John Yates - preparing for the informational hearing with the Baltimore Police Department
I ran into a expert witness for the John Yates court case last night. If it goes to court it will be 11/29/2010, note that there is a possibility they will settle outside of court. He viewed the video and it clearly shows the truck at fault and indeed it was the truck that struck the cyclist, not the other way around.
| Court System: | Circuit Court for Baltimore City - Civil System |
| Case Number: | 24C10001701 |
| Title: | Ellen S. Yates, et al vs Michael Dale Chandler, et al |
| Case Type: | Motor TortFiling Date:03/03/2010 |
| Case Status: | Open/Active |
| Event Type: | Civil Trial Notice Date: |
| Event Date: | 11/29/2010 Event Time:09:30 AM |
| Result: | Result Date: |
Now I would like to remind our readers of the statement made by the police:
First I wounder if this is the same error MVA made but without "the responsibility to move aside and let you pass." Or per MVA's correction a cyclists "has exactly the same rights as any other vehicle ... and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle". This simply is not true, as this rule as stated in 21-1202 has exceptions, and one of those is unless there is a bicycle specific rule. So for cyclists position on the roadway. The law says a cyclists "shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway" and we are allowed to move further left if we can find a lawful excuse. Certainly for safety we encourage cyclists to be aware of how far left they are lawfully allowed and why but the assertion that we are required to be as far left as legally allowed is false and goes against MVA's advice to move aside and the guidance in the State's Drivers' Handbook "A bicycle should be operated as close to the right side of the road as practical and safe." or the police are asserting that it is unlawful for a cyclist to ride right or be courteous and move aside. And remember it is a fact that the truck did not signal its turn.I am the commander of the Traffic Section within the Baltimore Police Department. I supervise the Crash Team and therefore the e-mail you authored to Mayor Sheila Dixon was forwarded to me for a response.
I was at the scene of this tragic crash and I know that this incident was investigated thoroughly from the very beginning as a very serious issue, as all fatal crashes are. We have obtained a video of this incident that shows the entire event.
There are only some aspects of this case that are public record. I will tell you that the video clearly shows the cyclist to be at fault. There is no "right to the road" as a cyclist. You have the same rights as a motor vehicle and also the same obligations. The cyclist was not operating within those parameters. The tanker truck that the cyclist struck was a large one. The cyclist struck it in the rear. There is no evidence to support that the driver was ever aware there was an impact. Do not believe what the media reports as entirely true regarding this or any event.
The investigators within the unit are very educated and experienced in all types of crashes and have attended several schools specific to the physics of a pedestrian crash and a cyclist fatal crash. With regard to the question of it being investigated as a hit and run accident, not only was it investigated as such but the truck was located by investigators within a few days of the incident.
Please feel free to contact my office if you have any further questions.
Lt. Leslie Bank
Traffic Commander
Baltimore Police Department
Is it really too much to ask that all levels of government supply a consistent message to cyclists? It's a very bad joke to tell cyclists to be courteous and ride out of the way of motorists so you can be at fault in a crash. Which is it, are we legally obligated to get out of the way (per MVA) or not (per Police)? And also note the confrontational tone in the underlined portion. If a cyclists is riding lawfully then we do have rights and it is unlawful for another vehicle to violate the right-of-way of another, especially without giving warning (signaling.)
Lastly I'll show some screen captures from MDOT's Bicycling Guide for Adults that show Yates' approximate road position +/- a few inches (He was riding 3' from parked cars (outside the door zone (a hazard.))
Keep in mind that I have not seen the video of Yates' crash, but is riding the "line" unlawful? The line certainly qualifies in concept as a far right portion of the roadway. Or maybe Yates was a few inches further right then what's shown here so now it becomes so outrageously unlawful the Police have to make an outcry of the wrongness by stating There is no "right to the road" as a cyclist" Seriously? Cyclists can't lawfully ride out of the way of motoring traffic?
Watch MDOT's video here (click Roadway Riding.) And see if "Riding (slightly) in an area where parking is permitted is illegal." For a video that highlights riding in Baltimore you would think that they would mention that.
Certainly for safety we recommend cyclists ride further left to help prevent scofflaw motorists from illegally turning in front of cyclists. But the inverse is not true "If a motorists turns in front of a cyclists then the cyclists was not lawfully riding far enough left." Which seems to be the police's implication. Driving with your lights on improves your safety but failing to follow safety advice does not make you at fault in accident just because you didn't have your lights on. In the same way riding further left may improve your safety but to make a case not left enough by a few inches seems incredulous to me. Or maybe it's a case of "passing on the right" read Bob Mionske on that subject for clarification of another incredulous claim.
So in prep for the informational hearing, cyclists all over Baltimore are wondering how in the world could a truck that fails to signal and kills a cyclist when turning right not be at fault? And then we get yelled at "There is no "right to the road" as a cyclist" besides being an incorrect statement, it fails to explain anything and is extremely inflammatory.
I will strongly assert the law does not work by saying lawfully the cyclists could have been somewhere else so that's where they should have been. The law does work by asking does the law allow the cyclists to be where he was? And I dare the police to state in no uncertain terms that a cyclist has no right to ride far right on the roadway.
What's Related