sounds like the truth could exist in both sets of stories.

however, my question is, when will Sue Rahr's recall petition be filed?

Maybe we can file a petition to have cyclists begin obeying traffic laws too.

I'm interested in hearing what the future holds for CM and the City/County Turf issues.

How about a petition that forbids anyone to hold a deputized office of any sort if they have ever been convicted of any sort of perjury or falsification of a report? Then it's just a matter of getting a prosecutor who would pursue charges like that.
And while we're talking petitions, how about one pedestrianizing Pine between 4th and 5th, Pike Place, and maybe a block or two of Broadway. Antything to undermine this city's hypocritical tendency to talk green and commute gray.

...Waiting for Someguy to wax moronic all over this thread.

Longball,

Looks like you have that honor instead

Any word from the sheriff on how I am to identify someone as a law enforcement officer when he, wearing street clothes, jumps out of an unmarked vehicle with civilian plates and, raging with fury, has begun to physically assault someone who made him wait by jaywalking, blocking an intersection by driving into it before there is room to clear the intersection, blocking an intersection to allow a large group of slow-moving vehicles together for safety & efficient traffic flow, etc?

When I see someone like that beating the shit out of someone half his size, and the attacker says the words "I'm a cop" and pulls a shiny thing on a chain out from under his shirt while they're rolling around on the street, should I just stand by and watch him beat the other person or try to pull him off?

All law enforcement officers should be required to wear a uniform while on-duty.

Just a question, but does anyone know what an off duty police officers responsibilty is?

Are they required to wear a gun, carry a badge, uphold the law, etc...

As to their wearing street clothes, that's why they call them undercover, isn't it? I mean, if your an undercover cop and your required to wear a uniform? what's the point?

> Maybe we can file a petition to have cyclists begin obeying traffic laws too.

Hmm. Maybe we could build sidewalks in most of the city that were promised in the 1950s when we annexed them?

Look, you have a lot of cars creeping into intersections, not stopping at stop signs, and more bicylists die from autos than the other way around - and you want to focus on bicycle traffic enforcement?

Get a grip.

Oh, and if it looks like someone giant in road rage, just shoot them. Perfectly defensible use of your constitutional rights.

Be a lot of dead cops though ... especially if bicyclists have to start registering to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves.

Sigh... before we get into this whole bikers-suck debate again... it's becoming more clear that the cops acted purely out of rage and outside of their jurisdiction, whether or not CM's riders are a bunch of stubborn twats. The cops still violently abused their positions. If they don't lose their jobs over this, then people need to start calling for Sue Rahr's head, because every day she chooses to do nothing about this is a tacit display of support for those officers' abusive actions.

This new report makes things more confusing, but it still seems as though the detectives covered their asses by lying on an official report.

If so, this was the most serious crime. KC should not have detectives that lie to procecutors on official reports...

I googled "bicycle fatalities fault" and learned that in a 1987 survey of "492 active adult bicyclists" the 46% who had been in accidents considered themselves at fault 58.7% of the time. The "Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division Bicycle Fatality Summary January 1995 – December 2005" found bicyclists at fault in 58% of collisions. The NYC police say cyclist error is the primary contributing factor in 75% of collisions.

The San Jose Mercury News says the Palo Alto Police Department splits the blame 50/50. The Feds (DOT, FHWA, NHTSA) like the 50/50 number too.

Advocacy groups like rightofway.org, the League of American Bicyclists and Transportation Alternatives surprisingly say that their own investigations show that drivers not cyclists, are at fault 60 to 90 percent of the time.

I don't know who's right. But if you stridently place the blame on one side or the other, you're probably wrong. And if you think all of the effort should go into educating drivers and not cyclists (or vice versa) you're probably wrong about that too.

I think that Critical Mass has proven without a doubt the cause-effect relationship that if you provoke road rage, you get road rage. We should all thank them for their noble efforts to expand the sphere of human knowledge. I hope they keep proving that valuable fact month after month, 'cause I'm a lover of facts.

Though I stand by my points, I've gotta agree with Elenchos. For some reason, bicyclists insist they have nothing to learn and are not at fault for drivers' perceptions of them. I beg to differ. I think the mentality of bicyclists, and the laws that govern them, need to be fundamentally overhauled. I think the preceding laws are the product of a handful of bicyclists and supporters who took their bitterness too legally far, and created a poor situation where it is now status quo for bicyclists to ride in the road, despite being much slower than the flow of traffic, and create this sort of animosity.

