One of those citations was for disregarding a traffic control device, the other was for obstructing traffic.
Reading Jackie's own report of the incident as he posted in a couple of Facebook groups, he admits to following his usual practice of "stop, and if there is no crossing traffic to be affected, proceed when deemed safe to do so." The "obstructing traffic" charge stems from that he was apparently in the left travel lane rather than the right travel lane (there are two travel lanes and a bike lane on that bit of road).
The local paper has an article about the case (new window), saying that Jackie has rejected a plea offer.
In that article, Matt Glowicki offers these two statements:
Jackie Green has contended since he was cited in November that cyclists don't legally need to use bike lanes and don't need to stop and wait at stoplights, as the practice could potentially be dangerous.
Bikes are expected to follow traffic laws, including those involving stoplights and stop signs, Louisville Metro Police spokesman Dwight Mitchell previously told The Courier-Journal. He also said Louisville cyclists generally must use bike lanes when they are present unless they need to be in another lane to turn.
I have talked with Jackie numerous times over the years, and his usual practice I mention above (stop, proceed when clear) is quite different than the characterization implied by "(cyclists) ...don't need to stop and wait at stoplights," as reported by Glowicki. I cannot say that I've ever heard Jackie express that the latter is okay. Jackie has, however, claimed that the practice of _waiting_ at stop lights is potentially dangerous, based on cyclists having been hit while waiting at lights (either from behind, or by other road users turning incorrectly). Jackie usually brings up the lack of structure around a cyclist that would protect against physical harm in such situations, and that such lack of protection meets the standard necessary under the "by their very nature can have no application" clause in the Louisville Metro ordinance (cited below with **). Several people I know have wondered how a judge would view his claim, and perhaps this citation will reach that point.
I'm not a big proponent of having different legal interpretations of core rules of movement for different types of vehicles, as such tends to be confusing and creates antipathy over perceived preferential treatment. I recognize that traffic light sensors are often poorly tuned so that they don't recognize a cyclist's presence, and continue to push for correcting that problem rather than having cyclists in the position of having departure from an intersection second-guessed. The light in question may not even be sensor-controlled, but may be part of a set of signals that are coordinated to enable smoother traffic flow. Whether the light is synchronized to others or sensor-controlled, however, is all but immaterial in this case; I'm not a fan of the practice represented by the "Idaho Stop." It's hard for me to go to bat for Jackie on this one.
The "obstructing traffic" issue is a different issue for me. Jackie has said that he often uses the left of the two travel lanes along that stretch of street (one he uses frequently), as the social harassment is less than if he uses the right travel lane. His stance is that the bike lane is not feasible the majority of the time, as it frequently has glass and/or other debris in it, and is what many refer to as a "door zone bike lane," situated so that a cyclist using the lane risks contact with a suddenly-opened car door. The bike lane on the street in question is almost entirely within the "door zone," with the remainder of the lane in the "startle zone," meaning that a suddenly-opened door would startle a cyclist into swerving, with potentially catastrophic results. It is far safer for a cyclist to use the regular travel lane, rather than have to do the all but impossible extra work of checking every single car for occupants before passing that car, while also maintaining awareness of traffic conditions that preclude swerving to avoid a car door and maintaining awareness of surface conditions (glass, potholes, other debris) that could cause a crash. It might be possible at walking speed, but at ten miles an hour or more? No.
Per Kentucky Revised Statute 189.287, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is charged with promulgation of regulations governing bicycle use. The regulation is 601 KAR 14:020. Section 7, sub-section b of that regulation addresses bicycle-only lanes and their use. Relevant to this discussion, note item 5:
"If a highway lane is marked for the exclusive use of bicycles, the operator of a bicycle shall use the lane unless:
1. Traveling at the legal speed;
2. Preparing for or executing a left turn;
3. Passing a slower moving vehicle;
4. Avoiding a hazard;
5. Avoiding the door zone of a parked vehicle; or
6. Approaching a driveway or intersection where vehicle (drivers) are permitted to turn right from a lane to the left of the bicycle lane."
As a side note, I will note that the expression "at the legal speed" is sometimes used to mean "at the speed limit" by people who are ignorant of the rules of movement and of traffic law based on those rules. The implication is "if you can't keep up, stay out of the way." Since the street in question is a surface street and not a limited access freeway, "the legal speed" can be any number between zero and the posted speed limit, given that drivers are compelled to stop for traffic signals, slow to avoid hitting other road users that have stopped to parallel park, or figure out which house is the one they are planning to visit, and so on. Movement that is normal for a particular vehicle cannot be considered "obstructing traffic," as the vehicle operator is part of traffic.
Many people assume there to be some minimum legal speed on surface streets, since there is an enforceable minimum speed on some limited-access roads (although rarely posted any more--I remember seeing signs indicating "minimum speed: 40" on some roads with speed limits of 55). Indeed, the operator of a motor vehicle may be charged with obstructing traffic under KRS 189.390 (7), which reads:
"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."Note the use of "motor vehicle" in that statute. In KRS 189.010, section 19 (b), "Motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle with specific exceptions. One of those exceptions applied directly to this discussion: line (8), which reads: "Vehicles propelled by muscular power." Bicyclists are thus exempt from KRS 189.390 (7), and this is certainly a valid application of the last phrase in the Louisville ordinance cited below.
I haven't discussed the citations at length with Jackie, but have had some message exchanges that are consistent with what he has said in open forums online. I happen to like Jackie, and I think he brings some important discussion to the metaphorical table, even if I disagree sharply with some of his views on traffic rules and roles. I don't know that he or his legal team would call me to function as a witness on his behalf, should the citations go to trial, or just how I would respond. I would be more likely to defend him on the "obstructing traffic" issue than on the traffic light issue, as the reader will surmise given my comments above. That ambiguity of defense would likely give him reason to not call me.
**Louisville-Jefferson County Metro ordinances, Title VII, Chapter 70, section 3, paragraph (C) reads: "Every person riding a bicycle or an animal on any roadway, and every person driving any animal on any roadway, and every person driving any animal-drawn vehicle shall be subject to the provisions of this traffic code applicable to the driver of any vehicle, except those provisions of this traffic code which by their very nature can have no application"
No comments:
Post a Comment