Friday, November 9, 2012
 

W&OD STOP sign ticket dismissed

Falls Church police writing a ticket
at Great Falls St.
The cyclist who was cited by Falls Church police for failure to stop at one of the STOP signs along the W&OD Trail at Great Falls St. contested his ticket in court. The ticket was dismissed on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Attorney. Here is an account of what transpired:
Just wanted to let you know that I had my day in court today. While I was ready to plead my case to the judge, I was told by the officer that I can speak with the Commonwealth Attorney present before the hearing begins. Was I glad that I did.

There was a long line so it took a bit before it was my turn. I told her that I was ticketed for rolling through a stop sign on the bike trail on my bike, she paused for a bit, and asked was I aware that there was a stop sign. I told her yes, and not stopping was a bad judgement on my part. But I also explained to her that my past experiences with these intersections and the confusing predicament that I often found myself in can make it difficult to obey the posted sign when it comes to my own safety. She then asked for the ticketing officer to explain what he saw, and his stance was simply that I failed to obey posted sign.

It was what she asked next that I found to be quite interesting. She asked the officer whether or not this intersection was a city street crossing another city street or a crosswalk crossing a city street. At first, the officer didn't seem to understand her, and was trying to say that it was a busy intersection. She repeated the same question again, and he just seemed to be unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the intersection was a crosswalk to street rather than street to street. I ended up chiming in and stated that the intersection was a pedestrian/cyclist crosswalk crossing a city street.

At that point, she made a comment along the line of "I think I see what's going on here", told me that she felt that I know what I did was wrong, and will be more cautious in the future. In the end, she gave me the "benefit of the doubt" and will recommend to the judge that the charge be dropped. That is precisely what the judge did!

Labels: , ,

Comments:
At that point, she made a comment along the line of "I think I see what's going on here"

What the CA (well, probably Asst. CA) saw was an opportunity to tell the cop not to do that again, to get the case moved along fast, and an opportunity to not litigate whether or not trail signs are legal. The result is no judgment and no precedent for anybody else to use in getting future cases dismissed.


 
Yip - no precedent. But at the same time Cops really dont like writing tickets that are not enforced in court (See DC illegal U Turns on Penn Ave situation).

This is a good lesson on pushing back against idiot enforcement.
 
Under VA law, an "intersection" is where two "highways" cross. VA law prohibits running a stop sign at an "intersection." Where the W&OD crosses a road (highway) is not an intersection. I represented myself in court and had a similar charge dismissed by the judge.
 
According to the MUTCD, "All regulatory traffic control devices shall be supported by laws, ordinances, or regulations." Doesn't this mean that the stop signs on the trail must be removed?
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007