Search results for bikes have rights

Santa Clarita to honor fallen cyclist with silent ride

September 24, 2009 / / 5 comments

novotny-2Every cycling death is tragic. And unnecessary.

And this year, there have been far too many around here.

Whether it’s a father taking his son on a grand adventure. A local handyman who took up riding after losing part of his vision in an accident. A day laborer from Sonora, Mexico, who rode everywhere. A woman police blame for causing her own death by riding the wrong way on the sidewalk. Or a man in Orange County just trying to get home from work.

And then there’s Joseph Novotny.

Like Rod Armas and Jesus Castillo, he was killed by an accused drunk driver who fled the scene — a driver who had already been arrested multiple times, despite being too young to legally drink.

And it was preventable.

His killer was driving with a suspended license, and passing motorists had already reported him to the authorities. But despite their best efforts, sheriff’s deputies arrived just moments after he’d plowed his truck into a group of oncoming cyclists riding on the opposite shoulder of the road, and continued down the road.

Four cyclists were injured, two seriously. And Novotny was killed.

It could have been anyone of us.

Adding to the tragedy, he was on one of his first rides with the Santa Clarita Velo Club, having just moved to the area with his wife. Now she, and all those who knew and loved him, have to find a way to go on without him.

Next Saturday, October 3rd, the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Velo Club are sponsoring a Memorial Ride of Silence in memory of Robert Novotny, and other cyclists who have been killed on the roads.

I’ll let Jeff Wilson explain:

Los Angeles cyclists and Biking in LA readers, we could use your help!

On July 11, 2009, 43 year old cyclist Joseph Novotny was struck and killed by an underaged drunk driver while riding his bike in the Bouquet Canyon area of Santa Clarita.

On October 3, Santa Clarita cyclists will ride silently in memory of Joe Novotny and all other cyclists who have been killed while riding. Please consider joining us to raise awareness of bicyclists and our right to use roads.

The 12 mile ride begins at 8am in Santa Clarita. A Sheriff’s escort will be provided as we ride into Newhall, then Stevenson Ranch, and finally back to Valencia. Most of the route is flat; other parts are somewhat hilly (but brief). Cyclists are asked to ride in silence and at around 12mph.

From Los Angeles, Santa Clarita is just minutes north of the San Fernando Valley. Take Interstate 5 north and exit at Valencia Blvd. Proceed east on Valencia until you reach Citrus Avenue. Turn left on Citrus Avenue. Free parking is available.

Unfortunately, while Metrolink service is available to Santa Clarita, the earliest northbound train will arrive after the ride has started.

I know it’s short notice, and you may have other commitments already. But if you’re planning to ride next weekend, I can’t think of a better place to do it.

Or a better reason.

And please, be careful out there this weekend. I want to see you all back here on Monday.

For more information, contact IreneTJohnson@yahoo.com, or click here to visit the Facebook page.

………

Submitted for your approval: LADOT has finally released the full draft bicycle plan and scheduled dates and locations for public comment; Bike Girl calls the deadline for comments “infeasible,” while Dr. Alex notes that it excludes input from Neighborhood Councils. Pasadena has a meeting scheduled to discuss its new Bicycle Master Plan. Mark your calendar for the Festival of Rights to protest the illegal exclusion of bikes from the DWP’s annual Holiday Light Festival. We could have had bike lanes on Topanga Boulevard by now, no thanks to the Department of Currently Unfeasible, aka LADOT. L.A.’s leading bike wonk makes the case for making the case for active transportation. The only thing missing from Santa Monica’s new green maintenance facility is bike racks. Long Beach’s cycling expats offer a report from the road. An Arizona cyclist was killed riding with a group of other cyclists; he leaves behind a wife and three children, including a newborn. Evidently, cars really do make Americans fat. Proof there’s more than one way to park a bike. I don’t know what’s worse — that they put up speed bumps in a cemetery without warning cyclists, or that a few rude cyclists made it necessary. San Francisco police take a report of harassing a cyclist seriously. Finally, your word for the day is Traumadinejad.

novotny-2

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

Bike the vote in CD2

September 22, 2009 / / Comments Off on Bike the vote in CD2

As Stephen Box points out, today could turn out to be one of the most important days in determining the future of cycling in L.A.

That’s because today there’s an election to fill the city council seat recently vacated by former Transportation Committee Wendy Greuel. And whoever is elected to represent the 2nd Council District will have an outsize influence on the council, since many of the members currently on the council are in their final terms — and thanks to the effects of term limits, will soon be more focused on running for their next office than representing the district they currently serve.

Which is not so much a comment on our current council members as it is a comment on a highly flawed system that throws out the good with the bad.

As Box put it:

Los Angeles has a Mayor and a City Council made up of 15 Councilmembers. A significant number of those in office are lame ducks, politicians in their last term who can’t run for reelection. The person who wins the CD2 seat is in a position to set the tone for the next round of candidates who run for the even numbered seats in 2011. That’s seven seats and the person who wins today will be setting the pace for that race. As for today, there are ten candidates and it’s a bit late to try to cover the many issues and the many positions and the many debates and the many forums. Suffice to say that there are two kinds of candidates, those who embrace the Cyclists Bill of Rights and those who don’t.

I’ve written before how cyclists can have an outsized influence on the electoral process. In the CD5 primary, the winner was determined by a total of just 60 votes — votes that could have easily come from the cycling community.

60 votes.

And with 10 candidates in today’s election, this one could easily be closer. Which means that your vote may never mean more than it does today.

You can learn more on Stephen’s blog, where he has video from four of the candidates, and written statements from two more. And over at Streetsblog, Damien Newton has done a great job covering the race from a more general transportation perspective.

But whatever you do, if you live in this Valley district that wraps around the west sides of Glendale and Burbank, from Mulholland to the Verdugo Hills and west to Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks, get out and vote.

Because your vote today could determine how you ride tomorrow.

……..

A cyclist was injured in a collision behind the Orange Curtain. The hit-and-run epidemic has spread to the East Coast. New York cracks down on illegal rental bikes. Boston plans to put more bikes on the street to end its bike unfriendly image. There’s a new shockproof, waterproof bike mount for all you iPhone users. Bike & Brew reaches Kalamazoo. The wife of British gold medalist Bradley Wiggins was hit by a car while riding over the weekend; as usual, the driver claims he just didn’t see her. A ghost bike in Bogota. Finally, ride your bike to the polls when you Bike the Vote in CD2 today — after all, it’s World Carfree Day.

Category: General / Tags: , , ,

The Verdict 2 — Fighting Anti-Bike Bias in Baltimore

September 3, 2009 / / 2 comments

FADE IN: ESTABLISHING SHOT OF EXT. BUSY URBAN COURTHOUSE

CUT TO INTERIOR OF COURTROOM

A lawyer rises and addresses the court

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

We call BikingInLA as an expert witness.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY

Objection! What makes him an expert on cycling?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

He’s been riding in Los Angeles traffic for nearly 20 years.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY

So?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

He’s still in one piece.

JUDGE

Works for me.

A strikingly handsome man rises from the gallery, immaculate in his finely tailored three-piece suit. He then steps aside to make way for a man in well-worn spandex biking clothes, helmet tucked under his arm, his cleats clacking loudly on the marble floor. He takes a seat in witness stand.

The bailiff offers him a bible; he waves it off and pulls out a biography of Eddie Merckx, placing his hand on it.

BAILIFF

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you…Eddie?

BIKINGINLA

I do.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

I’d like to direct your attention to the case of John “Jack” Yates, a Baltimore cyclist who died recently in a collision with a tanker truck. I understand you’ve made some observations on the case…

BIKINGINLA

I have.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY

Objection! What does this have to do with bicycling in Los Angeles?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Your honor, if you’ll grant me some leeway, the connection should become clear.

JUDGE

Overruled. But make it quick.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Continue.

BIKINGINLA

As you may be aware, Jack Yates was riding his bike on a city street just before noon when a tanker truck made a right turn in front of him; according to police, Yates collided with the rear of the truck, became entangled in the truck’s wheels and was killed. The driver left the scene, apparently unaware of the collision. The police obtained security camera footage of the collision, and determined that Yates was at fault. And society lost a respected cyclist and a man who had dedicated his life to knowledge and helping others.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

And you have reason to believe the police report is not accurate?

BIKINGINLA

I do. Let’s start with the fact that the lawyer retained by the victim’s family viewed the same video footage and said that the driver failed to signal. Independent witnesses also reported that the driver didn’t make sure the intersection was clear before turning into the cyclist’s path.

Now let’s consider how the accident occurred. According to the police, Yates struck the rear of the truck. However, the family’s lawyer said: “He did not crash into the rear [of the truck]. He was literally taken under the passenger-side rear wheel.” Now, that suggests that the rider struck the right side of the truck and fell under its wheels. So unless Yates felt a sudden suicidal urge and deliberately broadsided a turning truck, the only way that could happen is if the truck had turned into the path of the rider — what’s known as a right cross collision, and one that is almost impossible for a cyclist to avoid.

There are virtually no circumstances in which the driver shouldn’t be at fault in a right cross, just as a driver in the left lane who turned across the path of a driver in the right lane would be at fault. However, police often blame the cyclist for failing to stop or riding in an unsafe manner — a clear indication that they fail to understand the basic physics of bicycling.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Yet the police determined the driver wasn’t at fault…

BIKINGINLA

There is speculation that the police believe Yates was riding too close to the curb, and therefore couldn’t be seen by the driver as he passed. By this theory, he should have taken the lane, which presumably would have put him in the driver’s field of view.

There are a few problems with that, though. First of all, the driver should have seen Yates regardless of where he was on the road. A truck cab sits high above the road, offering the driver a superior view of anything in front of him. Whether Yates was in the lane or hugging the curb, the driver should have seen him as he passed — especially in broad daylight.

Secondly, for Yates to be at fault, he would have been riding at an extreme speed — which no one has suggested, and which is unlikely for a 67-year old cyclist — or been unaware of the truck before running into it. But any experienced cyclist can tell you that if a truck that size is in front, behind or beside you, you know it.

Just as I did last week when I got buzzed by a garbage truck.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

And when you sense a large truck approaching like that…

BIKINGINLA

Typically, a cyclist would respond by moving to the right to give the truck as much room as possible — which would explain his presence next to the curb, rather than further out into the lane.

As Bob Mionske pointed out the other day, cyclists are require to ride as close to the right as practical if they are traveling below the speed of traffic. And it is up to the cyclist to determine exactly what that means, and where and how to safely position themselves on the road.

Yet because Yates isn’t around to defend his actions, the police can say he was in the wrong place without fear of contradiction.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Is there anything else about this incident that doesn’t seem right to you?

BIKINGINLA

Yes. The police have stated that the driver may not have known that he struck anyone, but I find it inconceivable that a truck could run over a grown man, and the driver not be aware that he hit something. He may not know what he hit, but he should have known something wasn’t right.

And he certainly would have become aware of it as soon as he examined his truck, which any professional driver does on a regular basis.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

This incident occurred in Baltimore. So what does this have to do with Los Angeles, or any other city, for that matter? Why isn’t this just a tragic, but strictly local, matter?

BIKINGINLA

Simply this. The police in Baltimore have responded to questions about this case by issuing a statement in which they say the case has been thoroughly investigated, by officers who have been trained in “the physics of a pedestrian crash and a cyclist fatal crash.”

Yet the explanation they’ve offered simply doesn’t add up. Either they have additional evidence they haven’t revealed, or their conclusions appear to be invalid.

And if that doesn’t sound familiar to Angelenos, it should.

I’m not saying that police are intentionally biased. But even experienced police officers say the training most officers receive in bike accident investigation is inadequate.

Clearly, this isn’t just an L.A. problem, or a Baltimore problem. It’s a nationwide problem. And cyclists will continue to be injured and killed on American roadways, with little or no protection or recourse, until we find an effective solution.

Simply put, we are vulnerable on the streets. And we can’t survive without the protection of an informed and trained police force that truly understands how, and why, bicycle accidents occur.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Thank you. Your honor, we rest our case.

FADE TO BLACK

………

Prepare yet another ghost bike. A Duarte cyclist was killed on Monday just blocks from his home. As usual, the authorities haven’t released any information; if you have any details, let me know. Stephen Box responds to an invitation from the Mayor. The Examiner suggests avoiding smoke by riding up the coast from the ‘Bu. Marin County does something about those red lights that never change for bikes. A driver in Colorado intentionally strikes a cyclist in a case of mistaken identity. Oops. The makers of my 2nd favorite beer — this being #1 — suggest going car free. A cyclist in New York gets punched in the face after criticizing a driver for driving in the bike lane; police do nothing. A Seattle writer calls sharrows a sham, while Oregon drivers wonder if Portland just makes up those stats about cycling in the city, proving that “bike friendly” is a relative term. Bad infrastructure and adrenalin are blamed for cyclist/driver tensions north of the border. Researchers say cycling has killed more Londoners than terrorists. Finally, the cyclist killed by a former Canadian Attorney General in an apparent road rage incident may or may not have been too drunk to ride.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , , ,

Just who has the right to the road?

September 2, 2009 / / Comments Off on Just who has the right to the road?

I stumbled on some interesting letters to the editor this week.

The first got my attention because it came from a town I know well, a scenic bump in the road in the Colorado high country near Rocky Mountain National Park.

My Grandmother lived in Granby, Colorado for awhile back in the ‘30s; my mother spent a few summers working there as a waitress when she was a teenager. And I grew up camping with my parents on the shores of Grand Lake just outside of town.

So I was surprised to read this letter in the local newspaper.

As these things often go, she was writing in response to another letter, which in itself was a response to an earlier letter demanding that cyclists be licensed, insured and taxed.

You know, the usual bull. As if most adult cyclists don’t already have a driver’s license and pay the same taxes anyone else does. And don’t make a fraction of the demands on the road system — or cause a fraction of the harm — that cars and trucks do.

When their real point is, they just don’t want to share their precious roads with us. Because, we’re like, in the way and stuff.

Her point was that local roads simply aren’t big enough to accommodate both bikes and the large logging trucks like her husband drives, especially given Colorado’s new three-foot passing law. Sort of like one of those classic westerns, where someone would inevitably say “this town’s not big enough for both of us.”

And it wasn’t her, or her husband, she thought should be leaving.

That came as a surprise to me, because over the years, I’ve driven — and ridden — virtually every inch of that area. And never had any trouble sharing those roads with anyone.

Then again, her idea of sharing the road is for us to get the hell out of the way.

The funny thing is, those curvy mountain roads that she claims weren’t built to accommodate cyclists weren’t built to accommodate today’s large trucks, either. Most of those roads were built in the ‘20s, ‘30s and ‘40s, when most cars were smaller and trucks were just a fraction of the size they are today.

In fact, I remember riding in the car with my father, stuck behind yet another semi-truck inching its way down a narrow mountain pass, and listening to him rant about how those damn trucks didn’t belong on narrow winding mountain roads.

Evidently, who belongs on the roadway depends entirely on your perspective.

And it’s not just bicyclists — or trucks — that backcountry drivers have to watch out for. There’s the problem of drivers frightened by the winding curves and steep drop-offs who insist on driving 20 or 30 miles below the speed limit. Or farm combines and tractors who crawl along at 10 or 15 mph as they move from one field to another.

And there’s always the possibility that a deer and elk, cow or fallen boulder that could be waiting in the middle of the road, hidden by the next curve.

But her problem isn’t with rocks or cows, farmhands or frightened flatlanders.

No, it’s just the selfish cyclists riding where they don’t belong who inhibit her husband’s ability to speed along mountain roads that weren’t designed for either one of them — yet can accommodate bikes a lot more easily, and with less wear and tear, than they can massive trucks.

So here’s the bottom line.

If you don’t have the skill or patience to share the road safely with other users — whether cars, trucks, skateboards, bikes, cows, pigs or pedestrians, in the mountains or on the streets of L.A. — you don’t belong on the road.

Period.

Whether you’re behind the wheel, or crouched over the handlebars.

Don’t like it? Get over it.

Because we’re not going away. And neither are they.

………

The Times offers a great profile of the brothers — and philosophy — behind Flying Pigeon; next month’s Dim Sum Ride sounds like the best one yet. NPR considers the new Bike Station being built in Washington DC. New York might have a great new bikeway system, if it wasn’t for those darn New Yorkers. Stomach-churning video of a Wisconsin state legislator running a red light and hitting a cyclist. A Minneapolis cyclist is killed in a rare bike on bike fatality. DC authorities remove a ghost bike without notifying cyclists or the family — and do nothing to prevent more in the future. A writer insists the cyclist/motorist divide created by Columbia, MO’s new anti-harassment law is narrowing; the comments that follow beg to differ. The Cycling Lawyer clearly explains why the Idaho Stop Law is a good idea; people like the Columbia commenters and the letter writer above are why it will probably never pass. WorldChanging presents your guide to bicycle infrastructure; Bikes Belong announces a new Bicycling Design Best Practices project. Jakarta’s Bike to Work club celebrates its 4th anniversary. Finally, Portland gets a new separated cycle track, and a nifty brochure to explain it.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

Do we dare to declare victory?

September 1, 2009 / / 2 comments

“I declare the war is over; it’s over…” — Phil Ochs, The War Is Over

In case you missed it, L.A. cyclists scored a couple of big victories in the last few weeks.

As you may recall, following the outrage over LADOT’s plans to remove the bike lanes on Reseda Blvd in order to install peak hour lanes, LADOT denied they would ever consider such a thing. As part of that denial, LADOT explained that they were planning to repave a 1-mile section of Reseda, and that maybe that’s where the “misunderstanding” started.

Cyclists, of course, smelled opportunity.

Or maybe we just smelled blood in the water. And insisted that LADOT prove their sincerity by completing the long-delayed bike lanes along the full length of Reseda that we were promised in the old bike plan, starting with that one mile section.

Then, as cyclists continued to press their case at a meeting of the Northridge East Neighborhood Council, Alan Willis, LADOT Principal Transportation Engineer for Valley Traffic Operations, announced that the promised bike lanes would be installed on the section to be repaved. And that the remaining gaps in the bikeway could — maybe — eventually be closed.

Of course, they never admitted their deception. Let alone offered an apology.

Then last week came news that after 5 long years, the city is finally moving forward with a Sharrow test project. Nine streets are under consideration, including one along the current Class 3 bike route on Westholme Ave, just blocks from my home.

This comes less than a year after an LADOT representative gave an update to the city council’s Transportation Committee, claiming that the delay was because they didn’t know what kind of paint to use so that cyclists wouldn’t slip on wet paint when it rained.

Maybe that was a legitimate concern in today’s highly litigious society. Although when I mentioned that to a respected transportation planner at the Bike Summit earlier this year, he just rolled his eyes.

Of course, cities from Pittsburgh to Long Beach — not to mention Portland, Denver, Minneapolis and Seattle, just to name a few — have already put sharrows to use on the streets. And to the best of my knowledge, there have been no rash of injured cyclists in those cities.

But maybe they don’t have wet streets in Seattle, Portland or San Francisco. Or maybe cyclists there don’t come out until the streets are completely dry after a storm.

Or maybe LADOT just forgot to call their counterparts in those soggy cities to ask what kind of paint they use.

Still, the commitment to move forward with a Sharrow pilot project is a major victory. And the LACBC deserves credit for hanging in there and refusing to let them delay it to death. Combined with the bike lanes on Reseda, those are the biggest wins for local cyclists in recent memory.

