The biggest news, by far, was the toxicology report – Kelly Cox is charged with driving the Pacifica which killed Judge Henry with a HUGE Blood Alcohol level – Ohio’s legal limit is 0.08%, as most of you know. Kelly Cox’s tox report says she was driving with a BAC of 0.284%.

Kelly Cox has been charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide based on the BAC [2nd degree felony], DUI [1st degree misdemeanor], Aggravated Vehicular Homicide based on reckless misconduct [3rd degree felony] and Operating a Vehicle with Willful and Wanton Disregard for the Safety of Others [minor misdemeanor]. She has also been indicted on charges that she failed to stop at an accident [3rd degree felony] and 2 counts of Child Endangerment [1st degree misdemeanor] based on her driving while totally blitzed with two children in the car.

Just to remind you of what a horrific crash this was, here’s a shot of Kelly Cox’s car….

Ms. Cox was arraigned in court today [August 17]. All the local judges had to recuse themselves as they knew Judge Henry so a visiting judge will hear the case. Ms. Cox plead not guilty through her attorney.

The reason we couldn’t find anything online through the Clerk’s office is that the indictment was filed “under seal” – or privately and away from public viewing. Now that the case is active, known as Case Number 11-C- 116, we will be able to track its progress through the system.

The BAC is truly shocking. 0.28% is a VERY high number. Ms. Cox was driving a large vehicle with her step-daughter and a young child. She is very lucky she did not kill all of them as well…

I was involved in a case a few years ago in which I did a lot of research into forensic toxicology on the issue of determining BAC’s from various data and on the issue of how high a BAC a person could get to without “looking” drunk. People who are “experienced” drunks – they drink a lot – often learn how to maintain some level of relative social decorum despite huge BAC’s. In one study, people with BAC’s over 0.30% were able to fool doctors at an E/R!

Another thing that “experienced” drinkers can do is eliminate alcohol from their systems quicker than non-drinkers. For example, if you take a complete non-drinker, a moderate drinker and an alcoholic, and give them the same amount of alcohol they will show very different BAC’s an hour or two after they stop drinking. A drunk may eliminate alcohol TWICE as fast as others, so after a couple hours, the BAC of the drunk may be much LOWER than the other two.

We don’t know anything about Kelly Cox at this point. However, a 0.284% BAC is a huge number. Using a Widmark calculator, I plugged in some variables – a woman, drinking 1o drinks of liquor with 30 minutes between drinks. The calculator gives an estimated BAC over time. The chart is shown below for my hypothetical:

What this graph shows is that the BAC of the person goes UP UP UP while the person is drinking. It also shows that for 60 minutes after the person STOPS drinking the BAC continues to rise before it starts to fall. This is a very rough estimate, obviously, but it shows that even after 10 shots in 5 hrs, the BAC doesn’t get up to the .284% that Kelly Cox allegedly exhibited!

Here’s another interesting chart which shows an estimate of how many drinks it takes to get to certain BAC’s with given weight. The chart for women is different than the chart for men because women and men process alcohol differently. For example, a 160 pound man who imbibes 10 drinks is estimated to have a .23% BAC but a 160 pound woman will have a .28% BAC.

Much more on this case as it proceeds. You can read a news story about the arraignment here and you can read the indictment here. We WILL be watching the criminal proceedings in this case very closely!

Here’s a shot from the Geauga County Maple Leaf newspaper which published the story about the case.

8/25/2011 – UPDATE – Dayton Judge Sentences Drunk Driver to FOUR YEARS

In May, 2010, a 34 year old woman with a BAC that was more than twice the legal limit [0.181%] struck a motorcycle, killing the 63 year old rider.  She plead guilty today to aggravated vehicular manslaughter and was given a 4 year prison term by a judge in Dayton, Ohio.

The motorcyclist and his wife were riding to the “Blessing of the Bikes” – an annual event in many churches when the crash occurred.

In Geauga County, Kelly Cox is charged with driving with a BAC more than THREE times the legal limit, smashing into Judge Henry and leaving the scene.  We’ll see how this case shakes out…

THE PROCESS

Gathering data for this report has been challenging. Fortunately, the Ohio Department of Public Safety has been very cooperative. They have provided me with a series of 250+ page reports for each year from 2005-2010. Six years of data containing information about every BIKE CRASH in Ohio – all 12,084 crashes.

That seems like a lot of bike crashes – more than 12,000. But, considering that Ohioans were involved in more than 1.6 MILLION crashes from 2005-2009 [2010 stats are not in yet], those 12,000 bike crashes don’t seem so bad.

From 2005-2010, road crashes took the lives of 94 bicycle operators. That’s an average of almost 16 per year. There were just ELEVEN in 2010. During the 2005-2009 period, more than Ohio 6,000 motorists lost their lives in those 1.6 million crashes.

To put some perspective on Ohio’s figures, look at a state like Florida. Florida has 18,000,000 people while Ohio has 11,000,000. But Florida leads the nation, by far, in cycling deaths. I’m not quite sure why this is – a variety of reasons, no doubt, including an aging population, narrow/crowded roads, great cycling weather, lots of tourists, etc, etc… but I’m not sure there is rationale explanation for the NUMBERS.

