--- In hawaiibicyclists@yahoogroups.com, "John W" <opeapea@...> wrote:
>Well, the bike law debate may seem arcane but there are consequences
to poorly worded laws.

I never stated nor do I consider bike law debates arcane, especially
when the debate is with someone who knows the law, as you do.
Debate is fine, but your first post came off as, I know the law, you
are wrong, you are confused ("So, you are completely, entirely,
emphatically wrong in your assertion that the police can ticket this
guy for violating any existing C&C ordinance. You really ought to
actually read the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu" and "Actually, you
are still confused on these issues."). Not a welcome opening for
debate.

>You are not allowed to operate a toy bicycle
on the roadway, so if a car creams you and your bent a clever lawyer
for the driver of the car could use that to say you were at fault and,
frankly, I doubt if the judge would be impressed by you seat back
argument. I'm not raising these issues just to be funny. If I had a
bent I would certainly want to see this law changed.

As I stated before, "My bent does not meet the definition of a toy
regardless." The bottom of the seat is currently at 25 1/4 inch and
it can raise up another 1/2 inch. Lawyers my try this tack, but I
have found the state and federal judges here to be far more
reasonable and most likely to reject such a tactic, especially if you
argue that with any portion of the seat being higher than 25 inches,
it is not a toy. That gives the judge additional reason to reject
the toy argument by the lawyer.

Those that wish to change the toy bicycle law to exclude all bents,
have at it. For me, I would rather go after the mandatory bike lane
use law. I see that as far more harmful in a court of law to
cyclist. In three of the four court cases I have been involved in,
the defendants lawyers tried to use this law as a defense; even
though there was no bike lane at the location of their misdeeds.


>There was a mainland case where a bicycle was hit while on the
shoulder in a state that had a law similar to our old law in Hawaii
and the driver's lawyer argued that the bicycle was at fault because
he was on the shoulder. People mistakingly think we don't need to fix
the law if HPD isn't ticketing for it, but the question of liability
in an accident is an important issue.

And what was the end result of that case? A reasonable judge would
have rejected such an argument. Although, a jury of motorist is
another story. A good reason cyclist are likely to do better with
non-jury cases.

>The question of whether or not you can be ticketed for parking a
bicycle to a bicycle rack for more than 24 hours is of interest to the
readers of this list I would think. I've been trying to get our
idiotic bicycle parking law changed for some time and have been
unsuccessful mostly because a certain bike/ped coordinator opposes the
change (correct me if I am wrong if you are reading this).


Between us, we were highjacking the adchopper topic. I found that
annoying, and thus my remark "Maybe we can get back on topic of how
to put an end to Adchoppers." You appropriately change the subject
line to "Bike Laws". Something either of us should have done
earlier.

>There are a whole bunch of stupid laws like this - in Hawaii it is
not
legal to signal a right turn with your right hand even though nine out
of ten drivers don't have a clue what you are doing when you use the
legally approved hand turn signal.

Agreed.

>No big deal you say - think of the
clever lawyer again.

Fixing laws is fine as long as the fix is an improvement to cyclist.
Sadly, it is hard to control the legislature and prevent them from
turning a good law change into one detrimental to cyclist. The law
change allowing cyclist use of the shoulder may be helpful to some
cyclist, but for me in court, I see it as a determent. Very few of
the roads I ride on have a reasonably usable shoulder. If I get hit
riding in the roadway, that same clever lawyer you speak of will
argue that I had a duty to ride on the shoulder. I am then on the
defensive, having to prove it was unreasonable to expect me to be on
the shoulder rather than pointing out (at least in the previous law
wording) that it was in fact illegal for me to ride on the shoulder.
See the double edged sword with the previous law and the change.
Again, thank goodness, our judges are more reasonable.

>Well, maybe I'll update the web site - mostly I should put in the
parking stuff and add in the helmet law - there haven't really been
any other changes of significance since I put it up.

Please do. Your web page on cycling laws is outstanding. I have
refereed the link to many new comers to the state, cycling tourist
planning to visit and web sites that link to local cycling laws.
State and City web sources are way too difficult for most users. My
hats off to your hard work on this project.

My previous point that a web page such as this, is not sufficient for
legal use was simply intended to note that competent legal work
requires use of the laws as well as case notes and case law.

So, what is the next bike law up for debate?

It may take awhile for responses from me. I am working off island 3
weeks each month for the rest of the year. Much of that time I will
not have internet access.