Of course, the bad news is that LADOT actually considered removing existing bike lanes to squeeze a few more cars onto the already overcrowded city streets. Which means that no bike lane, sharrow or bike route — existing or not — will ever be safe if it stands in the way of what they consider progress.

Which means that we need to remain vigilant, ready to defend what little biking infrastructure we have. Let alone fight for what we deserve.

Of course, there is another alternative.

The city — and LADOT in particular — could start working with cyclists, rather than seeming to fight us every step of the way. They could, finally, start focusing on how they can move more people, rather than just more cars.

And begin building complete, livable streets that work for all their users, as well as the people who live, work and shop along them.

They might just find that we could be the best friends that they — and this city — ever had.

……….

The Anonymous Cyclist spots new ex-parking meter bike racks in Westwood. No Whip discovers a wallride in Mammoth, and Stephen Box discovers a full-service bike station Down Under. Travelin’ Local presents five ways to use your bike while traveling on Metro. LADOT wins an Emmy for a PSA encouraging drivers to pay attention around kids. The Times much-missed transportation beat reporter is now pucking around online. Joe Linton details the latest controversy, this time over a SoCal Gas plan to “fix” the popular fat tire and hiking trail in Sullivan Canyon, while lining portions of the creek bed with rip rap and concrete matting. A writer on Bob Mionske’s Bicycle Law blog challenges car-centric news coverage of a driver arrested for intentionally striking a cyclist, while Bob discusses what “as far to the right as practical” means in real life. A DC cyclist is physically assaulted after pushing a car door to avoid being doored. Town Mouse outrides a herd of migrating Scottish cows. Controversy flares in Korea over a proposed mandatory helmet law. Finally, sex columnist Dan Savage dares drivers to show their contempt for the recent study showing they’re at fault for 90% of car/bike collisions — and they gladly oblige. Of course.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

When someone complains about dangerous cyclists, show them this

August 20, 2009 / / Comments Off on When someone complains about dangerous cyclists, show them this

As we drove through the Westside this past weekend, my wife and I watched in amazement as one driver after another attempted maneuvers you won’t find in the driver’s manual, with varying degrees of success.

We agreed that the overall quality of driving in L.A. was worse than we’d ever seen it. And it clearly hasn’t gotten any better since.

Take yesterday’s ride, for instance.

It started before I could even get out of the alley behind my building. A driver was trying to back his van around a blind corner from the street into the alley. His view was completely blocked by the building next to me, so he had no idea what, if anything, was behind him — yet he did it anyway.

And what was behind him was me.

So I hugged the side of the building and waited until he finally stopped, then pulled around him, shaking my head as I passed.

Just two blocks later, I waited at a stop sign as a trash truck crossed the street in front of me. Instead of clearing the intersection, though, the driver stopped part way, then backed around the corner onto the street I was on. It wasn’t until he finished backing up and was facing me that he finally saw me there, waiting to cross.

Most drivers would have recognized that I had the right-of-way, and let me go first. Instead, he looked directly at me as he cut me off to complete his three-point U-turn.

A few minutes after that, I crossed Wilshire Blvd on a green light. Just as I reached the other side, a car lurched out from the curb just ahead of me, then stopped, blocking the lane, and cut me off again as he turned left into a driveway. All without signaling, of course.

I don’t know if he didn’t see me, or just didn’t care.

Then at the very next intersection, I pulled up to a four-way stop at the same time that two cars came up to the intersection on the cross street, one behind the other. The first driver looked my way, so I nodded for her to go, then started across the street.

As I was crossing, the second driver looked directly at me, gunned her engine and cut me off as she zoomed through the stop sign just feet in front of me. But evidently, it was okay — in her mind at least — because she gave me the dismissive “so sorry” wave as she passed.

I responded with another kind of wave. And forty-two days of middle-finger sobriety went down the drain.

And that was just first mile of my ride.

By the time I got back home, I’d also encountered a Range Rover — without plates, of course — who cut into the bike lane right in front of me so he could pass a long line of cars that weren’t speeding quite fast enough for him.

Then there was the driver who pulled out from a cross street right in front of me — which another driver waiting to cross in the opposite direction took as her signal to go, even though I was directly in front of her. Fortunately, she stopped just in time, as I braced for the impact.

The winner, though, had to be the driver I encountered on the last leg of my ride as I rode east on Ohio.

I took the lane soon after crossing Westwood Blvd, like I always do. The street is too narrow for cars to pass safely there, while the steep downhill lets me to go as fast, if not faster, than the speed of traffic.

This time, however, the driver behind me tried to pass on the wrong side of the road, even though I was riding at least as fast as the 25 mph speed limit — and common sense — allowed.

We were side-by-side as we went through the intersection at the bottom of the hill. Then she zipped up the next hill and turned left at the next corner, running the stop sign in the process — all without ever coming back to the right side of the road.

Of course, not everyone drives like that.

Even though it seems like a lot, these were just seven drivers out of the thousands I encountered that day — many of whom went out of their way to pass safely or wave me through a challenging intersection.

