Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Road Rage at Bikes Not Bombs
The ongoing Bikes Not Bombs demonstrations, which occur every business day in San Francisco, suffered a second day in a row with a major incident when road rage erupted toward the end of the Tuesday, April 8, 2003 ride. The day before, police issued twelve false citations.
[PHOTO above: results of a day of motor vehicle assault, lots of license plate information on arm ("massertats").
Dateline: San Francisco, California, April 8, 2003
The ongoing Bikes Not Bombs demonstrations, which occur every business day in San Francisco, suffered a second day in a row with a major incident when road rage erupted toward the end of the Tuesday, April 8, 2003 ride. The day before, police issued twelve false citations.
It had been another positive, peaceful, rewarding Bikes Not Bombs ride on a beautiful day in San Francisco, not a cloud in the clear blue sky as bicyclists brought their message of peace through personal responsibility by reducing oil dependence to the streets. Occupying only the right-hand lane and allowing buses and trains to pass, the riders enjoyed a great deal of positive support as they chanted, "Bikes Not Bombs! Stop the War!"
When passing by groups of people, the chant was tailored to appreciate them personally. At bus stops it was, "Busses not bombs!" At the chess games along Market Street, it was, "Chess not Bombs!" And a very special chant erupted at Civic Center where Food Not Bombs was serving, with each group calling the others' name out in succession, as a sign of joyous solidarity. The ride was so upbeat that some began suggesting a day when the group would ride in silence, with only black arm bands. Another said he hoped for the day when one of the mass marches were totally silent in respect for the gravity of the tragedy of the war.
The group turned right off Market onto Van Ness, which they followed past City Hall and all the way to its end, receiving cheers and honkity-honks of support even from some SUV and other truck drivers along the way. Some riders hoped to travel along North Beach and show the tourists an important sight, rare in most parts of this country: bicyclists en masse, calling for peace and sanity in the world.
They never made it there.
After a harrowing ride in the Broadway tunnel, in which the driver of cab 236 assaulted the group by driving at high speed towards them and then slamming on brakes, skidding in a cloud of smoke nearly into a woman riding at the rear of the group, it only got worse. Just before Stockton on Broadway, an irate woman suffering a clear case of road rage began illegally tailgaiting the small group (now only about 7 riders) in the right-hand lane. The bicyclists were legally occupying the lane under CVC 21202(a). There was plenty of room to go around, and traffic was otherwise fairly light. The woman laid on her horn almost constantly, another violation of the Vehicle Code. After so expressing her anger and intent, she rammed a cyclist, crushing his rear wheel and forcing him to go over the front of the bike, hurting his leg. She was driving a large mercury-colored Mercedes Benz SUV. She commiteed the crime in front of 777 Broadway at approximately 7:07 PM.
The driver began calling 9-11. A legal observer also called 9-11 and explained the situation to police.
A number of officers arrived and as is to be expected from the SFPD, they showed outrageous bias and lack of awareness of bicyclists' rights. They ordered the bicyclists to the sidewalk, while discussing the situation privately with the woman who perpetrated the assault and battery. They moved the bicycle from the road under her bumper, where it had become stuck after the collision, before they photograph the womans' vehicle, thus tampering with evidence. They refused to arrest or even cite the driver, even after the victim said, "I insist upon a citizen's arrest of this driver." They claimed the crash was an "accident" despite the obvious evidence that it was an assault and battery.
The police claimed that in a non-injury crash, they do not make a report, despite the damage done and the pain the victim suffered.
Police seemed to take it personally that the bicyclists were against the war, officer O.J. Bueno # 141stating "Hallinan is dismissing all these charges from the protests because there's two sides to the story," in response to a question as to why the police would not help the victim.
On a positive note, a fire truck cruised by to see if everyone was okay, bicyclists on the sidewalk held up the peace sign and one of the firefighters, held up a solemn and steady peace sign in response, a beautiful sight.
Officer J. Heredia, #70, claimed that "a bicycle is a motor vehicle", which is why it was "an accident". He stated that otherwise, they would have to investigate every motor vehicle collission as an assault or attempted murder. Of interest, a study by Right of Way in New York City, comparing thousands of cases, found that around 90% of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities involved aggressive driving. The police are in denial about the problem. http://www.rightofway.org/
When the victim began insisting upon pressing charges to officer 1871, a white female, she said "You don't have the right to a citizen's arrest" and the police then hurried away the DPT employee who had witessed the crash, before the victim could get his contact information. Other witnesses were not able to get his information, however the attacker, with full roam of the roadway, did get to exchange contact information.
In fact, my understanding is that police are required to execute an arrest when a citizen so orders it, in part due to the authority of Penal Code section 142 and 837:
142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or
arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses
to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the
state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both
that fine and imprisonment. [truncated]
837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. [truncated]
When this legal observer continued to object to the behavior of police and their lack of fairness and lack of knowledge of policy and procedure, police made an issue of that and over the course of 40 or so minutes, after demanding to know if I were a lawyer (and being told I was a law student), they repeatedly claimed that I would not make a good lawyer and that I needed to go study for ten more years, amongst other things. Meanwhile they made outrageously false and biased statements and failed to protect the rights of the bicyclist.
Another officer stated that the sitation was "not a citizen's arrest" because if it were assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, then the officers could simply arrest once they determined there was evidence the crime occurred. Yet they refused to interview the witnesses who knew this to be true.
Officers asked the driver if she would pay for the wheel on the spot, which some witnesses thought would be the most expedient way to handle the situation, and she shook her head no. Other officers on the scene included #111, #4210 (male), and #27 (white female, brown hair). It was not possible to get more information about these officers given their separation from witnesses and legal observers who had been ordered to stay on the curb, abrogating their right to observe from a safe distance.
Officer O.J. Bueno spent at least 15 minutes perusing the vehicle code with the attacker beside her vehicle. Said vehicle, by the way, remained stopped in the travel lane for over 30 minutes as a result of the assault and battery, blocking the traffic that she was still claiming the bicyclists, who are traffic, were impeding. Yet she wasn't cited for that result, either, illustrating the great hypocrisy in the metering of "justice" against bicyclists. Bueno later explained that he was trying to help her find any reason why the bicyclists were not allowed to ride as she alleged they had been. While he admitted that she was in the wrong for striking the bicyclist from behind, he failed to understand that the bicyclists were simply travelling normally under the law, and seemed at times to use that as justification for the incident.
Despite a repeated reading of CVC 21202, the officers still refused to admit that the bicyclist had the right to be occupying the the right lane even when I pointed out that the lane was substandard width. The lane is in fact exactly nine feet, the smallest possible width allowable for a travel lane! Clearly it is substandard width.
When I told the police that the police had been directed officially to recognize that right, they again chided my lack of legal ability, disbelieving me.
In fact, here is the resolution of the SF Supervisors, adopted in January 2000. It is right on point.
~ ~ ~
URGING CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO
ENSURE EQUAL TREATMENT OF BICYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC
INCIDENTS.
WHEREAS, Bicycling is a growing form of transportation in San Francisco;
and,
WHEREAS, Bicycle use is considered beneficial to the City, as the
Transportation Element of the City and County of San Francisco's Master
Plan states: "Active encouragement of bicycle use as an alternative to
automobile use, whenever possible, is essential in light of the
continually increasing traffic congestion caused by motorized vehicles
which aggravates air pollution, increases noise levels and consumes
valuable urban space;" and,
WHEREAS, Bicyclists and others using non-motorized modes of transportation
are entitled to equal protection under the law; and,
WHEREAS, Both bicyclists and motorists are required to obey traffic
signals, respect rights of way, and operate their vehicles in a safe
manner; and,
WHEREAS, According to the City's Master Plan: "Traffic enforcement should
extend to protection of bicyclists' rights-of-way which are often violated
by motorists;" now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the San
Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to examine it General Orders and
programs in order to ensure equal treatment of bicyclists and motorists in
upholding the law, and urges the San Francisco District Attorney's Office
to examine its current policies in order to ensure fairness to bicyclists
and motorists in prosecuting criminal cases; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the SFPD to develop
a bicycle and pedestrian component of its training program for new cadets
and continuing education for officers to ensure their understanding of the
laws pertaining to cyclists and pedestrians; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the SFPD and District Attorney track the number of
injuries to bicyclists in traffic incidents as reported to the Department
of Public Health during the next six months, as well as the number of
criminal charges filed as the result of traffic incidents involving
injured bicyclists (including doorings, hit-and-run incidents, and
vehicular assaults) during those same six months, and report back to the
Board of Supervisors on the advancement of the cases; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That deliberate physical harassment of bicyclists or
pedestrians by motor vehicles be recognized and treated legitimately as
assault with a deadly weapon.
