BPD Motorcycle Officer Meredith

Date of Incident: July 13, 2001
Received: August 13, 2001

Complaint against BPD Officer Meredith #102 and BPD generally 
Complainant: Jason Meggs
Date of Incident: July 13, 2001
Locations: Berkeley BART and Dwight Way just east of Shattuck Avenue
 
Description of incident:
 
I was participating in a monthly "Critical Mass" community bicycle ride in
Berkeley in the early evening of Friday, July 13, 2001.  The ride had
gathered as they have done every second Friday (for over 8.5 years now) at
the Downtown Berkeley BART plaza. Officer Meredith and other officers had
passed out "safety literature" at the beginning of the ride.  The "safety"
literature had numerous problems and contradictions with state law, and
advocated unsafe activity.  I will discuss this further below.
 
The group of 60-100 bicyclists left the Downtown Berkeley BART station and
proceeded in a peaceful and conscientious manner to Dwight way, where
people signalled a left turn and did so using the green left-turn arrow.
 
Just after making the turn, at approximately 18:30 hours or just before,
while riding eastbound on Dwight Way (just east of Shattuck Avenue), I
noticed that officer Meredith was approaching from behind while riding a
large motorcycle.  He was traveling at a speed faster than the bicyclists
around him and was passing very closely.  I moved aside to let him pass
although he had not given any indication that he needed me to, other than
the fact that he was approaching in what felt like an aggressive manner
and that he might strike me if I did not.
 
As soon as officer Meredith passed, I watched him pass two other
bicyclists dangerously closely, swerving and tilting as he squeezed
through a tight space between a motorcar and a bicyclist.  This can
clearly be seen on the video evidence which I have submitted.
 
I approached him and asked him in a courteous manner whether that type of
behavior was necessary -- meaning his passing dangerously and
aggressively.
 
Officer Meredith justified his actions of endangering the bicyclists by
claiming that they were riding on the left illegally.  He further stated
something to the effect that bicyclists must ride as close to the right as
possible.  Both his statements are false.
 
I pointed out to him that under CVC 21202(b) (see below), bicyclists are
afforded the right to ride on the left-side of the roadway on a one-way
street with two or more lanes, which Dwight Way (the street we were
traveling on) is.  He denied that.  I asked him if we was a traffic patrol
officer and he said he was.  I asked him to learn the rights of bicyclists
and he gave me the impression he was not going to take any action and did
not feel he had done anything wrong.
 
Numerous others in the crowd expressed their feeling of unsafety at the
aggressive nature of the two motorcycle officers.  One woman asked me to
stay in front of officer Meredith to keep him from further endangering the
group.
 
Not long thereafter, Meredith was again behind me on Dana Street where
there is a left-side bicycle lane.  Dana is also a two-lane one-way street
like Dwight Way.  Meredith did not answer my question as to how this could
be, given his position that bicyclists may not ride on the left side of
the road.
 
This is another of many many examples of the fact that the Berkeley Police
Department is failing to train its officers -- in particular, its few
officers who are actually dedicated to traffic detail -- in the rights and
responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians.  This has a repetitive
harmful effect for bicyclists and pedestrians who are struck by
automobiles, but then falsely faulted by uninformed police officers.
 
Furthermore, officer Meredith #102 has shown in recent months that he is
aggressive and discriminatory against bicyclists.  I request that officer
Meredith be taken off Critical Mass detail forever, and removed from
traffic detail and not allowed to involve himself with bicycle and
pedestrian incidents until he has proven that he has not only a basic
grasp of the rights and responsibilites of bicyclists and pedestrians, but
has shown a sensitivity not only to their right to travel, but a
sensitivity to their right to life and limb.
 
My complaint also concerns the unsafe "safety" information which the
department walked through the crowd to distribute.  Sergeant Hester
evidently lead this effort, and officer Meredith participated.
 
This "safety literature" was put out by organizations such as the
California State Automobile Association (AAA), and the California Highway
Patrol (CHP).  Both these organizations have a poor record when it comes
to respecting the rights and safety of bicyclists. The AAA is a highly
funded lobbying arm of the automobile industries which actively lobbies
for increased road building (generally unsafe for bicyclists), against
penalties for unsafe behavior by motorists, and against bicycle facilities
and funding, and therefore works against bicycle transportation and
bicycle safety.  The California Highway Patrol has a record of assaulting
and falsely charging bicyclists in a discriminatory manner.
 
I shall address some of the problems with two of the "safety" information
documents which officers distributed, partial copies of which are
attached.
 
All laws quoted in this document were taken from the latest offerings on
the legislative website,
 
   http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
 
The first is from the California State Automobile Association.  It was a
small yellow card which invites people to sign a contract making them a
"Bicycle Safety Master".  Unfortunately, it has very unsafe and
unnecessarily constraining elements to that contract.
 
It asserts falsely: 
 
a)      "A bicycle is a vehicle"
 
670.  A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks.
 
b) "Always use hand signals when turning or stopping"
 
22107.  No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right
or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable
safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the
manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be
affected by the movement.
 
