Riding a Bicycle on the Sidewalk

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: NY

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for a bicycle violation ticket, but it's the best I could do in a pinch.

I recently moved to NYC, and was unaware that the police actively ticket cyclists for riding on the sidewalks. Well, I was caught doing just that by some young cop, trying to impress his rookie partner.

I received a summons to appear in court in NY. When I got home I realized that (in the cops own handwriting) that I am to appear at such and such address on "Brawdway" street. Clearly, he meant 'Broadway'.

Now I know that misspellings on tickets rarely will benefit the ticketed, but might there be an exception in this case? I have a feeling I could be looking for 'xxx Brawdway st' forever, and to no avail.

Did I get lucky?

You can choose to blow off your court date if you want to.

But doing so will not benefit you in any way so i would advise against that. you can investigate for yourself what happens when you don't show up for court

Minor errors are irrelevant. You are free to appear and argue you committed no such infraction. Failing to appear will likely result in a warrant for your arrest.

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

You can choose to blow off your court date if you want to.

But doing so will not benefit you in any way so i would advise against that. you can investigate for yourself what happens when you don't show up for court

---

Clearly I am not inquiring as to whether I should blow off my court date, for the sake of acquiring an arrest warrant. I am asking if a NYC police officer is so inept that he must phonetically spell the name of the most famous street in his town, could this work to my benefit?

That's all.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

Clearly I am not inquiring as to whether I should blow off my court date, for the sake of acquiring an arrest warrant. I am asking if a NYC police officer is so inept that he must phonetically spell the name of the most famous street in his town, could this work to my benefit?

That's all.

---

No it will not. It is not his fault you do not speak New Yawwwkker.

Misspellings will have zero bearing on your case. I doubt this error will even give you relief on failure to appear sanctions.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

I recently moved to NYC, and was unaware that the police actively ticket cyclists for riding on the sidewalks.

---

So, you are saying that you knew it was prohibited. You just thought you were special and thought you should get a pass? Yes, it is enforced. I don’t know where this occurred, but in many areas of NYC riding on the sidewalk constitutes a definite hazard to pedestrians.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

Well, I was caught doing just that by some young cop, trying to impress his rookie partner.

---

Wow. Crime in NYC must be REALLY down if foiling a riding on the sidewalk caper now counts as impressive police work!

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

I am asking if a NYC police officer is so inept that he must phonetically spell the name of the most famous street in his town, could this work to my benefit?

---

Well, all we have is your word that you aren’t simply misreading his handwriting. Even if he did make a spelling error, that is really not an indication that he is “inept.”…after all, he was adept enough at his job to collar you! If your argument is going to be that you were confused and unable to RECOGNIZE the most famous street in town due to his misspelling, it will be YOU that is going to look like an idiot in court. So, no I don’t see how this could work to your benefit.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

Did I get lucky?

---

No.

Here’s a couple of links that look to be fairly informative on the subject:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682548/d...rous-than-cars
http://www.bicycledefensefund.org/summons.html

Good luck and keep us posted.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, what infraction code section and subsection did the officer write on your ticket?

Being an avid cyclist and runner and pedestrian, let me tell you that you will get nowhere arguing motives or justification for biking on the sidewalk in NYC. It's illegal and for good reason and you WILL get written up for it. If you persist it is just a matter of time.

I'll argue, that while Broadway in Manhattan might be the most famous street in the world, most people don't even know there's another one in Brooklyn (which was named after its counterpart back when that section of town was still Williamsburgh).

Look, dufus - I have no problem finding a location in NYC, even when presented with a 'made up' address. But I don't blame you for defending a trained police officer in not being able to spell 'Broadway'. The inept must stick together.

Thanks for nothing, smartass.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

Where did I indicate that I knew sidewalk riding was prohibited?

---

You SHOULD have known... After all, it is prohibited by law... While you could have taken a few minutes to look it up, you opted for the more expensive, inconvenient option.

