Policy the Bike League Needs

Today's Search on the Bike League Blog for Cherokee Schill

For those of you that have followed this blog since, well, since almost its very beginning, you'll recall that occasionally cyclists get on the wrong side of the law even though they are riding in accord with the law and in accord with safe practices. Chipseal was a fairly dramatic case. I was a bit more fortunate in my own minor incident. Still, it happens a lot. Blackhawk, CO tried to ban bikes. Now, Cherokee Schill is being prosecuted in Kentucky. Unlike Chip, Cherokee has made a lot of videos along the way, and rather than provide my opinion that she's really not doing anything particularly dangerous, I suggest that those interested watch a few.

THIS post is only tangentially about any of these cases. The Bike League elected NOT to get involved in the Chipseal case and has been criticized for that. Any Clarke stated that Chip was "not sympathetic" or words to that effect. Bike Texas also declined any involvement. So far, as seen in the photo at the top, there's not been much from the Bike League about Cherokee, though top notch bike lawyer Steve Magas has been involved.

Clearly, it is well beyond the resources of the Bike League to participate in all or even many cases involving cyclists. HOWEVER, I think a formal policy and process would be something that would be wise. Deciding to either get involved or NOT based on personal judgments of League management strikes me as dicey. I imagine there are some good lawyers that the League could consult, and a solid basis could be put together for actions ranging from ignoring something all the way up to helping fund an action. Such a policy should be made public, and probably posted on the League website. People wishing to contribute to a League legal defense fund might then also have a route to do so, though it probably would NOT be tax deductible. I expect that expenditure of significant league funds on legal actions would require some sort of board action or membership petition and would not be very common. However, for the league to be silent, I think they should reread Martin Niemöller and make a public policy:

 

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.