First, the timeline… November 13 – cyclist charged with: 1) Disregarding Traffic Light and 2) Obstructing a Highway… December 14 – Traffic Court – the defendant rejected the deal offered by the court… January 25 – Pre-Trial Conference – Prosecution amended the Obstruction charge (???), then, again proposed dismissing the Obstruction charge if the defendant pleaded guilty to the Disregarding Traffic Signal charge, took an online traffic course and paid $179 in court costs. The deal would have achieved two objectives: 1) avoiding a 90 day jail term on the Obstructing a Highway charge and 2) establishing that cyclists do not have to use bike lanes. The deal, however, would have denied the court the opportunity to wrestle with two issues: 1) the laws (Kentucky and Metro) which convey to cyclists the latitude to take measures which increase safety, and 2) the double standard where a motorist who just hit and killed a pedestrian can avoid prosecution on the plea “I did not see the pedestrian”, while a cyclist, pleading “I did not see the light” is prosecuted for moving safely through an intersection unaware of the color of a light… March 10 – Second Pre-Trial Conference – prosecution wants to review dash cam and body cam.
Cyclist Rejects Court’s Deal
