CityWatchLA - Slow Down for Julia

CityWatch, Mar 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 19

Julia Siegler stood on the north side of Sunset Boulevard and looked at her school bus, parked on south Cliffwood Avenue. She looked to her left, began to cross the street and hesitated, getting knocked to the ground by one vehicle and then run over by a second vehicle.

Much can be made of the fact that Julia crossed the street against a red light, and it has. But not much has been made of the fact the two motorists left the scene of the traffic collision before the Los Angeles Police Department arrived.

The first LAPD press conference offered up incorrect information of the crash and of the motorists, sending the public and the LAPD on a goose chase that was resolved later that day when the two motorists made contact with the LAPD. Much could also be made of the speed of the motorists, but it wasn't. Questions as to the speed of the motorists were rebuffed with "Not an issue!" responses. (The question was "What was the speed of the motorists?)

Much could be made of the environment, but it wasn't. Sunset Boulevard is a very fast street with lots of motor vehicle traffic. Sunset and Cliffwood, the scene of the tragedy, is signalized so I asked the obvious question "Was the demand actuated ped crossing button working?" I didn't get an answer.

That prompted me to go and take a look at the traffic signals at Sunset and Cliffwood, along with the signals at the intersections to the east and to the west. Here's what I found.

Sunset and Cliffwood is an intersection with demand-actuated signals at all four corners, requiring pedestrians to use a push button to call for a pedestrian "walk" phase.



When I pushed the button, the response was immediate and countdown started for the east west traffic, shifting to amber and then to red. I've never seen such a responsive traffic signal. I tried it with traffic, without traffic, with cars on Cliffwood and with none. In all cases, that signal offered an immediate response and a ped "walk" phase within seconds. Was this signal operating like this on February 26 when Julia Siegler attempted to cross Sunset?

Further confusing, Cliffwood has four demand-actuated signals but the east/west ped "walk" phase is set for fully-actuated timing. In other words, it is always a walk phase unless shifting to red.

Sunset and Kenter, just to the east of the tragic crash, is an intersection with demand-actuated signals used to cross Sunset and fully-actuated signals to cross Kenter. That means peds only need to push the button to cross Sunset.



I pushed the button and waited. Nothing happened. No countdown, no chirping for the blind, no indication that I had done anything meaningful, significant, or likely to result in an opportunity to cross Sunset supported by the "walk" phase of the traffic signal.

I tried it several times and in the video you can see that it took almost a full minute and the arrival of three motor vehicles on Kenter to get a "walk" phase to cross Sunset. Kenter also only has crosswalks on three sides of the intersection.

Sunset and Burlingame is an intersection to the west of Cliffwood and it has one demand-actuated signal to cross Sunset and one demand-actuated signal to cross Burlingame. This intersection is odd in that the default setting for the intersection is an all red, yet anybody approaching from any direction gets instant recognition.



Motorists don't need to slow down or stop, the signal simply turns green as if to "approve" of their passage.

Pedestrians approaching the "all-red" intersection simply push the buttons and get an instant ped "walk" phase with no hesitation or countdown. I tried it several times, with and without oncoming traffic and it was uncanny.

If ever a pedestrian needs to feel powerful, simply come to this "first-come, first-served" intersection and hit the ped button. "Walk!"

Sunset and Bundy is a busy signalized intersection farther to the east of Cliffwood that gets fairly decent traffic from south on Bundy as well as both directions on Sunset.



This intersection also features fully-actuated signals for east/west pedestrians and demand-actuated signals for north/south pedestrians. The white "walk" phase is quite fast , requiring pedestrians to be in place and ready to move. Not really the hospitable environment for pedestrians.

On either side of Cliffwood, there are traffic signs with speeds posted, some white (regulatory) and some yellow (advisory). Traveling east, on the approach to Cliffwood where Julia attempted to reach her school bus, motorists are greeted by a yellow sign that "advises" motorist that the "comfortable" speed is 25 mph.



From the west, motorists are informed by a white sign that the speed limit is 35 mph and also advised that the "comfortable" speed is 30 mph. There is no better time than now to look at all of the signage on Sunset and ask "Why?" Is this the limit of LA's attempts to control traffic.

More "suggestions" and "advice" to motorists traveling too fast to even read the signs which then prompts the LADOT to embark on a billboard campaign advising motorists to keep their eyes on the road. "Slow Down" must be a regulation, not simply a suggestion.

Traffic engineers can probably explain the three-sided crosswalk configuration over the four-sided crosswalk. They can probably use a slide rule to justify the short white "walk" phase and the longer "flashing hand" phase of the three part crossing signalization.

They can even offer up the "Crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security" demonstrating that even traffic engineers make mistakes. (It was a question, not a conclusion, at the end of the infamous Berms traffic study.

Often misquoted and always misunderstood, it has served the LADOT well but the pedestrian community has suffered. Traffic engineers and law enforcement officers can work all day to explain the complexities of using radar/laser tools for speed limit enforcement, they can talk all day about through-put and congestion and capacity and friction and conflict and eye lines and they can try very hard to impress me with how complex the world of traffic control really is for the professional, forget about the amateur.

But the real question is this: Do pedestrians need a degree from MIT to cross the street?

Would it be too much to have some sort of "pedestrian" logic applied to the traffic signals at the four neighboring intersections on Sunset Boulevard? The pedestrians walk down streets like Cliffwood with no sidewalks.

They are trained to walk in the street with motor vehicles. They push buttons that may or may not respond, they stand and watch the world go by, sometimes reminded that on the food chain of Los Angeles transportation, they rate right up there with the trash (can) and that if they really want to cross the street, they need to get in an automobile like everybody else.

In the days immediately following Julia's tragic death, the LAPD and others put the emphasis on pedestrian and their responsibility for their safety. Good advice, but not enough.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to test the street signals, not just for demand-actuated responsiveness but for all phases and for all modes.

As a cyclist, I encounter intersections such as Sunset and Park or Sunset and Rosemont that won't recognize cyclists and won't cycle green unless a motor vehicle approaches.

Ever wonder who trains cyclists to run reds? LADOT. By the way, it's the law that signals recognize all modes, it's just not common in Los Angeles. The current failure rate for LA's parking meters is 20% which begs the question, "What's the failure rate for traffic signal sensitivity and accuracy?" Anyone can guess but why guess when people are dying.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to investigate speed as a factor. Nothing about LA's traffic will change without data and when I called to get the speeds of the motorists, the question was dismissed.

