Glendale Police Department says "Circle the Wagons!"

The Glendale Police Department got an early start on the annual "Bike to Work" festivities with their pronouncement that a dead cyclist was 50% responsible for getting hit by a stop-sign-running motorist, after all, "He was riding a bike on the sidewalk in violation of California Vehicle Vode."

Cyclists railed that there is no California Vehicle Code prohibiting a cyclist from riding a bike on the sidewalk or on the extending crosswalk, in spite of the common misconception, pointing out that if there were prohibition, it would be based on local municipal code, not CVC. A review of Glendale Municipal Code reveals that there is a prohibition against sidewalk cycling in a business district.

10.64.025 Bicycle riding on sidewalks. No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any public sidewalk in any business district within the city except where such sidewalk is officially designated as part of an established bicycle route. Pedestrians shall have the right-of-way on sidewalks. The prohibition in this section shall not apply to peace officers on bicycle patrol. (Ord. 5116 § 1, 1996)

This started a debate over what constitutes a "business district" because the cyclist, Gerardo Ramos, was hit as he rode through the crosswalk at the intersection of North Concord Street and Milford Street. It appears to be a residential neighborhood but that's when things get murkier. The CVC defines a business district and it also defines a crosswalk.

Business District 235.  A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

Business and Residence Districts: Determination 240.  In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions in Sections 235 and 515: (a) No building shall be regarded unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway. (b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be regarded for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district. (c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. (d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property.

Crosswalk 275.   "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersection where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

I mention the CVC definitions only because that is what the Glendale Police Department talked about during the four phone conversations I had with them, each time trying to find somebody who could speak authoritatively about the Glendale Police Department's reported 50/50 assessment of responsibility in the traffic collission that took the life of Gerardo Ramos. It was an obtuse and cumbersome journey, resulting in my simple request for a formal investigation.

I initially spoke to the reporter who wasn't interested in a retraction or a correction, saying "He's a Detective, I thought I could trust him." She was wrong as was the detective. There is no state law prohibiting cyclists from riding on the sidewalk. It may not be a good idea, in fact it's typically a terrible idea, but it is not a violation of state law. I was at least able to confirm that the reporter stood by her quote of the Glendale Police Detective who said the prosecutors would be filing misdemeanor charges against the motorist. They determined that the cyclist was partially to blame. “They agreed that it’s 50-50,” Mankarios said. “He violated the vehicle code, but in essence had she stopped, he would have gone right through and in front of her.”

I spoke to Officer Metz who was pleasant and helpful, unfortunately also completely misinformed as to the law and its application for cyclists. He referred to a California Vehicle Code ban on cyclists and other "coasting devices" which he repeated a couple of times in during our conversation. I've heard of cyclists and pedestrians being inappropriately grouped but never cyclists and skateboarders. Sure enough, there is a Glendale Muni Code that refers to coasting devices but it's all irrelevant to the incident that resulted in a motorist running a stop sign and hitting a cyclist, causing his death. Officer Metz explained that the crosswalk was an extension of the sidewalk and therefore a cyclist would be prohibited from the crosswalk. He then tired of our conversation and begged off.

I tried again, this time calling for the Chief and when that failed, asking for the Chief's Adjutant. Somehow this sounded like Public Information Officer and I ended up chatting with Sgt. Lorenz who was quite officious and touted the City of Glendale's commitment to safety, requested my query in writing, and aggressively steered the conversation in the general direction of "Move along now! There's nothing here for you to look at!"

I spoke to the Watch Commander, Sgt. Fernandez, who was very helpful and seemed as interested as I in digging through state code and local code and I was encouraged, not by his knowledge of the laws as they apply to cyclists but by his open and enthusiastic approach to my questions. Ultimately, he was a pleasure to talk to but we had a hard time determining if the location was a residential neighborhood or a business district. He gave me his best understanding of the law and the Glendale PD policy but suggested that I should talk to someone else.

I pressed on, this time determining that Sgt. Dennis Smith was in charge of Detective Ashraf Mankarios and I called him to discuss the Glendale Police Department's policy on cyclists on the sidewalks and the 50% determination of fault that Mankarios referred to in the Glendale News Press article. He was slippery!

Smith quickly threw up the first defense saying "We don't litigate in the newspaper and I'm not going to litigate on the phone." I pointed out that we weren't litigating and that repeating this protest three times was a simple straw man argument that completely avoided my simple question. I again asked "Did he stand by the 50-50 responsibility determination that Detective Mankarios referred to in the newspaper?"

This set Sgt. Smith off on a commentary on journalists, interviews, quotes, accuracy, and the fact that it is possible that Detective Mankarios was misquoted or misunderstood. I pointed out that I had confirmed the quote with the journalist but that, nevertheless, my question wasn't regarding his confidence in the article but on his personal and professional opinion on the 50-50 determination. He settled down and said the Glendale Police Department would not make a recommendation such as the 50-50 determination.

Now we were getting somewhere but not for long. He quickly pointed out that we had nothing more to talk about since there the GPD had no 50-50 position on the traffic colission that took the life of Gerardo Ramos. I pointed out that we were just getting started and that the larger issue here was the simple fact that out of five Glendale Police Department officers, four of them had misquoted the law, all stating that to ride a bike on the sidewalk is a violation of state law. It isn't, they are wrong and as to the Traffic Supervisor of the Glendale Police Department it was his responsibility to address the failure of his department to understand the law.

Sgt. Smith was good, he knew the code(s) for business districts, for crosswalks (marked and unmarked) and the muni code for sidewalk cycling. He also knew that I was asking him for an investigation, not just a conversation. He didn't let on immediately but he gave me instructions on how to file a complaint if I thought the Glendale Police Department had failed to perform its duties. His instructions amounted to an obstacle, not a solution. "Come down to the station and file a complaint if you think we should investigate this matter further." I pointed out that since I had him on the phone, he could simply take the complaint telephonically. He then instructed me to "go online, I'll direct you to the proper forms and you can download them, print them out, fill them out, then mail them to the Glendale Police Department." I thanked him for the suggestion but again pointed out that since I had him on the phone and since it was department policy to take complaints and reports telephonically, I would prefer to proceed with my request for an investigation telephonically. He acquiesced, asking if he could finish up with somebody at the counter and then call me back. I agreed, he called me back, and we proceeded with a request that he indicated would go to the supervising Lt. and then the Captain.

We now wait on the Glendale Police Department and their determination on what constitutes a business district and where a cyclist may ride a bike. Personally, I'm not advocating for sidewalk cycling but I understand it. Most importantly, I'm advocating for a police force that not only understands and enforces the law, but that also serves and protects those on the street who are most vulnerable.

This is Bike to Work week around the country. Gerardo Ramos simply wanted to ride his bike to work and his life ended because he crossed the street at the same time as a motorist who failed to stop at that stop sign. All the bike maps and Clif bars and patch kits celebrating Bike to Work week are just salt in the wound if the City of Glendale's Police Department can't clearly and cohesively communicate and defend a cyclists' right to travel safely and free of fear.

It's Bike to Work week and the City of Glendale has a lot of catching up to do!

"Hit & Run" vs "Fleeing the Scene"

A cyclist riding west in the Sunset Blvd. bike lane hits his brakes hard to take evasive action to avoid being hit by a motorist who races out of a strip mall parking lot and acroos the bike lane, causing the cyclist to flip and land hard, injuring his shoulder. The cyclist is dazed and still on the ground, the motorist continues down Sunset Blvd.

21804. (a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

There are two separate witnesses to the incident and they both get the motorist's license plate. One by writing it down and the other by chasing the motorist on a bicycle and photographing the license, the motorist, and the passenger.

The cyclist who pursued the motorist told the motorist to return to the scene of the incident, the motorist and her passenger vehemently deny responsibility, pointing out that they didn't hit the cyclist.

An LAPD patrol car cruises by, the cyclist yells for help, the LAPD continue on their way. Another LAPD patrol car cruises by, this one stops and gets the information, returning to the scene of the incident.

Ultimately, the motorist returns to the scene but the LAPD decide "no report, no crime."

This is where the real "incident" begins. The LAPD failed the injured cyclist.

1) The motorist violated the cyclist's right of way.

2) The violation of the cyclist's right of way caused the cyclist to take evasive action resulting in injury.

3) The motorist left the scene of an "incident" that was her responsibility.

"Hit & Run" is a bit of a misnomer. The actual violation (CVC 20001 "Duty to Stop at Scene of Accident") doesn't refer to contact but merely states responsibilities. Cause and responsibility get determined by investigation but the basic obligation is to stop, not flee.

I hate the term "Accident" and prefer the more neutral "Incident" but nevertheless, the term used is not collision. It does not require contact but merely refers to causality. The person causing an "Accident" is not free to simply leave the scene because there was no contact. They are required to stay and exchange information and/or render aid.

20001. (a) The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004.

So it was that the cyclists of Los Angeles spent another Sunday afternoon tweeting each other for advice and beseeching the LAPD to step up and to protect the cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles by enforcing the law. Of course, this requires the LAPD to know the law.

On Sunday, two LAPD officers on the street refused to act in support of the downed cyclist. The Watch Commander of the Northeast Division supported the position of the LAPD officers on the Street. He also called the Watch Commander of Central Traffic and was again supported in the "no report, no crime" position of the LAPD.

To make things worse, the two officers on the street informed the protesting witness "This really isn't any of your business." The witness insisted that it was his business. The LAPD responded "It's not a hit and run. We're not going to do a report."

At the first meeting of the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force, one of the recommendations presented to the LAPD was that they approach "cyclist down" scenes as potential crime scenes. Too often, cyclists on the losing end of an encounter with an inattentive or aggressive motorist are left with less than sympathetic investigators, such as the officers, the supervisors and the Watch Commanders who err in favor of the primacy of the motorist on the streets of Los Angeles.

That needs to change.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights holds that:

3) Cyclists have the right to the full support of educated law enforcement.

4) Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure, or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

CityWatchLA - Metro Goes Into Company Mode! Above the Law?

CityWatch, Mar 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 22

A Metro bus operator on Sunset Blvd. pulls out from a bus stop and "asserts" himself into traffic, forcing the cyclist riding downhill in the bike lane to give up the bike lane. The cyclist is alongside the bus as they both merge left, the bus operator by choice, the cyclist with no choice. The cyclist bangs on the side of the bus and continues riding east on Sunset Blvd. Between Micheltorena and Silver Lake Blvd, the Metro's bus operator drives behind the cyclist, honking and waving his hand. The theatrics come to an end at Silver Lake Boulevard when the bus operator rear-ends the cyclist and yells, "You vandalized my bus!" With the bike stuck under the front bumper of the bus, the cyclist calls 911 while the bus operator pulls the bike out, explaining, "If it's not on the rack, it doesn't belong on the bus." He then throws the bike to the curb.

The Los Angeles Police Department asks the cyclist if there are any injuries and if any emergency medical services are needed. Upon learning that there are no injuries, the LAPD simply instructs the cyclist to exchange information with the bus operator and file a report.

Meanwhile a Metro Supervisor shows up along with a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy on a motorcycle. They take control of the situation, the bus operator no longer talks to the cyclist, and the Metro Supervisor, the Deputy and the Bus Operator all get on the empty bus. (Another bus had arrived and taken the passengers, leaving the empty bus and the bus operator behind) The Cyclist attempted to board the bus with the Deputy, the Supervisor and the Bus Operator but was denied access. He asked for the bus operator's information but was again denied.

The Sheriff's Department works for the Metro and is responsible for the security of Metro property. The streets of Los Angeles are not the Metro's property. The Metro's Supervisor and the LASD are both there to protect the Metro, the Metro's property and the Metro's employee. Who is representing the cyclist?

The question here is simple, "Is the Metro above the Law?" Is a Metro bus operator required to exchange information with the cyclist according to the California Vehicle Code or is a Metro bus operator allowed to disappear into the Metro's system, leaving the cyclist on the street with a 3" by 5" card in his hand and some Metro identification numbers along with instructions on how to file a Metro property claim?

Is the Sheriff's Department authorized to overrule California Vehicle Code and interfere with the exchange of information between two parties involved in a traffic collision?

The Metro has approximately 9200 employees, making it one of the region's largest employers. Of those who are engaged in providing the LA County area with a robust and comprehensive Transportation System, approximately 1540 take advantage of the Metro pass that is offered to employees but only 155 actually use the free pass to ride the Metro to work.

Four hundred and eight employees participate in a vanpool and another 422 use carpools. As for the Metro employees who ride a bike, only 39 out of 9200 employees pedal to work. These figures come from the Metro's AQMD compliance survey, taken at Metro workplaces in 2009. (Air Quality Management District is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the smoggiest region of the U.S.)

Apparently, Metro employees ride the Metro less than the general public (Metro estimates that 7% of LA County uses public transportation but less than 2% of Metro employees share that ride) and they also ride bikes less than the general public. (Metro estimates that 2% of the general population rides a bike to work but at the Metro, it drops to 0.4% mode share) What happens when people go to work for the Metro? What is it about working for a regional Transportation Authority that motivates employees to get in a single occupant motor vehicle? Do they know something we don't?

The cyclist involved in the Sunset Boulevard incident has a suggestion for the Metro: the Metro's bus operators should ride a bike on the same streets for a week. Then perhaps they'd develop some empathy for those who are smaller and more vulnerable.

Who knows, they might like it and the Metro's AQMD compliance results might improve!

(Stephen Box is transportation and cycling advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

Journalistic Malpractice

An 86-year-old cyclist was hit by a car and critically injured as he rode on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance. The cyclist was riding from the south side of Sepulveda, between Maple Avenue and Hickory Avenue when he was hit by a motorist traveling east.

Larry Altman, the crime reporter for the Daily Breeze, wrote of the incident "The elderly man was riding his bike north across the street and was not in a crosswalk when an eastbound car hit him." Altman attributes the information to Torrance police Sgt. Jeremiah Hart.

I called Altman and asked why he would point out that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk. He said it was his way of pointing out that the cyclist was crossing mid-block and made a reference to jay walking. I pointed out that crossing mid-block is not necessarily illegal and that jay-walking is a nebulous and misapplied term that was irrelevant here. I offered up that his observation that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk was about as appropriate as pointing out that the cyclist wasn't wearing a parachute, the difference being that the parachute would have been legal while riding on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk in Torrance is actually illegal. - Journalistic Malpractice #1

I then offered up that perhaps the cyclist wasn't actually crossing the street mid-block but was instead pulling out of one of the many parking lots and attempting to turn left onto Sepulveda Boulevard, the same direction every single motorist on the south side of Sepulveda Boulevard goes if they want to head west. It's a reasonable theory based on the fact that one can't actually cross Sepulveda in the area where the cyclist was hit, there is nothing on the other side. It's also one I confirmed with Lt. Levine of the Torrance Police Department who confirmed that vehicular traffic on the south side crosses the eastbound traffic lanes to turn left onto westbound Sepulveda Boulevard. As for simply crossing the street, there's a wall, the tree line, the curbs. But there is no destination. - Journalistic Malpractice #2

This led me to ask the simple question, how fast was the motorist traveling if the cyclist was unable to cross the three lanes of traffic and reach the median strip before the motorist hit the cyclist? It was 1:00 pm, under clear skies, light traffic and nothing blocking the motorist's or the cyclist's eyelines. How fast was the motorist traveling? Could the motorist have changed lanes to avoid the cyclist? Were the other lanes taken by other motorists? Apparently the journalist forgot to ask the question, the Torrance Police Department press release failed to note the speed, and the Daily Breeze even failed to note that there were open questions. - Journalistic Malpractice #3

Journalists such as Larry Altman are in a position of responsibility. Their words have impact. Their questions are important and if they are lazy, if they simply reformat press releases, if they lack knowledge and if they repeat their misunderstandings, it's journalistic malpractice.

Torrance Police Department update:

I spoke to the investigating officer this morning, unnamed and unquoted until the supervisor gives permission.

The motorist was traveling in the #1 lane (closest to the center) at 40 mph, the speed limit.

The motorist 1) did not see the cyclist until the last moment when the cyclist rode into the side of the vehicle 2) saw the cyclist leave the parking lot of the YMCA and begin to ride across the street.

The cyclist 1) rode straight out of the YMCA parking lot across the street 2) rode at a 45 degree angle east bound from the parking lot, heading toward the center of the street when he rode into the side of the motor vehicle.

The cyclist was a customer at the YMCA and the investigating officer confirmed that it is legal for exiting motorists to turn both left and right onto Sepulveda. The investigating officer couldn't comment on the question "Was the cyclist attempting a vehicular left by crossing the three lanes and heading to a turning lane?" because he was unfamiliar with the term "vehicular left."

When asked about the legality or illegality of riding a bicycle on the sidewalks/crosswalks of Torrance, the investigating officer said "It's illegal, just like it is everywhere in California." I pointed out that it's not illegal everywhere in CA. Local municipalities are given the option and many, such as Los Angeles, pass on the right to prohibit cyclists from riding on the sidewalk. The prohibition also comes with singage requirements.

