THE TUBULAR TIMES
newsletter of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
April 1993, number 13
by Stuart Coulthard
On Thursday, March 18, the police cracked down on bike messengers. In two hours, 51 messengers were cited for not having a license, and six were charged with riding bikes on the sidewalk. Two explanations were given as to why the crackdown occurred -- one by messengers, another by the SFPD.
At a same-day protest, messengers told the tubular times that a cop on a bicycle -- officer Tom -- had tried in vain to pull over a messenger for a traffic violation the day before, but that the messenger got away. After giving up the chase, Tom went to two popular messenger hangouts to announce "that something big was going to come down" and that there would "be hell to pay" the following day. When the crackdown occurred on Thursday, it seemed obvious to many observers that officer Tom was behind it.
Sergeant Bill White, the officer in charge of the crackdown, called Thursday's actions "selective enforcement" of section 98.1 of the San Francisco Traffic Code. Section 98 -- titled "Responsibility of business making deliveries by bicycle" -- says that a business must require its employees to carry proper identification (such as a state issued ID), and a numbered license plate hung from the saddle of the bike, with the name of the company clearly visible. Section 98.1 requires individual messengers to comply. Both laws were instituted during the Feinstein administration.
Sergeant White declared the operation a huge success. He claimed that the SFPD didn't single out bike messengers for "selective enforcement," saying that the week before they had used the same tactic to target unregistered motor vehicles in the Potrero district. He pointed out that the citations given to the bicycle messengers were only infractions (a violation not on one's permanent record) while the motor vehicles cited were given misdemeanor violations.
[In other words, the cops lash out at ALL disenfranchised groups in some perverse rotation -- equal opportunity oppression. Is that supposed to be comforting? - ed.]
On March 19, tubular times reporter Dan Davidson asked Deputy Chief of Police Petrini about the motives behind the crackdown. Petrini said that a pedestrian had recently been hit by a messenger and there were other problems like weaving in and out of traffic and catching rides on cars by hanging on side-view mirrors (!). When asked about the incident with officer Tom, Petrini said that he would be quite displeased with any officer who acted in that way, and that he encourages messengers threatened by Tom to bring it before the Police Review Board. Petrini also claimed that the SFPD had been planning the crackdown for weeks, and that officer Tom had no connection with the decision that led to Thursday's crackdown.
The whole crackdown raises serious questions about the intent of Ordinance 98 and the SFPD's method of enforcement. Clearly, the dangers to bicyclists and pedestrians in the downtown area are caused mainly by the huge amount of automobile traffic there. A more basic solution would be to eliminate automobiles from the area. If the object of the crackdown was to enforce ordinance 98, the companies would have been warned and then cited. Two hours of police time (plus administration and planning) were put into an expensive and time consuming campaign. Is all this hullabaloo really about bike licenses? Or is it to punish messengers as a group? The real goals seem to be the resurrection of Tom's pride and the revival of a widespread fear of police. The SFPD's time would be better spent recovering stolen bicycles.
Messenger Andrew is organizing a "Committee To Deep Six 98" to challenge the legality of the ordinance. He has contacted a lawyer and wants everyone cited to unite for a group court date. For more information on this contact Andrew at King Courier (431-2565), or drop by 150 8th Street in San Francisco.
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at messvilleto@yahoo.com