no more than a traffic citation. Same driver, same street, same victim, same injuries – but far different penalties. All drivers who injure others must be held to the same standard of responsibility.

By making the penalties for unsafe driving comparable to those for other injury-causing driving offenses, AB 1951 offers a strong and appropriate deterrent to those drivers who fail to obey the rules of the road. I strongly urge the Assembly Transportation Committee to approve this bill.

Sincerely,

[Your signature]

[Your name]

[Your organization]

CC: Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249-0013

Fax: (916) 319-2113

Assembly Transportation Committee members

Send your letters via U.S. Postal Service or fax, or deliver by hand.

The People v. Andrew Woolley

Andrew Wooley, a San Diego bicyclist, had a run-in with a motorcycle cop on El Cajon Boulevard in San Diego last march.  He split a traffic lane with his bicycle to pass slower cars and was pulled over by motorcycle David Root for violating CVC 21202(a), the Far To The Right rule.

JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney

ANDREW JONES, Assistant City Attorney

STEVEN K. HANSEN, Deputy City Attorney

California State Bar No. 134774

Office of the City Attorney

Appellate Unit

1200 Third Avenue, Suite 700

San Diego, California 92101-4103

Telephone: (619) 533-5500

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent

ii. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1. INTRODUCTION

1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2. ARGUMENT

2. I THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH APPELLANT’S GUILT

3. CONCLUSION Page

Statutes

Vehicle Code Section 21202 page 2

Vehicle Code Section 21202(a) page 1,2

Vehicle Code Section 22350 page 2

Appellant was observed riding a bicycle to the left of slow-moving traffic, rather than along the right edge of the roadway. A police officer cited Appellant for a violation of Vehicle Code section 2l202(a), which requires a person operating a bicycle “at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time” to ride along the right edge of the roadway. Appellant was convicted of the violation. Appellant now argues there was insufficient evidence of his guilt for several reasons. Respondent agrees with the contention of Appellant that because he was not operating his bicycle “at a speed less than … the traffic at that time” the statute does not apply to him. Accordingly, Respondent concedes the conviction should be reversed.

On March 6, 2009, Appellant was cited for violating Vehicle Code section 21202(a), failure to ride along the right edge of the road. Appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Trial was set for August 6, 2009. The trial was held and Appellant was found guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 2l202(a) and filled $165. Appellant now appeals his conviction.

Respondent adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Statement of the Case as set forth in the Clerk’s Transcript [CT] and the Transcript of Proceedings [TP]. The following relevant facts are extracted from the CT and TP.

Trial:


Testimony of Officer Green:

Officer Root has been a San Diego Police Officer for approximately 22 years. On March 6, 2009, the officer was on duty on a police motorcycle in the 4300 block of El Cajon Boulevard. (TP at 2.) The officer was in the number one lane. Traffic was very heavy and was creeping in little stages. As the officer was creeping along, Appellant pedaled by on a bicycle, riding between the number one and two lanes. The officer saw one car either change lanes or veer over, and Appellant had to brake sharply. (TP at 3.) The posted speed limit in that section of the road is 35 miles per hour. (TP at 7.) The officer pursued Appellant and cited him for failing to ride along the right edge of the road pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21202.

Testimony of Appellant:

Appellant testified he was riding his bicycle in the number two lane; to the left of cars that were backed up. (TP at 7.) At one point near the intersection Appellant moved to the middle of the lane and had to brake hard when a car stopped suddenly. (TP at 10.)

Appellant made several arguments regarding the application of the statute to his bicycle riding. (TP at 7-14.)

Ruling:

Appellant was found guilty and filled $165.

The evidence at trial established that at the time of the citation traffic was moving very slowly, creeping along, and that Appellant was riding to the left ofthe traffic in the number two lane, passing the slow-moving cars. The officer cited Appellant for failing to ride along the right edge of the roadway in violation of Vehicle Code section 21202(a). However, that section applies only to a person operating a bicycle “at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time” (emphasis added). At the time of the citation, traffic was creeping along and Appellant was riding at a speed greater than the speed of traffic at that time.

Appellant may have violated other statutes (e.g., Vehicle Code section 22350), but does not appear to have violated Section 21202(a). Accordingly, Respondent concedes the conviction should be reversed.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment below should be reversed.

Dated: 12-9, 2009

JAN l. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney

Steven K. Hansen

Deputy City Attornev

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent

Specialized Bikes Sue San Diego Vendor

Benepe’s Bike Blog has done an excellent article on the suit Specialized Bikes has brought against San Diego-based Bicycle Warehouse. Bicycle Warehouse sent out an account of “being jerked around” by Specialized Bike over the term of their contract to all of their 12,000+ eNewsletter suppliers.

