[Fwd: [elist] Bill Bliss - Officer Convicted]

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Alex Potter <[email protected]> writes:

> If, in California, a bicycle is defined as "not a vehicle", how does
> whoever decided that it was not justify that apparent contradiction?

Well, in British Columbia bicycles are similarly not legally considered
to be vehicles, but cyclists are deemed to have the same rights &
responsibilities as operators of vehicles.

It can actually be somewhat liberating -- there may be places where
"vehicles" aren't allowed, but bicycles are not expressly prohibited.
Although the only local (to Vancouver) such place I can think of
right now is the Jericho Park wharf, and that's no big deal.


cheers,
Tom

--
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Bob]

Mark in Maine wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:29:37 GMT, Dan Connelly
> <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
>
> >
> >In contast, in CA:
> >http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000&file=100-680
> >670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
> >propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
> >exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
> >or tracks.
>
> As I read this, if I am riding my bike in CA, and I want to be
> considered a vehicle, all I have to do is grab the side view mirror of
> a car for a short time so that my vehicle is not moved EXCLUSIVELY by
> human power.

I guess technically you *could* do that but then of course you'd be
subject to a citation for the CA equivalent of "illegal combination of
vehicles". Sometimes you just can't win, you know? ;-)

> Perhaps drafting behind a UPS truck would meet the legal requirement?

Or freewheeling downhill? No, this is getting way too metaphysical now.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[peter]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Alex Potter <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > If, in California, a bicycle is defined as "not a vehicle", how does
> > whoever decided that it was not justify that apparent contradiction?
>
> Well, in British Columbia bicycles are similarly not legally considered
> to be vehicles, but cyclists are deemed to have the same rights &
> responsibilities as operators of vehicles.

Yes, the same is true in the California Vehicle Code.
>
> It can actually be somewhat liberating -- there may be places where
> "vehicles" aren't allowed, but bicycles are not expressly prohibited.
> Although the only local (to Vancouver) such place I can think of
> right now is the Jericho Park wharf, and that's no big deal.

There are some additional advantages. A paceline of 'vehicles' would
be prohibited by the section on following too close behind another
vehicle, but a paceline of cyclists is not covered under that rule.
There are also restrictions on competition or tests of speed involving
vehicles which could technically prohibit even things like an informal
sprint for the county-line sign or trying to beat your personal best
time up Mt. Diablo if the bicycle were classified as a vehicle.

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You misunderstand. She was defeated not by the absence of immediate
> > action, but by the cop's statement that no action was appropriate. She
> > was NOT asked if she would testify. She was told, in essense, that the
> > motorist was allowed to hit her - that in the cop's opinion, there was
> > no law against it.
>
> As I've already said, the cop was wrong so I'm not sure what you
> believe I misunderstood.

You indicated that she may have given the cop reason to believe she
wouldn't testify. That was _not_ the case, at least according to what
she told me. She was not disinterested; she _did_ personally chew out
the driver, then flag down the cop.

She was actively discouraged by the cop. She was _not_ told what you
say: "As long as you are willing to do *your* duty as a complainant-
cooperate fully, tell the absolute truth, and show up to testify- I'll
do my duty." Instead, she was told - or rather, allowed to overhear -
that the motorist was allowed to hit her.

>
> > You are probably tough enough and knowledgeable enough that such a
> > thing wouldn't defeat you. This person is neither - and, in my view,
> > shouldn't be required to be.
>
> I *should* be tall and rich instead of simply goodlooking and charming
> but we're dealing in realities here. That you don't think she "should"
> have to stand up for herself doesn't change the reality that sometimes
> that is exactly what is required.

Again, she and I literally didn't know that. I (perhaps naively)
assumed that only an incompetent cop would judge that this wasn't worth
a ticket. Below*, you give me strong reason to doubt that. And note,
by saying this, I am specifically saying I judge you to be competent.


> > Still, I've done countless favors for this guy, using my professional
> > expertise. He's done favors for me, too, using his hobby skills. But
> > when I asked for something a little more serious, he folded.
>
> Now I'm getting confused. I thought the "easy favor" you asked was for
> him to draw the incident to the attention of the officers' superiors.
> He apparently did that but you are unhappy with the results.

Yes. Here's why. He waited until well over a week had gone by before
making the phone call. I believe that by then, the chief would be
_very_ unlikely to deal with it. In that week, he probably had 25
other things come up. Had my friend called on the day after the
incident, I imagine it could have been brought up in a morning meeting
or something similar, and correct action could have been taken.

And in my admittedly non-professional judgement, I think it's correct
to ticket a driver who hits a cyclist, and incorrect to let him go.


> > > If blame is to be assigned, the real blame lies with your friend
> > > who was the victim for *her* failure to ask that a citation be issued
> > > and, if the officer refused, to contact his superiors herself.
> >
> > This surprises me greatly, to say the least. It's a perfect case of
> > "blame the victim," isn't it?
>
> Hardly, since once again, I've already said the cop was wrong.

You'd better re-read what you wrote, Bob. "If blame is to be assigned,
the real blame lies with your friend who was the victim..." You don't
think that's blaming the victim??? Yes, you may _also_ be blaming the
cop, but read what you said!

> In the
> above context, you were blaming the friend you asked to intercede in
> the matter for not getting the result you desired. I simply pointed out
> that *if you want to blame a friend*, you should blame the one that has
> the most vested interest in the matter but has done nothing. I hope
> that makes my opinion clearer.

If you're trying to say the victim deserves more blame than the friend
who could have influenced the police chief, I'm afraid I still
disagree. She has no experience or knowledge regarding law
enforcement, and she'd been dissuaded and discouraged by the cop's
remark. The other friend is a bona fide expert in law enforcement with
considerable influence.

I do plan to report this exchange to her. I'm sure she's going to be
surpised, as I am, that a cop thinks _she_ had any more responsiblity
in the matter.



* Here's the part I referred to, regarding competence, etc.

> > > I'll go even further and
> > > say that if my boss called me into his office to tell me that he'd
> > > received a complaint about one of my investigations, my first response
> > > would be, "Is a witness in the case complaining that I'm not doing my
> > > job or that I'm violating their rights? No? Then what did you *really*
> > > want to talk to me about?"

As I read that, your attitude toward your boss would be, again,
contentious. (At least, I've spoken to my bosses in that tone only
when they were being particularly stupid.) You also imply that it's
not a mistake unless the victim complains (the only witness, except the
perpetrator). And you imply that's the attitude the non-ticketing
might reasonably display.

You don't write out the rest of your imaginary scene. If it doesn't
include some harsh treatment for a cop dumb enough to let this motorist
off scot-free, then you seem to be excusing his behavior.


> I think I can save us both time in the future, Frank.
>
> 1- When a cop is wrong, he's wrong.
> 2- There are at least two sides to every story.
> 3- People should stand up for themselves.
> 4- Efforts to exert influence behind the scenes are not a particularly
> useful or desirable substitute for #3.

If #3 includes a requirement to stand up _to_ uniformed authority,
which is what you're requiring of my friend the victim, I think that's
excessive.

BTW, I've successfully done exactly that while cycling. (Details on
request.) But I don't think the average person should be blamed for
not doing so. At least, not until it's widely publicized that it may
be necessary.

Too many of us, I'm afraid, retain a naive belief that the system will
actually work.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Dan Connelly]

peter wrote:

> There are some additional advantages. A paceline of 'vehicles' would
> be prohibited by the section on following too close behind another
> vehicle, but a paceline of cyclists is not covered under that rule.

Well, actually this advantage (of which I had been unaware -- the
Stanford cycling club was once told by one of Los Altos' finest that
we WERE tailgating ) is because the law explictly states "motor
vehicle". So it isn't the definition of vehicle itself which is relevent:

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.

> There are also restrictions on competition or tests of speed involving
> vehicles which could technically prohibit even things like an informal
> sprint for the county-line sign or trying to beat your personal best
> time up Mt. Diablo if the bicycle were classified as a vehicle.
>

I can't find this one. Do you know the relevent code section?

Here's the search page:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Dan

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > You misunderstand. She was defeated not by the absence of immediate
> > > action, but by the cop's statement that no action was appropriate. She
> > > was NOT asked if she would testify. She was told, in essense, that the
> > > motorist was allowed to hit her - that in the cop's opinion, there was
> > > no law against it.
> >
> > As I've already said, the cop was wrong so I'm not sure what you
> > believe I misunderstood.
>
> You indicated that she may have given the cop reason to believe she
> wouldn't testify. That was _not_ the case, at least according to what
> she told me. She was not disinterested; she _did_ personally chew out
> the driver, then flag down the cop.

