BCLU perspectives on controversies over the incident:

Because of the controversies and harassment directed at this
videographer, and the misinterpretation of the videos by some, a few
facts corroborated by multiple witnesses are in order:

1) The bicyclists surrounded the van: NOT TRUE.

The bicyclists surrounded the van as much as a fist is surrounded when
it punches one in the stomach.  The driver plowed into the crowd.  When
I saw this, it looked as if he must have struck people due to the speed
and how densely packed the group was.  

2) The bicyclists should have moved out of the way: NOT POSSIBLE.

You can hear people calmly saying to back away from the van at the
very beginning of the video I captured.  Almost immediately after
that, the driver hits the gas and runs into people, who become trapped
and entangled as a result.  A young man rushed up on his bicycle to try 
to pull the first person who was trapped out.  As the van kept moving, 
this second person was trapped even as people pulled the first one out.
A third person who had rushed up (a young woman) was also trapped in
kind.  This is how three bicycles ended up under the wheel.  It all
happened quickly but I saw it.  Unfortunately, as I was truly terrified 
that the motorist was accelerating to flee, and would be gone soon leaving
bloody bodies behind, I focused on getting an image of his face as 
soon as possible for identification (bloody bodies *should* be ample
evidence that he'd done something wrong).  This is why as soon as I
saw that his moving forward was captured on tape, I rushed to the window
instead of filming what came next. It was a difficult but split-second
decision that had to be made. 

3) The video was edited to hide important elements of the attack: NOT TRUE.

We only wish we had more footage to more fully show what happened. The
video starts late because this was a surprise.  It takes a while to
get my camera out and get it started.  I (Jason Meggs), the videographer
who captured the Head van crushing forward into stationary people on 
bicycles, started at the rear of the ride, and it took time to get up 
the hill to the scene.

The video pieces were edited in part to conform to the media's
requests in the past that we not turn over "raw protest footage." The
essential elements of the attack are all there; nothing was edited
out.  The full video goes on for many minutes and is too long for
youtube.  The majority of it is the aftermath, as the police arrived.
Many things were not caught on tape, such as the motorist's wife 
walking through the crowd cursing them angrily.

It is true that the longer video might be misused by the mass media, 
who are experts of spinning and editing things.  The less footage they
have, the more likely the full real story will be told for a change.
KRON, for example, and another station, have already begun saying that
a group smashed multiple windows, rather than the fact that one window
was broken and the crowd did NOT fracture the window.  Moreover, they
say it as if that was the entire context: a group just went up to a
car and attacked it.  This is totally misleading (and not at all 
credible; it would be a major abberation for this 14+ year monthly
tradition; this was the 172nd ride with no similar incident to point
to, although motorist and police violence have occurred at times in
the past).


It is also true that KRON, in an interview that they begged for and
promised would be used to allow the bicyclists' story to be told, 
sprung this idea of turning over the entire video *during* the interview,
in an attempt to surprise the interviewee (me, Jason Meggs), which was
about as successful as it was just.  The responses by Meggs are all
true.  The statement that the BCLU wants to make sure that the 
important elements of the story be told is in the context of the
surprise departure from what was promised: going frame by frame through
the video to show what the driver did.  KRON broke that promise.

They knew I was on deadline to submit final grades for my students,
in finals, and had not slept for days.  They took advantage of that
by falsely promising to go frame by frame. 

What's more, KRON did not announce that they were recording. 
There was no recording light on their camera, which may well
be illegal (although we have not taken action to press 
charges, it's an interesting thought on how to get some
justice).

This is par for the course in KRON's modus operandi these days: 
"try to track down the evil people who are hiding things."  It's
not hard to spin things that way, particularly if you're dishonest,
use the element of surprise, take things out of context, and don't
inform the victim (me) that you're recording while staging the
frame-up.   KRON also put together a bogus spin piece mis-using 
the footage and ignoring all the cyclists' experience, and beginning
provocative online blogs claiming that bicyclists are at fault
in most crashes (a typical police bias as well).  Catch-22.

Of interest, I had been in the media twice recently, once on KRON,
where footage of mine was used to debunk the sensationalized and
misreported attack in San Francisco (similar formula: a sympathetic
dempographic gets away with car violence, in that case it was a mom
with her kids, in this case it's an older man going to see his
daughter with cerebral palsy).  Being a mother or a senior citizen is
not an excuse for violence against peaceful demonstrators.

KRON deleted that story from their website, evidently because
it gives fair time to the other side -- something they're
clearly rabidly opposed to.  Clear to me at least, having
had to deal with their rude and obnoxious reporter in my home.

A second media appearance was in defense of Oakland Critical 
Mass, where I successfully spoke to the importance of 
supporting bicycling to meet the urgent need to avert 
catastrophic climate change.  It's interesting that one of the
most prolific harrassers in an angry phone call said to give
up; he said that we would never stop climate change.

