Our E-Mail to SDPD About the Crash that Killed Walter Freeman
It has been more than a month since a marked SDPD cruiser struck and killed avid bicyclist Walter Freeman in University City. No information has been forthcoming from the SDPD regarding the results of their investigation, which they initially promised would be completed and released within a week of the incident. Below is the e-mail we sent to Chief William Lansdowne this morning, reminding the SDPD of their obligation to the citizens of San Diego to provide a full and public investigation of this deadly incident involving one of our public safety officers:
Dear Chief Lansdowne,
I am writing both as a concerned citizen and as the editor of Bike San Diego, a news and advocacy blog highlighting bicycling issues in the city and county of San Diego. The concern I would like to bring to your attention today is the lack of information coming from the SDPD regarding the investigation into the crash that killed bicyclist Walter Freeman on November 9, 2009. As you know, one of your officers was driving the marked patrol car that struck and killed Freeman. It has been more than one month since the crash, and your department promised information within a week of the incident. That information has not been forthcoming, and I would like to remind you of your obligation to the citizens of this city to provide them with information about public safety. This includes disclosing the details and results of this investigation, at the very least so that concrete steps can be taken to make this intersection a safer place to ride a bicycle. Naturally, I and other bicyclists in San Diego are very interested to hear the results of your department's investigation.
Respectfully, Thomas Bahde
Naturally, we will also post the SDPD's response, if any, and as soon as we have details of the investigation, we will share them with you.
CVC 21202(a) Appeal Opening Brief by Andrew Woolley
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.
San Diegan Cyclists and California's Vehicle Code 21202 (a)
California's Vehicle Code 21202 (a) states:
21202. (a)Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.
---------
San Diego cyclist, Andrew Wooley was cited for violating CVC 21202(a) on March 6th, 2009. Woolley's citation was for failing to ride on the right-hand side of the road. At his hearing a few months ago in August, Woolley showed how the two exceptions to the vehicle code applied to him in this particular instance. The Judge agreed with Woolley and yet ruled that cyclists were required to ride on the curb line.
Woolley sent us a copy of his transcript [pdf] recently. He is currently appealing the ruling. We will keep you posted on what happens.
When I contacted District Council member Todd Gloria about this issue several months ago, his office responded stating the following:
Councilmember Gloria is aware of this issue and has been in touch with members of the cycling community, the San Diego Police Department, and the City Attorney's office about it. 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 have not heard about other citations issued regarding real or apparent violations of CVC 21202.
Meanwhile, BikeSD will keep on top of this case with Woolley and continue to keep you updated.
North County Developer Promises Smart Growth by Creating more Sprawl
Our friends up in San Diego's north county's coastal region recently wrote about the Merriam Mountain project - a new housing development that is redefining what "smart growth" means.
The developers have rights to build 345 houses. They do not own the development rights to build 2,700 houses.
The developer, Stonegate Development Company, requested an upzone which the San Diego County Planning Commission granted with only two commissioners voting against the upzone, one being Peter Norby who wrote:
If we are to have confidence as a society in these General Plans. we need to uphold them and adhere to them.
To the extent we do so, citizens gain confidence and trust in our government and our planning documents. To the extent we don't adhere to them, and upzone or do political favors, citizens (including planning commissioners) become skeptical and mistrust government and the planning documents. Done to an extreme, they can become worthless.
Like our constitution there is an amendment process call a General Plan Amendment Application...[The Merriam Mountain project] results in in 35,000 vehicle trips a day. More vehicle trips on Hwy 15 during peak hour than the entire NCTD Coaster removes from I-5 all day at huge tax payer expense.
A population of around 8000 in a urban development pattern with approx 1700 school age children. No schools, No library, no post office, and only freeway serving commercial down by I-15 at the off ramp.
The nearest schools elementary middle and high school, are 8 miles to 12 miles away (the exception is twin oaks elementary where 1/3 will go, it is 2 miles away)This is a development pattern that is typical of urban sprawl.
The developer, Stonegate, envisions that the planned community will look like the image above. Despite projecting a vision of smart growth for the community, there is not a mention of walkability or bikability for the new community. For example, the goal is to widen Deer Springs Road into four lanes:
Q: How will the project mitigate its traffic impacts?
A: The development of Merriam Mountains provides an opportunity to address some long-standing traffic problems in the community. Deer Springs Road is planned to be widened to four lanes from I-15 to Twin Oaks Valley Road, and improvements are proposed to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange. These improvements are designed to improve existing level of service as well as accommodate cumulative impacts from other planned projects.
In addition to the problems with creating more sprawl, there has been plenty of opposition from residents in the area strongly in opposition to the development.
To voice your concerns, the authors from The Leucadia Blog has urged readers to contact the County supervisors using the email addresses listed below:
Greg Cox - greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
Dianne Jacob -dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov (who has also been stalling in taking action against Pointe Communities for blocking a one mile stretch of bike lane along Jamacha Boulevard).
Pam Slate - pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
Ron Roberts - ron.roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
Work Underway Along Santa Fe Street
I received this via email:
The project schedule and work hours have been changed due to a large boulder that crews encountered during the boring process in mid-November. New work hours will be Monday to Friday from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. And Sunday to Thursday from 6 p.m. To 6 a.m.
The product team anticipates a new project completion date of February 2010 due to delays in AT&T's schedule for relocating its equipment
As stated in previous correspondence, the antiquated sewer line running adjacent to Rose Canyon Creek will be replaced by a new pipeline along the west side of Santa Fe Stret from Damon to the bridge at approximately 5181 Santa Fe Street. The replacement pipeline will ensure a cleaner creek bed in the future and eliminate the potential for environmental damage from line ruptures.
