One-armed cyclist busted by German cops for riding while one-armed

Or one-armed doctor’s wife murderers (but only if it’s a man).

1 Like

The problem is that there is a cross purpose between performing one’s job as enforcer of the law, and making allowances for things like a clever modification to allow a one-armed man to ride a bike.

Imagine you work for the FAA. You come across someone with some manner of physical disability who would ordinarily be unable to pilot a regular plane, but who has devised a novel flight control system for their aircraft that enables them to pilot it.

There’s just one catch - this novel control system doesn’t conform to FAA regulations, precisely because it is so very unusual. What do you do?

Well, legally speaking, you err on the side of caution and don’t allow people to the break the law, even if it’s for a good purpose and seems reasonable. Maybe this new system is perfectly admissible, but you still need to make sure of that by having it go through the FAA evaluation process, or at the very least getting some sort of special excemption for it.

Is it an inconvenience to the person who wants to fly? Yeah. Is it perhaps even a needless obstacle to what to all appearances is a perfectly sane and reasonable course of action? Quite possibly. But no matter how inconvenient or even needless the impediment might be, it is a law enforcement offers sworn duty to uphold the law.

Law enforcement officers don’t get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. They might personally disagree entirely with a given law, viewing it as arbitrary, or outdated, or unconstitutional, or just plain stupid, but they’re still required to enforce it. Their authority and powers are executive in nature - not legislative.

It’s up to the lawmakers to change or get rid of bad laws, no anyone else.

For example, if a particular state’s laws disallow the issuance of same sex marriage licenses, the clerk issuing such licenses can’t simply choose to grant licenses to same sex couples anyway merely because they believe the law to be wrong. Any such licenses issued to same sex couples would be null and void, and the clerk responsible for issuing them would be held liable for breaking the law.

Likewise, even if a law enforcement officer personally understands and has no real problem with something like a bicycle modification designed to allow a one-armed man to operate a brake with his foot, if the officer legitimately believes that such a modification is nevertheless somehow violating the law, they are compelled to perform their sworn duties, enforce the law they believe is being broken, and take appropriate measures against the person breaking it.

Fortunately it was all just a misunderstanding, and the law as it stands doesn’t actually absurdly limit the kinds of bicycle brakes permissible for use. But the more relevant point is that so long as the officer in question was acting in accordance with what they sincerely believed and understood the law to be, I see nothing to take offense at. Mistakes happen, to err is human, all that jazz.

2 Likes

I don’t think this analogy works for three reasons:

  1. The stakes are very different in plane flying and bike riding
  2. I don’t know what it takes to fly a plane safely. Maybe if I worked for the FAA I would, but when I put myself in their shoes of course I think I would follow the letter of the rules - I honestly don’t know what would be a hazard and what wouldn’t.
  3. As a non-descript person who works for that FAA I don’t know how much leeway and judgement I would be expected to use in this hypothetical job. Somewhere there is a person who could approve alternatives - am I that person or not?

Compare this with the police officer:

  1. The stakes are, as noted, lower
  2. The police officer presumably understands, at least in general principle, why a bike is supposed to have two breaking systems and what that means for riding a bike
  3. The police officer is entitled to use judgement about who to charge or fine based on circumstances (unless Germany is crazy?)

This police officer could have thought to himself, “I’m not going to hassle a one-armed guy for not having a break he can’t use” but instead he thought, “Ticket that is!” If he was right under the letter of the law then he would have a defense but still come across as a bit of a jerk for enforcing what is clearly a discriminatory and silly law that would probably then go on to be changed. Since he was wrong, I don’t see much of a defense at all for his actions.

Maybe he’s a great friend and a wonderful dad, I don’t know. I know that he was an asshole to a guy with one arm because the guy had one arm.

3 Likes

Abuse of authority is treating someone badly.

Cops who don’t know the law they are empowered to enforce are abusing authority.

1 Like

I love the fact that German has one word for " regulations that govern the street legality of vehicles".

And agreed that it would be a very strange country that banned the standard “Dutch bike” (with rear hub brakes, like Mr. Ionescu’s).

German has one word for everything.

1 Like

A human who’d tell another human he’s not allowed to ride a bike because he’s missing the wrong arm?

I don’t believe it.

3 Likes

Well that seems stupid.

I assumed it would be because a one armed man could not signal and maintain safe control of his bike. In that case there might be some point as that could cause a hazard of some sort (although not worth enforcing for most cases). Here, pointless.

The stakes in both cases are human lives and safety. I don’t see any difference, except possibly that flying is actually the safest way to travel, statistically speaking.

If you were a pilot modifying your plane, you would presumably know what it takes to fly a plane safely. But even if you didn’t, all it takes is that a person thinks they know what they are doing.

The same applies to cyclists or drivers. If you’re modifying your car or your bicycle, you presumably have some idea of what you are doing. You might be entirely wrong, but typically people don’t modify vehicles that they don’t at least believe they understand the safe and legal operation of.

In either situation, making modifications to a vehicle to allow it to be controlled in a non-standard way, there is a concern that your modifications may not meet vehicle laws. A bicycle or a car has to be “street legal”, and an airplane has to be FAA approved. If you make changes to your vehicle to accomodate some special need, those changes have to comply with extant law.

Now the enforcement of said law comes into play. An officer witnesses the usage of a vehicle by someone who appears unable to safely operate the standard controls, so they stop them and question them. The vehicle’s pilot explains “Don’t worry, I modified my vehicle to allow me to control it in a non-standard way!”, which they show and explain to the officer.

Unfortunately, the very fact that they are using non-standard controls calls into question the legality of the vehicle. The officer has to determine if the modifications are acceptable under the law - if the bicycle’s modified brake system is “street legal”, or if the airplane’s modified controls meet FAA requirements.

If the officer has any doubt whatsoever that they do, then the officer is obligated to err on the side of caution and cite what they believe to be a probable infraction. If the citation is in error, it’ll get sorted out in the end. It’s and inconvenience, but one carried out in the name of equal law enforcement.

See, here’s the problem. You’re confusing the cause and effect of different things.

The officer didn’t stop Mr. Ionescu because he lacked two arms. The officer stopped Mr. Ionescu because he witnessed what appeared to be illegal operation of a bicycle.

If it had been a cyclist with two arms, but who had one arm in a sling, the situation would be no different. Ordinarily, one requires two hands to operate both brakes on a bicycle, and when an officer witnesses someone who appears unwilling or unable to do such - regardless of the reason why they are unwilling or unable - the officer is still expected to stop them.

Now, the officer questioned Mr. Ionescu and learned that to compensate for his inability to operate a second handbrake, Mr. Ionescu had installed a footbrake. Fine. That resolves the issue, right?

Well, no. Clearly in this instance, the officer in question didn’t believe such a modification was legal. Yes, it turns out the officer was mistaken, but that’s beside the point. The officer simply didn’t believe the vehicle met the requirements of the law as they understood it to the best of their ability at that moment in time.

Nowhere is the justification for anything the fact that Mr. Ionescu lacks two arms. The officer didn’t stop him because he has one arm, the officer stopped him because he appeared to be operating a bicycle in an illegal manner.

You’re framing the entire exchange as some sort of senseless ablist discrimination when it clearly was just the normal performance of the duties of a law enforcement officer.

This is simplistic, self-serving nonsense.

“I don’t like paying taxes, but I still want public services! Therefor I’m going to expect 100% cost efficiency and perfect performance in a massively complex field I have absolutely no real knowledge of, and when that impossible pipe dream doesn’t come true I’m going to make sweeping generalizations which are patently absurd, insulting and devaluing the concerted efforts of the public servants who do the jobs I’d never be willing or able to perform!”

“Oh my god! A police officer issued a traffic citation that ended up being dismissed! Stop the presses! Criminal misuse of taxpayer funds! That twenty minute traffic stop and who-knows-how-long subsequent appeals process wasted my money! Good, honest, hard-earned money that could have gone to catching The Bad Guys ™! And just think of all the wasted paper and ink!”

