Charlie Beck’s Anniversary is a Walk in the Park

CityWatch, Nov 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 64

RETHINKING LA - Chief of Police Charlie Beck celebrated his second anniversary as LA’s top cop by walking the beat, this time through the Bank of America Plaza where he chatted with Occupy LA protesters who had set up a camp on the bank’s property.

Beck occupies a unique position in the world of Occupy protests and is one of the only Police Chiefs in the country to establish a relationship with protesters that is based on respect and dignity.
Los Angeles stands alone in its deferential handling of the Occupy LA protest, demonstrating a commitment to the constitutional rights of the protesters that is in stark contrast to the violent behavior in cities such as Davis, Portland, Oakland, and New York City.

Beck’s walk through the Plaza, just like his walks through City Hall Park, demonstrated a commitment to community policing, one that treats the Occupy movement as a community that deserves a relationship.

Beck’s commitment to “rule of law” policing is the foundation of his law enforcement philosophy, a position that he emphasized when he was just one of several applicants vying for the Chief’s position that opened up when Bratton left town.

During the confirmation process, Beck declared “We don’t break the law to enforce the law.”

As Mayor Villaraigosa approaches the end of his second term in office and the field of candidates who want to serve as Mayor of Los Angeles fills up, it is important to note that Beck is rumored to be considering retirement in 2014, meaning the new Mayor will be selecting a new Chief.

That means the people of LA must speak now to help the Mayoral candidates frame their public safety platforms in the context of selecting a new Chief.

That also means the people of LA must speak now to help the candidates for Chief of Police know what kind of community policing strategies are best for LA.

The candidates for Mayor currently include City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, Councilwoman Jan Perry, Austin Beutner, and Kevin James.

Now is the time to hold these candidates responsible for establishing a position on the constitutional rights of the Occupy LA protesters.

The likely candidates for Chief of Police include Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger, Deputy Chief Michel Moore, Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese, Deputy Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, Deputy Chief Debra McCarthy, Deputy Chief Jose Perez, Deputy Chief Rick Jacobs, Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas, Commander Sharon Papa, and Commander John Sherman.

They’re all veterans with long resumes, many of them have been through Chief of Police selection process before, but this is a new day in LA and the next Chief will either move us forward in a commitment to community policing or return us to the “war room” mentality of days gone by.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LAPD operations, including Paysinger and Jacobs, that the world is watching and that they are responsible for defending the Constitutional rights of those who petition their government.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of LA’s relationship with Occupy LA, including Perez and Sherman, that the people living in City Hall Park are Angelenos and that the actions witnessed in Davis and Oakland and on Wall Street are not acceptable in Los Angeles.

Now is the time to send a message to those in charge of Bureau operations, such as Villegas and McCarthy, that their record for building community relationships is their strength and that partnerships prevail where tactical gear fails.

It is important to note that Mayor Villaraigosa is under pressure and as the President of the US Conference of Mayors, he declared in his inaugural speech "Mayors, we can't afford to be timid." As he develops an exit strategy and works on his next appointment at the federal level, it is reasonable to expect him to feel pressure to toughen up his approach to Occupy LA.

This will put pressure on Beck and his command staff to act decisively, perhaps while Villaraigosa is out of town, leaving the responsibility on the shoulders of the City Council President.

The time to speak up is in advance of the impending action, not afterward in a replay of the Davis pepper spray assault that has left a trail of damaged careers in its wake.

The world is watching and the City of LA has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is a new city, one that embraces the rights of its residents and treats people with respect and dignity.

It won’t happen by accident. It will only happen if the people of LA speak up, establish priorities and a commitment to the rule of law, and communicate their expectations clearly to the Mayor, the City Council, and the LAPD.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .) Graphic credit: punditkitchen.com

Occupy the Bill of Rights

CityWatch, Nov 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 93

RETHINKING LA - The Bill of Rights took a beating over the last several days, serving as a reminder that the rights we take for granted are the rights that go missing when we need them the most.

The most recent assault on the 1st and 4th Amendments came at the hands of University of California campus police as they responded to peaceful students sitting with their arms locked and heads bowed on the quad of the Davis campus.

Captured on video that has gone around the world over the weekend, the Lieutenant in charge of the UC Davis Campus Police riot detail stepped forward and held up a can of pepper spray, then proceeded to calmly spray the faces of the passive students, walking down the row of students with the professional demeanor of an exterminator spraying bugs.

The students who witnessed the pepper spray assault began to chant “Shame on you!” while maintaining their distance.

The video is disturbing to watch as the imbalance of power unfolds and riot police use pepper spray to “coerce” passive students who are sitting on the ground. Then an amazing thing happens, the witnesses begin to chant “Shame on you!” to the riot police who find themselves with no plausible opponent. Their power fails them.

As the police shuffle backwards, the witnesses conduct a “mic check” relay and echo the words of a speaker who announces “You can go!” The Lt. in charge stands with red cans of pepper spray in both hands, backed up by riot police with crowd control shotguns, and as the students give them permission to put down their weapons and leave, the riot police back up and depart.

The outrage was immediate yet the UC Davis Chief of Police, Annette Spicuzza, told the Sacramento Bee that police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. “There was no way out of that circle,' Ms Spicuzza said. 'They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation.”