~ ~ ~
The 12 false citations which were issued the day before are discussed at Sf IMC story, http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1596872.php
See also the Bikes Not Bombs website, http://www.bikesnotbombs.net/
One final note: in 2001, there were 236 formal complaints about taxicabs (http://www.sfmuni.com/rid/pcc/pc010808.htm). A funny coincidence that cab 236 was the first motor vehicle to assault the group on Broadway.
Dateline: San Francisco, California, April 8, 2003
The ongoing Bikes Not Bombs demonstrations, which occur every business day in San Francisco, suffered a second day in a row with a major incident when road rage erupted toward the end of the Tuesday, April 8, 2003 ride. The day before, police issued twelve false citations.
It had been another positive, peaceful, rewarding Bikes Not Bombs ride on a beautiful day in San Francisco, not a cloud in the clear blue sky as bicyclists brought their message of peace through personal responsibility by reducing oil dependence to the streets. Occupying only the right-hand lane and allowing buses and trains to pass, the riders enjoyed a great deal of positive support as they chanted, "Bikes Not Bombs! Stop the War!"
When passing by groups of people, the chant was tailored to appreciate them personally. At bus stops it was, "Busses not bombs!" At the chess games along Market Street, it was, "Chess not Bombs!" And a very special chant erupted at Civic Center where Food Not Bombs was serving, with each group calling the others' name out in succession, as a sign of joyous solidarity. The ride was so upbeat that some began suggesting a day when the group would ride in silence, with only black arm bands. Another said he hoped for the day when one of the mass marches were totally silent in respect for the gravity of the tragedy of the war.
The group turned right off Market onto Van Ness, which they followed past City Hall and all the way to its end, receiving cheers and honkity-honks of support even from some SUV and other truck drivers along the way. Some riders hoped to travel along North Beach and show the tourists an important sight, rare in most parts of this country: bicyclists en masse, calling for peace and sanity in the world.
They never made it there.
After a harrowing ride in the Broadway tunnel, in which the driver of cab 236 assaulted the group by driving at high speed towards them and then slamming on brakes, skidding in a cloud of smoke nearly into a woman riding at the rear of the group, it only got worse. Just before Stockton on Broadway, an irate woman suffering a clear case of road rage began illegally tailgaiting the small group (now only about 7 riders) in the right-hand lane. The bicyclists were legally occupying the lane under CVC 21202(a). There was plenty of room to go around, and traffic was otherwise fairly light. The woman laid on her horn almost constantly, another violation of the Vehicle Code. After so expressing her anger and intent, she rammed a cyclist, crushing his rear wheel and forcing him to go over the front of the bike, hurting his leg. She was driving a large mercury-colored Mercedes Benz SUV. She commiteed the crime in front of 777 Broadway at approximately 7:07 PM.
The driver began calling 9-11. A legal observer also called 9-11 and explained the situation to police.
A number of officers arrived and as is to be expected from the SFPD, they showed outrageous bias and lack of awareness of bicyclists' rights. They ordered the bicyclists to the sidewalk, while discussing the situation privately with the woman who perpetrated the assault and battery. They moved the bicycle from the road under her bumper, where it had become stuck after the collision, before they photograph the womans' vehicle, thus tampering with evidence. They refused to arrest or even cite the driver, even after the victim said, "I insist upon a citizen's arrest of this driver." They claimed the crash was an "accident" despite the obvious evidence that it was an assault and battery.
The police claimed that in a non-injury crash, they do not make a report, despite the damage done and the pain the victim suffered.
Police seemed to take it personally that the bicyclists were against the war, officer O.J. Bueno # 141stating "Hallinan is dismissing all these charges from the protests because there's two sides to the story," in response to a question as to why the police would not help the victim.
On a positive note, a fire truck cruised by to see if everyone was okay, bicyclists on the sidewalk held up the peace sign and one of the firefighters, held up a solemn and steady peace sign in response, a beautiful sight.
Officer J. Heredia, #70, claimed that "a bicycle is a motor vehicle", which is why it was "an accident". He stated that otherwise, they would have to investigate every motor vehicle collission as an assault or attempted murder. Of interest, a study by Right of Way in New York City, comparing thousands of cases, found that around 90% of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities involved aggressive driving. The police are in denial about the problem. http://www.rightofway.org/
When the victim began insisting upon pressing charges to officer 1871, a white female, she said "You don't have the right to a citizen's arrest" and the police then hurried away the DPT employee who had witessed the crash, before the victim could get his contact information. Other witnesses were not able to get his information, however the attacker, with full roam of the roadway, did get to exchange contact information.
In fact, my understanding is that police are required to execute an arrest when a citizen so orders it, in part due to the authority of Penal Code section 142 and 837:
142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or
arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses
to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the
state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both
that fine and imprisonment. [truncated]
837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. [truncated]
When this legal observer continued to object to the behavior of police and their lack of fairness and lack of knowledge of policy and procedure, police made an issue of that and over the course of 40 or so minutes, after demanding to know if I were a lawyer (and being told I was a law student), they repeatedly claimed that I would not make a good lawyer and that I needed to go study for ten more years, amongst other things. Meanwhile they made outrageously false and biased statements and failed to protect the rights of the bicyclist.
Another officer stated that the sitation was "not a citizen's arrest" because if it were assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, then the officers could simply arrest once they determined there was evidence the crime occurred. Yet they refused to interview the witnesses who knew this to be true.
Officers asked the driver if she would pay for the wheel on the spot, which some witnesses thought would be the most expedient way to handle the situation, and she shook her head no. Other officers on the scene included #111, #4210 (male), and #27 (white female, brown hair). It was not possible to get more information about these officers given their separation from witnesses and legal observers who had been ordered to stay on the curb, abrogating their right to observe from a safe distance.
Officer O.J. Bueno spent at least 15 minutes perusing the vehicle code with the attacker beside her vehicle. Said vehicle, by the way, remained stopped in the travel lane for over 30 minutes as a result of the assault and battery, blocking the traffic that she was still claiming the bicyclists, who are traffic, were impeding. Yet she wasn't cited for that result, either, illustrating the great hypocrisy in the metering of "justice" against bicyclists. Bueno later explained that he was trying to help her find any reason why the bicyclists were not allowed to ride as she alleged they had been. While he admitted that she was in the wrong for striking the bicyclist from behind, he failed to understand that the bicyclists were simply travelling normally under the law, and seemed at times to use that as justification for the incident.
Despite a repeated reading of CVC 21202, the officers still refused to admit that the bicyclist had the right to be occupying the the right lane even when I pointed out that the lane was substandard width. The lane is in fact exactly nine feet, the smallest possible width allowable for a travel lane! Clearly it is substandard width.
When I told the police that the police had been directed officially to recognize that right, they again chided my lack of legal ability, disbelieving me.
In fact, here is the resolution of the SF Supervisors, adopted in January 2000. It is right on point.
~ ~ ~
URGING CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO
ENSURE EQUAL TREATMENT OF BICYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC
INCIDENTS.
WHEREAS, Bicycling is a growing form of transportation in San Francisco;
and,
WHEREAS, Bicycle use is considered beneficial to the City, as the
Transportation Element of the City and County of San Francisco's Master
Plan states: "Active encouragement of bicycle use as an alternative to
automobile use, whenever possible, is essential in light of the
continually increasing traffic congestion caused by motorized vehicles
which aggravates air pollution, increases noise levels and consumes
valuable urban space;" and,
WHEREAS, Bicyclists and others using non-motorized modes of transportation
are entitled to equal protection under the law; and,
WHEREAS, Both bicyclists and motorists are required to obey traffic
signals, respect rights of way, and operate their vehicles in a safe
manner; and,
WHEREAS, According to the City's Master Plan: "Traffic enforcement should
extend to protection of bicyclists' rights-of-way which are often violated
by motorists;" now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the San
Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to examine it General Orders and
programs in order to ensure equal treatment of bicyclists and motorists in
upholding the law, and urges the San Francisco District Attorney's Office
to examine its current policies in order to ensure fairness to bicyclists
and motorists in prosecuting criminal cases; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the SFPD to develop
a bicycle and pedestrian component of its training program for new cadets
and continuing education for officers to ensure their understanding of the
laws pertaining to cyclists and pedestrians; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the SFPD and District Attorney track the number of
injuries to bicyclists in traffic incidents as reported to the Department
of Public Health during the next six months, as well as the number of
criminal charges filed as the result of traffic incidents involving
injured bicyclists (including doorings, hit-and-run incidents, and
vehicular assaults) during those same six months, and report back to the
Board of Supervisors on the advancement of the cases; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That deliberate physical harassment of bicyclists or
pedestrians by motor vehicles be recognized and treated legitimately as
assault with a deadly weapon.