“They should be ashamed of themselves! This sort of thing NEVER happens on Law and Order!”

No. A human who’d tell another human he’s not allowed to ride a bike because the bike is not street legal.

Turns out it was street legal, but the officer genuinely didn’t believe it was at the time.

But by all means, leap to conclusions, conflate cause and effect, and dehumanize someone else for making a simple mistake while doing their job.

Fortunately, I’m still quite able to believe you are human, despite all that. I also don’t really hold it against you, precisely because we are all human.

Problem is, Glitch, that you’re defending a Jobsworth’s view of the law. The police have discretion whether to pursue an apparent traffic violation of this sort of magnitude and a man with one arm on a bicycle is a barn door case of where it would be appropriately used. Unless German civil law in particular is very different from that of the three common law jurisdictions I’ve lived and worked in and there is no discretion there at all?

4 Likes

Police discretion cannot be exercised in the case of an unlawful motor vehicle operation in a situation where the problem is not temporary.

If you’re exceeding the speed limit by one or two miles per hour, or if the speed limit drops suddenly and you’re in the process of slowing down, those are obvious situations in which an officer will exercise discretion.

If your renewal for your car’s registration arrives in the mail and you forget to affix the little sticker signifying that your registration is up to date to your license plate, and a police officer stops you the day after you were supposed to have changed out the sticker, you can explain to the officer that you forgot to affix the new sticker, that you have it sitting at home on your counter, and that when you get home you’ll correct the error, and the office can exercise discretion and say, “Okay, just be sure to remember when you get home!”.

If one of your vehicle’s tail lights goes out and you haven’t noticed, an officer stopping you will of course exercise their discretion to give you a change to change the bulb.

Even though you’re technically in violation in all these situations, they are merely temporary violations. As long as the person in violation gives an officer reason to believe they are going correct the problem in the immediate future, then discretion is acceptable.

In contrast, if a person is speeding absurdly fast, going well above the stated speed limit, there’s little to no excuse for that in normal circumstances and an officer should choose not to exercise discretion (with some obvious exceptions for emergencies).

In contrast, if a person is stopped for having their registry sticker out of date, and they explain to the officer that they decided to just not re-register their vehicle and drive it anyway, the offcer should again choose not to exercise discretion.

In contrast, if a person is stopped for a nonfunctional tail light, and they explain to the officer that they don’t need a tail light on their vehicle (because of X) and refuse to believe the officer’s insistance that they do in fact need one, the officer should once more choose not to exercise discretion.

When someone is violating the law with every intention of doing so, and with every intention of continuing to do so, you do not exercise discretion. Letting them off with a warning makes no sense, since they clearly do not intend to heed that warning. Hence, discretion is useless in such situations.

The officer in this situation clearly genuinely believed the foot brake modification to be illegal, and consequently that the bicycle itself was not street legal. Yet despite this, Mr. Ionescu had every intention of continuing to use his foot brake (for the reason that is was in fact legal - but the officer didn’t know or believe that).

The police officer was not faced with (what appeared to be) a temporary violation, but rather with (what appeared to be) one that would be ongoing and remain uncorrected. Exercising discretion and letting him off with a warning therefor would not have been acceptable.

Ignorance does not equate to abuse. Poor judgement does not equate to abuse. They might equate to incompetance, but that’s another matter entirely.

Abuse isn’t the result of people not realizing something, or being wrong about something. Animal abuse doesn’t come about because someone doesn’t realize they’re hurting an animal. Domestic abuse doesn’t come about because someone doesn’t realize their hurting a spouse or family member.

Abuse requires knowledge of one’s actions and their consequences. It doesn’t happen by accident.

From wikipedia:

Abuse of authority, in the form of political corruption, is the use of legislated or otherwise authorised powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.

This is clearly not a case of abuse of authority.

A government official used their legislated or otherwise authorised powers in error, but not for illegitimate private gain. There was no misuse of government power, merely an erroneous usage. There were no illegal acts committed.