Chief Spicuzza’s recount of the incident was immediately contradicted by the video. She has since been put on administrative leave pending an investigation, along with the two UC Davis police officers who were captured on video pepper spraying the passive students.

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi reportedly ordered the campus police to remove approximately a dozen tents that had been erected on Thursday in support of the Occupy movement and in protest of the heavy handed police treatment at other Occupy encampments.

Outrage over Katehi’s handling of the Occupy UC Davis camp resulted in calls for her resignation but none as powerful as the silent treatment that she received from hundreds of Davis students who simply sat quietly along the sidewalk as she walked to her car after a press conference.

The police action included riot police from other UC campuses as well as the City of Davis which begs the question, “Where on earth would students express themselves if not on the quad of their University?”

It also begs the question, “Who is training the riot police who operate on college campuses as if the schools are sovereign nations outside the law?”

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled in 2002 that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent passive protesters was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

Apparently Chancellor Katehi had no “reasonable officers” at her disposal.

The United State Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled in 2011 that the use of pepper spray and baton on a person who did not present a safety threat or flight risk was excessive under the 4th Amendment.

In both cases, the court held that the law enforcement officers were not entitled to “qualified immunity” because their conduct was unconstitutional.

The State of California is the employer of record for the UC Davis Police Department which makes everybody in California responsible for speaking up, not just as spectators or witnesses, but as the owners of the asset that these officers are charged with protecting.

The incident map for UC Davis indicates that the most common crime on campus is “bike theft” with “petty theft” running a close second. It is against this Mayberry background that the University of California as a whole must justify the presence of riot police on its campuses throughout the state.

Five years ago, the University of California paid out $220,000 to a student who was the victim of a Taser attack that was also captured on a cell phone in a video that went viral.

The UCLA police officer responsible for the Taser attack had previously shot and wounded a homeless man in a campus building, choked a man with his baton in front of a Fraternity house, been suspended from the UCLA police force and fired from the Long Beach Police Force.

Lest anyone think that the University of California is operating a simple security service, it should be noted that the UC Police starting salary is $65,556 while the LAPD starting salary is $48,462.

The UC Davis riot police actually get paid 35% more than the LAPD for a duty that typically consists of providing a uniformed presence on campus with occasional bike theft investigations, “elevator phone check” patrols and other community policing duty.

Calls to the City of Davis Police Department were met with immediate instructions to call the UC Davis Police Department, in spite of repeated requests to file a police crime report. Sgt. Frank Penedoro was quite specific in his refusal to accept a criminal complaint against the UC Davis officer responsible for the pepper spray assault.

The deferential treatment given to campus police is not unique to the small town of Davis and is actually quite common. For example, the LAPD has a memorandum of understanding with the campus police at USC that includes a division of duties and authorizes the USC campus police to respond to crimes in the surrounding community.

UCLA has a student, staff and employee population of 75,000 which means that the UCLA campus police are responsible for 25% more people than the City of Davis.

The University of California Police Force is not a small town force but is actually well-funded in contrast to the surrounding police departments. It also operates with inappropriate autonomy as is evidenced by the City of Davis Police Department’s refusal to respond to a report of a crime committed by a UC Davis police officer.

The same request to report a crime was rejected by the UC Davis PD Watch Commander, Sgt. Beerman, who simply repeated “I’m not going to take a criminal complaint.”

The people of California should be outraged that the Lt. responsible for the pepper spray attack had a base salary of $116,454 last year while the cost of attending the University of California has more than doubled since 2005.

The UC Regents recently voted to approve tuition increases of 18% over last year’s rate due to a budget crisis but they contradicted that austerity commitment by approving large pay raises for University executives.

Our communities and schools are occupied by uniformed police departments that operate with autonomy, independently of local municipal oversight, and with riot gear that collects dust and provides overpaid and underchallenged officers with an incentive to “protect” themselves from peaceful demonstrators who simply exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles take this opportunity to advise the City of LA on the appropriate procedures for honoring the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the protesters who are part of Occupy LA.

The City of LA has a very expensive track record when it comes to handling protests. The City of LA paid out millions of dollars after the Democratic Convention when the LAPD was charged with “an orchestrated police riot.”

More recently, the LAPD came under attack for the “May Day Mêlée” which resulted in charges of excessive force from victims that included a National Lawyer's Guild observer and members of the press. The LAPD settlement was reported to cost $13 million.

Since then, the LAPD has earned accolades for its commitment to community policing and for its unique approach to the Occupy LA movement that includes passive observation and unobtrusive presence.

This peaceful occupation of City Hall should not be taken for granted.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles speak clearly and loudly to the Mayor, the City Council, and the Police Chief if they want the City of Los Angeles to fully support the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of those who petition their government, of those who protest, and of those who embrace peace while speaking out against injustice.

It was just last year that a city employee sat before the City Council and explained “the City of LA has no purview over the 1st and 4th Amendments, these are federal issues.” Not one member of the City Council said “Wait a minute...” Instead, this misinformation was allowed to stand unchallenged and a resolution in support of 1st and 4th Amendment rights was rejected.