(On February 2, 2007, Oakland Police, using a helicopter and 
numerous squad cars, blocked traffic to detain nonviolent and 
peaceful protesters.  A large number of citations were issued.)



4) The bicyclists put their bicycles under the van: NOT TRUE.

This is absurd, yet the motorist and the Berkeley Police, in their
unending corruption, have made this claim.  The only way those
bicycles could have conceivably gotten there is the way that is
(partially but clearly) shown on the video.  The fact that people 
tried to pull their bicycles out and could not budge them attests
to the fact that (a) nobody wanted to have their bike under a car
and (b) nobody could move a car to get a bike out, let alone
put one under it.  (Yes it was very unwise for them to get in
harm's way to rescue a bicycle -- I have no control over that.)

5) The police report: BOGUS.

Many witnesses were refused the opportunity to make a statement,
including motorists not connected to the event who saw what really
happened.  The police did not take action to press charges despite the
request of the injured bicyclists that they do so.  The police refused
to execute a citizen's arrest, denying the demonstrators their
Constitutional rights in that manner as well. The police evidently did
not run a sobriety test on the motorist (it was Friday evening after
dinner and both appeared intoxicated to many observers).

The police are once again framing the demonstration with lies, abusing
their power.  Sadly, this grotesque inequity is something that
bicyclists and pedestrians, including people who use wheelchairs,
experience on a regular basis in everyday life.

6) The motorist or his wife suffered from some disability: NOT EVIDENT.

The motorist drove with an insignia for people with disabilities on
his license plate.  Yet he and his wife were able to walk, and he was
able to operate a motor vehicle as a weapon as well as brandish a
knife-like tool.  If anything, the motorist suffered from an inability
to control his anger and to operate a vehicle safely, and as such
his driving privileges should be revoked.  Some have suggested
that, due to the high instance of fraud for disability privileges,
which are also associated with aggressive/selfish motorist syndrome,
that the driver's disability placard is a fraud.
BCLU has no proof of this and makes no such claims.  However, it is
also unfair for people to accuse the demonstrators of attacking people
with disabilities.


Harlan Head yanked his wife and dragged her away from the scene, with no evidence of physical disability.

People in wheelchairs, or who use a bicycle as a crutch, or who cannot
drive because of disabilities, come on Critical Mass and are welcome
there.  Critical Mass Berkeley has gone to the site of the killing of
Fred Lupke, killed by automobile while travelling as a pedestrian in a
wheelchair, to protest the Berkeley Police report which faulted him.
 
There has also been confusion about the motorist's daughter having
cerebral palsy (the passenger he identified as his wife said this when
she stepped out of the van (it's on the video), although KGO Ch. 7
misreported that *she* (the wife) had cerebral palsy).
 
The motorist had the full use of his foot on the gas pedal.  He was
able to push people and wield a knife-like garden tool.  He was able
to walk away from the van like an able-bodied person without
assistance.

BCLU has *always* included people with disabilities in its mission,
and senior citizens as well.  Anyone who is unable to drive for any
reason needs their right to travel safely and comfortably protected.
This driver stands against that mission by attacking bicyclists.  We
are so very fortunate that the injuries were not worse and that he did
not create another person with a disability with his actions.  

For more information about the Lupke case, see this page regarding the 
BCLU response: http://bclu.org/projects/wheelchairrights.html

7) Why are you picking on old people? NOT TRUE.

Nobody knew the driver's age when he barelled into the crowd.  As you
can see in the video, his windows were tinted; it was near dusk.  Some
people have written us, even claiming "elder abuse."  The group we
were monitoring didn't react to his age.  They reacted to his actions.
His car, used aggressively as a weapon, is the only persona that
presented itself, a persona all too familiar -- big, pushy, angry car,
disrespecting life.

The driving-first policies of this country *do* discriminate against
our elders, in so many ways.  Loss of license due to "age-related"
issues affecting the ability to drive strands millions without viable
transport.  The elderly are disproportionately likely to be struck and
killed by motor vehicles (as are the young, who also suffer lack of
accessibility due to motor vehicles -- and automobile crashes are the
#1 preventable cause of death for people under 31 years of age).

Designing cities for everyone would save and improve lives in numerous
ways while greatly protecting the environment.  The false portrayal
of this incident is being used as a smoke screen to hide the true
killing and suppression of us all, particularly those young and old,
and people with disabilities.

8) Critical Mass Demonstrations ask for what they get because they
   block traffic: NO.

Critical Mass demonstrations have evolved to get their message out,
and provide a positive experience for participants, in an efficient
and safe manner.  They function much as a parade or procession does, 
as is codified in law.  The Berkeley City Council should move to
make such demonstrations explicitly legal (see below).

