Tag Archive for road rage

A more responsive LAPD confirms: We do take road rage reports seriously

Today’s story has two heroes.

Both wear blue. And both reflect the courtesy, support and responsiveness this city deserves from its police department. Yet which so many cyclists have learned not to expect, based on their own experiences.

Myself included.

Both are unidentified here, after requesting anonymity — something I will honor to keep them from getting swamped by cyclists seeking high-level help. And to keep that channel open for the next time.

The story begins last week, when I got a second-hand report that a local cyclist had been threatened in a road rage incident, and that the LAPD had refused to take a report about it.

By itself, that would be disturbing enough.

Too many cyclists encounter angry drivers on the roads as it is; if we can’t count on police protection, they might as well declare open season on anyone on two wheels. But it was especially troubling in light of the Mandeville Canyon case, in which prior incidents involving Dr. Christopher Thompson established the pattern of behavior that led to his conviction.

Even if there’s nothing the police can do, having a record of such complaints could establish a paper trail that might eventually lead to another prosecution. Because chance are, Thompson isn’t the only driver willing to use a car to threaten, intimidate or injure another human being.

As a result, I wanted to find if it really was LAPD policy not to take road rage reports from cyclists. So I reached out to Bicycle Advisory Committee Chairman Glenn Bailey, who suggested that I contact one of the top commanders at the new police headquarters downtown.

I sent an email explaining who I was, what I had heard, and asking for clarification about the department’s policies regarding road rage incidents. And then I moved on with my day, assuming I’d be lucky to get a response within a week. Or ever.

To my surprise, though, I received an email half an hour later asking for more information. And within two hours, I had phone messages waiting for me from the Commander, as well as a Lieutenant he had asked to look into the matter.

Both were very helpful when I returned their calls. The Commander, especially, was surprisingly friendly for such a high-ranking officer. Unfortunately, they both agreed that there was nothing they could tell me without more information.

I told them I was trying to get in touch with the rider involved, and would get back to them as soon as I knew more. And hung up the phone, fully expecting to never hear from either of them again.

A few days later, though, I got an email from the cyclist, who confirmed much of what I’d heard and agreed to talk with the Lieutenant.

(In light of the Thompson case, in which Patrick Watson’s emails were subpoenaed by the defense, I agreed not to disclose his name or any details of the incident.)

I forwarded his phone number to the Lieutenant. Later that day, I heard back from both of them that they had spoken, and the matter had been satisfactorily resolved.

The Lieutenant went on to explain that no one at the department had refused to take a report, and that it is police policy to take any road rage case seriously — but that what constitutes road rage can be subject to interpretation.

For instance, if a driver yells at a cyclist to get off the road, it probably wouldn’t merit police involvement. But if the driver uses his vehicle to threaten or attack a rider, they want to know about it.

And he assured me that they will take it very seriously.

Without going into specific detail on this case, he added that miscommunication sometimes occurs because the people involved are highly excited in the heat of the moment, and may have trouble communicating exactly what happened. Police officers are trained to calm them down and get the information they need, he said — but some officers are better at it than others.

When this rider was able to explain more clearly what had happened, it was clear that a crime may have occurred. As a result, the case will be investigated by a detective as an Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

He also gave me some advice on what to do if you find yourself in a situation like this — which I’ll try to get to in another post next week.

Bottom line, the cyclist was satisfied with the result. And I was pleasantly surprised, not only that such high-ranking officers would respond, but that they would take the time to investigate the situation and keep me in the loop every step of the way.

The Lieutenant also added one final thought, which I’ll let him explain in his own words from a follow-up email:

Finally, the Department is continuously evaluating its operations in our attempts to improve.  We are looking at ways to better educate the community and the Department employees on bike safety issues and traffic accident prevention.  In order to develop a comprehensive plan to minimize to the risks to bicyclists we will need their input and cooperation.

Maybe things really are getting better.

………

On a related note, Asst. D.A. Mary Stone, prosecutor in the Thompson case, has requested letters from cyclists to present to the judge next Monday prior to Thompson’s sentencing. Will Campbell offers his letter as an example; you can see additional letters on Streetsblog, as well as Damien Newton’s advice on how to structure your letter.

Have the police responded when you’ve reported a crime?

Just a quick question this morning.

Lately I’ve heard 2nd and 3rd-hand reports from cyclists complaining that police officers may have failed to respond appropriately to various incidents involving cyclists, ranging from road rage to reports of stolen bikes. Not a lot complaints, but enough to raise the question of how seriously they may be taking bike-related crimes.

If you’ve had a recent incident in which you tried to file a report with the LAPD or another local police department and they didn’t respond in what you felt was an appropriate manner, let me know. Or if you received a good response, let me know that, as well.

You can respond by leaving a comment here, or email me directly at bikinginla at hotmail dot com.

Evil on Trial: So why do we care?

Wednesday morning, I found myself in a recording studio at NPR West.

Accompanied by the esteemed Dr. Alex — aka, the other Dr. Thompson — we were there to offer whatever insights we could on the Mandeville Canyon case, as well as the current state of cyclist-driver relations on the streets of L.A.

It was an interesting conversation.

Alex offered the perspective of a passionate two-wheel activist, as one of the principal authors of the Cyclist’s Bill of Rights and a founding member of the Bike Writers Collective. Meanwhile, I provided the views of a semi-curmudgeonly, long-term roadie, and the newest member of the BWC’s Dirty Dozen.

Needless to say, we disagreed on a few things.

But we agreed on a lot more — like the need for cyclists to always ride safely, because too often, drivers just aren’t looking out for us. And aren’t always willing to share the road even when they do.

Not all drivers, of course. Not even most.

But enough to make riding a far riskier proposition than it needs to be.

Of course, how much of that will make into the final story will be determined in the editing bays of NPR. After all, there’s a reason I’m a writer rather than a speaker.

Besides, they’ve also spoken with a number of other riders, including Roadblock, Stephen Box and our own DJwheels, so they won’t be lacking for cyclists’ point of view.

On the other hand, they’ve had a hard time finding drivers willing to go on the record. So if you spend too much of your time on four wheels cursing cyclists from the hermetically sealed comfort of your gas-guzzling behemoth — and you’re willing to discuss it on the air — let me know.

There may still be time to get you on tape, or silicon, or whatever they’re using in this digital age.

There was one question that I found particularly interesting, though, when she asked us what it was about this case that captured the attention of cyclists around the world.

I mean, it’s not like confrontations with drivers don’t take place on a daily basis in cities around the world — and sometimes with far worse results. Or that many, if not most, riders haven’t experienced some form of road rage in all its vile, life-and-limb threatening glory.

So we could easily put ourselves in Peterson’s and Stoehr’s place.

Then there’s the fact that the Good Doctor actually admitted to the police that his actions were intentional — before backtracking under oath. Which pretty much meant that if we didn’t see a conviction in this case, we probably never would.

But from my perspective, the real key was that the Christopher Thompson had used his car as a weapon. It was no different than if he had pulled out a gun and shot the riders after they’d flipped him off.

Same crime. Same intent. Same result. Different weapon.

Some people still don’t get that.

It wasn’t an accident. It was an assault. And that’s something that is never justified, under any circumstances. No matter how much you hate cyclists — or drivers. How dangerous you think their actions are. Or how rude or offensive they may be.

That’s what the police are for. And why every cyclist should carry a cell phone on every ride.

I was going to conclude with something about how easy it is to get along on the roads if we all just follow the rules and remember that we’re not the only ones trying to get from here to there.

And how in over 30 years as a licensed driver, I have never encountered a cyclist I could not pass, safely, with just a little patience and consideration. Even on narrow, winding mountain roads that make Mandeville Canyon look like the Champs-Élysées.

But last Tuesday, there was an interesting discussion of this case, and the state of cycling on the streets of greater L.A., on KPCC’s excellent AirTalk program (you can hear the podcast on the link above).

The host, Larry Mantle, offered his own take on the situation. And among the comments, I found something from one of my favorite bike writers, which he reposted in more detail on his blog.

So if you’ll allow me, I’ll let JHaygood take it from here:

One problem here is that many car drivers see a bike rider acting dickishly and then make the leap to ‘all bike riders are dicks’. That’s not true, by a mile. Clearly from the Mandeville case we see that poor behavior is not limited to bike riders, and when you get a jerk behind the wheel of a car, it’s no longer an annoyance, it can be deadly. My feeling is that the guy who rides his bike like a jerk is probably a jerk when he gets in a car, too. So it’s not the mode of transport, it’s the jerk.

Cars are awarded the overwhelming majority of infrastructure dollars compared to bikes – it’s not even close. You spend much time out there on a bike and you are quickly made to realize that you are second class. You piss people off if you use the sidewalk, and you piss them off if you use the street. (You piss SOME off – most car drivers are really respectful – in my experience) You are forced to go rogue out there – you’re really left to fend for yourself. So the fact that bike riders improvise, for convenience or for safety, is to be expected. The roads aren’t made for us, the laws aren’t based on our impact or our threat to others. So we improvise. Car drivers may see it as lawlessness, but they should try it sometime, you learn to make do however you can…

It’s a good read. And it’s definitely worth clicking on the link to finish what he has to say. And on a related subject, Freakonomics takes a look at why driving, like the internet, brings out the worst in people.

Speaking of AirTalk, yesterday I accepted an invitation appear on their show next Wednesday, along with LADOT Bikeways Coordinator Michelle Mowery, to talk about bike safety and our right to the roads.

It should be, once again, a very interesting conversation.

………

It’s happened yet again. A Yucca Valley cyclist was killed when his bike was rear-ended by a truck, and an Orange County rider critically injured in a near-fatal hit-and-run. Meanwhile, TV’s Terminator star faces charges for his D.U.I. encounter with a 17 year old cyclist. C.I.C.L.E joins the call for a better bike plan. RIDE-Arc returns this Friday with a bike tour of Santa Monica architecture. The Times reports on efforts to create the city’s first ciclovia — or cicLAvoia, in this case. Also in the Times, the recent articles about cycling evidently touched a nerve. Mr. Bicycle Fixation takes a look at the state of cycling in L.A. and some of the people who are working to make it better. Cycle Chic reports she was beaten to the punch in organizing L.A.’s first Tweed Ride. Huntsville, Alabama cyclists have rights too, and the city is willing to pay to get the word out. London’s bicycling mayor rides to the rescue to stop an assault. Finally, a meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday at Echo Park Cycles to address the rapidly rising rate of bike thefts. And evidently, rapper 50 Cent is still broken up about having his stolen.

Today’s ride, on which I encounter just a little road rage

Living on the Westside, I often ride through the grounds of the Veterans Center in Brentwood — a quiet, low traffic alternative to the area’s frequently gridlocked streets.

When I ride there, I remember that it exists to serve the people who’ve served our country. And that virtually everyone I see there is a veteran, or someone who has dedicated his or her career to helping them.

So I always bear in mind that I am a guest there, and try to act accordingly.

I stop for every stop sign. I signal. I wait patiently for slow-moving people to make their way through the crosswalk. And I make a point of looking into the faces of the people I pass, acknowledging that these are people who sacrificed a part of their lives for us.

So I was more than a little surprised by what happened there on my way home today.

As I approached the hospital grounds, I saw a man about a block ahead, crossing the street in his motorized wheelchair. But instead of rolling up onto the handicap-accessible sidewalk, he chose to ride in the street, on the wrong side, headed directly towards me.

I think he must have been a former navy man, because he gave every indication that he intended to ram my ship; he looked directly at me as he rolled straight towards me with all the speed his little chair could muster.

So I waited until he was about 10 feet away before giving a slight shrug of my left shoulder and swerving around him, passing with over six feet of clearance.

As I passed, I distinctly heard him say “fuck you!”

Now, I have no idea why he was angry, or why he picked me to take it out on. And it probably didn’t help his mood when I rode away, laughing out loud at the absurdity of the situation.

I don’t know if any motorists noticed my grin as I made my way home, or what they thought when I broke into random bouts of giggling — or outright laughter — as I sat waiting for various red lights to change.

But I did notice they gave me an unusually wide berth the rest of the way home.

……..

The 2010 Tour of California will feature two L.A. area stages next May; and yes, Lance and his new team will be there. Dr. Alex looks at a typical bike lane in L.A.’s bike-friendly neighbor to the west, and notes why you shouldn’t try to reclaim your stolen bike yourself. Metro’s new blog says more bike lockers are coming to Metro stations. Bicycle Cop Dave defends Downtown in a new webcomic, starting next week. Indianapolis cyclists question their Bike Friendly City award, too. In Arizona, a right hook apparently isn’t illegal — unless you do it to a bike cop. In Texas, sharrows and bike boxes are considered experimental; in L.A., they’re non-existent. Bike helmets are dorky and unnecessary, until you need one. A Chicago writer lists the best and worst things about bike commuting. A Portland study shows 90% of cyclists also own a car — which means they have a license, pay gas taxes and carry insurance, despite what the bike haters claim. Finally, this is what we miss by not having a real autumn in L.A.

Evil on trial: testimony begins in the Mandeville Canyon case

The defense strategy is starting to come in focus.

Based on his cross examination, Peter Swarth, attorney for Dr. Christopher Thompson, intends to paint a picture of a canyon plagued by angry, out of control cyclists. And portray the Good Doctor as their unfortunate, and innocent, victim — three times, no less.

That message is reinforced by the noticeable presence of two large bodyguards in the courtroom, suggesting that Thompson is the one who is in danger from cyclists, rather than the other way around.

As both the Times and VeloNews reported, testimony began with Christian Stoehr, one of the two cyclists seriously injured on the 4th of July last year when the Good Doctor pulled in front of them and slammed on his brakes.

Stoehr described how he hit the back of Thompson’s car when the doctor cut in front of them and slammed on his brakes, rolling over the top of the car and falling into the street. But when he had trouble explaining exactly how that occurred, Swarth suggested that maybe he simply fell over.

You know, ‘cause experienced cyclists do that a lot.

According to cyclist/attorney DJwheels, the other rider, Ron Peterson, went into more detail, describing how they had passed a slower rider shortly before they heard a car approach from behind. When Stoehr called out “Car back!,” Peterson responded by taking single file position in front.

The driver, later identified as a Thompson, yelled out “Ride single file;” Peterson responded with “Fuck you!” He said Thompson then cut over and braked to a stop about five feet in front of them. Because of their downhill speed, a collision was unavoidable; after striking the car, Peterson flew forward into the car’s rear windshield.

“My face did that,” he said, pointing to a large hole in the glass in a photo of the scene. “And that’s my blood.”

Under cross examination, Peterson admitted that after extricating himself from the glass, he told Thompson to “Get the fuck away from me,” adding “I’m going to fuck you up!”

“I said it,” Peterson admitted. “I’m not proud.”

That exchange is important, both because it points to the anger Swarth suggests, as well as supporting the defense claim that Thompson never refused to help the cyclists, as has been reported, but rather, it was the cyclists who refused his aid.

Swarth continued to pressure Peterson, accusing him of anger before the collision, and still being furious and desperate for revenge. Peterson calmly insisted that he was angry at first, “but it’s been awhile.” He continued by saying “I just want justice. That’s why I’m here.”

Deputy District Attorney Mary Stone then called LAPD Traffic Accident Investigator Robert Rodriguez.

Rodriguez testified that shortly after arriving, he took a statement from the Good Doctor, who said the cyclists were riding “three abreast,” blocking the roadway. VeloNews quotes him as saying “They flipped me off. I stopped in front of them. I wanted to teach them a lesson. I’m tired of them.”

Rodriguez, a veteran officer and former Marine, said that meant this needed to be investigated as an assault with a deadly weapon, rather than a traffic accident. He immediately stopped his investigation and called for backup.

While he waited for help to arrive, Rodriguez took measurements of the crime scene — including one showing the roadway was 20 feet wide at that point.

Again, this could prove important, since standard lane width in California is 12 feet; section 21202 of the California Vehicle Code allows cyclists to take the lane if it’s “too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” A substandard lane width would justify taking a position within the lane, rather than hugging the curb to the right.

Stone played a recording of Thompson speaking with the 911 operator. The court could clearly hear him tell the injured cyclists to get their bikes out of the road; he told the operator they weren’t seriously injured, “But they’ll tell you that.”

Swarth suggested that to an ER doctor such as Thompson, “serious” means something different than it does to a layman — setting up an argument to combat the doctor’s lack of remorse. However, considering that he hadn’t examined either victim, it may be hard to support a medical determination.

The next witness was another Mandeville resident, Dr. Bruce Rogen, who was returning home with his family when they came upon the crime scene. He was the first person to offer medical care to the cyclists, saying it was “primitive” due to the lack of medical equipment. Peterson was still bleeding profusely, so he took off his own shirt to use as a bandage to staunch the bleeding.

It was at about that point when the trial paused because one of the jurors felt faint — attributing it to her squeamishness around blood. Somehow, the descriptions of blood got to her, even though the previous day’s bloody photos hadn’t.

When testimony continued, Swarth pressed Rogen on whether Thompson had offered assistance. After repeated questioning, Rogen recalled Thompson saying the cyclists had refused his help; however, he did not remember Thompson attempting to assist him or offer advice.

Geoffrey Keyes, M.D. took the stand next. President of both the L.A. and California Society of Plastic Surgeons, he described the surgery he performed on Peterson, citing significant internal and external injuries to the nose, which required both nasal and septal reconstruction.

The day’s final witness was Patrick Watson of Team Helens, who recalled a similar experience in March, 2008, with a car and license plate number matching that of the Good Doctor’s.

According to Watson, Thompson ran him off the road, forcing him to bunny hop over a curb onto the lawn of a house. His riding partner, Josh Crosby, was forced onto the opposite side of the road; Crosby responded by yelling at Thompson and striking the side of his car.

Meanwhile, Watson hopped back onto the roadway, finding himself one again in front of Thompson’s car; the car charged towards him — forcing him to bunny hop onto the yard once again — before swerving off and driving away.

Watson said Crosby’s punch may have left a dent in Thompson’s Lexus, which they thought could be used as evidence in a hit-and-run charge. Swarth jumped on that, accusing Watson of threatening to file a false police report, since it was Crosby who struck Thompson’s car, rather than the other way around. However, he was forced to back down when Watson said that the police had told him that.

Then again, Swarth was also forced to back down when Judge Scott Millington sternly reprimanded him for repeatedly interrupting witnesses, as well as the judge himself.

According to VeloNews, there was a third, eerily similar incident in Mandeville Canyon that preceded the other two. In the winter of 2008, Patrick Early narrowly escaped injury when a car resembling Thompson’s buzzed his bike and the driver yelled “Get off the road!” Like the riders in this case, he responded by yelling back “Fuck you!,” only to have the driver cut in front of him and slam on the brakes; fortunately, he was riding uphill, so he was able to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Watson’s testimony continues today, followed by Josh Crosby and additional police witnesses; Friday’s witness list includes medical experts, as well as possible testimony from an expert witness about information downloaded from Watson’s Garmin.

“I hope Crosby is composed,” DJwheels said, “because it’s clear that Swarth is going to go after him.”

Defense testimony may begin on Friday or Monday, though Swarth has expressed concern about the availability of witnesses on the first part of the week. Closing arguments are expected on or about October 28.

I’ve done my best to confirm all the names in this story; however, if I have misspelled or gotten anyone’s name or title wrong, let me know and I will be happy to correct it. For more information, see the Times coverage of opening testimony, and the excellent coverage from VeloNews, here and here, as well as today’s story on Streetsblog L.A.

Officer Krupke, you’ve done it again — LAPD’s anti-bike bias

Earlier this month, Dr. Alex left a comment on something I’d written. The last line in particular has stuck with me for the last few weeks:

…I feel more and more that the leading edge of bike activism is in law enforcement issues, not urban planning

You see, in the 10 months since I started this blog, I’ve become more and more focused on the politics of cycling — the need to elect candidates who actually support bicycling and will work to change the laws to help encourage riding, and keep cyclists safe and alive.

But Alex has a damn good point, especially in light of the LAPD’s apparent failure to enforce the laws prohibiting vehicular assault this past weekend — let alone protect riders from threats of gun and gang violence.

Unfortunately, it’s nothing new.

My own experience with police bias dates back to a road rage incident I’ve mentioned before, when a driver intentionally knocked me off my bike while I was stopped at a stop sign.

Once the police finally got there, the driver insisted that she never hit me or my bike, and in fact, had no idea why I was upset or why I was blaming her. According to her version, she was just minding her own business, driving patiently behind me, when I blew through the stop sign without even slowing down, and simply fell over when making a right turn.

The officer in charge listened to her, then came over to me, and — without bothering to get my version of the events, either from me or the officer I’d given my statement to — said he believed her, “because none of you bike riders ever obey stops signs.”

I realized then that nothing I said was going to influence how he wrote his report.

Of course, I tried.

I pointed out the injuries on my left side, to show that I had fallen to my left. Which meant her version would make me the first cyclist in history to fall to the left while making a fast right turn. But his blank stare confirmed my suspicions that beginning physics isn’t a required course at the police academy these days.

Then I pointed to the long arc of deep gashes on my right calf, and showed how they lined up perfectly with the teeth on my large cog. And explained how that proved my foot was planted firmly on the ground when her car struck me, since my leg wouldn’t have hit it like that if I’d been clipped in.

Finally, I pointed out that the damage to my bike, while minor, was consistent with my version of the events, and could not have occurred the way she described it. Yet when I got a copy of the accident report, he’d written that there was no damage to my bike.

And that’s exactly what her insurance company cited as justification for denying my claim.

In the end, she left without even a warning, while I was threatened with arrest for filing a false police report. And it was then that I realized that cyclists can’t count on the LAPD for protection or support.

And nothing that has occurred in the years since to change that opinion.

Of course, not all officers are like that. And as Zach Behrens pointed out on LAist, there are two sides any story.

But it’s up to the police to protect the rights and safety of all citizens, without bias. Not protect the right of those on four wheels to attack and intimidate those of us on two.


L.A.’s Channel 2 covers last weekend’s Ghost Bike installation. An Ohio paper offers nine good tips for safe riding. Stephen Box reports on the “not my job” jurisdictional failure of the Orange Line Bike Path. The Weekly profiles Flying Pigeon’s Brayj-Ali brothers among their LA People 2009. Colorado’s common-sense bike safety bill awaits the governor’s signature, while Wisconsin passes an anti-dooring bill. Great Briton considers a Pounds for Pedals plan to encourage people to trade in their old bikes. Finally, a cyclist injured in a Santa Rosa collision is suspected of BRWI (that’s bike riding while intoxicated).

Bike law change #11: Investigate and prosecute any reported incidence of vehicular assault as a criminal violation

Awhile back, following the infamous Mandeville Canyon brake test, a woman wrote to describe her experience as bicycle commuter along a major east-west thoroughfare in the San Fernando Valley.

Like many streets in this city, there was no shoulder or bike lane, so she was forced to ride in the traffic lane, as impatient drivers honked or raced closely past her. One in particular, apparently angry at being stuck behind her at a red light, revved his engine and lurched forward, actually making contact and lifting her rear wheel off the ground in what she could only interpret as a not-so-subtle threat.

Actually, it was a crime. Or if it wasn’t, it certainly should have been. Because while most of us see a car as simply a means of getting from here to there, in the wrong hands, it can be a deadly weapon.  And there is no real difference between threatening a cyclist with a car or with a gun, since both are capable of inflicting serious injury or death.

Sections 240 – 248 of the California Penal Code define assault as “…an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another;” battery is defined as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Meanwhile, section 245 sets a penalty of up to 4 years in prison for assault with a deadly weapon other than a gun.

Like a car, for instance.

Of course, there are other ways a car can be used as a deadly weapon, from intentionally causing an accident by striking the cyclist or forcing the cyclist to strike the car, as the good doctor has been charged with doing, to intentionally striking a rider with an open car door, or forcing the rider off the road or into another vehicle.

Any one of these can cause serious injury or death. Even simply throwing something at a rider from a moving vehicle — as has happened to many, if not most of us, at one time or another — can cause a rider to lose control of his bike, with potentially deadly consequences.

But just try to report something like that to the police; in most cases, they’ll say that since they didn’t see it, there’s nothing they can do. Or if they do bother to respond, usually because of an injury to the rider, they’ll investigate the incident as a traffic accident, rather than the criminal activity it is.

Yet they would never tell the victim of an armed robbery that there’s no point in investigating, since they didn’t actually see the crime take place; nor would they investigate a mugging as a simple accident. Even a report of someone brandishing a gun in a threatening manner is enough to provoke a massive police response.

But commit the same crime with a car, and you’re virtually guaranteed of getting away with it.

So let’s demand the protection we deserve. Let’s contact our legislators, and insist that they amend sections 240 – 248 to clearly specify that anyone who uses a motor vehicle to threaten, intimidate, attack or injure a cyclist or pedestrian can, and should, be charged with assault and/or battery with a deadly weapon, and subject to a prison term and seizure of the vehicle, as well as permanent loss of driving privileges.

And insist that any report of a motor vehicle being used in such a manner be investigated by the police to the fullest extent possible as a criminal matter, rather than a traffic infraction.

Because your life, and mine, may depend on it.

 

 

An elderly woman was hit and killed by a teenage cyclist on his way to band practice yesterday. Vision Zero attempts to end the body count; isn’t it time Los Angeles got on board? Green LA Girl plans on attending the LACBC’s Bicycle Road Skills Class (and early wishes for a happy birthday); meanwhile, C.I.C.L.E. is offering an Intro to City Riding for eight lucky riders, which takes place the same day as the inaugural Tour de Ballona, none of which I’ll be attending unless these damn allergies improve. Evidently, L.A. now has its own version of N.Y.’s popular Bike Snob. And finally, this is just one reason why those allergies are killing me today.

 

Road report from the dark side

Forgive me father, for I have sinned.

It’s been a full week since I’ve been on my bike. Worse, I’ve been driving my car to and from work almost every day. Seven out of the last eight working days, in fact.

Yes, it’s true. I’ve gone over to the dark side.

Not that it was my idea, of course. I’d much rather still be working at home, so I can take off for a long lunch and knock off a quick 30 or so miles on the bike. Or maybe 40. Or 50. Especially when the weather is absolutely perfect, like it was last week.

And to make matters worse, the office I’m working in is just south of Ballona Creek, so I can see all the riders headed to and from the beach on the Ballona Creek Bike Path. Assuming they don’t get mugged along the way.

But in this economy, I’m just happy to have work after a very slow summer. Besides, it could be worse; I could have been a high-paid investment banker on Wall Street.

All this time in my car has given me an opportunity to observe cycling from the perspective of a driver. And surprisingly, it hasn’t been all that bad.