And I've said the cop was wrong. IIRC, the words I used were "moron"
and "inexcusably lazy". What more needs to be said?

> She was actively discouraged by the cop. She was _not_ told what you
> say: "As long as you are willing to do *your* duty as a complainant-
> cooperate fully, tell the absolute truth, and show up to testify- I'll
> do my duty." Instead, she was told - or rather, allowed to overhear -
> that the motorist was allowed to hit her.
>
> >
> > > You are probably tough enough and knowledgeable enough that such a
> > > thing wouldn't defeat you. This person is neither - and, in my view,
> > > shouldn't be required to be.
> >
> > I *should* be tall and rich instead of simply goodlooking and charming
> > but we're dealing in realities here. That you don't think she "should"
> > have to stand up for herself doesn't change the reality that sometimes
> > that is exactly what is required.
>
> Again, she and I literally didn't know that. I (perhaps naively)
> assumed that only an incompetent cop would judge that this wasn't worth
> a ticket. Below*, you give me strong reason to doubt that. And note,
> by saying this, I am specifically saying I judge you to be competent.

I've agreed with your assessment that the cop was wrong, remember? How
you get from that to concluding that I think he acted properly or that
I may have acted similiarly is beyond me.

>
> > > Still, I've done countless favors for this guy, using my professional
> > > expertise. He's done favors for me, too, using his hobby skills. But
> > > when I asked for something a little more serious, he folded.
> >
> > Now I'm getting confused. I thought the "easy favor" you asked was for
> > him to draw the incident to the attention of the officers' superiors.
> > He apparently did that but you are unhappy with the results.
>
> Yes. Here's why. He waited until well over a week had gone by before
> making the phone call. I believe that by then, the chief would be
> _very_ unlikely to deal with it. In that week, he probably had 25
> other things come up. Had my friend called on the day after the
> incident, I imagine it could have been brought up in a morning meeting
> or something similar, and correct action could have been taken.
>
> And in my admittedly non-professional judgement, I think it's correct
> to ticket a driver who hits a cyclist, and incorrect to let him go.
>
>
> > > > If blame is to be assigned, the real blame lies with your friend
> > > > who was the victim for *her* failure to ask that a citation be issued
> > > > and, if the officer refused, to contact his superiors herself.
> > >
> > > This surprises me greatly, to say the least. It's a perfect case of
> > > "blame the victim," isn't it?
> >
> > Hardly, since once again, I've already said the cop was wrong.
>
> You'd better re-read what you wrote, Bob. "If blame is to be assigned,
> the real blame lies with your friend who was the victim..." You don't
> think that's blaming the victim??? Yes, you may _also_ be blaming the
> cop, but read what you said!

No, it's not blaming the victim. Read the rest of the following:

> > In the
> > above context, you were blaming the friend you asked to intercede in
> > the matter for not getting the result you desired. I simply pointed out
> > that *if you want to blame a friend*, you should blame the one that has
> > the most vested interest in the matter but has done nothing. I hope
> > that makes my opinion clearer.

If you *still* don't understand that I'm simply saying that the victim
bears more responsibility for this going by the wayside than does your
other friend, then I haven't the first idea how to make it clear.

> If you're trying to say the victim deserves more blame than the friend
> who could have influenced the police chief, I'm afraid I still
> disagree. She has no experience or knowledge regarding law
> enforcement, and she'd been dissuaded and discouraged by the cop's
> remark. The other friend is a bona fide expert in law enforcement with
> considerable influence.

Here we disagree. What exactly did you hope your friend "with
considerable influence" would accomplish, that the incompetent cop
would be punished for not writing a ticket or that the driver who hit
the cyclist would receive a ticket? Neither would be a proper result of
behind the scene influence. Either or both could be achieved properly
if your cyclist friend simply made a complaint.

> I do plan to report this exchange to her. I'm sure she's going to be
> surpised, as I am, that a cop thinks _she_ had any more responsiblity
> in the matter.

