Just move the car already.

The other day, I responded to a three car collision on Main St. It was just after dusk and the three cars were stopped in the #1 lane of Main St. just prior to the intersection with a shopping center. Apparently, the person that called dispatch said she refused to move her vehicle until the police arrived.

I got on scene and saw the aforementioned three cars stopped in the #1 southbound lane. None of their lights were on and all the involved parties were standing in between V-1 and V-2. I put on my emergency lights and got in behind them to let oncoming traffic know there was an obstruction ahead. I got out and saw the exasperated caller. Here's how it went:

MC: Do all these cars run?

Chorus of involved parties: Yes.

MC: Good. Fire 'em up and move them out of the street and into the parking lot.

SIDL (Self-Induced Drama Lady): *SIGH*

MC: You're blocking the roadway and causing a hazard. Move the cars.

All the cars were moved into an adjacent parking lot. The parties got out and continued exchanging their information. But not SIDL. Oh, no. She wanted to be a passive/aggressive condescending pain in the ass.

SIDL: In the past, my family has been falsely found at fault by Town PD after the cars were moved from the scene of an accident. No disrespect to you (*author's note: this damn near always means there is some), but I refused to move until an officer could come and see the cars as they were.

MC: Well, ma'am, I don't know what to tell you about your family's past collisions, but I do know that what you were doing was not safe. It wasn't safe for you, the other involved parties, or southbound traffic. Not to mention that the lot of you were standing in between two cars in the middle of a busy roadway during commute hours. So, you tell me, what's going to happen when a driver who isn't paying attention hits the third car involved?

SIDL: Yes, that was my fault.

MC: You could all very well end up in wheelchairs for the rest of your lives. Not moving the cars is dangerous and not at all smart.

SIDL: Yes, well, I need to get back to my information here.

MC: Holy smokes...**shakes head and walks away**

Let me explain something, folks. This was a three car collision. The third car in line rear ended the second, which rear ended the first. Let's assume they had wisely decided to move out of the roadway prior to my arrival. However could I piece this Rubik's Cube-esque puzzle together? I mean, one car is gonna have only rear end damage, the other only front end damage, and yet another front and rear damage?!?!? Goodness gracious me!

How's about this? Why don't you stop being a selfish drama queen and think about the safety of others for a moment. Or, hell, be selfish....it'll still result in you moving because you don't want to get hurt.

There's a reason I love traffic, ladies and gentleman. I can rely much less on what people, be they involved or witnesses, tell me. The evidence speaks for itself. This fender bender (and it was nothing more than that) was no different.

Or, how about this...why don't you just do what the man with the badge and gun tell you to do? Now, before some of you haters out there get all up in arms about abuses of power and other such bullshit nonsense, why don't we stop and think about it. Don't you think that maybe the guy the state of California has seen fit to issue a badge and gun to might just have more training in public safety than that time you went to the PTA meeting and your kid's Boy Scout troop leader taught you about the importance of buckling your safety belt? Do you think that maybe I have to consider more than who's at fault for a piddly little accident?

Yes, we get it, you're not at fault. You're the first car in line in a rear-end collision. Rocket science this is not. Perhaps, however, your concerns should extend beyond worrying about your insurance rates to not getting killed in a more serious accident because you're too narrow minded to be concerned about anything else.

Tailgaters

We've all seen it in our rearview mirrors....the hood of the car behind you. Why the hood? Because the damn car is too close to see the headlights. Quick brake check? Gets your point across, but not at all safe (or smart). The smart move is simply moving over and letting the impatient assclown go along his/her way.

I'm not saying that I miss my Dad's old '65 GMC pickup when I had a tailgater. That thing was like a friggin' tank and it would be no problem to remind tailgaters that their proffered method of following me wasn't the best way. No, no...to say that would be irresponsible and incredibly foolish.

About a year ago, my department issued the motors lidars with the DBC (Distance Between Cars) function. The DBC works by shooting both vehicles either as they approach (front bumpers) or as they pass (rear bumpers). The lidar calculates the speed of both vehicles, distances from the operator's location, the distance between the cars (in both time and feet), and the time between both shots.

Human perception/reaction time has long been understood to be 1.5 seconds. Folks that are way smarter than me and probably have more initials behind their names and degrees on their walls conducted enough experiments, studies, and scientific type stuff to determine that time. What does that mean in layman's terms? It takes .75 seconds for your average human to perceive, in this example, what the driver ahead of you is doing, and an additional .75 seconds to safely react to it. That totals 1.5 seconds from start to finish.

Consequently, when I shoot two vehicles with the DBC function and I get a digital readout with the time between the two cars. That is to say, it calculates how quickly one car will pass the same point the car in front of it just passed. I feel perfectly justified in stopping and citing anything less than one second. More often than not, though, I give an additional benefit of the doubt of another .1 second. Generous, no?