The point of impact was 832 feet past the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Maple Avenue. The investigating officer did not ask the motorist if he went through the intersection at speed on a green or if he started from a stop at the red light.

The cyclist's bike is a 70's vintage 10 speed and it is at the Torrance Police Department. It is bent.

The cyclist was unable to offer any information to the investigating officers regarding the traffic collision.

The cyclist was determined to be at fault by the Torrance Police Department for violating CVC 21804(a) failure to yield to traffic when entering the roadway from a private driveway.

I asked the Watch Commander if the motorist might have been able to avoid the cyclist by moving to the empty median strip to the left or by slowing and moving to the right to allow the cyclist to continue merging left. (motorist says he didn't see the cyclist to the last minute yet saw him exit the driveway three lanes to the right. SLOW DOWN and allow other traffic to use the street!)

At this point, the Watch Commander concluded our conversation by saying "It's an accident!" and wishing me a good day.

LA Times confuses "mishap" with "Violation of State Law"

The LA Times, elbow firmly on the pulse of our community, just reported that "Warren Olney, longtime host of the public-affairs shows "To the Point" and "Which Way, L.A.?" on KCRW-FM (89.9), is off the air this week after suffering injuries in a bicycle mishap Thursday."

Perhaps the writer missed my post entitled "Words Matter" and doesn't realize that terms such as "mishap" become the obstacles that we must overcome in our battle to draw attention to the cavalier behavior of motorists toward cyclists. Soft words neutralize acts that are dangerous, illegal, and a threat to the cyclists who ride in an environment that allows motorists to diminish their responsibility by allowing the "I didn't see the cyclist!" defense in an auto assault.

To be fair, the LA Times is hardly alone.

Enci and I were recently on Washington Blvd, early in the evening, when we came across a scene that always makes our hearts skip a beat; paramedics, police, lights flashing and a bike lying in the middle of the street. We immediately circled the area, looking to see if the cyclist was a friend. Such is life in LA, the land of anonymity sprinkled with moments that personalize the experiences, both good and bad.

It turns out that the cyclist had been doored by a motorist 1) who was apparently unable to park next to the curb and 2) who opened the door into traffic without looking to see if the lane was clear. The Culver City Police were there and the motorist was explaining "But I never saw him!" to two officers and a supervisor who nodded with apparent understanding. They chatted and the motorist left the scene.

As for the cyclist, he was in fair shape and they loaded both him and his bike into the ambulance and transported him to the hospital.



There are three problems here:

1. The Culver City Police didn't take photos, draw diagrams, pace off the scene or consider the bike as evidence. They just made sure "the debris" was picked up and that the street was clear.
2. The Culver City Police told me that the City of Culver City didn't have an 18" ordinance requiring motorists to park within 18" of the curb. That may be true, it's just irrelevant. The requirement is a part of the California Vehicle Code, and doesn't require the local authority to bless it, just enforce it.
3. The Culver City Police also seemed unaware that it is a violation to "door" a cyclist and when I mentioned it to the officer in response to his explanation that the motorist didn't see the cyclist, he asked "Are you a lawyer?" When I said no, he chuckled, patted my shoulder and told me to have a good evening.

Ignorance and condescension, what a combination! The investigating officer didn't know that the motorist's behavior may have been not only contributed to the cyclist's injuries but may have also been a violation of the law.

Washington Blvd. is a brutal street for cyclists with fast traffic and lots of conflict, ie. driveways, sidestreets, turning vehicles, and car doors opening into the traffic lane.

As Culver City engages in its Bike and Ped Master Plan process, it would be great to put some emphasis on the Education of those responsible for Enforcement and to work on supporting cyclists and their right to ride the streets and to get home safely at the end of the day, just like anybody else.

I'm sorry to hear that Warren Olney was doored and I hope he heals quickly and is back on the air soon. I'm also hopeful he can draw attention to the safety threat that "dooring" represents to cyclists and that he can speak up for others, especially the anonymous cyclist who took a door on Washington Blvd. a couple of weeks ago.

Most of all, I want the Culver City Police Department to get familiar with the California Vehicle Code and to make the streets of Culver City safe for cyclists. They have quite a journey ahead.

CVC 22502(a) requires a motorist to park the motor vehicle within 18 inches of the curb;

CVC 22517 prohibits a person from opening the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic.

CityWatchLA - Cars vs. Cyclists: System Upside Down

CityWatch, Aug 21, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 67

A bike ride home on a quiet residential street almost ended tragically for the LA woman who was struck from behind by a hit-and-run motorist, thrown into a parked car, and left lying on the ground.

Actually, it wasn't the motorist who struck her, it was the passenger who leaned out of the window, shoving the cyclist with both hands and caused her to fly off the road.

The cyclist was riding at approximately 15mph when she crashed with enough force to send her bike flying over the car while she struck the cars back window face first.

The collision set off the car's alarm, alerting the owner of the vehicle who then rushed to the scene.

He surveyed the situation and asked the woman, now lying on the ground, what she was doing to his car. Once he had determined that the car was not the subject of a theft, he was gracious enough to call 911 for the dazed and injured woman.

The LAPD never responded to the scene but the Fire Department’s Paramedics arrived quickly and administered first aid to the cyclist.

The "Victim" was very lucky, escaping with minor injuries and healing quickly.

One might assume that the "Victim" in this incident is the cyclist, but that would be a mistake.

The cyclist, better known as the "Projectile," was shoved off the road by an assailant and then made the mistake of landing on the "Victim," a parked car.

The "Victim," a lovely Ford Mustang, suffered injuries and repair bills that are now the responsibility of the "Projectile."

The "Victim" carries a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) along with Vehicle Registration, Auto Insurance, legal representation and the confidence that on the streets of Los Angeles, motor vehicles have the right-of-way, even when they’re parked.