Florida had almost 3,000 traffic fatalities and 125 bicycle rider deaths in 2008 [most recent NHTSA stats]. That is almost TEN TIMES the number of cycling fatalities Ohio had in 2010 and amounts to 6.82 deaths for every million people in the state. Ohio’s rate is 1.57 cycling deaths per million people.

2010 ANOMALIES IN OHIO

As I indicated, ODPS provided me with these HUGE wonderful reports of more than 12,000 bike crashes. I told myself, and YOU dear reader, I was NOT going to look at sheer statistics for my report on 2010 fatalities… but I couldn’t resist.

When I was asked to write an op-ed piece for the Columbus Dispatch, I wanted to take a look at Franklin County specifically. The ODPS reports are broken down by county, so I was quickly able to determine that in 2010 there were 241 bike crashes in Columbus. Cyclists were blamed for causing 110 [45.6%] while motorists were blamed for causing 104 [43.1%] with the balance being “undetermined.” This roughly 50/50 balance is fairly consistent with some figures I have seen and inconsistent with others which claim that motorists cause NINETY percent of car/bike crashes and inconsistent with others which claim that cyclists are cited more often than motorists for being at fault. A study in NYC claims that motorists were principally at fault in 57% of the 53 cyclist deaths they studied and a contributory factor in 78%!

[I should point out that the ODPS report I received was printed in December 2010. However, I have since learned that it takes months for all the 2010 crashes to make it into the statistical report the ODPS puts together. I am awaiting a new report, updated with the most current data, which I will use for my final Study. SEE UPDATED INFORMATION AT THE END OF THIS POST]

I also looked up close and personal at High Street in Columbus. There were 25 bike/car crashes on High Street in 2010! I haven’t looked at every county, but I’ve looked at most of the big ones in Ohio and 25 is, by far, the most bike/car crashes I have seen on any one street [albeit a very very long one...] In the High Street crashes, Police blamed the cyclist for causing only FIVE of the those 25 crashes [20%] while issuing citations to the motorist in SIXTEEN crashes [64%]. The remaining four were called “undetermined.”

The vast majority of the High Street crashes were caused by motorists who committed some sort of “right of way” violation – following too closely [ACDA], right cross & left hook, or a bad passing maneuver.

Left Cross

Right Hook

The problem with the ODPS reports that I am looking is that you have to accept the officer’s street level, on-the-spot conclusion as to “fault” without argument or analysis. The only way to independently determine if the officer was “right” in blaming one side or the other is to get the actual report and review it with an accident reconstructionist’s eye. In MANY crash reports, there is simply not enough information written down by the officer to permit this even if you had the time and inclination to do so!

In my experience of handling almost 300 “bike” cases, I have reason to suspect that there is a lot of street level error in the “fault” analysis. I have had many cases where the cyclist was told at the scene that the crash was his/her fault by the investigating police. I have many times been able to proceed on a civil claim for the cyclist against the motorist, arguing that the investigating officer didn’t get it “right.”

This is why my 2010 Report will look in detail at all FATAL bike crashes. Virtually every fatal crash in Ohio is thoroughly investigated. Witnesses are interviewed. Careful scene measurements were taken. An accident reconstruction is often performed. Numerous scene photographs are taken.  ALL of this information is publicaly available … IF you know where it is and how to get it… which,of course, I do.

However, the Columbus/Franklin County crash data got me to wondering about other big city areas in Ohio. I write a regular column for the Dayton Cycling Club’s newsletter and so I thought I would take a close look at Montgomery County’s 2010 bicycle crash stats … to say I was shocked was an understatement!

Montgomery County had 83 car/bike crashes listed in the report – 14 to a page and almost six full pages worth. As I started reviewing each line of data I noticed that the vast majority of the crashes on each page were blamed on the CYCLIST. At the end, it appeared that police in Montgomery County blamed the cyclists in 59 of the 83 crashes – a whopping 71%. Motorists were only blamed for causing 18% of the crashes [15 of 83] while 9 were said to be “undetermined.”

71% vs. 18% – that’s a HUGE difference from the almost 50/50 split I saw in Franklin County. Are Dayton cyclists that much worse at obeying the law, and that much better at causing crashes, than their brethren in Columbus?  Didn’t make sense.

So I looked at Hamilton County. 117 car/bike crashes in 2010. Bike riders were blamed in 51% and motorists blamed in 38% with 12 crashes being “undetermined.” Not quite 50/50, but a lot closer than Dayton.

Cleveland was next, and was also a shocker. Motorists in Cleveland [Cuyahoga County] were blamed for causing 144 of the 301 bike/car crashes in 2010 – or 47%. The bike rider was blamed for causing only 31% [93 crashes] while 21% [64 crashes] were listed as undetermined.

So, here’s a summary of a few Ohio counties:

I haven’t had time to compute the other “bigger” counties in Ohio but will update this post when I do. But, so far, the results are surprising, to say the least.

I guess what I need here is an unpaid intern who would love to do this analysis for all 12,000+ cases, county by county, from 2005-2010… I think we would have one HUGE pile of interesting statistics – especially if, say, Dayton continued to be way off from everyone else. That could indicate some sort of systemic issue within the investigating police departments – or a complete lack of safety consciousness of the riders [which I highly doubt].