~ ~ ~
The 12 false citations which were issued the day before are discussed at Sf IMC story, http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1596872.php
See also the Bikes Not Bombs website, http://www.bikesnotbombs.net/
One final note: in 2001, there were 236 formal complaints about taxicabs (http://www.sfmuni.com/rid/pcc/pc010808.htm). A funny coincidence that cab 236 was the first motor vehicle to assault the group on Broadway.
For more information:
http://www.bikesnotbombs.net/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Please take the time when this kind of thing happens to file a complaint with the Office of Citizens Complaints. We need a paper trail to hold these officers accountable for their ignorance of the law that they are paid by us to enforce.
Here is the link to the office webpage.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/occ_index.asp
If the cops won't do anything--and don't hold your breath--this sounds like a perfect case for small claims court. The driver can be sued for any damages to the bike or clothing, medical bills, lost work time (due to stress and fear or continuing leg pain after being hit), and "pain and suffering" (the rider must certainly be having night mares and sleeping difficulty, no?). The maximum amount in California is $5000.
I've used small claims before, and it really is the closest thing we have to a people's court. It's easy, inexpensive and generally quite informal compared to criminal court rooms.
The real beauty is that neither side can have lawyers present (you can talk to them and get advice beforehand, of course), so it's far less worrisome if your adversary is rich.
http://www.nolo.com has a great do-it-yourself book on it, something like "Everybody's Guide To Small Claims Court In California." Lays it all out in simple terms.
Small claims is an option protesters should use much more often in cases like this.
Don't be intimidated! Go for it!
I've used small claims before, and it really is the closest thing we have to a people's court. It's easy, inexpensive and generally quite informal compared to criminal court rooms.
The real beauty is that neither side can have lawyers present (you can talk to them and get advice beforehand, of course), so it's far less worrisome if your adversary is rich.
http://www.nolo.com has a great do-it-yourself book on it, something like "Everybody's Guide To Small Claims Court In California." Lays it all out in simple terms.
Small claims is an option protesters should use much more often in cases like this.
Don't be intimidated! Go for it!
that suxs...
keep riding bicyclists!!
keep riding bicyclists!!
Since I was intitiated as a police activist on Monday at the docks, I am going to start harassing the police whenever this stuff happens. Right now I'm going to call the SFPD and ask them to investigate this as vehicular assault per the Board's resolution.
Thank you very much for your informative posting. Law students rule. Is there a public training on bicycle law and cyclists' rights similar to the civil disobedience trainings? I'm not talking about the bicycle safety courses offered by the police, of course.
Here's what I wrote to the Office of Citizen Complaints. I think it's a good idea to pursue these incidents so that they don't become more frequent. If you'd like to send a note to the OCC, go to
http://www.sfgov.org/site/mainpages_index.asp?id=40
My letter:
I am writing in reference to an incident that took place yesterday in the Broadway Tunnel in San Francisco. While I was not present for the incident, the details I have heard have made me concerned about the police's behavior.
My understanding is that a driver charged the rear of a small group of bicyclists and hit one from behind, causing the bicycle to be wedged under the bumper and the bicyclist to fly over the handlebars. The bicyclist was hurt, though not seriously injured. The driver called 911 and the police who arrived classified the incident as a traffic accident and proceeded as such, not interviewing all available witnesses and moving the bicycle from under the car before photographing the scene.
I believe this is a violation of the Board of Supervisors' January 2000 resolution instructing SFPD to investigate such incidents as vehicular assault rather than traffic accidents. I am concerned that when such incidents are not prosecuted correctly, a climate is created which endangers both the rights and the lives of cyclists in San Francisco.
Please investigate this incident and ensure that SFPD fulfills its obligations to protect both motorists and cyclists who use the roadways of San Francisco.
I was a part of the mini BNB ride yesterday. I was there in the aftermath of the accident. I have a few things to add to Jason's account to complete the picture.
First of all, thanks Jason for being so thorough and for asking questions, daring the cops to think outside the box, provoking dialogue between both parties, and for being so calm even while being personally insulted by the cops.
