RE: KRON coverage

The *real* problem here is how they present it. "Put the brakes on CM."     
Presenting the issue as a one-sided spin, as if bicyclists were violent
rather than attacked.

Letting that corrupt BPD officer Hester speak for an incident he wasn't   
at.  Not covering the way the police mishandled it.  Not going step by    
step through the video showing the motorist advance into people, which I  
was promised would happen.  They even claim nobody said their bicycle was
damaged; OUTRAGEOUS!  They didn't give fair coverage to our counterpoint
that the group entered on green. The motorist plowed into the crowd. The 
weapon #2. Etc.  At least they ran more footage than a lot of stations.

Anyone with a brain and some common sense should be able to see CLEARLY   
that the bicyclists are responding humanly and very well to being attacked.

RE: interrogation for "missing footage"

That's awesome!

They used ages of interrogation.  Marvelous.

http://kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=6515640

That's hilarious.  I stand by my words.  All the video that was taken
of the attack on the bicyclists is shown.  I wish there was more, to 
show more of what happened.

That reporter was on a mission to make it out that we were hiding (what?
picking up the van and placing bikes under it?).  Really corrupt.

Watch frame by frame.  The car moves. The bikes fold over and collapse. The
bikes are under the car. The people are panicking for good reason and some 
still think people are trapped after they've been freed.  They relatively
calmly ask the motorist to back off the bicycles.

NOTE that KRON has been notoriously bad at covering the March SF incident.
One wonders if they've made a deal with car companies as they're desperate
for money.  Perhaps less shoddy news coverage would do them more good?

The media hates to get more than a minute of footage, normally.  I've 
been basically ordered never to bring unedited footage again in the past.
Now they're cutting the other way.  They didn't ask for the full footage
until they were in the middle of the interview.  That's dishonest.

By the way, as we're on the topic of money, yes, BCLU asked for at least a 
standard "stringer" rate for the footage.  This money is not for profit; 
it's being donated.  Nobody is being paid for the scores of hours dealing
with this crisis that was thrust upon our lives.

Given that the media is misusing this footage to sell car commercials,
and it's standard practice to pay at least something for footage, it's
really quite amazing that they made that part of their story, given
all the important parts they left out.

Here is a copy of a email I just sent Channel 7 Listens:
?
re: Berkeley Critical Mass Riders Clash With Motorist
?
The above titled report on todays news broadcast contains many errors and serious distortions of the
truth. I was a rider at this incident and was coming up the hill toward the intersection and watched the
motorist enter the intersection where Critical Mass riders were pausing. The driver of the van drove out
into the intersection and approached a rider who turned and stopped as the van approached. This is a
common tactic to prevent drivers from cutting through bike traffic and endangering riders. The van
haltingly approached, then continued right into the stock-still rider, pushing?the rider?and?bike over,
and driving up and onto?the bike. The driver, amazingly continued to move forward threatening this rider
further and others who had come to assist.
?
A women in a car behind me said she saw the van smash into the bike rider and start the entire thing. I
asked her if she would testify on our behalf and she said yes. I saw her and another women later
approach officers at the scene and tell them this.
?
A better title for this story would have been: Road Raged Motorist Attacks Critical Mass Ride in
Berkeley
?
Another rider on the driver's side of the van heard the driver say "...I'm tired of you people..."
?
The larger truth of the two recent Bay Area Critical Mass event (the other being 6 weeks ago in SF)
incidents is that the media, you guys, have been responsible for spectacularized news items which have
jacked up congestion frustrated motorists into a frenzy of road rage against bike riders. At the SF ride
two weeks ago I saw one angry motorist after another belligerently ranting at Critical Mass riders. In
fact, if the police hadn't been there to chill these folks down there might have been problems once
again. But you guys don't check out the facts to see what's actually happening, like seriously checking
in on the latest peaceful ride. You just report the most titillating conflict oriented material that
vindicates your auto advertising clients and their customer's complete disregard for toxifying our
planet. Critical Mass and bike riders in general are trying to show us all a healthier, non-toxic, safer
(car accidents kill 42,000 people each year) way to live.
?
Your reporting indentified the motorists as an "elderly couple" whereas the bike riders were "angry
cyclists". Isn't that a biased way of portraying the event? The report stated that the police said "..
independent witnesses told police the driver was trying to escape an angry crowd..." This is also a
false hood. If the riders had not pulled the keys out of the ignition, he would have proceeded to hit
more cyclists.
?
Your lack of pursuing the truth in news stories like this is causing a great deal of false anger in the
motor driving public and putting at risk the lives of bike riders who are attempting to use healthy safe
transportation alternatives that are beneficial to themselves and society as a whole.
?
Please stop making riding a bike a perilous daily task, and start exhibiting responsible journalism.
?
-Sandy
?

I was not able to tape this for you, as I had to go over to a friend's
house to see this as well, but the coverage was completely biased towards
the motorist.

It's hard to believe that the Berkeley police sided with the motorist,
although I suppose we live with the stereotype that all bikers must be
completely crazy drunken radicals.  As a person studying transportation,
it's sad to see that even if the car had the right of way (and he didn't),
no vehicle should see a mass of non-motorized vehicles/pedestrians in
front of them and continue to go at full speed.

As it was quite obvious that the driver's acceleration into the mass of
bicyclists was an intentioned move (he was at a stoplight and saw what was
before him), if our society and enforcement side with those people with
"right of way" despite the fact that the physical force is so imbalanced
between the two parties, it's just like saying if someone threatens you
with a fork, the other person has a right to use their machine gun as a
weapon in defense.

I also thought it was just grand that the media and police questioned so
heavily on the editing of a film, when the media is notoriously guilty of
this offense as a profession.

Anyhow, I will try to make it to the city council meeting, although in the
meantime I will be writing a letter to the police.  It should have been
the police's responsibility to interview all the witnesses, including all
of the bicyclists, but this was not done.

The KGO coverage claims that the passenger said she has cerebral palsy.
If you listen closely, she actually says they want to take care of
their daughter who has cerebral palsy.  It is not clear how this relates
to the man attacking the bicyclists.  Hard to claim the passenger was
scared of the riders when she got out and walked though the crowd 
saying things like, "Who the hell do you think you are."  Similarly
for the driver, who brandished a knife-like tool at two riders in
addition to the use of his SUV van as a deadly weapon.

They play up the fact that the couple is older and have disabled plates.
Yet they did not appear disabled; they both were able to walk around,
and the man certainly could press the gas pedal and shout angry 
things.  Poor anger management skills is not a disability.

Critical Mass actively includes people with disablities.  People
in wheelchairs sometimes join the ride.  The BCLU has for all of
its nearly ten years in existence actively included access for the
disabled -- and anyone who does not or cannot use a motor vehicle,
which happens to many seniors -- in its mission statement and
activities.  Police bias against people with disabilities is
seen again and again when they are struck by motor vehicles.