It's a two way street, and part of the problem is the guy in the helmet failing to look in the mirror and evaluate himself.

Given what we know about this story so far, I think calling it "another incident of road rage" casts it in the wrong light. Calling it "road rage" diminishes the fact that this act of aggression was perpetrated by people whom we trust to deal with the public -- even those members of the public who appear to be violating some law -- in a cool and collected manner, using only as much force as necessary. This was not road rage; it was abuse of power.

Every witness account that I've read indicates that the King County Sheriff's deputies only identified themselves as law enforcement officers after they got out of their unmarked vehicle wearing plain clothes and started a fight with two men participating in a monthly act of civil disobedience, one of whom -- half their size -- was trying to flee from these two unidentified men who were apparently coming after him in a fit anger, the other of whom was attempting to defend the first from the attackers.

For their actions up to the point of identifying themselves as police officers, the deputies deserve to be convicted of assault. If someone puts his bike down in the road so that you'll have to drive your vehicle over it to proceed -- even if the person then challenges you with a cocky, "What are you gonna do about it?" comment -- and you get out and attack that person, you've committed assault. That these two chose to start a fight as civilians and end it once things weren't going their way by telling their victims in mid-fight that they were cops and to stop resisting arrest is, in my opinion, a pretty clear indication that they used their position of power in a way that they should not have. They've been trained to avoid escalating a situation like this, and I find it difficult to believe that they used appropriate force.

Civil disobedience comes at a price. I agree completely that if someone is going to go out and block auto traffic for a couple minutes as part of some sort of bicyclists' rights demonstration, he better be ready to accept the legal consequence of his actions. The consequence is a citation which will probably result in a fine if a judge finds him guilty. The consequence is *not* being beaten on the street by whoever might have been angered in the process unless we have vigilantes and people who do not control their tempers loose on our streets. I'm sickened by the number of people commenting on this story who advocate such vigilante justice. I can only hope that they don't live around here.

To say that Jace Brien "got what he had coming" is boorish, immature, and -- though I believe it less every day as we slide further into a trend of might-makes-right, cowboy-justice foreign policy -- un-American. Even if what happened is the likely result of someone pushing his luck by angering someone bigger than him on the street, we shouldn't have to plan on such violence occurring as a fact of life and simply expect people to avoid it by tippy-toeing around hyper-aggressive muscle-builders with explosive tempers. This isn't the Wild West. When physical assault occurs, we look to the police to help us by intervening and getting the assailant in front of a judge so that he can be brought to justice. When this system we've set up for ourselves works properly, people who repeatedly assault others -- whether the assaults come as a result of assailants' enjoyment of violence or as a result of some skinny Seattle punk kid in bike shorts showing them less respect than they expect -- end up in jail where they cannot continue to hurt other people.

This can only happen if instead of siding with a hot-headed bully simply because deep down, we, too are a little bothered by the actions of he who raised the ire of that bully, we cooperate and look out for each other's rights -- including the rights of those who annoy us.

Blaming the victim for an assault such as this -- one in which the victim was attacked because some hot-head boiled out of control because he didn't like something the victim said or did -- is like blaming a rape victim for showing too much skin. Yes, wearing too little clothing in public is illegal and yes, nudity sometimes rouses something in people that results in them committing a crime. But no, that does not mean that a victim of rape who wasn't adequately clothed had it coming, should have expected it, and has no right to complain about it.

I tend to think that the people who truly believe Brien "had it coming" (and thus that he shouldn't complain about such rough treatment or expect that the rest of us will stand up for him) are precisely the sort people who would like to have given him a beating themselves if they could have gotten away with it. To those people I say, "Get the hell out of our city, assholes. You can't handle being around people without blowing your top? Go live in the fucking sticks."

Blowing up and assaulting someone when he blocks your vehicle in at an intersection so his group of slow-moving vehicles could pass without breaking up and tangling with other traffic is just not acceptable behavior. That these thugs so easily became violent in this situation indicates to me that we should not trust them to exist peacefully among us as fellow citizens, much less to serve and protect us as officers of the law.

Why isn't Norm Maleng filing assault charges against these "cops"?

If I jumped out of my car and started beating someone, I'd have been charged by now.

So what's the delay here? Does Norm Maleng think assault isn't a crime? It's pretty clear cut. On the one hand, you have dozens of witnesses who saw a cyclist get the shit beat out of him without provokation, and on the other, you have a bunch of thugs lying through their teeth.

Make an example of them.

Whoa....

At no point have I heard by anyone directly involved in this situation (and by that I mean official reports, both by witnesses and by the police) that either Jace or Zack were beaten.

You need to listen to both sides of the story. The reality of the situation will lie somewhere between the two.

From the sounds of it, the plainclothes, on duty officers, had sounded their siren previously (as the newest eye witness report indicates), Jace had come upon these individuals after that had happened, and then provoked the individuals in the van with his non verbal, "What are you gonna do" should move and placed his bike in front of their vehicle.

Whether the Police identified themselves at that point is highly suspect. However, the immediate aftermath would definitely be consistent with an officer arresting a fleeing suspect, which is what they viewed Jace as.

I don't know if any of you on this board have been arrested before, but it sounds like jace was being restrained until handcuffs were put on him.

I've heard a lot of opinions on this board and I have no doubt that both parties are way out of line.

At no point have I heard by anyone directly involved in this situation (and by that I mean official reports, both by witnesses and by the police) that either Jace or Zack were beaten.

Try again. Witness Ilsa Govan stated: "As I pulled up on my bike I saw at least two strong-looking men grabbing a guy on his bike and throwing him to the ground. It appeared to be a few angry motorists who were starting a brawl. They then proceeded to punch the guy (Jace I later found out) on the ground. While they were hitting him, Zack and a couple of other guys tried to pull them off."

From the sounds of it, the plainclothes, on duty officers, had sounded their siren previously (as the newest eye witness report indicates)

Right. They blipped their siren when their vehicle was still several behind others in line and before Jace Brien arrived. Josh Feit reported that this eyewitness stated: "one of the passengers did hear a small, brief "whoop" sound when the van was parked 3 cars back from the intersection (when two male bikers were blocking the intersection and Critical Mass cyclists were streaming through). However, when the van pulled up to the light and faced off with Jace Brien, the new witnesses report hearing no air horn or siren noises." It was an unmarked vehicle: Who, other than people right next to it, would have known which vehicle the sound came from? Most riders who heard it, if they even noticed, would likely have assumed that it came from a police car, of which there were none in sight.

Jace had come upon these individuals after that had happened,

Right. By the time he got there, the unmarked vehicle had moved to the front of the line. At this point, Jace Brien would have no way of knowing that the occupants of that van were law enforcement officers.

and then [Jace] provoked the individuals in the van with his non verbal, "What are you gonna do" should move [but instead of moving he] placed his bike in front of their vehicle.

Right. And he should have known at that point that he was likely to suffer the consequences of willfully and illegally blocking the intersection: a citation for a non-moving violation. He also should have known that if his act of civil disobedience angered the occupants of that plain brown mini-van to the point that they jumped out to attack him, justice would be served. People saw that something very wrong was happening. Some took photos or video and some called 911 to get assistance from the police. One, Zack was brave enough to jump in and try to assist his friend by restraining the attackers.

Whether the Police identified themselves at that point is highly suspect.

Witness accounts indicate that the Sheriff's deputies quickly exited the van and charged straight towards Jace. Like anyone with the sense not to stick around and enter a fistfight -- especially with two angry guys twice his size -- Jace fled. I see no reason for him to have done otherwise. Even if these goons had said "we're cops" why in the world would anyone believe them? They weren't dressed in police uniforms, they weren't in a police vehicle, and they weren't acting like police dealing with the minor offense Jace had committed. I don't care what they had hanging on the neck chains they were wearing or whether it was obscured by their shirts or not. Any sane person would have assumed at that point that they were *not* police, but rather a couple of large men crazy enough to jump out of their vehicle and attack someone else in the middle of the street in front of scores of witnesses.

the immediate aftermath would definitely be consistent with an officer arresting a fleeing suspect, which is what they viewed Jace as.

Is this how an undercover officer handles a fleeing suspect (suspected of a minor non-moving traffic violation) who the officer knows damned well had at best the plainclothes officer's angry yelling for police credentials?

it sounds like jace was being restrained until handcuffs were put on him

Again, see eyewitness Ilsa Govan's report, cited above, which states that the officers punched Jace on the ground -- more than restraint and more force than was necessary.

Abuse of power.

Paul - clearly you are the one NOT listening to both sides of the story. In fact your side of the story (the cops tall tale) is made up. The "new witnesses" called 911. I mean c'mon, people don't call the cops on the cops. Obviously every witness we have heard from saw an assault, not an arrest. Whether bikers suck and you hate critical mass is not the issue. Grasping at straws to defend these copzillas is pathetic.

Phil,

Your explanation validates my 3 sides of every story Comment, was Jace on his bike or off?

If we read the first eyewitness report you cite, he was on his bike ""As I pulled up on my bike I saw at least two strong-looking men grabbing a guy on his bike and throwing him to the ground."

Then you immediately write that "Like anyone with the sense not to stick around and enter a fistfight -- especially with two angry guys twice his size -- Jace fled.", as if to reinforce what you have just stated.

So which is it? Was Jace just sitting there or was he runing away after having placed his bike in front of the vehicle?

Listen Phil, it's great to be indignant about this, and ranting and raving about police brutality makes for a good discussion, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

Longball,

Firt off, calling me comments pathetic is just your way of identifying yourself as a troll. if you want to have a discussion fine, if your gonna be a troll just go away.

As to believing the depuities version, yes, I am prone to listen to a paid law enforcement version of an incident before I am going to listen to someone at Critical Mass.

Feel free to check out there website. It is clear that the goal of critical mass is to piss off the commuting public, so having eyewitness reports from Critical Mass riders is all but useless.

http://metrodigital.com/mass/2005/jul/assets/photos/18.jpg

http://metrodigital.com/mass/2005/jul/assets/photos/20.jpg

Paul,

So you recognize now that witness reports indicate that Brien was hit by these undercover deputies and that witness reports indicate that the police siren was sounded momentarily by an unmarked vehicle in the middle of a traffic jam, before Brien even arrived?

Whether he was on his bike or off his bike when these then-anonymous men threw him to the ground and allegedly hit him is irrelevant. I don't care if he was doing jumping jacks on the hood of their van with the bike balanced on his head -- these guys lost their cool and used an entirely disproportionate level of force in response. And they're not just some random guys with bad tempers, they are professionals trained to moderate their use of force under extreme circumstances. If they can't handle some young man on (or near) a bicycle taunting them without losing control of themselves, then they are in the wrong line of work. We trust them to do the job they do without throwing a temper tantrum like some of us might if we were put in the same situation. They acted in a manner that would be considered physical assault were they not undercover sheriff's deputies.

What was Brien to do -- take their angry word for it when they finally said they were cops and risk losing some teeth while his guard was down?

I'd still like to know how I'm supposed to tell an undercover deputy from an everyday tough-guy asshole when he's in the process of physically assaulting me after blowing his top over a minor non-moving traffic violation that held him up for a couple minutes.

Have any witness accounts besides those of the assailants indicated that there was any reason to believe the assailants were police until well after the scuffle began?

having eyewitness reports from Critical Mass riders is all but useless

Reportedly, there are reports from people in other vehicles who were not part of the Critical Mass ride. These witnesses reports jibe with those of the CM participants, not with the story told by they guys who picked a fight anonymously and then called "stop I'm a cop" to end it.

PHIL,

Let me be real clear.

I am not saying that the Police officers acted appropriately, as I said in my earlier posting "I have no doubt that both parties are way out of line."

You are proposing that the Critical Mass riders are some innocent Victims that were pounced on by thugs. I don't think that's the case.

It's clear that anything the police could have done, beyond whole heartedly supporting CM, you will have a problem with that response.

Likewise, I feel that CM creates chaotic situations and then cries foul when some finally reacts to the bait. It's kind of like teasing a dog until you get bit.

Ultimately there has to be a happy medium. While CM has every RIGHT to organize and protest, if they are going to organize in the future, they should have a permit. As for the SPD or the County Sheriffs office, they need be be made aware of CM and have policies in order on how to handle them and work with them, so that this situation cannot happen again.

"I am not saying that the Police officers acted appropriately,"

Fair enough, Paul. that is the issue. I am not a supporter of Critical Mass. I do not have any problem with them getting a traffic citation for "corking" an intersection. However, all of that became irrelevent when the cops decided to forgo being professionals and committed an act of pure road rage.

Call me a troll if you will but understand that when you responded to my first comment:

"Waiting for Someguy to wax moronic all over this thread."

with:
"Looks like you have that honor instead"

you sided with the biggest troll of all in these threads. Go back and read "Someguy's" posts wich degenerated to the point of spitting on a murder victim's grave. If that's the side you want to take on this, fine. But from your "happy medium" comments i don't think it is.

Paul,

Part of the previous thread on this topic dealt with exactly the issue you bring up in the last part of your latest post, namely, that SPD DOES in fact have a policy with regards to CM events, which is, to facillitate the large numbers of cyclists through their route in order to: A). keep them moving; B). minimize impact on vehicle traffic; and C). maximize the safety of everyone involved or bystanding. KCSD has no such policy, because they've never encountered a CM event before.

In fact, recent reports in the press have noted that SPD has been very critical of KCSD precisely because they have failed to communicate with other law enforcement agencies when they have carried out operations in areas under joint jurisdiction, such as within Seattle City Limits.

Nobody denies they have equal jurisdiction, however, the policy for years has always been, "if you're going to operate within another agency's jurisdiction, you let them know what you're up to". It's not only a show of respect, and a display of courtesy, but a matter of the safety of officers in both departments.

As an example, imagine KCSD performinng an undercover drug "sting" operation on Pike/Pine downtown, but not informing SPD. Suddenly, a buy goes south, resulting in a firefight between the UC's and the perps. SPD is going to respond very quickly, but Unless they're aware of the situation in advance, they're going to have no way of knowing there are cops involved, and there's a very good possibility in this scenario that somebody with a badge is going to be hurt, seriously wounded, or even dead.

If SPD had been on-the-scene at this CM event (which begs a question I've yet to hear addressed: why WEREN'T they?), this incident would have most likely turned out very differently, because their presence would either have helped to diffuse the situation before it started (I think it's unlikely the UC KCSD goons would have done what they did - the way they did it - in full view of uniformed SPD), or they would have prevented it from escalating to the point it did.

You are proposing that the Critical Mass riders are some innocent Victims that were pounced on by thugs.

No, I'm proposing that the Critical Mass riders who were attacked by two guys who jumped out of a van were guilty -- of a minor, non-moving traffic violation. Not innocent, and probably not acting with their best interests in mind, but undeserving victims of physical assault.

It's clear that anything the police could have done, [besides] whole heartedly supporting CM, you will have a problem with that response.

No, the police could have: 1) made it as clear as possible that they were police officers (I don't know how undercover officers can best do this, but I'm confident that they know how, and it's not by jumping out and tackling someone. It probably involves turning on the flashing lights, turning on the siren, making an announcement over the P.A. system, and calmly getting out with badges in view, possibly calling for uniformed backup if their cover is so effective as to cause confusion over their authority.), 2) issued a citation for whatever violation was observed, and 3) detained the suspect if he was deemed a risk to the public or a flight risk. That is the extent of their responsibility. The rest is for a judge or jury. The officers' job does not involve "supporting Critical Mass" or not supporting it.

I feel that CM creates chaotic situations and then cries foul when [someone] finally reacts to the bait. It's kind of like teasing a dog until you get bit.

Yes, it's kind of like that if you assume that we or our law enforcement officers have as little personal restraint as a dog. But right or wrong, when it comes to maintaining composure under pressure, I hold people, especially people we trust to work as law enforcement officers -- to a higher standard than that to which I hold a dog. I hope my neighbors -- especially Sue Rahr -- do as well.

Comte,

Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent post.

I've been involved in planning many outdoor events in this city and am well aware of what hurdles need to be addressed.

You bring up a really good question, why weren't the Seattle Police involved? That question needs to be asked to the members of Critical Mass. Whether they want to admit it or not, they are an organized group that routinely has an outdoor event. To that end, they are responsible for providing permits, insurance as well as security for their group.

BTW, Yes, I agree that SPD should have been involved. However, keep in mind that SPD does not plan these events, CM does and it needs to be responsible and held accountable for it's actions.

Longball,

Please accept my aplogies.

Phil,

I go back to my thoughts that the police can do nothing right in your eyes.

Paul,

I thought I explained pretty clearly what I think would have been the right course of action. Is intervening with only as much force as necessary and getting a suspected traffic-signal-violator in front of a judge without escalating the situation to a scuffle in the street while disguised as civilians so much to ask of sheriff's deputies?

I agree with you that there is likely to be more to the stories that what we've heard, but I have zero tolerance for people we trust with authority abusing that authority. They should be the last people to lose their cool, and all witness accounts reported so far indicate that these guys lost it and then tried to cover their asses by lying on the official report. That's dangerous. I don't know what's more disappointing: that they apparently did do so or that so many people's response is, "don't bother people or you're going to get roughed up, especially if you bother large angry thugs or the police." We shouldn't settle for living under those circumstances.

Paul,

The reason I brought up the question of where SPD was during the CM event was because, generally in the past they HAVE been present, for exactly the reasons I alluded to at the end of my post.

CM's always take place on the same day of the month (the last Friday I believe?) and there has been ongoing SPD presence at them for quite some time. Yet, for some reason, the first time in a long time they seem to be out of the picture, something like this occurs.

I'm not even going to be begin to suggest some sort of dark conspiracy, although no doubt others have already thought of that, but it does make one wonder how differently things would have turned out, had they been there.

Comte,

I think the conspiracy (or just a reason) is pretty clear. June 30th was a HOT friday afternoon, leading into the 4th of July weekend where many people had taken off monday and were trying to get out of town.

Lets face it, there was plenty going on with fireworks being blown up all over the city, people rushing to get out of town, or those who just started the Holiday early. I am assuming the police had plenty going on that day.

Additionally, look at the history of crime, rioting, violent crimes, etc. when it's hot outside, people are prone to blowing their tops, especially in such a mild climate as Seattle where hot days are few and far in between.

BTW, Yes, even cops (and Bicycle riders) have tempers. Like I've said in the past, I'm sure there is plenty of guilt to be spread on both sides of this situation.

Phil,

You seem to be signaling out Jace from the rest of Critical Mass and it's core objective. This is an organized group that decided it is going to take over the streets to do what they damn well want to, one day a Month.

When they meet their core objectives they take pictures of the commuetrs they piss off or pose in group shots taking over various intersections in the city, so that they can then be posted on their homepage as a form of bragging right.

That is by definition a Mob.

Just as you have have zero Tolerance in those who respect authority, I have zero Tolerance in those who feel that group think or Mob Mentality makes right.

I'm sure there is plenty of guilt to be spread on both sides of this situation.

Agreed 100%. But let's not equate public demonstration via civil disobedience of traffic ordinance with police abuse of power via tackling and punching an unarmed man who was simply trying to avoid getting pummeled by two unknown thugs who jumped out of a van with steam coming out of their ears.

Our police are entrusted with a large amount of power and their breaking of the rules we set for them concerning use of force is a much bigger deal than someone blocking an intersection for a couple minutes. It's kind of like comparing a van running into someone with a bicycle doing the same: both are wrong but they are of far different severity. The stakes are higher when there's more power involved, and the penalty for misconduct should reflect this.

Good discussion. I hope this doesn't get brushed under the table when/if they decide to drop the charges against Zack. If witnesses' stories check out, these guys should be looking for work outside of law enforcement.

Paul,

That seems like a reasonable supposition, however, given that CM events generally attract several hundred cyclists, AND it was a hot day prior to a long 4th of July weekend, you'd have thought some honcho at SPD would have considered the situation as worthy of dispatching at least a patrol car or a few bike cops, heck even a couple of cycle units - since there are generally three or four cruising 3rd Ave during the afternoon commute anyway.

Just as you have have zero Tolerance in those who respect authority

You misinterpreted what I wrote, which was: "I have zero tolerance for people we trust with authority abusing that authority." There's a big difference.

I have zero Tolerance in those who feel that group think or Mob Mentality makes right.

That's reasonable, and it's the first mention of that angle I've heard in the discussions surrounding this incident. If you feel that it applies to Critical Mass, I hope you've contacted the Seattle Police to urge them to do something about this monthly bicycle mob, Paul.

Anybody know how our police are supposed to deal with a mob situation?

I like County Exec Sim's take on this...."they might annoy you, but you learn to deal with it." peacefully. The following is from the Times article of a few days ago:

While he defended county transit deputies' work on transit-related issues as making Metro buses far safer in recent years, Sims joined a growing number of city and county officials who feel the best police response to the monthly bike rally is essentially no response.

Seattle police typically allow the rally to go on unmolested, with a stand-back approach, largely ignoring minor traffic offenses committed by cyclists so that the rally moves quickly through downtown.

"SPD sees this (rally) every month and they know how to handle it. They're used to it," Sims said. "They have a certain cultural sensitivity. It's not racial, it's not ethnic. It's urban. And I think Seattle police do a fine job in knowing when to act and when not to act in these situations."

Sims added that several months ago, he and his wife were in his car when the Critical Mass rally zoomed past, blocking street access.

"I turned off my car. I talked to my wife," he said. "We waited, let it roll by. It was cool."

"I mean, hey, demonstrations are a part of Seattle," Sims said. "They really are. These things happen here. They might annoy you, but you learn to deal with it."
P-I reporter Lewis Kamb can be reached at 206-448-8336 or lewiskamb@seattlepi.com.

That's good to hear. However, Ron Sims can really make a statement defending this stance by handing those two officers pink slips, publicizing their identities and blacklisting them from working for KC ever again, at the least.

So there's a thing that occasionally happens at social gatherings, where I'm hanging out with a bunch of people and I make some passing reference to the last time someone in a car nearly killed me while I was out riding my bike and the person I'm talking to-- or someone standing nearby --goes,

"Yeah, but it's so hard to see bikes. And they never follow traffic laws!"

So, first of all, let me just make something clear. That second thing? Bullshit argument. Bull. Shit. Argument.

Car drivers break traffic laws constantly. And by "constantly" I mean to say that you can go to any controlled intersection in Seattle and stand there for 60 seconds and if there's any significant traffic at all you'll see at 5 drivers violate significant traffic laws. You'll see illegal turns, you'll see people not coming to complete stops, you'll see them not stopping behind the stop signs. You'll see them turn without signaling. And this isn't something that happens in a vacuum. Go to an unlit crosswalk. Or just stand on a corner where there's significant pedestrian/vehicle traffic. Count how many cars yield the right of way to pedestrians versus how many pedestrians are forced to yield the right of way to cars. You know what you're going to find out? Drivers violate traffic laws all the time, they do so at the expense of pedestrians' rights and safety, and most of the time they're totally unaware of it.

So that's thing number one. And I don't want to hear any excuses about how it's hard to pay attention to what you're dong when you're driving. You know what? It's hard for me to aim my fucking gun, but somehow I don't think that would mean much to you if I blew your fucking head off. So sell that shit somewhere else.

Thing number two is, bikes violate traffic laws for a reason and often-- contrary to popular fucking opinion --that reason is drivers.

How many times have I come to a complete stop at a stop sign only to have car drivers not only skip me to take their turn, but actually drive around me and cut me off? Dozens of times. You know why they do that? Because it takes me longer to accelerate and they don't want to wait for me. So if I think I can safely blow through a stop sign I tend to do so in order to avoid getting pinned down at the intersection.

Or another popular complaint drivers have-- cyclists ride in the middle of the road, slowing down traffic. You know why I do that? Some roads are too narrow to allow cars to pass safely-- but the cars give it a try anyway. I've been knocked off my bike by rear-view mirrors three times. You know how many of those drivers have stopped to see if I was alright? Not one.

I could go on and on, but generally those are my two responses to that, "cyclists deserve to get hit because they break the law," shit: drivers break the law incessantly and that's a contributing factor in why cyclists break the law. And since the cyclist is the one who has everything at stake when a car/bike interaction goes badly, I find this persecuted driver attitude particularly galling. I'm covered in scars from accidents where the driver was patently at fault-- to the extent where they've paid for damage to my bike resulting from the accident. And while I appreciated their willingness to accept responsibility, I also have to point out that none of them were injured at all. In fact, most of the time, their cars weren't even banged up. So fuck whoever cops that attitude. It's blaming the victim and it's bullshit.

And point number three is that, contrary to popular opinion, roads weren't invented to drive fucking cars on. Roads pre-date cars by about 10,000 years. They serve a lot of functions. You walk on them, you sell things on them, you run utilities under them and use them to divide blocks of housing. Roads would exist without cars. So this snotty fucking attitude like a cyclist is somehow abusing a cars-only facility by slowing down the flow of traffic is-- say it with me --fucking bullshit.

Paul,

Back to this mob mentality thing. What if there was a group roaming our city, intent on driving around in multi-thousand-pound machines, not signaling their intent to turn before doing so, cutting across bicycle lanes without looking, swinging doors open into the path of bicycles, blocking intersections by entering them before other vehicles have cleared leaving room for them to clear, zipping through crosswalks while pedestrians are forced to yield way to avoid injury or death, etc. -- all while listening to loud music, chatting on the phone, smoking, sipping on a coffee, and yelling at kids in the back seat?

Would that, in your opinion, be a mob deserving of rough police treatment like you suggest the Critical Mass riders are?

My last comment sounds more confrontational than I intended it to be.

The point is: The wrongs done / laws broken by the monthly Critical Mass ride -- generally done for safety or as a demonstration of civil disobedience -- are miniscule in comparison to those wrongs done / laws broken intentionally and brazenly every minute of every day by drivers of motorized vehicles -- and the police ignore the drivers' wrongs something like 99.99% of the time.

Paul had me going there with the mob thing. In retrospect, it is (no offense, Paul) a joke.

Hey Joshua... ever ridden on the sidewalk? In tight quarters, it can be a lifesaver.

Again, excuses excuses.

I weigh 260 pounds, Gomez. I can take a few curbs every so often but if I go off and on one at the end of every block it knocks my wheels out of true. Also, many sidewalks in Seattle are extremely narrow or, as in the case of major through-roads like 15th between Downtown and Ballard or 23rd from Montlake to John Street, they're so badly maintained and so overgrown that they're impossible to ride for any distance.

And as much to the point, why the fuck should I have to ride on the sidewalk?

You want to talk excuses-- what's your excuse for driving in the city? We've got a perfectly good mass transit system.

Phil.

Good Dialogue.

As to the MOB Mentality, this type of behavior by Critical Mass has caused almost the exact same problem about ten years ago.

How the SPD came up with, just let them do whatever they want as a response is beyond me.

As to your points on the "Car Mob", swinging car doors into to oncoming bicyclists? Are you kidding me? That's kind of like running into a parked car and blaming the car, isn't it? Be aware of what is in front of you.

Read:

http://www.oz.net/~nic/massnews1.html

http://www.oz.net/~nic/policereport.html

Joshua,
You sound a bit crazy. Here's the thing, Cars do share the road with Bicycles, whereas the WHOLE POINT of Critical mass to take over the road. Seriously, this type of behavior can only be described as confrontational and provoking.

Joshua, you don't pay attention, do you? I take the bus and walk. I don't own a car.

I'm also surprised you consider sidewalks narrow, given one of your complaints is how narrow the space is between cars in the right lane and parked cars against the curb. IIRC that space is far more narrow than even the narrowest arterial sidewalk in Seattle.

Let me just point out that biking on the sidewalk is, if anything, more dangerous than biking on the road. Every driveway, parking lot exit, and road crossing becomes 10 times more dangerous when you're biking on the sidewalk, as most drivers don't see you coming, and tend to pull out right on top of you.

I'm pretty good at avoiding accidents with cars, but the one time I was ever hit was one of the few times I took the sidewalk instead of the road.

Moreover, pedestrians and cyclists don't mix well at the speed most bikes are going -- you're asking for all sorts of injuries due to collisions. Seriously, when you're walking out of a storefront, do you look both ways to see if a bike is coming?

cyclist/geek said: "Moreover, pedestrians and cyclists don't mix well at the speed most bikes are going -- you're asking for all sorts of injuries due to collisions. Seriously, when you're walking out of a storefront, do you look both ways to see if a bike is coming?"

Exactly. I used to walk the Burke-Gilman trail to UW everyday, and I cannot count the number of times I was almost hit from behind by cyclists who didn't want to slow down or tried to squeeze by me when there wasn't really room. One of them even yelled "Fuck you" after almost hitting me once, like it was somehow my fault- I don't have eyes in the back of my head.

It seems to me that bike riders' interaction with pedestrians often mirrors their own relationship with cars, and they don't display any better behavior than the drivers.

To the argument that cars break more traffic laws than bikes: I rarely see a car run a red light or stop sign, but it happens; I frequently see cars fail to use a turn signal; I have almost never seen other laws broken. In contrast, I frequently see bikes run stop signs or switch to the crosswalk to avoid stopping at red lights (very rarely do they dismount if they do this), I almost never see them use any sort of hand signal, and I have NEVER seen on pull to the side of the road to allow a back-up to pass them (it's the law, and I do occasionally see cars do this). Keep in mind that you probably see several hundred more cars a day than bicycles: If I see 10 out of 200 cars violate a law today that's 5%; if I see 1 out of 5 bikes break the law it's 25%. Despite the massive quantity of traffic violations committed by drivers, if you wish to compare them to bicycles you have to do it proportionally.

I'm sure that there are plenty of bicyclists that meticulously obey the law, but that hasn't been my general experience. I see them as a hazard to pedestrians and, at best, an annoyance to motor vehicles.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not the police were justified in using the level of force they did responding to a non-violent civil infraction.