While the demonstrations are not always perfect (anyone can come, and
not everyone has learned the long-time principles and tactics of a
successful ride), the mission of the group as a whole is absolutely
not to antagonize or instigate.  Motorists who cannot see this are
invited to participate and see for themselves, or at least take a hard
look at themselves.

For one of many examples of how bicyclists get the word out to
themselves to behave well, check the Peace in the Streets 
homepage, now almost 10 years old. (Note, that's a link to the archive.org
backup and so it doesn't have all its formatting. Unfortunately xinet.com
recently lost a large compendium of late 90's bicycle rennaissance web
presence without a backup.)


As a group, motorists have a Criticial Mass of cars everyday.  They
run red lights by the millions; mow down pedestrians; cause noise
pollution that harms health; pollute the air which damages lungs and
causes cancer; recklessly waste our inheritance of stored solar energy
(fossil fuels); pour trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere,
risking catastrophic climate change which can kill billions of people
and collapse the economies of the world; have created a steady rise of
big brotherism and the architecture of a police state, as more and
more mechanisms are used to track and control drivers (do you really
feel free in a car? don't you want more choices?); and so much more.
This paragraph could go on for millions and millions of lines.  The
fact that many bicyclists and potential bicyclists say they won't ride 
because motorists make them feel too scared, shows who the real
bullies are here.  

Critical Masses happen once a month on a Friday evening in just one
part of the city, on a regular schedule.  The roadway network has
plenty of redundancy; motorists can simply go around.  It's rare that
Critical Mass creates more delay than a traffic light, with the 
exception of San Francisco where up to 10,000+ people sometimes
ride together.  In short, how can anyone participating in the
system of automotive transport have any criticism of this demonstration
and celebration of alternatives?  Share the road and respect the
groups' Constitutional right for the redress of grievances.

9) Critical Mass demonstrations are illegal: NO.

Bicyclists have a right to the road.  Citizens have a right to
demonstrate.  It is true that Critical Masses stay together as a group
through red lights, after entering on a green light.  This is the
safest and most efficient way for the demonstrations to proceed; to
deny this would be to make the demonstration impossible.  This is also
the same practice for as parades and processions, as codified in law.  

It is true that the demonstrations do not get permits, and refuse to.
There is case law to support this.  A sane response for government
would be to pass laws codifying the right to ride in groups.  This
would help everyone with not only critical masses, but other,
unrelated rides including tours and races.

10) Aren't you hiding whoever broke the window?

The police know who broke the window; he admitted to it. While
it is terrible that a window was broken, the demonstrators as a
whole did not break the window, one individual did.  If he did
so improperly, he can be held accountable.  It is clear that the
window was not broken before the driver attacked the crowd, 
causing injury and much more property damage.  It is also clear that
the broken window was not an attempt to injure or attack the 
driver or his passenger.  

There have been many irresponsible, inflamatory and threatening
comments posted on youtube by anonymous individuals.  They are
making the public as a whole look bad to the world.

Most troubling, some people have claimed that an african american
bicyclist broke the window, based on a reflection in one person's
footage (not mine). They are wrong; I spoke with the person who 
told the police he broke the window and the person was not black.


11) Unauthorized repostings:  illegal

There have been unauthorized repostings of the video to various
sites such as break.com and youtube.com.  These repostings have
often been presented with inflamatory/libelous language and 
misrepresent what really happened at this incident.  This is ethically
and legally wrong & is a copyright infringement.  BCLU has been
contacting these individuals to cease and desist.  

12) Making this public was harmful to the bicycle cause: MAYBE NOT

The free publicity for the fact that bicycle demonstrations do 
exist, even in this car-dominated country, may be a service to 
the public despite the efforts to lie, libel and defame.  One hopes that 
people can think for themselves and not be swayed by inflamatory 
and false rhetoric.  Bicycle issues are so suppressed in this country
that perhaps only a situation like this can lead to any kind of a
dialogue about the very serious issues that are being ignored, and
the very serious inequities which pervade.  May it lead directly
to a productive dialogue.

13) What may have motivated the driver?

The driver has previously published his hopes that the police will
target pedestrians in a letter to the editor.  

Many bicyclists feel the media misrepresentation and targeting of
bicyclists makes them feel more at risk -- that violence is 
being instigated by media sensationalism and highly biased reporting.

14) Youtubers Exposed!

The problem of motorist violence which bicyclists and pedestrians see
all too often, has been captured by some students in one incident on
youtube (see below).  The comments on youtube continue to be
inflamatory, defamatory, prejudiced, vile and violent.  The news
report itself covers the fact that the police officer wouldn't have
believed the cyclist.  It's yet another parallel incident, and it
shows how sick the people representing the car companies are. 



