CVC 21202(a) Appeal Opening Brief by Andrew Woolley

CVC 21202
CVC 21202. Image from Njord Noatun

Andrew Woolley sent us the Opening Brief to his Appeal [pdf link] stating that he did not violate CVC 21202(a).

Woolley also added:

I am awaiting the City Attorney’s Respondent’s Brief. I will have the opportunity to issue a Reply Brief within 20 days of receipt of the Respondent’s Brief. The City Attorney has 30 days from last Wednesday to submit their brief. The Reply Brief is where I could really use some help, as it will be directly responding to the City Attorney’s opinion. It will also be my last chance to submit anything to the appeal board. I would greatly appreciate any assistance or advice for the Reply Brief. I guess the most helpful thing right now would just be an evaluation of the effectiveness of my opening brief, and what line of attack to expect from the City Attorney.

It will be interesting to see how the City Attorney responds to the Appeal.  If the decision is reversed, we’d also like to push to have the city actually educate it’s officers on the letter and intent of the laws that pertain to bicyclists. I have also posted the conclusion below which summarizes everything extremely well:

Andrew Woolley submits that he did not violate California Vehicle Code 21202(a) as cited by Officer David Root of the San Diego Police Department. Because he was traveling at a speed greater than the normal speed of traffic at the time of the citation the code in question does not apply. Because he was overtaking and passing vehicles moving in the same direction of travel the first exception to the code has relevance. And because he was approaching a place where a right-hand turn is authorized the fourth exception to the code has relevance. The misinterpretation of CVC 21202(a) demonstrated by Officer Root and supported by the Superior COurt Judge Pro Tem promotes the exact dangerous practices the code was written to discourage. Andrew Woolley is an educated, forthright, and law abiding citizen who read the vehicle codes pertaining to the operation of bicycles on California roadways before he began commuting daily. He followed the law in this case, operated his bicycle safely and in keeping with the liberties afforded by the vehicle code, and was cited by an officer with a poor understanding of the letter and intent of the vehicle code. Andrew Woolley, and the cyclists of California, respectfully ask that this Court reverse the decision of the trial court and refund the full amount of the paid fine.