DJ Wheels, an attorney who happens to be a bicycle rider, has been updating the folks at Midnight Ridazz on the ongoing case of the "Road Rage Doctor" as it is heard at the LAX Courthouse.  Wheels was gracious enough to summarize his posts on Monday and Tuesday's hearings.  If you can't get enough Dr. Road Rage, Ted Rogers has more at Biking In L.A.:

Ron Peterson was a great witness...calm, composed...said all the right things when Swarth, the defense attorney, tried to corner him on cross exam. The presentation of the pictures of his injuries and the blood on the back of Thompson's car was powerful stuff. They even brought in Ron's broken Specialized Tarmac. The damn head tube and fork were completely split off from the top tube and down tube!

When pressed by Swarth on still being furious about the incident and the injuries he suffered, Peterson calmly testified, "I just want justice, that's why I'm here."

On direct exam on Monday, Officer Rodriguez said that when he heard Thompson say, "I wanted to teach them a lesson," he stopped investigating it as an accidental traffic collision and called for another patrol unit to investigate it as assault with a deadly weapon.

Tuesday on cross examination, Swarth was trying to establish that Officer Rodriguez basically did a crappy investigation and jumped to the conclusion that it was an intentional and deliberate act on the part of Thompson based solely on his statement, "I wanted to teach them a lesson."  Rodriguez is a veteran police officer and former Marine, so he wasn't cracking and repeated that it wasn't up to him to follow up and ask what Thompson meant by that statement because it was not protocol. Another investigator would have to do that follow up.

Two doctors also testified yesterday. One who was actually at the scene going home and stopped to help.   The other doctor was a plastic surgeon who assessed Ron Peterson's injuries a few days after the incident. Not only did Peterson suffer lacerations to the face, but he also had a broken nose as well as internal fractures to his nasal passage.  Apparently, he still can't feel his nose.

The last witness called yesterday was Patrick Watson, who had reported a prior similar incident on Mandeville Canyon involving this same vehicle and Thompson back in March 2008. He testified that he had to bunny hop on to the curb twice to avoid getting hit by Thompson's vehicle. He also said that when another cyclist that was there yelled at him to get out of the car and actually punched his car, Thompson started to drive away and come right toward Watson, but then swerved away and drove off.

Swarth is still cross examining Watson and will continue on Thursday. (NOTE: Wednesday the courts are closed because of state-wide furloughs.)

I dunno about Watson though. He looks sincere, but not as calm and composed on the stand as Ron Peterson. Swarth is grilling him on stuff he posted about the incident to his cycling club's email list on Yahoo Groups. Swarth is trying to point out inconsistencies and bias that are pretty obvious in his email. The defense is probing into his state of mind and feelings toward his incident and Thompson in order to suggest that he has a motive to lie and therefore not a credible witness. 

Swarth will finish with Watson's cross examination Thursday morning.  The prosecution will then call the cyclist who was there with Watson during the March 2008 incident, followed by another two detectives.  Friday district attorney intends to call two expert witnesses. 

The defense may begin calling their first witness on Friday if time and schedules permit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The largest and most expensive police building in the United States is about to be dedicated and as the world watches, the LAPD's ignorance of basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards will be revealed. The new headquarters are located across the street from LA's City Hall and the 10-story, 500,000-square-foot building has a beautiful open plaza featuring drought resistant plants and a zen garden theme that creates a sense of calm in the middle of the busy and congested city center. It also features a bike parking area that violates basic CPTED standards as well as simple bike parking standards.

CPTED is the simple philosophy that crime can be prevented by designing an environment so that criminal behavior is not supported by hiding places, blocked vision and isolation. The LAPD headquarters have installed bike racks that are as far from the front door as possible, to the left and out of sight, around the corner and blocked by nine large planters and surrounded by a wall that would hide a bike thief who was working on the bikes. Topping off the poor design is the existence of a 8' by 8' setback in the wall, creating an ideal hiding place. As for the racks themselves, they are positioned so tightly that anybody parking a bike there has a ready alibi for handling other bikes because they simply don't fit, falling far short of the basic standards established by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.

The ultimate irony in this is that the LADOT is also across the street and they, along with City Planning,  are in the process of developing the Draft Bike Plan for 2009 which would replace the 2002 Bike Plan. Both Bike Plans have bike parking standards and even go so far as to give the LADOT responsibility for communicating these standards to other city departments.

A simple visit to a park, to a library, to a fire station, to a regional City Hall, to Parker Center is enough to demonstrate that there is no citywide standard for something as simple as bike parking, all while the City has a person in charge of Bike Parking.

One might forgive some of the old wheel bender "toast" racks or the useless "wave" racks or the simple inverted U racks that get installed incorrectly, rendering them useless and serving only to remind cyclists that they simply don't belong. But as the City of Los Angeles prepares to hit the spotlight and to dedicate the most enormous and expensive monument to modern crime prevention, it seems sad that they forgot to consider CPTED.

The area just to the west of the plaza is the wrong location for the bike racks. They belong no more than 50' from the main entrance, they must be visible to those in the lobby, to those passing by and to the guests who visit the LAPD headquarters. They must be safe, convenient and secure. It's not just about bikes any more, it's about the LAPD's reputtion.

h/t to reader Jass.

The Daily Trojan reports that the LAPD and USC Campus Security are teaming up to more effectively enforce the law that prohibits cyclists from crossing the street while riding. What the article misses, and what the LAPD sometimes seems to understand and sometimes gets confused is that such a ban doesn't exist.

In fact, there is no written law regarding the duties of cyclists anywhere. Sometimes the LAPD claims that the state vehicle code (C.V.C.) requiring cyclists to follow road rules as though they were drivers is the law behind the ban. That the Los Angeles Municipal Code, with the approval of the state vehicle code, allows cyclists full use of the sidewalk unless otherwise stated would also give cyclists the right to use crosswalks as pedestrians do.  There isn't a clear answer here because there is no prohibition written anywhere that applies to Californians or Angelenos that specifically spells out the rights of cyclists to use the crosswalk.

At Soap Box, Stephen Box recounts a conversation he has with an "Officer K" about just this issue in the wake of a DWP truck killing a cyclist in the crosswalk and being cleared by Valley LAPD because she was "biking the wrong way in the crosswalk." Putting aside that it is impossible to travel the wrong way in a crosswalk, the rest of Box's tale is at least just as troubling:

He said he had to write it that way because there was no California Vehicle Code (CVC) to rely on to enforce that ban against riding in the crosswalk.

I countered by pointing out that it's not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk and that was why there was no CVC prohibiting it.

He stiffened up a bit here and responded that it was up to a Judge to decide and that even if the ticket got thrown out by the Judge, the process was a learning experience.

If the LAPD's assertion that crosswalk riding is illegal, I have a small list of people that need to be frog marched in front of a judge: Metro Bicycle Coordinator Lynn Goldsmith and LADOT Senior Bicycle Coordinator Michelle Mowery. These two diabolical planners green-lighted the Orange Line Bike Path. A bike path that includes multiple street crossings that are crosswalks. I've even biked the Orange Line with Goldsmith and consider her a friend, but justice needs to be served.

However, if the LAPD is confused about this law, perhaps the City Council and Mayor's office could clarify it with a formal resolution and vote. There's a reason there's no law governing bicycle riding in a sidewalk, which incidentally I don't do, and it's not because our state and local lawmakers are ok with the LAPD creating their own laws.

Traffic Enforcement for Bicyclist Safety from Chicago Bicycle Program on Vimeo.

This amazing video, via Chicago Bicycle Advocate, was produced for the Chicago Police Department to educate drivers, cyclists and officers on traffic laws pertaining to bikes.  Given that the LAPD is revising its teaching methods for how it enforces traffic laws on cyclists this video should be required viewing down at Parker Center.

Considering the disregard and hostility often projected by Los Angeles's Finest, that such videos exist (San Francisco has one too) is remarkable enough. But here, interspersed with horror stories from civilian cyclists, we have actual police officers -- close to a dozen are listed in the credits -- instructing their colleagues not just to enforce the law, but to treat bike riders with respect as rightful users of the road.

After a primer on how to fill out cyclist-involved crash reports, for example, the narrating officer gives advice on cyclist interviews. Given that a cyclist may be suffering from shock after a crash, he says: "You may need to follow up the next day, or talk with them after a trip to the emergency room." Imagine.

Does anyone know of other U.S. cities with similar police training materials? Will Angelenos ever see the day when an LAPD officer publicly says something like, "The public counts on us to keep the roads safe, and to protect those who are at the greatest risk"?

(editor's note: I leaned heavily on the text provided in the NYC Streetsblog coverage of this video in writing, but the opinions expressed in this piece about L.A. are mine and should not have been attributed to our NYC staff.  That mistake was my mistake.)

Yesterday, the City announced the details of their outreach strategy to gather public input on the qualities that Angelenos want to see in their next police chief.  In early September, the city will hold four public outreach meetings in the Valley, South L.A., the Westside and, as Zach Behrens notes, near the Eastside.