Sure, there was the cyclist who hadn’t learned how to ride in a straight line yet, and was swerving right and left with every corresponding pedal stroke. As a result, he’d suddenly jerk into traffic, then back out again, back and forth. And yet, every driver somehow managed to avoid him, at least as long as he was within my site.

Or there was the woman riding a single speed cruiser with a big basket on the handlebars, who made a very, very slow speed right turn off a very busy street — and still, somehow, she managed to swerve all the way to the middle of the left lane before completing her turn (that would be the lane nearest the middle of the road, for any Brits reading this).

In the time it took to finish her turn, two cars were also able to make the same right turn behind her. One went into the right lane, safely passing to her right; the other followed her into the left lane, none too pleased from the sound of it. But as near as I could tell before my light changed, she was able to safely, and by all appearances, happily, continue down the road, as far as she could ride from where she was supposed to be without crossing over into oncoming traffic.

But most of the cyclists I’ve seen on my commute have just been people dressed for work or class, riding safely and politely. And most of the drivers I’ve seen have been equally courteous, taking the time to pass each rider safely.

Now, I have no doubt that if I would have talked to one of them, they could have told me about some driver I didn’t see who came too close, or turned right in front of them with no warning; just as I could no doubt find drivers who would complain about some crazy cyclist they encountered.

By and large, though, I’ve been pleased to see just how well cars and bikes have been able to share the road. So maybe this crazy town isn’t as dysfunctional as I thought.

As for me, I’m pleased to report that, even though I’m now a driver myself, I haven’t felt any urge to run a cyclist off the road, or toss a large drink at a rider I pass — or raw vegetables, as seems to be the fashion overseas.

So evidently, it’s not contagious. Or maybe I just haven’t been exposed long enough yet.

 

Tamerlane picks up a thread that began in New York, and transforms it into a meditation on vulnerability, and discusses the ethics of biking. Will Campbell amusingly confronts another cigarette smoking asshat. The S.F. Cycling Examiner describes flipping over the handlebars, without spilling his coffee. CNN discovers Santa Barbara’s former naked cyclist, now baring it all in Oregon. Town Mouse’s novel is soon to be available in paperback, although with the current exchange rate, still out of reach for most of us Yanks. Bike Girl continues going car free, while I go reluctantly bike free.

The nail that stands out

I used to work with this one guy, a third-generation Japanese American.

Nice guy. And one day when we were talking, he mentioned a traditional Japanese expression that says it’s the nail that stands out that gets pounded down.

I’ve often thought about that saying, because it so often seems to be true, even in a this country like this that supposedly prizes individuality. It’s the exceptions, the ones who stand out from all the rest, who often draw the harshest response, whether you’re talking about the campus geek in junior high, the neighborhood eccentric or leaders like Dr. King or Bobby Kennedy.

You can even see it now, when a politician can be criticized, not for his policies, but for his eloquence and ability to inspire others.

And then there’s the other side of that same coin, where someone tries to demonize some group, in order to justify their own negatives attitudes.

Like cyclists, for instance.

Because some people look at those exceptions — such as cyclists who regularly ignore the law and flaunt both safety and common sense — and somehow assume that all riders are like that. And decide that since that one nail is loose, we all need to be pounded down.

It’s not true, of course. Any more than it’s true that all (insert racist, sexist, ethnic and/or religious slur of your choice here) are alike.

It’s also demonstrably false. Just stand next to a busy street intersection along any popular bike route. You won’t have to watch very long to see that many, if not most of us, stop for red lights and try to stay out of the way of the way of traffic as much as possible.

But these people only seem to see the ones who don’t stop, or take a lane for reasons they can’t, or perhaps don’t want to, comprehend. So they automatically reach for their hammers to pound down every nail, rather than the few that stand out.

Take this recent letter from Graham A. Rowe in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, for instance, in response to their earlier article about the cycling the mean streets of L.A. (I also notice they didn’t print Will Campbell’s response to the article.):

“Bicycle riders believe that they should enjoy all the benefits of both car drivers and pedestrians. They choose to ride both with and against traffic. They obey no traffic signs, never stop at red lights or stop signs. At a red light they decide to become a pedestrian and simply ride across the crossing. They ride on the sidewalk at danger to pedestrians. Bicycles should be required to have a fee-paid license plate and be ticketed for infractions. Maybe then they would be more careful and get more respect.”

Yes, that’s exactly what we all believe, posts like this from Gary Rides Bikes and yours truly notwithstanding. Never mind that most cyclists don’t do those things, or that riding on the sidewalk is legal in Los Angeles.