Stay tuned for more peripheral, tangential news from the 2010 Ohio Fatal Bike Crash!

UPDATE! UPDATE!

Well, I requested updated data from ODPS and today got another 250 page report for 2010. Apparently, crash reports are still trickling in from Ohio’s more than 800 police departments. This report indicates that there were 2007 Total Bike Crashes in Ohio in 2010 [up from the 1809 crashes listed in the first report I received several months ago]. This report also lists 13 fatal crashes, up from 11 in the 1st report, and 1686 injuries – up from 1530.

I have begun to go through the report, teasing out the data that is of interest to me. This includes a re-look at Montgomery County, which had such bad numbers – as cited above. The latest report is a bit different.

This is an improvement over the initial figures, but still an aberration since motorists are blamed for causing only 1 out of 4 bike crashes. I haven’t had time to go through to figure out which cases which were previously designated the cyclist’s fault were changed… this would be SO much easier if the data were pliable – and the whole “let’s practice law” thing didn’t invade into non-legal pro bono research projects…

The numbers are going to be slightly different for all the bigger counties – so I’ll regroup and repost later with updated figures.

Good Luck and Good Riding!

Steve Magas, The Bike Lawyer

Florida, Texas and California continue to be the Big Three, leading the US year after year in cycling deaths. In 2009, there were 630 fatalities in the US. FL, CA & TX had 107, 99 and 48, or 40%.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf Florida alone had 17% of all cycling deaths.

I would like to hear from Floridian cyclists and bike safety folks as to what they think is going on down there… up here in OH, we tend to stereotypically picture FL drivers as old, retired folks driving big cars – or tourists – driving on relatively flat roads. Are drivers just that bad – too easy to get distracted? Are cyclists not cycling safely? Are the roads just too long and straight and boring and fast and motorists “zone out?” Is drunk driving a bigger problem in FL than elsewhere? Is distracted driving a bigger issue? Are there simply a limited number of roads with a much higher traffic density and higher level of drivers whose best driving days are, perhaps, in the rear view mirror?  Where’s RAY LAHOOD on this one then?

No answers here. But, to respond to those who feel that courts are “too clogged” for more “criminal negligence” crimes, the LEO’s and Courts are NOT overburdened by car crashes at all. Adding to the penalty choices available to judges for people who kill or maim with their cars simply adds options to cases already in the system.

The reason nothing happens to these drivers is that the Legislatures have failed, almost uniformly in this country, to recognize that driving a car carelessly is the equivalent of waving a loaded gun around carelessly. The results are just as predictable, and just as deadly – moreso with cars, actually, since they are bigger than bullets and more likely to be in close proximity to MANY living, breathing humans than a guy with a gun, who tends to be around 1 or 2.

Legislatures treat driving a car like a god-given, inalienable right found in the 2nd Amendment – thou shalt be entitled to bear arms and drive a car – often at the same time. Legislatures have laws in place for those rare instances when someone INTENTIONALLY kills, but very few laws with any teeth when someone CARELESSLY kills or maims with a car.

In Kentucky, Russel Swigart is serving TEN YEARS in prison for intentionally killing two cats during a burglary.  In Ohio, a judge gave Erv Blackston  SIX DAYS of COMMUNITY SERVICE for killing Michelle Kazlauski in a deathtrap of a pick-up truck with jeri-rigged brakes!  I’m not saying killing cats isn’t horrible… it’s just that the sentences are askew.  Legislatures treat careless killings of innocent people, killings that cause a lifetime of pain and, often, financial loss for grieving families,  as “slap on the wrist” crimes while treating intentional crimes against animals as deserving of severe punishment – crimes in which the “victim” loses a pet, not a parent.  If Mr. Swigart had run down the cat’s OWNER instead of killing the cat, his sentence, in Ohio anyway, could have been far less than 10 years!

In Ohio, when I testified in favor of a law upping the potential penalty to include stiffer fines and longer license suspensions [but NO jail time] when a “minor” right of way violation resulted in death I was told by an old friend on the Ohio Senate’s Law Committee that “We Don’t Want To CRIMINALIZE NEGLIGENCE.” That law is still percolating in committee and we’ll try again this year facing the same uphill battle for passage.

I say it’s HIGH TIME we DO criminalize negligence, at least when the negligence relates to activities where there is a very high risk that someone will be killed or maimed due to negligence. If someone carelessly drives a lawn mower or mishandles a power tool, the odds of death to others are small. If someone carelessly drives a 2 ton vehicle through a red light because they are fiddling with the radio dial, are “zoned out” due to a pending divorce or are texting or putting on make-up or reading the paper or downloading a fax, or adding a “Contact,” on their smartphone, the odds are HIGH that someone will be killed or maimed…

Stiff criminal penalties DO have an impact on behavior… these are not “accidents” caused by a act of God, they are preventable crashes caused by the careless lack of attention of someone engaged in a potentially dangerous behavior.

More on this theme to follow…

The author was in a crash. It seemed simple enough, until the motorist lie…er… decided the facts told to the officer would vary from reality.  The cyclist didn’t realize the impact of a Garmin at the scene of the crash.  The police were reluctant to believe the cyclist without further proof and all other witnesses had left.

Later, after getting home, the cyclist realizes the importance of the Garmin. He downloads the data, and there it is – his path, with real timestamps, showing that what he told the cop was true.

Sadly, the cops refused to accept the ex post facto presentation.  Had he been severely or critically injured, I would hope they would reconsider but since it was a “minor” crash, they probably didn’t want to go through the hassle of re-opening their paperwork.  [On a side note, the best response of a "minor" injury was by my client's doctor... when defense counsel tried to get him to admit that the client's injury was "minor" he said, "It depends on if it's your back or mine - if it's MINE, it is NOT "minor" at all..."]  Fortunately, his INSURER did accept his gps evidence!

In a case I worked on, a death case, the cyclist’s gps was used to confirm both his path and speed – proving that he wasn’t speeding as he approached the intersection where he was hit and killed by a left turning pick-up truck.  In a new case I am handling, the cyclist’s gps shows his path and speed and precisely where the drunk motorist clobbered him!  These are very powerful tools, and very powerful pieces of evidence.

So take a tip from Black Dog Cycling, and ride “protected” with your gps.

Ohio Bicycling Street Smarts

Riding Confidently, Legally, and Safely

Produced by the Ohio Department of Transportation; funded by FHWA/USDOT.  Significant portions of the publication are reproduced with permission from Bicycling Street Smarts:  Riding Confidently, Legally, and Safely, by John S. Allen, published by Rubel BikeMaps and copyright 1988, 2001 Rodale Inc.

This manual teaches safe bicycling techniques on public roads and streets, but only you can assure your own safety.  Users of this manual assume full responsibility for their own actions and safety.

OHIO  REVISED  CODE —  BICYCLE  LAWS

A significant number of Ohio’s traffic laws apply to bicyclists as well as to motorists. In addition, there are some laws that are directed towards bicyclists alone.  The state’s traffic laws applicable to bicyclists are listed below and are paraphrased.  For the official version refer to the Ohio Revised Code, Titles 29 and 45, available online at: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc Green text displays law affected by the Better Bicycling in Ohio Act of September, 2006.

Chapter 2921, OFFENSES AGAINST JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2921.33.1 Following Police Orders – All persons are obligated to follow the lawful orders of a police officer.

Chapter 4511, TRAFFIC LAWS – OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

4511.01 DEFINITIONS

Vehicle: Every device used for the purpose of transportation on a highway.  Exceptions are motorized wheelchairs, devices powered by overhead electric trolley wires, or which moves exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, and devices other than bicycles moved by human power.

Bicycle: Every device (other than a tricycle designed solely for use a s a play vehicle by a child) propelled solely by human power and having either two tandem wheels, or one wheel in the front and two wheels in the rear, any of which measures more than 14 inches in diameter.

Driver/Operator: Every person who is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

Street/Highway: The entire width between the boundary lines of every way open to the public as a thoroughfare for purposes of vehicular travel.

Roadway: The improved portion of a highway designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, except for the berm or shoulder.

Right of Way: The right of a vehicle or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in the direction in which it is moving in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching from a different direction.

Freeway: A divided  multilane highway with underpasses or overpasses at all crossroads. These look like interstates on the Official Ohio Transportation Map, but may be state or U.S. highways.   Examples include SR 11, SR 315, portions of U.S. 33 and U.S. 35, the Ohio Turnpike, and I-75.

Expressway: A divided major highway with more than half of all crossroads having an underpass or overpass.   Examples include SR 32 (the Appalachian Highway), and portions of U.S. 23, U.S. 30, U.S. 33 and U.S. 35.

4511.051 Prohibitions on Use of Freeways – No person shall operate a bicycle within the boundary lines of a freeway except where there exists a facility that is separate from the roadway and shoulders designed and appropriately marked for bicycle use.

4511.07 Local Traffic Regulations – Local authorities may regulate the operation of bicycles as long as such regulation is not inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road prescribed in Ohio law, e.g., local authorities may not prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street or highway.  Local authorities may require registration and licensing, but licensing rules cannot be applied to non-residents.  (See also 4511.711.)

4511.12 Obeying Traffic Control Devices – Drivers of bicycles are obligated to obey all traffic control devices, including: flagpersons, signs, pavement markings, and signal lights.

4511.13 Signal Lights – The red, green and yellow signal lights apply to all vehicles including bicycles.

4511.15 Flashing Traffic Signals -At flashing red stop signals, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before the crosswalk or intersection, move forward for a clear view of approaching traffic, and proceed the same as for a stop sign (See 4511.43).  At flashing yellow caution signals, the driver of a vehicle may proceed through the intersection only with caution.

4511.19 Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs – Operation of a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is prohibited.

4511.20 Reckless Operation – It is unlawful to intentionally operate a vehicle in a manner which endangers the safety of persons or property.

4511.21 Speed Limits – No person shall operate a vehicle at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any vehicle in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit him to bring it to a stop within a safe enough time to avoid collision.

4511.22 Slow Speed – No driver may operate a vehicle at such a slow speed so as to impede the normal flow of traffic except when necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.  The capabilities of the vehicle and its operator must be considered when deciding if an infraction has been committed.

