LA’s City Hall: The Great Pabulum and Placebo Dispenser

CityWatch, Feb 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 14

RETHINKING LA - LA’s leadership has a knack for dispensing with the restless residents who periodically take up pitchforks and torches, storming City Hall with demands for accountability in the delivery of city services.

The first step is to feign interest in the opinions of the public in the hopes that the noise will stop.
“Please, take my survey and tell me what you think!” says the Mayor as he engages in the annual charade of concern that precedes the charter mandated submission of the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for the City of LA.

”Please, fill out a comment card and sit for a few hours, then we will ignore you while you fumble through your two minutes of commentary!” say the members of various committees, commissions and advisory boards as they tolerate the public on their way to preordained conclusions and actions.

The City of LA is acutely sensitive to the legal minimum standard for public commentary as city leadership engages in the business of the people because it spends the bulk of its time focused on doing only what is required, not what would be effective or meaningful.

From Brown Act violations at the entrance of City Hall to First Amendment violations in Council Chambers, it is clear that City Hall tolerates public comment because it has to, not because it reflects the will and wishes of the people.

The second step is to feign interest in a movement in the hopes that the crowd will go away.

“Please, stay as long as you need to!” said City Council President Eric Garcetti to the Occupy LA protesters as Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood by his side.

Those who mistakenly assumed that the words of the City Council President had value were quickly disappointed when the Mayor ordered the LAPD to engage in a military style action that removed the protesters.

The cement barrier that currently surrounds City Hall is a glaring reminder that the verbal assurances of the City Council President aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The third step is to nod somberly and to demand reports from city departments in the hope that the public will accept this as a victory.

The City Attorney’s ACE program keeps reappearing in City Council Committees, resembling that gopher game at the arcade where participants bang on the gopher’s head with a mallet as it pops up in different locations.

The ACE program has popped up all over town but the public has been able to bang on its head with the mallet of common sense, sending it back to the City Attorney’s office for more reports and adjustments and tweaks.

Eventually the public will swing and miss and the ACE program will fly through to City Council approval, just another rigged arcade game that promises much but delivers little.

Most city departments have a staff member who monitors City Hall and generates reports as ordered, knowing that this is all it takes to keep the elected officials at bay. Most of the reports never see the light of day, some get debated, and a few even turn into motions, which then get ignored.

The fourth step is to call for a moratorium while the subject is studied and debated and terms of office run out.

From medical marijuana to fast food to code harassment, LA is the Capital of Moratoriums, demonstrating that there is nothing as attractive as the opportunity to kick an issue down the road and to leave it for the next round of elected officials.

Those who work in the city departments that delivery city services are on to this game and they yawn as they ignore the moratoriums with complete confidence that there is no penalty or punishment. After all, three decades of civil service trumps the temporary leadership at City Hall.

Garcetti’s most recent promise of a moratorium on over height fence code enforcement in Hollywood was rejected by the upper management of Building and Safety, not with an official response, not with a reasoned discussion or a public hearing, but with the most stinging blow of all options, it was simply ignored.

This demonstrates the charade of City Hall, elected officials who must dance carefully to avoid allowing the public to discover that they are impotent, Emperors with no clothing, photo-op captains at the helm of a ship with no rudder.

The fifth step is to issue a resolution in support of a position, one that is suitable for framing, hoping that this will drive the pesky members of the public to Aaron Brothers where they can revel in the victory while the City of LA engages in business as usual.

Cyclists were empowered when the City Council endorsed the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights, issuing a resolution that called on City Planning and Transportation to embrace it as an element of the City’s Bike Plan.

Staffers simply refused, arguing that it was redundant and unnecessary and not within the City of LA’s purview. The penalty for noncompliance? There is none.

The final step is to simply run for a different office with a platform of reform, one that attacks the performance of the prior office-holders as if they aren’t the same gang of misfits.

City Controller Wendy Greuel is now auditing the same departments that she dealt with when she served as a City Councilwoman for District #2. Nothing has changed other than her perspective and degree of accountability.

As Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, she had years to engage in oversight of the Department of Transportation yet it didn’t happen. Now, she’s racing to beat the feds in uncovering the indiscretions that took place on her watch.

Councilman Dennis Zine is busy campaigning for City Controller, a position that will allow him to ask the hard questions that he should be asking now in his position as Chair of the Audits and Governmental Efficiency Committee. Again, he is currently responsible for oversight of departments that are currently under federal investigation. How can he run on this record of failure?

Councilman Garcetti is running for Mayor on a platform of reform but how does he propose to change a city family that is currently ignoring his requests, motions, actions, and directives?

The people of LA have the right to demand a City that works, one that delivers city services as if it is the primary purpose of the City. It is incumbent on the current roster of elected officials to take charge of this city and to offer results, not more promises and distractions.

The veneer is wearing thin and it is becoming obvious to the public that City Hall is busy massaging the status quo by delivering memorandums-of-understanding and audits and resolutions, none of which mean anything other than to pay homage to the blue beads of past deceptions.

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

Cyclists' Bill of Rights - Good News and Bad News

Friday, November the 5th, is a classic "Good News, Bad News" for cyclists.

It's Good News for cyclists who want the City Council to issue a resolution in support of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights along with a resolution establishing a Complete Streets policy for transportation projects.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights was written by the Bike Writers Collective and it has gone around the world, sometimes imitated and often endorsed! It was featured in the Wall Street Journal and the London Telegraph, it was endorsed by LA's City Council, it was modified and adopted by LA's Equestrian Advisory Committee, LA's Horse Council, a local Harley Owners' Group, cyclists in Florida, and by a group of activists in the Philipines.

LA's Taxi Cab Riders have a Bill of Rights, Taxpayers have a Bill of Rights, Patients have a Bill of Rights, the Police have a Bill of Rights, Transit riders have a Bill of Rights, and cyclists are now one step closer to getting the City Council to issue a resolution in support of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights.

The Complete Streets policy initiative is a national, state, and local campaign that brings transportation planners and engineers together in the design, consruction and operation of streets that meet the needs of all users, including cyclists, pedestrians, transit passengers and motorists. The Complete Streets concept has a positive impact on the local economy, on public safety, and on the livability of local streets.

At the federal level, advocates are encouraged that funding and infrastructure discussions are now embracing the Complete Streets philosophy. At the state level, legislation is slowly moving into place that codifies the Complete Streets standard. But at the local level, Mayors and City Councils are capitalizing on the revitalizing power of Complete Streets policies, moving with great agility and agility to bring the vision to local streets.

November 5, 2010 is a Great Day for cyclists because the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and Complete Streets are both on the City Council agenda for endorsement by Resolution.

But it's Bad News for LA's cyclists because it's the City Council in Baltimore, not City Council in Los Angeles, that is holding up the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and Complete Streets as a commitment to supporting cycling as a transportation solution on city streets.

In Los Angeles, we have a City Council directive from 2008 that called on City Planning, the LADOT, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee to consult with the LAPD and the City Attorney on the inclusion of the CBR principles “into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices.” That didn’t happen but it must.

In Los Angeles, we have a Bicycle Plan working its way through the Planning Commission and City Council, acknowledging the January 1, 2001 implementation of the California Complete Streets Act but arguing that Los Angeles is not legally required to consider the needs of all modes. LA must account for the needs of all roadway users, not look for loopholes.

It's Good News for cyclists because the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and Complete Streets are both gaining traction. It's Bad News for cyclists in Los Angeles because City Hall is looking for the legal minimum on the delivery of city services and on the support of cyclists on the streets of LA.

City Planning Embellishes Reality

LA's Department of City Planning is filled with some of the most creative people in town, folks who regularly turn out innovative and imaginative work that entertains, inspires, and stirs passion.

Unfortunately, the work falls under the category of "fiction" because of its limited connection to reality. I offer as an example the Planning Department's staff report on the City of LA's proposed Bike Plan.

City Planning staff reports are like movie trailers, they offer a quick preview of the upcoming proposal so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation in advance of the actual "screening." Seasoned film audiences know that there are three types of trailers;

Teasers that offer a glimpse of what can be expected.

Spoilers that offer up the entire plot and leave nothing to be discovered.

Impostors that offer up an entertaining journey that bears no resemblance to the actual film.

City Planning's Bike Plan staff report falls into the Impostor category, offering the Planning Commission an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality.

1663 miles of Bikeways - the cameo: Planning Staff promise 1663 miles of Bikeways, a claim that includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes. Bike Paths are very expensive off-road facilities that cost more per mile than what the Bureau of Street Services spends to resurface a mile of our streets. Bike Routes are the streets that get a little green sign that says "Bike Route" indicating that the Bikeway mileage has been pumped up. Bike Lanes get a commitment of 56 miles and an additional "speculative" 511 miles which indicates they will end up on the editor's floor. This Bike Plan relies on a cameo appearance by recognizable talent, and then surrounds it with 1663 miles of language that lacks substance and commitment.

Bicycle Boulevards - the knock-off: Planning Staff acknowledges that the public clamors for "innovative bicycle treatments" including Bicycle Boulevards. They are low-density local routes that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Rather than actually include Bicycle Boulevards in the proposed Bike Plan, City Planning offers up "Bike Friendly Streets" as a knock-off substitute, the equivalent of featuring "the other, other Baldwin brother" in Slap Shot IV.

Cyclists' Bill of Rights - the inspiration: Planning Staff acknowledge that the City Council directed the LADOT, Planning, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the City Attorney and the LAPD to report back on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. This City Council directive was ignored. Instead Planning Staff dismisses some principles as redundant while claiming that others are included. This is true in the same sense that the works of Shakespeare are also in the Bike Plan, after all he used the same alphabet and if properly rearranged, one could find A Comedy of Errors.

Backbone Bikeway Network - the theme: Planning Staff acknowledge the work of the LA Bike Working Group in creating the Backbone Bikeway Network which is positioned as a commitment to connectivity. Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.

Complete Streets Act - the surprise ending: Planning Staff acknowledge the powerful cultural shift that has resulted in innovative multi-modal transportation funding and policy. This includes the Complete Streets Act which supports the rights of all those who use the streets, from pedestrians to cyclists to mass transit passengers to motorists. It's only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?

The Department of City Planning's Bike Plan Staffing Report is a good read. It's interesting, it's informative, and it's a complete work of fiction.

In the grand scheme of things, LA's proposed Bike Plan is the equivalent of bad script turned into a bad film, supported by a great trailer that merely needs to get an opening night audience in order to recoup its investment. Then, it goes straight into the bargain bin at the 99¢ Store.

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.

CityWatchLA - Mayor Hits Ground, Misses Opportunity

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bike crash has generated press around the country, prompting well wishes from around the globe, but somehow failing to elicit the most basic of the appropriate post-crash behavior from the highest ranking member of LA's cycling community.

The New York Times recounts the details of the Mayor's recent bike ride that ended quickly when a taxi operator pulled out in front of him and caused him to fall, resulting in a broken elbow that required surgery. It also references the Mayor's Copenhagen revelation of last year when he declared "In the area of bicycling I’ve got to do a better job and the city’s got to do a better job" and his new Huffington Post declaration “It’s time to recognize that bicycles also belong on L.A.’s streets.”

Grist refers to the incident as "a prime teachable moment to deflate the myth that collisions between military-sized vehicles and cyclists are no big deal. Instead, he reinforced the notion that public streets are for autos -- and anyone else enters at their own risk."

The Mayor has an opportunity to build on his "Biking in Los Angeles should be a natural" declaration, but it requires action, not just talk and YouTube video thanking the public for their concern. While promises of a Bike Summit play nicely to the cyclists of LA, unless the attendees are the General Managers of the many city departments who have a piece of the streets, it will simply be another opportunity to commiserate over the mean streets of LA as the audience bestows "One of us!" street cred on the Mayor.

I propose that the Mayor's real opportunity is to use the specifics of his bicycle crash on Venice Blvd. as an opportunity to improve the streets of LA for everybody and to do it by engaging in some simple and yet effective solutions.

1) Collect the data. Immediately following an incident on the streets of LA, go to LABikeMap.org and enter the data. (collision, near-miss, road conditions, harassment, etc.) No change will take place without good data and while the City of LA deliberates with Google over cloud computing, Bikeside has simply created a crowd sourcing process that allows the public to collect the data that drives the funding for improving the streets of LA for everybody.

2) Endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The right to travel safely and free of fear is supported by basic law, municipal code, and departmental policy. All that's missing is for the Mayor of Los Angeles to endorse it, communicating to the cycling community that he supports them in word and in action.

3) Implement the Backbone Bikeway Network. Now is the time for the Mayor to commit to connectivity, bringing the full City Family (LAPD, BOSS, Public Works, Planning, DWP, RAP...) together to support the implementation of the Backbone Network, supporting connectivity with Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation and Human Infrastructure that goes beyond simple paint on the street. The Mayor has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by bringing inter-agency leadership (Caltrans, CHP, Metro, LASD, LAUSD, CRA, SCAG...) together to make the Backbone Network an integral element of the Mayor's 30-10 plan.

4) Prioritize Human Infrastructure. Now is the time for the Mayor to set a good example by taking "Confident City Cycling Course" taught by Sustainable Streets. This is also the time to have the City Family participate in bicycle awareness training on the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. At Chief Beck's direction, the LAPD developed an online program that sets a standard for effective communication and education. Let's use it!

5) Supervise the Professionals. LA's Department of Transportation licenses and regulates more than 2300 taxi cab operators and if pulling out in front of a cyclist and causing significant bodily injury doesn't warrant some response or trigger some call for education, what does? The motorist who pulled out into traffic and caused the Mayor to hit the ground must be held accountable for his actions, regardless of intent which is rarely an issue. Careless, inattentive, and distracted driving are the more common causes of injury but, regardless, if a Taxi Cab Operator fails to drive safely, he must be held accountable.

6) Empathize with the Public. As the City Council considers enhanced collection strategies for LAFD Ambulance services, it is imperative that the Mayor acknowledge the fact that the average Angeleno would not get emergency surgery on a weekend for an injury suffered on the streets of Los Angeles. If the Taxi Cab Operator caused the Mayor's injury, did the Taxi Cab Operator's auto insurance cover the bills? Surely the Mayor's health insurance, paid for by the public, is not covering an injury caused by a professional motorist licensed and regulated by the City of Los Angeles! The Mayor must clarify legal and financial responsibility, not simply brush it off.

These simple steps don't require scheduling a Bike Summit or gathering cyclists together to hear how tough it is on the streets of Los Angeles. They simply require the Mayor to take care of a few details and in doing so, he will get to proclaim "Los Angeles, the City with a Backbone!"

Bikeside SPEAKS - Highlight of Bike Week

BikesideSPEAKS drew a trackstanding-room-only crowd to the Westside's BikeRoWave for a lightning round of 7 bike activists, speaking for 7 minutes each, on 7 topics relevant to the cycling community. At 5pm, the announced starting time for BikesideSPEAKS, the BikeRoWave looked suspiciously like a bike co-op, packed with bike stands, bikes, bike parts, tools, and cyclists engaged in bike repairs. Then pizza arrived, the crowd swarmed, and BikeRoWave was transformed into a theatre!

Steve Mattson, GM of BikeRoWave, warmed up the crowd with a bit of BRW history and a commitment to complement the BRW's wrenching schedule with more community events such as BikesideSPEAKS!



Mihai Peteu demonstrated LABikeMap, a crowd sourced community map that provides cyclists with the opportunity to log on and self-report collisions, incidents, road hazards, and hit-and-runs. LABikeMap is already loaded with 10 years of cyclists' collision data and provides a vivid visual of the LA region and incident clusters that deserve more law enforcement focus. Take a look at the map and remember that every small red dot is where a human being on a bike was taken out by a motor vehicle. There is entirely too much red on LA's map.

Ron Durgin, President of Sustainable Streets and a League of American Bicyclists Urban Cycling instructor, gave an overview of a campaign to engage and educate cyclists and non-cyclists on the fine art of lifestyle cycling. Too often, cycling is relegated to the side as a "recreational endeavor" rather that a legitimate transportation solution. Key to positioning cyclists as an effective mode share is good planning and education and Sustainable Streets is targeting planners and political decision makers, committed to getting them on bikes and into the urban traffic mix so they can effectively plan for cyclists and support cycling.

Enci introduced the LA Greensters, LA's only all-pedal-powered transportation team, created as part of her commitment to sustainable film production and taking on a life of its own. Enci's original objective was simply to make a movie. She wrote the script and set out to direct her first film, not knowing that her commitment to shoot sustainably would challenge the basic Hollywood tradition. From banning plastic and styrofoam to challenging Hollywood's car-centric bias, Enci's simple call for help from the cycling community led to the formation of the LA Greensters who not only provided all transpo needs for her film, but went on to demonstrate the effectiveness of cargo bikes and Xtracycles in everyday life.

Sara Bond gave a recap of the topic that has had the cycling community up in arms for quite some time, hit-and-run incidents that leave cyclists lying in the street, broken and bleeding, while the motorists flee the scene to avoid responsibility. Sara introduced Louis "Bird Man" Bianco who was riding home on his bike when a motorist left-crossed him, causing him to go head first through the window of the car. His face was jerked free as the motorist swerved forward and into a gas station before u-turning and fleeing, leaving Louis in the middle of the intersection. Louis gave a moving account of his long journey to recovery and the fact that he still experiences fear but that he is committed to overcoming it.

Alex Thompson, the heart and soul of Bikeside, was joined by Glenn Bailey, the President of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and they got political with their guests Marcy Winograd and Bill Rosendahl. Alex introduced Marcy, the Bikeside endorsed candidate for Congress who met with the Bikeside crew last month and endorsed the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Glenn introduced Bill, the Chair of the Transportation Committee who long ago responded to the Mandeville Canyon incident by standing with LAPD proclaiming that "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights."



I responded to the call by offering a brief introduction to the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, pointing out that they weren't written or conceived or created, they simply exist and they belong to the cyclists who claim them. Rights aren't given and the cycling community is going to have to step up as a constituent group if they expect to experience the most basic of human rights, the Freedom to Move. Our political leadership exists for one reason and that is to remove any obstacles to our ability to enjoy our freedom.



Jeremy Grant brought it home with an introduction to the Backbone Bikeway Network, laying it down as a Vision for Connectivity that is based on getting cyclists to destinations, real destinations that everybody else enjoys. The Backbone Bikeway Network is consistent with other dreams that great leaders have laid down as commitments and over and over again, visions that started with no plan, no funding, no support, all became a reality because a small group of people believed and took on the challenge of changing the world. That was the challenge that Jeremy gave to the cyclists, planners, wrenchers and politicians at the BikeRoWave. Let's work together to make Los Angeles the City with a Backbone!

BikesideSPEAKS wrapped, some rode off to Crank Mob, some stayed for a screening of Quicksilver, and Bike Week '10 came to an end. How was your week?

p.s. If you'd like to hear more:

On 5/27 - Dr. Alex Thompson will be presenting the LABikeMap this Thursday at the Caltrans7 Bicycle Advisory Committee. Enci will also be presenting the LA Greensters.    http://twtvite.com/Caltrans7BAC

On 6/1 - Jeremy Grant will be presenting the Backbone Bikeway Network at the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee. The BAC consists of 4 Mayoral appointees, 15 Council appointees.  http://twtvite.com/LABAC6

"Hit & Run" vs "Fleeing the Scene"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That needs to change.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights holds that:

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

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

LA City Council - "Failure to Deliver"

Los Angeles is a City that loves to order departmental surveys, concept reports, project studies, recommendations and proposals. What Los Angeles doesn't do well is deliver.

It's been two and a half years since the LA City council, over the objections of the LADOT, acted decisively and made it illegal to park in a Bike Lane in Los Angeles. Unfortunately the LADOT and the LAPD are still ill-equipped to enforce the ban and the ordinance remains irrelevant.

It's been a little over three years since the City Council approved the contract with Illium and Associates for Bike Maps which we argued would be redundant since the Metro does county-wide maps that are of better detail and quality than the city maps. The City Council moved forward and approved the $400,000 contract but that was the last movement to be made. Three years later, is Ilium developing those maps? Is Alta Planning also developing Bike Maps as part of the Bike Plan process?

Last year CM's Huizar and Perry said "I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the General Services Department, be requested to develop a mass parking policy and designate an efficient place and manner to lock up large number of bicycles for individuals who come to City Hall as a part of a group." Maybe it was just a joke and we fell for it. Ha, ha! Seriously, how hard is it to lock up bikes at City Hall? Too tough for the LADOT to figure out. They study, we wait.

It's been over 18 months since CM's Garcetti and Reyes got all interested in Sharrows and said "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings," also known as "sharrows," pilot program. So far, nothing except that the plan to engage in a study is almost underway. Meanwhile, Long Beach has put in colored Sharrows and the Department of DIY has put in homemade Sharrows.

It's been 18 months since CM's Greuel and Garcetti were inspired by the bike-share programs of the Great Cities they visited, returning to LA and commanding "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Transportation to examine the feasibility of creating a bike sharing program in the City of Los Angeles and submit recommendations to the Transportation Committee within 45 days." Tough talk! New Transportation committee Chair Rosendahl liked it so much, he gave the same instructions to the LADOT last week.

Meanwhile, on February 24, Claremont and Covina will be cutting the ribbon on "Bikestation Claremont and Bikestation Covina, the first bicycle and alternative transportation center “network” in the United States."

It would be great to have the City Council's Transportation Committee visit Claremont and Covina for the Bikestation ribbon cuttings but the 24th is an important day in LA, everybody will be on the 10th floor as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck visits the Transpo Committee. Will he have the Hummer vs. Cyclist report from last year?

It's been almost a year since a group of cyclists encountered a motorist behind the wheel of a Hummer, sans license plate, and ended up in a Wilco Tango Foxtrot encounter. Three times the Transportation Committee has directed the LAPD to appear to report on the incident and the subsequent investigation but in all three appearances the LAPD neglected to bring the actual LAPD report, resulting in a lot of "I don't know. I'll have to check." responses. Will Beck produce the report? Will Rosendahl follow up on the failure of the LAPD to respond to his instructions?

It's been over a year since the City Council embraced the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and boldly directed "the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Planning Department, Department
of Public Works, and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, in consultation with the City Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report with recommendations on how to
incorporate the principles enshrined in the "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." That went nowhere fast.

The City Council has demonstrated clearly that it is incapable of following up on the many instructions it puts in play. Hence the need for community oversight. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that LA's Budget, the delivery of services, and the civic process itself be open and transparent. The public must be at the table.

CityWatchLA - Rosendahl: “The Culture of the Car Ends Now!”

CityWatch, Jan 29, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 8

Declaring "The culture of the car ends now!" City Councilman Bill Rosendahl invoked the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and took a giant leap at pursuing a city ordinance that would prohibit the harassment of cyclists. He drew applause from council chambers as he articulated several examples of the behavior that he wants to forbid on the streets of Los Angeles.

1. Knowingly throwing a projectile or discharge at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle;
2. Threatening any person riding a bicycle verbally or by use of his/her vehicle for the purpose of injuring, frightening or disturbing the person riding the bicycle;
3. Knowingly placing his/her vehicle within 3’ of a bicyclist while passing or following;
4. Making physical contact with a bicyclist from a moving vehicle or the roadway either by physical person or use of an implement;
5. Knowingly placing a person riding a bicycle in concern of immediate physical injury;
6. Knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a risk of physical injury or death to the person riding a bicycle.

As cyclists offered testimony of their experience riding the streets of Los Angeles, they were echoed in their concerns by members of the City Council who agreed that the City needs to do more to support the cycling community.

Councilman Ed Reyes recounted his experience as a child getting hit by a motorist as he rode his bike.

Councilman Rosendahl reminded the council of the Mandeville Canyon Road-Rage incident that brought the issue of harassment of cyclists to the forefront.

Councilman Paul Koretz stood in support and declared "We need to send a clear message."

Rosendahl brought it home saying “We’re going to give cyclists the support they should have been getting.”

It seems simple, after all, who can stand in favor of harassment of any kind, but the devil is in the details.

The proposed "anti-harassment" motion, which simply directs the generation of reports on the development of an ordinance has made it through the Transportation Committee but hit a speed hump at the Public Safety Committee which recommended further study. The City Council voted to essentially direct the City Attorney and the LADOT to continue with the generation of reports.

As cyclists recounted their experiences turning to the LAPD for assistance when they experienced road-rage, aggression from motorists, threats, assaults and even hit-and-run collisions, Rosendahl responded by saying "The LAPD hasn't been part of the solution, but sometimes has been part of the problem." The LAPD had no response, they weren't there. Somehow the LAPD and the District Attorney were left out of the process, leaving the LADOT as the lead and the City Attorney deferring in the development of an anti-harassment ordinance that requires enforcement and prosecution support. Some might even suggest that it requires support from Sacramento.

The real value of this ordinance lies not in its chances of becoming law but in the fact that the harassment of cyclists is being discussed, prompting some to murmur "This is how it starts!"

Complementing the City Council's slow but steady pursuit of a more bikeable Los Angeles was the City's ongoing study of Bike Sharing, an endeavor that prompted Council President Eric Garcetti to refer to great bikeable cities such as East Hollywood, Paris and Long Beach. (Not often that those three are mentioned in the same breath!)

The bike sharing concept is an old one even in Los Angeles where college students can "rent" a bike for the quarter, studio employees can "share" a bike while on the lot, tourists can "borrow" a bike from some hotels, and bikes "for hire" exist in several locations.

None of these are as visible as the programs in Paris or Munich or Leon but perhaps that's the real opportunity for the City of LA, to support those small operators who are already in the bike share business with promotion and marketing support.
•••
Capping off the "anything but the budget" day at City Hall was the Transportation Committee's showdown over the speed limit increases in the Valley. On the agenda were proposals to raise the speed limit on Riverside Drive (up to 45 mph) and Chandler Avenue (up to 50 mph) in an effort to certify the streets for radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement.

Cyclists were joined by members of the community, all braced with arguments against the City of LA's continued pursuit of increased speed limits as a tool for enforcement, but the debate faded at the request of Councilman Krekorian who wanted to pursue other options, such as his AB 766 Safe Streets bill which he introduced last year when he served as the Assistant Majority Leader in the State Assembly.

The bill did not make it to the finish line but the message was clear, the 50 year old speed trap law needed to be revised so that local authorities can set speed limits with greater sensitivity to the local community. Not all streets should be raceways, not all streets should be fast cut-throughs, not all streets should be hospitable for speeding motorists.

Councilmembers Krekorian and Koretz both asked the hard questions and seem to understand that there are methods for slowing traffic other than simply raising the speed limits and then relying on traffic officers with radar/laser enforcement.

Now is the time to pursue traffic calming methods, many of which represent funding opportunities such as Safe Routes to School, Highway Safety Improvement Program funding and Office of Traffic Safety grants.

Road diets, bulb-outs, speed tables, pedestrian enhancements and other innovations are not just tools for safety, they are also opportunities to put people to work, to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods and to bring funding into the city coffers.

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

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 - Two Tales of Cyclists Down and the Uneven Hand of Justice

CityWatch, Nov 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 92

Last year, on July 4th, Dr. Christopher Thompson drove his car down Mandeville Canyon and came up behind two cyclists, pulled alongside and exchanged words then pulled in front and slammed on the brakes, seriously injuring both cyclists and telling the police officer who first arrived at the scene that he did it "to teach them a lesson."

That same week, as Paul Moore rode his bike south on Bundy Drive, a motorist approached him from behind, overtook him and then turned right, slamming him to the ground.

Unlike Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson, the cyclists in Mandeville Canyon, Paul didn't get up. In fact, before the day was over, surgeons would remove a section of his skull, storing it in a refrigerator for later reattachment, all in an effort to alleviate the cranial swelling and bleeding. That evening Paul slipped into a medically-induced coma that allowed his brain to rest and recover.

By Monday morning, news of the Mandeville Canyon incident had spread and by early afternoon, LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood before the press and proclaimed "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!"

Concerns that the case would be handled as a traffic collision instead of a criminal act were cleared up by the LAPD's Captain Eaton who flanked Councilman Rosendahl and assured the public that this was a road rage incident that would be investigated as a felony criminal assault. This show of force went a long way toward reassuring the cycling community that justice would be pursued.

As for Paul, he slipped into the pool of anonymity that comes with being one of 550 LA Fire Department medical transports that occur each day in the City of Los Angeles. Of those 550 transports, approximately 100 of them are the result of a traffic collision and they include motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Paul was just one of many.

The public clamored for more information on the Mandeville Canyon incident, the press responded with radio, television and newspaper coverage. The blogs were filled with activity and comment sections had to be shut down because of the intense debate and personal animosity that took place.

Meanwhile, Paul's wife worked quietly to investigate the circumstances that left her husband lying on the street with multiple broken bones and a left frontal lobe injury that resulted in Aphasia which is the inability to form words.

It took two days for Rosendahl and Eaton to step up to the microphone and to address the Mandeville Canyon incident. It was eight days before Paul's wife received the Police Report in the mail with information on Paul's collision.

The report detailed the location, the motorist and the cyclist. There wasn't much else there except that Paul's bicycle had been transported to the Fire Station. It's curious that the bike wasn't considered evidence but, of course, that would imply an investigation.

Paul's wife went to Fire Station #59 and found Paul's bike with very little damage. One of the firemen looked in the log, found the incident number, and said the team who responded to the accident was not working, except for the Captain who was out on a call.

Paul's wife left and called Capt. Cessor, introducing herself and asked about Paul and the traffic collision. She asked if Paul was conscious when the LAFD arrived at the scene but Cessor responded "Can't answer that. Can't answer anything medical due to confidentiality."

Questions about who called 911, what happened to Paul's helmet, which corner the collision occurred on yielded a response that was completely discouraging.

Cessor informed Paul's wife "I don't know where your questions are going, so I'm going to refer you to the Arson Unit as they are the legal experts." She passed over the phone number for the Arson Unit adding "They probably wouldn't have any information about this accident."

By now, Rosendahl was calling for a Cyclists' Town Hall to address the issues that cyclists encounter as they ride the streets of Los Angeles. He went on to convene the Mandeville Task Force that would look for ways to mitigate tensions between cyclists and motorists. He continued all the way to the Transportation Committee and then the City Council where he urged his fellow Councilmembers to incorporate the Cyclists' Bill of Rights into the city's Bicycle Plan.

Paul's family spent the same period of time struggling to navigate the medical system and the insurance labyrinth and the emotional journey, celebrating the fluttering of eyelids and the twitches and grimaces that they counted as the signs of Paul's recovery.

Paul left UCLA and went to the Barlow Respiratory Hospital and then back to UCLA and then out to Casa Colina in Pomona. Through it all, his family was by his side, playing music, talking to him, struggling to communicate and to encourage and to maintain hope through the recovery process.

Periodically there would be some activity in the Mandeville Canyon case and members of the cycling community would hold vigil at the LAX Courthouse, hoping against hope that justice would be served and reporting back on the developments.

As for Paul, justice was limited to battles his family and his doctors fought with the insurance company's grievances and appeals representatives, quite a tough position for the victim of a crime.

Apparently, when Rosendahl told the world "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!" it didn't include Paul Moore, a cyclist whose life was ruined by a motorist who "right-hooked" him in violation of CVC 21750 which 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…”

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

This past week, the cycling community threw a virtual Twittertape parade when the jury in the Mandeville Canyon trial came back with a guilty verdict on all seven charges for Thompson including Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Mayhem. Thompson was considered a flight risk, denied bail, remanded into custody where he awaits sentencing.

Unfortunately, there are many more cases out there, including the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on PCH, the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on Glendale Boulevard, and the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist in Santa Clarita.

Add to the mix the motorists who are charged with hit-and-run assaults on cyclists on the Westside and in Echo Park and Downtown and the Mandeville Canyon case starts to look like the exception, not the rule.

Most alarming is the simple fact that Paul Moore's life was destroyed by a motorist who right-hooked him just 1500 yards from Bill Rosendahl's Westside office and Paul never made it past dispatch statistic for the LAFD team that transported him to UCLA. He spent 6 months in the hospital, he lost the ability to move and to talk and his family was left to struggle with his recovery and with the surgeries and with the seizures and the financial struggles and the insurance battles, and in the midst of all of the debates over equality and justice, Paul was completely forgotten.

"What about Paul?"

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

CityWatchLA - LA’s DIY Bike Plan

CityWatch, Nov 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 90

The City of Los Angeles took another swing at the public hornet's nest when it released LA's Draft Bike Plan, a 563 page document that cost $450,000 and took two years to complete, stirring such public contempt that the cycling community simply put down the protest signs, formed the LA Bike Working Group (BWG) and set out to draft "LA's Best Bike Plan" in open workshops around the city.

The first challenge to the efficacy of LA's commitment to mediocrity came when LABikePlan.com appeared, hosting the same Draft Bike Plan as the city's LABikePlan.org website and the same opportunity to submit comments to the city, but also offering links to articles that criticize the Draft Bike Plan process and content.

The second challenge came when cyclists met in Hollywood to dig into the city's Draft Bike Plan, breaking it up into manageable chunks, a process made necessary by the significant size and the limited comment period of 42 days. (It ends on November 6, 2009)

It took a couple of hours but there came a point at which it became obvious, the best place to start is at the beginning and for the Bike Plan, that meant a do-over, this time a DIY (Do It Yourself) do-over!

The third and most recent challenge came when cyclists met downtown this past weekend to refine the many contributions from the diverse group of participants into a focused vision that would serve as the foundation for LA's Best Bike Plan.

Embracing a democratic and participatory process, the work product of four groups was refined into 23 points which were simmered down to a foundation of three that serve as the platform for LA's Best Bike Plan.

1) "Consider every street as a street that cyclists will ride."

2) "Build a Backbone Bikeway Network as the engineering focus in the immediate future."

3) "Los Angeles must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years."

In the time it took the staff of City Planning and the Department of Transportation to organize its out-of-town consultants and to stage the four Draft Bike Plan workshops, the LA Bike Working Group had gathered input from the community, established teams with specific focus, and positioned a platform based on equality.

This may seem like a "Bike Culture" victory that benefits the few but it represents much, much more and it benefits the city as a whole.

City staff dismiss critics as "trashtalkers" and argue for mediocrity by pointing out that "not everybody is an angry cyclist." This demonstrates the cavalier manner in which our city is (mis)managed. As Laura Chick pointed out "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

Today it's the Bike Plan, tomorrow it's your Community Plan, last week it was Cloud Computing, next week it'll be Golden Parachutes. The bottom line is this, the leadership of Los Angeles is counting on our indifference to maintain the status quo and to avoid accountability.

Whether you ride a bike or walk or take mass transit or ride in a car, we all benefit from citywide support of cycling as a transportation solution, as an environmental solution, and as a community building solution.

Great Streets are well maintained, they're shareable, they have moderate traffic volumes and speeds, they result in lower crime rates, and they benefit local businesses, resulting in healthy, sustainable and complete communities.

If you believe that Los Angeles should be a Great City, it is imperative that you join with other constituent groups such as the cycling community and support their pursuit of greatness. After all, this is Los Angeles, why settle for anything less!

This isn't the first time that the DIY movement has been active in Los Angeles. Past efforts have resulted in Sharrows (shared-lane markings) in Echo Park and in Highland Park, a DIY Bike Lane on the Fletcher Bridge and a community park at Wilshire and Vermont.

In other cities, the Official Urban Repair Squad (OURS) has taken to improving the streets of Toronto, leaving behind a Bike Lane in their first engagement and a note saying "Our agents inform us that your city is too busy patting self on backside about 2001 bike plan that they don't bother to make any bike lanes. We come to make roads safe for citizens of Toronto. We hear city is broke. We fix. No charge."

Residents of Hawaii's Kauai island reacted to the government's $4 million and two-year long plan for the repair of a vital road as unacceptable and so they fixed it themselves in eight days for free. Their livelihood was threatened, their intelligence was insulted and their spirit of self-sufficiency was engaged.

As for LA's Draft Bike Plan, the apologists stand in the background and murmur "it's not that bad" and "there's some good stuff in there" and the cloud of mediocrity just gets thicker.

LA's Bike Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the city's General Plan and the current Bike Plan was drafted in 1996, readopted by City Council in 2002 and again in 2007.

Many funding sources, from both the federal and state levels, require that proposed bike projects be part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan.

This enthusiasm for plans is motivated by the desire to qualify for funding and then the enthusiasm fades. The current Bike Plan is effective until December of 2012.

In the last 13 years, LA has spent $65 million of Bikeways funding which has produced 13 miles of Bike Paths (one mile per year!) 54 miles of Bike Lanes (four miles per year!) and one mile of Bike Route (136 yards per year!)

Critics charge that the money has also funded the LADOT's Bikeways Department of a dozen people who are best known for their "Why You Can't Have What You Want" PowerPoint presentation which positions cyclists as adversaries with other modes rather than as a "Common Ground" transportation solution.

As for next steps, the bureaucrats are off in search of rubber stamps while the LA Bike Working Group continues to work on "LA's Best Bike Plan."

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

RELATED STORIES

● “Bikes and Cars: Can We Share the Road?” – LA Times LINK .
cydo

LA.Streetsblog - Courtroom Drama for Cyclists throughout the County

LA Streetsblog by Stephen Box on October 13, 2009

The wheels of justice grind slowly and sometimes it's hard to believe that the system is working but a survey of the legal landscape in LA County reveals that there are several cases working that should be of great interest to the cycling community. Danny Jimenez, local cyclist and lawyer, says "victims are often discouraged by the difficulty in obtaining justice but when the system works, it's encouraging to see a Judge and a Prosecutor and a Jury doing their job and doing it well."

In the last year and a half, there have been several drunk driving and road rage incidents that have shaken the cycling community, leaving a trail of dead and broken bodies behind along with a general feeling of frustration and despair for the friends and families of the victims.

Dr. Christopher T. Thompson is charged with 2 counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) 2 counts of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury (243d) reckless driving (23103a) and reckless driving causing specified injury (23105a) and Mayhem (203) all stemming from the Mandeville Canyon Road Rage incident that left two cyclists broken, bleeding and lying on the road. Thompson's case is slowly working itself through the system at the LAX Courthouse. Today, they will pick a judge to replace Judge Cynthia Reyvis and will then hear pre-trial motions. Tomorow, they start jury selection.

Alejandro Hidalgo is charged with vehicular manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) (23153b) in the death of Jesus Castillo on Glendale Boulevard and his case is coming up in the Downtown Criminal Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 30 at 8:30 and no trial date has been set for this case.


Robert Sam Sanchez is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in the death of Rodrigo "Rod" Armas and the injury to his son, Christian Armas on PCH and that case is coming up in the Malibu Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 20 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.

Marco Antonio Valencia is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) and in the death of Joe Novotny on Bouquet Canyon Road in Santa Clarita and that case is coming up in San Fernando Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 28 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.

Jim Azpilicueta is charged with two counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in an incident that caused a cyclist to sustain significant injuries including severe damage to her face. The arraignment is set for October 14 at 8:30 am.

There is another case pending in the Hit-and-Run with Serious Bodily Injury (20001a) incident that left Roadblock lying on Glendale Boulevard after being hit from behind and flipped into the air, landing with just enough consciousness and awareness to catch a partial license plate of the car as it sped off into the distance. The arraignment is set for Nov. 2 at 8:30 am in Dept. 60 Metro Court.

Missing from the dockets of the Southland Courthouses is the infamous Hummer vs. Cyclists case. The LAPD response to the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident received much attention and resulted in a City Council motion directing an LAPD report on police activity and the resulting investigation. It also stirred a Storm the Bastille ride to City Hall, three visits to the Police Commission, and claims filed with the LAPD Inspector General. But it did not result in a court case.

This is why cyclists need the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The CBR has picked up endorsements from the City Council, from the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and from neighborhood councils around LA. The CBR claims as right #4 "Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."

Now is the time for the cycling community to embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and to insist that it be included, as written, in LA's Draft Bike Plan, just released and already under attack for having a 42 day window for public participation and not using imperative language that will support the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.

Pay close attention to what's happening in City Council, in the Courts and, most of all, on the Streets!