Breakin' the law and proud of it!

One would think that those about to break the law would be discrete about it, but when law enforcement and municipal authorities get busy abusing rules and violating rights, some of them do it with bravado and confidence, announcing their actions with confidence.

The City of Los Angeles recently released a flyer and an accompanying email that informs the public "No bicyclists allowed within the construction zone along PCH" which violates the California Vehicle Code and the Caltrans standard for access and accommodation. It is incumbent on the City of LA to provide for all modes and taking one group off the street is not a solution, no matter how well-intentioned. It demonstrates that those in charge are either cavalier or uninformed. Either way, it's not only illegal, it's unsafe and the variable K-Rail traffic plan is a tragedy waiting to happen.

The City of Malibu takes a different approach to breaking the law, allowing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), which is responsible for PCH through the City of Malibu, to enforce laws that don't exist. In response to a complaint that cyclists were not riding single file (not required to, no such law) the LASD incorrectly advised the City Manager that riding side-by-side was illegal. In response to a complaint that cyclists weren't riding on the shoulder (not required to, no such law) the LASD incorrectly advised the City Manager that cyclists are required to use the shoulder when one exists. This novel approach to law enforcement has further exacerbated an already tense environment by adding confusion and misinformation to the mix.

The City of Santa Monica has a unique style for breaking the law, taking valid laws and then cranking them up to the point of absurdity. Santa Monica, as permitted by state law, cites cyclists for not having bike licenses. But then Santa Monica goes on to exceed their authority by requiring anyone riding through the city to obtain a permit (state law limits bike license requirements to residents) and then applies a penalty that exceeds the state mandated $10 maximum with a threat of six months in jail and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

The City of Thousand Oaks finds California Vehicle Code very confusing and gets highways and roadways mixed up, applying both inappropriate and fictional standards to cyclists who ride bikes "the wrong way" on sidewalks, explaining that cyclists must ride to the right of vehicular traffic traveling in the same direction. (sidewalks are non-directional) The penalty for this offense is $180.


The City of Los Altos Hills is one of the proudest offenders, they actually took paint to the street and wrote "No Bikes" in very large letters on El Monte Road, a popular cycling route. To their credit, Los Altos Hills quickly reversed their ways and removed all the offending paint, disappointing the cyclist who pointed out that simply removing the "NO" would leave a nice affirmative on the streets.

The City of Pasadena chose the public hearing process as the venue of choice for their assault on the law, scheduling not one but two readings of their proposed restriction on cyclists, all as a result of congestion and conflict at the Rose Bowl. Invoking the non-existent rights of a municipality to restrict cyclists from riding side-by-side, the City Council twice weathered the storm of public outrage that ran into the late night hours before conceding defeat.

The City of Burbank adds a stern touch to the Chandler Bikeway with their "Walk Bike" signage at crossings, enforcing a non-existent law with white rectangular regulatory authority. While their stated intention is "safety" for the cyclists, perhaps it would be safer for all concerned if the motorists were instructed to exit their vehicles and push them through the intersection. Meanwhile, the conflict on the Chandler Bikeway can be found...on the path.

The City of Los Angeles took note of Burbank's misuse of regulatory signage and ordered yellow advisory "Walk Bike in Crosswalk" signage that they posted on Jefferson Avenue outside USC, apparently in an effort to support the estimated 15,000 cyclists who ride to school. While good advice is always appreciated, this advice is hardly good and it comes with the threat of a $250 ticket for violating a warning! The LADOT installed the signs and the LAPD supported the effort by working with USC's Department of Public Safety to enforce the mythological law. This dubious partnership has resulted in an empowered DPS which now operates with an inflated perception of their legal authority, to the dismay of those who know the law.

The City of Los Angeles is no stranger to the controversy over cyclists riding in the crosswalk. Last year a cyclist rode across the street in a crosswalk in a residential community, only to be struck by a right turning DWP truck and killed. The LAPD determined that the cyclist was the "primary cause" of the incident because "she was riding a bike in a crosswalk in violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road." the LAPD PIO went on to explain that "Cyclists must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic." The City Attorney's office continues to support this position, even when contradicted by CVC 21650. Meanwhile, the City of LA and the Metro continue to build bike paths such as the Orange Line that take cyclists across intersections in crosswalks.

The City of Los Angeles is in good company when it comes to misunderstanding crosswalks. Conor Lynch was recently killed while crossing the street midblock. The LAPD was quoted by the LA Times in pointing out that Conor was not crossing the street in a crosswalk. This may have been true, but it reflects a misconception that midblock crossings are "jaywalking" violations but they're not. Streets are for crossing unless between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signal devices or law enforcement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEPmomM1YvQ

The City of Long Beach went beyond inappropriate flyers and signage, selecting YouTube as the appropriate venue for a demonstration of their creative law enforcement strategies. Some might cringe when hearing the LBPD Officer state "You know what, because you’re argumentative, I’m gonna give you another ticket. And then you can fight two tickets." A punitive ticket, clearly explained by the offending law enforcement officer!

The LBPD officer sets the tone for the interaction by informing the cyclist "You were impeding my traffic." In doing so he clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of CVC 21656 "On a two-lane highway...a slow-moving vehicle...behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway..."

The LBPD officer goes on to misquote the law, telling the cyclist that the California Vehicle Code says "‘bicyclists must ride to the right side of the road." It doesn't. CVC 21654 says "...any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb... "Or" is a mighty big word.

Cyclists in the LA Area are acutely aware that the legal landscape is quite uneven. Different agencies, authorities, and departments vary greatly in their interpretation of the law and their enforcement strategies. LA County is home to 88 municipalities and the number of different law enforcement authorities is quite large. Within the City of Los Angeles, a cyclist may encounter officers from departments that include CHP Troopers, State Park Rangers, County Sheriffs, Harbor Police Airport Police, School Police, Library Police, General Services Police, City Park Rangers, and of course, the Los Angeles Police Department. Collectively, they enforce the law. Individually, they operate according to their own priorities and interpretations.

This is why the cyclists of LA need the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that starts the conversation affirmatively, with a foundation of rights that are already codified in the constitution, the CVC, departmental directives, policies, and municipal codes.

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!

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

CityWatch, Mar 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be fair, the LA Times is hardly alone.

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

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

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



There are three problems here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - LADOT Puts the Pedal to the Metal on Speed Limits Increases

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a financial crisis of epic proportions and the Departments within the city struggle with the triage that results from the impending induced exodus of approximately 3000 employees, the Department of Transportation gallantly marches forward, continuing the good work of raising speed limits and removing crosswalks, all in an effort to make our streets safer and more effective for motorists. It's been a while since the last flurry of speed limit increases made their way through the City Hall meat grinder that regularly sees speed limit increase proposals head from the Department of Transportation to the LAPD to the local Councilmembers to the City Attorney to the Transportation Commission to the Transportation Committee and then to the City Council where the rubber stamping concludes with an ordinance proposal that raises the speed limit on a local street, all in an effort to maintain the right to use radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement on the streets of Los Angeles.

On Wednesday the City Council's Transportation Committee will consider speed limit increase proposals on Riverside Drive (up to 40 mph) and on Chandler Boulevard (up to 45 mph.)

These speed limit increase proposals are for streets that fall partially in Council District 2, newly minted City Councilman Paul Krekorian's district. Krekorian is the author of AB766, the Safe Streets bill that he took to the State Assembly last year when he served as Assemblyman for the 43rd District and in his role as the Assistant Majority Floor Leader for the State Assembly. Krekorian's Safe Streets bill saw the support of both Glendale and Burbank and also enjoyed the support of local community members, neighborhood councils and the cycling community.

Essentially, Krekorian argued that local communities should have more authority over the establishment of speed limits.

The City of Los Angeles gave quiet support to the Safe Streets Bill but when it came up in the State Assembly's Transportation Committee, the City of LA's LADOT representative in the room sat silent, as did the City of LA's legislative representative.

Their silence spoke volumes and served as a powerful contradiction to the LA City Council resolution passed in support of AB766.

As for the upcoming speed limit increase proposals, one of them is for a street that runs alongside the bike lanes that are part of the beginning of the Orange Line, a cycling commuter route from the Red Line station in NoHo that runs across the valley.

One would think that a major transit hub would be a great place to encourage alternative modes of transportation. But such is not the case.

The streets get wider, the speeds get faster, the environment gets more hospitable for motor vehicles and downright hostile for anybody who dares to walk, ride a bike or take mass transit.

As for the Transportation Committee, Chairman Bill Rosendahl has an opportunity to demonstrate that his stated commitment to making Los Angeles a more walkable and bikeable city is a real commitment that comes with action, not just talk.

It'll also be interesting to see what influence Councilman Paul Koretz of CD5 will have over the process, especially in light of his stated support for a robust Bike Plan that lays down a real vision for a bikeable city.

Will Koretz suggest that the Bike Plan be consulted and used as a guide for evaluating speed limits and street designations?

Inevitably, when the subject of speed limit increases come up, somebody launches into a long discussion of California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) and the need to raise speed limits in order to justify enforcement of the speed limit by radar.

This tired monologue concludes with the explanation "Our hands are tied, we've got to raise the speed limits if we want to enforce the speed limit!"

I don't know when the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world rolled over and became so helpless but I'm not buying it. I believe that there are many things Los Angeles could be doing to control speeding motorists and to making our streets safer for everybody.

It's at this point in the repetitious debate over speed limits that I'm challenged to offer other solutions. I typically start by saying "Bulb-outs, speed tables and road diets!" and the resulting confused look on the faces of those I'm talking with tells me that the transportation experts who are in charge of our streets have one tool in the toolbox and it is 50 years old.

Our City is in the middle of a budget crisis. Why don't we put this energy into pursuing funding sources that would allow us to improve the quality of life on our streets, that would allow us to put people to work, that would allow us to work together to make Los Angeles a walkable, rideable, livable city that works for everybody. It's time to put down the old paradigm and to work together to make people a priority.

On Wednesday, tune in to City Phone at 2:00 pm (213-621-2489) and listen along to see if Transportation Chair Bill Rosendahl will take the lead in rejecting the proposed speed limits and if Councilman Paul Koretz will support him.

Councilman Richard Alarcon has already voiced his support for Krekorian's Safe Streets bill so it will be interesting to see if that translates into a "no" vote on the proposed speed limit increase.

Maybe Krekorian will show up to argue for Safe Streets.

Who knows, the LAPD might even show up to explain how public safety is one of their basic commitments and how increasing speed limits doesn't increase safety or save lives.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

LAPD - "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metro vs. Cyclists

This past Monday, Enci and I were riding south on Vermont, a couple of hundred yards north of Prospect.

We were riding southbound on Vermont in lane #2 alongside parked cars at approximately 3:25 pm in light traffic. I was in the lead, Enci was in second position and the bus was in third. I heard Enci scream, I looked back and saw a bus behind me but not Enci. I pulled over and the bus passed me, pulling to the curb just yards further on. Then I saw my wife riding down Vermont.

Bus Operator #25119 had just "asserted" himself into the #2 lane at the expense of my wife's position and in doing so, forced my wife to choose between the side of the bus, the parked cars or simply braking to avoid getting hit by the bus as it came from behind alongside her and then simply merged right toward her.

Tough choices!

This incident drew a Metro Supervisor, two Sheriff's Deputies, an LASD Supervisor, LAPD officers from both Hollywood (4) and NorthEast (2) and an LAPD Supervisor. Quite a significant show of force!

The Bus Operator was long gone when the first LAPD officers responded to my call. As we stood on Hollywood Blvd. talking to the officers, Operator #25119 came back on his return route, graciously slowing down and waving, apparently enjoying the spectacle. Imagine his shock when Officer Lee WALKED off in pursuit and pulled the bus over.

Through it all, we experienced a cloud of jurisdictional confusion over who takes the report and law enforcement confusion over whether or not it's a crime to run a cyclist off the road.

I went to the Metro Board on Thursday to address 1) this incident 2) the issue of training and oversight of bus operators on safe interaction with cyclists on the road 3) the jurisdictional confusion 4) feedback opportunities for the metro on weekends and holidays.

It was a crazy session, public comment was scheduled for the end of the meeting and then moved to the beginning. It was a full house with overflow in the cafeteria. They moved public comment from the end of the meeting to the beginning and all of a sudden I heard them call my name. I was prepared for a two minute speech but they cut us down to 60 seconds and so I gave it my best.

I went over my time and kept going, committed to hitting the 4 points and I thought County Supervisor Knabe was trying to cut me off, then I realized he was calling over Jack Gabig, the Division Manager, who motioned for me to follow him out a side door. For a moment I flashed on that scene from Casino and imagined a bunch of Metro Operators waiting "backstage" but with RoadBlock and Courage flanking me, I figured I was in a good position.

Mr. Gabig spent half an hour taking my complaint and I'd like to think we're on our way to starting a relationship between cyclists and bus operators, one that puts our safety before their schedule or convenience.

Attached is an email I sent as a recap of that meeting.

Mr. Gabig,

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me at the Metro Board Meeting and for discussing the details of my complaint.

I wanted to recap the specific elements so that you can address them or direct me to the appropriate person.

1) Metro vs. Cyclist incident from this past Monday. My wife was riding her bike south on Vermont, in contol of the #2 lane, when she was run off the road by Operator #25119.

From our first encounter with a Metro supervisor to those we speak with along the journey, it is made clear that this is a personnel issue and that we have no right of access to the Metro file or process.

I contend that Metro passengers and those on the streets and sidewalks also have rights and that the Metro can surely balance the personnel limitations with appropriate resolution and communication of this complaint.

Further to the potential claim that this is a personnel issue, I would contend that this is, first and foremost, a criminal complaint.

2) Metro Training and Oversight: This incident, along with similar incidents, indicates a need to address the training and oversight of the Metro's Operators. From honking unnecessarily to passing unsafely, CVC violations must not be tolerated, especially when they endanger the lives of cyclists.

The Metro's manual calls for 3 to 4 and a half feet of passing room for cyclists but some operators still "assert" themselves and squeeze cyclists.

The Metro's manual refers to "cyclists and other road hazards" indicating a culture of primacy that results in unsafe and illegal behavior.

3) Jurisdictional confusion must be resolved: Once again, we experienced jurisdictional confusion as my call to LAPD resulted in 1 Metro Supervisor, 2 Sheriffs, 1 LASD Supervisor, 2 NE LAPD Officers, 1 NE LAPD Supervisor, 4 Hollywood LAPD Officers.

One shouldn't have to watch law enforcement officers debate jurisdiction in order to report a crime. One shouldn't have to know the system in order to get the full support of the system.

If there is a memorandum of understanding between the LASD and the LAPD with regards to jurisdiction on the streets, the rail lines, the busway and the bike paths, please consider this a formal request for that MOU.

4) Metro Customer Service is cumbersome and ill-equipped to handle simple complaints, as evidenced by the deluge of tweets, messages, emails, texts and verbal stories I received over the last 3 days that conclude with "I tried to contact the Metro but I gave up!"

One would think that from a simple loss prevention position, the Metro would want a customer service system that yields good accurate data on safety and performance.

And yet...the current system doesn't allow someone to call in during the evening, on weekends and holidays. There's not even an answering machine in place!

Most important is the need for significant improvement in acknowledging complaints and reinforcing the process by communicating resolution, even if in general terms. But there must be some confirmation that the process works.

I thank you for your help in addressing this specific situation and the larger opportunity of the relationship between the Metro and cyclists.

As I mentioned today, cyclists and bus operators move at the same speed across town and share the curb lane so it's imperative that we develop a relationship based on equality and respect.

I look forward to working with you.

CityWatchLA - Cyclists and Other Road Hazards

CityWatch, Apr 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 27

This past Sunday, the operator of a large, articulating Metro Local bus pulled up behind a cyclist riding in the Sunset Boulevard bike lane, honked his horn twice, and then accelerated, veering to the right into the approaching bus stop, and forcing the cyclist to the curb. The cyclist was infuriated and confronted the bus operator who responded by explaining to the cyclist and then again to his passengers that the solid line indicates a bike lane but that the dashed line on the approach to the corner indicates a “bus zone” and that cyclists must stop and give way to buses.

Based on this incident, it appears that there is a disconnect between the California Vehicle Code (CVC) that governs all other road users and the Metro’s policies and practices for using the same roads.

CVC 27001(a) specifies "The driver of a motor vehicle, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, shall give audible warning with his horn." The Metro, on the other hand, instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”

Passing a cyclist is no cause to honk, in fact it distracts the cyclist at the worst possible moment, in this case as the operator is about to illegally and unsafely force the cyclist from the road.

Further, characterizing cyclists as “road hazards” only serves to reinforce the “might is right” bias that is so dangerous on our streets.

CVC 21750 specifies that “the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle…”

When a motorist pulls in front of a cyclist, especially in a long articulating bus that comes to rest at an angle with the back end still in the bike lane, the cyclist is forced to suddenly stop and choose the curb, the back of the bus or the traffic lane and none of them are good choices. Getting cut off by a right-turning vehicle is one of the most dangerous of scenarios for a cyclist and is often referred to as the “right-hook.”

As for this incident, a complaint was logged and an email was sent to Metro Customer Service, Metro Management and the Metro Board’s Chair, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

To date, there has been no response.

A similar incident occurred a couple of weeks ago when Will Campbell, an intrepid bike commuter and technophile, was riding in the bike lane on Venice Boulevard, only to end up curbed by the operator of a bus on the 333 line. Campbell always travels with two cameras, one of them mounted on his handlebars, and he posted a video of the incident on his blog.

What a difference a video makes.

In Campbell’s case, an email was sent from customerrelations@metro.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it indicating that “This matter will be thoroughly investigated and the appropriate corrective measures taken.”

Of course, if it’s the Metro’s policies and training that are at odds with safe cycling, there’s nothing to investigate and there are no corrective measures to take.

At the end of the day, cyclists and bus operators should be able to share the road effectively and safely. Both average the same cross-town speeds (14.5 mph) both spend most of their travel time in the curb lane and it’s no challenge to simply avoid each other, rather than squeezing and jockeying for position.

Cyclists who complement their ride with the Metro can navigate the city with speed that is competitive to other modes. Whether it’s jumping on the Orange Line to get across the Valley or riding the Red Line to short-cut the Cahuenga Pass, sometimes the Metro can make all the difference.

Likewise, Metro passengers with bikes are able to travel farther and quicker, closing service gaps and riding to routes with shorter headways.

These are challenging times at the Metro. A new CEO, Art Leahy, is taking the helm and the Board Chairman, Antonio Villaraigosa, has just named LA City Councilman Jose Huizar and Department of Transportation GM Rita Robinson as Board Directors.

While all eyes are focused on the Metro’s billion dollar funding issues and on long term planning, it’s important to remember that our streets are filled with pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit passengers and motorists, and that they are humans and that they are vulnerable and that they need to get home safely.

Our streets are the new “public space” and our ability to share that space is one of our greatest opportunities for revitalizing and redefining our communities. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch.)