The irony here is that even poll workers in Los Angeles are required to take a Loyalty Oath, committing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles take time from their busy schedules to pay attention for just long enough to remind the Mayor, the City Council, and the Chief of Police of their sworn oath of office and to let them know that in Los Angeles, we fully expect them to honor the Bill of Rights and to protect the people who exercise their constitutional rights.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .) Graphic credit: punditkitchen.com

City Hall’s Parasitic Cost-Recovery Scheme

CityWatch, Aug 9, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 63

RETHINKING LA - LA’s recent Red-Light Camera debacle had nothing to do with traffic control and everything to do with a municipal government that has a track record for exceeding its authority and for levying fees, fines, and judgments on its residents that exceed the law.

The City of LA’s Police Commission and City Attorney have both acknowledged that Red-Light Camera enforcement of traffic violations fails to meet the legal standard for prosecution, but in a clear demonstration of the simple fact that they don’t get it, the City Council debated the issue based on the profitability of the program.

LA’s Red-Light Camera scheme was responsible for generating 180,000 tickets over the last seven years but, as CM Englander bemoaned, 65,000 of those tickets went unpaid. CM Rosendahl continued down the wrong path when he pointed out that the program cost the City of LA $1.5 million per year.

Missing from the debate was a simple discussion of LA’s right to cite and penalize in excess of law.

While opponents of the Red-Light Camera program are celebrating its demise, it should be noted that this cost-recovery scheme is not an exception but is the rule, part of a larger pattern that sees the City of LA prey on its residents as sources of income.

A couple of years ago, the City of LA’s right to collect a 10% communications tax on cell phones was challenged and with good merit. Laws written during the age of telegrams and rotary phones were being used to justify a tax on Angelenos that resulted in $270 million per year, quite a heavy return for such light legal authority.

Realizing that the pending legal challenge to the 10% tax could spell financial doom for the City, its leaders embarked on a PR campaign and offered the people of LA Prop S which would “reduce” the tax to 9%, also rewriting the code so that it included any device or technology used to place calls, thus anticipating any technological advances in the future.

The City’s PR campaign worked and the voters approved a 9% tax on communications, selecting a “reduced tax” over an “illegal tax” and demonstrating that City Hall can still spin ‘em! Whew! Financial crisis averted!

During the controversy over the Red-Light Camera program, City Hall did what was best for their pocket book, preening and posturing as if they were doing what was right when the decision was simply based on what was most cost-effective.

With the Communications Tax, City Hall again did what was best for their pocket book, positioning a 9% legal tax over a 10% illegal tax as a benefit to the people when they were actually legitimizing an illegal tax.

LA’s liability for any tickets written under the illegal Red-Light Camera program hasn’t been challenged yet but there’s a court battle being fought over the Cell Phone tax collected by LA prior to the passage of Prop S, one that could cost the City of LA hundreds of millions of dollars.

There’s no doubt that LA has to pay its bills and that LA’s residents are obligated to pay for the services that it receives. But at no time does this simple relationship result in a carte blanche for City Departments to levy fees, fines, and penalties that exceed their authority under the law.

Consider the Department of Transportation’s track record for entering the private property of an East Hollywood property owner during the middle of the night to cite motor vehicles parked on a cement parking space. These citations took place over the course of several years and it was only the tenacious resistance of the property owner that resulted in the LADOT acknowledging that it had no jurisdiction.

The LADOT churned out two tickets per visit on a single resident, forcing the property owner to spend an inordinate amount of time fighting a Pyrrhic battle that consumed incredible amounts of time, demonstrating the flaw in a cost-recovery system that rewards complaint-driven City Departments that generate revenue, not justice.

Consider the Department of Building & Safety and its track record for uneven application of the law, one that is selective in its enforcement and loose with citations, fees, and penalties. Claiming the protection of a complaint-driven process, Building & Safety is able to justify its myopic application of code, one that underscores all that is wrong with the City Attorney’s ACE program. Selective enforcement is not justice, its revenue enhancement.

Consider the Department of City Planning and its claim to fame as a department that is almost fully funded through cost-recovery measures, a Mayoral mandate that is responsible for turning departments into predatory parasites that consume the host.

City Planning sells variances; it’s as simple as that. When Building & Safety cites a resident, it levies an initial fee for the experience, approximately $350. As the resident embarks on the bureaucratic journey, the next fee is $550 that is levied when they take too long to successfully navigate City Hall. Eventually, they are told to pay $4800 to City Planning for a variance and all is forgiven. This is the simple complaint-driven collection of tolls and it has nothing to do with public safety, just revenue enhancement.

Consider the Los Angeles Housing Department and its creative approach to the generation of revenue. Upon receiving a complaint, they conduct an investigation and charge the property owner a complaint inspection fee of $169 plus a processing fee of $32.50 and then levy an additional penalty of $503.75 if the bill isn’t paid within 30 days. Harsh!

The LAHD then charges $128 for an appeal and has a track record for cyclical behavior that requires the property owner to meet with inspectors and hearing officers, all while generating inspection fees, processing fees, and late fees, regardless of the outcome. A property owner may prevail if they are willing to invest the time but it’s a lose-lose proposition. Pay the fees and move along, there’s no justice here!

Consider the Bureau of Engineering and its authority to issue permits that are then overseen by the Department of Building & Safety and can require a variance from City Planning and are inspected by LAHD if they are for rental properties and then incur the wrath of the LADOT if there is an opportunity to cite vehicles, all resulting in a bureaucratic maze that charges the property owner every time they pass “Sorry, that’s not within our jurisdiction!”

Consider LA's Office of Finance and its heavy handed approach to revenue collection. Entertainment Industry professionals are often paid as independent contractors, a process that is documented with a 1099 form. The City of LA tracks those forms and then assumes that anyone receiving one is conducting a business. (Typically, they're day-players who are working but without the benefits that come with getting paid as employee) The business license is free, but there are penalties and interest if you file after Feb 28, something that people don't discover until they file their taxes, due April 1.

Imagine their surprise when they get blindsided by the City of LA with a fine for filing late for a license that they didn't know they needed, a $4000 surprise. Of course, that notice is void if the person is simply an employee getting paid as a contractor but the $4000 bill assumes otherwise and leaves it up to the employee to figure out.

Consider the City Attorney, defender of the cost-recovery scheme and proponent of an even leaner, meaner complaint-driven Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program that would speed up selective enforcement and revenue generation at the expense of justice.

While the City Attorney’s office refines its ACE program and embarks on its PR tour of neighborhood councils, it also continues to support the City Hall toll collectors by issuing its own threats that come with a penalty of $1,925 and warn that non-compliance can result actions that include “Seizing property, Attaching wages, Additional court actions.”

A resident of LA shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer just to deal with City Hall and a property owner in LA shouldn’t have to fight city departments for years in order to protect their investment.

There are enough threats to the quality of life in Los Angeles without having municipal cost-recovery predators levying fees and fines that exceed their authority under the law.

LA’s bureaucratic machine argues jurisdictional limitations when it’s time to perform but then duplicates the fees and penalties when it’s feeding time.

Mayor Villaraigosa’s cost-recovery mandate is not only limited by law, it is limited by common sense. Departments that dispense city services based on the potential for cost recovery will favor those who can afford the fee, will penalize those who fear the fee, and will break the backs of those who play by the rules.

This is no way to run a Great City.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

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!

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.

Double Standards for Law Enforcement in Beverly Hills

If the Police Department came across somebody lying on the street with a gunshot wound, they would immediately secure the area as a potential crime scene, they would collect evidence and they would look for the person responsible for the crime. If a witness came forward and said "He went that way." they would pursue. If they found somebody holding a gun, they would detain the person and even protect the person's hands in order to examine for evidence of recent gunfire. The gun would be collected as evidence and tests would be run to determine if the bullet in the victim came from the gun and if so, the person holding the gun would be hard pressed to prove that they were not responsible for the gunshot victim's injuries.

Yet, if the Police Department came across a cyclist lying on the street with injuries that indicate some form of collision, they would look around at the debris, the skid marks, the damage to the bike and they would have the victim transported to the hospital while they filled out hit-and-run paperwork. If a witness came forward and said "He went that way." they would ask for a description of the vehicle and they would make a note on the report. If they found the vehicle that was involved in the hit-and-run collision, they would ask the owner if they knew anything about the hit-and-run collision and if the owner of the vehicle said "no!" they would leave the motor vehicle and the owner behind and return to the witness and the victim.

In the first scenario, they would confiscate the gun as a weapon, as evidence, as a clue that would be used to determine the identity of the criminal responsible for the crime.

In the second scenario, they would allow the owner of the vehicle to maintain possession of the weapon, they would accept the owner's denial of responsibility and they would file a report.

Imagine if the owner of the gun said "I put my gun on the coffee table, I went to sleep, and when I awoke, the gun was gone. I later found the gun and was holding it when the police approached but I am not responsible for the crime that took place. I know nothing." The Police Department would not allow the entire case to hinge on the victim's ability to identify the shooter. There would be other evidence that could be collected. The gun, the plausibility of the gun owner's story, the gun owner's record, the gun owner's alibi, etc.

Yet when a motorist's car is involved in a hit-and-run crime, invariably the case rests on the ability of the witness and/or victim to identify the person responsible for the crime.

Why is the vehicle (weapon) not collected as evidence of a crime? Why is the owner of the vehicle (weapon) not investigated and obligated to offer a plausible and verifiable explanation for who was operating the vehicle (weapon) when the crime was committed? Why isn't the owner of the motor vehicle (weapon) not responsible for offering an alibi that would confirm that the vehicle (weapon) owner could not have been behind the wheel? Why is the owner of the vehicle (weapon) not responsible for producing cell phone records and text message records that would indicate location and journey and intentions and serve as evidence that could be used to analyze the truthfulness of the vehicle (weapon) owner's story.

The simple answer is this:

If you use a gun to kill somebody, you're a criminal. If you use a motor vehicle to kill somebody, you're traffic. That standard must change.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that four times as many people die from motor vehicle collisions than from war and conflict.

In Beverly Hills, hardly a war zone but definitely the location for conflict, a cyclist was recently hit by a motorist and knocked to the ground. (early December '09) It was a hit-and-run crime. A witness in another vehicle chased the motorist and returned with the license plate information which was presented to the Beverly Hills Police Department. The BHPD investigated the incident, taking the post-it with the license plate information from the victim, never to return it, going so far as to say they couldn't release the license information or the vehicle owner's information to the victim. The post-it and the license information were in the victim's possession until the Beverly Hills Police Department collected it for their report.

Five weeks after the hit-and-run crime, the Beverly Hills Police Department invited the victim to the police station to identify the suspected hit-and-run criminal. The victim looked at photos of six people and he indicated that they "all looked similar."

Since the victim was busy getting knocked to the ground and then was busy trying to deal with the shock and the fact that his bike was under the motorist's car and that the motorist then backed up and took off, all as he dragged himself and the bike to the curb, it makes sense that he didn't get a good look at the motorist, a look that would linger in his consciousness for five weeks waiting for the opportunity to identify the perpetrator of the crime from a half dozen lookalikes. On top of that, who looks like their photos?

But the police had the license plate and they had a witness and they had two merchants who saw the vehicle back up and drive away leaving the victim on the street.

What the Beverly Hills Police Department doesn't have is the moral conviction that when a person hits another human with a motor vehicle and then leaves them lying in the street, that a serious crime has been committed, that a weapon has been used in a violent assault on another human being, one that warrants a full investigation and that treats the incident as a crime, a real crime with a real victim and a real criminal.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights states "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."

The Beverly Hills Police Department has failed the victim in this incident and in doing so, they have failed the community as a whole.

For more information on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights visit http://BikeWritersCollective.com

To contact the Beverly Hills City Manager, Jeff Kolin, call 310-285-1012

To contact the Beverly Hills Police Chief, David L. Snowden, call 310-285-2100 or 310-285-2125

To visit the City Council, consider riding as a group on Tuesday February 16, 2010 to the 7:00 pm City Council meeting.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Hollywood & Western - "No-Man's Land"

CityWatch, Sept 15, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 74

The Metro’s Red Line stations are all unique, each one decorated with public art that reflects the character and personality of the surrounding community. At Hollywood & Western, the Metro selected overflowing trashcans, human waste and a homeless encampment, all in tribute to the “No-Man’s Land” status of the area that finds the LAPD and the LASD treating the Metro station like a jurisdictional hot potato.

This past Saturday evening, arriving at the Metro Station a little after midnight, we discovered five of the six escalators inoperative. Proponents of the "Broken Windows" theory would suggest that this "indicator" communicates a complete lack of oversight.

Walking to the third staircase, we came across a little old lady, halfway up, standing still, unable finish the journey to street level. As my wife assisted the reluctant pedestrian, I went to notify the authorities only to find that the emergency intercom was out of order.

At street level, the LAPD was out in force, driving up and down the Boulevard in vehicular insulation, never slowing down or so much as glancing at the Metro Station or the homeless encampment that sits below City Council President Eric Garcetti's 4th floor office in the Mayer Building. Of course, this is not their beat.

Years ago the Metro awarded the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department a lucrative contract to provide law enforcement services for all Metro property. A subsequent Memorandum Of Understanding between the LAPD and the LASD clarified the jurisdictional details and the lines were drawn. All Metro property is the responsibility of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.

None of this really matters to the person on the street who wants help, only to find themselves lost in the "No-Man's Land" of the Metro Red Line Station.

I called the LASD Watch Commander at Metro Rail HQ to let him know of the five inoperative escalators, the broken emergency intercom, the stench of urine and feces, the overflowing trash cans, and the homeless encampment, pointing out that they all indicate a significant failure on the part of the LASD.

Sgt. Bedogne explained that staffing was thin on Saturday nights and that their focus was fare evasion. I pointed out this seems to be in sharp contrast with the Metro’s position as articulated by CEO Art Leahy who has indicated that public safety and customer service are his priorities for the Metro.

Crickets chirped.

It took 28 minutes for the LASD to arrive at Hollywood & Western, four cars with five Deputies. They descended into the station, returned to street level, chatted with the two armed Metro Officers who joined them, hung out some more, and then they all left. Net result of the visit, 22 minutes of scratching, spitting and huddling together on the mean streets of Hollywood and Western.

At no time did any of them simply walk the perimeter of the street level property. Sgt. Bedogne explained "The LASD only handles the Metro Station itself, not the surrounding property." In fact, we discovered that night, the Sheriff's surveillance cameras don't even cover the third level of stairs.

Meanwhile, Sgt. Lawrence, the LAPD's Watch Commander informed me that the Metro Station including the homeless encampment is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department. Neither Watch Commander seemed alarmed in the disconnect between the two departments and both referred me to supervisors who were not available.

This neighborhood has been in the news quite a bit lately. The LA Weekly has run a couple of great articles on the issues of homelessness and emancipated youth in Hollywood and in both articles the Hollywood & Western Metro Station is featured as the de facto drop in center for the under challenged and homeless youth of the area.

Most recently, the CIM Group was taken to task for their blighted properties located to the north, trashed, abandoned and filled with squatters. Garcetti deferred to Councilman LaBonge (they split the intersection, Garcetti to the south, LaBonge to the north)

As Garcetti and LaBonge engaged in the jurisdictional hot potato dance, the City Attorney and Building & Safety got involved and at the prodding of local activists, the properties were razed and the area was cleared of blight.

LaBonge, who has never passed on the opportunity to engage in an end-zone victory dance, gathered community leaders in the parking lot of the Rite-Aid to claim credit for cleaning up the neighborhood, missing the fact that destroying a squat doesn’t provide housing for the squatters, it merely drives them across the street into Garcetti’s district. Perhaps that was his strategy. It would be consistent with the behavior of others.

The LAPD purportedly has professionals that handle homeless issues but according to Sgt. Lawrence, the Watch Commander on duty Saturday night, they are available during traditional office hours.

The LASD also has professionals to handle homeless issues but according to Sgt. Bedogne, the Watch Commander on duty Saturday night, they are also available during traditional office hours.

Somehow the collective oversight of City Council President Garcetti, Councilmember LaBonge, the CRA, the Metro, the LAPD, the LASD, Building & Safety, the City Attorney’s office and anyone else charged with addressing the homeless issue in Hollywood completely missed the fact that when you destroy homeless camps, you don’t reduce homelessness.

The Sheriff’s Department is not without a plan for addressing homelessness. Ride the Metro Rail to either end of the line and you'll see Sheriff's Deputies whose only job is to make the homeless exit the rail cars, stand sleepily on the station for a few minutes with their abundant possessions, teeter and totter and then reenter to resume sleeping on the journey to the other end of the line.

The LAPD has a similar strategy for the vehicles and motorhomes parked on residential streets, occupied by folks who simply move their vehicular campsite from one side of the street to the other to accommodate street cleaning, necessary to address the trail of trash and human waste left behind. The Senior Lead Officers typically use the 72 hour chalk to keep them moving in circles, ignoring LA Muni Code 85.02 which prohibits people from inhabiting parked vehicles on public streets.

In either case, the strategy seems to be based on the belief that if the homeless are annoyed enough, they will simple grow weary of the inconvenience of homelessness, snap out of their stupor, resolve to prosper, buy a home in the Valley, and leave Hollywood behind.

I’ve lived in Hollywood for a dozen years. I believe in Hollywood and I proudly refer to it as “the center of the universe,” a claim I make with utmost sincerity based on its history, its industry significance, its creative community, and its potential.

For three years my wife and I have hosted “Bike to Work” events at the Hollywood & Western Metro Station. We have organized rides that use the Metro Station as the meeting place. Hollywood & Western is where we meet friends, where we shop, it’s often the beginning and end of our journeys and it is, in many ways, the center of the universe. It’s the heart of our neighborhood.

The Hollywood and Western Red Line station is the tip of an iceberg that can’t be neglected or ignored any longer.

It is imperative that the many departments that have responsibility for some aspect of development, public safety, homeless services, law enforcement and simple quality of life issues in Hollywood to come together, put down the jurisdictional drama and to simply work together to make Los Angeles a Great City.

(Stephen Box stands vigil on the City of Angels and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

Bikes! Bikes! Bikes!

Years ago Enci and I were on a large evening ride that took hundreds of cyclists through the greater LA area. As we rode through one of the neighboring cities, I noticed that the intersection up ahead was "corked" by the local police department. "Why, that's thoughtful of them!" I said to myself, smiling as I basked in the obvious respect that we were drawing from the local authorities.

As we approached the next intersection, the police had blocked the intersection so that we all turned right. "Excellent! This is what it's like to be accepted into the mainstream paradigm of "transportation" and to be treated as a solution, not a problem!" I said to myself. (It was a noisy crowd, I did a lot of talking to myself)

As I rode my high-horse, it dawned on me that the friendly faces that were "corking" intersections for us were actually simply steering us out of town. The route was simply "Anywhere else, very quickly!"

We were run out of town. But for most of the trip, we were convinced that they were working for us, that right then, they really liked us and wanted to help us.

I learned then to look closely to see if the "help" is really helpful or if it's simply a way to get the cyclists out of the way.

This brings us to LA's Bike Plan. What should be a document that positions cycling as a legitimate transportation solution instead dresses up like a "We're here to help!" solution but it's really a "Get out of the way!" ploy to move cyclists to the fringe.

The current Bike Plan is still under wraps but the Bike Plan Maps reveal less Bikeways facilities than the old plan had which means the City of Los Angeles paid its consultants $450,000 to erase the inconvenient elements.

The proposed Bike Maps are unintelligible without the Bike Plan, unless of course you have an LADOT decoder ring. They're also Orwellian and seek to position "infeasible" as an engineering term that purportedly supports cycling as a safe and effective means of moving through Los Angeles, as long as it's done from within the confines of a spin class at the Equinox.

All of this is to say, take a look at the motion Alex Thompson is working through the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council:

"The MVCC finds that, with respect to Mar Vista, the maps for the draft Bicycle Master Plan show that the plan does not offer a significant improvement over existing conditions for cyclists riding in Mar Vista. We therefore recommend that the scope of the work be rewritten to position the Bicycle Plan as an inspiration and aspiration document that will support cycling as a transportation choice."

Take a look at the presentation I gave at Saturday's Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition where I asked the NC's to simply ask the hard questions and to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights.

Most importantly, look closely whenever the City of Los Angeles presents the cycling community with a gift that positions "Safety, Security and Liability" as their motivation for action or, more likely, inaction.

It's Equality that should be the foundation for our mobility and public space policies and anything less is an effort to get somebody out of the way.

"See you on the Streets"

CityWatchLA - LADOT Demonstrates Need For Department of DIY

CityWatch, June 5, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 45

The City Council took another swing at LA's antiquated bike licensing program, taking the House of Molasses one step closer to a complete repeal of the controversial law. 

Cyclists have long complained that the Bike Licensing program was ineffective, pointing out that the licenses weren't actually available and that a database of registered bicycle owners wasn't actually maintained. 

Critics went further pointing out that the law was so poorly written as to require anyone riding a bike through LA from a neighboring community to purchase a bike license and that the fine of $160 for riding a bike without a license exceeded LA's authority under state law. Through it all, the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Police Department maintained a contract with Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for a program educating the public on "the need to register their bicycles." Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in recent years promoting a program that doesn't even exist! 

The issue came to a head last year when the LAPD pulled a group of cyclists over and began citing them for riding their bikes on the streets of LA without bike licenses. The cyclists charged that the citations were a form of harassment, that the LAPD pulled them over and then had to search the book until they could find an infraction. 

The editor of Los Angeles Magazine was on that ride and he detailed the incident and the "retaliatory tickets" in a feature article in the January edition of the magazine. 

This was the proverbial last straw and cyclists organized a "Storm the Bastille" ride and over 100 cyclists filled the City Council's Transportation Committee chambers and charged the LAPD with bias based policing, detailed the absurdity of the bike license program and called for its repeal. 

The LAWeekly was there for the meeting and wrote of the event quoting Rhode Bloch who at one point referred to   the LADOT's Bikeways Department asking "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" [Link] 

Streetsblog wrote of the event finding the showdown between Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to be one of the highlights of an emotional and energetic committee meeting.    

Through it all, the LAPD stood their ground! 
 
The cyclists persevered, charging that the process itself was the punishment, that cyclists either take the ticket and pay $160 (in person!) or take a day off from work to fight the ticket. Either option was unacceptable, especially since their only crime was to challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle by daring to ride a bike on the streets of LA in front of the LAPD. 

For nine months the controversy has simmered and this past Tuesday the Council motion calling for an ordinance repealing the law finally made its way to the full City Council. Phew! 

In spite of the fact that the Councilmembers all agreed on the need to repeal LAMC 26.01, they took the time to engage in a bit of pontificating that left audience members shaking their heads. 

Councilman LaBonge jumped to his feet and immediately shifted the debate "to the children" and pointed out that if a child was hit by a car while riding to school, how would we know the identity of the child? While this doesn't really address the complaint that the LAPD was writing $160 tickets to adults, all of whom carried ID, he raises a good point. 

But the bike license solution is hardly an effective solution to the "child identity" dilemma, especially since kids  borrow bikes, become separated from their bikes and sometimes ... gasp ... even walk to school which leaves us waiting for the LaBonge shoe license proposal. 

Councilman Zine stepped up to regale the audience of his glory days on the beat and of the times in which he was able to return stolen bikes to their owners, all because of the bike license program.   

Unfortunately much has changed since those days and the defunct bike licensing program is no match for the many techniques that today's cyclists employ to deal with bike theft. I was reminded of Rhode Bloch's exclamation at the Transpo committee. "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" 

Cyclists these days use a variety of techniques for "marking" bikes so that they can be identified and reclaimedby their owners. In fact while the LAPD is still relying on a cigar box filled with receipts and index cards, cyclists employ a variety of online resources to support safe cycling in the City of LA. Imagine if the City Council were to actually work with the cycling community! 

Cyclists can register their bike at stolenbikeregistry.com list their stolen bike on totalbike.com post or text incidents with motorists on BikeX post locations of crashes, hazards and thefts at Bikewise, email in Metro incidents to Metro@illuminateLA.com or hit-and-run incidents to HitAndRun@gmail.com 

All of this speaks volumes about the strained relationship between our City's leadership and the cycling community. 

As for the DIY movement in the cycling community, Bicycling Magazine recently highlighted the exploits of LA's Department of DIY and the recent short lived Fletcher Bridge bike lane improvements that were installed in the middle of the night and at no cost to the City of LA. 

The LADOT responded with uncharacteristic swiftness and the offending bike lane was painted black and the supporting signage was removed. Bicycling magazine quoted the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator as saying the DIY incident "lost goodwill." 

Rosendahl took some time during the bike license debate to address LA's relationship with the cycling community and he asked the same LADOT Bikeways Coordinator about the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that he has been championing since the horrendous Mandeville Canyon incident of last year that left two cyclists broken and bleeding, purportedly at the hands of a motorist who found their lane positioning offensive. 

The Bikeways Coordinator responded that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was still under review because there were a few items that gave them some concern and they were reviewing the document with the help of the City Attorney. This is the same document that opens by claiming "Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear." One can only wonder if it's the "travel safely" or the "free of fear" that gives the LADOT staff cause for concern. 

Rosendahl pressed on and went after the City's long overdue Bike Plan. When he asked the LADOT how many miles of BIKE PATHS there are in Los Angeles, the LADOT sidestepped the specific question and  instead responded "About 5% of the City's roadway network has a bikeways facility on it." 

(There are 6,500 miles of roadway in Los Angeles. There are 51 miles of BIKE PATH and there are 142 miles of BIKE LANE.) 

At the end of the day, the long, slow and cumbersome repeal of the City's Bike License law drove home the simple message that if the City of Los Angeles is going to become a bike-friendly city, it will be a Department of DIY project.  