I'm surprised that you find that at all surprising because if you'll
stop and think in larger terms for a moment you'll realize that victims
always bear the brunt of reponsibility when it comes to making the
system work. Sure, it may make a cop (or a prosecutor or a judge or a
juror) feel good about themselves to say something like, "I put so and
so in prison for what he did.", but the truth of the matter is that
*the evidence* put so and so in prison and the victim's testimony is
very often the largest part of that evidence. Everyone else relies on
that evidence to do their job. Why do you think I tell victims, "As
long as you are willing to do *your* duty as a complainant- cooperate
fully, tell the absolute truth, and show up to testify- I'll do my
duty."? It isn't because I like to hear my own voice. It's because of
the precise attitude you seem to be expressing, i.e., once they tell
the police what happened a victim's responsibility ends, when nothing
can be further from the truth. Their responsibility is just beginning.

> * Here's the part I referred to, regarding competence, etc.
>
> > > > I'll go even further and
> > > > say that if my boss called me into his office to tell me that he'd
> > > > received a complaint about one of my investigations, my first response
> > > > would be, "Is a witness in the case complaining that I'm not doing my
> > > > job or that I'm violating their rights? No? Then what did you *really*
> > > > want to talk to me about?"
>
> As I read that, your attitude toward your boss would be, again,
> contentious. (At least, I've spoken to my bosses in that tone only
> when they were being particularly stupid.) You also imply that it's
> not a mistake unless the victim complains (the only witness, except the
> perpetrator). And you imply that's the attitude the non-ticketing
> might reasonably display.
>
> You don't write out the rest of your imaginary scene. If it doesn't
> include some harsh treatment for a cop dumb enough to let this motorist
> off scot-free, then you seem to be excusing his behavior.

Thus far I have described the failure to issue a citation in this
specific incident as moronic, wrong, lazy, and inexcusable yet you
insist that I seem to be excusing that failure. I have to wonder if
this isn't similiar to you blaming your influential friend for not
achieving a result you like. That friend's "failure" was what I was
writing about when I posted the hypothetical above.

> > I think I can save us both time in the future, Frank.
> >
> > 1- When a cop is wrong, he's wrong.
> > 2- There are at least two sides to every story.
> > 3- People should stand up for themselves.
> > 4- Efforts to exert influence behind the scenes are not a particularly
> > useful or desirable substitute for #3.
>
> If #3 includes a requirement to stand up _to_ uniformed authority,
> which is what you're requiring of my friend the victim, I think that's
> excessive.

What do you or your cyclist friend think would have transpired had she
said, "I want to testify" at the scene or, if that didn't result in a
citation being issued, walking into the police station and asking to
speak to a supervisor? Was she more afraid of the cops than she was of
the driver she chased down alone and chewed out? Expecting an unarmed
civilian alone on the street to chase down and confront someone that
just endangered their life is excessive. Expecting that same person to
walk into a police station filled with police officers sworn to protect
the public and say, "I'd like to talk to someone in charge.", seems to
me to be much less risky and not at all excessive. Inconvenient
perhaps, but if the minor inconvenience of dropping by the police
station at her leisure is sufficient to persuade her to not pursue the
matter I have to wonder how likely she'd be to discharge the rest of
her civic responsibility by showing up in court on a date and time of
someone else's choosing to testify in the matter.

> BTW, I've successfully done exactly that while cycling. (Details on
> request.) But I don't think the average person should be blamed for
> not doing so. At least, not until it's widely publicized that it may
> be necessary.

I was taught to stand up for myself as a child. I think we all are. If
one doesn't learn that lesson as a child I doubt PSAs will have much
impact.

>
> Too many of us, I'm afraid, retain a naive belief that the system will
> actually work.

The problem isn't that people have a naive belief the system will work;
it is that too many think that the system is somehow separate from
them, that once they have made the police aware of something that
they've discharged their civic responsibility.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bob wrote:

>
> I've agreed with your assessment that the cop was wrong, remember?

That part is good. (BTW, it would have to be both cops.)

> > If you're trying to say the victim deserves more blame than the friend
> > who could have influenced the police chief, I'm afraid I still
> > disagree. She has no experience or knowledge regarding law
> > enforcement, and she'd been dissuaded and discouraged by the cop's
> > remark. The other friend is a bona fide expert in law enforcement with
> > considerable influence.
>
> Here we disagree. What exactly did you hope your friend "with
> considerable influence" would accomplish, that the incompetent cop
> would be punished for not writing a ticket or that the driver who hit
> the cyclist would receive a ticket? Neither would be a proper result of
> behind the scene influence. Either or both could be achieved properly
> if your cyclist friend simply made a complaint.