As Livable Streets advocates, we need to be vocal in the coming weeks about what we want in a police commissioner but to do that we need a message and a plan.  We've all seen some ridiculous mis-enforcement of the law when it comes to cyclists or pedestrian issues.  Some of them, like the LAPD's botched reporting and bungling defensive follow-up concerning the hummer assault on Andres Tena have been reported on Streetsblog.  Others, such as the time a DWP truck struck and killed a cyclist in a crosswalk that resulted in no arrests because the "cyclist was going the wrong way in the crosswalk," were not.

I haven't heard of an organized effort to make certain that the new police chief is a hawk on traffic justice and ensuring safe streets, so I'm starting one on my own.  I've set up a Livable Streets Discussion Group here so that we can figure out a message, an outreach strategy and make sure we follow-through with that strategy.  Anyone can view our discussions, unless the group decides to close our discussions, but to contribute you need to be a member of the Livable Streets Network.  Don't worry, it's not hard to sign-up, follow the instructions here.

For those that want to testify at these hearings but don't want to join the party, a list of all the dates is after the jump.

It may not have drawn the crowds that were expected, but for the second time in three weeks the City of Los Angeles shut down part of its Downtown street grid for an outdoor party and the world didn't end.  If the city is willing to spend $4 million for police presence and to shut down streets for a rock star's memorial; imagine what they should be willing to spend on a weekend car-free party for everyone in the city, not just those people who happen to like Michael Jackson or the Los Angeles Lakers, similar to those we see in San Francisco, New York or, of course, Columbia.

Plenty of bloggers have some coverage of the event itself, so while we wait for Los Angeles to get serious about a Ciclovia-style event that will be the envy of the world; we'll have to make do with pictures of the streets on LAist, Curbed and Blogdowntown.

The LAPD testified that this hummer had full license plates at today's hearing. Where they intentionally lieing, or hadn't the officer looked at the pictures that had been submitted? Photo: Luis

On April 24, a gentleman and his family were driving around Downtown Los Angeles in a hummer when a crazed cyclist rammed the back of the vehicle.  Confused and angry, the downed cyclists' friends surrounded the hummer and threatened the driver.  With only a hummer to protect him and the people he cared for, the driver continued forward, inadvertently striking some of the bikes.  One of the rabid cyclists threw their bike at the vehicle, damaging the mirror.  After he was safely away from the cyclists, the driver pulled over and waited for the police to arrive.

That is the story LAPD Commander Mike Williams presented earlier today of the now-infamous April "bike v. hummer" crash in Downtown Los Angeles.  The LAPD further testified that the only part of the case being pursued by City Attorneys was whether there should be misdemeanor charges filed against the cyclist who "threw their bike at the hummer."

A stunned cycling community, who's seen the damage to the side, not front, of Andres Tena's bike and a series of photos that contradict Williams' version of events; aggressively questioned the reality of the LAPD's report, prepared by Officer Cho who was not present.  Also not present was Kirk Albanese, the officer who defended the report in front of the full Council in May.

First off, the cyclists on the scene responded that they weren't harassing the hummer, but were trying to keep it from fleeing the scene because he didn't have plates.  The LAPD cockily responded with the plate number, but photos of the hummer at the time of the crash clearly show that it was an unmarked vehicle.  Those pictures will be available here tomorrow. (edit: That picture is now at the top of the post.)

Second, the hummer wasn't "waiting for the police to arrive" it was fleeing the scene with a bicycle underneath the grille when a squad car pulled it over blocks from the crash.  Williams responded that the report did not mention the bicycle underneath the hummer. 

The LAPD claims to have never seen this picture, nor others I have witnessed presented at the Police Commission and to the Inspector General.

Third, the LAPD never responded to my query about what the condition of Tena's bicycle was and what that says about the laws of physics and the crash.  What did the secret "publicly available report" say about the bicycle?  Was it damaged in the front from where it collided with the hummer?  Crickets.

The most moving testimony was again given by Tena, sitting to my right on the witness stand.  Proving that you don't have to be an experienced public speaker to move an audience, Tena recounted the story of the crash that left him hospitalized.  To recap, he never saw the hummer until it was passing him and he was falling.  He was sideswiped from behind, couldn't stand after the crash and suffered a badly sprained ankle and back pains.  He did not run into a hummer from behind, he was just a hungry sober kid, biking home from a party, who was hit by a hummer.  Gone was the smile and good humor that he showed when we last chatted back in May, and he testified that he has good and bad days and is sometimes scared to get on his bike...his primary form of transportation.  Don't get me wrong, he was back to his smiling self after the hearing, but it takes a toll to hear the police spread misinformation about one of the worst days of your life and forming a defensive wall around your attacker.