Standing at the corner and watching the oncoming traffic from the east, vehicles traveling 35 mph would have been slowing down traffic. That street is fast. If cars are moving, they pose a threat. The faster they move, the great the threat. We must have data.

The City of Los Angeles has an underground bunker below City Hall East where the LADOT operates the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system [LINK] but the LADOT doesn't play well with others nor does it share its data. That must change.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to evaluate that street, the community, the behavior of the people who use the street, and to ask the hard questions. Are we working together to make this street safe for all people? Are we making the safety of our most vulnerable a top priority?

Julia Siegler's death is tragic. It shouldn't have happened. It has resulted in a sense of helplessness in the larger community made up of Julia's neighbors and family and friends and schoolmates and even strangers.

An impromptu memorial of hundreds of flowers, candles, photos and stuffed animals, sits at the accident site at the corner of Sunset and Cliffwood, along with a sign that reads “Slow Down, For Julia.”

In Los Angeles, we name buildings after politicians, and we name intersections after children who get killed trying to get to school. That must change!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are No Accidents!

 

(Blog post modified to reflect conflicting LAPD reports and updates. One LAPD source indicates the two motorists (in a Mercedes and a Toyota) were traveling south on Cliffwood Avenue and turning right on the red, hitting the young girl and then running over her. The second LAPD source indicates that the two motorists (is a SUV and an Infiniti) were traveling west on sunset Boulevard, clipping the young girl and then running over her.)

A 13-year-old girl attempting to catch her school bus began to cross Sunset Boulevard at Cliffwood Avenue. She stepped off the curb, into the crosswalk and against the red light just as two cars approached. She stepped from the NW corner of the intersection. The cars either came south on Cliffwood and turning right on Sunset or they came westbound on sunset. Either way, the first car grazed the young girl, knocking her to the ground. The second car ran her over. The young girl was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead.

LAPD West Traffic Captain Nancy Lauer is quoted by the LA Times as saying "It appears to be a horrible accident."

1) There are no accidents. The death of Julia Siegler was not the result of Mother Nature, it wasn't an act of God, there was no "force majeure" at work. This was a traffic collision, a horrendous event, a brutal incident, a circumstance with life-ending ramifications but it was in no way, shape, or form an accident. There are no accidents.

An accident is a determination. It is a ruling, it is the pronouncement that comes at the end of an investigation, it is not a word to be used casually at the scene of the crime. Oh, wait, was this the scene of a crime?

2) This was big news. The LA Times gave this story great coverage, not because a pedestrian died trying to cross Sunset Boulevard, but because the LAPD didn't know the identity of the motorists responsible for driving vehicles that ended the life of Julia Siegler. For most of the day, the LAPD were looking for hit-and-run motorists.

As is turns out, the two motorists stopped their cars on Sunset Boulevard and waited for the ambulance to transport the victim to the hospital. The young girl's mother was with her when she was hit and she initially responded by pounding on the hood of the first car with her fists and screaming, according to Commander Andy Smith of the LAPD. Of course Smith wasn't there when the incident happened and he wasn't there when the mother calmed down and told the motorists "It's not your fault." With her daughter gone and as the chaotic scene quieted down, the mother of the dead girl told the motorists they could leave.

The motorists left without offering their identification or contact information. They left without providing any insurance information. They left without contacting the LAPD. They left and went on with their business. They left what could be the scene of a crime. Even if the death of a pedestrian didn't make it a crime scene, it could very well become one when the motorists left without fulfilling their simple obligations to participate in the exchange of information and in the investigation of the tragic traffic collision that resulted in the death of a young girl.

But they both chose to accept the authority of a grieving mother who has just lost her daughter as enough to relieve them of any obligations under the California Vehicle Code. Apparently they both believed that a grieving mother had authority that trumps the laws of the land. Either that or they both simply didn't know the law and both lacked the simple common sense that would prompt them to consider it good form to chat with the local law enforcement folks. No matter how you slice it, it's simply unacceptable. Either way, their behavior was unacceptable and it resulted in the LAPD spending the best part of a day looking for them.

There were approximately two dozen witnesses at the scene who were interviewed by the LAPD as part of the investigation which was reported by the LAPD as being "a thorough investigation." Yet none of the witnesses and bystanders who came across the scene to offer assistance were able to offer the license plate information for the two motorists. Apparently everyone involved assumed that the identity of the motorists wasn't an issue, yet based on results, it was.

Will this result in the motorists being responsible for reimbursing the City of Los Angeles for the wasted LAPD investigative time? Loss of drivers license for demonstrating a complete failure to understand the responsibilities of a motorist involved in a traffic collision resulting in injury or death? Criminal charges for leaving the scene?  So far, none of the above. Capt. Lauer says, "At this point, we have not arrested nor have we booked either of the drivers. It appears to be a horrible accident."

3) This was unnecessary. It turns out, according to one LAPD source, that the first motorist hit the young girl with the side-view mirror of the car, knocking her to the ground. The second motorist then ran over the junior high school student as she lay on the ground, in the crosswalk.

Much can be made of the fact that the pedestrian was crossing against the red and, obviously, staying out of the crosswalk until the traffic signal indicates that is is safe to cross would be the simplest hindsight solution.

But in light of the fact that fully 20% of LA's parking meters are not functioning, it seems reasonable to ask if the demand actuated crosswalk signal control was actually functioning.

Further, the Fed Highway Administration (FHWA) recently released modifications to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and included enhancements to the standards for signal timing in an effort to support the needs of pedestrians. It seems reasonable to take this time to review the timing of the crosswalk and to determine if this signal adequately supports the needs of pedestrians.

LAPD sources indicate speed was not an issue. It was. The vehicles were moving and if the first car made contact and the second car was unable to avoid running over the young girl, then they were traveling too fast and too close. Sunset Boulevard is posted for 35 mph, both sides are residential neighborhoods and there was a school bus waiting on South Cliffwood, all great reasons to require and expect the motorists using Sunset to travel at a reduced speed that allows them to control their vehicles. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, speed was an issue.

The school bus was parked on a street with no sidewalks. Pedestrians walk in the street to get to intersections, learning along the way that the streets are engineered and designed for motor vehicles first, humans second. It doesn't excuse bad behavior but it certainly explains it. Pedestrians learn quickly to navigate the environment based on their needs, not on the rules.

A young schoolgirl's enthusiasm for catching her school bus and her decision to cross the street against the red is a dramatic wake up call that should cause us to look at all of our intersections that serve as transit transfer points. How many people are making bad decisions based on the need to catch a bus that may be two signal phases away. Think of all of the busy intersections that would benefit from pedestrian phasing or all-walk phases. How many lives would be saved?

4) Call for action. The LAPD has been around long enough and has been in hot water hot enough to know that words matter. The word "accident" must be forbidden, stricken from the official vocabulary of the Los Angeles Police Department. It has a dehumanizing effect on tragic circumstances and it desensitizes the public to the tremendous loss of life on the streets of Los Angeles. For all of the talk of public safety, our streets are a battle field and people are dying with increasing regularity. To use the term "accident" is to normalize the loss of life in traffic tragedies and that is completely unacceptable. It also positions us as helpless and we are not helpless.

5) Call for action. Sunset Boulevard is posted at 35 miles per hour and the speed limit certification is valid through February 14, 2014 which means that for the next four years, the LAPD can use radar/laser speed limit enforcement for the 14 miles of Sunset Boulevard from the Beverly Hills city limits to PCH. Will that be popular? Probably not. Will it make cut-through traffic less effective and attractive? Possibly. Will the use of radar/laser speed limit enforcement make Sunset Boulevard a safer street? According to the LAPD and the LADOT, radar/laser speed limit enforcement is the most effective tool for controlling speeding motorists and for making the streets safer. This would be a great time to put that claim to the test and Sunset Boulevard would be the place to start.

6) Call for action. The LAPD must stop making excuses for people who get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, run over a human being, and then leave the scene of the incident. This incident must have been traumatic for everybody involved but especially the people throughout Los Angeles who are again reminded that motorists involved in traffic tragedies are free to leave the scene without identifying themselves and without fear of prosecution. Approximately one third of traffic collisions in Los Angeles result in a hit-and-run. Why? Because the LAPD accepts it, the City Attorney accepts it, the District Attorney accepts it, and worst of all, because the people of Los Angeles accept it.

Journalistic Malpractice

An 86-year-old cyclist was hit by a car and critically injured as he rode on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance. The cyclist was riding from the south side of Sepulveda, between Maple Avenue and Hickory Avenue when he was hit by a motorist traveling east.

Larry Altman, the crime reporter for the Daily Breeze, wrote of the incident "The elderly man was riding his bike north across the street and was not in a crosswalk when an eastbound car hit him." Altman attributes the information to Torrance police Sgt. Jeremiah Hart.

I called Altman and asked why he would point out that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk. He said it was his way of pointing out that the cyclist was crossing mid-block and made a reference to jay walking. I pointed out that crossing mid-block is not necessarily illegal and that jay-walking is a nebulous and misapplied term that was irrelevant here. I offered up that his observation that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk was about as appropriate as pointing out that the cyclist wasn't wearing a parachute, the difference being that the parachute would have been legal while riding on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk in Torrance is actually illegal. - Journalistic Malpractice #1

I then offered up that perhaps the cyclist wasn't actually crossing the street mid-block but was instead pulling out of one of the many parking lots and attempting to turn left onto Sepulveda Boulevard, the same direction every single motorist on the south side of Sepulveda Boulevard goes if they want to head west. It's a reasonable theory based on the fact that one can't actually cross Sepulveda in the area where the cyclist was hit, there is nothing on the other side. It's also one I confirmed with Lt. Levine of the Torrance Police Department who confirmed that vehicular traffic on the south side crosses the eastbound traffic lanes to turn left onto westbound Sepulveda Boulevard. As for simply crossing the street, there's a wall, the tree line, the curbs. But there is no destination. - Journalistic Malpractice #2

This led me to ask the simple question, how fast was the motorist traveling if the cyclist was unable to cross the three lanes of traffic and reach the median strip before the motorist hit the cyclist? It was 1:00 pm, under clear skies, light traffic and nothing blocking the motorist's or the cyclist's eyelines. How fast was the motorist traveling? Could the motorist have changed lanes to avoid the cyclist? Were the other lanes taken by other motorists? Apparently the journalist forgot to ask the question, the Torrance Police Department press release failed to note the speed, and the Daily Breeze even failed to note that there were open questions. - Journalistic Malpractice #3

Journalists such as Larry Altman are in a position of responsibility. Their words have impact. Their questions are important and if they are lazy, if they simply reformat press releases, if they lack knowledge and if they repeat their misunderstandings, it's journalistic malpractice.

Torrance Police Department update:

I spoke to the investigating officer this morning, unnamed and unquoted until the supervisor gives permission.

The motorist was traveling in the #1 lane (closest to the center) at 40 mph, the speed limit.

The motorist 1) did not see the cyclist until the last moment when the cyclist rode into the side of the vehicle 2) saw the cyclist leave the parking lot of the YMCA and begin to ride across the street.

The cyclist 1) rode straight out of the YMCA parking lot across the street 2) rode at a 45 degree angle east bound from the parking lot, heading toward the center of the street when he rode into the side of the motor vehicle.

The cyclist was a customer at the YMCA and the investigating officer confirmed that it is legal for exiting motorists to turn both left and right onto Sepulveda. The investigating officer couldn't comment on the question "Was the cyclist attempting a vehicular left by crossing the three lanes and heading to a turning lane?" because he was unfamiliar with the term "vehicular left."

When asked about the legality or illegality of riding a bicycle on the sidewalks/crosswalks of Torrance, the investigating officer said "It's illegal, just like it is everywhere in California." I pointed out that it's not illegal everywhere in CA. Local municipalities are given the option and many, such as Los Angeles, pass on the right to prohibit cyclists from riding on the sidewalk. The prohibition also comes with singage requirements.

The point of impact was 832 feet past the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Maple Avenue. The investigating officer did not ask the motorist if he went through the intersection at speed on a green or if he started from a stop at the red light.

The cyclist's bike is a 70's vintage 10 speed and it is at the Torrance Police Department. It is bent.

The cyclist was unable to offer any information to the investigating officers regarding the traffic collision.

The cyclist was determined to be at fault by the Torrance Police Department for violating CVC 21804(a) failure to yield to traffic when entering the roadway from a private driveway.