Some things to add:
1. The reason the cops took the bike away and took a picture without it is because we took the bike away initially and the driver told them that (of course), and although we put it back to offer perspective, this action invalidated alot for us. LESSON: Leave everything as is after an accident and/or at a crime scene.
2. I keep thinking about the driver's comment after the hit. She got out of her thingy-mobile and said, "I just lost my brother over there." Was Geronimo (the bicylist victim in this case) a victim of grievers road-rage? I think so.....I am not in any way justifying her actions. I'm asking us all to take under consideration what's going on out there in the American psyche, and it will, in fact, affect us. The cops should have taken this under consideration but in fact told me this wasn't a case of Road Rage! What!! Honking behind someone over and over again and tailing them when they're obviously slowing down for a red light!
3. Now about that tunnel ride. I haven't decided if our tunnel ride would have made a difference or prevented Geronimo's fall. If we were all in the right lane and allowed the cars to go around us, would she have been less angry. My instincts, honestly, tell me no. If fate had it that she was still behind Geronimo, I truely believe she would have acted the same way.
But the tunnel ride.....at the beginning of the ride we talked about sticking to the right side, sticking together, and since some had a previous night's ride full of cop interaction and citations, to avoid further citations, etcs. But in the tunnel, I being on the far right side, we (as a group) were spread out AND spread out unproductively. There were gaps in the block where at times, if a driver wanted to, cars could wiggle in between us if they were bold enough. I looked back a few times and to tell you the truth, I was really nervous about my safety and felt unprotected by my peers. Or maybe I too could have done something differently....anyway, we were definately not in the proper formation for effectively blocking or even just riding together.
I just wanted to point this out. I think we need to ride as a group WITH one another, especially if we're attempting something soooo sticky.
Jason's account of the cop biases and legal skipping that occured I second motion. I won't repeat it all.
That's all. I'm still decompressing myself. Trying to avoid future tunnel-phobia.
I just hope all these interactions don't stop people from BNBing. It's an incredible daily protest full of lessons, changes and inspiration. The six of us were headed for the water ( I was anyway) and the sun was coming down like a fuzzy smile.
ml
First of all, thanks Jason for being so thorough and for asking questions, daring the cops to think outside the box, provoking dialogue between both parties, and for being so calm even while being personally insulted by the cops.
Some things to add:
1. The reason the cops took the bike away and took a picture without it is because we took the bike away initially and the driver told them that (of course), and although we put it back to offer perspective, this action invalidated alot for us. LESSON: Leave everything as is after an accident and/or at a crime scene.
2. I keep thinking about the driver's comment after the hit. She got out of her thingy-mobile and said, "I just lost my brother over there." Was Geronimo (the bicylist victim in this case) a victim of grievers road-rage? I think so.....I am not in any way justifying her actions. I'm asking us all to take under consideration what's going on out there in the American psyche, and it will, in fact, affect us. The cops should have taken this under consideration but in fact told me this wasn't a case of Road Rage! What!! Honking behind someone over and over again and tailing them when they're obviously slowing down for a red light!
3. Now about that tunnel ride. I haven't decided if our tunnel ride would have made a difference or prevented Geronimo's fall. If we were all in the right lane and allowed the cars to go around us, would she have been less angry. My instincts, honestly, tell me no. If fate had it that she was still behind Geronimo, I truely believe she would have acted the same way.
But the tunnel ride.....at the beginning of the ride we talked about sticking to the right side, sticking together, and since some had a previous night's ride full of cop interaction and citations, to avoid further citations, etcs. But in the tunnel, I being on the far right side, we (as a group) were spread out AND spread out unproductively. There were gaps in the block where at times, if a driver wanted to, cars could wiggle in between us if they were bold enough. I looked back a few times and to tell you the truth, I was really nervous about my safety and felt unprotected by my peers. Or maybe I too could have done something differently....anyway, we were definately not in the proper formation for effectively blocking or even just riding together.
I just wanted to point this out. I think we need to ride as a group WITH one another, especially if we're attempting something soooo sticky.
Jason's account of the cop biases and legal skipping that occured I second motion. I won't repeat it all.
That's all. I'm still decompressing myself. Trying to avoid future tunnel-phobia.
I just hope all these interactions don't stop people from BNBing. It's an incredible daily protest full of lessons, changes and inspiration. The six of us were headed for the water ( I was anyway) and the sun was coming down like a fuzzy smile.
ml
if the woman made the 'just lost my brother over there' remark, she ought to be tried for attempted murder, plain and simple.
what was that drivers license plate number?