Wendy Greuel, Bill Rosendahl and Bernard Parks were the only Councilmen present.  "Bike Friendly" Councilman Tom LaBonge left before the bicycle portion of the hearing and Richard Alarcon was a no-show for the second week in a row.  Greuel and Parks seemed annoyed and confused by the LAPD's bizzarro world report, but Rosendahl seemed angry.

Rosendahl asked that the LAPD return to once again try and actually bring a copy of the "accident" report as well as the report being prepared by the Inspector General.  "I don't want to do this again," the Westside Councilman said, referring to holding a hearing on a report that hasn't yet been provided to the Council.

What kind of a justice system do we have if a hummer can sideswipe or rear-end a cyclist and get the city to seek damages on his behalf?  What hope do us common-folk have getting a fair hearing from the LAPD when they won't even provide their report, a public document, to the City Council when it's been a month and a half since it was first requested and today was the third hearing on the issue?

Ironically, the clash over the "bike v. hummer" crash followed a report from Williams where he admitted that the LAPD needs to do more internal education on what obligations that bicyclists have on the road and for what they can and cannot be ticketed.  The LAPD is working on a re-education program as part of an officer's continual training that would clarify the rules of the road for cyclists and pedestrians.  While this is a good step, Williams was unable to make the mental leap that maybe, Officer Cho who prepared the "bike v. hummer" report could use a refresher himself.

However, just because the LAPD realized there may be a gap in their training and working to address it; not everyone was happy with the news.  Aurisha Smolarski, of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, wanted a chance for the cycling community to look at the training documents before the training starts.  Stephen Box noted that the police seem more concerned with finding out how they can most effectively ticket cyclists, not how to protect and defend their rights on the streets.

There were a lot more issues, both about bikes and not, covered at today's meeting. Look for the rest of the stories tomorrow.

Tomorrow marks the swan song for Wendy Greuel, the outgoing Chair of the City Council Transportation Committee who will move across the street to the Comptroller's Office on July 1st.  The agenda for her last meeting is not an easy one, I'm guessing she was hoping most of these issues would have moved on last week, a plan thwarted by the low attendance from the LAPD and even the other members of the Committee excepting Bill Rosendahl.

Highlighting the agenda are the same two issues that highlighted last week's agenda.  The LAPD is scheduled to report on their internal communications and education to officers concerning cyclists and pedestrians as well as discuss the status of the investigation of the "Hummer v Bike" crash from last April.  Previous appearances by the LAPD only served to enrage the cycling community who felt the report ignored common sense and the Laws of Physics.  The City Council didn't appear amused either, but unfortunately Jan Perry, the Council Woman who showed the tenacity of a prosecuter when questioning the LAPD in May isn't scheduled to be in attendance.

An update on the outreach plans for the Bicycle Master Plan is also scheduled.  After the outline proposed by City Planning and LADOT was panned last week, it will be interesting to see if there are any changes to their plans or if we'll just be treated to the fleshing out of the outline we saw last week.

As for Metro, the agenda for their board meeting appears somewhat less exciting than most.  For example, the words Long Range Transportation Plan doesn't appear on the agenda.  However, the words "CONSIDER exercising light rail vehicle options under Contract No. P2550" do appear.  As insiders know, that means another long debate about AnsaldoBreda, the embattled rail car builder who is trying to get the contract for Metro's future light rail cars despite some issues with Metro in the past.

Despite the Board not legally being allowed to consider where the cars are to be built, the main reason that AnsaldoBreda, who has delivered cars late and overweight, is being considered for this extension is because they're promising to open a rail car plant in Greater Los Angeles if they get the contract.  Despite a report by Metro CEO Art Leahy that he couldn't see a reason to extend the contract, a view shared by Metro's Citizen Advisory Committee, I would still advise you to bet on AnsaldoBreda walking away a happy company tomorrow.

Outgoing Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel held what was supposed to be her swan song to the bicycling community at an almost-all-bikes Transportation Committee meeting earlier today.  It's true, there were some low points, such as only Councilman Bill Rosendahl joining Greuel on the dais.  "Bike Friendly" Councilman Tom LaBonge, Bernard Parks and Richard Alarcon all declined to attend the 8:00 A.M. meeting.  But perhaps even more disappointingly, the LAPD didn't bother to show up either.