Here's the part where the judge in my jurisdiction seems to get stuck on. Let's say the speed limit is 45 mph. I see two cars and the second is too close to the first. I shoot both cars and get a display of .88 seconds and a distance of 53'. The second vehicle is not violating the basic speed law at 43 mph. Or is he? CVC 22350 requires drivers to "have due regard for the traffic upon the highway". If the vehicle in front of the tailgater is too close for safety, doesn't that violate 22350? Maybe, but CVC 21703 is more specific with regard to tailgating, "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

It seems because the speed and distance in the aforementioned example is what it is, the judge takes exception to the rule. Allow me to explain further...

43 mph correlates to about 63 fps (feet per second). In 1.5 seconds, the vehicle will travel about 94.5 feet. If the distance between the cars is 53', it is nearly physiologically impossible for a human to avoid a collision if the driver in front aggressively brakes for any reason at that speed.

It's an anomaly for the judge to take exception to tailgating. I've testified to 21703 a couple dozen times and I've written quite a few that never went to trial. In my opinion, it's a fantastic cite and helps reduce collisions if people are more aware of how close they are traveling behind the car in front of them. So many of our rear-end collisions cite speeding as the primary collision factor when in fact tailgating is more likely the culprit. Unfortunately, witnesses are scarce and speeding is easier to prove than tailgating without corroboration from a witness or involved party.

I'll keep writing them. If the judge sees fit to dismiss the occasional violation, it's no skin of my nose. As far as I'm concerned, I'm making the streets safer by writing this particular violation. So many people simply don't realize how close they actually are to the car in front of them. And it's awful damn hard to argue with the lidar.

Testifying and You

Recently, I've noticed a handful of newbie cops testifying in traffic court. Unfortunately, some of them have never been schooled on the proper way to testify. I've taken it upon myself to give a few tips to the uninitiated.

It's always bothered me that during FTO, the important topic of testifying in court is not just minimal, but more often than not, completely ignored. My first time in court was nerve racking, sweat inducing, and mouth drying. I stumbled and started at what felt like every turn. Since I testify much more in traffic court, what follows will be more specific to that as opposed to criminal court.

1) Don't read! I've seen a few officers stand in front of the judge and defendant and read their testimony. The judge inevitably stops them and tells them both he and the defendant deserve the officer's best recollection of the violation. Officers are allowed to use their copy of the citation to refresh their memory, but reading a pre-prepared statement is unprofessional and calls into doubt whether the officer actually remembers the incident.

2) Practice! When you're new to testifying, there's nothing wrong with writing out what you want to say and practice it. Now, I know what you're thinking. Aren't you just memorizing the pre-prepared statement? That's not what I mean. When you first start out, it's a stressful experience. Writing down what you want to say and practicing your testimony outside of court helps reduce your nervousness and increases your confidence. Write down what your recollections are and practice it. Over and over and over. When I first started, I'd recite my testimony while I was getting ready for court, on the ride over, and in my head while others were testifying. After you've got a few cases under your belt, you won't need to write out your testimony at all.

Each case is unique, but each testimony follows a similar pattern. There a few key points you've got to hit in each one. You've got to mention who you are, that you were in uniform and driving/riding a marked unit, the location of the violation, what violation occurred and the circumstances surrounding it, an enforcement stop was conducted, identify the driver/defendant and how they were identified on scene (verbal, CDL, ID card), any relevant statements made*, and that the driver/defendant signed the citation. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it does include most, if not all, of the things I mention each time I testify.

*I say "relevant" because when the driver/defendant calls you an asshole or asks you if you have anything better to do, it has nothing to do with the violation. If you bring up these things in court, it makes you appear like a petty, vindictive jerkoff....in my opinion. Conversely, if the defendant brings it up or claims you did or said something you didn't, I think you're all good to mention additional facts.

3) Pay attention! If you're not called first, take the time to listen to other cases and how the more experienced officers testify. Listen to what works and what doesn't. Come up with a spiel that works for you using bits and pieces of what you liked about other officer's testimony.

4) Anticipate! Put yourself in the defendant's shoes. What kinds of questions do you think they will ask. Are there any holes in your testimony they may try to exploit? Did you leave something out? The more specific and detailed you are, the less the defendant can use to trip you up.

5) Relax! It's just traffic court, kids. You're bound to lose some. Some you may well deserve to lose and some the judge may just get a wild hair. You never know. Just don't let any of it discourage you about tomorrow's case. If the defendant wins, thank the judge. If you win, thank the judge. Remember that you're getting paid to be there regardless of the outcome. Believe me, if the defendant wins, he/she will eventually get another ticket and the whole rigmarole will start all over again.

I don't get it

Here's a little radio quirk I've never understood. It's not specific to dispatchers or officers. I've heard them both do it. Lemme play out a scenario for you...