"Is there a public training on bicycle law and cyclists' rights similar to the civil disobedience trainings? I'm not talking about the bicycle safety courses offered by the police, of course."
Well, coming to Bikes Not Bombs is a good way to get an education, but workshops like that are an excellent idea and would give a much broader base of information than we typically cover before a ride (and sometimes nothing is gone over). For most rides there have been people present familiar with our rights and demonstrations, who talk about some of the possible contingencies.
There's also a "Bike Rights Package" at this address:
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/bike_rights_flyer.html
More replies...
"The reason the cops took the bike away and took a picture without it is because we took the bike away initially and the driver told them that (of course), and although we put it back to offer perspective, this action invalidated alot for us."
I fully agree that moving it was a mistake. There are bicyclists who will tell you that they stayed on the hood of a car after it hit them for 15 minutes until an ambulance came. If you want to seriously deal with a crash, get medical attention and a medical as well as police report. There are so many cases of bicyclists thinking they're fine, trying to rush off, and ending up out of commission. Not long ago a cyclist was hit in Berkeley, left the scene saying he was fine, and he died the next day. But I disagree that moving the bike invalidated it. The police listened to the driver and moved the bicycle, they were basically acting as her servants throughout. They could at least have photographed the black mark on the bumper where she hit his tire. The reason that the bike was moved is that especially one of the riders was very agitated about not leaving anything including her car in the street. Imagine that, the alleged "traffic blockers" so worried about blocking a lane of traffic. I think it was a witness who moved it, not the owner even, or at least he was strongly urging that it be moved.
"I just lost my brother over there." That may be true. But having dealt with a lot of wealthy, privileged people, I'm familiar with the tendency to make things up to justify their spoiled tantrums and other selfish behavior. The more I think about it, the more I disbelieve that this violent and otherwise calm-headed, very wealthy woman, does not have a brother over fighting in Iraq. Wealthy people usually avoid the military at all costs.
"what was that drivers license plate number?"
That was deliberately not posted so no one would accuse us of encouraging people to attack her. You know, the bias and all. Maybe that's a mistake. Maybe there should be an effort to publicize violent motorists as much as possible.
Well, coming to Bikes Not Bombs is a good way to get an education, but workshops like that are an excellent idea and would give a much broader base of information than we typically cover before a ride (and sometimes nothing is gone over). For most rides there have been people present familiar with our rights and demonstrations, who talk about some of the possible contingencies.
There's also a "Bike Rights Package" at this address:
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/bike_rights_flyer.html
More replies...
"The reason the cops took the bike away and took a picture without it is because we took the bike away initially and the driver told them that (of course), and although we put it back to offer perspective, this action invalidated alot for us."
I fully agree that moving it was a mistake. There are bicyclists who will tell you that they stayed on the hood of a car after it hit them for 15 minutes until an ambulance came. If you want to seriously deal with a crash, get medical attention and a medical as well as police report. There are so many cases of bicyclists thinking they're fine, trying to rush off, and ending up out of commission. Not long ago a cyclist was hit in Berkeley, left the scene saying he was fine, and he died the next day. But I disagree that moving the bike invalidated it. The police listened to the driver and moved the bicycle, they were basically acting as her servants throughout. They could at least have photographed the black mark on the bumper where she hit his tire. The reason that the bike was moved is that especially one of the riders was very agitated about not leaving anything including her car in the street. Imagine that, the alleged "traffic blockers" so worried about blocking a lane of traffic. I think it was a witness who moved it, not the owner even, or at least he was strongly urging that it be moved.
"I just lost my brother over there." That may be true. But having dealt with a lot of wealthy, privileged people, I'm familiar with the tendency to make things up to justify their spoiled tantrums and other selfish behavior. The more I think about it, the more I disbelieve that this violent and otherwise calm-headed, very wealthy woman, does not have a brother over fighting in Iraq. Wealthy people usually avoid the military at all costs.
"what was that drivers license plate number?"
That was deliberately not posted so no one would accuse us of encouraging people to attack her. You know, the bias and all. Maybe that's a mistake. Maybe there should be an effort to publicize violent motorists as much as possible.