To see their comments, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H0Pb_qjj6k


It's really quite amazing that the Berkeley Daily Planet was at all influenced
by creepy anonymous comments like these.  E.g., "God bless the
driver. I LOVE when drivers run over these sissys on their stupid
bicycles. BAN THE CRITICAL MASS IDIOTS. I hate those stinking hippies."

The editor of the Planet published an editorial attacking me (Jason Meggs), 
entwining claims that I'm like George Bush, her passions for Israel v.
Palestine, and mistakenly claiming that I've been a City of Berkeley
commissioner. (2011 update: I have never taken a public position on
the Israel/Palestine controversy, and it was truly wrong for her to
invent one for me. That said, I've since been personally affected by the
Israeli military for shooting a longtime friend and fellow bicycle activist
in the head, nearly two years later in March 2009.)

When I called her to work this out she expressed her long-time displeasure
with the name BCLU, evidently believing that bicyclists shouldn't 
assert their civil rights and that "bicycle" is not an adjective.

For the bicycle people and their bicycle rights, the Bicycle Civil
Liberties Union continues (see elsewhere for why the name was chosen).
This is but another example of the need to stop the institutionalized
bias and exclusion of bicyclists and bicycling, which costs lives,
quality of life, freedom, health, and the sustainability of this
planet (and everything else, including the 'economy').

As always, the BCLU seeks to resolve such issues and extends the offer
of mediation to all parties, and continues to appreciate the past 
coverage by the Planet which was generally favorable to bicyclists,
despite a media environment funded first and foremost by automotive
interests (to say nothing of petroleum company influence).  The 
BCLU presented an award for just reporting to the Planet on its
first anniversary, with a group of some 70 bicyclists. (The award
was given after the BDP's first year, when it was under different
management. Ironically, thepaper later came under fire as having 
an opposite bias (see NY Times article.


15) Wasn't this a waste of resources?  YES

Harlan Head's actions and the many repercussions had very harmful effects.

This reporter, for instance, was working on a completely different media
issue: to assess worker and nearby residents' exposure to dust as a result
of the rapidly mobilized demolition and construction taking place due to
the collapse of an I-580 segment caused by a tanker truck fire.  This study
was to be done through the Environmental Health Sciences Divison of the
School of Public Health at UC Berkeley.  These plans were scrapped due to
the perceived need to set the story straight in the media on this event.
(Worth mentioning that bicycle lanes were removed, and major dollar 
investments were made, including a free transit day, to help 
motorists affected by this temporary infrastructure gap, showing extreme 
bias and preferential treatment for motorists over alternative modes.
When do non-drivers get any mobilized response for the major gaps and 
ongoing emergency they face?)

A tally of all the hours spent on this issue including attempting to
hold the police accountable, and to assess the opportunity costs (all
the other things the time could have been spent on) is an important
exercise.  Moreover, the ripple effect of this incident surely harmed
the public good in myriad ways. Harlan Head's actions and the police's
aiding and abetting those actions certainly have widespread impacts.
The message to motorists was that violence is okay, the car is king,
and the Constitution is expendable.

16) When is it okay to run people and/or bicycles over?  Never.

Even if the driver had a green light, the street was full of living
human beings.  There is never an excuse (legal or otherwise) to 
run into people.  The car is not more important than life, and its
destructive tyranny over free expression, stewardship of the land 
and the use of public space is an affront to the freedoms embodied 
in the founding of this country and every principle of human rights.

The fact that there are so many people who believe otherwise, who
bicyclists and pedestrians (and everyone, including other motorists)
encounter daily, and the fact that these values have been embedded 
in the legal system, the built environment and the institutions that 
control our built environment, is strong testimony as to the ability 
of the motor vehicle system to beget violence and oppression
and to pervert and distort the health of communities and cultures.


17) Were the demonstrators hippies? Irrelevant.

The hate speech coming from a small but vocal band of youtubers repeatedly
casts the world into "hippies" and non-hippies, as well as along narrow
two-party political system lines, issues of sexuality, age, and so on.
Presuming what others think is fallacious. Moreover, all people deserve
equal protection.

For just one example of this kind of hate speech, read this exchange 
received July 26, 2008 (15th month after the incident).

18)  Were the driver's witnesses really "independent"?  QUITE POSSIBLY NOT!

Independent witnesses in a car who saw the incident and were willing
to testify that the motorist was at fault were not interviewed by
police. 

Only two "independent" witnesses were interviewed, who police
claimed were not with the driver.  However, there is reason
to believe both witnesses knew the driver and may even have
been traveling with the driver.

Here is one person who seemed quite familiar with the driver
and his wife:






19)  More debunking and clarification to come, I'm sure.