You can now remove “alleged” from any reference to John Hines.
The Long Beach Fire Captain, scion of one of the city’s leading fire fighting families, changed his plea to guilty in Orange County Superior Court on Tuesday.
He was convicted on three felony counts — driving under the influence, driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .08, and hit-and-run, as well as sentencing enhancements for having a BAC over .20 and causing great bodily injury.
Hines will serve a 90-day diagnostic evaluation in state prison to determine whether he is suitable to serve a sentence in the state penitentiary. After his release, he will be sentenced on December 2nd at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana; potential penalties range from probation to up to six years and eight months behind bars.
Hines reportedly spent the morning of April 1st drinking at the Schooner or Later bar in Long Beach before getting behind the wheel of his truck. Around 1:20 pm, he swerved into the bike lane on Westminster Ave in Seal Beach and plowed into the bike ridden by 47-year old Jeffrey Gordon.
Gordon was thrown over 70 feet, suffering critical injuries including severe lacerations, spinal injuries and head trauma; according to the Orange County Register, he was hospitalized for two weeks, and continues to suffer from limited physical mobility, as well as speech and memory loss.
Meanwhile, Hines fled the scene without slowing down; witnesses followed him to his home where he was arrested with a BAC of 0.24.
I have no idea why he needs to be evaluated for suitability for state prison; most inmates are simply sentenced without any say in the matter.
But we can only hope the judge imposes the maximum sentence.
Anyone who is trained to save lives, yet is so drunk and heartless as to leave a man laying broken and bleeding in the street does not deserve to walk free.
Or ever drive again.
Thanks to Rex Reese, Jim Lyle and an anonymous source for the heads-up.
California cyclists may now enjoy a little cushion from passing vehicles, as the State Assembly passed SB 910, the 3feet2pass bill, by a margin of 41-20.
Do I really need to point out that 16 of the no votes came from the Republican side of the aisle, as the California GOP has swung so far to the right they feel a kneejerk need to oppose virtually everything?
However, six Republicans retained sufficient common sense to vote for the bill, while four Democrats felt California drivers still deserve the right to buzz cyclists as long as they don’t actually make contact.
What still remains to be determined is whether the dangerous exception allowing drivers to pass at less than three feet, as long as they slow to 15 miles above the speed of the ride, remained in the bill or was removed in amendments as we have been repeatedly promised.
In other words, if you were riding at 20 mph, a driver moving at up to 35 mph could pass you as close as they wanted as long at they didn’t actually hit you; yeah, good luck with that. And yes, that exception would be every bit as confusing and unenforceable as it sounds, forcing both drivers and police to guess how fast you’re riding.
And yes, it was still in the most recent draft of the law posted online on August 30th.
Let’s hope it really was removed.
Or this will be nothing but feel-good legislation that could actually make it more dangerous for California riders.
Update: Eric B and billsd wrote to correct my reading of the most recent draft of SB 910. The law has in fact been revised to remove the 15 mph passing exemption; it now allows drivers to pass at less than three feet only at speeds of 15 mph or less. Thanks to both for the correction.
I’ve heard from a number of cyclists who are concerned about a rumor in the case of Joseph Fernandez, the driver convicted of killing Encino endurance cyclist Jim Swarzman.
They’re worried that judge K. Michael Kirkman may have found that Swarzman contributed to his own death though improper lane positioning by failing to ride far enough to the right. As the comment linked to above points out, that would suggest a basic misunderstanding of both state law and commonly taught safe riding practices.
As a result, I reached out to cyclist and attorney Dj Wheels, who looked into the question for me.
According to Wheels, it’s unlikely that the judge would have made a ruling like that, since it’s unrelated to the charges against Fernandez. He’s been found guilty of hit-and-run causing serious injury or death, rather than the death itself.
In other words, Fernandez was convicted of leaving the scene, not killing Swarzman — which makes where Swarzman was positioned in the lane, and whether he contributed to his own death, irrelevant to this case.
As Wheels points out, that may be a matter that will be addressed in the civil case.
However, if anyone who was actually in the courtroom when Fernandez was found guilty has other information, please let me know.
Fernandez is scheduled to be sentenced on September 12th in San Diego Superior Court in Vista; he faces up to four years in prison, case #CN290834.
Finally, did the L.A. Weekly deliberately lie about L.A.’s new cyclist anti-harassment ordinance? Or was it a case of journalistic incompetence and failure to fact check?
A blog post by Dennis Romero suggests that the new law will clog the courts with cyclists retaliating for the slightest insult.
Really. The law goes into effect today. (Ed. Actually, it was Monday, but who’s counting?) We can just imagine the court testimony:
Bicyclist: He called me an asshole.
Driver: Your honor, I would like to submit that he is an asshole, and that free speech is protected, especially when one speaks the truth.
And he concludes with a reminder abut First Amendment rights:
Added: Interestingly, we recall that court rulings over the years have held that even swearing at police is protected speech. Guess the bicycle gets more respect than the badge at L.A. City Hall.
Of course, as virtually every commenter on the story has pointed out, he is completely and totally wrong. (I particularly enjoyed the comment from local bikewear manufacturer swrve.)
Mere insults aren’t addressed by this law. In fact, as LAPD Sgt. Krumer pointed out, you can call a cyclist any damn thing you want and be perfectly within your rights. Although at this point, calling someone an L.A. Weekly reader could be particularly hurtful.
What you can’t do is threaten the life or safety of a cyclist, either through words or actions.
Don’t say “I’m going to kill you,” or attempt to run a rider off the road — or imply you intend to — and this law will never apply to you.
And for his suggestion in the comments that most cyclists will never read the law, so they’ll file countless worthless cases anyway, no lawyer is going to take a case unless he or she thinks they have a reasonable chance of winning.
Which means there has to be evidence and/or witnesses to support it. And even if a lawyer did take such a case, the courts wouldn’t hesitate to throw it out.
Which takes us back to the Weekly’s false and inflammatory story, which can only put cyclists at greater risk of actual harassment from angry drivers who might believe their load of crap.
So I demand — yes, demand — a complete and full retraction from the Weekly, as well as a public apology from the author.
And I hope you’ll join me in doing the same.
Thanks to Evan G. for the tip.
This is the latest text on SB910:
Unless I’m reading the bill text incorrectly, it looks like the 15 mph was changed to an absolute speed rather than a differential:
(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three feet at a speed not greater than 15 miles per hour, if in compliance with subdivision (a).
I believe that change was part of the CABO friendly amendments.
Maybe someone from CABO or CBC can pipe in and clarify.
I think that you’re misreading SB 910 about the 15mph thing.
“(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a
bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance
of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any
part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass
the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three
feet at a speed not greater than 15 miles per hour, if in compliance
with subdivision (a).”
In other words, they can pass closer than 3 feet if they are travelling at 15mph or less. It’s not a speed differential. It’s a maximum speed allowed during close passing. Passing distance is more of an issue at higher speeds than it is at lower speeds, so I don’t think this is really a big deal.
You’re both right. After giving it another read, the law has been changed to allow passing at less than three feet only at speeds up to 15 mph. Thanks for the corrections.
Hmm. We posted during the same minute. Spooky. 😀
It is nice to see a couple of laws passed. Just remember that there may be some back lash from the public. Most people do not take the time to verify what they hear about new laws and accept all or part of what they may read in a blog or newspaper or hear on the radio weather it is correct info or not.
I am hoping that some of the police will help educate motorists when they see them getting too close to cyclists by letting them know the law and it is a requirement to safely pass not an option that so many of them believe.
SB910 did pass 41-20. However, a few more votes were added after the tally. It is now (AYES 44. NOES 25)