Need help with the law in PA!

[Carl Walichnowski]

First let me say I already looked in the archives but I could not find an updated link. I was involved in a MB accident last Saturday that resulting in a broken leg. Yesterday I received a summary offense in the mail. There's several discrepancies in what actually happened and what the reports are saying, before I get into that allow me to explain some details into the accident.

In the attached photo you will see a sidewalk on the left side, I was traveling east (up towards the top of the photo) on this sidewalk. There was numerous vehicles backed up in the right hand lane also traveling east in the same direction I was. It was due to the backed up traffic I decided to cross the street and drive on the sidewalk because I had to cross Seminole Drive & make a left.

As I was approaching the crosswalk at 8th & Seminole I looked at the cars backed up in traffic to see if any had any intention on turning, no cars had a turn signal on. Once I was sure an oncoming truck was not turning I went through the intersection. That same truck blocked my view of a car that decided at the last moment not to wait in traffic and about 8 feet from the driver door of the white car is where I struck the driver door of the car involved in the accident.

As for the discrepancies, the accident report says my MB was under power when it was not. I was actually on my way to get the case rethreaded with some helicoils, several forum members said it was dangerous to ride the bike with only two motor mounts being tightened so the bike definitely was not under power. The 2nd discrepancy pertains to the location in the accident report, the accident actually happened a whole block away, not sure if that will matter.

So I'm currently trying to find a link to current law concerning my specific issue. The citation is saying I did not yield right of way. Not sure why a driver driving straight has to yield to a driver turning but if ANYONE knows where I can find info helping my cause I would appreciate it. Any questions I can possibly answer to better explain the situation then please feel free to ask.

 

[Timbone]

I still don't get it. You were riding on the sidewalk, coasting downhill against traffic? A right turning car impeded your progress across the street and you slammed into it?

Sidewalk riding is dangerous for cyclists. Cars just don't expect fast moving vehicles to come from those differing directions.

 

[Carl Walichnowski]

I still don't get it. You were riding on the sidewalk, coasting downhill against traffic? A right turning car impeded your progress across the street and you slammed into it?

Sidewalk riding is dangerous for cyclists. Cars just don't expect fast moving vehicles to come from those differing directions.

I was riding down hill on the sidewalk that's on the left side of the photo. I was heading towards Seminole St. as was the car. The driver made a left on Seminole and I struck the driver side of the car.

 

[Carl Walichnowski]

Riding in the street at that same location is also dangerous, there is no crossing if I stayed on the right side of the street at Seminole and there is no bike lane on 8th on the left side leaving only the sidewalk as my best way of travel.

 

[d72hemi]

I found this like for PA bike laws. Basically, bikes should not use sidewalks unless there is no other choice; you chose to not ride in the street like all the other vehicles. Also cars do not have to yield the right of way to bikes in crosswalks.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pa+bycicle+laws

 

[Carl Walichnowski]

I read the same thing. My issue is that a witness is saying my bike was under power when in fact it was not, I was hoping to obtain motorbike laws in PA. Secondly in my specific situation I was legally allowed on the sidewalk. There is no bike lane on the block I was on so I'm permitted on the sidewalk in a non business district.

 

[Frankenstein]

You are not looking at mb laws they do not apply, regardless of what the "witness" said. Fact is that the engine was cold when the biker moved it for you, since that witness came into personal contact with the the bike while the other only viewed it from a distance and probably from inside another vehicle your witness has the most reputable statement to base the judgment on. The summary offence is no more legal than a traffic ticket, the judge is the only one who will be able to make a proper judgment for you against that summary, it's not a big deal in my opinion since the overlaying facts present that the officer who wrote it was only doing so out of caution and out of exercise of his training. Basically he is obligated to go with what his witness told him and write a ticket as appropriate, and the legal system is set up as such that his statement alone on behalf of the witness is simply not enough for a guilty conviction, it must be verified by a judge who has been presented with as much information as possible and it's there where those discrepancies are sorted out.

You have enough (actually quite strong) witness testimony and circumstancial evidence (via web site posts and conversations) to be able to convince any willing judge of your innocence. At that point he relays only to the applicable laws, which favour your case except for the lack of solid evidence he hadn't planned to turn originally, however the fact that the huge line of traffic was present does add more circumstancial evidence towards his guilt, because honestly who the f*** hasn't done exactly what he had done before, just most of us being lucky enough that a Carl wasn't riding by when it happened..

 

[Carl Walichnowski]

You are not looking at mb laws they do not apply, regardless of what the "witness" said. Fact is that the engine was cold when the biker moved it for you, since that witness came into personal contact with the the bike while the other only viewed it from a distance and probably from inside another vehicle your witness has the most reputable statement to base the judgment on. The summary offence is no more legal than a traffic ticket, the judge is the only one who will be able to make a proper judgment for you against that summary, it's not a big deal in my opinion since the overlaying facts present that the officer who wrote it was only doing so out of caution and out of exercise of his training. Basically he is obligated to go with what his witness told him and write a ticket as appropriate, and the legal system is set up as such that his statement alone on behalf of the witness is simply not enough for a guilty conviction, it must be verified by a judge who has been presented with as much information as possible and it's there where those discrepancies are sorted out.

You have enough (actually quite strong) witness testimony and circumstancial evidence (via web site posts and conversations) to be able to convince any willing judge of your innocence. At that point he relays only to the applicable laws, which favour your case except for the lack of solid evidence he hadn't planned to turn originally, however the fact that the huge line of traffic was present does add more circumstancial evidence towards his guilt, because honestly who the f**k hasn't done exactly what he had done before, just most of us being lucky enough that a Carl wasn't riding by when it happened..

All great points. Regarding my interest in MB laws, I simply wanted to be aware of all available laws/points that can possibly be brought up. Better to be aware of what their arguments will be.

 

[Frankenstein]

All great points. Regarding my interest in MB laws, I simply wanted to be aware of all available laws/points that can possibly be brought up. Better to be aware of what their arguments will be.

It's probably best in a courtroom to not look like you are defending being guilty of a crime, usually best to point out the facts that nothing you did was in the least criminal or illegal, only back into that corner if the alternative is of worse consequence.

 

[d72hemi]

If you go to court I wish you good luck with it. I have been there a few times in UT, with good outcomes for motor vehicle related issues. One thing I like to keep in mind when it comes to new laws is that politicians who write the laws usually do not understand the actual issue(s) and generally make things "worse". I like a LOT of ambiguity or openness, so that people have oppurtinity to practice good judgment and "common sense". Look how restrictive CA laws are for MBs, and everything else; make me like the PA laws as written. Not to mention most DoD branches restrict military personnel to <50cc and require a motorcycle license and other endorsements for >50cc .