"The more I think about it, the more I disbelieve that this violent and otherwise calm-headed, very wealthy woman, does not have a brother over fighting in Iraq."
Of course I meant I am have begun to disbelieve that she actually had any family members in Iraq. I accidentally misconstructed that sentence to have a double-negative. Sorry.
It's possible she did, I don't want to discount that, but what easier way to get sympathy and justify her inexcusable road rage than to make up such a story? Maybe she thought she was doing it for someone, somewhere who had lost someone.
Do grieving people usually lash out in violence? The days after 9-11 were some of the most peaceful traffic days I have experienced for the place and time of year. Everyone's different, but still. Of course thanks to Government propaganda about the incredibly convenient and suspicous 9-11 incident, the flames of hatred have been fanned and traffic got a lot worse.
Two wars already for supposedly fighting terrorism. What hypocrisy.
Of course I meant I am have begun to disbelieve that she actually had any family members in Iraq. I accidentally misconstructed that sentence to have a double-negative. Sorry.
It's possible she did, I don't want to discount that, but what easier way to get sympathy and justify her inexcusable road rage than to make up such a story? Maybe she thought she was doing it for someone, somewhere who had lost someone.
Do grieving people usually lash out in violence? The days after 9-11 were some of the most peaceful traffic days I have experienced for the place and time of year. Everyone's different, but still. Of course thanks to Government propaganda about the incredibly convenient and suspicous 9-11 incident, the flames of hatred have been fanned and traffic got a lot worse.
Two wars already for supposedly fighting terrorism. What hypocrisy.
Before you start calling youself an "Activist", you should probably read the Law and become more familar with SFPD General Orders.
A bike is considered a vehicle when on the roadway.
Therefore it is considered an "Accident."
The Law and GO's have changed, the police are no longer required to accept a clearly fraudulent "Citizens Arrest".
Biased involved "witnesses" do not carry much weight.
Pictures are not taken by SFPD at minor accidents, in fact no report is even taken. It is up to you to take your own pictures and gather your own witnesses. (keep in mind the Court feels the sameway about involved witnesses).
Lastly Margaret, you lose all credibility (even to OCC) when you start rambling on about things to which you know nothing about.
Just a little note to help you save time.
A bike is considered a vehicle when on the roadway.
Therefore it is considered an "Accident."
The Law and GO's have changed, the police are no longer required to accept a clearly fraudulent "Citizens Arrest".
Biased involved "witnesses" do not carry much weight.
Pictures are not taken by SFPD at minor accidents, in fact no report is even taken. It is up to you to take your own pictures and gather your own witnesses. (keep in mind the Court feels the sameway about involved witnesses).
Lastly Margaret, you lose all credibility (even to OCC) when you start rambling on about things to which you know nothing about.
Just a little note to help you save time.
City Supervisors "Resolutions" do not govern SFPD Officers, the GO's do.
OCC does not investigate violations of City "Resolutuions". Their authority (lack of a better word) to invesigate is very limited. I'm sure they will tell you, if not look at their webpage. Violations of "Resolutions" is not one of them, there is nothing they can do about that.
Lastly just so you know. it is the DA's job to "prosecute", not the SFPD.
Again, I enjoy a formidable opponent, just getting you up to speed so you can ask the real difficult questions.
OCC does not investigate violations of City "Resolutuions". Their authority (lack of a better word) to invesigate is very limited. I'm sure they will tell you, if not look at their webpage. Violations of "Resolutions" is not one of them, there is nothing they can do about that.
Lastly just so you know. it is the DA's job to "prosecute", not the SFPD.
Again, I enjoy a formidable opponent, just getting you up to speed so you can ask the real difficult questions.
The monthly Sacramento Critical Mass bicycle celebration was again preyed upon by police misconduct, harassment, and false citations, culminating in the violent arrest and injury of a young mother who witnesses say simply asked a question.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1597708.php?theme=1
(photos and story).
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1597708.php?theme=1
(photos and story).
For more information:
http://www.bikesnotbombs.net/
Still there?
I have gottern nowhere with this case, it appears closed.
SFPD will not investigate, stated it is "Closed."
OCC says they do not investigate this "Type" of incident.
And the DA's Office says they are unaware of this case.
Oh well...I tried....
SFPD will not investigate, stated it is "Closed."
OCC says they do not investigate this "Type" of incident.
And the DA's Office says they are unaware of this case.
Oh well...I tried....
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$470.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network