Another Wrongful CVC 21202 (a) Citation
Posted By Sam Ollinger on June 19, 2011
Unfortunately, despite assurances from the San Diego Police Department, the officers on the beat are still unaware of what the laws are when it comes to cyclists. Nearly two years ago, Andrew Woolley was improperly citied under CVC 21202(a), i.e. for failing to ride on the right-hand side of the road despite the fact that the exceptions to the code applied to him. Woolley eventually appealed and was successful in getting the charges reversed and dismissed. The entire incident was a tremendous waste of time and money both for the City and for Woolley. We wrote to Todd Gloria as the citation had occurred in his District Three, and asked him to speak to the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that the officers were trained on the meaning and intention of the laws pertaining to cyclists. In a response from Council Member Gloria’s office in August 2009, this was state in part,
The last we heard was the City Attorney’s office was working with SDPD to ensure that officers do not wrongly ticket cyclists. This was at the end of June. Has there been any further incidents of citations since the end of June? If so, I would be happy to follow up.
I hadn’t heard of any further citations until this year, when Scott Dion contacted me and mentioned that he wanted to meet to talk about his CVC 21202(a) citation. I met up with Dion on Bike to Work Day, a few days prior to his hearing at the Superior Court in Kearny Mesa, to learn more about this citation. The story below was written by Dion, I have edited it for readability.
—-
Scott Dion is a retired U.S. Navy Master Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician who is a League Certified Instructor with the League of American Bicyclists. He has 25 years of bicycle commuting experience. As part of his training and certification, he is well versed in the DMV driver’s handbook along with the writings of John Forester, John Allen and the League of American Bicyclists.
On March 21, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Dion was riding southbound on Park Boulevard as part of his daily commute from La Mesa to City College in downtown San Diego. Since he began this commute last fall, Dion had had ample opportunity to evaluate the traffic norms and learned to eliminate conflicts by being predictable to other road users.
On this particular day, Dion noticed that the San Diego Police Officers who eventually cited him had the opportunity to observe where he was positioned in the lane – it was in accordance with all the literature mentioned above including CVC 21202. Despite the newly striped sharrows and a partial bike lane on the northern part of Park Boulevard, there are no such markings on the part of Park Blvd. where Dion was riding. Thus, he had to position himself the way someone who operates their bicycle with all the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle would. Dion states that someone who has grown up in the U.S. where the bicycle is seen as a toy meant for kids and relegated to bike paths, this can be a shocking sight. Dion stated that he was much safer operating this way as opposed to the way the SDPD Officer directed, “Bicyclists must travel in far right-hand side of road.” On this morning, Dion was positioned to the left of the doorzone in a substandard width lane riding at 15 mph in a 25 mph zone approaching a heavily used crosswalk when he was passed with around 12 inches of clearance by a SDPD Officer operating a marked police car. As the officer passed Dion, the officer was moving to the right. Dion chose to apply his brakes in order to achieve a safe following distance.
Dion then pointed three times at the rearview mirror where he could see the Officer looking at him. The officer stopped his car with lights on and Dion’s intention was to talk about the distance he was allowed while the marked police car passed him. Dion then rode to the the right side of the police car while the Officer in the front passenger seat stepped out of the car and began directing Dion to the sidewalk. The officer then issued this citation:
Dion was unable to further discuss the issue of passing within a safe distance with the officer who issued the ticket, and he eventually spoke with the ticketing officer’s supervisor where he learned that his only option to file a complaint against the officer, which Dion chose not to do.
On June 1st, the hearing date, Scott Dion’s plan was to to explain why the exceptions (2), (3) and (4) of CVC 21202 applied to the situation where he was cited, thereby giving the judge what he needed to find him not guilty. However, the presiding Judge didn’t buy Dion’s arguments and found him guilty.
While there are a lot of different riding “styles” when riding the streets, the “door zone” is not a rideable space as it doesn’t give the rider enough room to maneuver forward in a safe manner. Because Park Boulevard is also home to hundreds of temporarily parked cars despite the presence of multiple parking lots located along the Boulevard. Thus, it is usually impractical in a far right manner as the SDPD officer had wanted Dion to.

