“Don’t Tase Me Bro!” – Cycling Edition
Last year, a case was presented to the Lawrence County Municipal Court of Ohio that was not only indicative of the pervasive tension between cyclists and motorists using the same roadways, but also highlighted the fact that sometimes those who are charged to serve and protect end up harassing and abusing instead.
In an effort to prevent two cyclists, who were riding two abreast down a county road in Ohio, from potentially impeding the flow of traffic, a deputy took a rather unique approach to make sure that did not happen.
Deputy Hammonds testified that when he passed the two bicyclists, his best estimate was that the defendant was traveling 15 to 20 mph at that point and at all times during this incident. Deputy Hammonds testified that as he passed the defendant, Deputy Hammonds shook his head no at the defendant and then watched in his rearview mirror to see if the bicyclists either went to single file to allow cars to pass or if despite the bicyclists riding side by side the motor vehicles were able to pass them. Since as he watched in his rearview mirror neither of those two events occurred, he pulled off the roadway into the Briggs Library Branch parking lot to the right of the roadway just off the edge of County Road 1. The library is located about one block from the municipal court. Officer Hammonds testified that he wanted to speak to the cyclists because they were impeding traffic. He testified, ``[I]f I didn't at least say something to them someone would call in a complaint because I let the bikes impede traffic.'' Officer Hammonds testified that the defendant continued to travel east; now reaching the village of Chesapeake. Deputy Hammonds again pulled around the cyclist attempting to block the roadway with his vehicle and getting out of his vehicle but was unable to stop them as the bicyclists went around him. Deputy Hammonds got back in his cruiser passed the defendant a third time, stopped his cruiser for the third time and then shot the defendant with a taser while the defendant was still on the bicycle as the defendant was riding through a used car lot heading in the direction of the Huntington, West Virginia bridge. Deputy Hammonds used the taser in order to bring the defendant to a stop, fearing that the defendant was going to escape to West Virginia. He then placed the defendant under arrest.
Because Ohio law states that "persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for exclusive use for bicycles or motorcycles," the cyclists were perfectly within their right to ride side-by-side and continue along the roadway, and because the deputy did not have a probable cause to stop the cyclists, the motion to dismiss the case was eventually granted. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done.
Don't tase me bro, seriously!
Read the full report below (the embedded file may not load properly in Internet Explorer 7 or 8 in its default settings).
Read Bicycling Magazine's Bob Mionske's report on the case.
UPDATE: In August of 2009, the tasered cyclist, 38-year-old Anthony Patrick of Huntington, WVa, filed a suit in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati against Lawless, Charles Hammonds, a Lawrence County sheriff’s deputy; the Village of Chesapeake, Russell Bennett, Chesapeake police chief at the time; and Dennis Gibson, the current village chief.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages following what the documents filed in district court describe as “the illegal and intentional detention, attack, beating, arrest and Tasering of plaintiff by defendants.”
The suit seeks a jury trial.
Related Posts:
2 Responses »
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)
I bicycle commute during the summer and, unfortunately have to use a car in the winter. What makes me very nervous is bicyclists who impede traffic by deliberately riding in the middle of the travel lane and snake across the travel lane to force cars to travel at their speed. That antagonises the motoring commuters and can have lasting effects on all bicyclists.
We need to keep law enforcement on our side, ignoring a police officers attempts is not the right way to gain and maintain respect for us, the cycling public.
You make some good points Ted. No real reason is given as to why Mr. Patrick and his juvenile companion did not stop for the police officer, which they could have done so simply out of courtesy as he made no bones about his wanting the two to stop.
I realize, as both a cyclist and a motorist, that when incidents happen both can be at fault, but what motorists fail to realize is that when it comes to a car versus a bike, the car wins every time, which makes David Zabriskie's organization, "Yield to Life," even more poignantly named. Motorists need to do a better job at sharing the roadways. Unfortunately, in the State that I live in, where radio talk show hosts have even advocated for motorists to throw things at riders as they go by, motorists don't even look at cyclist as living beings, but merely as annoyances to their commute.
I'll say this in regard to the legal case above, regardless of the cyclist's failure to heed to the deputy's repeated attempts, if the deputy was able to drive by and around them several times, it doesn't seem as if the cyclists were impeding traffic; which he was afraid the cyclists were doing.
Please read Bob Mionskie's break down of the incident, as he states, "Gaining the right to the road was the cycling cause of the late nineteenth century; securing that right will be the cycling cause of the early twenty-first century. What happened to Tony and Ryan from the moment the Deputy first decided to say something to them is a real-world example of the challenge cyclists face in securing their right to the road. For most of us, I suspect it's easier to just quietly comply with a law enforcement officer's misguided attempts to enforce laws that don't exist. Sure, we know the officer is wrong, but do we really want to go to jail to make that point, instead of wherever it is we happen to be going at that moment? The problem is, if everybody acquiesces to a violation of our rights, do we still have the right? I would argue that unless the right is exercised, it doesn't exist. Therefore, when a law enforcement officer is enforcing laws that don't exist, it is incumbent upon us to stand up for our rights."