Comments on: Breaking News: LAPD Recommends Discontinuing Bike License Program

By: Bill Birney

Bill Birney — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:49:41 +0000

Will said:
BikinginLA, there's a need for a legitimate licensing program whose funds are dedicated to bike projects, the first of which should be to take down every fucking ambiguous BIKE ROUTE sign and replace it with one that reads BIKES ALLOWED FULL USE OF LANE.

I'm with you Will. InN fact, even that could be made clearer. IN B.C. at least, cyclists can take the lane any time they feel that that is necessary for safety. So maybe it could read SHARE THE ROAD (with an appropriate sing showing a car behind a bicycle), or better, CYCLISTS USE FULL LANE with similar signage.

By: Not the original AT

Not the original AT — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:37:51 +0000

On second thought. Ubrayj02 is correct. The (city) law is still on the books. It is just no longer being enforced.

By: Not the original AT

Not the original AT — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:35:38 +0000

Sorry, I must disagree with Ubrayj02.

CVC code 39001 is not a requirement for cities and counties, but a requirement for the state to provide licenses to those cities and counties that do require licenses.

The operative regulation is actually CVC 39002 which states
39002.
"(a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution, may provide in the ordinance or resolution that no resident shall operate any bicycle, as specified in the ordinance, on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as the case may be, unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division."

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so take from it what you will. Just don't call it legal advice.

By: David Pulsipher

David Pulsipher — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:00:40 +0000

enforcing the licenses was a last grasp effort for LAPD to have some sort of countermeasure midnight ridazz et al. nothing more. good riddance

By: Rick Risemberg, Bicycle Fixation

Rick Risemberg, Bicycle Fixation — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:18:50 +0000

What is needed is not a licensing program--bicycling need not be licensed any more than walking does--but a voluntary bike registration program to aid in recovering stolen bikes. Of course a crappy peel-off sticker won't do much for that, but a database of serial numbers and descriptions that cops could check against--or for that matter bike shops, when accepting a job for repair. Similar to Stolen Bike Registry but more organized.

It's plain that the cops were using this law to harass cyclists who looked anti-establishment. I doubt many corporate warrior types on Cervelos were pulled over for a license check!

By: Will Campbell

Will Campbell — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:28:44 +0000

I still think the sudden enforcement of the law predominately downtown had to do primarily with giving cops a tool to harass the area's homeless, its messengers, and perhaps to a lesser extent any group night rides that came through there.

I'm with BikinginLA, there's a need for a legitimate licensing program whose funds are dedicated to bike projects, the first of which should be to take down every fucking ambiguous BIKE ROUTE sign and replace it with one that reads BIKES ALLOWED FULL USE OF LANE.

By: Todd Scott

Todd Scott — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:46:25 +0000

Congrats, LA! This is surprisingly similar to what happened in Detroit last summer. We had a very similar licensing requirement, though our fines were $55. We had the entire licensing ordinance removed and replaced with a voluntary program.

Additional details are on the m-bike blog:
http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2008/07/28/committee-votes-to-drop-bike-license-fines

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:53:40 +0000

Personally, I'm not opposed to a legitimate licensing program, but this clearly wasn't it. If they want to establish a real program, in which it's easy to license your bike, and any funds raised are used to pay for improving cycling infrastructure, we can talk.

Until then, good riddance.

By: Dorothy Le

Dorothy Le — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:48:40 +0000

Interesting. Perhaps now we need to lobby to remove LAMC 26.01 altogether.

I would say, for all intents and purposes, this is a victory for the cycling community. I would not stop here, though, as there is still so much for us to do to make LA a safer place for people to ride bikes.

I would go with ubayj02- we got something, but let's push harder now.

By: ubrayj02

ubrayj02 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:45:58 +0000

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd16_7.htm

39001. (a) The department shall procure and distribute bicycle license indicia and registration forms to all counties and cities which have adopted a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution.

This law is still on the books. Further, it is a state law which requires businesses to register bikes with the "licensing agency" in their area.

Bike shops are still breaking the law be default (for that matter anyone selling a bike is) and so are bike riders. This is a bad situation that can only by truly fixed with legal changes (i.e. Removing LAMC 26.01).

If that is too much to ask for, then, "Victory!" it is, I guess.

By: Ingrid Peterson

Ingrid Peterson — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:35:26 +0000

Dare I say it ----

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!

Pretty impressive victory!

Hopefully this goes through, cuz, um, I haven't licensed any of my bikes quite yet....