4511.25 Lanes of Travel upon Roadways – A vehicle is to be driven on the right side of the roadway except when:  1) passing another vehicle going in the same direction, 2) making a left turn, 3) when an obstruction exists, 4) when driving on a roadway divided into three or more marked lanes for traffic, or 5) when driving on a roadway for one-way traffic.  Slow moving vehicles must remain far enough right to allow others to pass if passing is safe and reasonable.  Bicyclists may ride out of the curb lane when preparing for a left turn; when continuing straight when a right-turn-only lane is present; when the curb lane is blocked; and when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction.  Operators of slow moving vehicles are not required to compromise their safety in order to allow a faster vehicle to pass.  See also 4511.55 below.

4511.26 Traveling In Opposite Direction – Operators of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right, and on roadways wide enough for one single lane of traffic in each direction, each operator shall give the other one-half of the roadway.

4511.27 Passing Other Vehicles – A driver must audibly signal before passing any other vehicle and then he or she may proceed to pass on the left.  The vehicle being passed must give way after being signaled and must not increase speed.

4511.28 Overtaking and Passing on the Right – A driver may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle when the vehicle being passed is making a left turn; when a clear roadway offers enough space for the vehicle to pass safely without driving off the roadway.

4511.29 Driving Left of Center in Passing - No vehicle shall drive to the left of the center of the roadway unless the left side of the roadway is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic.

4511.31 Hazardous Zones - Allows for the crossing of a double yellow line in instances when drivers are approaching a slower vehicle (bicycles, horse-drawn buggies, farm vehicles, etc.) proceeding at less than half of the posted speed, as long as the faster vehicle is capable of passing without exceeding the speed limit and as long as there is sufficient clear space in which to do so.

4511.32 One-Way Traffic and Rotary Islands - When traveling on a one-way street a vehicle must proceed only in the direction indicated by the one-way sign.  A vehicle driving around a rotary traffic island must drive only to the right of the island.

4511.33 Rules for Driving in Marked Lanes – Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, a vehicle shall be driven within a single marked lane or line of traffic and shall not move from such lane until such movement can be made with safety.

4511.34 Divided Roadways – When a highway is divided into two roadways, vehicles must remain on the right side of the roadway with the exception of an emergency stop or in compliance with the order of a police officer.

4511.36 Turning at an Intersection – Right turn; make right turns as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.  Left turn; driver must be as close to the right of the center line as is practicable before turning left.  After passing through the intersection the vehicle shall commence travel in the lane closest to the right of the center line.  When traveling on a one-way street a left turn must always be made in the extreme left hand lane available.

4511.39 Turning and Stop Signals – A driver must indicate his or her intention to turn, or move left or right, by signaling continuously at least one hundred feet prior to a turn.  Bicycle riders must make a turn signal at least one time, but it need not be continuous.  The bicyclist is not required to signal if the bicycle is in a designated turn lane, and a signal shall not be given when the operator’s hands are needed for the safe operation of the bicycle.  A signal is required when bringing a vehicle to a stop or suddenly decreasing speed.

4511.40 Hand and Arm Signals – When using hand and arm signals always do so from the left side (except where noted) of the vehicle and in the following manner:

• Left turn – left hand and arm extended horizontally.
• Right turn – left hand and arm extended outward (with forearm extended upward), or by extending the right hand and arm horizontally and to the right side of the bicycle (effective September 9, 1996).
• Stop or decrease speed – left hand and arm extended downward.

4511.41 Right Of Way at Intersections – When two vehicles coming from different directions approach an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right.

4511.42 Right Of Way When Turning Left – The driver of a vehicle attempting to turn left shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.

4511.43 Right Of Way at Stop Signs and Yield Signs – Once a driver has come to a full stop at a stop sign then he or she can resume travel after yielding to traffic.  A yield sign indicates that a vehicle must slow down, or if, necessary for safety, come to a stop before entering the flow of traffic.

4511.431 Stopping Prior to Driving Onto or Across Sidewalk – The driver of any vehicle entering the roadway from an alley, building or private road or drive, shall come to a complete stop and proceed only after the driver has a clear view of oncoming traffic.

4511.44 Right Of Way on a Public Highway - The operator of a vehicle about to enter a highway must yield the right of way to all approaching traffic on the roadway.

4511.441 Pedestrian Right Of Way – The driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk.

4511.45 Public Safety Vehicles – The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to any safety vehicle when warned with lights and sirens.  The driver shall yield by pulling his vehicle to the extreme right side of the street, shall stop and remain stopped until the safety vehicle has passed.

4511.451 Funeral Procession – The driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way to a funeral procession.

4511.52 Bicycles – Sections 4511.01 through 4511.78, Section 4511.99 and Section  4513.01 through 4513.37 of  the revised code apply whenever a bicycle is operated on a highway or bike path. A bicycle operator who violates any section of the motor vehicle traffic or equipment law applicable to bicycles may be issued a ticket by a law enforcement officer.  No points can be assessed against the bicycle operator’s driver’s license except in instances of operating under the influence.