I asked the Watch Commander if the motorist might have been able to avoid the cyclist by moving to the empty median strip to the left or by slowing and moving to the right to allow the cyclist to continue merging left. (motorist says he didn't see the cyclist to the last minute yet saw him exit the driveway three lanes to the right. SLOW DOWN and allow other traffic to use the street!)

At this point, the Watch Commander concluded our conversation by saying "It's an accident!" and wishing me a good day.

NC Leaders at the DONE Restructure Table; Keys in BudgetLA Plan Adopted

CityWatch, Feb 23, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 15

The City of Los Angeles is in flux and the resulting reorganization of the city is dividing the community into two groups, one is experiencing overwhelming crisis, the other is experiencing incredible opportunity. • Yesterday's announcement by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment was being combined with the Community Development Department was perceived by some as a step backward while others looked at it as progress. Either way it's an opportunity, one that the neighborhood councils must seize, quickly.

• However you measure the Mayor’s decision to combine departments and the DONE restructure proposal, the crisis produced on considerable success: leaders from at least 75 neighborhood councils participated in the BudgetLA Project and had a voice at the solutions table. The BudgetLA recommendations that the City examine outsourcing the NC funding program, outsourcing elections, turning training and mentoring over to NCs and including a critical volunteer assistance program were made part of the restructure package.

• The BudgetLA community has been meeting since the beginning of the year, tackling LA's budget crisis with broad strokes and with an eye for detail. Through it all, the consistent message is "everything is on the table and must be considered as we work together to solve the budget crisis, and that neighborhood councils must be at that table as partners in the process."

To that end, the BudgetLA community has experienced unprecedented success, first with Councilman Paul Krekorian's leadership in the Environment and Neighborhoods Committee and then with Deputy Mayor Larry Frank in the Mayor's Office. This time of crisis is also the time of opportunity and it is up to the community to rise to the occasion and to deliver a vision for Los Angeles, one that results from the public taking a leadership role in reorganizing LA as a Great City.

• This past Friday, and again on Saturday, BudgetLA representatives met with Deputy Mayor Larry Frank and presented the DONE re-org plan. This plan was adopted twice with a resounding vote from the community members in attendance at the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition meeting and then again at the BudgetLA meeting.

Neighborhood Council’s have much to be proud of, including the fact that they have a place at the table as well as a role in the programming and staffing of the future Neighborhood Empowerment Department.

• In all, leaders from 75 of the 90 certified neighborhood councils participated in the BudgetLA meetings, debating much and looking for common ground. The plan that was presented to the E & N Committee and then again to the Mayor's office is simply the starting point, the beginning of the journey, one that has neighborhood councils taking a leadership role.

Neighborhood Councils have much to be proud of, including the simple fact that the community showed up with a plan and that it had an impact on the Mayor's office and the resulting reorganization of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. For those who call this a time for "triage" and refer to neighborhood councils as "under attack" the simple reality is this, the city is in the middle of a budget crisis and all departments and everybody feels as if they are under attack.

• Now, more than ever, we must work together to deliver a vision for Los Angeles that is based on a balanced budget, well defined priorities, efficient delivery of services, and effective evaluation of performance.

As for the Neighborhood Council system, the BudgetLA community has the opportunity to move forward as partners in developing a strategic plan for Neighborhood Empowerment based on a commitment to "grass roots civic engagement and volunteerism.

To that end, BudgetLA meets again this Saturday to review details of the Mayor’s DONE restructure –plan, consider other budget issues to target and work on next steps for the future of the neighborhood council system. Deputy Mayor Larry Frank and Special Assistant Attorney Jane Usher have been invited.

BudgetLA

February 27, 2010

10:00 am

Hollywood Presbyterian Church

Upper Terrace Hall

(enter on Yucca, park on Yucca)

1760 N. Gower Avenue

Hollywood, CA 90028

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

NCs Finding a Seat at the Table

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

The journey has been long and it has often been tedious and fatiguing, but it has paid off.

When the CAO's recommendations for the neighborhood council system came up two weeks ago, the BudgetLA community turned out in great numbers and went to work, fighting in the Budget and Finance Committee and in the City Council and again at the E & N Committee. Committee Chair Paul Krekorian championed the NC cause and took the proposed cuts off the City Council agenda and out to Committee, demActive Imageonstrating that a strong relationship with an NC Champion was worth its weight in public comment.

The council sessions have been rugged, the people who have worked the phones, sent the emails, spoken in public comment, shared their victories, offered their commitment and stood their ground have made a difference and that is what the neighborhood council system is all about.

As of yesterday, City Council instructions for actions on items involving neighborhood councils include the directive "in consultation with the neighborhood councils" demonstrating a huge shift in the relationship of the public with the City Council.

The City Council is still weighing options on NC elections, NC funding, Rollover funds, Bankcards, Expenditures and the structure and staffing levels for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Departments including the City Clerk's office, the City Controller's office, the CAO, the CLA, the City Attorney, DONE, BONC and CDD are all working on reports for the future.

Meanwhile, the BudgetLA community has a plan. It's a beginning, a place to start, but it's not a report, it's not a survey, it's a plan.

Plans are rare these days, especially ambitious plans that come with the commitment of the public.

This plan for the future of the Neighborhood Council System will be presented to the Mayor's office on Friday, February 19. If you care about the role of neighborhood councils in the future of Los Angeles, this is the meeting to attend.

There is a lot of ground to cover, from NC elections and NC funding to the core priorities of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we put all of our energy into being part of the solution as we take on the city's budget crisis and as we work together to position neighborhood councils as an asset in the journey to make Los Angeles a Great City.

Deputy Mayor Larry Frank hosts BudgetLA

Friday, February 19, 2010

3:00 pm

Mayor's Press Room

3rd Floor

200 Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

As for the NC agenda items that were in City Council over the last two weeks, Krekorian's recommendations were all passed unanimously, with an amendment to the rollover fund motion, giving neighborhood councils the opportunity to claim all money encumbered through January 29, 2010.

1) Committee recommends a) that the city report back to the committee within two weeks of the feasibility of a non profit taking over NC funding, b) making BONC the managing commission and moving DONE staff under them. “We have to move forward and study this,” Krekorian says. “We need to move. We are in a crisis.” Report back in two weeks.

