BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

...aaah, I should've categorized this under Action Alerts. Remembered to do that about a half second after pressing the button. Erok, if it's worth the bother, is it possible to re-categorize it properly? Thanks/Sorry...

So this is amending Title 18, Chapter 27 of the Consolidated Statues of Pennsylvania .

To read the bill further, beginning at line 18:

"Simple assault under subsection (a)(5) (which is the new text Stu quoted above) is a misdemeanor of the first degree."

In Title 75 (the vehicle code), a misdemeanor of the first degree is also a penalty for:

counterfeit plates

your third offense for DUI

failure to give information or render aid if involved in an accident involving death or personal injury

using a fake driver's license

third offense for driving while your privilege is suspended or revoked

just a few for perspective... more HERE if you wish to dig around the PA Code

Throwing things at cyclists *should* be assault regardless of whether it results in injury or not. Likewise throwing things from cars at pedestrians.

This is intended for people throwing stones, golf balls, or dropping stuff off bridges onto automobiles.

I had a beer bottle thrown at me as kid riding through a college campus... I subsequently went off the lip of the sidewalk and bit it.

How is this not illegal already?

Throwing things from a moving car is insanely dangerous!

Given the forces involved, I'd be much happier if this were considered attempted manslaughter or something of equal import.

About a year ago, Mythbusters did a show on throwing full drinks from a car. The damage imparted was impressive.

They were specifically seeing if a drink thrown from from moving car could kill a passenger in another. (cars driving towards each other at highway speed).

The conclusion was basically that the only thing that saved the victim from dying was the tempered glass....

Don't know if anyone's noticed, but bikes don't seem to have said tempered glass.

How is this not illegal already?

it is. i imagine the proposed bill is an attempt to make the punishment more severe.

"attempt to make the punishment more severe"

Or make it easier to collect damaged vehicle costs from the suspect than your insurance company.

I'm not sure the reference to the vehicle changes the crime as it relates to injury though. Assault is assault.

wait, DUI isn't a misdemeanor until you do it three times? well, then, I guess they're serious about it.

And if one interprets "object" to extend to describe vehicles, does that now make it a misdemeanor for someone to intentionally or recklessly propel their vehicle into a cyclist? Would that make it cost more than $500 for killing a cyclist?

I think that before anyone gets excited about this law they need to do some research into whether bicycles are vehicles or not.

My understanding is that "operators of bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles".

In other words, if this law were written that throwing an object at the driver of a vehicle would be a case of simple assault, it would apply to cyclists.

But as it stands, I'm not sure.

In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles).

From http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/bikelaws.htm

wait, DUI isn't a misdemeanor until you do it three times?

It is a third class misdemeanor for first offense, I believe - then second class, first class, and if you're really awesome then you may qualify for a felony upgrade.

Like most things in this world, you level up from increased experience or ability.

with so many shades of gray, one could be led to believe that it'd be more expensive to kill a cyclist than to litter twice. And yet.

Steven, That's the website, not the law. The law is:

(a) General rule. -- Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.

Which generally works out the same way, but I suspect it wouldn't when the law doesn't apply to drivers or operators but to the vehicle itself.

I don't have access to Westlaw so I can't look up any relevant case law and wouldn't be surprised if there's none in PA. Maybe our local hot law student can find some, if he isn't buried in his books.

in order for there to be relevant case law, the DA would have to actually have the stones to press some kind of charges.

That quote is from Title 75 (the Vehicle Code), Chapter 35. But look at Chapter 1 of that same code, under Definitions:

"Vehicle." Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks. The term does not include a self-propelled wheelchair or an electrical mobility device operated by and designed for the exclusive use of a person with a mobility-related disability.

And what's a pedalcycle?

"Pedalcycle." A vehicle propelled solely by human-powered pedals. The term does not mean a three-wheeled human-powered pedal-driven vehicle with a main driving wheel 20 inches in diameter or under and primarily designed for children six years of age or younger.

I'm not sure why you'd need case law to decide this question. The law seems pretty unambiguous.

So that rules out the Big Wheel.

Big Wheels are vehicles in PA but not pedalcycles. So the law prohibiting pedalcycles on freeways wouldn't apply to Big Wheels. (It's barely possible some other law would still keep them off the interstate, but it appears a determined six year old daredevil could have a good case.)

I think the interstate onramp signs say "motorized vehicles only". So rickshaws are out too

There you go then, pedalcycles *are* vehicles. Thank you for pointing that out. It's not the case in all states.

Next question. If someone throws an object at you and hits you but not your bike, does their lawyer argue that they didn't break this law? I think so.

I don't think our problem is too few laws protecting cyclists, I think our problem is a justice system that doesn't even try to enforce the laws they have.

"Under Pennsylvania assault laws, a person is guilty of assault if a person intentionally or knowingly causes bodily harm to another, or attempts to do so putting another in fear of injury."

First search hit from "pa simple assault law."

Yup, simple assault is

(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;

(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon;

(And some other stuff I'll ignore.)

The prosecutor still has to prove intent or recklessness. (To use part 2 above, he'd have to prove that the rock, say, "in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.")

This bill extends that so if the bad guy aims at your bike instead of you, he can't argue he was only trying to damage your bike, and couldn't have foreseen the resulting crash.

But you have to actually be injured for the new provision to take effect. Guys chucking rocks at people in cars can also be prosecuted under this:

§ 2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto a roadway.

(a) Occupied vehicles.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots or propels a rock, stone, brick, or piece of iron, steel or other like metal, or any deadly or dangerous missile, or fire bomb, into a vehicle or instrumentality of public transportation that is occupied by one or more persons commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

But I think the use of "into" precludes using this against people who attack cyclists and damage only their bikes, claiming that was just what they intended.

I don't think our problem is too few laws protecting cyclists, I think our problem is a justice system that doesn't even try to enforce the laws they have.

I think they usually try, but with limited resources and laws that sometimes require very specific evidence, they pick their battles.

Not completely relevant, but wanted to share for giggles. Around 6:30 on the timeline, a pgh police officer demonstrates his knowledge of the vehicle code to a bunch of skateboarders in this video from a 1988 skating ban protest in Sq. Hill. Chapter 35 became effective July 1, 1977.