maximumchris
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota
OK, here goes. I was given a ticket for Inattentinve Driving under MN statute 169.14(1). This was due to me failing to yield to bicyclist who was in a crosswalk. I was traveling west on University Ave., which is a major street divided by a median. I did see that traffic had begun to stop on the other side, but there wasn't anyone in the crosswalk and the stopped traffic included a city bus and a police car next to it, so I assumed there was perhaps some kind of altercation ad some rubber-necking going on. I realized this was not the case an instant later when a guy on a mountain bike rode across that side of the street and stopped at the median ahead of me and to my left. The car in the lane to my right managed to come to a stop, but I didn't feel I had propper room given that there was another car behind me. So, I continued. Now, the car behind me didn't stop either. The policecar immediately started squacking, made a u-turn and pulled us both over. The officer was really aggressive, saying I "almost took the guy out," so I didn't argue with him. When he came back with the ticket I tried to broach the subject of bikes in the crosswalk and he said it didn't matter. He told me he was giving me the Inattentive ticket because it is cheaper than a failure to yield ticket. I said nothing since I figured I might end up with both if I complained. I got home and consulted my insurance policy which says that that ticket is a major 3-point violation (i.e. 50% premium increase). Also, being a petty misdemeanor, I will have no right to a jury trial. Now, I have looked at the MN statues regarding bikes, and they seem conflicted. Its says they must obey the rules of the road, yet they have the same rights and duties of pedestrians in a crosswalk. The law also says that pedestrian cannot run or dart out into traffic. The officer seemed to think that I should have been expecting this because the other side was stopped, but I didn't anticipate they were all waiting for a bicycle to ride across. This cyclist did, to me, appear suddenly, but since he stopped (smartly) I so no need to panic. What burden of proof does the state have in this case? There was no accident nor any immediate danger (the cyclist was still separated from my car by a left-turn lane). I can't vouch for the idiot behind me who had plenty of time, but I may argue that they were obviously in danger of hitting me if I were to stop suddenly in front of them. Remember, they followed me through the intersection and were also ticketed. In fact I thought the officer was just going to get them, but he waved me over, too. I've never fought a ticket before, but I just feel that I acted properly. I'm scared that if I go to a trial before a judge, they will not overide the officer, even if I'm right. I would appreciate any advice, particularly on how to handle myself in court.
Thanks,
Chris
OK, here goes. I was given a ticket for Inattentinve Driving under MN statute 169.14(1). This was due to me failing to yield to bicyclist who was in a crosswalk. I was traveling west on University Ave., which is a major street divided by a median. I did see that traffic had begun to stop on the other side, but there wasn't anyone in the crosswalk and the stopped traffic included a city bus and a police car next to it, so I assumed there was perhaps some kind of altercation ad some rubber-necking going on. I realized this was not the case an instant later when a guy on a mountain bike rode across that side of the street and stopped at the median ahead of me and to my left. The car in the lane to my right managed to come to a stop, but I didn't feel I had propper room given that there was another car behind me. So, I continued. Now, the car behind me didn't stop either. The policecar immediately started squacking, made a u-turn and pulled us both over. The officer was really aggressive, saying I "almost took the guy out," so I didn't argue with him. When he came back with the ticket I tried to broach the subject of bikes in the crosswalk and he said it didn't matter. He told me he was giving me the Inattentive ticket because it is cheaper than a failure to yield ticket. I said nothing since I figured I might end up with both if I complained. I got home and consulted my insurance policy which says that that ticket is a major 3-point violation (i.e. 50% premium increase). Also, being a petty misdemeanor, I will have no right to a jury trial. Now, I have looked at the MN statues regarding bikes, and they seem conflicted. Its says they must obey the rules of the road, yet they have the same rights and duties of pedestrians in a crosswalk. The law also says that pedestrian cannot run or dart out into traffic. The officer seemed to think that I should have been expecting this because the other side was stopped, but I didn't anticipate they were all waiting for a bicycle to ride across. This cyclist did, to me, appear suddenly, but since he stopped (smartly) I so no need to panic. What burden of proof does the state have in this case? There was no accident nor any immediate danger (the cyclist was still separated from my car by a left-turn lane). I can't vouch for the idiot behind me who had plenty of time, but I may argue that they were obviously in danger of hitting me if I were to stop suddenly in front of them. Remember, they followed me through the intersection and were also ticketed. In fact I thought the officer was just going to get them, but he waved me over, too. I've never fought a ticket before, but I just feel that I acted properly. I'm scared that if I go to a trial before a judge, they will not overide the officer, even if I'm right. I would appreciate any advice, particularly on how to handle myself in court.
Thanks,
Chris