But the next time someone complains about all those damn law-flaunting cyclists, remind them that we’re not the only ones who do stupid, illegal and extremely dangerous things on the road.

Sure, there are cyclists out there who treat traffic laws with an excessive degree of flexibility.

But safe operation has nothing to do with the number of wheels you travel on.

……..

Brayj gets a neighborhood council to endorse the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights, after biking to the wrong meeting. The Anonymous Cyclist explains how to address the problem of putting 135 mm disk hubs on a 130 mm road bike frame. Santa Clarita ambushes drivers with unannounced bike lanes. Now Hollywood celebs can finally afford to ride along with their dogs; poor people will have to continue holding the leash. Santa Rosa experiments with a Bike Boulevard, proving a city can move forward without making a permanent commitment. A Silicon Valley cyclist bounces back from a near-fatal collision with a drunk driver. Even in Baton Rouge, where I was once regarded as a two-wheeled freak, they’re making room for bikes — maybe there’s hope for L.A. after all. Cycling deaths are up in Seattle despite increased spending to make cycling safer because drivers fail to yield — a $101 ticket. Cyclists attack a Boca Raton driver for passing too close; witnesses say he hit one of the riders. A Staten Island driver faces charges for assaulting a cyclist who tried to make a point by blocking cars from a bike lane. A Texas cyclist gets shot with a pellet gun, and assumes it’s a prank. Finally, it appears to be legal in New York to ram your car into a bicycle and drive 200 feet with the rider clinging to the hood, as long as he isn’t seriously injured. Gentlemen, start your engines — it’s open season on Gotham cyclists.

Category: General / Tags: , , , ,

The secret agenda of L.A. cyclists

August 3, 2009 / / One comment

I’ve been bicycling in Los Angeles for nearly two decades now.

For most of that time, I haven’t involved in local politics or government, aside than complaining about the idiots running this city, like everyone else.

Which made me the idiot, of course.

Because like most Angelenos, I was far too busy with my work and family to get caught up in some seemingly unimportant local election. And like most cyclists, I was more concerned with my next ride than what might be happening at the next city council meeting.

But while I was busy with my own concerns, decisions were being made that would affect the ability of cyclists to ride in L.A., as well as the very livability of the city. And not only did I not have a voice in those decisions, I was quite sure that my voice — and yours — didn’t matter, because no one was listening anyway.

Turns out, I was wrong.

Over the past year or so, I’ve learned that the low level of involvement exhibited by most Angelenos means that it really doesn’t take a lot of people to influence the process. In fact, one reason special interests have such an outsized influence in this city is that too many of us don’t bother to make our voices heard.

Of course, the other reason is they have all that money to contribute to campaigns and parties and PACs to influence the process.

As it turns out, though, a few motivated cyclists really can make a difference. And we seem to have some real friends in government, as well as a few others who are willing to take our side as long as we can make a good argument and show that we have some support on our side.

There’s also a secret government agency that exists solely to deal with cycling issues in Los Angeles. Or at least, it might as well be a secret since most riders have never heard of it.

Don’t believe me? Just stop the next cyclist you see, and ask if he or she is going to the BAC meeting tomorrow night.

That blank stare should be all the answer you need.

Yet the Bicycle Advisory Committee has been around for over 30 years, ever since it was founded by Tom Bradley — the city’s last great visionary mayor and standard every local political leader has failed to measure up to since the ‘70s.

And it’s a pity, because the BAC has the potential to make a huge difference for L.A. cyclists. It can, and should, provide a direct voice for cyclists in our city government — giving cyclists access to the city’s leadership and giving our leaders insight into the issues we face on the street everyday.

But it only has the power our mayor and city council give it. And the power they give it is in direct proportion to the support it gets from the cycling community.

You and me, in other words.

I can’t speak for you, but I know I haven’t been giving it enough support. In fact, I’d never heard of it until about a year ago, and only attended my first meeting just two months ago to argue in support of better police training.

That’s on the agenda for tomorrow night, along with further discussion of the proposed new bike plan, the new Expo bikeway, the proposal to limit bikes on Metro trains to just two per car, and the problem of trucks blocking bike lanes, among other items.

You don’t have to go. Unless you happen to live around there, it’s a major pain in the ass to get downtown, especially so close to rush hour. In fact, I can usually drive to Orange County in less time than it takes me to get Downtown from the Westside.

But it’s important, and it’s worth it. Because what happens there will help determine the quality of biking in L.A. today, and for the foreseeable future.

Besides, you might just see me there.

………

Will Campbell bears witness to a recent tragedy. MetroRider discusses the city’s proposed bike plan. A Helena letter writer insists that the rules of the road apply to cyclists, too, while a Toronto paper observes an intersection where only 13% of cyclists stop. A suburban Chicago paper says there’s room enough on the road for everyone, and a writer in South Carolina says safety goes both ways. Colorado cyclists and a driver fight in the roadway, and can’t agree on what happened. Finally, a Cleveland teen hits a police car. You really, really don’t want to do that.

Category: General / Tags: , , ,

Today’s post, in which I get sort of semi-famous

July 31, 2009 / / 2 comments

KCET-Local - trimmed

The clock is officially counting on my 15 minutes of fame.

Recently, I was contacted by Maxwell Strachan from L.A. public television station KCET. It seems they were starting a new feature highlighting some of L.A.’s “fascinating and first-rate blogs” on the Local section of their website. And for some reason, they wanted to kick it off with yours truly.

Go figure.

You can see the results on the KCET Local page. Or if it’s not there anymore — I’m not sure how long they plan to keep it on their main page — go directly to the interview by clicking here.

And be sure to look around a little while you’re there. They’ve got some interesting stuff on their site.

14:59…

14:58…

14:57…

……….

If you’re looking for somewhere to ride tonight, you could do a lot worse than the Taste of East L.A. But Subway? Really? Cycle Chic captures a biking cowboy at the Casbah. After all those reports of men getting sexual problems from riding, it seems women have issues, too. Bob Mionske asks leading bike advocates what it will take to get an Idaho Stop Law passed. Chicago foodies ride and dine; maybe they got the idea from the world famous Dim Sum Ride? New York gets around to regulating pedicabs. Bike-friendly Madison WI cracks down on law breaking bikers; but at least they cracked down on bike-law-breaking drivers, too. The Guardian says bikes and books go together, and suggests which ones you should be reading. Berliners discover their bikes now that gas is up and the rail service is down. Finally, Alabama bans a popular California wine; is it because of the naked nymph on label or the bike she’s barely riding?

Category: General / Tags: , , ,

Why change the law, if no one’s going to obey it anyway?

July 30, 2009 / / 4 comments

One more thought about this week’s topic before I climb down from my soapbox.

As I noted yesterday, states and towns across the country are reforming their traffic laws to encourage bicycling and help keep riders safer on the roads. But without adequate enforcement, even the most well-reasoned reform is meaningless.

Consider Tucson, where Erik Ryberg — the Tucson Bike Lawyer — reports that not one driver has been cited for violating Arizona’s three-foot passing law in the first six months of this year, and only three all of last year. This despite the fact that several local riders have been struck by cars, which would seem to indicate that the drivers were just a little closer than that.

Or take Tennessee, which has a well-deserved reputation for failing to enforce its own three-foot passing law — even in a recent case where a popular cycling advocate was killed when a truck passed so close that it hooked his saddlebag and threw him under the trucks back wheels. It’s gotten so bad that the governor himself has weighed in on the subject.

Then there’s California’s highly publicized ban on using a hand-held cell phone while driving. Despite the inherent dangers of distracted driving, and the relief felt by cyclists around the state when it finally took effect, the law has been almost universally ignored.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, over 200,000 tickets have been written for violations of the law so far. Yet you don’t have to watch traffic very long to observe a passing driver holding a phone to his or her ear. And virtually every time I have a close call with a motorist, it’s almost a given that the driver will be holding a phone.

Don’t believe me?

Try it yourself. Next time you’re out on the street, watch the passing cars and see how many drivers you can count with their cell phones illegally plastered to their ears — or God forbid, texting. And note how closely those drivers correlate to the ones actively demonstrating a high degree of stupidity behind the wheel.

Then again, there’s no shortage of traffic laws being to be ignored these days.

Once you get tired of counting cell phones, try keeping track of how many moving violations you see. From everyday scofflaw-isms like speeding, failure to signal, illegal lane changes and failure to come to a complete stop, to more exotic moves like making a three-point U-turn while blocking oncoming traffic, or cutting across four lanes of traffic to make a right turn from the left lane — all of which I saw on a brief two-mile trip through Century City this afternoon.

And don’t forget to include yourself in that tally — and yes, Idaho stops count, even if there is valid evidence to back them up.

The unfortunate fact is, many people, both drivers and cyclists, feel they can do whatever they want on the roads these days. Because experience has taught them that they will probably get away with it.

Go back to that little test counting moving violations. All those people on the roads you saw break the law, exactly how many of them were stopped by the police as a result of their actions?

Chances are, the answer is zero. Because there simply aren’t enough police officers on the streets to enforce traffic laws, especially not here in L.A.

And without enforcement, there is no compliance.

And without compliance, even the most well-reasoned Bike Safety Law will be absolutely meaningless.

So yes, we need to change the law. But more than that, we have to find a way to enforce the laws we already have.

………

Mark your calendar for the Brentwood Grand Prix on Sunday, August 9th. Long Beach cycling photographer Russ Roca and his wife a documenting a cross-country, then international, bike tour. A popular cyclist from my home town is recovering after being critically injured when struck from behind on a group ride. Also from Colorado, the state police now have a dedicated phone line for cyclists to report dangerous and aggressive drivers — yet another idea we might want to copy. Tucson police follow-up if a driver leaves the scene after hitting another car, but hit a cyclist? Not so much. Iowa considers banning bikes from farm-to-market roads. New York’s city council votes to let bikes into the workplace. The Cycling Lawyer, non-Tucson edition, explains how to respond to, and hopefully defuse, road rage. Before and after shots of Ashford, England’s new carnage-free shared road space. Finally, that DIY virtual bike lane that everyone wants just won the International Design Excellence Award.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

A comprehensive California Bike Safety Law

July 29, 2009 / / 2 comments

Let’s pick up where we left off last time.