Read all about this increasingly complicated situation (and the allegations on either side) here.

A Loyal Lawyer for Bike Accidents© – “Winning Since 1983”

Here are a few points I’d like Bicyclists to consider when hiring a lawyer.

I can assure you my fees are reasonable and customary in the legal profession. When hired, I work on a contingency basis – which means no recovery – no fees paid by the client. This means I work for free, if we lose. I also advance investigation and litigation costs in most cases, which are reimbursed at the conclusion of the case. However, if a client can afford to contribute case costs, I encourage it.

As many of you know, attorneys’ fees are negotiable by law. There are “discount” lawyers, or big firm lawyers in it only for the dollar, or lawyers who have very little jury trial experience. However, I would urge you to examine the difference. I am a trained trial lawyer by profession and am proud to represent the injured and some times the accused against the mighty power of the insurance industry and government. America’s finest trial lawyer trained me: Mr. Gerry Spence, of Wyoming.

This means I will try your case in front of a jury. I have tried over 55 jury trials to verdict. I like court, and won’t sell you out to make more money or because of laziness, or fear of court. I use focus groups for mock trials conducted in my office, to help my clients’ fine tune their presentation before going to court. When forced to a jury trial by low ball insurance settlement offers, I have obtained jury verdicts far in excess of the low ball insurance offers. My web site contains jury verdicts and justice obtained for bicyclists.

Many insurance adjusters and their defense attorneys know my trial record. Hence, my clients’ settlements usually reflect this. They don’t intimidate me.

By contrast, if a bicyclist hires an attorney who has little or no jury trial experience, they are no threat to the insurance industry because they have not demonstrated they can win big in trial. Hence, the insurance companies settlement offers reflect this.

Moreover, since 1983, I have always represented the bicyclists against the powerful insurance industry. By contrast there are bicycle injury lawyers who used to do the dirty work for their insurance masters, at the expense of the injured bicyclists – the people. Many of these lawyers have “converted” to representing bicyclists because it’s more profitable. Look at the lawyer’s background and ask if they have represented insurance corporations in any way. You should know I help bicyclists’ recover even if it’s not profitable. In fact, I donate many free hours a year counseling bicyclists who have small cases or want to negotiate on their own. No case is too small.

I should mention I am selective in the cases I take. If I sense the prospective client has a history of litigiousness, or is driven by a motive of secondary gain (as opposed to recovery of health and justice), I won’t take the case. This preserves the reputation of bicyclists, and society benefits as a whole.

I love bicycling and bicyclists. To that end, I publish Free articles on my website and blog, designed to assist cyclists. I would encourage you to read them, particularly the one that discusses how to obtain adequate insurance coverage in case you’re hit. All too often defendants and cyclists are under insured. A portion of my attorney fee is donated back to the bicycling community and the Challenged Athlete Foundation. The member also receives a $500.00 reduction off my attorney fees as well.

I have represented many age group and pro triathletes and cyclists, so I know how an injury will affect your lifestyle. This allows me to argue for the maximum recovery for you. Also, racing triathlons give me perspective of my clients who are recovering from crashes. Recently I road along side a female TCSD member and triathlete who was recovering from surgery. I happened to catch up to her wave while on the bike, and I slowed to observe her. Then I rode with her for a while offering her words of encouragement until she order me to get back into the race. She is a TCSD member.

In closing, one of my proudest recent cases was recovering a handsome settlement for a bike commuter. He was uninsured, but I secured medical treatment and surgery on a lien. This means I was able to obtain advance financing for his needed surgery, as he was uninsured. I shopped many surgeons to find the right one for him. In the end, this fixed his shoulder and documented his loss. This increased his case value because we proved his loss, whereas he would have received far less without the above medical care.
Knowledge of lien law is also critical in order to preserve your recovery, as health care insurance companies try to snatch your hard eared recovery by claiming “subrogation” rights under their contracts of insurance. In the above uninsured case I was able to reduce a hospital lien claim by 55%, there by increasing the client’s net recovery.

Thank your for allowing to explain my fees and for considering my office. I hope the above information is factored into who you hire. I’ve been loyal to bicyclist rights and the Triathlon Club of San Diego for over 20 years and I’m proud of that record!

Ride safe – Ride strong!©

When Road Rage Goes Too Far

A local bike shop owner recently summed up motorist bias the other day. Here’s what he said:

Motorists take out their frustrations on cyclists.

Motorists often want to teach cyclists a lesson.

Motorists sometimes act as if they are the authority, and they will bully due to their size difference (i.e. but they won’t “push” a cement truck).

As cyclists, we’ve all experienced bullying at one time or another, but sometimes it escalates into road rage and cyclists are maimed or killed.

Let me share a recent case example and what we did about it. It was an early Saturday morning – the two way road was 40 feet wide. Four cyclists were riding in a pace line – two in front, followed by two in back. All were near the right hand side of the road. Then a Cadillac Escalade – SUV started tail gating, honking and gave the “finger”, as he sped passed the cyclists. The cyclists quickly tried to react to form a single pace line – but it was too late. The Escalade driver recklessly swerved around the cyclists over solid double yellow lines (into the oncoming lane and back) then, rear ended the lead cyclist – who flew off his bike. The bike was then sucked under the Escalade and mangled. The cyclist suffered a broken collar bone and road rash.

Two “legal” issues arose:

First, was the cyclist as far to the right as possible per law (California Vehicle Code §21202(a)) or blocking traffic? I argued, because he was riding 24 MPH – and the road was empty, he was not impeding traffic, since the speed limit was 25 mph. Thus, the cyclist had the same right to the road as a car. We even had a bike computer speedometer that captured the cyclists speed at 24.7 mph. The insurance company attorney argued the cyclist was a road hog and stubbornly refused to move. Luckily, we also had three other eye witnesses that supported us. (Ordinarily, cyclists should ride close to the curb or in a posted bike lane.)

Secondly, was the Escalade drivers’ behavior willful and wanton? In other words, did he display a reckless disregard for the cyclists safety? The fact it was a rear end collision on a wide road, preceded by honking and fingering the “bird”, helped prove the motorist should be punished with punitive damages due to his road rage. Punitive damages make an example out of bad behavior and are not covered by insurance, nor dischargeable in bankruptcy. So, the road rage bully has to dig into his own pocket and pay.

At the pretrial settlement conference, I presented the insurance company’s attorney with my extensive legal brief, piecing together the deposition testimony of the eye witnesses and gave her a courtesy copy of a legal motion (brief) I intended to file with the court, forcing the menacing Escalade motorist to lawfully disclose the entire details of his financial condition and assets. We were poised to submit this asset information to the jury in order to have them assess a fair punitive damage award on top of his out of pocket, pain and suffering damages.

That was all it took. The insurance company folded and the motorist settled for a handsome amount. I was most proud of the fact that the gruff Escalade driver was forced (as a part of the settlement in open court) to apologize face to face with the cyclist. This was a healing gesture for everyone, and is often as important as a money award.

Bicycle Road Rage is alive and well in NYC and all across the country as evidenced by this video shot during the 2008 Critical Mass Ride in Time Square! Be safe out there…it’s sad, but there are people who will sometimes intentionally try to hurt you!

Car Crash During RAAM: No Fault or Distracted Driver?

Chances are you have heard all about it: Team Surfing USA was taken out of the running when Jason Winn was tragically hit by the team Strong Heart crew van.

Cyclists getting hit by the vehicles with which they share the road isn’t all that rare–but something just doesn’t smell right about this collision. Team Strong Heart was jockeying with Team Surfing USA (Maui’s Laird Hamilton and other famous surfers) for first place the entire morning of the crash, and the Team Strong Heart van apparently made an unanticipated right turn directly into Jason Winn, taking him (and the team) out of the running.

Race Director Jake Zmrhal’s response to the crash was cagey and even a little suspicious. Take a look for yourself:

“The way the incident is—it was no one’s fault,” he says. “Two vehicles collided like any other time on the road, so there was an accident and there was nothing more to it than that. There was one racer who was injured and that racer is okay. There was no penalty given, because as far as we could tell no rule was broken, no law was broken, and no one was cited, therefore no one was at fault. This is the United States. There are vehicle and bike accidents everyday, and this was one that unfortunately happened during the race.”

As a lawyer with extensive bike accident experience, I see red flags all over this accident. As far as I can tell, the driver has offered no credible explanation for the wreck. I disagree with Zmrhal’s statement that “two vehicles collided like any other time on the road” and”no one was at fault.” What the driver probably isn’t admitting is that he was distracted and should have been paying better attention. So, how far should healthy competition go? When the rules of the road, law and ethics are broken, I say it’s too far.

Unfortunately, I know all about the danger distracted drivers pose to bicyclists, and you should too (i.e. all the cell phone and texting drivers I see while bicycling). Check out my website to find out more about the dangers of inattentive and distracted drivers. The information can save your life by preventing an accident.

Also, thanks to surfermag.com for the heads up on this injustice. You can read an article they wrote about the crash here.

Stay safe out there and ride defensively!