The "Projectile," a cyclist, had no Cycling Insurance (not available in the USA...yet) nor was she riding (and landing) with any support from the LAPD as she was assaulted and left in the street by a hit-and-run motorist and passenger.

She is learning quickly that when it comes to the streets, cyclists are second-class citizens.

The "Victim" suffered a dent and a scratch, minor injuries that were compounded by pain and suffering that has resulted in a fear of curbside parking.

Fortunately, while on the mend, the "Victim" received support and aid from the Insurance Company, an Adjustor and a Collection Agency, all working to make sure that the "Victim" made a full recovery, both physically and financially.

The "Projectile,” also suffered injuries and was treated by emergency workers at the scene of the incident. She went on to mend and has the bruises to remind her of her audacious flight through the air. She was able to repair her bike and to restore it to roadworthy state.

The cyclist neglected to visit the "Victim" in the Body Shop and she failed to send a get well card to the convalescent garage, small gestures that would have gone a long way to easing the "Victim's" pain.

Reports that the "Projectile" was simply busy working extra hours in order to save up to pay the $2,500 needed to cover the "Victim's" damages and to ward off the collections company were unconfirmed.

This incident serves as an example of everything that's wrong with the way we manage our public space, the streets of Los Angeles.

Vehicles are protected and supported while humans are perceived as 2nd class encroachers on the public right-of-way.

A crime against a vehicle is more likely to get attention and a response than a hit-and-run crime against a cyclist.

Visit your local Neighborhood Council meeting and listen to the Senior Lead Officer's crime report.

They'll spend more time reporting on iPods stolen from vehicles and permit parking than on the rights of pedestrians and cyclists.

Take a look at the local LAPD Captain’s reports and you’ll see “Burglary from Vehicle” right up there with the other “serious” crimes.

Meanwhile, Capt. Trotter of Valley traffic reports that the LAPD counts injured and killed cyclists as pedestrians. After all they’re not motorists.

The cyclist in this absurd incident is not without rights. She, just like anybody who climbs on a bike and pedals into the public right-of-way, rides under the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. She's covered!

It's up to us as a community to make sure that the Cyclists Bill of Rights comes alive and it's up to us to make sure that:

#3 Cyclists have the right to the full support of educated law enforcement.

#4 Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure, or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

Our streets, first and foremost, are for people. The cyclist in this incident deserves our full support and an apology for such an insulting experience from a system that is upside down and in need of correction.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

LAPD - "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

(LAPD Officers ride the Hollywood/Vine crosswalk until they defer to the primacy of the motor vehicle and ride out into the oncoming traffic)

A couple of months ago, I was observing the LAPD's Valley Traffic Division as they conducted a pedestrian crosswalk sting on Reseda Boulevard. It was an amazing sight to watch. A police officer in street clothes, the "decoy," would step out into the crosswalk and begin to cross the street. Motorcycle officers stood lined up on the side streets, at the ready to ride into the relentless traffic to cite the motorists who failed to yield the crosswalk to the pedestrian. It was like watching cowboys herd cattle with the traffic cops pulling over as many as four motorists at a time and lining them up curbside for their tickets. It was an amazing sight to witness.

At midday, when the sting operation shutdown for lunch, I saw Officer "K" writing tickets for three male cyclists. My curiosity was piqued. After all, this was a crosswalk sting. The LAPD was there to cite motorists who failed to yield to pedestrians. I watched.

The cyclists were riding inexpensive bikes on the sidewalk when they were stopped and they were dressed as if on their way to or from some form of manual labor. They might be referred to as workforce cyclists. They were silent throughout the ticketing process. They avoided eye contact, they took their tickets and they silently rode north on Reseda.

I asked Officer "K" what the cyclists had done to warrant the citations.

He explained that they had crossed the intersection in the crosswalk against the flashing hand.

I commented that the law prohibiting crossing against the flashing hand applied to pedestrians and that the 3 men were clearly cyclists, not pedestrians.

That was when Officer "K" smiled and said "That's why I wrote them up for crossing against the solid circular red!"

I pointed out that the light couldn't have been red because the crosswalk still had the flashing hand.

He said he had to write it that way because there was no California Vehicle Code (CVC) to rely on to enforce that ban against riding in the crosswalk.

I countered by pointing out that it's not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk and that was why there was no CVC prohibiting it.

He stiffened up a bit here and responded that it was up to a Judge to decide and that even if the ticket got thrown out by the Judge, the process was a learning experience.

I closed my mouth and held my tongue but from my perspective, the process had become the punishment, not the lesson.

I'm not sure when the LAPD mandate went from enforcing the law to teaching the law but it leaves me wondering "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

The City Council asked the same question last month when an incident between the operator of a Hummer and several cyclists sparked the cycling community to ride en masse to the Police Commission and the Inspector General claiming bias based policing.

Cyclists involved in the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident claimed the Hummer driver hit a cyclist and then left the scene, driving over three more bikes in the process and dragging one of them up the street. The LAPD responded, caught the Hummer driver, interviewed those at the scene and then allowed the driver of the unlicensed Hummer to drive away from the incident.

The cyclist community was so enraged by this incident that they scheduled a "Storm the Bastille" ride on May 1st and asked the City Council to join them in fighting for even handed and equitable enforcement of the law. The City Council responded to the complaints of the May 1st "Storm the Bastille" cyclists with the following motion (09-1035):

MOTION Numerous incidents have been reported relative to bicycle and vehicle collisions and aggressive motorists attitudes to law-abiding people riding bicycles. Complaints have also been raised regarding the treatment of bicyclists by the Los Angeles Police Department. It is critical that the City respond to these situations and respond appropriately.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Los Angeles Police Department to report on recent bicycle incidents and conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, as well as efforts to increase police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

The motion was made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seconded by Councilmembers Ed Reyes, Tom LaBonge, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel.

Unfortunately, the motion directing the LAPD didn't elicit the response the cyclists sought.

LAPD Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese reported to the City Council two weeks later but he failed to address "police training related to bicycling activities and laws," instead regaling the council with his version of the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident. He relied on his memory for the report, having neglected to bring the actual file (a compilation of three reports, initially logged as two reports and finally released as single report with a single report number) and I would contend that he made a few mistakes along the way including referring to the cyclists of Los Angeles as "these people."

Albanese reported that the cyclist hit the Hummer, a statement that is contradicted by reality. The cyclist was hit from behind, the damage was to the rear of the bike and he was thrown forward. Tough to do unless the LAPD is going to claim that the cyclist also broke the laws of physics. Albanese continued by claiming that the statements of all witnesses were taken, again contradicted by reality. I forwarded the contact info of another witness to the incident to the LAPD, one who was not on the ride or in the Hummer but who lived in the area. He had identified himself to the Officers at the scene but was told, "We already know what happened." Albanese then referred to the investigating division as both Central Traffic and South Traffic. A small mistake, but nonetheless, a mistake.

Through it all, the Deputy Chief of the LAPD demonstrated some serious skills. He was initially directed to report on LAPD training but he artfully dodged that instruction and shifted the discussion to an incident but denied the City Council the opportunity to actually review the report which left him free to present his version of the incident unchallenged.

The LADOT Bikeways Coordinator sat next to him and followed suit, turning the conversation into an off-topic discussion of bicycle safety and responsibility training for cyclists as well as the updates of the City's Bicycle Plan and the LADOT website.

The LAPD and the LADOT made no pretense of addressing training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws and that is a complete failure, not only to respond to a City Council directive, but to the community as a whole.

The need to address training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws was made clear this past week.

On Monday, June 1, 2009 at approximately noon, a woman rode her bicycle on the sidewalk of Louise Avenue in the valley. As she approached the intersection of Valerio she rode into the intersection on an unmarked crosswalk. At the same time a large truck approached the intersection on Valerio and proceeded to turn right onto Louise. The cyclist and the truck collided, she fell to the ground and the truck crushed her head as she lay on the street.

The operator of the truck, which was equipped with a crane and was hauling DWP power poles, was unaware of the incident until he was notified via walkie talkie by his "pilot" in the escort vehicle that was behind the truck.

This incident is tragic, a life was lost. In addition, the lives of those involved will forever be scarred by the horrific nature of the scene. The fact that the vehicle was moving through a quiet residential neighborhood is also a concern as is the fact that the truck was operated by an LADWP contractor.

But especially disturbing is the resulting confusion during the investigation of the incident and the confusion over "the rules of the road."

Councilman Smith's office responded to the incident the next day and explained, via email, that "the bicyclist was reportedly riding on the wrong side of the roadway and traveling against the traffic flow; making her the initial "primary cause" of this tragedy." The email went on to detail the law enforcement experience of Councilman Smith, Chief of Staff Mitch Englander and Public Safety Deputy Jim Dellinger.

The LAPD's Public Information Officer confirmed the report that the LAPD considered the cyclist the "primary cause" of the incident because she was riding a bike in a crosswalk which is a violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road. The PIO explained that a cyclist must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic.

I asked if he had ever ridden the Orange Line Bike Path or the Chandler Bike Path or any of the City's bikeways facilities that actually direct cyclists into the crosswalk at intersections. The PIO paused and then suggested that I speak to the investigating officer.

I called the LAPD's Specialize Collision Investigation Detail (SCID) and spoke to the investigating officer assigned to this case who also explained that cyclists must obey the rules of the road which prohibit riding a bike in the crosswalk. I asked for the actual vehicle code or municipal code that prohibits cyclists from riding in the crosswalk and he simply referred to CVC 21200 and repeated the claim that cyclists must dismount before using a crosswalk.

The cyclist who lost her life at the intersection of Louise and Valerio is not here to explain what happened. She is not here to defend her actions and in a way it doesn't matter because, regardless of who is determined at fault, she is still dead.

But...I believe we have an obligation to be accurate in applying the law to this incident and it is either illegal for a cyclist to ride a bike in a crosswalk or it's not. That is a simple issue that can be settled quickly and if the LAPD's appraisal of this incident is based on that ruling then it is very important that we are accurate in applying the law.

I contend that it is not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk. It might not wise, it might not be advisable, but it is definitely not illegal. cyclists are not required to dismount at intersections or at crosswalks.

The fact that there is confusion over such a simple issue demonstrates the real need for specific training for the LAPD on bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

On May 1, 2009 the City Council called on the LAPD to report on police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

This tragic incident and the resulting confusion demonstrate the need for the LAPD to review and report on their departmental training of the rules and regulations that govern safe and effective cycling in the City of Los Angeles.

p.s. Attached is a 2006 City Council resolution addressing cyclists in the crosswalks.

LA's Mean Streets - Unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians and mass transit passengers!

(Hans Gutknecht/Daily News) Album ID: 767869 Photo ID: 23918480

Monday was a bad day for pedestrians and cyclists and mass transit passengers in the City of Los Angeles.

First a woman cyclist was killed at 12:10 pm as she rode on Louise Avenue in Reseda. The Daily News reports that she was hit by a LADWP truck operated by a contractor and pictures of the scene indicate that it was a large truck hauling a trailer loaded with light poles. The LAPD reports that she was southbound on the sidewalk of Louise and was crossing the street when she was hit by the right-turning truck as it turned from Valerio onto Louise. The cyclist was pronounced dead at the scene.

The afternoon was not yet over when news came out that the Fire Department was attempting to extricate a male adult from under a bus on South Pacific Avenue in Venice. According to the LAPD, the 30-year-old man was crossing the street in the crosswalk when he was hit and dragged by a right-turning bus. The bus operator did not know the pedestrian was under the bus and continued for a couple of blocks before he was flagged down and informed of the body stuck under his bus. The pedestrian was pronounced dead at the scene.

At about the same time, a motorist on West Vanowen Street plowed into a bus stop, hitting four people and dragging one woman until the vehicle was stopped by a tree and a pole. Residents from nearby lifted the vehicle to free the trapped woman who was then transported to a local hospital and is reported in critical condition. The other women suffered minor injuries.

In all three cases the fire department, the police department and the press report that the vehicle operators required medical attention and at least two were transported to area hospitals.

Our streets are filled with vehicle operators who can't handle their vehicles or the environment in which they operate or the consequences of their failure to control their vehicles.

If the City of Los Angeles were a movie set, it would be illegal to allow children on the streets and the 1st Assistant Director and the Transportation Captain would be up on charges for allowing the set to disintegrate into a scene where people die on a regular basis.

But it's not a film set, it's reality and it's bad. It's no longer headline news when somebody dies as the result of a traffic collision, just scrolling trivia, with names withheld and incidents forgotten as the next victim takes their place on the list of the nameless who dared to walk, ride a bike or take the bus.

Our streets are filled with high performance vehicles driven by low performance operators. Our cars are engineered for speed and come with air bags, seat belts and crash cages, all which enable the occupants to survive a traffic collision but this does nothing for those who walk, ride or simply stand on a sidewalk. These are the most vulnerable and we do nothing to make the streets safer for them.

The City of Los Angeles may not be in a position to address the driving skills of all those who operate vehicles on the streets of LA, but it surely is in a position to require those who operate City owned vehicles or City contracted vehicles to take a simple driving course that stresses the rights of pedestrians and cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.

If we are to set a safety standard for our streets, it is imperative that we start with those over whom we have the most control, those who are on the payroll of the City of Los Angeles.

I'm calling on the City of Los Angeles to implement a training program to ensure that any city employee or contractor operating City owned or contracted vehicles be required to successfully complete a course for motor vehicle operator's on safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The League of American Bicyclists already has the course material in place for a program such as this, all that's missing is the political will to make it a reality.

Now is the time and we are the political will.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Street Safety: Disconnect Between ‘Walk’ and ‘Talk’

cCityWatch, May 22, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 41

Rhode Bloch sat in the front row of City Council chambers, having arrived early in order to claim his 60 seconds of Public Comment time. This was Monday when he challenged the City Council on its commitment to a greener LA, a healthier LA and a safer LA, concluding by urging them to join him in working to make the streets of Los Angeles safer for everybody. That night, Rhode Bloch lay on Glendale Boulevard, dropped by a hit and run motorist traveling 45 -50 mph who came from behind and hit him at speed, braking only after Bloch was already on the hood of the car. The motorist didn't stop to see if the cyclist was dead or alive, the motorist didn't call for assistance, the motorist simply left him in the street where he landed.

The incident took place alongside Echo Park Lake, just a 100 yards south of the location where Jesus Castillo lost his life a month ago, also riding home alone at night on Glendale Boulevard. Rhode Bloch is a blessed cyclist, he survived the incident and he is recovering quickly.

On Tuesday morning, just hours after the hit and run incident on Glendale Boulevard, the City Council convened with an agenda that included speed limit increase proposals for Zelzah and Balboa Avenues. This huge disconnect between "talk" and "walk" could not be more exaggerated if it were staged.

The debate over the "science" of the establishment of speed limits is old. The City Council claims their hands are tied and the critics claim it's not science it's simply an opinion poll for motorists who use their gas pedals to cast their vote.

Over the past year, it seemed that the leadership of Los Angeles and the community members who are clamoring for safer streets that are walkable, ridable and livable had begun to agree that the State's "Speed Trap" law needed revising.

Along came Assistant Majority Leader Paul Krekorian with AB766, the Safe Streets Bill, and it was clear that the leadership of Los Angeles was behind a movement to revise the State's antiquated "Speed Trap" law. At least that's how it appeared.

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilman Richard Alarcon stood alongside Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and announced their support for the Safe Streets Bill which went to Sacramento last week, purportedly with the support of the Mayor and the City Council.

All of which is in stark contrast to the reality of the State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing where bike activists showed up to testify in favor of the bill, where neighborhood council representatives showed up in support of the bill and yet nobody from the City of Los Angeles stood in support of the Safe Streets Bill.

One might argue that Sacramento is a long way from Los Angeles but keep in mind, the LA Department of Transportation had a representative sitting in the room to testify in support of another bill. The City of Los Angeles had a lobbyist sitting in the room to stand in support of another bill. Both individuals clearly identified themselves as speaking on behalf of the City of Los Angeles and yet neither of them spoke in support of the Safe Streets Bill.

This failure to represent is in stark contrast to the stated support for safer streets that we receive at every turn in the debate.

As for this past Tuesday, I took the time to trek downtown and I stood prepared to protest the speed limit increases but it was for naught. Councilman Smith pulled the Zelzah proposal, asking for 30 days, so it is tentatively scheduled to return on June 19.

As for the Balboa Avenue speed limit proposal, it somehow made it to the City Council agenda without stopping at the Transportation Committee for the obligatory rubber stamping that is part of the assembly line like process for increasing the speed limits throughout the City of Los Angeles. It was also pulled from the agenda.

I took the opportunity to speak of Rhode Bloch's testimony the day before and his near tragic experience on Glendale Boulevard. I concluded by calling for a moratorium on speed limit increases for the streets of LA and asked that the City instead get behind AB766, the Safe Streets Bill.

As for Glendale Boulevard, the debate over speed traps and the state law is irrelevant, at least for now. Glendale is certified and posted for 35 mph and the speed zone survey is valid through July of 2010. Nobody's hands are tied!

All of which begs the question, "What kind of body count is necessary before we get speed limit enforcement on Glendale Boulevard?" (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Echo Park Ghost Rider

CityWatch, Apr 24, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 33

Jesus Castillo moved from Sonora, Mexico to Echo Park in search of the American Dream. He was 44. He didn't own a car. In fact he didn't have a drivers license. He simply rode his bike everywhere.

He lived in Echo Park and he was a day laborer, taking work when he could and where he could. Through it all, he rode his bike everywhere.

A week ago, late at night, he was riding south on Glendale Boulevard when he was hit from behind by a motorist who, according to witnesses, was swerving. He was killed just under the Sunset crossing of Glendale Boulevard. The police arrested the motorist within hours and charged him with vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. The motorist had a suspended license and was driving the car belonging to his mother.

The parents of Jesus Castillo are in town, having traveled from Sonora to visit the spot where there son was run down from behind and left to die in the streets by a drunk driver.

Cyclists responded to the news with shock and with outrage and with hard questions.

What are we doing to get drunk drivers off the streets? What are we doing to get drivers with suspended licenses out of the driver's seat? How do we get those convicted of drunk drivers into diversion programs that have a real impact?

Last week's Office of Traffic Safety Conference in San Francisco addressed this very subject and highlighted the need to support law enforcement with innovations in the judicial programs so that the cycle of abuse can be stopped.

The Honorable Richard Vlavianos of San Joaquin showcased a DUI Court program that addressed high risk, multiple offenders and has a documented 50 percent increase in compliance rates and an 80 percent reduction in recidivism among the high risk offenders.

What's it going to take for the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to step up and make public safety on our streets a priority?

As for the cyclists, they ride this Friday at 8 pm with a Ghost Bike. It's a tradition in the cycling community around the world that when a cyclist is killed by a motorist, a white bike is placed at the location to memorialize the tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

Let's work together to make sure this is the last Ghost Bike placed in our community. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net.)

Mandeville Canyon Road Rage Case Moves Forward

Dr. Thompson, the emergency room physician who stands accused of the Mandeville Canyon road rage incident that left two cyclists seriously injured, appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court yesterday for his preliminary hearing and it did not go well for him.

Ron Peterson, one of the two injured cyclists, testified to the July 4th incident in which he and Christian Stoehr were riding downhill in Mandeville Canyon, only to encounter the angry Thompson. Peterson claims that Thompson cut them off and then slammed on his brakes, causing both cyclists to hit the car with Stoehr careening through the air to the ground in front of the car and Peterson going through the back window, leaving his broken teeth mixed in with the broken glass in the back seat and cutting his face so severely that his nose was almost completely detached.

LAPD Officer Rodriguez, one of the first responding police officers at the scene, testified that immediately after the incident, Thompson explained that he had lived in Mandeville Canyon for years and that he was tired of the cyclists and that he slammed on the brakes "to teach them a lesson."

Detective Sharon Azpeitia testified on behalf of injured cyclist Christian Stoehr who is out of the country and on behalf of the physicians who treated the cyclists, introducing evidence of the "permanence of their injuries."

The preliminary hearing is the prosecutor's opportunity to convince the judge that a crime has been committed and that there is sufficient evidence to force the defendant to stand trial.

Defense Attorney Peter Swarth did his best to earn his fee, questioning Peterson on his tires and challenging him on his brakes and their ability to stop his bike. Swarth objected in broad strokes, asking that members of the cycling community in attendance be removed from the court on the off-chance that they might be called to testify in the future. The request was denied. He also went after Rodriguez, questioning his credentials and his contact with the defendants and with the press.

Swarth had an another tough obstacle to overcome when Patrick Watson, a cyclist who rides Mandeville Canyon, took the stand. Watson wasn't involved in the July 4th incident but he gave testimony to an incident that occurred in March of this year, when he and "Josh" were riding down Mandeville Canyon. Watson testified that a car came from behind, forced him off the road, and continued downhill. He maintained his balance, rode through the brush and back onto the road, only to be forced off again by the same motorist, this time actually laying down his bike.

"Josh" pursued the motorist, catching up with him and Watson rode to the front of the car and looked at the driver. The cyclists took the drivers license plate and called the police and reported the incident, giving the license plate and auto make/model and driver description to the police. Nothing came of the police report...until now. The prosecutor gave Watson the opportunity to identify the driver who ran him off the road in March and Watson identified Dr. Thompson.

Swarth went after Watson, challenging the identification as a presumption based on the identification of the car. Watson had identified Thompson's red Infiniti and vanity license plate info in the police report. Swarth asked how Watson can be sure that Thompson was driving. Watson responded "Because I stood in front of the car, looked right at him, and then had to jump out of the way as he accelerated his car at me and drove away."

Deputy District Attorney Mary Stone prevailed and the case will proceed forward with a January 15, 2009 arraignment at the same Airport Courthouse.

The charges against Dr. Thompson are: Count 1 - reckless driving causing specified injuries, Count 2 - Battery with serious bodily injury, Count 3 - reckless driving - misdemeanor.

The first two counts are the direct result of the July incident and the third count is a result of the March incident.

As in the past appearance at the same courthouse, Thompson's entourage did their best to shield him and to escort him quickly off the property at the conclusion of the hearing. A large man blocked the public from the elevator as the group raced to their vehicle, only to be stymied when they had to fumble to get the doors unlocked. Once they were safely behind the tinted windows they found themselves blocked by a motorist who wanted to see what the commotion was all about.

The Hollywood getaway, the suggestions of death threats and the positioning of motorists vs. cyclists all give the situation a soap-opera veneer and they might even be defense strategies but at the end of the day, this is simply a case of one man accused of using a weapon to injure and almost kill two other men.

Video credit: User1