Here's how it went: First, I thought the cops were incompetent, that
they _couldn't_ be correct that no law had been violated. I called my
other friend partly to double check - to ask "That can't possibly be
right, can it?" And since he has significant resonsibilities in
training cops, etc, I thought he should know that the cops in this
particular jurisdiction definitely needed improvement. Aside from the
double-check, my intent was not to ask him to intervene, but to
hopefully make cyclists' rights to the road a point of awareness in
police training.

It was in that conversation that he said (after confirming they were
very wrong) "Hell, I know their chief because of [ ... various close
professional relationships...]. " I don't recall for sure, but I think
he may have brought up the initial idea of a phone call. I know I did
end up urging him to do that. And he told me he would.

At this point, if he had said to me "[The victim] should stop in and
demand the guy get ticketed" I'd have passed that on, and she'd
certainly have done it. If he had said "As club safety chairman, it
would be best if you wrote a letter," I'd have written it that evening.
But he said he'd phone to get the chief to look at the accident report
and talk about a ticket. The impression I got was that it would be so
clear that the chief would certainly order the cops to follow up and
write the ticket. I also reported that phone discussion to the victim,
who thought this was going to work.

But he hemmed, hawed, and delayed until a week after the accident,
maybe more. And after that, nothing was done. And all this reinforced
in the victim's mind that the system would not respond to her, no
matter what she did, since the chief apparently agreed with the cops.

> > I do plan to report this exchange to her. I'm sure she's going to be
> > surpised, as I am, that a cop thinks _she_ had any more responsiblity
> > in the matter.

BTW, I talked to her tonight. She was rather amazed that she was
supposed to do more. And she corrected one detail: It took her
_three_ tries to get the accident report. One trip to find out the
relevant office normally closed well before 5:00. The second trip
(which I forgot) was the next day, on which the sign on the door said
the office had closed early that day. Third time, she got the report.


She was NOT shrinking from any known duty, clearly.

> I'm surprised that you find that at all surprising because if you'll
> stop and think in larger terms for a moment you'll realize that victims
> always bear the brunt of reponsibility when it comes to making the
> system work.

No, I do not realize that. To take one extreme example, what
responsibility does a murder victim bear? To offer another less
extreme, what about a handicapped, non-driving couple whose home is
burglarized? Must they beat on the doors of the station to get police
work done? Sorry to be incredulous, but if this is how the system is
supposed to work, we (she and I) did not know that. It's certainly not
covered in high school civics, and it makes very little sense to me!

> Sure, it may make a cop (or a prosecutor or a judge or a
> juror) feel good about themselves to say something like, "I put so and
> so in prison for what he did.", but the truth of the matter is that
> *the evidence* put so and so in prison and the victim's testimony is
> very often the largest part of that evidence. Everyone else relies on
> that evidence to do their job.

I may not have made this clear, but: The driver admitted hitting her!
I note the accident report doesn't even contain the word "allegedly."
BTW, the "Most Damaged Area" coding reminds me: his right side mirror
is what hit her elbow, and it was visibly damaged. (There were parts
of it on the road, I was told by the victim.)

> Why do you think I tell victims, "As
> long as you are willing to do *your* duty as a complainant- cooperate
> fully, tell the absolute truth, and show up to testify- I'll do my
> duty."? It isn't because I like to hear my own voice. It's because of
> the precise attitude you seem to be expressing, i.e., once they tell
> the police what happened a victim's responsibility ends, when nothing
> can be further from the truth. Their responsibility is just beginning.

Then the least we can say is that is _another_ way these cops were
incompetent. She was NOT told anything of the sort. Instead, she was
allowed to overhear their judgement that no law had been broken, and
given the impression that she could NOT make a difference, because of
that.


> > Too many of us, I'm afraid, retain a naive belief that the system will
> > actually work.
>
> The problem isn't that people have a naive belief the system will work;
> it is that too many think that the system is somehow separate from
> them, that once they have made the police aware of something that
> they've discharged their civic responsibility.

Well, maybe someone needs to write an article for wide distribution:
"How to get the police to do a competent job when you are a victim."
I'm aware that there are large numbers of crimes that are never
prosecuted, and incidents of negligence that are never properly
redressed. I literally had no idea that this was one of the reasons.

I plan to contact you off-list regarding this article. Watch for it,
please.

- Frank Krygowski