As for your original question about the spelling and the possibility of a dismissal, fact is, (even based on what you stated in your last post) you knew exactly where you were when you got caught, so the spelling error does not impact your ability to defend yourself. That makes it a "harmless error". Furthermore... And in response to the following:

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

But I don't blame you for defending a trained police officer in not being able to spell 'Broadway'.

---

The officer's inability to spell Broadway had no impact on his observing you riding your bicycle on the side walk... So again, its a "harmless error".

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

The inept must stick together.

---

All while the ignorant are standing alone!

You can review most bicycle related laws by reading through Article 34 of Title 7 of New York's Vehicle And Traffic Statutes... But there are also a few more that bicyclist share with persons operating personal assistive mobility devices and that is under Article 34-C of the same code.

My question involves traffic court in the State of: NY

I just want to post a quick follow up to a thread I created a couple of months ago regarding a bicycle ticket I received in Brooklyn.

The short story is that I received a summons for a very questionable 'riding on the sidewalk' charge. Though my real question involved a misspelling by the officer on my pink-slip. It stated that I was to appear on such and such date, at "346 Brawdway", NY.

My thread was asking if there was any way that this discrepancy could help me out, come time to see the judge. Well, I received more than a dozen responses, and EVERY one of them flatly said "NO!". They said I was a smart-ass for asking, that if I were a "good" citizen I would simply pay for my crime without legal prompting, etc...

It really felt like a bunch Joe American rednecks trying to sound they know something that they do not.

here were some of the responses:

"You can choose to blow off your court date if you want to.
But doing so will not benefit you in any way so i would advise against that. you can investigate for yourself what happens when you don't show up for court."

Which really made no sense, because I didn't ask a thing about blowing off my court date.

"Minor errors are irrelevant."

"No it will not."

"Misspellings will have zero bearing on your case."

"Well, all we have is your word that you aren’t simply misreading his handwriting. Even if he did make a spelling error, that is really not an indication that he is “inept.”…after all, he was adept enough at his job to collar you! If your argument is going to be that you were confused and unable to RECOGNIZE the most famous street in town due to his misspelling, it will be YOU that is going to look like an idiot in court. So, no I don’t see how this could work to your benefit."

"No"

"The officer's inability to spell Broadway had no impact on his observing you riding your bicycle on the side walk... So again, its a "harmless error"."


Please keep in mind that nearly all of these pointed responses were from senior members here at expertlaw.com


Well, today was the day to appear for the infraction (what one senior member called a crime), and as it happened, I got no farther than 'Summons Check-In', when the action against me was dropped entirely, based solely on the fact that the officer misspelled 'Broadway'.

I received a paper that stated;

"As of the above referenced date, the NYPD has failed to file a legally acceptable accusatory instrument with this court. There is no need for you to return to court on the summons number referenced above"

So, now I have a new question: What is the point of this site at all if it's 'senior members' have no idea what they're talking about? It seems like all the feedback I received was based on a world they would like to live in, and not the one we are living in. I didn't get ONE person that even said 'maybe'.

But I can now tell you from experience, it's better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.

All we can do is tell you what the law requires. On a small number of occasions, for reasons we cannot possibly anticipate for you, a judge will choose to give somebody a break - that could be because he likes you, it could be your spotless record, it could be because he wants to teach the ticketing officer a lesson, it could be because he's a really nice guy, it could be because he's dumb as a rock....

If you didn't even have to argue the error to the court, but they just handed you a paper saying "the NYPD has failed to file a legally acceptable accusatory instrument with this court", the reasonable inference would be that the court is tired of having to fix sloppy tickets and send out courtesy notices, and is thus teaching New York's finest that they need to stop making stupid mistakes on tickets. That would also mean that, if the police and prosecutor deem it worth the effort, the ticket could be reissued in proper form. If that happens it will be a new case with a new summons number.

Thank you, Mr. Knowitall. That sits a lot better with me than "You were lucky", or, "just pay your fine".

For the record, that is exactly what happened; before I ever had a chance to see the judge, the court clerk reviewed the summons, read something that made him roll his eyes, and handed me said paper. That was it.

I don't believe for a second that this is going to happen every time (although I'm curious about the lack of consistency), but why I would get a unanimous and resounding "No", from a panel of senior members?

Anyway, I don't ride on the sidewalk anymore. FYI

Quote:

---

Keep in mind that I was brow beaten by this particular panel of senior members

---

You have an interesting definition of "brow beaten". Unless the OED has updated the definition to "telling me the opposite of what I want to hear"?

I am unaware of any locale in which riding as an adult on most city sidewalks is NOT a ticketable offense. Where I live, you may only ride on the sidewalk if you are under 15 or if the speed limit on the street is greater than 35MPH. In other locales nearby, the age limit is 12, and the speed limit is 40MPH. In still other locales, the speed limit on the street is irrelevant, if you're older than 12, you ride in the street.

Did you get lucky this time? As Mr. K notes, the option to re-issue the ticket correctly is still there, so your answer FOR NOW is MAYBE. It still could very well turn out to be NO, but you'll have to wait and see for that.

ETA: You keep harping on "senior member". It's merely a title the forum software assigns after you've made a certain number of posts. It's not even a large number. Un-knot your knickers.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

I am unaware of any locale in which riding as an adult on most city sidewalks is NOT a ticketable offense.

---

How about Seattle?

Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.

Nice. Congrats seven. :) Thanks for the update.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

So, now I have a new question: What is the point of this site at all if it's 'senior members' have no idea what they're talking about? It seems like all the feedback I received was based on a world they would like to live in, and not the one we are living in. I didn't get ONE person that even said 'maybe'.

---

You should count me as one who said “maybe,” but not directly. It was implied in the articles that I linked. Regarding the point of this forum, you might recall that I drew objections earlier by stating that it's a ticket defense forum, but my thinking has evolved a bit since. Now I would say that it’s a place to discuss traffic tickets with people who exist in a variety of different “worlds” as you put it. Many posters will argue a point of view that 99% of tickets are NOT defensible. I don’t agree with that premise, but wouldn’t necessarily say that they “have no idea what they're talking about.” Some know quite a bit, but providing defenses is not what they are primarily here for.

When referring to the “site” in general you have to keep in mind that it contains multiple subsections, and the “expert” parts are other areas not related to the forums. Forums are moderated discussion areas available to the public in general. Some posters might speak for the “we” suggesting a more educated subgroup, but really they are all individuals with their own points of view.

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

...the action against me was dropped entirely, based solely on the fact that the officer misspelled 'Broadway'.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

...I didn't say a word to the clerk concerning the error, assuming I got ANY accurate info from my inquiry. He caught the error all by himself, and dismissed this case forthwith.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting sevenwives

---

For the record, that is exactly what happened; before I ever had a chance to see the judge, the court clerk reviewed the summons, read something that made him roll his eyes, and handed me said paper. That was it.

---

Regarding your follow-up report, I still have lingering questions as to why the action was dropped. If you didn’t speak and were handed a paper indicating that “the NYPD has failed to file a legally acceptable accusatory instrument,” how do you know that it was “based solely on the fact that the officer misspelled 'Broadway'”?

When I linked articles earlier, I didn’t do a very good job. There was a more relevant sub-link inside of the first article that I should have referred to instead, so I’m not sure you ever saw it. The article, which is dated just 9 days before you started this thread, basically states that these tickets were being dismissed usually because they referenced the wrong administrative code. I'd be curious if that defect was on the ticket you got.

The article also contains interesting statistics. It states that more than 110,000 of 510,000 summonses last year were “deemed defective or dismissed for insufficient information.” If true, at least 22% of tickets in NYC last year WERE defensible--contrary to what some posters would like us to believe.

A person's typical experience when they show up in a court and argue, "The name of the street that this court is on was misspelled on my ticket, so can I get my ticket dismissed," is going to be, "You got here, so despite the spelling error the notice was adequate." The possibility of an incorrect administrative code, or other technical error, does seem more likely.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "some posters" believe that tickets are never defensible.