You’ll note that he ends by saying that we’ll get more respect when we’re more careful. Despite the fact that drivers are required by law to grant us that respect, just as they would any other vehicle. And despite the fact that the consequences of failing to grant that respect are far greater for us than they are for the driver.

In other words, he’s saying that we’re responsible for the fact that some people refuse to drive safely, and legally, around us. Of course, not everyone who fails to share the road does so out of spite. Some are just unaware of the law, or refuse to believe it when they’re told. And some are just jerks, not unlike some cyclists.

I’ve written about it before, notably here and here, in response to some letters that were recently published in the L.A. Times. And I’m going to keep writing about it.

Because frankly, I’m tired of people trying to pound me down for something I didn’t do.

Great article from the U.K. about whether helmets are fashionable for Parisians and Prime Ministers. It also discusses a Dutch idea that assumes the driver is automatically responsible in any collision between a car and a bike. One lesson experienced cyclists learn is to make eye contact with opposing drivers. Cyclists protest unfair tickets in Santa Monica by crossing the street — repeatedly. The Times’ Bottleneck Blog considers what L.A. could be like with a little more foresight from out elected leaders. And finally, both Seattle and supposedly bike-unfriendly New York test the radical concept of turning a few streets over to cyclists and pedestrians.

Cyclist heaven or biker hell? Or something in between?

Let’s talk about my most recent ride for a moment.

At one point, I was riding in a bike lane along a relatively quiet street, when a driver made a left turn from a side street onto the street I was riding on. Only problem was, her car was pointed directly at me, and crossed into the plane of the bike lane before she straightened out and moved back into the right lane. I made a quick swing to the right to avoid her, then moved back into the bike lane once she moved out.

Then, as I rode along side her, she kept looking to her left as if searching for an address. And as she did, kept drifting further and further to the right — towards me — until I finally got her attention by yelling a warning. Throughout it all, I don’t think she ever saw me or knew I was there until I yelled.

Several miles later, a couple of pedestrians stepped off from the curb — directly into my path — without ever looking in my direction. Again, I yelled a warning, and made a panic stop just feet in front of them.

Later still, I was riding in an area heavily traveled by cyclists, when a rider ahead of me made a long, looping turn to his left, circling back to something he’d passed on his right. Problem was, he never looked anywhere but where his front wheel was pointed. And he was on a path that would soon collide with mine. So again, I yelled a warning, he finally saw me, and we both went safely on our way.

That may seem like a lot of close calls, but I suppose three minor incidents over the course of a 43 mile ride isn’t that bad in a city like this.

But the more interesting thing is, the problem wasn’t just with drivers. It was with a motorist, pedestrians and another cyclist. And it had nothing to do with road rage, aggressiveness, rudeness or any refusal to share the road.

It was just plain, old-fashioned carelessness.

I bring this up because Will Campbell — yet another member of the Bike Writers Collective — recently took the Wall Street Journal to task for last Friday’s article about the problems and perils of riding in L.A. And he’s right; as a rule, I find riding in Los Angeles a relatively safe and pleasant experience.

As an expert rider — after three decades of riding I certainly put myself in that category — I know where to ride, and where not to. I also know how to ride safely, avoiding the perils that pop up with regularity in any urban environment.

The problem is, most riders aren’t experts. I frequently see cyclists with limited skills plodding along crowded, high speed streets I would be very reluctant to put a wheel on, and I see them attempting moves I would never try. Or advanced moves I can get away with, but that they don’t have the skill to pull off successfully.

And that inevitably leads to collisions, and confrontations with angry motorists.

So the WSJ article was right, as well. With a few notable exceptions, Los Angeles streets were not designed for cycling. And many cyclists and drivers here are painfully unaware of the rights and responsibilities of cyclists, as well as how to safely share the road.

The point is, riding in L.A. can and should be much safer than it is. You shouldn’t need expert riding skills to safely traverse the city on two wheels, or to enjoy a pleasant weekend jaunt to the park and back.

We need to educate both drivers and cyclists alike, and keep pressure on the city to take at least some of the same steps that other cities, like Denver and Portland, took decades ago to make the streets safer for everyone. Including us.

And we need to pay attention out there. Because, as my experience shows, many — if not most — of the problems here are caused by plain old carelessness.

 

A cancer expert says the real danger from cell phones isn’t disease, but using them when you walk, drive or cycle. Well, duh. We got Manny from Boston, now maybe we can adopt their new bike-friendly attitude. A Detroit protest against heavy-handed police turns into a celebration of cycling, while an Ann Arbor writer suggests simple changes that could help us share the road.