The judgment is reversed and the charges are dismissed in the interests of justice. (People v. Kriss (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 913.) As the People concede, the trial court erred in interpreting Vehicle Code section 21202 as requiring Appellant to ride his bicycle to the right of traffic under the conditions presented here.
It’s interesting to note that the appellate judges did not rule on lack of evidence that my speed was less than the normal speed of traffic (the City Attorney’s concession), but instead said that the trial court “erred in interpreting” the CVC 21202. I think they must have agreed on more points than just the speed argument!
4 comments:
Again, congratulations!
Could I repost this to bikesd?
@Sam: Thanks! Of course, feel free to post on bikesd.org.
Congrats AJ
I wrote to you way back when this originally happened.
I'm unfamiliar with the appeal process; did you get a re-trial? or just present your facts to the judge?
What did you change in your approach from your original court apperance?
Thanks.
Thank you AJ for following through with this, and doing so in the careful and thorough manner that you did. I plan to use your experience to bolster our (SDCBC, CABO, LAB, and CBC) efforts to get better training to traffic enforcement and judicial officers. So far I think we have CHP Headquarters on board with when bicyclists may be "in the way" and ride in a lane instead of as far right as "possible" as so many officers seem to believe is appropriate. Next is convincing POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) to let me review their bike traffic training.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment