Should I fight this unicycling ticket I got in the Grand Canyon?

[unicycle6869]

So, Thomas and Kristian (from Denmark) and I went to the Grand Canyon after Moab and spent a day there. We got some cool pictures on some rocks with the canyon in the background and I'll post some sooner or later. But anyways, so we decided to ride down one of the trails into the canyon. From last time I was there, I read that all signs and rules stated that no bicycling was allowed on the trails but it never said unicycling so I figured we'd be OK and be able to talk our way out of it.

So it turns out I was wrong. We rode down only about 15 minutes or so as we didn't really want to hike back up that much. It was a lot of fun going down and a great trail. Had lots of people smile at us and say good job and all of that. We hiked back up and up at the top a ranger stopped us and asked for our ID's. As they were all in our motorhome, he walked with us there to get our ID's. We were talking to him and he seemed to be nice and friendly and I figured he'd just check our ID's, tell us not to do it again and that's it.

But he decided to give me a ticket for $125 and nothing for the Danes. He said we could split the ticket in thirds so we each pay equal amounts. We tried to argue that he can't give us a ticket for bicycling cause we weren't on bicycles but didn't want to argue too much cause then he could have given us 3 tickets. So we took it with a laugh and that's about it.

So my question is, Should I go to court and fight it? I would have to drive 8 hours there and back but since I'm currently unemployed and have nothing better to do, I just might take another road trip out there just to prove a point (and Muni some more along the way, by Vegas or something).

I just feel that since it says bicycle, I should not have been able to get a ticket since a unicycle is not a bicycle and really not even that similar. Does anyone have any legal advice or experience with this? I'm searching and reading some threads on the topic right now but any advice would be great. Also, could I ask the court for reimbursement for my time and gas money out there if I win?

Anyhow, it was/is a great story now and a good laugh nonetheless. I just think it's funny that I actually got a unicycling ticket! But he just wrote cycling on the ticket so I'm kinda pissed he didn't put unicycling so I could frame it.

[pyairot]

Could you make a photo of this ticket ? ? ?

[Chris.James]

i chose hell no, but i think just no would be a better fit. you would spend as much in gas and lodgings as the ticket will cost you.

[kington99]

Originally Posted by Chris.James

i chose hell no, but i think just no would be a better fit. you would spend as much in gas and lodgings as the ticket will cost you.

That's not the point, the point is he was charged with, and punished for, a crime which he did not commit.

[unicycle6869]

Exactly! It's all about principle, not the money. But wouldn't want to fight it if you guys don't think I have a good case. Maybe I should have asked, Do you think I'd win if I fought it? Was thinking of bringing in a webster dictionary and reading the definition of bicycle and unicycle, and then going on to explain how they are not the same and not even close to being the same. Then showing pictures of the signs that say "no bicycling".

I'll take a picture of it sooner or later but it's nothing special. It just states "Cycling in a prohibited area".

[Jkohse]

im sure the reason they have "no bicycling" is probably because its a hiking trail and they dont want people to have any harm done to them by people flying around the trails on bikes and uni's.

you took a chance and got caught, so pay the dues man.

-justin

[JJtheunicycle]

I say fight it, if you can afford everything involved. (gas, ect.)

[CKCrowe]

It did not say a wheeled vehicle, I bet hed give you a ticket if you at least tried to ride a skate board down.
The court though could say but you knew that you shouldnt ride a wheeled vehicle, so i think you might lose the case, you might not, I say you go for it.

[Blegas78]

Because I live in Arizona, I've looked up the Arizona definition for "bicycle," and a unicycle is clearly not under the definition.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...28&DocType=ARS

6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either:
(a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter.
(b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter.

So basically, wherever there's a sign that says "no bicycling," that clearly doesn't apply to you.

[Unicaw89]

Nice track monster! Since he pulled over such a beauty uni hellz yea hyou should fight it. I got a misdeminear(sp?) for unicycling to a store once, just to the bike racks! I argued with the cop and he threatened to take my unis, I told him id be commin to if he took it :-D. But anyways, there was no sign posted for unicycling, so you can at least claim ignorance. In cali they are legally pedestrials, but your not in cali at the time ;-). I would read some Utah Law before you go to fight it, and worse case scenerio just say you didnt know im sorry...Il be doing that trail on my muni in a lil while, my fam is thinkin bout goin back for a hike, and I was gonna do it on my muni, I was wondering if i could uni down it, so tell me if you win

[pyairot]

In Paris they get the same problem, or they stop ridding uni in the metro or they walk with their uni on hand.

No more rider in paris' metro !

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The reason for the no bicycling is because of trail erosion. Wheels do damage trails. Regardless of whether a unicycle is legally a bicycle or not a judge could easily rule that the intent of the law was still violated.

If you did beat the ticket they'd undoubtedly change the signs to say "No cycling" and regardless of what other people on this forum have tried to argue a unicycle is a cycle.

The only thing that fighting the ticket will do is get the definition of bicycle changed.

The smart ass defense is really not worth your time.

[kington99]

I would argue that the erosion from a unicycle is considerably less than from a bike, because if you slide or lock the whell you're going to be flat on your arse in a few fractions of a seconds, you can't fly down and the lock the brakes and rip the trails to shreds. Also from a safety point of view, unis don't go nearly as fast as bikes, a runner could almost certainly overtake you on that sort of terrain but they certainly wouldn't pick up a ticket.

However, i have no idea whether you would win or not, the concept of a cycling ticket doesn't exist in the UK and i'm not at all au fait with American law. While you might feel vindicated in your victory, I agree with thisguyiknow that in the long term it won't change much.

[Chris.James]

Originally Posted by ThisGuyIKnow

The reason for the no bicycling is because of trail erosion. Wheels do damage trails. Regardless of whether a unicycle is legally a bicycle or not a judge could easily rule that the intent of the law was still violated.

If you did beat the ticket they'd undoubtedly change the signs to say "No cycling" and regardless of what other people on this forum have tried to argue a unicycle is a cycle.

The only thing that fighting the ticket will do is get the definition of bicycle changed.

The smart ass defense is really not worth your time.

exactly, it wont save you any money even if you win, and they can easily change the sign if you win.

[fuolornis]

For CA riders, a unicycle isn't a bicycle unless it's powered by a chain. So giraffes are bicycles, but, say, shlumpf geared cycles aren't, apparently. Normal unis definitely aren't.