2) Krekorian said "It’s clear to me this is a broken accounting system. This is a system that requires reform. Sweeping these funds into the reserve would not allow NCs what they need to meet their commitments. We need to move the funds into the unappropriated balance account, subject to certain claims. We also need a better verification process." Report back in two weeks.

3) Committee recommends that the NCs submit monthly accounting reports of bank cards to maintain the current procedure and improve transparency. Also moves that cash withdrawals from NCs be eliminated and that DONE report back, within two weeks, how that will get done. Report back in one week.

4) Committee recommends that DONE report back in 60 days.

5) Krekorian recommends total REJECTION of 50% cut in NC funding the CAO had recommended citing partnership with NCs as basis on which to move forward, calling that the “sweet spot in this issue.”

Krekorian vows to continue the discussion with the city and NCs for better, more efficient and transparent ways to move forward.

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

LA’s Budget Crisis: No Time for Flip-Flop Leadership

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

BongHwan Kim, the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, is experiencing a "moment of reckoning" brought to him courtesy of the city's budget crisis and the resulting debate over NC funding, DONE operations, core priorities and the delivery of services. Kim's "defining moment" is revealing him as a department leader without a clear direction or plan, evidenced by his contradictory comments and endorsements at the BudgetLA meeting on Saturday, the Budget & Neighborhoods Committee on Tuesday and the City Council on Thursday.

On Saturday, Kim endorsed a proposal to pursue a independent organization from outside the city family to administrate the NC funding program. This comment came at the BudgetLA meeting that also featured Lupe Solorio of Community Partners who introduced her organization as a potential "oversight" organization. It sounded like Kim was in favor.

On Tuesday, Kim sat at the Horseshoe and endorsed a proposal to direct the CAO, the CLA, the City Clerk, CDD, the City Controller and BONC to explore options within the city family to find a host for the NC funding oversight responsibilities. In some cases, the departmental reports came with requests for additional staffing. In no case, did they come with a plan. It now sounded like Kim was in favor of an "in-house" concept.

While it's true that the ability to entertain opposing positions is a sign of wisdom, it can border on doublethink when contradictory proposals get oscillating support with no more thought or explanation other than "It's important to explore all options." That may have been true in the days of research and forecasting but the city is in the midst of the battle and now is the time for decisive leadership with actions based that demonstrate commitment and confidence.

Thursday's City Council session gave a demonstration of the complete opposite as Councilman Greig Smith grilled Kim, asking if he could get the NC funding audit work done on schedule. Kim responded "I'll do my best." drawing the ire of Smith who went on the attack, suggesting that if that was the best answer available, Kim should resign and the Mayor should fire him.

Harsh words on a tough day. The City Council chose this moment to leave Kim hanging, leaving chambers to debate in closed session, returning to announce a motion to increase the call for layoffs to 4000.

Kim eventually found himself at the Horseshoe where he offered a new answer to Smith's query, "I will follow the instructions of the City Council and I will get it done if I have to do it myself."

Strong words but they come at the end of a journey that has too much ambivalence and not enough commitment to a vision and a plan.

LA’s budget crisis is no time for flip-flop leadership and vague answers. LA’s neighborhood councils deserve more.

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

NC Leaders Fashion DONE Restructure Plan: Head for Collaboration with the E&N and the Mayor

CityWatch, Pub: Feb 16, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 13

Armed with the City Charter in one hand and a plan for the reorganization of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in the other, Neighborhood Council activists claim they can deliver significant savings, increase efficiency, and improve effectiveness, all in return for a place at the table.

The simple request is that the City Council and Mayor partner with the neighborhood councils in the re-organization of DONE and in the development of the three-year plan for the neighborhood council system.

This past Saturday, 88 people gathered in Hollywood for a BudgetLA meeting that featured a presentation on a grass roots proposal to reorganize DONE and to create a "hybrid" system that would focus on core priorities which include governmental relations, public relations, and training.

The plan is a starting point, one that presents the City Council and the Mayor with an opportunity to partner with the neighborhood councils in restructuring a neighborhood council machine that is cost-effective and user-friendly.

Tuesday’s (2-16-10) Education & Neighborhoods Committee is the first stop for the neighborhood council activists, one that will include a presentation of the DONE re-organization plan and a formal response to the five agendized CAO recommendations.

BudgetLA will meet with the Mayor’s office also this week for a collaborative effort at restructuring the DONE. BudgetLA is advocating a plan that reduces the Department staff to the number needed for basic and core services … and outsourcing funding, elections and training. In the BLA plan, NCs assume volunteer responsibility for some of the election and training programs.

The DONE re-org plan comes with the endorsement of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition on Saturday the 6th and BudgetLA on Saturday the 13th. The E & N Special Meeting response was endorsed by BudgetLA on the 13th.



Neighborhood Council activists have been in emergency meetings every weekend since the beginning of the year to tackle the budget crisis and to ensure that neighborhood councils have a role in the journey.

More than 250 participants … including leaders from 75 different neighborhood councils … have attended meetings featuring speakers such as Alex Rubalcava on pension reform, John Mumma from the Police Protection League, Julie Butcher of the SEIU, and Wendy Greuel, the LA City Controller.

Through it all, the BudgetLA commitment has been to inform the public, to engage the public, to empower the public and to get neighborhood councils a seat at the budget crisis solutions table.

Saturday's BudgetLA meeting featured special guests BongHwan Kim, General Manager of DONE, Jerry Kvasnicka, Independent Election Administrator, and Lupe Solorio from Community Partners. BH expressed his confidence in the re-org plan and his optimism that we could work together on core priorities that are cost effective and efficient.

Jerry Kvasnicka gave his assurance that neighborhood council elections could be conducted at a greatly reduced expense and with an increase in neighborhood council participation. Lupe Solorio offered financial oversight and out-sourcing options that include administration, training and accounting services.

In all three cases, the specifics of the re-org, the elections, and the financial oversight remain to be worked out but the message was that we have choices, if we work together to make them happen.

Ultimately, the neighborhood councils have a plan and it all starts with the Mayor and the City Council embracing neighborhood councils as part of the solution.

The journey starts Tuesday:

• Education & Environment Committee
February 16, 2010
3:00 pm
City Hall - Council Chambers
200 Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

To listen by phone: 213-621-2489

To contact the E & N Committee:

Councilmember Paul Krekorian
Paul.Krekorian@lacity.org
213-473-7002
http://Twitter.com/PaulKrekorian
http://Facebook.com/Krekorian
http://CD2Policy.wordpress.com- leave your comments online!

Councilmember Janice Hahn
Janice.Hahn@lacity.org
213-473-7015

Councilmember Dennis Zine
Dennis.Zine@lacity.org
213-473-7003

• Collaboration Meeting with the Mayor’s Office this week. Check www.budgetla.org for day, time and location.

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

LADOT and City Planning revisit "The errors of the past!"

The LADOT and City Planning have a "secret meeting" planned for a select number of bike activists along with representatives from three city council offices, all in a clear demonstration that the public process is of low priority in the ongoing saga of the City of LA's Proposed Bike Plan. (aka the $450,000 two year long uncoordinated journey of professional malpractice led by the Department of "No!")

At issue is the meeting that is planned for this Tuesday @ 4:00 pm (shh! It's a secret!) where the LADOT and City Planning are intending to "preview" the new and improved Proposed Bike Plan, the one that Michelle Mowery, LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator, referred to on KPCC Radio last week as having elements that the public hasn't seen yet. That doesn't speak well for the two year long process of gear-grinding and other infeasiBULL planning injustices.

There are two explanations for the upcoming "secret meeting" process for the Proposed Bike Plan unveiling:

1) The LADOT and City Planning have forgotten how the community meetings went in 2008, when community members complained vocally and with great enthusiasm about the fumbled opening process that was limited to four meetings of two hours each, light on dialogue and heavy on post-its and poster board. These meetings serve as a low point in the civic engagement process and perhaps the LADOT and City Planning completely forgot that to exclude is a huge mistake. Perhaps they forgot that excluding the public is a bad idea and the 'secret meeting" is the result of simple incompetence.

2) The LADOT and City Planning might remember clearly that the participation of the public raises the expectation and sets a standard for performance in excess of the departmental intentions. Bike Activists have long held that the Proposed Bike Plan process was flawed from the beginning, when the Bikeways Un-Coordinator drafted the scope of work, put it out to bid, selected the consultant, supervised the consultant, refined the initial Bike Plan proposals, implemented the infamous "Infeasible" status and then retreated into the "budget crisis" retreat that allowed a regrouping, this time claiming that there was no more money for the consultant. Perhaps the "secret meetings" is a simply calculated attempt to circumvent the public process and to get to the finish line.

Either way, this "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

City Council President Eric Garcetti, PLUM Committee Chair Councilman Ed Reyes, and Transportation Committee Chair Councilman Bill Rosendahl are currently participants in the "secret meeting" and their staff are collecting the names of "friendlies" (three per CM!) who can meet with LADOT and City Planning for a limited review of the Proposed Bike Plan. The Councilmembers would be well advised to reconsider their affiliation and inadvertant endorsement of this "briefing" that is, at best, a simple case of incompetence but at worst, a demonstration of subtrefuge.

The City of Los Angeles has a Bicycle Advisory Committee, one made up of 15 people representing the 15 Council Districts and 4 more people who represent the Mayor. The 19 members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee met just last week and the City of LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator submitted a written report on, among other things, the Proposed Bike Plan. No mention was made of this "secret meeting" but that is probably because it is...a secret! How is it that the LABAC is left out of the loop? That's standard operating procedures for the LADOT and City Planning, both of which consistently fail to involve the very people our elected officials have designated as their representatives and advisors.

There is one more possible explanation for the "restricted" access of the "secret meeting" and that is the sheer size of the Proposed Bike Plan is too much or average mortals. At several hundred pages of bikeways planning fodder, light on vision but heavy on background information, the Proposed Bike Plan even has a diagram of a four-way stop intersection, just in case none of us have ever seen one. The Proposed Bike Plan has proven mildly interesting but painful to print, and even more tedious to read, all as one hopes that the vision for Los Angeles will magically appear if one simply sticks with it. Perhaps the "secret meeting" is limited to speed readers, those who can digest hundreds of pages of Proposed Bike Plan in a single sitting, offering insightful feedback and recommendations that will make us all proud and that will make LA a great place to ride.

That leaves us with three possible explanations for the "secret meeting" scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

1) Incompetence
2) Subtrefuge
3) Technocratic Superiority

Regardless of the explanation, the "secret meeting" is a flawed process, consistent with the LADOT and City Planning journey, but completely unacceptable to the people of Los Angeles who deserve accountability, responsibility, and the opportunity to participate in the process and on the delivery of the final product.

This "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

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.

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

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

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

To be fair, the LA Times is hardly alone.

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

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

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



There are three problems here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Find a Bright Spot and Clone It

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

Fast Company magazine features an article by columnists Chip Heath and Dan Heath that proposes a counter-intuitive approach to problem solving, especially when the problem is one of significant size.

Find a bright spot and clone it.

That's the first step to fixing everything from addiction to corporate malaise to malnutrition. A problem may look hopelessly complex. But there's a game plan that can yield movement on even the toughest issues. And it starts with locating a bright spot -- a ray of hope.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a budget crisis that calls for complex solutions of revenue enhancement, of systemic efficiencies, of budget cuts, and of staffing reductions, I looked to our neighbors for that "Bright Spot" and I found Long Beach.

Long Beach and Los Angeles compete for the same money and yet somehow Long Beach seems to come out ahead of LA. For example, LA and LB both submitted proposals to the Metro during the Call for Projects, asking for money to install bike racks on sidewalks throughout the respective cities. Both Long Beach and Los Angeles were awarded money but Long Beach's award exceeded LA's by a factor of 40 to 1 per capita.

The result is that Long Beach received money from the Metro's Call, paid their Public Works employees to install the bike racks, and went to work improving the quality of life in their community.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles took the smaller award, gave it to a contractor, decided that supervising the contract was too much work and suspended the program, citing the budget crisis as the cause.

Long Beach put their city employees to work with a well-funded program, Los Angeles churned paper and folded.

There are a couple of Bright Spots here that should serve as "Rays of Hope" as we look for long-term solutions to the budget crisis.

Long Beach filed ambitious requests for funding. The project is simple, the installation of inverted-U bike racks, but the request was comprehensive and it did three things; it put people to work, it served as a traffic congestion solution, and it contributed to a street revitalization program. With half a million residents, Long Beach has a population one eighth the size of LA but they asked for five times as much as Los Angeles (40 to 1 per capita) and they prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work. It took no more time or energy or paper to ask for the larger amount of money.

