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!

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

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

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

To be fair, the LA Times is hardly alone.

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

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

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



There are three problems here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double Standards for Law Enforcement in Beverly Hills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The simple answer is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"See you on the Streets!"

Father and Son Grand Tour Dream Ends With Tragedy

photo credit hereinmalibu

21 years ago, Rodrigo "Rod" Armas strapped on his helmet, hopped onto his bike and set off on the LA Wheelmen's Grand Tour, an annual cycling event that starts and finishes in Malibu, drawing participants from throughout California as well the surrounding Western States. Grand Tour riders typically have an appetite for distance as is evidenced by the route options which range from the 200 Kilometer, 200 mile, 300 mile and 400 mile routes.

The Grand Tour is a fully supported event meaning that there are abundant pit stops and sag teams that patrol the route, offering everything from encouragement and refreshments to medical and mechanical support. The ride starts early on Saturday morning and riders must complete their selected route within 24 hours.

This past Saturday, Rod again saddled up for the Grand Tour, this time accompanied by Christian, his 14 year-old-son. They were among the last cyclists to check in, picking up numbers 473 and 474. Rod strapped on the same helmet he used 21 years before and the father and son team set off on the Highland Double, a 200 mile route that heads up to Port Hueneme and then turns inland over the rural, quieter and hillier back roads of Ventura County.

At around 9pm on Saturday evening, Brian Meek, a cyclist who had stopped with mechanical difficulties was in the Rincon pit stop when two cyclists rode in, stirring cheers and applause. The cyclists were Rod and Christian and they were the two last riders on the Highland Double route. Bryan reports that as Rod sat down he dropped his helmet in the dirt. "One of the guys at the stop took it from him and said he would clean it for him. The father and son were tired but in great spirits and shared some of their ‘stories’ with all of us. I listened as the father shared that he was wearing the same helmet he used 21 years ago the first time he rode the Grand Tour.

As Saturday turned into Sunday, Rod and Christian had approximately 190 miles behind them including 8500 feet of elevation gain and four very challenging hills. They were riding on the shoulder in ideal conditions. the sky was clear, there was great visibility, the roads were dry and there was a slight off shore breeze. All was well and they were within miles of rolling into the finish line in Malibu.

A SAG driver passed the father and son team on PCH and reported that all was well and that the cyclists were making good progress toward the Malibu finish.

At approximately 1:30 am, the next SAG driver came across an emergency scene with medical and law enforcement personnel at work on the two cyclists who lay on the ground at 34000 PCH. The SAG driver radioed back to the the other support teams in order to coordinate the Triple Century cyclists who would soon be riding south on PCH past the emergency scene.

Rod was pronounced dead at the scene and Christian was airlifted to UCLA Medical Center with severe and comprehensive injuries. Their bodies were crushed, their bikes were destroyed, their blood was on the road and yet there was no sign of the person responsible for the mayhem.

The LA County Sheriff's Department provides law enforcement services for the City of Malibu and they found an abandoned Dodge Ram pickup truck approximately 1 mile farther south on PCH. There was no sign of a driver.

The Ventura County Sheriff's Department deployed a K-9 unit to the scene in an effort to locate the person who drove the truck into Rod and Christian and then left them broken and bleeding on the road.

Two hours later at 3:25 am, a security guard at Zuma Bay called from the guard shack to report that he had found the suspect and the Sheriff's Department arrested Robert Sam Sanchez, 30, of Oxnard. Sanchez was transported to a hospital where a blood test was performed and then he was placed in the Lost Hills Station jail where he was charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) vehicular DUI resulting in injury (21153a) and felony hit and run (2991a).

The story thus far is chilling and has had a significant impact on the cycling community, who for the most part, will pause for a moment as the realization that "It could have been me!" sinks in and then go back to life as usual.

But for some, this is more than a moment to mourn the loss of one of our own and the opportunity to offer condolences to the broken family left behind, this is the time to ask some hard questions.

1) Robert Sam Sanchez, the suspect who stands accused of running down Rod and Christian, has already bailed out and is at home enjoying freedom and the assumption of innocence, an assumption that will probably prevail if he has access to any decent legal representation.

Sanchez was not caught behind the wheel of the vehicle, the investigation is taking place by two Deputies who are part of the traffic division of the Sheriff's Department, not the criminal division, and their Supervisor is on medical leave.

What's it going to take for this investigation to be conducted with the full and enthusiastic support of the LA County Sheriff's Department? What's it going to take to get the District Attorney involved now, while the investigation is under way? (btw this is #4 of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights - "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."

2) Lt. Glafkides, the Watch Commander on duty Saturday evening and Sunday morning reports that she has worked this station for 3 and half years but she has never heard of the LA Wheelmen or the Grand Tour. There were 4 Deputies on duty in Malibu that night. There were none on duty in the unincorporated areas around Malibu. The LA Sheriff's Department also handles law enforcement responsibilities for other "contract" communities such as Hidden Hills, Westlake Village, Calabases and Agoura Hills. All totaled, there are approximately 145 square miles in the area that are under the watch of the LASD.

How does the Sheriff's Department not notice the large number of cyclists rolling through the community and how is it that the Watch Commander doesn't know of such a significant event? Lt. Chew relates that he has an email from the LA Wheelmen indicating that an event would be taking place but somehow the Watch Commander never received the message nor noticed in the years prior that the Grand Tour was taking place.

3) PCH has such a horrific record of traffic tragedies and through it all, cyclists find themselves having to argue for their rights on the road. Brad House was hit from behind by a road raging motorist and flipped into the air over the car. The judge found Brad at partial fault, after all, he was in the lane!

Two cyclists, Scott Bleifer and Stanislov Ionov, were hit from behind and killed by the operator of a catering truck. This incident stirred a significant community debate that had many arguing that the cyclists were at fault for riding two abreast and in the lane.

Missing from the discourse is the simple discussion of how pedestrians and cyclists and mass transit passengers and motorists can all use PCH while maintaining some sense of balance based on equality and a guarantee that all modes of transportation will be supported.

After the deaths of Scott and Stanislov, the PCH Task Force was formed and given the mandate of reviewing safety issues for cyclists on PCH, monitoring conditions on PCH and maintaining interagency responsibility for the conditions of PCH. Velo LaGrange and the LACBC and others tout this as one of their accomplishments and yet...the PCH Task Force has gone dormant and cyclists are dying. Why, even the "Share the Road" signs are getting hit by motorists!

The City of Malibu refers to the Sheriff's Department who refer to Caltrans. Meanwhile PCH remains a very busy and congested and conflicted corridor that more closely resembles a traffic sewer than a vital community lifeline.

Through it all, the cycling community has to ask the hard question "What are we going to do about it?"

4) The speed limit on PCH varies from fast to faster to really fast. The exact numbers vary but range from 45 to 50 to 55. Again, the LASD refers to the State's speed trap law and throws up their hands saying, "It's state law, we set the limits based on the 85% rule." (This is the "science" where motorists vote in an opinion poll with their gas pedals)

Do we really live in communities that are so helpless? Are we not adults with some responsibility for our city, our county and our state? How is it that we tolerate such helplessness from our leadership and from out law enforcement offices?

If PCH needs to be slowed down, let's slow it down. There are 28 miles of PCH through Malibu and on this past Saturday night there were 4 Deputies on duty. Engineer a road diet, implement traffic calming technology, do something other than wring hands and wonder why people are dying!

photo credit independentsources

5) The Office of Traffic Safety put the spotlight on Malibu and reported that "Malibu is #1!" Unfortunately the category was for vehicle injuries. Granted, the report from the Office of Traffic Safety is based on statistics from 2005 but unless something dramatic has changed, Malibu is left with the lingering reality that for a City of their size and with the number of miles traveled, they have been recognized by the State of California as:

#1 for vehicle injuries
#2 for alcohol accidents
#1 for alcohol related accidents for the age group 21 to 34
#1 for speed related accidents
#2 for accidents after dark

Granted, there is a motorcycle cop in Malibu who leads the County in tickets issued but unless he is going to escort me every time I ride my bike to the store, he's an anecdotal anomaly. The brutal reality is this: Malibu is a tough place for pedestrians, for cyclists and for mass transit passengers who must navigate some brutal stretches of PCH.

What are we doing to address the significant danger of the speeding motorists and intoxicated motorists that have Malibu one of the most dangerous communities in the State of California?

6) Motorists who run over pedestrians and cyclists choose to run. They do it time after time and then again. The penalty for running is better than the penalty for being drunk. This inequity in the law needs to shift.

Even worse is the simple fact that hitting a pedestrian or cyclist while sober is hardly a crime. After all, "He came out of nowhere!" is a legal defense and "I didn't see him!" is an acceptable explanation for killing and maiming.

The motorist who ran down LA Wheelmen Bobbi Fisher from behind was sober but had a dog in his lap and was distracted, resulting in a broken back for Bobbi. The motorist wasn't even cited.

The motorist who turned left into oncoming LA Wheelmen on a tandem simply said "I didn't see them." Advanced in age and with failing eyesight, the motorist lost his California license, a small inconvenience he overcame by pulling an out of state license using his vacation property as his address. He still drives to the local pub in Malibu while the cyclists slowly heal.

Putting a motor vehicle on the road is a significant responsibility and yet our leadership acts as if it is a basic right and that any effort to hold a motorist accountable is an infringement of their basic human rights.

What is it going to take for us to take the lead and to establish safety and freedom of fear as basic human rights. (btw - this is #1 of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear.)

7) Ride organizers and Cycling clubs live in fear of LIABILITY. Why? For encouraging people to get off the sofa and go for a ride?

What is it going to take for "We don't need no stinkin' permits!" to become the battle cry of access to the new public space, the streets of our communities?

In fact, what's it going to take for us to shift the fear of liability and to reverse the relationship. Our leadership should be the ones grimacing and cringing and feeling the full fear of liability every time another pedestrian or cyclist is injured or killed on the public streets that they are responsible for maintaining and supervising!

Why are pedestrians and cyclists treated as 2nd class citizens when they want access to our streets? These streets belong to the public and our leadership is responsible for maintaining fair and equitable access.

Why would we tolerate anything less?

As for me, this is far from over. I'll see you on the Streets!

LADOT to Cyclists "There's no more room for cyclists!"

The LADOT's Bikeways Division, aka "the Department of No!" has a presentation that should be entitled "Why you can't have what you want."

For years now, Bikeways staff has been offering up excuses for their lack of innovation and progress, explaining "LA is simply built out. There's no more room for cyclists!"

This month's Bicycling magazine quotes the Bikeways Division's spokesperson as saying "What I need is roadway. Right now, all I can do is try to find places to squeeze bikes in."

The LADOT has repeated this for so long it starts to sound like the truth. Over and over, Bikeways Reps claim there's no more room. This goes unchallenged by real debate or discourse, leaving a wake of bobbleheads behind, all chanting "There's no more room!"

Then along comes reality...


The streets of Los Angeles are actually pretty wide. Especially if you get the parked vehicles off the main streets.

Sunset Blvd. and Hollywood Blvd. are notorious for 18 Wheelers and Commercial vehicles, all parked for long stretches, not for deliveries, not for errands, not to simply stage them between runs but for days on end. Best part, they're parked illegally!

Let's ticket them! Let's tow them! Let's open the streets up for the movement of goods and people! Let's get LA moving!


Or not.

Even when there is already a bikeways facility in place, the LADOT is hesitant to enforce. In fact, the LADOT Parking Enforcement Division still doesn't even enforce CVC 21211(b) which prohibits a vehicle from blocking a bike path or a bike lane.

Wilco Tango Foxtrot!

Yep, it's true. This past week, the Captain of the LADOT's Hollywood Division of Parking Enforcement informed me that the department did not enforce the prohibition because they had not been trained in the procedure. (I think it involves writing a ticket. It used to involve a paper and pen but now they have those little machines and maybe it really is complicated)

Two years ago, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel initiated a motion that would modify the existing law and penalty schedule so that the City could enforce the ban on blocking bike lanes in the City of Los Angeles.

I was there as the Department of Transportation's Michael Uyeno stepped up and said that things were fine the way they were. Uyeno oversees the Bikeways Division. This moment of "fuhgettaboudit!" was quite the reveal.

His advice was roundly ignored and the motion made its way through the Committee and the City Council and on May 14, 2007 San Antonio himself signed the City of LA ordinance #178794 establishing penalty provisions applicable to CVC 21211(b). In other words, if you park a car so that it blocks a bike lane, it's gonna cost $70 and $150 the second time!

Or is it?


Here's an idea. Let's all chip in and get some bikes for the folks over in the LADOT's Bikeways division. Then let's get them to ride with us from downtown, through the 2nd street tunnel (it's fun! Howl, we all do!) up Glendale Blvd., then west on Sunset Blvd. and then Hollywood Blvd. Then let's attack the fallacy of "there's no room!" and let's seriously go after some solutions.

Why aren't there Sharrows on Glendale Blvd? It has parking on both sides, there's loads of room and it's posted for 35 mph, complete with speed zone certification and eligible for radar/laser speed limit enforcement. It even has a body count that would seem to indicate the need for some traffic calming support. Keep in mind it's also alongside a park, a church and loads of residential.

Why are the bike lanes on Sunset Blvd. blocked by vehicles and where is the LADOT's Parking Enforcement? Why aren't they fully trained on the enforcement authority of the prohibition against blocking a bike lane. It's been 2 years! Write the tickets, tow the vehicles, support those who need your help!

Why is Hollywood Blvd. used as storage for 18 Wheelers, in clear defiance of "Anti-Gridlock" signs and "1 hour parking" signs and red curbs and all sorts of prohibitions? Why is all of this ignored by LADOT Parking Enforcement officers who can not possibly claim to not notice these monstrous lane blocking trucks? After all, they also have to swerve to miss them!

Seriously, there is plenty of room in this city for us to all get along, for us to all use the streets and to do it safely and equitably.

Let's get the LADOT up to speed on this concept and then let's get them up to speed on the enforcement of LAMC and CVC and then let's get them up to speed on the innovations that will make our streets safer and more effective for everybody.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Fast Times in the San Fernando Valley

CityWatch, May 1, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 35

LA's Transportation Commission just approved three more speed limit increases in the San Fernando Valley, this time for Roscoe Boulevard, Sherman Way, and Tampa Avenue.

The proposals were on the Board's consent agenda, meaning they would have passed without discussion but for the fact that a member of the community showed up to object.

Two of the newest Commissioners, Jaime J. Rodriguez and Grace E. Yoo, both voted against the proposed speed limit proposals, indicating they would like more information.

Stephanie M. Rodriguez, John Frierson, and Board President George E. Moss all voted for the proposed increases which left D. Malcolm Carson in position to defeat the proposals or to affirm the increases.

Carson gave a fairly comprehensive speech agreeing with the many objections to the speed limit increases including the need to consider the safety of pedestrians and cyclists when raising speed limits. He also agreed that LA should consider other mitigation techniques such as road diets, traffic calming, and other complete streets tolls, all of which looked like he was going to vote against the proposals.

Then he reversed his position saying so much time had been invested in the proposals that he didn't want to stand in the way, an explanation he also used last time when he approved another round of speed limit proposals in the West Valley.

The fact that two of the commissioners would want more information on the State's "Speed Trap" law, the need to reconcile the speed limit with the prevailing speed in order to use radar and laser, and other options for facilitating compliance with the 85% rule should speak volumes in terms of the need for a public conversation on speed limits in our communities.

Department of Transportation’s Assistant GM, John Fisher, instead defers on the community's desire to get involved in the establishment of speed limits by saying "As we all know, the setting of radar-enforceable speed limits can become a very emotional issue."

The recent spike in pedestrian deaths on the streets of LA indicates that fear is a very rational response and the LADOT's failing to consider the people who live on the affected streets, walk on the affected streets and ride bikes on the affected streets is a failure to serve the needs of the community.

Deputy City Attorney Shelley Smith demonstrated the need for public participation when she advised the new Commissioners on the proposed speed limits. Smith positions the speed limit increases as a simple vote for or against radar enforcement. She has been contradicted on this point in the past by then-Commissioner Andrea Alarcon and this time by Commissioner Carson but Smith continues. Having prepared the Municipal Code amendments that are on the table, one might question her objectivity when advising the Board on how to vote.

The discussion over speed limit increases should never turn into a debate over the use of radar or laser speed limit enforcement. In fact, this entire debate is borne from a desire to put the most effective law enforcement tools in the hands of the LAPD. At issue is the hasty, uninspired and lazy rush to simply raise the speed limits rather than to explore the other options.

Here are the issues:

1) The community must be involved from the beginning of the process. Speed limit certifications are expiring every year. The community should know what is coming up and how many streets are currently expired and not eligible for radar/laser enforcement. (some have been expired for years so to refer to people who fight the speed limit
increases as obstructionists is disingenuous)

2) The process should always start with a conversation of the full tool-box of mitigation tools, from bulb-outs to safety islands, diagonal parking to bike lanes, speed tables to stop signs, traffic calming to road diets. These options must be explored first and in every instance, speed limit increases must be positioned as a last resort and with the full participation of the community.

This past year the City of Los Angeles approved approximately 20 speed limit increases and is prepared to process another dozen.

Meanwhile traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies and communities throughout the state are working to revise the "speed trap" law and to give local communities more control over their streets.

It's time for the people of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to work together to take a leadership role in developing Safe Streets for everybody. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

Cyclists' Bill of Rights - #3 and #12

Last week when the Cyclists' Bill of Rights came before the City Council for endorsement, Councilman Tom LaBonge lumbered to the microphone, objecting to #3 which calls for "the right to the full support of educated law enforcement."

LaBonge felt that it was confrontational to suggest that the LAPD needed to be educated and thought that this item created an adversarial relationship. Given the nature of the one-sided ring of rhetoric that is the City Council, we were unable to simply ask LaBonge "Are you saying that cyclists don't have the right to the full support of educated law enforcement?"

Of course the issue is double moot as 1) the City Council that day voted unanimously in favor of the motion in supporting the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and 2) the ACLU, holding a Judge's ruling in hand, just settled a landmark case that limits the LAPD from conducting illegal stops, searches and seizures.

Jodi Wakefield, the LAPD Captain for the Central Division, disagreed with the Judge's ruling but said "there's nothing wrong with us going back and making sure that our officers clearly understand the Constitution, and all the laws they have to abide by."

It is against this backdrop of Civil Rights violations that cyclists feel the need to stand up and make the simple claim:

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

In all fairness to the sensitivities of our law enforcement partners, we ain't there yet! And until we get there, we should be working together to make it happen/

Sure we've come a long way since 2000 when 71 cyclists were rounded up at the Democratic Convention, detained for up to two days with 23 women enduring repeated visual body cavity examinations, all of which resulted in approximately three million dollars in settlement to right the wrongs of those in charge.

Sure we were still moving in the right direction in 2007 when cyclists rode to the May Day march, only to get caught up in the melee, all of which resulted in approximately ten million dollars in settlement to right the wrongs of those in charge.

Sure we're all in it together when the cycling community stands up and claims their civil rights, asserting that the 4th Amendment guarantees them "the right to be secure in their persons and property, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure."

Sure we're partners in community policing when the cycling community stands up and calls for the full support of educated law enforcement.

Sure we're partners when we're at City Hall or in a Committee meeting or when there's a press conference, but late at night, when the street is dark, that's when our Civil Rights get tested and that's when cyclists call for the support of educated law enforcement.

Los Angeles is the second largest city in the country. We should be a Great City, setting the standard for Civil Rights, but instead, LA looks for the minimum and argues for mediocrity.

If it were left to LaBonge, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights would be just another tattered spoke card serving as a reminder of a ride gone by.

As for the cyclists, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights is a living, breathing document that embodies all that is great about riding the streets of Los Angeles.

"See you on the Streets!"

LAPD: The Heavy Hand of the Law!

“While riding a bike for transportation is a tribute to many of the basic ideas upon which this country was founded - common sense, self-reliance, and closeness with the land, to name a few - it is also, in many ways, a slap in the face to contemporary American culture.” Robert Hurst in “The Art of Urban Cycling"

A large group of cyclists rode down Sunset Boulevard. If they had been driving automobiles, we would call it traffic, congestion, rush hour, our quotidian dose of gridlock, LA's legacy or any of a number of names. But they're on bikes and the ride is called the LA Critical Mass. It's a regular bike ride consisting of cyclists who ride for all sorts of reasons, coming from all directions and riding as a group through the streets of Los Angeles, all in a celebration of the fact that "We are Traffic!"

The LAPD responded to the sudden presence of so many cyclists by sending 12 Officers in 6 squad cars. They picked out the most threatening and dangerous cyclist in the crowd and immediately went to work making the streets of Los Angeles safer for motorists.

"CD" indicates that the approaching officers greeted her by screaming at her "Do you have any warrants out for your arrest? Are you on probations? Do you have any drugs or weapons on you?" They ordered her to put her possessions on the ground, to put her hands on her head, then turned her around, grabbed her wrists and put her in handcuffs.

They called for a female assist who then grabbed "CD" and told her to "spread'em" and then "very thoroughly frisked me everywhere, saying that she was searching for drugs and/or weapons!"


"CD" was given a ticket for "STOPPING ON SIDEWALK BLOCKING TRAFFIC" which is an infraction. (The Officer may have mixed up Crosswalk and Sidewalk - Excellent!)

There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario, the first being that it is completely unbelievable that "CD" posed a such a threat to the 12 police officers that it was necessary to submit her to such a thorough and humiliating experience.

The second thing that is wrong with this scenario is the fact that the Police Department has a very specific protocol for dealing with an "Illegal Assembly." If the 12 Officers who responded to the LACritical Mass made a decision that the ride constituted an illegal assembly, law enforcement present at the scene must then announce to the crowd that the crowd must disperse. The Dispersal Order is very specific on the process.

Nowhere in the Dispersal Order does it say, "pick someone from the crowd, handcuff her, yell at her, frisk her thoroughly looking for drugs and weapons, then issue her a poorly-written ticket for an infraction."

"CD" reports that two guys stopped to make sure everything was okay and that they stayed until the end. "Thank god. I didn't even know them. Which is always a great reminder of how amazing some people are."

The amazing people of Los Angeles deserve better from our Police Department.

If you're a fan of the 1st Amendment, give City Council President Garcetti a call and ask him to look into this case. It's summer time, the evenings are warm, it's entirely possible that there will be groups of cyclists on the streets. It would be great to have a well-informed Police Department capable of dealing with a crowd without having to get aggressive.

If you're a fan of the 4th Amendment, give City Council Transportation Chair Wendy Greuel a call and ask her to look into the case. It's always a good time to be secure in our persons and property, free of unreasonable search and seizure.

It's up to us to work with our Leadership in making Los Angeles a Great City.

Call Council President Garcetti @ 213- 473-7013 or councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Call Councilwoman Greuel @ 213-473-7002 or councilmember.greuel@lacity.org

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights #12: The 1st Amendment

In the two days since the release of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, (formerly the Bicyclist Bill of Rights) discussion, discourse and debate have ensued. The title of the document, the content, the purpose, the audience, the inappropriate use of an exclamation point in the conclusion and the cavalier absence of an apostrophe in the title were all and still are topics on the table as the cycling community evaluates the document that lays down the basic rights cyclists possess when they take to the streets on a bike.

Of the 12 rights articulated in the CBR, the 12th right seems to leave the largest number of people scratching their heads and wondering how to apply it to cyclists basic right to ride. After all, it’s the free speech amendment. As much as riding a bike, solo or with a group, can be construed as a statement of sorts, the intent of the authors was to exercise the 1st Amendment right to assemble peaceably in the public place as a deterrent to law enforcement attempts to intimidate, harass or break up groups of cyclists riding together.

• Cyclists' Bill of Rights #12: Cyclists have the right to peaceably assemble in the public space, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.”

Simply put, if on a group ride, law enforcement approaches and instructs the cyclists that the group is an illegal assembly because they have no parade permit, the response is “We’re exercising our right to assembly peaceably in the public space, in this case the streets.”

When cyclists ramp up the interaction into a 1st Amendment protected claim of the “right to assemble,” law enforcement is now bound to address the “right to assemble” issue, not the traffic issues that they usually focus on.

Law Enforcement’s appropriate response is to call for a Supervisor. (Cyclists should have already done this once the patrol officers initiated contact)

Law Enforcement must then:

• Identify themselves and declare the gathering an illegal assembly.

• Identify the media observation zone. (Everybody follow DJ Chickenleather!)

• Give the instruction to disperse and the amount of time the group has to disperse.

• Give instructions on the route the group should take to disperse. (Never toward the massed Law Enforcement officers. Probably in the direction the cyclists were headed before they were stopped by the police!)

Witness the MacArthur Park incident last year when the LAPD failed to clearly articulate their claim that the gathering was an illegal assembly, their failure to give the group the opportunity to leave and their failure to provide safe refuge for the media. This failure on the part of the LAPD had significant ramification for the department and resulted in policy revisions, additional training and a codification of the appropriate responses to an “illegal assembly” incident)

Witness the most recent USC incident when the streets were filled with people sitting in the street. LAPD arrived, clearly articulated that it was an illegal assembly, clearly gave a three-minute warning and a demand to disperse and then clearly gave the route for exit and offered those in the streets the opportunity to leave.

The catch-22 for law enforcement officers is this:

If they pull over a group of cyclists for an “illegal assembly” then their response is limited to addressing an illegal assembly and they must then go through the illegal assembly steps concluding with the instruction to disperse aka “keep riding!”

If they pull over a group of cyclists simply to lecture, ticket for minor violations, ticket for fictional violations, misapply “impeding traffic” and “leaving the bike lane” restrictions or any of the myriad tactics commonly applied to discourage group rides, cyclists simply claim 1st Amendment protection and ask for a supervisor which stops the hassle patrol and starts the illegal assembly process, all of which concludes with the instruction to disperse aka “keep riding!”

This may seem a bit obtuse and it may seem a bit extreme but consider the environment in which we ride, not just physically as we dodge potholes, opening doors and other obstacles innumerable but also the social and political climate that still finds it shocking when two or more cyclists simply ride in the same direction at the same time and at the same speed.

Cyclists are expected to share the lane with buses, trucks, SUV’s, minivans, motorhomes, automobiles and motorcycles. But when a cyclist shares the lane with another cyclist, the typical response is “you’re impeding traffic!”

Last year two cyclists were riding on PCH along a stretch that had no shoulder. They were riding in tandem in the outside lane. The cyclists were hit from behind by a catering truck and killed instantly. The driver explained to deputies that he did not step hard on the brakes because his passenger was standing behind him and cooking hot food.

Most disconcerting about the incident was the significant discussion spent on the fact that the cyclists were riding in the lane. Apparently the cyclists didn’t know each other but they either met up and were riding in sync (a common habit that occurs throughout the city when one cyclist comes across another cyclist going the same direction) or one was passing the other within the lane. Nevertheless, it’s amazing that the community’s shock at the deaths was tempered by the repeated observation that “they shouldn’t have been riding in tandem like that.”

Just this past week, four cyclists riding 2 by 2 in the #2 lane of Virgil, on the approach to a red light at Melrose, signaled and took control of the #1 lane and then continued into the left turn lane. The car in the #1 lane continued to accelerate toward the red light, (distracted, drunk, we never found out) and had to stop abruptly when he found himself behind cyclists executing a vehicular left turn on the approach to a red light.

An LAPD Supervising Sgt. Assigned to the Rampart Division witnessed this and promptly pulled over the cyclists because they were “impeding traffic and it was unsafe.” (All on the approach to a red light? The motorist accelerating at the red was of no interest to him. The reason it was unsafe to the Sgt. was based on the fact that cyclists are smaller and more vulnerable than automobiles, therefore cycling on the streets is unsafe.)

