- Snow. After nearly two weeks of 18+ inches of snow on a non-snow city operating on a plan of "gee, if vehicles with chains or 4x4 can maneuver the compacted snow'n'ice of what used to be considered roads, it's all good" with salt declared "environmentally bad" and plow blades with rubber edges (lest the roads be wounded), even as side streets remain unplowed and various business districts are effectively considered expendable. Local Transit (Metro) routes were cut by more than half, interestingly enough, post event Metro heads complain the Mayors office refused to take their calls. Mayor Nickels gives city response a "B" grade. Excellent article on the aftermath by Seattle P-I's Joel Connelly.
- Increasingly globular Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels tells us he's not trying to make life inconvenient for Seattleites...a hint that it just comes naturally to him. A partial list of his more spectacularly foolish moments includes:
- In November of 2008, Nickels (in the face of a formal legal opinion from WA Attorney General Rob McKenna stating in painful detail that mayoral temper tantrums were not exempt from state law) claimed he would go ahead with his shiny new gun ban, as he needed "clarification" of the AG opinion.
- In the midst of "challenging financial times" Nickels is ram-rodding through the City Council a plan to ban foam containers at restaurants and grocery stores, and impose a 20-cent fee for each disposable paper and plastic bag used in the checkout line at all grocery, convenience and drugstores - with plastic containers/implements/etc banned in July of 2010. In a display of solidarity with less well-off residents that use grocery bags as garbage can liners rather than paying for "extra special" designated baggage, Nickels in an interview said "If you use grocery bags to line your trash can, Nickels says, "that's great, 20-cents."
- Nickels cronies in the Parks Department, in a triumph of symbolism over sanity decided to take down a long time Seattle tradition, in a sop thrown to "global warming" - beach fires at Alki Beach and Golden Gardens city parks while a factory burns tires for fuel a short distance away. At least until public outcry forced a Parks Department climb down...
- And then there's that loony notion, "car-free" days on local roads - trapping local residents or barring them from their homes if they have the temerity to make an appointment or try to come home during the "forbidden hours".
- Under Nickels, a group of bicycle riding hooligans once a month magically ride above the law, engaging in random property damage and - most recently - assault.
- Nickels, frustrated that the rest of the state won't buy into his delusions, suggested on 4/18 that the Seattle/TriCounty (King/Pierce/Snohomish County) area secede from the rest of the state.
Greg Nickels is running for a third term as Mayor/Petty Tyrant in November 2009 - the next likely opportunity for sane folks to get shed of this nutjob.
5 comments:
Let's be fair. Most of those hooligans ride more than once a month.
That they ride is not objectionable (Critical Mass). That they engage in assault and deliberate obstruction of the public roads, well - I tend to favor arrest, seizure of the bicycles in question as evidence to be held until trial 8-12 months down the road, and charging the concerned individuals with an eye towards deterrence; and requesting fines in lieu of jail time on conviction.
If these hooligans engage in such behavior as individuals whilst out riding, I'm perfectly ok seeing the same unsubtle discouraging technique applied.
At least in terms of assault, that sounds like a stereotyping of a group that ranges to upwards of a thousand people based on the actions of very few.
That said, your other comments are reasonable.
Beyond, of course, any intentional delay of trial. That would be very wrong.
I'm curious what your thoughts are with regard to drivers who become enraged and drive into the cyclists?
I speak to specific incidents of assault re: Critical Mass. Outside of assault, I lean towards utilizing RCW 9A.84.010 or RCW 9.66.010 (either of which appear to apply rather tightly to the Critical Mass Demonstrations, IANAL).
There is no need for any intentional delay of trial, thus I do not address the topic. The normal delays for non-felony trials frequently can extend out to a year or so. Malicious delay would be redundant.
As far as drivers who drive into cyclists? During normal course of traffic, I tend to favor charges ranging from reckless endangerment on up to homicide, depending on actual injuries inflicted - a "one size fits all" answer seems deeply unlikely, but the charging standard should be precisely the same as for any other intentional operator misconduct.
In the course of a road-obstructing protest? My sympathies are limited. While I do not believe an aggressive driver maliciously assaulting a bicyclist with a deadly weapon (a car) in such circumstances should either be applauded nor left unscathed, I think as a matter of public policy that a person that knowingly places themselves in harms way (to prove a point or for whatever reason) has substantially less legitimate claim to either civil or criminal liability than a person identically injured who did not go out of their way to place themselves in a provocative and hazardous role.
In the case of the July incident, a driver has every right to be just as irate as they want to be - nobody has the right to tell another person what their emotional state should be. I would suggest the driver in question at least should have been looked at in terms of reckless endangerment (no injuries reported, thus...), but that the Police responded appropriately in seeking to charge those who assaulted the driver.
Thus my stance that Critical Mass should be met with a herd of blue clad officers doling out misdemeanor and felony citations to violators, with arrests only in the cases of felonies or assaults on the citing officers.
It is predictable that a percentage already stressed drivers with the simple goal of getting home or to work will respond badly to malicious obstruction to "prove a point", "make a protest", or "educate the public". This is not improved by bicyclists kicking cars they view as offensive, ripping off mirrors, or attempting to dole out street justice. When large masses of steel are involved, such bad reactions pose a serious risk of injury or death to the ill-advised bicyclist and/or their compatriots.
Such behavior should be thoroughly deterred,not unlike discouraging playing with matches while doused in gasoline.
IANAL either. But, I find it difficult to understand how Critical Mass /as a demonstration/ could fall under the realm of riot. The use of force, which in the July example I think we both agree was assault and battery, is a necessary and missing component.
It is definitely a public nuisance- which seems to be the point. I think the polarization would be fascinating if a large number of the "massers" were charged and convicted with misdemeanors. Instead, the local government (as in many other cities) has settled on an ambivalent position.
Thank you for clarifying your points on both driver and cyclist responsibility and culpability. (Short story: we have similar viewpoints)
I rode in the Critical Mass that occurred in the month following the assault (curiosity)- it was lead and flanked by police cruisers and paddy wagons. However, as far as I know, no arrests were made.
Post a Comment