Where it is determined that a violation by a motor vehicle operator endangered the lives of bicycle riders at the time of a violation, either the bicycle operator or motor vehicle operator may be required to successfully complete a bicycling skills course approved by the court in addition to, or in lieu of, any penalty for the violation.

4511.53 Rules for Bicycles – A person operating a bicycle shall ride either standing upon the pedals or seated upon the permanent and regular seat and shall carry no more persons than the number for which it is designed and equipped.  No person operating a bicycle shall carry any item which would prevent them from having at least one hand on the handle bars.

4511.54 Prohibition Against Attaching Bicycles To Vehicles – No person riding upon a bicycle shall attach the bicycle or himself to any other vehicle upon the roadway.  No operator shall knowingly permit a bicyclist to attach a bicycle or himself to their moving vehicle.

4511.55 Riding Bicycles – Every person operating a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, but may ride to the left of hazards, e.g., when fixed or moving objects are in the way; when there are surface hazards; when it is unsafe or otherwise impractical to do so – such as when the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side; or when a slow moving vehicle is permitted to leave the curb lane, as described in 4511.25 above.   Persons riding bicycles must obey all traffic rules applicable to vehicles, and exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.  Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for that purpose.

4511.56 Signal Devices on Bicycles – A bicycle may be equipped with a bell, horn, or some device, other than a siren or whistle, audible within at least 100 feet distance.  Every bicycle must be equipped with an adequate brake when used on a street or highway.

Every bicycle when in use one-half hour before sunrise or one-half hour before sunset, and in inclement weather, shall be equipped with the following:

• Front lamp with a white light, steady or flashing, visible from at least 500 feet.  The lamp may be mounted on either the bicycle or the helmet.
• Rear red reflector visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.
• Rear red light, steady or flashing, visible from at least 500 feet, in addition to the rear red reflector, unless the light can be seen as well as the reflector.
• Colorless front reflector mounted at the front.
• Tire sidewalls may be retro-reflective or colorless, or amber reflectors may be mounted on the front wheel spokes and colorless or red reflectors mounted on rear wheel spokes. Reflectors must be visible from 600 feet of a motorist’s headlamps.

4511.66 Parking on Highways – On any highway outside a business or residence district a person shall not stop, park or leave standing any vehicle on the paved or main traveled part of the highway if it is possible to take the vehicle off the highway.

4511.67 Police Removal of Vehicle – Whenever a police officer finds a vehicle unattended and obstructing traffic he may have it removed to the nearest garage or safe place.

4511.68 Parking – No parking of a vehicle is permitted in the following areas unless unavoidable or authorized by a police officer.

• On a sidewalk (except for a bicycle).
• In front of a public or private driveway.
• Within an intersection.
• On a crosswalk.
• Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.
• Within 30 feet of a traffic control device.
• Within 50 feet of a railroad crossing.
• Between a safety zone and the bordering curb.
• Within 20 feet of a driveway entrance to any fire station or directly across the street from the entrance.
• Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when such parking would block traffic.
• Alongside any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street.
• On any bridge or within a tunnel.
• At any place where signs prohibit stopping.
• Within one foot of another parked vehicle.
• On the roadway portion of a freeway, expressway, or any major road.

4511.71 Driving Upon a Closed Highway – It is illegal to drive on a roadway closed due to construction when appropriate signs are posted.

4511.711 Driving On a Sidewalk – Bicycles are the only vehicles allowed on sidewalks: local authorities may prohibit but not require bicycle riding on sidewalks. (See also 4511.07 and 4511.431.)

4511.712 Obstructing Intersection, Crosswalk, Grade Crossing – At no time shall a vehicle obstruct an intersection, crosswalk or grade crossing.

4511.713 Prohibition of Motor Vehicles on Bicycle Paths – No person shall operate a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or all-purpose vehicle upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, when an appropriate sign giving notice of such use is posted on the path.  This law does not affect any rule of the Director of Natural Resources governing operation of said vehicles or bicycles on lands under his jurisdiction.

4511.72 Following an Emergency Vehicle or a Public Safety Vehicle Prohibited – The driver of any vehicle shall not follow any emergency vehicle or public safety vehicle traveling in response to an alarm closer than five hundred feet.

4511.75 Stopping For a School Bus – The driver of a vehicle must stop at least 10 feet from the front or rear of a school bus when children are boarding or exiting the bus as indicated by flashing lights on the bus or other signals.

Chapter 4513, TRAFFIC LAWS – EQUIPMENT; LOADS

(Most laws in this chapter that are applicable to bicycles are repetitions of laws contained in Chapter 4511.)

4513.31 Properly Secured Loads – No vehicle shall be driven on any highway unless such vehicle is loaded to prevent any of its load from shifting, dropping, leaking or otherwise escaping therefrom

Usually diamond-shaped and yellow, these “warning signs” caution drivers that the road is slippery when wet; there is an intersection ahead, the lanes narrow, or there may be bicyclists, farm animals, or wildlife on or near the roadway. Somehow cyclists are supposed to be comforted by the notion that Big Brother is “protecting” us by putting out a “warning” that we are nearby – as though we are a hazard to motorists, like deer leaping from the woods or kids darting out after a ball. They might as well put up “Bikes Might Be In The Way” signs…

The whole point of the “SHARED lane” marking is to indicate to motorists that they ought to “share THEIR lane” with cyclists. This entire line of thought has always baffled me, frankly, because it implies that motorists OWN the lane and must be told, or just asked, to “share” a bit of it with cyclists.

“Sharing” is not a concept mandated by law, but is an altruistic concept that relies upon the goodwill of the Share-or to give up a little bit of that which he owns to the Share-ee.  No law says that the motorist owns the road and the cyclist may borrow it sometimes, IF the motorist feels like sharing. Yet, motorists frequently act like my two year old son did almost 20 years ago when he was asked to “share” – instead of displaying his altruistic  tendencies, he tightened his grip on the “toy-to-be-shared,” got in the face of the proposed “Share-ee” and loudly proclaimed, “MINE!”

Indeed, if the law said you ought to “share” the space, a motorist might legitimately claim ownership of the road and say, “MINE!”

But this is not the law. �Rather, the law is that a PERSON wishing to use the public roads has the right to CHOOSE the vehicle on, or in, which to travel. A bicycle and a car and a truck and a bus and an Amish buggy and a large piece of farm equipment are equally valid, legitimate and lawful choices as vehicles. When it comes to the right to be on the roadway, a person who chooses to ride a bicycle on the roadway has exactly and precisely the same quantity or bundle of rights as one who chooses to operate a car.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL – RIGHT TO USE THE ROADS

Remember this –> The rights belong to the person, not the vehicle. The RIGHT is the RIGHT TO TRAVEL on the public ways. The Right is not bigger if you choose a bigger vehicle…

In 1215, in merry old England, the Magna Carta enshrined the “right to travel” stating:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

The “right to travel” has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Guest which held citizens maintain “… the constitutional right to travel freely from State to State and to use highways and other instrumentalities for that purpose…”

In Packard v. Banton, the Supreme Court said, “The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way.”

In Kent v. Dulles, the Court said, “…The Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law ...”

In Ohio, “…the right to intrastate travel is a fundamental right held by each citizen and cannot be deprived without the due process of law. State v. Burnett (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 428, 2001 Ohio 1581, 755 N.E.2d 857…”

The Virginia court said, in Thompson v. Smith: “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways …. includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel….” In this case the tension on the roads was between cars and the horse/buggy configuration but the court’s use of the phrase  ”ordinary and usual conveyances of the day” is certainly broad and bicycles, having been around longer than cars, certainly fit the bill!

With regard to the right to travel and move about the country, a Mississippi court held in Teche Lines Inc. v. Danforth, held as follows:

“…The right of a citizen to travel on public highway is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” and the right to “travel,” which means the right to go from one place to another, includes the right to start, to go forward on the way, and to stop when the traveler’s destination has been reached, and also the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel…”

Of course, good quotes cannot just be strung together to make a real legal argument in a real court case, and none of these cases are “bike cases.”  However, it seems very clear to me that virtually every court in the country would be forced to agree that  you have a fundamental right to use the public ways, the roads, to move about the country.  So long as your vehicle choice is one permitted by state law and you obey the traffic laws, you have the right to use most public roadways for bicycle travel.

RIGHT OF WAY LAW

So the PERSON, the “citizen,” not the vehicle, possesses this “right to travel.”  But, once you’ve walked into your garage, looked at your car, your truck, your motorcycle and your bike and  chosen to head out on the public way on your BIKE, what “rights” do you have on your bicycle?  Most states say you have the SAME bundle of rights as the operator of other vehicles, and the same responsibilities.  You don’t get bigger rights because you choose a bigger vehicle and  you don’t get shafted by being granted lesser rights for choosing a smaller, lighter-weight, economical, “green” bicycle!

The person driving “lawfully” in the front of the pack of “traffic” typically has the “right of way” and the rights of the operator of the vehicle operated behind, or passing, are subservient to the one with the right of way.  This “right of way” is a very powerful collection of rights which should not be given up, or “shared,” by the cyclist.

In Ohio, for example, the “right of way” is defined in O.R.C. 4511.01:

UU) “Right-of-way” means * * * :

(1) The right of a vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in a lawful manner in the direction in which it or the individual is moving in preference to another vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian approaching from a different direction into its or the individual’s path;

Note – the word “share” is not in the law.  There is no crying in baseball, and there is no “sharing” in the right of way law.  So, really, this concept of “sharing the road” has absolutely no business being in the transportation lexicon.  Advising a motorist who is coming up on a bicyclist from behind to “Share The Road” with the cyclist ahead is fundamentally and legally WRONG.  You either HAVE the right of way or you don’t.

The cyclist owns the right of way and does not have to share… in fact the cyclist shouldn’t “share.”  Once the cyclist gets into a “sharing” mentality, the cyclist has lost the battle.  You HAVE rights – the right of way.  Maybe the motorist doesn’t know this but you have to ASSERT that right.  The fact that you have a right means nothing if you don’t USE it.

Remember, the cyclist ahead of the motorist has the right of way –  which is really a powerful collection of rights.  The right to proceed ahead in an uninterrupted manner.  The operator with the right of way has rights, as the preferred vehicle, that are GREATER than other vehicles.   A “Share The Road” sign may give the motorist behind the cyclist the wrong message that the motorist can choose to share, or not, since the implication is that the bigger car has bigger rights that supercedes the right of the cyclist.  It may also give the motorist the wrong impression that the LANE can be “Shared” with the bicycle – i.e., that they can co-exist side by side in the same lane.

The motorist is encouraged to view the cyclist as one who has actually SNATCHED HIS RIGHT TO DRIVE HIS CAR away, which ticks off the motorist, who may not WANT to “share” his roadway…

The Right of Way is valuable – it’s important – and it’s something cyclists should not be asked by the state to SHARE.

From an interesting website comes this listing of funny INSURANCE stuff… yea, yea, I know.  I was skeptical too.  But, these are a scream.  A list of some of the goofy stuff people have written to try to get their insurance claims paid!  WoW~ Keep Up The GREAT STUFF “Swap Meet Dave!”

BIKE LAW 101 – STAY OUT OF OTTAWA HILLS?

By Steven M. Magas[1], Bikelawyer@aol.com – 513-484-BIKE

Ottawa Hills, Ohio.  I remember hearing this name as a kid – some fancy, rich little community up near Toledo, Ohio.  Wikipedia states that there are 4,564 residents, as of the 2000 census, and a police force.

The Police Department’s webpage is ominous.

“Our enforcement of traffic laws in well known in the region and we believe that traffic enforcement is a fundamental tool for keeping the Village safe. Fair and consistent law enforcement is a key characteristic of our department.”

What comes to mind when you read THAT?  To me, that says “…we cut you no slack on speed, stop signs or red lights…”  Sure enough, I mention Ottawa Hills to a friend and the first word that comes up is “SPEEDTRAP.”

If you are a motorcycle operator, though, you had better watch your back – literally – if you choose to cruise through Ottawa Hills.

On May 23, 2009, Harley rider Michael McCloskey was gunned down – shot in the back – by an Ottawa Hills police officer, Thomas White.  His crime?  SPEEDING – doing more than the 25 mph posted speed!

This story begins when Michael McCloskey and a buddy decided to ride their bikes.  Around 2:15 am they found themselves in Ottawa Hills.  Mr. McCloskey rides a rather loud Harley.

On the video, you can see that Officer White followed the bike for several minutes before he activated his lights and siren.  An agent investigating the shooting testified that it took about “5 seconds” or “600 feet” for Mr. McCloskey to stop the bike after Officer White activated the lights and siren.  Mr. McCloskey testified that the loud bike prevented him from hearing the siren and when he slowed at a stop sign he realized the police car was behind him.

The video is chilling.  Only a few seconds tick off the visible clock as Officer gets out of the police car.  You can see Mr. McCloskey straddling the idling bike with his back to Officer White.  You cannot hear what the officer says, if anything.  Suddenly there’s a “Pop” as Officer White fires his weapon and Mr. McCloskey topples over to his right, the big bike falling as well.

This is the image of Mr. McCloskey just before he was hit.  Less than five seconds elapse between the time the officer gets his car stopped and the time he shoots Mr. McCloskey in the back.  Mr. McCloskey described the excruciating pain and then he realized he was paralyzed  – you can hear him yell this on the tape.  You can watch the tape for yourself here.

Officer White was charged with felonious assault with a gun specification.   His criminal case came up for trial in May, 2010, almost a year after he shot Mr. McCloskey.   Officer White is described as a “part time dispatcher and part time officer” for Ottawa Hills.  A special agent investigating the shooting was asked, after reviewing all the evidence, why Officer White shot Mr. McCloskey. He said, “It is unknown.”

Officer White took the stand.  Here’s how the news reporter from the Toledo Blade described his testimony:

“…Labeling the situation as a “high risk vehicle stop,” Officer White testified that it would be “unusual” for someone to turn around when he shouted a command to them and so he believed Mr. McCloskey was reaching for a weapon.

“…It appeared as if he was reaching for a weapon,” he said. “I feared for my life so I fired one shot…”

You can look at the video.  Listen to it.  You can’t hear a command from Officer White.  Mr. McCloskey is just sitting there on the bike looking back.  The bike is idling. After stopping his cruiser, Officer White gets out and shoots Mr. McCloskey within a second or two!

The jury didn’t buy the officer’s story.  They found Officer White guilty of felonious assault.  The judge allowed Officer White to speak at his sentencing hearing.  Here’s where this case gets evens scarier – Officer White not only failed to apologize to Mr. McCloskey, but stood his ground and said he was “at a loss” as to how he could be indicted over a “split second decision.”

Of course, this “split second” business is total BS.  There is no evidence that Mr. McCloskey was a threat.  There is no evidence of any type of behavior that would give an officer with half a brain any concern.  There is no evidence showing the need for “split second” decision making.   There is absolutely NO evidence of any need to arrest Mr. McCloskey let alone shoot him.

The judge didn’t buy it either.  He told Officer White that he “…didn’t even give it a second to take a breath and look at what was going on…”  Judge Cook gave Officer White a Ten Year prison sentence.

Can you imagine how that case would have played out WITHOUT the dash cam?

Give some serious thought about riding through, or spending money in, Ottawa Hills.

GOOD LUCK AND GOOD RIDING!