As for levity, that came in the form of a back and forth between Midnight Rida Roadblock, the LADOT and City Council that ended with Rosendahl asking why he hadn't submitted a resume to work for the LADOT.  Senior Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery responding, "Don't worry, we have it."

I should also note the diversity of the audience.  Cyclists were represented by people of all races and cultures.  Cyclists were wearing spandex, suits, sandals, skirts and loafers.  Some of the audience had to leave for a 9:00 A.M. meeting held between Green L.A. and the Mayor's office at 9:00, and another dozen or so people left after the Bike Plan portion of the hearing.  However, there was never less than thirty five activists in the room, giving up their morning to push for safer cycling in Los Angeles.

I'll try to do justice to the agenda and the issues raised after the jump.

Bike Plan.

Unlike at the official Bike Advisory Committee two weeks ago, this time the LADOT and City Planning were both in attendance and ready to discuss the Draft Plan.  There was little news at today's hearing, but Planning did announce that hearings on the plan are scheduled to begin on July 27th.  I guess that means that we should expect a draft plan beyond the maps sometime in the next couple of weeks.  The bad news, is that there will still only be four public hearings spread around the city in the same four geographic areas that we saw in March of 2008:, the Westside, Downtown, San Pedro and the Valley.  There is still no public heraing for the Eastside, which I guess is o.k. since Eastsiders claim that the maps presented exclude them anyway.  Yes, the last sentence was sarcasm.

The public testimony centered around two themes.  The first was that the public outreach on the plan has been terrible.  The second was that the draft maps aren't inspiring in any way.

As has become a running theme, just about everyone that stepped to the podium slammed the process that has produced the plan.  In some ways, I have to think that the folks at Alta Planning cringe whenever they hear of these meetings.  Alta is a planning all-star that has a reputation for for producing high quality bike plans through an inspiring and empowering public processes.  But when they run into LADOT and City Planning, they end up with an angry constituency and a mediocre plan.

Joining the Bike Coalition, Bike Advisory Committee, Bike Writer's Collective and a regiment of cyclists were members of the Sierra Club, Sun Valley Area Neighborhood Council and a handful of equestrians.  Such a diverse group, and not one person who isn't a city employee defended the outreach.

At one point Greuel asked the audience how many people attended the public meetings last March.  A handful of hands went up.  While Helen Bibas of City Planning defended the outreach noting the website and Spanish Language materials; I have to wonder when you have a room full of people that found it more convenient to bike Downtown at 8:00 in the morning rather than attend the public meetings you set up how you could possibly think that your outreach plan was sufficient.

Outside of the obvious solutions presented, such as holding more meetings or allowing cyclists to participate throughout the creation of the plan; a more innovative way to get people involved was proposed by Roadblock.  He noted that it isn't expensive to have a top notch website where people can have conversations, see plans and comment on them, update maps, submit their own maps etc.  It was this comment that led to Rosendahl's request that Roadblock volunteer with the LADOT if they can't afford him. Hey, Roadblock, make sure you get one of those "Proud to be LADOT" lanyards.

I'm not going to go over all of the complaints about what is actually on the maps.  The maps haven't changed, and neither have the complaints about them.  You can read first thoughts by a group of different bike activists, Bicycle Magazine writer Dan Koepel, LABAC Member and LACBC Board Member Kent Strumpell, and LACBC Founder and LABAC Member Joe Linton all on Streetsblog.  I will say that the crowd was pretty much evenly split between the group that wants to improve the current plan and the group that wants to kill the plan and start over because a flawed process has produced a flawed plan.

As a side topic, a number of equestrians and members of the Sierra Club showed up to complain about  the involvement of the Ospry group in the creation of the Bike Plan.  The Boulder, CO based group was brought on by Alta Planning to do public outreach to find "common ground" to potentially open up more park trails to cyclists.  Their horse peoples' testimony was played close to the chest.  Instead of arguing that opening the trails would be bad for equestrians, they slammed the private meetings Osprey held and argued that the trails issue was a distraction from the Bike Plan.  Most cyclists in the room agreed that the issue of what to do with mountain trails has little impact on the life of bike commuters struggling to ride safely on city streets. 

As for the Council Members:  Rosendahl, hinting very strongly that he expected to be the next Transportation Committee Chair, talked about making sure that the next Transportation Committee, which will be seated in June, will continue pushing this issue and that he felt that getting cyclists involved in bike planning is a slam dunk for the City.  Greuel, who has one more hearing left in her term before she moves across the street to the Comptroller's Chair, directed the LADOT and Planning to come back to the Transportation Committee next week with their public outreach plan for the Draft Plan so that it can be reviewed.