It took a simple commitment to actions that resonate.

A bike rack may not seem like a comprehensive solution to our budget crisis but if installing them puts people to work, if the money to pay people to install them is there for the asking, why aren't we putting in more bike racks?

Is it time to shift from a problem focus to a solution focus? is it time to look for flashes of success?

We can deliberate, we can pontificate, and we can negotiate but if we want to change course, it's important that we look for success stories and bright spots, then we must duplicate them.

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

CityWatchLA - NC Leaders Prepare Plan to Save City Money, Restructure DONE (Video)

Wendy Greuel @ LANCC Feb. 6, 2010 - Complete + Q&A by Michael N Cohen.

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

This past Saturday, more than 60 neighborhood council representatives from around the city gathered at the LA Neighborhood Councils Coalition forum to hear City Controller Wendy Greuel and LA Police Protective League Director John Mumma offer their perspectives on LA’s budget crisis.

When the dust had cleared and the speakers were gone, Shawn Simons stepped up with an audacious proposal, one that offers to restructure the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), move the NC funding program to an independent organization (Video) that services non-profits and community groups, and to deliver budget cuts in excess of the CAO’s recommendations.





All of this is in anticipation of Tuesday’s City Council session (10 a.m. at City Hall) when the CAO’s recommendation for the NC funding will be considered. On the City Council agenda is a proposal for the neighborhood council funding program that will the eliminate the “rollover” policy, transfer of all suspended “rollover” funds, eliminate of the bankcard system, revise the definition of allowable expenditure categories, and apply a 50% cut to annual neighborhood council funding. (LANCC Proposal )

After considerable deliberation, the LANNC participants acted with an overwhelming vote to advise the City Council:

1. LANCC wants the City Council to consider outsourcing the fiscal responsibilities of DONE to a non-profit, public service corporation (such as the California Community Foundation).

This is recommended because of DONE’s difficulties in creating and managing a satisfactory accounting system for the NCs. These difficulties are well known to NC Treasurers all across the City. They were documented in the Controller’s recent audit of the NCs.

2. LANCC wants the City Council to know that LANCC is developing a proposal for an alternate organization for DONE with much greater involvement of the NCs in the areas of Public Relations, Government Liaisons and Training (Education).

We heard and began development on such a program, one designed to save the City an additional $ 3.4 million for a total of $4.7 million in budget cuts.

3. In consideration of the above, LANCC will ask the City Council to send the C.F. #09-0600- S159 Items (9 – 10(e)), (9 – 18), (9 – 19), (9 – 20), (9 – 21) to the E&N Committee for further review and deliberation; deliberations which involve the NC Stakeholders in the process of devising, refining and presenting a more specific restructuring proposal.

INFO

• City Council Meeting-Tuesday (10 a.m.) at City Hall. Decisions on budget recommendations including cuts NC funding and DONE

LA's Best Bike Plan - The plan with a Backbone!

The Backbone Bikeway Network is a simple yet significant commitment to supporting cyclists and their fundamental need to travel to the same destinations that attract those using other modes of transportation. Cyclists travel across town from east to west, from north to south, and the Backbone simply establishes a basic framework of priority corridors and a strategy for supporting a cyclist's freedom to move. This is the foundation of LA's Best Bike Plan as articulated in the vision statement "Every street is a street that cyclists will ride."

The Backbone requires little, if any, funding in order to become a significant improvement over the status quo. The City of Los Angeles already provides many services that are key to making the Backbone the foundation for cross-town cycling, including law enforcement, routine maintenance, and prioritized repairs. Now is the time to focus them on the removal of obstacles so that the Backbone flows.

Imagine if the LAPD would use the Backbone Bikeways Network as a training tool to reinforce with the patrol officers that cyclists ride the streets, that they have the right to take the lanes, that they need to get to the same destinations as others and that they are a part of the traffic mix, not an exception. Couple this "learning opportunity" with enhanced law enforcement and speed limit enforcement and cyclists would enjoy an already funded but inconsistent public service, one that would contribute dramatically to the success of the Backbone.

Imagine if the Bureau of Street Services would give the Backbone priority maintenance, sweeping the curb lanes and keeping the gutters cleared, something that typically happens on secondary streets and side streets in residential areas but rarely on the larger cross-town routes. Just like in snow country, there should be a hierarchy of streets that receive maintenance attention. It would benefit all modes to put the focus on the Backbone, especially cyclists. Clean curb lanes allow a cyclist to ride a straight line because they don't need to dodge broken glass and debris. Cyclists will be able to give more attention to the traffic around them if they can spend less time watching for obstacles.

Imagine if the Bureau of Public Works gave the Backbone priority repairs, conducting street work and revitalization according to real priorities of traffic rather than political pressure. In Hollywood, we've got side streets getting resurfaced but the section of Santa Monica from the 101 Freeway to La Brea has a curb lane that is simply un-ridable. Wilshire Blvd. has a curblane that has cars and buses dodging asphalt drift and potholes which is unsafe for everybody. None of this is good for the efficient flow of traffic.

The real immediate impact of the Backbone Bikeway Network is that it provides the City of Los Angeles a focus point for the delivery of services and an opportunity to invest in "human infrastructure" instead of more cement. The significant value to be gained from the implementation of the Backbone Bikeway Network is the change in attitude, in philosophy, in actions and it starts with an investment in education, encouragement, and enforcement.

During conversations over the Backbone, many suggestions have come up about the different opportunities to implement engineering solutions ranging from the "floating bike paths" to the "K-Rail separation scheme" to simpler bike lane and sharrow solutions and that is a conversation that will take place over time. The solutions will result from a robust process and they remain to be seen.

For now, I recommend that the Backbone be established with great wayfinding that serves as a confirmation and as an "invitation to ride." Great cities such as Munich, Sydney and San Francisco have wayfinding signs that direct cyclists to the popular destinations and have simple distances and route identities labeled. The establishment of the Backbone and the supporting signage is the foundation of LA's commitment to connectivity and to supporting basic access and mobility.

As for additional enhancements, this is the time to position a commitment to "neighborhood pilot projects" as the next layer of Backbone effectiveness. Now is the time to get sensitive to the community and the local environment and to use this as an opportunity to engage the public in the development of innovations instead of tired template solutions.

