This is what greeted us today on a crisp, 42º morning, when the clouds finally cleared after a week of rain.
And yes, that is the Hollywood sign on the hill in the foreground.
Archive for Best of
Evil on trial: Perspectives on the Christopher Thompson sentencing
This is not a happy day.
Yes, the Good Doctor got the sentence he deserved, despite what countless apologists have said online today.
But the sad thing is that a man like that, who clearly has so many supporters, committed such a heinous act. And that so many of these supporters don’t get that what he did was wrong.
You see, I don’t hate Christopher Thompson. I don’t even think he’s a bad man. Not that I ever met him.
He’s just a man who did a very bad thing.
That may sound odd, considering the header at the top of this page. But when I first started writing about the Thompson trial, I wanted to grab peoples’ attention and identify any posts on the subject. What I came up with was what you see above.
I thought someone would challenge me, and ask just what I meant by that. But no one ever did. Not even the Times, which mentioned one unnamed blogger who wrote under the headline “Evil on trial.”
So I never explained that it referred to what he did, not who he was.
During the course of the trial, Dr. Christopher Thompson has been variously described as a good husband, a good friend and neighbor, and a skilled, caring physician. I have no doubt that all of those things are true.
But none of that excuses what he did to Ron Peterson and Christian Stoehr on July 4th, 2008 in Mandeville Canyon. Or what he tried to do to Patrick Watson and Josh Crosby in an earlier incident, and at least one other incident before that.
Now Peterson has permanent scars, despite plastic surgery, Stoehr has had to recover from his injuries, and the others have to live with the memory of having their lives threatened. And an otherwise good man is facing 5 well-deserved years in prison.
According to cyclist/attorney DJ Wheels, who was in the courtroom today, Thompson faced his victims and apologized for his actions, wishing them good health. He claimed that he never wanted to hurt anyone, in a statement that brought tears to the eyes of his many supporters in the courtroom.
The Times quotes Thompson as saying, ” I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart.” He added, “If my incident shows anything it’s that confrontation leads to an escalation of hostilities.”
His father also spoke to the court in support of the Good Doctor. In what Wheels described as a very emotional statement, speaking without notes, he talked about the things his son had done for the surgical community and how he had helped a lot of people. And told how a humiliated Christopher Thompson had to move back into his father’s home in Oklahoma after the incident.
That was offset by statements from three of the cyclists involved, who talked about their injuries, how dangerous it is for cyclists in L.A., and how the punishment should fit the crime. Looking directly at Thompson, Josh Crosby said, “You were upset that we were on your street.”
Judge Scott Millington clearly got the severity of the incident, despite noting that the 270 letters he’d received from cyclists urging a stiff sentence had no bearing on his ruling.
As the Times put it:
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott T. Millington called the case a “wake-up call” to motorists and cyclists and urged local government to provide riders with more bike lanes. He said he believed that Thompson had shown a lack of remorse during the case and that the victims were particularly vulnerable while riding their bicycles.
He sentenced Thompson to the minimum 2 year sentence for each of the two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and added three years each for both counts of battery causing serious bodily injury; however, he ordered that those sentences be served concurrently, rather than consecutively.
There were also sentences of 1-year and 90 days for the lesser charges of reckless driving and mayhem; again, he ordered that those be served concurrently with the other sentences for a total of 5 years.
He also ordered Thompson to pay restitution for the cyclists’ medical expenses, with a hearing set for next month. And he revoked the Good Doctor’s drivers license for the remainder of his life.
However, DJ Wheels says that Thompson could be eligible for parole after serving just half his sentence, with the rest served on parole — assuming Thompson doesn’t get into trouble behind bars. And don’t be surprised if state prison authorities consider the Good Doctor an ideal candidate for early release, if plans to reduce prison overcrowding in California are put into effect.
With the felony conviction, loss of his medical license should also be a foregone conclusion — though a number of people in the medical profession have warned that it may not be as clear cut as it seems.
Of course, that does nothing to address the vitriol flying across the internet today. Like this comment that followed a story on the Arizona Star website, from a woman who claimed to be a personal friend of Thompson’s:
Not only were these cyclists COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE but they were traveling five wide on a road that is less than 9 feet across. He has NEVER injured anyone in his entire life and would never intentionally hurt someone…He caused injury to people by complete accident which could have been avoided if they had OBEYED THE RULES of the road while biking. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!
DJ Wheels also notes one other fact that puts this case in stomach-turning perspective. Alejandro Hidalgo is scheduled to be sentenced this Monday for the drunk-driving hit-and-run death of Jesus Castillo last April.
His sentence? Two years.
Two years for getting drunk, getting behind the wheel and running down another human being, then running away and leaving a man to die alone in the street.
Meanwhile, Thompson gets five years for intentionally injuring two cyclists, yet remaining at the scene.
What’s wrong with that picture?
In addition to the Times story, you can read additional coverage of the Christopher Thompson sentencing from L.A. Streetsblog, VeloNews, Huffington Post, KNBC Channel 4 and KABC Channel 7.
Category: Best of, Bikes & the Law, Dr. Christopher Thompson, Legal Cases / Tags: bicycling, Dr. Christopher Thompson, evil on trial, Los Angeles, Mandeville Canyon
Is it right to pass on the right? Or dangerous and illegal?
It’s a simple syllogism.
Passing on the right is illegal; I pass on the right. Therefore, I break the law.
Right?
Okay, so it’s not up there with Socrates’ classic hits, like “All men are mortal.” But that was the gist of a conversation that took place last week, in response to my comments about the recent TRL study showing drivers are responsible for the overwhelming majority of British cycling collisions.
A reader named Doug questioned how closely the British data actually correlates to Los Angeles, which is a fair question. While British drivers complain about the very same cyclist behaviors L.A. drivers do — and vice versa — we have no statistics to back us up.
Primarily because no one has bothered to do an in-depth study of cycling in this city — let alone an analysis of how and why cycling accidents happen and who is at fault.
But more to the point, at least in terms of today’s topic, he also complained about cyclists who run stop signs and red lights. And about riders who pass on the right.
Like I do. And like I often advise other cyclists to do.
Pass on the right, that is — not run red lights.
As Doug put it,
Splitting lines, by both motorcycles and bicycles, is legal in California. However, passing on the right is not, and that is very different. Certainly, a responsible cyclists knows that passing on the right is dangerous and should be avoided.
So who’s right?
From my perspective, you’re almost always better off at the front of an intersection, where you can be seen from every angle, than stopped in the lane behind a line of cars — where drivers coming up from behind may not anticipate the presence of a cyclist, and where you could be hidden from oncoming and cross traffic. And that often means working your way up the right side of the traffic lane.
There are other situations that seem to call for passing on the right, as well. Like riding in heavy traffic, where you can easily ride faster than the speed of the cars next to you. Or when traffic is stopped while you have a clear path ahead.
My justification for doing it is simple. CVC21202 requires that you ride as far to the right as practicable. So unless you’re actually riding in the traffic lane, you’re in a separate lane from the traffic next to you — usually the parking lane or a strip of pavement to the right of the actual traffic lane.
And according to the applicable traffic code, CVC21754, passing on the right is allowed “whenever there is unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.” In other words, if there’s a clear lane of travel wide enough for your bike, it’s legal.
Still not sure?
Look at it this way. Say you’re driving in the right lane on a four lane street, with two lanes of traffic in each direction. The cars in the left lane come to a stop while the lead driver waits to make a left turn. Does that mean you have to stop as well, even though you’re in the next lane? Or if the traffic to your left slows down, do you have to slow as well to avoid passing anyone?
Of course not.
If that happened, traffic would grind to a halt on virtually every street and highway in the country. And since the same laws apply for bikes as for other road users, if it’s legal for drivers, it’s legal for us.
But that was just my opinion — based on nothing more than the rationalizations of a highly opinionated, semi-analytical long-time cyclist. Then I read almost exactly the same arguments on cycling lawyer Bob Mionske’s Bicycle Law website.
But as Rick Bernardi’s column there makes clear, just because something’s legal, that doesn’t mean you may not still get a ticket for it. And you may not win in court, either.
The other question is, is it safe?
Only about as safe as any other maneuver on streets filled with sometimes careless and inattentive drivers.
Some drivers may not check their mirrors and blind spots before moving to the right, never considering that anyone else might want to occupy that same space.
Or operate under the mistaken assumption that it’s illegal for cyclists to pass on the right, and therefore, none would even try. Because, you know, drivers never do anything we think they’re not supposed to do, either.
So you have to be careful.
Keep a close eye on the cars on your left, watching for right turn signals or front wheels turned to the right, as well as cars slowly inching over or drivers turning to look over their shoulders. Always pass on the left side of a right turn lane. And never, ever pass to the right of a car that’s waiting to make a right turn.
But consider this. The recent landmark study of cycling accidents from Fort Collins, Colorado, listed passing on the right as a contributing factor in just one of 354 cycling collisions.
One.
In other words, about 213 less than the number of broadside collisions that occurred as a result of simply riding a bike across an intersection.
And I don’t know anyone who says that just riding across the street is dangerous.
Or illegal.
Category: Best of, Bikes & the Law, Streets and Infrastructure / Tags: bicycle safety, bicycling, CVC21202, CVC21754, drivers vs. cyclists, Los Angeles, traffic laws
What to do when the road rages and bumpers bite — part 2
I thought I knew what to do if I was ever in a cycling collision.
I was wrong.
Yesterday I wrote about defusing a road rage incident, based on what I learned as a result of my own run in with a raging driver. A case in which I did just about everything wrong, costing me any chance of a settlement — as well as blowing any shot at a criminal prosecution.
Hopefully, it’s something you’ll never run into. But if you ever find yourself sprawled on the pavement looking up a looming bumper, maybe you can avoid making the same mistakes I did.
After all, it’s so much more fun to make your own.
Let the driver leave.
No, seriously. After knocking me to the pavement, the driver who hit me started to flee the scene. So I jumped up and blocked her from driving off until she finally turned off the engine and got out of the car.
Wrong move. Not only did I put myself at risk of getting hit a second time, it might have been better if she had run away. Police usually take a hit-and-run far more seriously than they do a mere traffic accident, even if you say it was road rage. Hopefully, any driver would have enough decency to stick around, but if not, just note the license number and get out of the way.
Don’t move anything until you have to.
First, make sure you’re out of traffic or that someone is directing cars around you. Then ignore the people who tell you to move it, and leave your bike exactly where it is. And try to keep the driver from moving his car, as well.
Both are now evidence, and the relative positions between them could help show what really happened. Move either one before the police tell you to, and you’ve eliminated a key part of the puzzle. Or at the very least, pull out your camera phone and take photos of everything before anyone moves anything. Trust me, you’ll need them once the lawyers get involved.
Shut the hell up.
This isn’t a bike ride anymore; it’s a legal case. Who was at fault has yet to be determined — and you are just as likely to be blamed as the driver who hit you, if not more. So remember that anything you say can, and probably will, be used against you.
In my case, I tried to attract attention and keep the driver from fleeing the scene by yelling that she’d tried to kill me. But someone told the police that I’d threatened to kill her, instead. As a result, they refused to give me her contact information — and threatened me with arrest if I tried.
So make sure everyone else is okay. Exchange information. Get the names and phone numbers of any witnesses. Listen closely if the driver or passengers say anything, and write it down if you can find a pen and paper. But keep your own lips zipped until it’s time to talk with the investigating officer.
You’re the victim. So act like it.
As soon as the driver got out of her car, she screamed that it was my fault for being in her way. So I found myself yelling back to defend myself against my attacker. Or at least, that’s how it felt from my perspective.
But as bystanders began to arrive, what they saw was a grown man yelling at a middle-aged woman — with no knowledge that she had just used her car as a weapon to run me down. So guess which one they felt sorry for?
I’m not suggesting that you lie or exaggerate. But how sympathetic you seem to the bystanders will determine whose side they’re on — and could influence what they tell the police.
Never refuse medical care
The fact is, you probably are hurt. But you may not know it yet, as the adrenalin and endorphins flooding your brain mask any pain.
So when the paramedics ask if you want to go to the hospital, the answer is always yes. The charges the driver may face will depend largely on the severity of your injuries, as will any future settlement you might receive. And the police will take the case more seriously if they know you’ve been injured.
I refused transportation to the hospital, so the official police report said I was uninjured. And that never changed, even after I was diagnosed with a broken arm and permanent vascular damage.
Be prepared for bias
As I waited for the police to arrive, I was surprised to hear bystanders, who had no idea what happened, say it was my fault because those aggressive, arrogant cyclists never obey the law.
But I was shocked to hear similar comments come from the supposedly impartial officer conducting the investigation. Even though I was stopped at a stop sign when she hit me, the driver claimed I’d run the stop sign and fell over while turning onto the cross street. The investigating officer said he believed her because “all you guys run stop signs.”
Expect to explain the evidence
The simple fact is, many, if not most, police officers don’t receive adequate training in investigating bike accidents. So chances are, they may miss or misinterpret key evidence proving who was really at fault.
In my case, the officers didn’t understand that it wasn’t possible to fall to my left while making a high-speed right turn, as the driver had claimed. And they didn’t grasp that the imprint of the chainwheel on my calf could only have occurred if my foot was firmly planted on the ground at the time of impact. So be prepared to walk them through the evidence. But don’t be surprised if they don’t believe you.
Don’t take no for an answer
This was probably the biggest mistake I made. After conducting their investigation, the lead officer said it was a “he said, she said” situation, and let the driver go without a ticket or charges — then tried to intimidate me by saying I could be charged with filing a false police report if I continued to argue with their decision.
It worked.
So I settled for an incomplete and inconclusive police report that virtually eliminated any chance of justice, financial or otherwise. What I should have done — and what you should do in a similar situation — was insist on talking to a supervisor and demanding a fair and unbiased examination of the evidence.
Those of us in Los Angeles have one more option. If you still don’t get satisfaction, you can call Lt. Andre Dawson, who has been appointed by new LAPD Chief Beck to look into complaints from cyclists, at 213/792-3551.
And maybe if enough of us call, things will start to change.
Update: The LAPD now has four bike liaisons representing each of the four Traffic Divisions. You can find their email addresses — which is the best way to contact them — on the Resources page.
………
Bikerowave hosts its first swap meet this Sunday. Jeremy Grant tackles the intro to LA’s Best Bike Plan. Meanwhile, a couple of LAPD officers attempt to tackle Critical Mass. Literally. Metro is still looking for volunteers to conduct an Orange Line bike study, while Damien catches an LADOT worker riding the wrong way on the sidewalk. The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council offers improvements to the new bike plan. Bellflower gets a new 2.3 mile Bike and Pedestrian Path (the name needs a little work, though). Philadelphia papers are up in arms about cyclists, while The N.Y. Times asks if that could mean trouble for Gotham riders. About that 300 miles of new bike lanes new York installed in the last three years — make it 299 now. I don’t recall anything in the Bible about blessed are the bike lane blockers. A Michigan drunk driver who killed a cyclist gets up to two years per beer. A Detroit cycling organization offers effective responses to common arguments against accommodating bikes on the roads. San Francisco gets its first new bike lane in three years. Yet another music video featuring cyclists — naked ones, this time. Attention expat wannabes: London needs more good wrenches. Finally, I thought this cycling psychiatrist was off his rocker when he said those on four wheels have disdain for those on two, and those on two wheels have disdain for those on two legs — until I read this letter from Philadelphia.
Category: Best of, Bicycle Safety, Car vs Bike / Tags: bicycling, car vs. bike, L.A.P.D., Los Angeles, police training, road rage
What to do when the road rages and bumpers bite — part 1
“Boy, boy, crazy boy, get cool boy! Got a rocket in your pocket, keep coolly cool boy!”— Cool, from West Side Story
On a good day, nothing beats a good ride.
Days when the sun is shining and traffic effortlessly parts to let you glide by. And you find yourself offering a nod and a wave to express your gratitude for the courtesy of others on the road.
And there are the other days.
Days when traffic snarls and tempers flare. When horns become curses and cars are brandished like threats.
In most cases, that’s as far as it goes.
But when steel and glass impact flesh and bone — intentionally or otherwise — how you respond in the first few minutes before and after can go a long way in determining whether you finish your ride. Or whether you have a case.
I was the victim of a road rage attack a few years back, and in retrospect, I did almost everything wrong. Over the next couple days, I’d like to share some of the painful lessons I learned so you’ll know what to do if, God forbid, it ever happens to you.
Maybe you’ll be smarter than I was and find a way out that doesn’t pass through the emergency room. Or lose your case before it starts.
Let’s start with those precious few minutes before the impact, when there’s still time to de-escalate and find an exit strategy — or at least find a way to protect yourself and your legal rights.
Ride courteously
Let’s face it. There are hotheads on the road. A driver might be mad because he had a fight with his significant other. Maybe he’s an aggressive driver who doesn’t want to share the road. Or maybe he — or in this case, she — is just a bike-hating jerk. How you react to them can go a long way in determining whether that anger gets directed towards you. So always ride courteously. And if you see signs that a driver may be angry or acting in an aggressive manner, try to give them a very wide berth.
Ride legally
I won’t to tell you how to ride. But I will make one simple point: As Bob Mionske observed, whether or not you obey traffic laws could determine whether you have a legal case in the event of a collision or road rage incident. Simply put, if you run a stop sign or red light, or fail to signal a turn or lane change, chances are, you will be found at least partially at fault regardless of what the driver may have done.
And not just during the incident; police and lawyers will look for anyone who may have seen you riding in the miles and weeks leading up to the incident. So the red light you blew through half an hour before, or even last week, may be used to show that you probably didn’t stop at the stop sign when you got hit — even if, as in my case, the physical evidence shows you did. It may not be fair, but that’s the world we live in.
Keep your fingers to yourself
It’s a bad habit, one I’ve struggled to break with limited success. Unlike drivers, we don’t have horns to express our fear and anger, so it only seems natural to flip off someone who’s just cut you off or threatened your safety in some way. The problem is, it doesn’t work. I’ve never seen anyone respond to a rude gesture with an apology; instead, it only escalates the situation. At best, they may ignore you or respond in kind; at worst, it gives an angry driver a reason to retaliate.
And never, ever flip off a driver behind you.
Let dangerous drivers pass
You have a right to the road, no less than anyone with a motor and four wheels. And you have every right to take the lane when the situation warrants it; drivers are legally required to follow or pass safely. But just because it’s the law doesn’t mean that’s what they’re going to do. So the question becomes whether it’s better to stay where you are and fight for your right to the road, or pull over and let the driver — and the situation — pass.
Before my road rage incident, I would have stayed right where I was and held the lane. But I’ve learned the hard way that cars are bigger than I am, and they hurt. So when you find an angry driver on your ass, pull over and let the jerk pass. Then take down the license number, pull out your cell phone and call the police.
Snap a photo
Your camera phone may be one of the most important safety tools you own; I keep mine within easy reach in a Topeak case attached just behind my handlebars. When tempers flare, simply pull it out and snap a photo of the other person, as well as the license of their vehicle. Instantly, you’ve established a record of the incident and documented the identity of the driver — destroying the sense of anonymity that allows most violent acts to occur.
I’ve used mine on a number of occasions. And in every case, the driver has backed down and driven away.
Next: What to do after a collision
……….
The real surprise isn’t that the Times has covered CicLAvia twice; it’s that they’ve finally discovered Midnight Ridazz and Critical Mass. Flying Pigeon demands a bike-friendly North Fig, just like the original bike plan draft called for. Oceanside’s San Louis Rey River Trail is growing, while Glendale is abut to get new bike lanes. Speaking of which, it seems better signage makes for better bikeways. Colorado makes it illegal to text behind the wheel. Here’s one problem L.A. cyclists seldom have to deal with. A Wisconsin drunk driving case finally comes to trial. If a Utah cyclist becomes fender-fodder, he hopes it’s a legislator behind the wheel. Famed frame builder Dave Moultan writes about a Brit cyclist whose 1939 mileage should give Will Campbell a new target for next year. The Mounties may not always get their man, but they did recover a lot of bikes. Finally, after railing against Lycra Louts, the British Press discovers the dangers of iPod Zombies.
Category: Best of, Bicycle Safety, Car vs Bike / Tags: bicycling, car vs. bike, Los Angeles, road rage
And now, a not-so-simple adjustment in biking infrastructure
Let’s take a look at something a little more involved that just changing signage.
Like changing attitudes, to start.
As Joe Linton noted in a recent comment, a bike boulevard can be a pretty hard sell. The name alone is enough to enflame rampant NIMBY-ism among local homeowners. And leave city officials reluctant to take on a similarly enraged mob ever again.
The simple fact is, not many people want a bike boulevard on their street. At least, not until they understand what it actually means.
And that’s our fault. As I’ve noted before, cyclists don’t have to be sold on the concept. The name alone tells us everything we need to know. Problem is, we expect everyone else to be as excited about it as we are.
It just doesn’t work that way.
On the other hand, the solution is simple. Instead of speaking in terms of our interests, we need to look at it in terms of what’s in it for people who don’t bike.
And there’s a lot in it for local homeowners.
By diverting traffic onto other streets, local residents can finally free themselves from the headaches of high-speed traffic in front of their homes. No more heavy trucks or hot-rodding hooligans in the middle of the night. And no more commuters taking a shortcut through a quiet residential neighborhood to bypass congested boulevards, turning a formerly peaceful street into a mini-throughway.
Eliminating through traffic can give residents a quieter, more livable neighborhood, where children can play outside and families stroll along peaceful sidewalks. It can also mean a more attractive place to live, as homeowners take advantage of the opportunity to clean up their streets, and the barriers themselves provide opportunities for beautification projects.
After all, nothing says barriers have to be k-rails; they can just as easily be planters, artwork, fountains or any number of similarly property-value enhancing enhancements. And that’s another key, because property values often go up as the newly peaceful neighborhood becomes more desirable to home buyers.
Then you tell them the best part. It won’t cost them a dime. Because one feature of this wonderful new street plan is something called a bike boulevard — a gap in those barriers that allows bikes and pedestrians to pass through — the DOT will pick up the entire tab.
They don’t even have to make a commitment. The whole thing can be installed on a temporary basis to prove how well it works before they agree to a permanent installation.
Now how many homeowners wouldn’t beg for something like that? And once people in other neighborhoods see it, chances are, they’ll beg for one of their own.
All you have to do is identify a street where homeowners are already fed up with traffic. Which pretty much means any street with speed bumps.
Military Ave. looking north from National Blvd.
Like Military Avenue, for instance, which runs between Pico and Palms just a few blocks east of the 405 Freeway.
Since the street parallels busy Sepulveda and Westwood Boulevards, it’s often used by drivers looking for an easy way to bypass traffic. At least two rounds of speed bumps have already been installed to reduce and slow traffic; when the first didn’t have the desired effect, the response was to install more and larger humps — with little or no apparent decrease in traffic.
Which means they’d probably jump at the chance to block their street to through traffic, while providing full access to local residents. Even if it meant putting up with more of those damn cyclists.
And Military would make an ideal bike boulevard.
Military between National and Palms
It’s straight and flat for most of the way, other than a small hill on the south end. The northern section is more than wide enough for bikes, cars and parking on each side, while the narrower southern section is lightly traveled and easily shared.
A bikeway on Military could also be extended south to connect with the existing bike paths on Venice Blvd. And it would only require a few new stop lights on Butler Avenue at Pico and Olympic to provide an easy link from Venice to Santa Monica Blvd.
Evidently, I’m not the only one to notice this.
The new bike plan shows Military as a “Bike Friendly Street” from Pico to Venice (page 67) — whatever that eventually ends up meaning.
Maybe that means they’re planning to make it a bike boulevard, but don’t want to use that name; maybe it means nothing more than sticking up a few signs indicating it as a preferred route for bikes. Or maybe they have no idea what they’re going to do there, but recognize that it’s an ideal place to do… something.
Then again it could just be a line on a map. One that never results in anything on the street, like so much of the previous bike plan.
That would be a lost opportunity for everyone.
Including homeowners.
………
More on bike racks, or the lack thereof: good and bad placement in West Hollywood; LAPD ignores Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. The next Dim Sum Ride rolls through Old Town Pasadena this weekend. A proposed new development in the Valley straddles the Tujunga Wash and could interface better with transit and a proposed bikeway. Burbank cyclists will get a new route connecting with the popular Chandler Bikeway. Cynergy Cycles offers a free lecture on Heart Rate Specific Training tomorrow night. The LA Times discovers Critical Mass — in Chicago. Tips on how to lead your own themed ride. A NY pedicab driver gets into an altercation with an impatient cabbie. Dave Moulton finishes his look at the history of frame design. Actor/musician Jared Leto leads fans on a bike ride through an unnamed city. Proof that not all drivers hate cyclists. Finally, as if cyclists don’t have enough to worry about, Alaska riders have to watch out for bear attacks.
Category: Best of, Streets and Infrastructure / Tags: bicycle boulevards, bicycling, Bike Master Plan, biking infrastructure, Los Angeles, Military Avenue
DIY police work leads to meager charges — and dangerously written laws
A popular L.A. cyclist thinks he knows why the driver who hit him ran.
And he knows who it was.
Maybe you know Roadblock. It’s almost amazing how many L.A. area cyclists do, and just how highly they regard him. But then, as one of the city’s leading bike activists and an original founder of the Midnight Ridazz, it’s pretty easy to understand why.
Or maybe you read about his recent biking accident, when the story of how he got run down by a hit-and-run driver made waves in the local online and cycling communities.
Fortunately, he’s okay, aside from a complaint about lingering back pain. In fact, when I ran into him the other night — figuratively, not literally — he looked good.
But it could have been much worse.
He was hit from behind at high speed, and carried several yards on the hood of the car before the driver applied the brakes and he was thrown off onto the street.
And then, as so often happens, the driver gunned his engine and took off, disappearing into the night. In fact, at least four cyclists in the L.A. and Orange County area have been killed by hit-and-run drivers this year alone; Santa Clarita held a Ride of Silence this past Saturday to commemorate the most recent cyclist run down by a drunken runaway motorist.
Fortunately, he somehow managed to get a partial license plate as he lay in the street. And that’s when L.A.’s Department of DIY sprang into action once again.
Overnight, signs sprang up seeking witnesses. Back channel contacts identified the owner of a suspect vehicle. A little detective work led to a local auto body shop, where photos were taken of the car as it was being repaired.
And in less than 48 hours, the suspect was identified to the police and the legal process was in motion.
Roadblock wants to keep the driver’s identity to himself for now, until the legal process is further along. But he says it’s someone well known in city circles, who certainly should have known better — and acted differently.
He also has a theory — which, due to the delay in finding the suspect, is likely to remain nothing but speculation — that the driver had been drinking. And that’s probably why he ran.
Evidently, the driver’s gamble paid off, since Roadblock had the good fortune to escape with relatively minor injuries, so the driver will escape with relatively minor charges.
Under California law, a hit-and-run that doesn’t result in injury is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail, and/or a fine of up to $1000. And the authorities seem to feel that the sort of soft-tissue injuries Roadblock suffered don’t count, despite lingering pain and stiffness nearly five months later.
If the collision had resulted in a few broken bones, the penalty would be up to a year in jail, with a fine up to $10,000; a hit-and-run resulting in death or serious, permanent injury could bring up to 4 years in state prison.
And that’s the problem.
Existing law actually encourages intoxicated drivers to flee the scene of a collision, because the penalties for drunk driving resulting in injury or death can be far more severe than the relatively minor penalties for running away.
In fact, according to the Driver’s Handbook published by the DMV, a DUI case involving serious injury or death can be prosecuted under the state’s Three Strikes Law, potentially resulting in life imprisonment. Which makes the maximum penalty of four years for running away pale in comparison.
And relatively minor charges like hit-and-run are often dropped or plea-bargained away before a case ever comes to a resolution.
So for a driver who’s had a few drinks, fleeing the scene offers a reasonable gamble that they may get away with it. Or at least have time to sober up before getting caught.
And that has to change.
The penalties for hit-and-run have to be increased, until they’re strong enough that no one would ever consider leaving the scene of an accident.
Because this epidemic of drunken hit-and-runs has to stop. And our government has to stop encouraging it.
………
Santa Monica authorities insist it’s safe to ride through the city even if you don’t have a license, despite what the law says. L.A.’s bike culture captures yet another convert. A motorist in Sun Valley is in desperate need of a better bike rack; if your bike is missing, this might be your prime suspect. An upcoming photo exhibition profiles Angelenos who somehow survive sans cars. The paparazzi catch Sharon Stone bike shopping with her kids; the unidentified store looks like I. Martin to me. Joe Linton lists Long Beach’s leap to livability. In Chicago they even bike for cocktails; how civilized. An S.F. paper asserts cycling steers fashion, and that cars and bikes can, in fact, coexist. New York gets the kind of center median cycletrack we can only dream of. A Florida cop tases a fleeing cyclist before running over and killing him. Lego cyclists can be put back together; real ones can’t. Ex-framebuilder Dave Moulton explains the bike’s evolution away from the wheelbarrow effect. Edmonton police are on the lookout for a biking people-basher, while Toronto cyclists look hotter in a helmet. Finally, the Times touches briefly on last Friday’s David Byrne panel discussion; look for my take Wednesday on Streetsblog.
Today’s post, in which I beat a dead horse
Let’s take a quick look back at last week’s LADOT controversy, before I move on to other subjects.
As you may recall, last Monday I broke the news that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation was secretly planning to install peak hour lanes on Reseda Blvd, which would have necessitated the removal of two miles of existing bike lanes, as well as the cancellation of another long-planned — and long delayed — 3-mile extension.
This came to light courtesy of Glenn Bailey, chairman of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. He had learned of the plans in an official LADOT status report to the BAC, which indicated that the planned extension conflicted with “peak hour usage in the near future.” Bailey then confirmed those plans in a conversation with Ken Firoozmand, Transportation Engineer for the West Valley division of LADOT.
The response was overwhelming, as the story quickly spread through the Internet. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition issued an action alert from urging cyclists to attend a meeting of the Northridge West Neighborhood Council, which was planning to vote on a resolution in support of the plan after learning about it from Bailey; the large, highly motivated turnout resulted in a unanimous vote against the peak hour lanes.
And that’s when the inevitable backlash began.
Representatives from LADOT contacted both Streetsblog and LAist, insisting that the agency had no plans to install peak hour lanes on Reseda and that “…It was all based on rumor, nothing that we had propagated.”
Obviously, they were mistaken. Or lying. I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt; others didn’t.
Joe Linton, BAC member and founder of the LACBC, responded by providing the original document revealing the existence of the peak lane plan, and expressed concern for the LADOT staffer who was only doing his job in providing that information to the BAC.
Meanwhile, Glenn Bailey circulated an open letter providing full details of how he became aware of the plan and confirmed its existence with Firoozmand. He also pointed out the Notice of Street Work for a one-mile section of Reseda where the proposed bike lanes would go, which local residents were concerned would provide an opportunity to install the peak hour lanes; Glenn has requested that this section be restriped for the long-promised bike lanes, instead.
A commenter on Streetsblog noted that the bridge over the viaduct near Victory Boulevard was widened with the express purpose of turning the Reseda into a major north-south thoroughfare. In my initial conversation with Bailey, he’d quoted Firoozmand as saying “We wouldn’t have widened the bridge if we weren’t planning to include peak hour lanes. The only reason I didn’t include that in the initial story only because I had failed to write down which bridge he was referring to.
Yet incredibly, when LADOT was confronted with proof of the plan, they stuck by their initial denials. Damien at Streetblog offered this official response from LADOT:
The information provided yesterday is accurate and still stands: the Department has no current plans to remove any portion of the bike lane or to install peak hour lanes on Reseda Boulevard.
Note the key word “current.”
All they had to do was acknowledge their error, and admit that a plan had been considered but was no longer under consideration — whether or not that had anything to do with the massive response in opposition to the plan.
Instead, they chose to engage in a cover-up — not exactly the kind of open, honest government we have a right to expect as citizen of a democratic society. And in the process, they continued to smear both Glenn Bailey and me as the unnamed sources of those unfounded “rumors.”
Unfortunately, as of this writing, a few local websites still haven’t corrected the stories based on LADOT’s false denials, despite the overwhelming proof to the contrary.
And a full week later, none of the council members I contacted before publishing the initial story — Rosendahl, Kortetz, Zine and Smith — has bothered to respond in any way.
Meanwhile, Joe Linton has written an open letter to Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT, as well as Mayor Villaraigosa, Council President Garcetti, and Council Members Rosendahl, Smith, and Zine. It reads in part:
It doesn’t surprise me that LADOT would favor a peak lane plan that would increase capacity for cars, indeed this is LADOT’s job and what LADOT has historically successfully focused on. What surprises me is that LADOT staff lied. Governmental agencies depend on the trust of the public to make our city work. When LADOT staff deny something that LADOT staff have already put in writing, this duplicity damages the public trust and makes it difficult for all of us to work together in the future.
I urge you to work with your staff to be honest, clear and transparent and to rebuild the public trust that their actions have strained. I also urge you to immediately implement the long-delayed bike lanes on Reseda Boulevard.
Meanwhile, the LACBC has sent out another Action Alert calling attention to the LADOT’s false denials, and urging everyone to contact the appropriate officials:
Some of you may have been getting letters assuring you that the bike lane was never going to be removed and that this was all a rumor. Due to the overwhelming response to this threat, it seems that DOT has retracted their plan and is now claiming that there is currently no plan to install a peak hour lane.
We want to make sure that there will never be a plan to install peak hour lanes on Reseda Blvd.
Let’s install the already approved bike lanes on Reseda Blvd!
Due to your emails and the extreme circumstances of this issue, Mayoral staff requested a meeting with LACBC. They suggested that if there is community consensus, a bike lane could be completed this year.
Here’s what you can do:
Please write to Councilmembers Smith and Zine and let them know that you would like to see the already approved extension of the Bike Lane of Reseda Blvd from Vanowen to Rinaldi installed by the end of 2009.
Please send in and email your letters to:
Honorable Los Angeles City Councilmember Dennis Zine
200 North Spring Street, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90012
councilmember.zine@lacity.orgHonorable Los Angeles City Councilmember Greig Smith
200 North Spring Street, Suite 405
Los Angeles, CA 90012
councilmember.smith@lacity.orgJonathan Brand, Planning Deputy for Dennis Zine
jonathan.brand@lacity.orgPhyllis Winger, Chief Planning Deputy for Greig Smith
phyllis.winger@lacity.orgHonorable Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
mayor@lacity.org
It’s your government. And it’s up to you to decide whether to accept secret plans and cover-ups. Or whether you’re going to do something about it.
LADOT: We didn’t do it, nobody saw us do it, you can’t prove anything*
We could declare victory. But the opposition now claims they were never playing.
In fact, they have no idea what we were even talking about.
No, really.
I first heard about the West Valley DOT’s plans to install Peak Hour Lanes on Reseda Boulevard when I was sitting in on the meeting of the Bike Advisory Committee last week. Committee Chairman Glenn Bailey mentioned it in passing, saying he’d like it added to the agenda for the next meeting.
He said it had come to light when bike planners had tried to coordinate with their West Valley counterparts about installing another three miles of bike lanes on Reseda, and were told not to bother because it wasn’t going to happen. The decision had been made to go with the peak hour lanes instead.
In speaking with Glenn later, he related a conversation with a district engineer who confirmed the plans.
Yet a spokeswoman for the LADOT now tells Damien Newton that there were never any plans to install peak hour lanes or to remove the existing bike lane.
Fair enough.
Maybe a few rogue engineers had been acting on their own without getting approval from their superiors. Maybe it was only under consideration and they were just making preparations in case such a plan was approved.
Or maybe they were surprised by the overwhelming opposition from the cycling community, and are now in full backpedal mode, sounding like Sgt. Schultz as they deny any knowledge of any such plan.
As Stephen Box sagely points out, the fact that the old bike plan called for a bike lane the full length of Reseda, while the new bike plan calls that “currently infeasible,” indicates that someone, somewhere made a decision to do something else with the boulevard.
But that’s the advantage of secret plans.
They’re easy to deny if anyone finds out.
*Also known as the Bart Simpson approach to public relations……….
Bike Date uncovers the latest high-tech bike prototype, complete with biodegradable wheels. Metblogs notes the opening of Bikrowave 3.0. Stephen Colbert offers his tips for cyclists. A blogger questions the quality of police investigations of cycling accidents — scroll down for some fascinating insights from a retired cop. Following the recent attempted shooting of a cyclist, an Asheville writer calls for a peace treaty between cyclists and drivers. Four years after a near fatal collision on the same spot, a New York cyclist marks the opening of a new protected approach to the Manhattan Bridge. A new Missouri law allows bikes and motorcycles to run red lights if they fail to change. A Minneapolis-area driver attacks a cyclist with an ax following an on-road dispute. The author of the new Colorado Bike Safety bill explains how it should benefit cyclists and drivers. Finally, a Louisiana cyclist is stopped for riding with a three-foot alligator on his shoulders.
Incomplete Streets: DOT’s secret plan to take away your bike lanes
Prepare to get mad.
Because this is a city that lacks even a minimally sufficient level of biking infrastructure. A city where the new bike plan fails to include a number of routes proposed in the previous plan that no one ever got around to building. And where the vast majority of potential routes that cyclists might actually use are considered “currently infeasible.”
Yet the Department of Transportation is preparing to remove an already existing bike lane in the San Fernando Valley.
That’s right.
West Valley traffic planners intend to erase the thin line of paint that carves out just a tiny fraction of Reseda Boulevard for bicyclists, just to feed an ever increasing need for motorized vehicle capacity. Regardless of what effect that might have on the safety of cyclists. Or the livability, and sustainability, of our city.
Or maybe they just didn’t get the memo that there are other road users on the streets of L.A.
And now it’s up to us to stop them.
Not surprising, they’ve done their best to keep local residents and business people in the dark — along with the area Chambers of Commerce and all three of the Neighborhood Councils in the effected area.
Then again, the people who live and work in the affected area shouldn’t feel alone. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, and even the DOT’s own bicycle planning department, were kept out of the loop, as well.
Evidently, as far as the West Valley DOT was concerned, it was on a need to know basis. And anyone who might possibly object didn’t need to know — even though public hearings are required before removing an existing bike lane.
According to BAC Chairperson Glenn Bailey, it only came to light when bike planning engineers tried to coordinate with the West Valley traffic engineers about long-standing plans to add another three miles of bike lanes, and eventually extend the current bike lane the full length of Reseda Blvd.
Instead, they were told not to waste their time. The WVDOT had already overridden those plans in order to create Peak Hour Lanes along Reseda Boulevard — meaning that all on-street parking will be banned during peak hours.
As a result, the three miles of planned bike lanes, which would have run next to the parking lane, were no longer under consideration. And a full two miles of the existing bike lanes on both sides of the road between Van Owen and Ventura Boulevard would have to be removed.
Similar Peak Hour Lanes have recently been installed along Balboa, Tampa and De Soto, as well as Topanga Canyon Blvd — a state highway where CalTrans had been willing to put in a bike lane, but was overridden by the DOT’s inexplicable lust for maximum motorized throughput at the expense of any form of alternative transportation. Even though research shows half of all car trips could be walked or biked.
Evidently, four north/south Peak Hour routes within just a few miles aren’t enough, even though evidence has repeatedly shown increasing capacity usually results in short term gains, at best.
Of course, when Glenn tried to get more information, his emails were ignored — despite that fact that he chairs a supposedly important civic committee and was appointed by the mayor himself.
Then when he finally reached the West Valley District Engineer by phone to ask about the cancelation of the planned extension, he was told “I’m not going to put in a bike lane for one or two bicyclists.”
This despite the fact that neither the city, nor anyone else, has yet conducted an accurate survey of existing ridership along the route, or potential ridership if the route is completed. And the fact that a completed bike lane would serve Cal State Northridge, as well as other area schools, and countless commuters who might feel more comfortable riding to work if they had a dedicated lane to ride in.
Instead, area residents will be forced to contend with high speed, curb-to-curb traffic, which will only serve to discourage cyclists and pedestrians, while putting both groups at greater risk.
Not to mention the inconvenience faced by people who live along Reseda, who will no longer be able to park in front of their homes and apartments. Then there’s the impact an unexpected loss of street parking will have on local businesses already struggling to survive in an adverse economy.
It’s only a bike lane.
But removing it would establish a dangerous precedent, putting every bike lane in the city at risk. And rendering the proposed Bike Plan meaningless, because even existing routes could be eliminated at any time, for any reason.
Mad enough yet?
It’s draw a line in the sand. And fight back.
There is a motion in favor of the Peak Hour Lane proposal before the Northridge West Neighborhood Council Tuesday night at 7p, in the auditorium of Beckford Avenue Elementary School, at 19130 Tulsa Street in Northridge.
If you live or ride in the Valley, I encourage you to join Glenn at this meeting to oppose the motion and fight for your bike lanes. Or if you can’t make it, email your comments to Glenn at glennbaileysfv @ yahoo . com (remove spaces).
And contact your councilmember — as well as councilmembers Greig Smith and Dennis Zine, who represent to affected area — to demand a halt to this misguided, short-sighted plan.
Because it may just be a bike lane. But it — and what it represents — couldn’t be more important.
I emailed councilmembers Smith and Zine to ask for their comments, along with Transportation Committee Chairperson Bill Rosendahl, and my own councilperson, Paul Koretz, Vice Chairperson of the Transportation Committee. So far, I haven’t received a response from any of them; if it turns out someone actually cares enough to get back to me about this, I’ll let you know.
………
Like me, Will Campbell comes down squarely in the helmet-wearing camp. Flying Pigeon announces this month’s non-Dim Sum ride. Enci and Stephen are looking for volunteers for what could just be the coolest bike ride in L.A. Allstate says L.A. and Glendale drivers are among the worst in the nation. Well, duh. L.A. Creek Freak examines construction on the L.A. River Bikeway. Detroit shock jocks say they’d love to lob something at your head. Lance Armstrong urges Colorado’s governor to revive the great bike stage races of the ‘70s and ‘80s. A newspaper in Rochester, MN argues that bike-friendly streets need bike-friendly drivers, while New Mexico cyclists argue for safer streets. A bikeway named after America’s first black cycling champion is treated with as much respect as he was. In other words, not much. With a little luck, you can buy former Talking Head David Byrne’s folding bike on E-Bay. Spanish riders get the world’s longest bicycle commuter tunnel. Finally, if you’ve ever felt like your bike could fly, an English cyclist proves you may just be right.