This incident included lectures on everything from helmets, illumination, CVC requirements of cyclists and even group rides! Three additional squad cars arrived backed up by a helicopter. The back-up officers, none of whom witnessed the incident, still felt more than comfortable explaining what’s wrong with group rides. (Riding as a group with no permit is wrong but Rampart allows it as long as there are no problems.)

The stories of inequities on the street abound but the bottom line is that the police still get calls from the community consisting of “There is a large number of cyclists all riding on the street and in the same direction!” Instead of dismissing these calls, law enforcement jumps.

“Tactical Alert! There are cyclists on the street, all riding in the same direction. Let’s stop them, lecture them on safety, threaten them with multiple tickets for pedal reflectors and bicycle licenses and then demonstrate how cool we are by only ticketing the ones we really don’t like. All available officers! Get the helicopter!”

(It gets worse physically. Last year a CHP officer chased the Montrose riders on Mulholland because a motorist called in the group ride. The cyclists were flying. The CHP officer used his car to cut off the cyclists while at speed, forcing them to a stop and causing some to crash including the leader who hit the CHP car.)

(It gets worse legally. Last year Pasadena attempted to pass a law restricting the rights of cyclists on the streets on Pasadena only to encounter CVC section 21 which restricts a municipality from regulating bicycling on non-freeway roads.)

Imagine if pedestrians and motorists were treated the same way.

“Officer, there is a large number of pedestrians on Colorado Blvd. They have filled the sidewalks, sometimes spilling onto the street. They mass at the intersections, making it difficult to get through the crowd. It must be organized because they are all carrying shopping bags. I saw a flyer and it seems that the merchants have organized an event. A shopping event. I think they call it a “Sale.” The pedestrians don’t seem to actually know each other but they are definitely going into the same stores so it must be organized. Do something!”

or,

“Officer, there are a large number of motorists massing on Hollywood Blvd. They do this every day at 5 pm. They fill the streets, they honk, they rev their engines and then they race through the green light and then they quickly stop and wait behind the car in front of them and then they honk and rev and then they race onto the 101 Freeway ramp where they wait and rev and honk. They do this everyday at 5pm. They’re obviously organized! They must be stopped! Can’t you find their leader? I see the same cars, I see the same drivers. Do something!”

Absurd? Yes! That’s the point.

It’s not only absurd to hassle or restrict a group of people based on their mode of transportation, it’s a violation of our basic civil rights and it’s unacceptable.

“While riding a bike for transportation is a tribute to many of the basic ideas upon which this country was founded - common sense, self-reliance, and closeness with the land, to name a few - it is also, in many ways, a slap in the face to contemporary American culture.” Robert Hurst in “The Art of Urban Cycling”

"I think people are entitled to march without a permit. When you have a few hundred thousand people on the street you have permission." -- Tom Hayden

***********************************************************

From The Police Commission MacArthur Park hearings:

The Dispersal Order:

Once a decision is made that an assembly is unlawful, law enforcement present at the scene must then announce to the crowd that the crowd must disperse. According to the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide, Volume 5, “Prior to dispersing an unlawful assembly, officers shall give the following Dispersal Order to those participating in the unlawful assembly. The Dispersal Order shall be read verbatim:”

"I am (rank and officer’s name), a police officer to the City of Los Angeles. I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly and, in the name of the people of the State of California, command all those assembled at (give specific location) to immediately disperse, which means to break up this assembly. If you do not do so, you may be arrested or subject to other police action.

Other police action may include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause significant risk of serious injury to those who remain. Section 409 of the Penal Code prohibits remaining present at an unlawful assembly. If you remain in the area which was just described, regardless of your purpose in remaining, you will be in violation of Section 409. The following routes of dispersal are available: (give the most convenient route(s) of dispersal) You have __ minutes (give a reasonable amount of time – take into consideration the number of participants, location of the event and number of exit routes) to disperse."

A proper dispersal is necessary to ensure that all present are aware of the fact they are to leave the area; that they know what routes to take. Without such an order, any arrest for unlawful assembly will be legally insufficient.