It also isn’t abuse of power, citing again from wikipedia:

Abuse of power, in the form of “malfeasance in office” or “official misconduct,” is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a ‘for cause’ removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

Again, no unlawful act was committed.

No police officer in the world has a perfect knowledge of the law, and to expect them to is absurd. It is only natural that officers will make mistakes to time to time. This is precisely why we have lawyers and courts.

A police officer who writes a traffic ticket that gets thrown out in court simply isn’t abusing their power or their authority. To suggest the opposite would be utterly absurd.

But we should, rightly, hold them to a higher standard than the citizens they are empowered to detain and cite for violations.

Police have discretion in the exercise of their duties. That is part of their power. We rightly expect them to use it wisely, to be good stewards of the authority we grant them for our protection.

Officer Jobsworth not only did not know the law, but he failed to use his discretionary power appropriately.

I concede that he did not abuse his authority.

He’s simply an incompetent, authoritarian twit who made life unnecessarily difficult for the cyclist in question by his ignorance of the law and his failure to exercise good judgement. But I’m sure he’s a swell guy to his family and friends.

It’s a good thing he has people like you to defend him on the internet, to set the record straight when the poor guy is berated. After all, he was just doing his job, the best way he knew how.

I hope you get to interact with plenty of his ilk. Your empathy for their situation will surely serve you well.

3 Likes

Any authority figure who’s as much of an idiot stickler as this guy has dehumanised themselves.

This is precisely true, for a certain, quite valid, definition of ‘human’.

Sense 4.

1 Like

I honestly don’t understand where your bitterness, sarcasm, and direct personal attacks and insults are coming from.

A police officer didn’t make a special exception for a man they honestly believed was breaking the law. For that you condemn them? I can’t understand that.

It was a mistake, one which was corrected and for which the police apologized. The article gives us zero evidence of mistreatment, zero evidence of ill intent, and zero evidence of anything other than a simple understandable error. Yet apparantly it still offends you?

You accuse someone you’ve never met and whose knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors you know next to nothing about of being “an incompetant, authoritarion twit” based entirely on incomplete information about a single event. That’s astoundingly presumptuous.

You describe the inconvenience their error caused as if it was some sort of malicious attack rather than simple human error. Have you honestly never inconvenienced someone else by accident?

You take offense at my having suggested that immediately leaping to the worst possible conclusion might not be logical or fair. Can you honestly say you aren’t falling prey to a cognitive bias somewhere along the line?

You are personally insulting and belittling me in response to my views, making absurdly sweeping and dismissive generalizations like “his ilk”, and directly implying I somehow lack human empathy. Just who exactly is being an asshole here, again?

Erring on the side of caution in a highly unusual situation in which you suspect a law has been broken in the course of your duties as a law enforcement officer? Apparently that makes you an asshole.

Laying down harshly critical armchair judgements about a situation you have no personal experience with or expertise on while simultaneously insulting and dismissing those who disagree with you? Apparently that doesn’t make you an asshole.

You don’t think the nature of the law in question comes into it?

It’s pretty hard to make an argument that cyclists pose a much higher risk to others than pedestrians, so bicycle roadworthiness is basically about making sure people are taking care of themselves, which I think you’ll agree can be a somewhat fraught role for the authorities to assume…

It should go without saying ‘erring on the side of caution’ here would be the opposite response and to recognise that this guy plainly posed no danger to himself, and that any real or imagined law he’d run afoul of was at fault for failing to consider folks with special needs.

Not rocket surgery.

2 Likes

Manner can be an indicator of whether someone is an asshole, but when the goal is to be an asshole by abusing one’s power or griefing through legalisms, manner goes a long way toward securing the ability to do both. When called on the griefing, the griefer can then point out how polite the griefing has been in order to avoid consequences.

To be fair to the officer’s victim, this isn’t to say that the officer was polite. Regardless of his manner, he ended up looking like an asshole.

1 Like

It is listed in full, without abbreviation, in Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit.

1 Like