It can be dangerous to signal while stopping (most braking power is in the
front brakes, which are generally operated with the left hand, which is
the signalling hand so one loses power to do so).  It can also be
dangerous to signal, as that takes one or more hands off the handlebars
for a period of time when potholes, hazards, and turning may require more
use of the hands.  Because signalling is not required unless "other
vehicle[s] may be affected by [your] movement", this directive is
dangerous and innacurate.
 
c) "Ride your bicycle near the right hand edge of the road"
 
and
 
d) "Ride single file when riding with a group"
 
There is nothing in California State Law which requires either of these
behaviors, both of which can be very unsafe and impracticable.
 
In fact, CVC 21202 only asks bicyclists to ride as "close as practicable
to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" in certain instances.  
That "curb or edge" is quite different from the "right hand edge of the
road" as the roadway is that portion of the road which is designated for
vehicular travel.  It does not include the parking lanes and door zone
which are very dangerous for bicyclists.  In addition, if bicyclists were
required to follow that advice, they would be weaving in and out of spaces
which is a primary factor in many bicycle-motorcar injury collisions and
therefore, extremely unsafe behavior.
 
Note that the provisions allowing bicyclists to ride on the left of
one-way streets are partially important in order to avoid bus-bicycle
conflicts.  Critical Mass has repeatedly made way for buses as well as
emergency vehicles.
 
Finally, nothing in California State law requires that bicyclists ride
single-file.  Riding side- by-side is important for efficacy and safety.  
When bicyclists own the lane, they have every right to ride side-by side,
which is more sociable and more visible and therefore safer.
 
21202.  (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:
   (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding
in the same direction.
   (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway.
   (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe
to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions
of Section 21656.  For purposes of this section, a "substandard width
lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane.
   (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
   (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which
highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked
traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway
as practicable.
 
d) "Never carry another person on your bicycle"
 
There is no law requiring this and in fact to require such would greatly
diminish the social and economic benefits of the bicycle.
 
21204.  (a) No person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall ride other
than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto.
   (b) No operator shall allow a person riding as a passenger, and no
person shall ride as a passenger, on a bicycle upon a highway other than
upon or astride a separate seat attached thereto.  If the passenger is
four years of age or younger, or weighs 40 pounds or less, the seat shall
have adequate provision for retaining the passenger in place and for
protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle.
 
Another document which police passed out to the crowd was a pamphlet
produced by the CHP.
 
The CHP pamphlet was mostly correct although it had at least one glaring
error: it claims that the law requires that bicyclists "Keep at least one
hand on the handlebars".
 
In fact, the only law regarding hands on handlebars only covers carrying
items:
 
21205.  No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or
article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon
the handlebars.
 
This language allows bicyclists to use good judgement when they may need
to remove their hands from the handlebars.  While riding with no hands is
generally more unsafe than riding with one or more hands on the
handlebars, there are times when it is necessary for transportation or
safety purposes.  The legislature has allowed us to do so while carrying
packages as long as nothing "prevents" keeping a hand on the handlebars
when necessary.
 
The CHP pamphlet did have other dangerous advice such as confusing the
road with the roadway as the AAA "Bicycle Safety Maser" card did (I
addressed this above).
 
I request that the Berkeley Police Department cease and desist using these
dangerous documents until they are corrected, that they issue a public
statement of apology and correction, and that they notify the
organizations concerned that their documents are in error and need to be
corrected.  I further request that the Berkeley Police Department take
measures to educate its officers in the actual rights and responsibilities
of bicyclists and pedestrians.  Furthermore, using documents produced by
pro-automobile interests rather than public safety organizations is
unethical and improper.
 
If the BPD spent a tiny fraction of the effort it does in monitoring and
instigating unsafe activities against our community bicycle ride on the
more important activity of cleaning up its act with regards to bicycle and
pedestrian rights and safety for all who travel in Berkeley, the City of
Berkeley would save a huge amount of money and be much better off for it.
 
Thank you for your consideration.  I declare the above to be true to the
best of my ability.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Jason Meggs
 
 
[SECOND PART]
 
                
 
 
PRC 1895
 
Regarding subject officer: Officer Meredith
Submitted by complainant Jason Meggs
 
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT PART 2:
 
I neglected to include in my description of this incident that one of the
most dangerous and objectionable things that Officer Meredith did at that
time (approximately 18:30 hours, eastbound, Dwight Way just east of
Shattuck Avenue) was to cut in front of me with his motorcycle and stop
suddenly.  This was evidently done in retaliation for my bringing to his
attention the fact that his behavior was not only dangerous, but that his
understanding of the law was incorrect.  The incident was captured fairly
clearly on the video evidence which I have already submitted.
 
That dangerous maneuver could have easily resulted in my striking his
motorcycle.  He has repeated that type of deliberate behavior against
myself as well as to others since then.
 
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and ability.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Jason Meggs
Signed September 14, 2001
 
 
 
Printed on 100% Post-Consumer Content Re-CYCLED Paper or Re-used Paper
(even better!)