Park Boulevard - The area where Scott Dion was cited for failing to ride on the right side. Photo by Scott Dion.
For this reason, many riders, including Dion usually take the lane. If there is enough room Dion would move to the right and continue riding. Whenever there are close calls Dion is diligent about investigating the situation to get an idea of what is going on. Sometimes the driver just doesn’t have the skill to pass slower moving traffic. On occasion, Dion will usually try and engage the passing driver in a dialogue to get a clearer picture as to why they chose to pass so close. In these situations he will state something like, “hey did you see me back there?” Often, these drivers will reveal their real motivation for the way they passed a cyclist by stating that they think bicyclists don’t belong on the road. They don’t like bikes in their way. On March 21st, the driver that Dion chose to converse with happen to be a SDPD officer and the conversation ended when Dion was given a traffic ticket. For his troubles, he was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of $195.00.
Scott Dion doesn’t think he did anything wrong. He will be appealing this decision.
—-
I thank Scott Dion for taking the time to let me know about this citation and patiently explaining the circumstances leading up to his citation and for taking the time to do a writeup of the encounter. It is much appreciated.











I am so confused by this scenario. This sounds like exactly what I do every day on my commute down El Cajon Blvd from La Mesa to SDSU. It sounds like the only reason the officer ticketed the cyclist is because he confronted the officer about passing him to closely. That’s horrible yet believable. I once had a La Mesa officer yell at me, “What are you doing?” when I made a left hand turn at a 4-way intersection, when it was my right of way, after I had signalled a left turn. Seriously? I think a prerequisite to getting a license to drive should be to learn about the rights of cyclists because there is an apparent deficit.
$195.00 ??? Outrageous !!!
Seems like judges rarely go with the defendant in disagreements with police about what is safe or legal, regardless of merits. Better to have an expert witness argue your case in order to get the judge to listen.
A couple of years ago we had two of these tickets overturned on appeal. How is it that the lower court judges can’t understand what the law clearly states? How is it that they don’t get the message from the appeals courts?
Bill, I don’t know about the second case, but the Woolley case never went to an appeal. It was just dropped by the city attorney. Not sure if that letter carries any weight for judges. In that case the main fact the judge ignored was that Woolley was traveling faster than other traffic. That fact is not part of this case. Apparently it rests on the more subjective issues of whether the lane was too narrow to be safely shared and whether riding outside of the door zone is as far right as practicable. That’s why I think it’s important to have an expert in such cases.
An LCI is not an expert witness?
Also, I thought that the appellate court issued a decision in the Woolley case based upon the recommendation of the city attorney?
Ordnance – not Ordinance………………..
I’ve fixed the error, it was my mistake. Thank you Jon.
Bill, John Schubert just posted about this on the Cyclists are Drivers Facebook page where this is also being discussed. He wrote: “If I were cross-examining a purported expert’s credentials, and the only credential were “rides a bike and has LCI certification,” I think I could get the expert disqualified. I would point out that the LCI certification is a two-day course that anyone can take, and that people with dubious ability have passed.”
But the defendant is never a good expert witness no matter his credentials, as he is the defendant. Even if I was John Schubert, John Forester, John Allen or Jim Baross (all expert witnesses), I would not testify as my own expert witness.
It would be usefull if Mr. Dion could also supply the judges decision and testimony about why the vehicle code did not allow him to ride as he saw best.
We all know there is institutional bias against us riding and it sucks that these examples keep happening. But at the same time the more they do, and (if they) are successfully overturned, means better conditions for everyone.
Come on SDPD, respond back and support operating of bicycle machines in the lane. We are not going anywhere else (except to work/school/store/etc.)
Scott’s mistake was attempting to contact the officer who passed him too closely. The citation was blatant retaliation which was then supported by the judge in classic banana republic justice.
[...] forewarned that ignorance abounds in the comments. A San Diego cyclist is buzzed by a patrol car, then written up for riding — apparently legally — in the traffic lane. The SF Chronicle says door zones, no; helmets yes. Cyclist’s riding the famed Golden Gate Bridge [...]