As you may recall, I’d commented on the LACBC’s proposed Vulnerable User Law, which would increase penalties for anyone convicted of careless driving who kills or injures a cyclist, pedestrian or other vulnerable road users.

A good start, I said. But only a start, because what’s needed is a more comprehensive reform of the laws intended to ensure our place on the road, keep cars and bikes from coming in contact and governing what happens when they do.

That led to a comment from Chet K, who identified himself as a member of the LACBC, and said that the organization is open to the possibility of legislation that goes beyond a strict focus on vulnerable users. As he put it,

I don’t believe LACBC has discounted any possible solution, or set of solutions, that could result in safer roadways. What is needed is more constructive input and participation by interested road users to help push this forward.

So let’s take them up on that.

If you’ve been a regular visitor here — or you’ve clicked the links at the top of this page — you probably have a pretty good idea where I stand on the subject. So let’s take a look at some of the provisions that have already been passed in other states lately that could form the basis for a comprehensive California Bike Safety Law:

• Three foot passing law — Colorado, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Carolina and Louisiana have recently joined a growing list of states that require that drivers pass cyclists at a minimum of three feet distance, and allow drivers to briefly cross lane dividers when necessary to pass a cyclist safely.

• Prohibit harassment of cyclists — Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and the city of Columbia, Missouri have passed laws that prohibit intentionally striking, throwing objects, yelling or honking at cyclists in a manner intended to startle, anger, frighten or injure them.

• Ban right hooks, left crosses and cutting off cyclists after passing — Massachusetts now prohibits turning into the path of an oncoming cyclist or cutting back into the lane until safely clear of a cyclist; many drivers don’t learn the inherent danger of turning or cutting in front of a cyclist until it’s too late.

• Safer signaling rules — Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts and South Carolina now allow signaling for right turns by either bending the left arm upward, or pointing right with the right arm. In addition, many of the states no longer require a continuous signal if traffic or road conditions require the rider to keep both hands on the handlebars.

• Give cyclists greater legal protection in bike lanes — Colorado has taken an important step by extending the same legal protection enjoyed by pedestrians in a crosswalk to cyclists riding in a bike lane. In addition, many of the states have banned drivers from blocking bike lanes.

• Riding two abreast is explicitly permitted — Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts and South Carolina have eliminated any confusion over whether cyclists are allowed to ride side-by-side in the roadway, allowing two-abreast riding as long as it doesn’t impede the normal flow of traffic.

• Treat non-responsive red lights as a flashing red — Indiana has recognized that bikes are frequently unable to trigger the roadway sensors that cause traffic signals to turn green; as a result, cyclists there are now allowed to proceed through a red light after stopping and waiting a reasonable period of time.

• Require police training in bike law — Massachusetts now requires that all police recruits complete a training program developed in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to ensure that eventually all officers will be well-versed in the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.

• Explicitly ban dooring — Massachusetts has also made it a violation to open a car or truck door into a passing cyclist, or directly in the path a cyclist — accidently or otherwise.

In addition, most of these states have clarified the hard-to-define and frequently misunderstood requirement to ride as far to the right as practical with language that recognizes the need to take the lane when necessary to avoid obstacles or obstructions, or when the lane is too narrow to allow safe passing. And most require that drivers be educated in both the new laws and the rights of riders.

So which of these laws are right for a California Bike Safety Law?

All of them.

My suggestion would be to start with the Massachusetts law. Then add in provisions to ban harassment of cyclists, give riders in a bike lane the same protection as pedestrians in a crosswalk, ban blocking of bike lanes, and allow cyclists to ride through red lights that don’t change on their own after waiting a reasonable amount of time. And include the LACBC’s proposed Vulnerable User Law, as well.

Of course, you may be wondering if all this is really necessary. So ask yourself this. Are cyclists still getting harassed, injured and killed on our streets?

Then yes, it is.

……….

Stephen and Enci Box are attempting to film without fossil fuel. Alex notes the Palms Neighborhood Council unanimously endorsed the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights. Metblogs says you could get a ticket for riding the wrong way on Speedway. West Hollywood clarifies the laws regarding riding on the sidewalk. San Diego cracks down on pedicabs after a tourist is killed. A Texas man is honored for giving over 4,000 bikes to underprivileged children. Bob Mionske discusses the Idaho Stop Law. Finally, Damien is asking for input designing a questionnaire for the candidates to replace Wendy Greuel in L.A.’s Council District 2, and Stephen Box notes the issues that will frame the debate and where you can meet the candidates. Because things won’t get better for cyclists in this city until we elect a government that makes it a priority.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee