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

[Anne Wolfe]

What I want to know is at what point was it ever in doubt that this
guy did NOT have the right to bike on Mem Drive???????

As for the slant of CM from teh defense, I found the characterization
of CM by the side of teh cyclist (as previously reported here and in
the Globe probablyl did more to give the defense something to rail
against than if it hadn't been so catetorized.  The party bringing the
suit says "CM is a great peaceful organization dedicated to bike
advocacy"  then the defense gets to say "they block all the lanes and
tie up traffic" - makes CM look bad, particularly when they can't
argue that they DON"T tie up traffic and block all the lanes.

CM feels it is their right to do this, and if they do, then it is
their right to so believe.  But if they're going to go to civil
disobedience against laws they know exist but feel are unjust, then
fine.  That's how change happens, but inthe meantime if you're going
to break it to protest it, you're going to have to suffer the
consequences until change happens.


On Wed,  9 Mar 2005 07:48:10 -0800, turtle <turtle at zworg.com> wrote:
> 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 ------
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> 


-- 
Solitude never hurt anyone.  Emily Dickinson lived alone, and she
wrote some of the most beautiful poetry the world has ever known.  
Then she went crazy as a loon. - Lisa Simpson

Please note: I will be occupied 3/14 to 3/28.  It is unclear whether
or not I will have e-mail during this time.  Please plan ahead.  If
you need to access me during this time, please call my cell phone.  If
you don't have my cell phone number,  and think you might want it,
please ask before Monday 3/14/05!