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!

WooHoo! Go get the volunteers, they'll work for free!

The Automobile Club of Southern California is hosting "Volunteer Day" on the 405 Freeway and is inviting motorists from throughout the Southland to participate in a "Barn-Raising" approach to improved mobility and congestion relief. Bring a shovel, a pickax, a hardhat and any available heavy earth moving equipment for a fun weekend working with other committed motoring activists as we all pitch in and build that High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on the 405 freeway. Originally estimated to cost $1 Billion, the Interstate 405 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Project is the second largest Recovery Act funded transportation project in the nation.

As we all know, these are tough times, with the State of California and the City of Los Angeles facing severe economic conditions that include record home loan foreclosures, unemployment, and furloughs for State and Municipal employees who work in environments of great uncertainty. It is against this background that the motoring public has rallied together and offered to give up that $1 Billion, asking that it instead be used to balance the budget, to fund pedestrian projects, to fund bikeways projects, to improve the environment, to support the threatened transit circulators, to reposition mobility as a mechanism for connectivity at the local level, not simply as a traffic sewer that shoots people through our communities on their way far, far away.

We motorists still believe in the 405 HOV project which when completed will result in a continuous 72-mile HOV lane, making it the longest HOV lane in the country. But we also realize that the days of super-sized funding are long gone so we figure if we're going to really change the world and make it possible to live in Northern California while working in southern California, we're going to have to pitch in to make it work.

The idea of utilizing volunteer labor came from the cycling community, a well meaning crowd of pedal powered travelers, who dealt with the lack of funding for their bikeways projects by forming the Department of DIY. Along the way came transportation authorities who realized that this meant "free labor" and before you could say "Get out of my way!" the cycling community was doing surveys, developing plans, conducting outreach, analyzing data, evaluating projects, and advocating for a better world. All while the people paid to perform the same duties fumbled and complained that the activists didn't know how tough it was to be employed, to be well-paid, and yet to be so helpless.

Well, the motoring public isn't helpless. That's why we're gathering on weekends to build our way out of this congestion. That's why we're donating our time and effort to making the 405 HOV project even bigger and even more effective. That's why we need you to give up your weekend and join in the revolution. (please carpool, there isn't much parking on the westside, but that's something else we're going to work on!)

LA's Sharrows Campaign goes astray before it's underway...

The City of Los Angeles is finally getting close to implementing a Sharrows pilot project, complete with study methodology, data collection, analysis, and evaluation. Phew! All this in order to get Sharrows painted on the streets of Los Angeles.

Sharrows, for the uninitiated, are "Shared Lane" markings that typically consist of the image of a bicycle with a chevron on top but sometimes use a cyclist in a little "house." The Sharrow communicates good lane positioning (theoretically) and is meant to encourage cyclists to ride in the lane and out of the door zone. The Sharrow is also meant to communicate to the motoring public that cyclists belong on the street, in the lane, and out of the door zone. The debate over Sharrows typically comes down to the proper lane position for cyclists. The minimum positioning for the Sharrow is typically 11' from the curb line which is 3' from the edge line of the typical 8' parking stall. Not really outside the door zone! Cycling activists who favor riding completely out of the door zone contend that 13' from the curb line is the appropriate minimum position for a Sharrow.

Many cities have implemented Sharrows as a tool for supporting cyclists as a vital and viable element of a comprehensive transportation system. San Francisco, Long Beach, Portland, Hermosa Beach, Pasadena, Austin, and even the sovereign state of Highland Park have Sharrows on their streets. In some cases the Sharrows went down without much forethought or before/after behavior evaluation. In other cases, the process included significant data collection and analysis.

San Francisco did a study in 2004, collecting and analyzing videotape of cyclists and motorists before and after the installation of Sharrows on 6 different streets in San Francisco. The stated goals of the Sharrows pilot project in San Francisco were to:

• Improve positioning of both cyclists and motorists on streets without bike lanes;
• Reduce aggressive motorist behavior;
• Prevent wrong-way bicycling;
• Prevent bicycling on sidewalks.

The pilot project and the study were successful, revealing the most significant impact was on the behavior of motorists who increased their distance from the parked cars on the right side of the street by 50%.

Of course, this was San Francisco and there is no way that the City of Los Angeles could use this study to justify Sharrows on the streets of LA. After all, San Francisco is smaller than Los Angeles, they have different sensitivities, their paint is unlike our paint, there is not much LA can learn from SF!

The US Department of Transportation is also studying Sharrows in six cities around the country including Austin which recently installed 70 Sharrows along with cameras that will collect data so that the USDOT can evaluate motorists and cyclists and their ability to figure out on their own how Sharrows work.

According to the National Associations of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and their Cycling for Cities initiative, more than 76 American municipalities are now utilizing Shared Use Lane Markings to encourage cyclists to ride in a safer lane position, to alert road users to the correct lane position of cyclists, to move cyclists our of the "door zone" of parked cars, to encourage safe passing by motorists, and to alert all road users to the presence of cyclists. without taking up any additional road space.

In city after city, a simple survey reveals that every city had an objective when they implemented their Sharrows program. In Seattle, Sharrows were a "friendly reminder from the Seattle Department of Transportation to drivers: Leave room for those who choose to pedal their way around town." In Portland, "the explicit purpose of sharrows is to educate drivers that bikes belong in traffic lanes." From Wisconsin, "Sharrows remind moptorists that bicycles belong on the street." From the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices comes the explanation "This pavement marking indicates the appropriate bicyclist line of travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient clearance."

Along comes Los Angeles, led by the LADOT, and implementing a Sharrows pilot program takes on a completely new meaning. First of all, the emphasis seems to be on impacting the behavior of cyclists, not motorists. In light of recent objections to Sharrows, such as the LADOT's stated fear that they will interfere with the flow of traffic and that the paint will be slippery, the fact that SCAG and the LADOT are partnering in a study that evaluates the behavior of cyclists and not of motorists leaves one asking the question, "What is the purpose of the pilot project?"

In San Francisco, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to improve the position of both cyclists and motorists. It was also to reduce aggressive motorist behavior.

In Austin, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to study the ability of cyclists and motorists to figure out how the Sharrows work.

In Los Angeles, it appears that the purpose of the Sharrows program is to impact the behavior of cyclists. That reeks of the LADOT's mandate to normalize the behavior of LA's motorists and to demonize the behavior of LA's cyclists. Will the AAA come along to help, bringing volunteer motorists to help in analyzing the shift in the behavior of motorists? Why is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world engaging in a "scientific" study of a pilot program that commenced with no purpose, that fails to evaluate motorists, that consists of little commitment, and a casual approach to supporting cyclists in Los Angeles.

Based on Austin's size, Los Angeles should be putting down over 400 Sharrows and installing cameras to study the impact on the behavior of both motorists and cyclists. Better yet, Los Angeles should be asking why Austin has a better relationship with the USDOT and why Austin is getting federal support in studying the impact of Sharrows on motorists and cyclists.

Barring a partnership with the USDOT, perhaps Los Angeles could simply take a look at the Bellevue Sharrows study which documents traffic volumes for both motorists and cyclists along with traffic speeds.

From Austin to San Francisco, from Bellevue to Long Beach, Great Cities are doing Great Work and they all have great ideas that should inspire Los Angeles to engage in a Sharrows pilot program that raises the standard, not just for the implementation of Sharrows but for the process of evaluating pilot programs. Come on LA, raise the bar!

Most of all, remember that on congested streets, surface markings will be hidden by...vehicles! If the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported by signage such as the BAFUL (R4-11) that reinforces the Sharrows message and reminds motorists that cyclists have the right to use the full lane. If the LA version of the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported with a clearly defined campaign goal, with an inspired mechanism for collecting and analyzing robust data on the behavior of all modes, and with the enthusiastic (not reluctant!) support of the City of Los Angeles.

LAist - Road Rage Motorist vs. Cyclists on Mandeville Canyon Road

LAist, July 7, 2008

On July 4th, about 300 cyclists gathered at the Manhattan Beach Starbucks for a Holiday Ride to the top of Mandeville Canyon Road in Brentwood. The Holiday Ride is a regular event that takes place 5-6 times a year drawing cyclists from all over the greater LA area.

Mandeville Canyon, off Sunset Blvd., is a steep and challenging ride and the crowd quickly thinned out with some cyclists racing to the top while others rode socially, catching up with old friends and savoring the journey.

On the descent, a cyclist in the back fell, breaking his collarbone and injuring himself seriously enough to require medical attention and a ride to the hospital in an ambulance. Christian Stoehr, 29, and Ron Peterson, 40, stayed behind until the ambulance arrived and then they began their descent down the hill.

Christian Stoehr recounts "We were riding downhill at approximately 30 mph when a car came up behind us, must have been doing 50 mph, and the driver started honking at us. We moved to the right in single file within seconds and the motorist pulled along Ron and started screaming at him. He then pulled in front of us with 3-5 feet to spare and slammed on his brakes, giving us no time to stop. I swerved and almost made it, clipping the car and flying through the air and landing in the street. Ron had no room to move and he went straight into the back of the car, putting his face through the back window."

The driver of the vehicle stopped his car and continued the tirade, identifying himself as a Doctor but never offering medical attention.

Ron told the motorist to turn off the car and Christian sat on the hood of the car, afraid that the driver would drive off. The motorist continued the tirade, telling Christian to get his bike out of the street. Christian reported that they were afraid that the motorist would leave the scene.

A third cyclist, Chris Roberts, rode up and stepped in to make sure the motorist didn't leave. Christian collapsed on the side of the road as the ambulance from the top of the hill pulled up with the first injured cyclist. Paramedics jumped out and administered first aid.

Christian was banged up, collected road rash and was unable to move his right arm. Ron reports that "my nose was separated to the point that it was hanging off my face. They moved it to the side and pulled glass out of my face. My front two teeth are broken, they found a piece in the backseat mixed in with all the glass. I've got 90 stitches in my face."

Both cyclists ride with Synergy and both are accomplished racers. Ron is a CAT1 racer and former State Champion with 14 years of racing experience. Christian has a couple of years of racing under his belt and says "Ron is my racing coach and just a couple of months ago he conducted a safety class with exercises to teach us better bike handling skills. This meant I was better prepared to take evasive action and I almost made it! Ron had no room to move and ended up hitting the back of the car, putting his face through the back window."

Christian says "It'll be months before I can ride again, I was looking forward to some of the upcoming stage races but the season is over for me. Not only that, I'm a camera and steadicam operator so I'm going to be unable to work for months."

Their bodies are broken, their bikes are totaled but their resolve is stronger than ever.

"This isn't the first time that there's been an incident like this." says Ron. "In fact two cyclists from LAGrange were recently run off the road by a motorist who fits the same description as this one. They reported it but no charges were filed. Same road, same situation. We've got to work together to prosecute this guy to the full extent of the law before he kills somebody!"