I'm guessing that Alex has a different idea for Venice Blvd. than what Mihai might propose for Wilshire/Westwood. I'm certain that Ron will have a great solution for Santa Monica through Beverly Hills that will be nothing like Jeremy's ideas for Wilshire in K-Town. I know Enci has ideas for Hollywood, that Dan has plans for Sunset and that Mark can certainly make Vermont a better street to ride.

Regardless of what these folks come up with, we can rest assured that it will pale in comparison to what Josef has in store for Figueroa Avenue in Highland Park. The ideas and the solutions will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and will address the many unique circumstances that occur throughout the LA area. But they all have one thing in common, the Backbone commitment to facilitating and supporting cyclists as they ride to same destinations as everybody else.

The Backbone foundation supported by "human infrastructure" allows us to position "neighborhood pilot projects" so that innovations with community support can be implemented, increasing through-put with speed moderation, limiting friction by enhancing curb lanes, calming traffic with road diets and traffic calming, enhancing capacity with speed management and synchronization, and enhancing connectivity with local communities by involving them in the process.

The League of American Bicyclists has a Bike Friendly America program that evaluates communities based on the "5 E's" which are Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation. Cities such as Portland and Boulder have achieved Platinum status, while San Francisco and Seattle have picked up Gold awards. In the LA area, Long Beach, Claremont, Santa Clarita and Santa Monica have all received slight nods from the League.

A couple of years ago, the Bike Writers Collective started pushing for the inclusion of Equality as the 6th E, a campaign that paralleled the efforts of Long Beach cycling advocate and CABO Director Dan Gutierrez who has been pushing for "Equality."

Imagine if we left the LAB behind and went beyond the "Bike Friendly" concept, instead using the Backbone Bikeway Network to lay down a LEED street program that went beyond the "6 E's," adding the Environment and the Economy as standards for performance. LEED standard streets would be vital connectors, not dividers, they would lose the "traffic sewer" status and instead became lifelines that enhanced the quality of life in a community instead of imposing a state of siege on a neighborhood.

LEED standard streets would have a positive impact on street life, on the reduction of crime, on the improvement of health, on revitalizing property values, and on the local economy. The benefits of a Backbone Bikeway Network go way beyond simply access for cyclists and is the foundation for a new approach to mobility.

The Backbone Bikeway Network is an important opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to embark on a journey of commitment, a journey of innovation, a journey of community building and it all starts on the streets of LA.

The change we want will take place because we ride, not because we want to ride or because we think about riding or because we plan to ride, it will take place because our actions will change the character of Los Angeles, and the development of that "human infrastructure" is of greater value than all of the cement and paint in the world.

As for me, I'll be riding the Backbone and I'll see you on the Streets!

CityWatchLA - Getting LA’s Priorities Straight - Sounds of Silence

Catherine MacKinnon (Actress/Producer)

CityWatch, Feb 5, 2010

Vol 8 Issue 10

Catherine MacKinnon visited LA's City Council twice this week, both times working her way through the standing-room-only crowd to take a seat in the second row and to participate in the review of the CAO's budget recommendations. Once seated, she didn't look at the Councilmembers much and she didn't hear a single word they said.

She can't. She's deaf. Catherine sat for hours, focused on the team of sign language interpreters who took turns translating the proceedings for the deaf members of the audience. The pace was so fast that the interpreters worked like a tag team and were still both mentally and physically exhausted. Like lots of other members of the public, Catherine was there to protect jobs, and in Catherine's case, it included the jobs of the people who were translating for her.

Catherine was there to oppose the CAO's recommendation to "Eliminate the Department of Disability."

She was also there to fight for the Cultural Affairs Department and when her turn came to stand before the City Council to argue her case, she stood silently but signing feverishly as an interpreter spoke on her behalf.

She argued passionately as a deaf actor/producer, contending that the CAO's recommendations would have a negative impact on the many members of the artistic community who revitalize communities and contribute to the economy. She argued in favor of a commitment to access as a basic human right. She argued that a commitment to the arts is essential to a healthy community.

By way of example, the NoHo Arts District has benefited dramatically from the contributions of the artistic community and is now a destination community featuring great transit, city-center development, and lots of great entertainment opportunities including the Deaf West Theatre.

In a City that has abundant theaters, all competing for an audience, the Deaf West Theatre has quite a following. In fact it has a huge audience.



American Sign Language is the third most common language in the United States, surpassed only by English and Spanish. It's estimated that the deaf and hard of hearing population in the Los Angeles area exceeds one million people.

Catherine, like many others, depends on the Department of Disability in order to gain access the full Los Angeles experience which includes the many opportunities to share her gifts with the theatre community and the film industry. She also stands with the many artists who depend on the city's funding for the Department of Cultural Affairs.

For 20 years, the City of LA has collected $1 in taxes per $100 of hotel room charges for the Department of Cultural Affairs, an amount that is the best part of their entire $9.6 million budget. This past week, City Council President and five other council members made a written motion to repeal the guaranteed arts funding.

It took a Budget & Finance Committee meeting that went until after midnight on Monday followed by two long and focused City Council sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday to get to the moment of reckoning.

CAO Miguel Santana argued that the City Council must act decisively to avert financial disaster while Councilman Jose Huizar countered that the CAO's proposal amounted to a $15 million plan to close a $200 million gap.

When the dust had cleared, Catherine had cause to celebrate, twice.

The City Council gave the Department of Disability a reprieve and then voted unanimously to maintain the guaranteed arts funding for the Department of Cultural Affairs.

As the City Council regroups and puts their focus on increasing revenue and as the Department managers work on efficiency and reducing costs, it is imperative that the people of Los Angeles consider the core priorities of a Great City and communicate clearly to the Mayor and the City Council on the city services that are essential.

LA's character demands that we embrace and support the rich diversity and abundant creativity that makes us a destination for everybody from tourists to those who seek the land of opportunity and promise. It's now, more than ever, that we need to work together to solve our budget problems and the process must not start with the exclusion of any group of people. Everybody must have access to the process and that is a commitment that LA must not break.

If Los Angeles is to take its place as a Great City, it will be … at the very least in part … because of the work of the Department of Disability and because of the work of the Cultural Affairs Department.

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