|
Missouri Bicycle Federation
Missouri Bicycle News ArticleBicycle-related news stories from around the region. |
|
| MBF Home Page > Missouri bicycle news > Article |
|
Track current legislation Advocacy: Missouri Complete Streets PetitionAdvocacy: Bike/Ped in MoDOT funding?Advocacy: Bicycling License Plate Join Advocate Donate Maps Trails Shops Clubs News Rides Safety Tips Links Search SiteMap iCal Rss For Board Members Contact
Missouri Bicycle Federation, Inc.
Post Office Box 104871 Jefferson City, MO 65110-4871 MoBikeFed is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation Webmaster email: webmaster @ mobikefed .org 
|
Please send suggestions for Bicycle News items to webmaster@mobikefed.org
Click here to receive Bicycle News items by email  News items represent the views of the original writer or publisher, and not necessarily those of the Missouri Bicycle Federation, Inc.
posted by Brent Hugh at 5/29/2009 02:21:00 PM
As anyone who bicycles knows, harassment of bicyclists is a real problem. Even when it happens only rarely, it discourages many people from bicycling more.
Experience in other parts of the country has shown that public education combined with serious law enforcement action against harassers makes a real difference in cutting down this type of dangerous behavior. Experience says that the vast majority of drivers are courteous and law abiding. When education and law enforcement concentrate on that very small percentage of drivers who are dangerous or harassing, it can make a real difference. Members of PedNet in Columbia and the areas' bicycling community have been working with the Columbia City Council to introduce a model bicyclist harassment ordinance. Without a specific law on the books, it can be difficult for law enforcement officials to target bicyclist harassment. Even though offenders can be charged under a variety of existing laws, it is difficult to get convictions and in many cases the penalties--and, correspondingly, burden of proof--are so high that law enforcement officials are reluctant to pursue convictions. The Columbia ordinance, which is one result of the relationship PedNet has developed with area law enforcement officers, is designed to address exactly that hole in current law. It could become a model for other Missouri communities to adopt--or perhaps even for a statewide law, similar to those recently adopted in South Carolina and Colorado. The ordinance will have a hearing in the Columbia City Council June 15th, 2009 (7PM, Columbia City Hall Council Chambers, 701 E. Broadway, Columbia, MO). At that time it will be very helpful to have supporters attend the meeting. Anyone who wishes will have the opportunity to testify briefly about the proposed ordinance. The MoBikeFed legislative committee had an opportunity to review the proposed language and give input to Robert Johnson of PedNet, who has led the effort to move the legislation forward with the city council. The current version of the proposed ordinance reads: Sec. 16-145. Harassment of a bicyclist. Recent Posts in Missouri Bicycle News
Archives of Missouri Bicycle NewsMBF Home Page |
You'd have to talk to a lawyer to get a complete answer to those questions in detail, but in general the answers are in the text above:
1. Consequence is a "Class A misdemeanor" - so the same as any other class A misdemeanor. IN general in Missouri that is *up to* 1 year imprisonment and *up to* $1000 fine. The exact fine/imprisonment is up to the discretion of the judge, taking into consideration all circumstances.
2. The burden of proof varies for each of the but is the ordinary type of proof required under law for the words as given in the text. For instance, note that some require conduct to be done "knowingly," which requires a certain burden of proof (and a fairly high one). Other points required the activity to be "threatening" or "for the purpose of" something particular.
Each of those, to a lawyer, means very specific things that would have to be shown in court in order to get a conviction.
Keep in mind that "getting convictions" is only one point of having such an ordinance. With the ordinance on the books, police will be able to talk to school and community groups much more specifically and police can talk to motorists suspected of harassing bicyclists and be much more specific about potential consequences--thus having a greater chance of changing behavior of motorists (a very small percentage of the whole) who are currently engaging in this type of bad behavior.
Tip: Try to get the cars license plate number.
This is certainly a serious problem and one that should be addressed (and in fact, one that is being addressed--this is much of the point of the education and outreach effort that Columbia has recently put a whole lot of effort into, only to see it criticized heavily by the same people who then complain about bicyclists' bad behavior . . . ).
However I confess I just don't see the connection between this and the harassment ordinance.
Because a lot of bicyclists disobey the law we should encourage motorists to vent their spleen by honking, shouting, and throwing things--most often at the *next* bicyclist they happen to see?
It seems the reverse is a better course: educate bicyclists to follow the law better while simultaneously educating motorists to keep their cool and understand the honking, yelling, and harassing doesn't solve the problem but actually makes it worse.
The reason this ordinance came about is because the police felt like they didn't have any leg to stand on to even talk with motorists about threatening or harassing behavior.
I used to be a biker until I realized how dangerous it can be - now I ride the trail.
Isn't this a job for the "thought police", as proving that you were honked at, may just prove the vehicle operator is following the state law.
There seem to be other peripheral issues that only the "thought police" can resolve, so, isn't this ordinance moving us closer to that control?
That may be true--I would have thought so. Particularly the assault sections seem to apply to me.
However in Missouri we don't really have any laws that apply in "road rage" type situations. You can cite people for something like "improper lane usage" or whatever technical infraction, but that is about it.
And, to be clear, this ordinance came about particularly because the **Columbia, MO, municipal police** felt that they had no basis to even talk with drivers about harassing behavior.
So you & I thought the situation was covered, but the police didn't.
One aspect the police are looking for, is charges like assault are very, very serious. You need a serious incident, serious evidence, and the consequences will be serious.
I think in many cases, the police didn't want to bring all this to bear on some driver who is (basically) acting like a jerk.
You want to be able to talk to them and if worse comes to worst, maybe cite them with some kind of traffic misdemeanor.
Felony charges like assault are really overkill in those situations.
I think that is the crux of what the Columbia Police felt about the issue.