Either dispatch or an officer is putting out the description of a vehicle. The vehicle is described as a late model Honda four door and it's "red in color". Really? In color? What the hell else would it be? Red in shape? Red in texture?

It's not a big deal. It's just one of those things that bugs me. Like asking for the next available report number. What else is dispatch going to give you? The report number for next week? Stop being redundant. You're taking up airtime.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog reading. Thank you.

Ask MC

I think I finally landed on what to call these posts. Instead of the Weekly/Daily/Fortnightly question, I've decided to go with simply, "Ask MC". That way, I'm not painting myself into a corner with the irregular timing of the posts. Now, on to Marguerite's question...

Is it legal to ride a bicycle with earbuds in in California ? When I learned to ride a bike, I recall an officer coming into my second-grade class to inform us all it was illegal to ride our bikes while listening to our walkmans. Now I live and work in an university town which prides itself on being ‘bike friendly,’ but I would rather walk than ride a bike here, just because so many of the residents, especially the students, ride their bikes while listening to ipods and other devices. And unlike the long-dated walkman headphones, I can’t see the earbuds when I come up behind someone. These people can not hear me when I call out “Passing on your right!” or “Look out!” They can’t hear traffic and I’ve seen some related careless behavior which scares the socks off me. Many of these folks have no idea how to ride a bike in the first place, they don’t seem to know they count as vehicular traffic, but their inability to hear just adds an additional layer of scary to it all.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Marguerite

I'm sure I've mentioned it a time or two before, but CVC 21200(a) states in part, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle." I cited this section as more of a reminder than anything else. You're answer is specifically answered in CVC 27400. CVC 27400 states in part, "A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears." There are exceptions, but none of them apply to your average, every day cyclist.

I'm sure the legislature had no clue what the hell "earbuds" were when the section was written, but it can still be applied.

Thanks for the question, Marguerite! Hope it helped.

Time Constraints

Lately, I've gotten a handful of requests to get off my lazy ass and write more. I'm making an effort to do so this weekend. Keep in mind it's the holiday season and OT has been plentiful in the last month. I've also got a couple proverbial pokers in a couple proverbial fires, so be patient and I promise to write soon.

I am aware I've been slacking (thank you, Chachi), but barely a day goes by that I don't think about my self-inflicted writing responsibilities. I hope you all had a lovely Thanksgiving (for us American types...sorry, England) and your Christmases are equally lovely.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Daddy duty calls...

Weekly Question

Or perhaps, since I've been so spotty with these of late, I should just title this one "12/1/09 Question". Either way...

Ann offers the following scenario:

This has been bothering me for a while, maybe you can weigh in…

A while back a very inebriated man stumbled into my workplace (not the first time this had happened with the same individual). I had seen him drive to my office in his car, and knew full well he would be getting back in the same car and heading back out on the streets of Seattle.
While my coworker “entertained” him, I went into the other room to let the police know about the impending deadly weapon headed for the streets, and his past history which all but guaranteed I wasn’t being overly cautious.

I was told that they couldn’t do anything until he was actually headed for his car, and told to call back at that time. No surprise, by the time I reached the police he was in his car and on his merry way down the street. I have no idea if he killed anybody after he left me.
Apparently, one needs to actually view the bullet leaving the barrel of the gun before calling the police. It’s ok to point the gun, but until you actually pull the trigger, no crime has been committed.

What else can a person do in this situation (keeping in mind, said person is a smallish female, and in no position to be trying to tackle a drunk)?


Excellent question, Ann. I can't answer for the Seattle PD (who did one hell of a job today...see this). The laws may very well be different in Washington. As per usual, all I can offer is how I would handle the incident.

Based on what you've said, it seems you saw the individual driving. If I were dispatched to you and I saw an inebriated individual that was identified by an independent witness (you) as the driver of a vehicle, I would then be able to pursue a DUI investigation. For the sake of argument, let's assume you didn't see him driving. His level of inebriation and his ability to care for himself (or lack thereof) may qualify as being drunk in public. It's a lesser charge and I don't need any witnesses.

Obviously, your situation didn't work out that way. Should there be a next time, my only advice is to get as detailed a description of the individual, vehicle (to include the license plate), and last known direction of travel as you can and pass it along to the police. We get these kinds of calls from time to time and, if possible, we can sit on the registered owner's home in the hopes that the driver is the registered owner and the individual is actually headed home. If we see the driver commit any infraction, we can stop the vehicle. If not, we can still consensually contact the driver when they pull up to the house and try to ascertain if there actually is a crime occurring.

It's a tough spot for you to be in, 5'2" or not. In this case, I would certainly not advise you to attempt to detain anyone, particularly if they are indeed intoxicated. Drunk folks tend to not think rationally.

Thanks for the question and I hope my answer helped!