Opinion
T09-06582
Decided December 15, 2009.
The Defendant, Weiyan Chen, is charged with one count of Insufficient Control of a Steering Mechanism, an alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1226. At the time Mr. Chen received the ticket, he was riding a bicycle within the City of Ithaca, specifically on Cornell campus. The Court held a non-jury hearing in this matter, and based on the evidence presented at that time, finds and concludes as follows.
On October 9, 2009, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Officer Cady of the Cornell University Police Department observed Mr. Chen riding his bike on East Avenue on campus. The officer testified that Mr. Chen took both hands off the handlebars, spread his arms out to the sides, and then placed his hands behind his head, while continuing to cycle. There were no pedestrians or other vehicles in Mr. Chen's path at the time, but the officer stopped and issued him the ticket for failing to keep at least one hand on the bike steering mechanism at all times. The prosecution argues that Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1231 provides that all vehicular traffic laws that can apply to riding bikes, do apply to riding bikes. The prosecutor specifically argues that the provision requiring at least one hand on the steering mechanism clearly applies when one is riding a bicycle.
Mr. Chen testified and admitted that on the date at the time in question he was riding with his hands outspread and then behind his head, but argues that he is a very experienced and proficient bike rider, and that he had control over his bicycle at all times. The Court notes that had Mr. Chen been riding a unicycle, his argument would have been a complete defense. However, in this occasion, he was riding a bicycle with handlebars that constitute the steering mechanism for the bike. The issue then before the Court is whether Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1226 is one of the provisions of the Vehicle Traffic Law applicable to bicyclists as contemplated by Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1231.
As a general proposition, a person riding a bicycle on a roadway is, with few exceptions, entitled to all the rights and bears all the responsibilities of the driver of a motor vehicle ( Redcross v State, 241 AD2d 787). In the case of Secor v Kohl ( 67 AD2d 358), the Appellate Court, upholding the decision of the Trial Court, concluded that it would be impossible for a bicyclist to give a continuous hand signal for 100 feet before making a turn because taking the hand off the handlebars would cause instability of the bike and create a danger to the bicyclist.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1163(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which requires a driver to signal a turn for a full 100 feet before turning, did not apply to a cyclist. At the same time, the Third Department in Blitstein v Capital District Transportation Authority ( 81 AD2d 981) citing Secor, found that cyclists do have a duty to display some hand signal before turning. Again, however, the Court accepted the notion that riding for some distance with only one hand on the steering mechanism was inherently dangerous.
Given the holdings in the cases cited above, this Court is constrained to conclude that given the inherent dangers in riding with no hands on the bicycle steering mechanism does pose a danger, especially in a municipal area riddled with potholes and other irregularities in the road. As the facts in this case are not contested, the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Chen, on October 9, 2009, did operate a bicycle within the City of Ithaca at a time when he did not have at least one hand on the steering mechanism, and as a result, the Court finds him in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1226. As this case involves a bicycle, there is no mandatory surcharge, and the Court hereby imposes a sentence of conditional discharge, with the condition that in the future Mr. Chen use at least one hand to steer the bicycle while riding.
This constitutes the Decision and Judgment of the Court entered upon notice to both parties. A notice of appeal, if applicable, must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision.