Gov. Brown tacitly endorses hit-and-run; LA finally says enough is enough when it comes to traffic deaths

Once again, California cyclists have been Jerry Browned.

And this time, we’re not alone.

Everyone who uses the state’s streets and highways has been put at risk by our severely out of touch governor, who may be one of the last people left who has no idea that hit-and-run has reached epidemic proportions.

The state legislature gets it.

LA-area legislators Mike Gatto and Steven Bradford, and Corona’s Eric Linder — two Democrats and a Republican — successfully shepherded bills through both houses to address the rampant problem of drivers fleeing the scenes of collisions.

Although problem probably isn’t the right word. Crisis fits a lot better for a crime that afflicts nearly 50% of all collisions in the City of Los Angeles, and countless others throughout the state.

And yes, it is a crime.

One that kills and cripples far more people than mass shootings every year — even though that was something Governor Brown was quick to sign a bill to address.

Yet he apparently doesn’t think hit-and-run is a problem.

In vetoing four bills addressing hit-and-run — modestly increasing penalties, ensuring fleeing drivers lost their licenses for a mere six months, creating an Amber Alert-style warning system for the most serious cases and preventing wealthy drivers from buying their way out of criminal charges — he helped ensure that the crisis will remain one.

And that untold numbers of Californian’s will continue to bleed and die on our streets, since the governor sent a clear message — four, in fact — that it’s no big deal.

Thanks, Jerry.

Granted, he paid lip service to the seriousness of the problem (pdf). But then he went on to insist that current penalties are high enough.

Never mind that if penalties really were high enough, drivers would actually remain at the scene instead of driving home to sober up before turning themselves in. Or just pretending it never happened and hoping they don’t get caught.

And knowing they probably won’t.

Actions speak far louder than words. By vetoing all four widely varied bills — as well as another that would have increased penalties for vulnerable road users — Brown sent a clear message to heartless drivers to go ahead and flee.

Because even if you do get caught — which is less likely thanks to his veto of the Yellow Alert system — you’ll face a slap on the wrist, at best.

It took three tries to get a three-foot passing bill past his misguided veto pen. Each time weakening the bill by removing key features Brown objected to before he finally accepted a relatively toothless measure, with advocates making a mental note to strengthen it once he left office.

Which isn’t likely to be anytime soon, since he continues to enjoy a nearly two-thirds lead over his Republican challenger.

And that means, unless someone can manage to get the seriousness of the problem through his thick bald skull — hello AAA and CHP — we face another four years before we’ll finally have a new governor who may decide that too many people have been killed and maimed by cowardly motorists unwilling to face the consequences of their actions.

Then again, if his opponent in this year’s election, Neel Kashkari, were to come out strongly in favor of actually doing something about hit-and-run, he might change a few votes.

Including mine.


At least there’s better news from Los Angeles.

I was told over a year ago by someone involved in the process that the city’s new mobility plan would call for reducing — though not eliminating — traffic deaths. And that the words Vision Zero would appear nowhere in the document.

What a difference a year makes.

Whether it was the influence of Mayor Eric Garcetti, or new LADOT head Seleta Reynolds already putting her stamp on it, the just released document calls for eliminating traffic deaths in the city by 2025.

The new strategic plan, Great Streets for Los Angeles, reflects a fundamental rethinking of our streets, from the traditional focus on automotive throughput — moving as many vehicles through a given intersection as quickly as possible — to ensuring that everyone on those streets gets home safely.

And that, instead of destroying our neighborhoods, our streets will finally become the key to revitalizing them.

After years of never uttering the phrase — despite nearly ceaseless prodding from myself, the LACBC and others — city officials have finally joined New York and San Francisco in committing to a Vision Zero plan to eliminate traffic fatalities.

Make no mistake. It won’t be easy.

In fact, as others have pointed out, it may be impossible.

But the key to Vision Zero is that it is a process as much as a goal. What matters are the steps taken to reduce the risk of traffic deaths, from calming traffic and reducing speed limits to improving crosswalks and bikeways. As well as increasing enforcement and education for everyone on the streets, and studying traffic deaths to determine why they happened and how they could have been avoided.

All based on the realization that even one fatality is one too many.

About time.

Or course, there’s more to the plan. As Streetsblog put it,

There’s plenty more in the plan that Streetsblog readers will love. We can’t get to all of it in this short article, but the plan includes: neighborhood traffic calming, bike share, car share, dedicated bus lanes, an improved bikeway network, transportation demand management, reducing disabled parking placard abuse, and plenty more.

The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition’s Eric Bruins calls it “an ambitious yet achievable framework for the department over the next three years of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s term” and commends “LADOT’s new mission [which] prioritizes safe and accessible options for Angelenos of all ages and abilities, no matter their chosen mode of transportation.”

Then again, as bold as the plan is, it’s doomed to failure as long as individual councilmembers such as Koretz, LaBonge and Cedillo can opt out of already approved safety plans to ensure the streets in their districts remain dangerously auto-focused.

In other words is, we have to find a way to protect our nascent Vision Zero from elected officials with zero.

Vision, that is.


  1. KB says:

    The letter to the legislature is must reading certainly but explains nothing. He argues a judge can punish enough but does not even mention mandating a second year of time out from lawful driving here would be a problem even if only when serious injury at least results not just refusal to give name be tested etc.

    Rather he says one year is sufficient. Because to him it “seems” to be. Apparently the cot and daily three or even two meals possibly not hot nor store bought we can’t be caught paying for for so many unless they can drive into us again in less then 13 months.

    There must be a big piece missing.

    Is he so wise to know that even a small number of bad people forced to bike will devestate the car industry?

    If so we have him and them running scared. Let’s finish this before it gets far uglier. License only those who actually need to be after almost everyone not needing in fact to is in a mere billions invested flash served better and more safely and expediently etc. By other modes. Take this festering bandage off in days weeks or months. Too many libs and lives from the decades of gangANTIgreen car only catering are more then unseemly.

    Like a new iPhone. Cheaper in fact for socal then phones for the world to build and sell in weeks.

    Check that. Whopper fact perhaps of all time. Sex causes pregnancy being a pale truth in comparison.

  2. David says:

    That is not the only bad thing Jerry Brown is known for. If you recall more than a year ago he went around the state campaigning for a 1/2 % additional sales tax for what?? It was a proposition on the ballot.

    In California, we now pay 1/2 % more sales tax on everything we buy and see NO benefit from it. Money was used to fund state government instead of cutting expenses. He used the usual scare tactics about cutting school services if it did not pass.

    Everytime I buy something I seeth in anger toward him.

  3. Michael says:

    Look, I’d be fine with increasing the penalties for hit & run, but the problem isn’t that the penalties aren’t high enough now. For a hit & run, resulting in serious injury, where the driver is NOT at fault, the maximum penalty is 4 years in prison. If the accident causes death, and the driver is NOT at fault, the maximum penalty is 9 years in prison.

    If the driver is at fault or is DUI, the penalties can be higher, much higher. In fact, in some instances the maximum penalties involve imprisonment for life.

    The issue isn’t that penalties aren’t high enough. The issue is that prosecutors aren’t seeking these punishments and/or judges aren’t imposing them.

    Just increasing the penalties won’t change anything, unless we can get prosecutors on board to seek higher penalties or to seek any penalty at all.

  4. […] Governor Brown Tacitly Endorses Hit-and-Run Crime (Biking in L.A.) […]

  5. […] A two-part Daily Ted. Gov. Brown tacitly endorses hit-and-run; LA finally says enough is enough when it comes to traffic d… […]

  6. Paulc says:

    I’m confused as to how he can have this power of veto… it’s just not democratic…

Discover more from BikinginLA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading