Next Week’s Big Bike Meeting: Bike Harassment, the LAPD, Bike Planning and More!

8_11_09_rosendahl.jpgRosendahl poses with the LACBC on "Car Free Friday."

When Streetsblog spoke with Councilman Bill Rosendahl about his priorities as Transportation Committee Chair, he promised a number of sweeping changes and regular "bike themed" committee hearings.  Next week he is going to make good on some of his projects when he chairs his first "bike-only" City Council Transportation Hearing.  You can read the full agenda here, or just read on as we’ll preview each issue that will be discussed.

Already, Rosendahl’s proposal to create a law prohibiting the harassment of cyclists is generating buzz.  Some are comparing it to a "hate crimes" law for bicyclists and others are just happy to have someone recognize that many cyclists, be they commuters, Ridazz, or just people trying to get around, run into regular harassment from some of our larger road users.

While Rosendahl’s efforts to better protect cyclists within the law is more than laudable, we have to point out that we’re at the start of the process to create a new ordinance.  At this point, the Council is just directing the City Attorney and LADOT to create an ordinance.  How long it will be until we see one is anyone’s guess.

If this leads to the creation of a strong law protecting cyclists, Wednesday’s meeting could be a major moment in the history of cycling in Los Angeles.

Serving almost as a companion piece to the ordinance protecting cyclists is a return of a discussion with the LAPD concerning our law enforcement’s relationship with cyclists.  At the last Big Bike Meeting in May, the Committee and cyclists slammed the Department for its poor reporting on an April incident where a hummer crashed into a cyclist and ran off with another bike under its grille.  Amazingly, the police report blamed the cyclist for "running into the hummer," even though damage to the bike clearly showed that the bike was side-swiped from behind.  Even though it was the second time they appeared in front of the Council, the LAPD failed to bring a copy of the report, and photos provided by cyclists contradicted many of the "facts" from the crash that the LAPD claimed.

6_25_09_hummer.jpgThe LAPD claimed this hummer had license plates and other untrue "facts" from their report on April’s "Hummer v. Bike" crash.

Now, we have confirmation of a "Bike Working Group" sometime next year and a clash between the LAPD and Critical Mass downtown last week to further spice up the public comment.  Since the announcement of the working group last week, I’ve tried to pin down what the LAPD is doing to improve their relationship with cyclists and have found the process somewhat maddening.  Lieutenant Andre Dawson, who will head the working group, isn’t up to speed on the issues yet and didn’t even know what the Bicycle Advisory Committee is.  It’s small wonder that the LAPD hasn’t attended the last several BAC meetings.

Hopefully, the LAPD will come prepared to discuss what they’re doing to address their relationship.  Is Commander Jeff Greer’s internal effort that we briefly discussed earlier this week the most important effort on going?  Will Lieutenant Dawson’s Working Group be empowered to make real changes or at least clarify how reports should be written and how cyclists should be detained when they do break laws?  These are just some questions for which we need an answer.  And let’s face it, our elected leaders can pass all the ordinances they want. If the support for cycling doesn’t exist with beat cops, cyclists won’t benefit from safer streets.

Another new piece of legislation is an ordinance directing city planning to re-evaluate bike parking requirements  in the zoning code.  While this ordinance could be the beginning of something big, just as the "anti-harassment ordinance" above, on Wednesday the Committee will only be discussing whether or not to study whether or not to change the current bike parking requirements.

Also on the  agenda are some items that seem to pop back up every time it’s time for another "Bike Only Meeting."  I can play psychic and predict what’s going to happen based on what we’ve seen at past meetings.

Update on City’s Draft Bike Plan: The city will claim victory in its public outreach based on the number of comments received and happily note that they’ve extended their comment period into next year.  Cyclists will point out that the rollout of the plan was convoluted, the plan is a step back from the 1996 plan (which wasn’t very good), the plan doesn’t incorporate the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights, and a laundry list of other complaints.  Most of which I feel are completely valid.

Update on City’s Study of Whether or Not to Bring Bike Sharing to L.A. – I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a Department as unenthusiastic about a proposal as the LADOT is with this one.  In their report for the Council, the LADOT says that they’re going to go out with a "Request for Information" which would allow private industry to let the City know what is fiscally doable in Los Angeles.  Of course, they also note the deplorable state of our bike infrastructure, although they somewhat understate the problem when they claim it will be "several years before the network is completed."  Cyclists present won’t agree on whether or not bike-sharing is a good idea or not.

Update on effort to bring Sharrows to Los Angeles – As we noted earlier, since the last time the committee discussed this, Long Beach and Hermosa Beach have had Sharrows programs go from engineers heads onto paper and on to the street.  If LADOT can’t commit to a timeline to put paint on the ground, we should just dust our hands on working with the Department because they’re clearly stone walling us.  At some point the LADOT will remind us that "This isn’t Long Beach" in response to complaints about how long this is taking.  No kidding.

  • Lasbi Anlov

    Update on the Sharrow Plan:

    The City of Los Angeles’ Depertment of Alternative Transportation has recently completed it’s fourth sharrow pilot project – the second in Council District 1.

    For more details, please ride your bike!

  • Do you know how long the meeting is expected to last? I’d really like to attend this one if I can swing it at work.

  • It will last four hours or more. Most of the time will be taken up waiting for a quorum. The rest will be consumed by “public comment” that will not affect the decisions reached by the elected officials – who, if they do decide” on anything, will to request more reports from city staff who will ignore those request or come back and repeat the whole thing all over again.

    We cannot rely on the politicians to do our lobbying for us. Coming on “game day” during public comment time is a joke, and I hope that the LACBC is educated enough by now to play a little “telephone” by walking around city hall during the off-days and building support for measures they’d like to see passed.

    This whole things is getting amateurishly boring. I’m tired of public hearings! Give us something to rally around, or leave us alone.

  • dudeonabike

    Agree with ubrayj02. The agenda seems a to have a familiar rehash about it and pretty unambitious in the large scheme of things. And the expected results to come out of the meeting are . . . well, what the heck are they really?? I fear this will be, once again, the same old horse-and-pony political show where all of “them” show up and listen earnestly to a roomful of “us” designed to reassure us that they’re on top of it and are listening to our legitimate concerns. And they’re going to be listening forever. As I heard on KPFK the other day: “It’s time to stop singing and start swinging”–not condoning violence, of course.

  • Alright, I’ve made up my mind on this.

    The LACBC is off the mark calling us all into the room without a legislative/policy/political strategy to get what we need from these elected officials and city staff

    BUT

    we should try and make (yet another) statement about our engagement in this process.

    This means: street theater.

    When Mowery talks, we walk – out of the room. When the LAPD talk, we all submit speaker cards and continue to direct questions and dialogue back to issues having to do with their treatment of injured and killed cyclists in LA.

    See soapboxla on twitter for more details.

  • I think that theater is good and even effective… but I am a bit uncomfortable with walking out of the room to protest an individual. I think it’s better to refute Mowery’s points. I know I differ with a lot of folks out there on this, but I don’t see Mowery as the problem. Mowery is (using a phrase I learned in a campaign training workshop hosted by the national bike alliance folks) “the person who can’t say yes.” As an organizer, that’s not the person that we should target, nor should we spend a lot of our time on. We could protest at Mowery’s office every day of the year, and she still can’t say yes.

    It’s critical that we have very clear asks that are targeted toward Councilmembers, Mayor and toward higher level DOT staff (Rita Robinson, John Fisher.) These folks have the power to say yes. They are the people we should target.

    (One worry that I have is that, by lumping all the bike stuff together for one meeting, the only high-level people in the room will be a few councilmembers. Will Rita Robinson and John Fisher attend a bike-centric Transportation Committee meeting? Will Councilmembers Parks, LaBonge, Koretz, and Alarcon show late and/or leave early? I hope these folks will respect bicyclists by attending and participating, but I fear not. While I applaud Councilmember Rosendahl for trying to support bikes by focusing on the tomorrow, I wonder if it would be better to have one or two bike items as part of every Transportation Committee meeting… so bikes are seen as an integral part of our entire transportation system… not segregated as a special project now and then… and left out of most of our deliberations.)

  • Joe, If Michelle Mowery is the “wrong” person, would you be willing to protest her appearance and then to ask for the “right” person to address the committee?

    She’s not only “the person who can’t say yes” but she’s the person who spends a lot of time saying NO. So much so, that it begins to normalize the “no room for cyclists” position.

    Your point that she is not the correct person to engage is exactly the motivation for simply leaving the room until they replace her with someone who can say YES.

  • I wish we could have one person, just one person, get paid to walk the halls collecting votes on a tally sheet for pro-bicycle laws and spending requests. It really wouldn’t take much, but it would turn a day like tomorrow into a powerful, “We came, we saw, we conquered” moment – instead of just another “We blabbed, they listened, and nothing got done the next morning.”

    Bikinginla’s Ted Rogers has the right idea with is candidate meetings, and questionnaires. Yet we need to follow up in city halls across the county, to connect the money givers with the department staff – to build a bridge to get the paperwork filled out and the legislator’s votes lined up. We need a legislative director for bikes.

  • @Soapbox/Stephen – yes – I will be willing to bring it up if there are no high-level DOT people there. I am certainly not telling you or anyone else what not to do… just recommending what I think can be most effective.

    I think it’s better to tailor my message to a good appropropriate ask for the people who are there who can say yes. I suspect that that will be Councilmember Rosendahl, and probably one or two other councilmembers. I think our most effective tactics in a meeting like I expect tomorrow’s to be is to make it clear to councilmembers what they can do to be effective for bikes.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Bike Sharing Coming to USC and City Passes Rough Timeline for Anti-Harassment Ordinance. Speed Limit Increases Delayed.

|
The City Council met today and discussed two cycling related issues.  The first was the ongoing discussion of whether or not the city should have a bike sharing program.  Second, the Council debated how to create an ordinance that would better protect cyclists from harassment. As predicted, Councilman Rosendahl moved to "re-open" the public record […]

City Council Unanimously Passes Anti-Harassment Ordinance

|
When Streetsblog first began publishing in Los Angeles, there would be Transportation Committee hearings where I was literally the only-person in the room that wasn’t either city staff or a lobbyist.  The scene at City Hall couldn’t be more different these days as advocates for cyclists rights and infrastructure are a common site in the […]

City Council Public Safety Committee Blows Easy Chance to Support Cyclists

|
Go ahead, harass away. Photo: Slippy Jenkins/Flickr  Earlier today City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl’s legislation requiring the City Attorney to draft "anti-harassment" ordinance protecting cyclists and pedestrians was heard by the City Council Public Safety Committee. The passage of Rosendahl’s motion, which doesn’t tie the Council to the final ordinance in any way, […]