[*BCM*] Critical Mass gets dissed by the courts.

[turtle]

In case you don't read the MassBike discussion list, below is the post
about a court case that charged an officer with wrongful arrest of a
guy who was just biking along the rod with a bunch of other people
(yep, he was riding in a Critical Mass).  The only law that the judge
claimed the cyclist violated was the single-file-only law that applies
to bicycles (but not cars).  On that violation, the jury found that
ARREST was an acceptable option for the officer (even though the actual
LAW says that its only a $20 fine, with no legal grounds for arrest).

In light of this, I propose a CM ride (and I'll really try to join it!)
where we specifically OBEY this rediculous and discriminatory law. 
We'd need a large group to make an impact.  And we'd need to make this
a big media event, with a clear message of what we were doing and why. 
And it would need to be done in Cambridge (where the case was heard)... 
preferably near the courthouse and police station.

Can you imagine a line of 50 cyclists winding around Cambridge single
file?  Can you imagine how much space we'd take up if we didn't bunch
up like we usually do?  (And remember, you need to ride at least 3-5
feet away from parked cars, so on substandard lanes, you'd need to
"take the lane".)  Seriously, ride completely legally, and show how
dumb this law is.

Maybe during Bike Month (May) when it's warm and people are thinking
happy thoughts about biking?

-Turtle


------ Start of Forwarded Message ------
From: "Andrew M. Fischer" <afischer at jasonandfischer.com>
Sent: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:08:10 -0500
To: MASSBike Mail List <massbike at topica.com>
Subject: Rowinsky

The newspapers today are likely to report that we lost the Peter 
Rowinsky case. 

It is true that the jury found that the police officer did not violate 
Peter's civil rights or illegallay arrest him.  I think that this was in

large part because the defense lawyer portrayed Peter, one of the most 
decent people I know and one of the best clients I have had, asone of 
those hooligans known as Critical Mass.  Defense counsel took every 
opportunity to depict how critical mass takes up the whole road and 
rides slowly on purpose in order to disrupt traffic and interfere with 
motorists "like you fine ladies and gentlemen of the jury" and disrupt 
traffic.  This, together with sympathy for a grandfatherly appearing now

retired police officer, was too much to overcome.

However, despite the verdict, I think the case was a success, in that 
the Judge ruled that Peter had the right to bicycle on Memorial Drive, 
and this was the point we wanted to establish and the reason for 
bringing the case.

A final point:  I spent many hours preparing Voir Dire questions and 
expended significant effort trying to get the judge to ask prospective 
jurors questions about bias twoards bicyclists.  The purpose was to 
exclude all those SUV drivers who don't think we belong on the road.  
The judge only asked one question, whether people had any opinion for or

against bicyclists.  The only person who answered was a member of this 
list who told the judge that he knew about this case because he was an 
avid cyclist and on several cyclist list-serves and hadread about the 
case.  That was bad enough but he could have answered that despite his 
own cycling experience he could still be fair and impartial -- probably 
true -- certainly more fair and impartial than all the SUV drivers who 
don't even disclose their anti-bike hostility. 

On a previous trial, I had three cyclists volunteer that because they 
cycle they would favor my client.  Couldn't they be as fair and 
impartial as all the SUV drivers who hate cyclists and don't say 
anything to the Judge about their bias.  It makes me wonder whether 
cyclists can ever get a fair trial by a jury of their peers.

Andrew M. Fischer
Cyclist, advocate and attorney

------ End of Forwarded Message ------