Bike Licensing

Before we could even get started, one of Reyes' aid in attendance clarified that they didn't want to bring back the plan that the city just revoked; they wanted to bring back a new plan that could make life safer for cyclists.  LABAC Chair Glenn Bailey testified that instead of wasting limited bike funding on a new program, the City should instead just partner with one of the national organizations that already does voluntary licensing and go from there.

LAPD Report on "Hummer Incident" and Internal Bicycle and Pedestrian Training

The LAPD no-showed the hearing so there wasn't a report. 

LADOT Senior Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery broke the bad news to the catcalls of the audience, including a demand that they "send them the tapes" from today's meeting.  After Greuel promised that she would have the LAPD present at next week's meeting, Stephen Box half-joked that the calendar was "wearing us out."  If scores of cyclists can make an 8:00 A.M. meeting, skipping work and giving their free time, it's a major failure that the LAPD couldn't send anyone that would been paid to be in attendance.  It's little wonder that they can't get out from under a consent decree from the federal government.

Also, Bailey offered to have the Bike Advisory Committee host an open town hall to address the issues between cyclists and pedestrians.  There wasn't a firm commitment from the Council that they were interested in moving forward.

If they do show up at next Wednesday's 2:00 P.M. meeting, I'll be sure to report what they say.  However, I'd wait to see the schedule this Friday before taking the afternoon off.

Update on Federal and State Bike Funding

We still aren't seeing a lot of it.  Rosendahl and Greuel asked about stimulus funds and the LADOT sadly responded that it was mostly for shovel ready projects and LADOT didn't get stimulus funds for bikes.  I hate to ask, but how much planning does it take to paint a bike lane?

Authority to Remove "Derelict" Bikes from City Bike Racks

A quick debate ensued over what the best way to deal with "derelict" bikes abandoned on city racks was.  Greuel shared my concern that strong standards needed to be in place to make certain the city didn't accidentally remove and confiscate active bicycles. 

There was also discussion that if we're going to open the municipal code up on bike parking; then the City should also change the rule that bans the parking of bicycles on parking meters.  To be fair, the ban on meters is completely unenforced.

Box also pointed out that the security of city bike racks is a larger issue than just derelict bikes.  Just last week a group of bicycles were vandalized in broad daylight right outside their office building at 200 Spring Street, aka Los Angeles City Hall.

Changing Municipal Code to Require "Audible Announcement" of Bikes Passing Peds on Sidewalk

A lot of people wondered why this was even being discussed when the current Municipal Code requires that cyclists not ride in a dangerous way.  At one point, cyclist testifying that there should never be a ban on bicycles on sidewalks noted that it's a lot safer for him to ride on the sidewalk at 10 m.ph. than on the road at 20 m.p.h.  Putting aside the statistical reality that it's not true that riding on a sidewalk is safe for anyone, I should also note that 10 miles per hour is way too fast for sidewalk riding.

All in all, there wasn't a lot of news at the meeting, although for the third time in six weeks, the Bike Community roared at the City Council.  Whether that roar leads to better policy in the BMP or from the LAPD remains to be seen.  However, at least we do know that Greuel's last meeting as Transportation Committee Chair next week shouldn't be a boring one.

(more to come...keep checking back)

Crosswalks.  There are few things in Los Angeles that create such controversy, yet are part of our everyday lives.  In truth, every intersection in Los Angeles is a crosswalk, unless specifically marked otherwise, much to the consternation of the LADOT.  When students are rundown in the crosswalk at USC, planners and engineers take a look at the crosswalk.  When cities try to figure out the safest way to get students to and from school, a big part of the effort is a look at the crosswalks.

Yet, a lot of our city officials still don't understand crosswalks.  When an intersection has an unacceptable number of crashes, the many LAPD divisions respond by ticketing pedestrians crossing against a flashing hand, even if they get through the intersection before the hand solidifies; while drivers continue to merrily run red lights right in front of them.  In 2007, the LAPD gained notoriety nationwide when they ticketed an 82-year old "cane wielding" woman who couldn't cross the street in the time the pedestrian signal gave her.  Amazingly, the LAPD closed ranks around "Officer Kelly" claiming he was saving her life.  Who can forget the memorable quote from Kelly's boss,

"I'd rather not have angry pedestrians," Zaboski said. "But I'd rather have them be alive."

When a group of students tested whether they could cross the street in the time allowed they could, but only if they ran.  Maybe next time Officer Kelly could put down his pad and help the elderly?

And last week the LAPD was back in the news concerning crosswalks, this time showing a lack of understanding of the law, not just a lack of common sense.  A woman riding her bike in a crosswalk is killed by a collision with a car.  The officer on the scene determines the woman is at fault because she was riding on a crosswalk and riding the wrong way, against the flow of traffic.

That would make for sound legal reasoning, except in Los Angeles it is legal to ride on the sidewalk and there is no such thing as crossing the "wrong way" in a crosswalk.  When a local cyclist wrote their Councilman, Greg Smith, he received a response from the Chief of Staff, John Dellinger who wrote about his decades of experience with the LAPD and went on to repeat several falsehoods, including the oft repeated myths that cyclists can't ride in crosswalks or sidewalks.

At the bottom of his excellent post, "Who Teaches the Teachers," Stephen Box notes that nowhere in federal, state or city law does it state that it is illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk.  In fact, when the LADOT and Metro design bike trails, such as the Orange Line Bike Path, they actually require people to cross the street at crosswalks at various locations.  Yet neither the officers at the scene nor the City Council Office, with its decades of experience as a police officer, seemed to know this.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find out what exactly the LAPD is teaching its beat officers about crosswalks.  When directed by the City Council to discuss their training, the LAPD discusses their training of pedestrians and cyclists.  When the LADOT is asked about their outreach efforts and why they can't get the message across they actually take credit for other state's far more succesful programs, claiming they crib their writing, even while the LAPD continues to add to their laughable track record.

In a video that shows that no matter how illogical their finding, the LAPD will closed ranks when someone tries to point it out, Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese went to City Hall yesterday to tell the Council how when a cyclist is rear-ended, it's the cyclists fault.

Albanese, who was not present at the scene of the assault a couple weeks back when a H3 rear-ended a cyclist in on Los Angeles Avenue after midnight, seems to not only have a problem with cyclists, but with the basic laws of physics.  When other cyclists in the group tried to stop him until the police could come, the hummer plowed through the cyclists in front of the vehicle, destroying their bikes and dragging one a couple of blocks.

After a group of angry cyclists visited the Police Commission, the LAPD Inspector General and swarmed a Van Nuys meeting of the City Council on May Day, the LAPD finally responded yesterday.  Albanese stood by the "official report" repeatedly using the "stature" of the LAPD to sweep aside Council Woman Janice Hahn's questions about the crash and the incompetent report.  Honestly, the video speaks for itself.  The quality may not be very good, but take the time and watch it.

If I seem biased towards the cyclists and against the LAPD; consider that Andres Tena, the victim of the hummer driver's attack, was thrown forward when the impact happened and could feel the hummer as it went past him. 

If you believe the LAPD, that Tena "ran into the side of the hummer" then you have to believe that Tena, who was wearing light colored clothing and had a rear light on his bike, backed into the side of the hummer with such force as to throw him forward.  His bike is destroyed from the rear, his injuries were consistent with being thrown forward; so the laws of physics, laws which the LAPD has no jurisdiction, don't back him sideswiping the H3.

Albanese also mentions repeatedly the three independent witnesses "who saw the whole thing" from a local apartment building who verified the story of the H3 drivers and passengers, that a cyclist rammed their hummer and then others threw their bikes at it.  That there are other witnesses who Officer Cho and the other responding officers refused to take statements from was not included anywhere in his testimony.  When Hahn asks why the LAPD believes three people who witnessed the incident from afar over fifteen people that witnessed it first hand; Albanese basically says the LAPD doesn't believe them because they were riding bikes or "affiliated with the cyclist" as he put it.

The irony, is I had the opportunity to ride with Tena this morning in one of the unofficial "Bike to Work" rides.  When I asked him about the attack and the LAPD's reaction, his reaction wasn't one of anger or bitterness.  He just smiled and wished that the streets would be safe for everyone to ride in and expressed relief that his injuries weren't more serious.  The picture of Tena, a happy and safe cyclist versus the maniac portrayed above by Albanese is striking.

If I had to decide between taking Tena's word, backed by the laws of physics, or the LAPD's, backed by a H3 driver who was dragging a bike under his hummer and three people that claimed to be staring out their window for no reason at two in the morning; I'll take Tena's anyday.