“Cyclists across LA have until June 12 to review and offer suggestions to city planning officials on proposed new bike lanes that would traverse the city.” Complete LA Times report here .  

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

League of American Bicyclists Tarnishes the Bronze

Photo by Gary Kavanagh

The League of American Bicyclists has a long history of fighting for the rights of cyclists. Formerly know as the League of Wheelmen, they have been around since 1880.

In many ways not much has changed from the early days.

The League was there in the early days to counter antagonism against cyclists from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians. Now we find ourselves up against motorists, bus operators, and law enforcement officers.

The League was there in the early days leading 100K cyclists in a campaign for paved roads, an improvement that benefitted many and led to our national highway system.

Along the way there have been ups and downs and discontent within the League but through it all, they have maintained a position as the national voice of cyclists.

That's why it's especially hard to criticize but all the more important to point out when they fumble, especially when it sets local bike activists back in their efforts to make their communities "Bike Friendly."

First there was the League of Bicyclist's award to the City of Los Angeles of an honorable mention as a "Bike Friendly" city last year. This tarnished the League's credibility and set the concept of "Bike Friendly" awards back a notch. Apparently the award was based on intentions and the fact that the City of Los Angeles had embarked on a Bike Plan update journey. That's the Bike Plan that was due last year and is still under wraps.

Now there is the League of Bicyclist's award to the city of Santa Monica of a Bronze Status as a "Bike Friendly" city. The award is being given today.

Santa Monica is a great city with many wonderful attributes and their bike valet program is one of the best. BUT surely a city with a police department that has a special "cycling suppression" detail that regularly squishes group rides and writes tickets that exceed common sense would get disqualified from the process.

The League of American Bicyclists is a wonderful organization but it has completely destroyed the "Bike Friendly" program with it's completely disconnected and superficial awards to Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The greatest mistake in this process is that they didn't engage the cycling community in the process, they didn't require the award applicant to account for their relationship with the cycling community, they simply engaged in bureaucrat to bureaucrat award negotiation and I believe the cyclists who ride the streets of these communities deserve better.

Attached is an article from the Santa Monica Press Telegram that covers the LAB Bronze award for Santa Monica.

City recognized for its dealings with bicycles

By Kevin Herrera for the Santa Monica Daily Press

May 22, 2009
CITYWIDE — Boasting nearly 16 miles of bike lanes and a popular valet program catering to those who use pedal power, Santa Monica was recently recognized for being a bicycle friendly community by a national organization advocating on behalf of cyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists, which represents the interests of the nation's 57 million cyclists, awarded City Hall with a bronze level distinction for its "remarkable commitments to bicycling," placing an emphasis on bike lanes, the valet program and future plans to build bicycle parking facilities Downtown.

"We are trying to create a supportive environment for biking in Santa Monica and we feel we need to help people make different choices when planning a trip," said Beth Rolandson, a principal transportation planner for City Hall and an avid cyclist.

"It's a challenge," Rolandson added. "It's really about education for everyone, both bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as drivers, so we can all co-exist safely."

Santa Monica is the first city on the Westside to be honored with the award, and is joined by Long Beach, which represents the southern portion, among this year's honorees. The previous recipients from the county are Claremont and Santa Clarita.

The news came as a shock to some riders who have complaints about City Hall's failure to keep pedestrians off the beach bike path and aggressive police officers harassing those participating in monthly, organized rides such as Critical Mass.

"Santa Monica is a great place with the infrastructure in place and fun rides … but until we focus on equality and that becomes the foundation, we are never going to get that level playing field," said Stephen Box, co-founder of the Bike Writers Collective, which has created a "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" that has been adopted by the city of Los Angeles, but not Santa Monica.

"If you focus on equality, then you can design streets that are good for everybody," Box added. "It's the basic principal that our streets are public spaces and [cyclists] should be equal partners in that space."

Cities are recognized by the league for their role in actively supporting cycling for fun, fitness and transportation and are judged by their record in promoting bicycling in five key areas: education, engineering, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.

Nationally, 108 of the 274 communities that have applied have been honored, representing some 37 states, according to the league.

The bronze designation is one with real meaning since it is difficult to earn, and all applications are carefully evaluated by a team of local cyclists, national experts, and League of American Bicyclists staff, representatives form the league said.

Platinum, gold, silver, and bronze awards are given twice each year.<>

Yawn...another lame bike lane in Los Angeles...

Riding my bike north on Reseda Boulevard, I'm nestled into the doorzone comfort of a typical LA Bike Lane when, all of a sudden, no bike lane. Just the ass end of a White SUV!

For some strange reason the bike lane simply ends. There's no signage to indicate that the bike lane has ended but the right side stripe simply ends, the lane to the left moves to the right and there you have it...another entry in the Lamest Bike Lane Contest!



I find it hard to believe that the LADOT would pull such a trick on the cycling community. The SUV must be parked illegally. If only there were a Police Officer in the vicinity, I could ask for clarification.

It's then that I notice a police car cruising the Park. It entered on the North side and drove across the lawn...

past the pint-sized children chasing soccer balls...


past the families watching the children play...

past the duck pond and the little ducks and more little children.

What kind of Community Policing consists of driving through the park without even getting out and saying hey to the children or without saying quack to the ducks or without slowing down long enough to notice that people are laughing and shaking their heads at the drive-thru law enforcement?