Cyclists pack last week's City Council Meeting in Van Nuys after "Storming the Bastille."  Photo: Dr. Alex Thompson/Flickr

The City Clerk's office just emailed out copies of next week's City Council Transportation Committee Agenda.  When the Committee meets next Wednesday at 2:00 P.M. it will be celebrating Bike to Work week with an agenda full of bike items.

As has been the case at every one of these meetings, one of the main topics for discussion will be bike licenses.  This time, the final repeal of the city's bike license program will be debated.  However, just getting rid of the program isn't going to be the end of the story, there's also a motion by Ed Reyes an the agenda that simply reads:

I MOVE that the Police Department, the Department of Transportation and the Planning Department be directed to report with recommendations for establishing a Bicycle Safety and Licensing Program in the City of Los Angeles.

Also on the agenda is the maintenance of the Orange Line Bike Path, better leveraging federal funds for bike safety projects, a motion that would set aside some city funds from Metro for future bicycle and pedestrian programs, and one transit motion about examining the potential public-private partnerships for LADOT transit programs such as DASH and Commuter Express.

Sadly, there is no mention of the nine-months-overdue Bicycle Master Plan.

Last Friday the LAPD was at it again.  In what they claimed was an effort to make the intersection of Wilshire and Western safer for pedestrians, the LAPD was handing out tickets to pedestrians who crossed the street against a flashing red hand.  In the ten minutes I observed their their ticketing I observed the following.

First, nearly all of the people being ticketed made it across the street before the traffic signal they were facing turned red.  In other words, their actions put nobody in danger.  The three LAPD officers were in a constant state of filling out ticket forms, and I counted two pedestrians who didn't make it across before the red.  One of whom was an elderly woman who started as soon as she got the white person and who received no help from the LAPD officers busy writing tickets.

Second, at somewhere over thirty vehicles I lost count of the amount of vehicles that made a left hand turn after the light they were facing turned red.  Unfortunately, my slow frame camera had trouble getting a clean shot of a car running a red, but was able to capture an image of an articulated Metro Rapid Bus in the act.  For the record, I was standing next to an LAPD officer when I snapped this picture.

Third, many of those people rushing across the street against the flashing reds, but before the solid reds, were trying to catch a bus.

The message?  Impatient drivers running red lights aren't causing crashes throughout the city.  It's the fault of pedestrians who make it across the street before the traffic signal turns red. Of course, this "blame the pedestrian" mentality also exists with the LADOT who believes removing unsignalized crosswalks is the best way to make crossing the street safer for pedestrians.

It's honestly no wonder that David Jassy thinks he can get out of physically assaulting and repeatedly running over a pedestrian with the "these things happen defense."  We live in a city where pedestrians are assumed at fault for crashes while red-light-running motorists are given carte-blanche.

For as long as I've been in Los Angeles, there has been a side bar on the Midnight Ridazz official website which reads:

RIDAZZ SALUTE LAPD

The Midnight Ridazz would like to extend a sincere thanks to the LAPD and especially to the officer (whose name we did not get) who recently helped to escort our ride through the streets of Los Angeles. We are all part of the neighborhoods we ride and we support the LAPD!

However, over at least the last year, the relationship has been souring.  Anecdotally, cyclists have complained about unequel treatment or a presumption of guilt from officers when there is a conflict.  While cyclists have had success in getting tickets revoked either by LAPD management or judges; these victories are akin to treating the symptoms of an illness but not the virus itself.  This morning, a group of cyclists headed down to the Parker Center to finally address the virus but testifying on our shared experiences to the board charged with providing oversite to the LAPD.

The infection of unequal treatment is best illustrated by the sarcastic callousness of Officer Cho last week after a hummer ran down a group of cyclists from beyond hospitalizing one, ran through the group again while they tried to get the driver's information, and threatened the cyclists with gang violence.  Cho was the commanding officer of the "investigation" which allowed the hummer driver to head off without a ticket while Cho lectured the cyclists on how he "knows how you people bike" and threatening them with a little violence of his own.

The first rider to testify was Andres Tena, the hospitalized victim from last week's attack-by-hummer driver.  Tena was visibly emotional during his testimony where he outlined his experience from last Friday morning.  He concluded by stating that even though he's a life-long cyclist, he's been scared on his bike since the attack.  While Tena wasn't the most polished speaker of the day, longtime activist Stephen Box, LACBC Staffer Aurisha Smolarski or cyclist/lawyer Daniel Jimenez hold that honor, his powerful, personal testimony provided the heart that drove the rest of the testimony.

Other witnesses to last week's attacks included John Dorsey who tried to report the threat of gun violence to Cho and Matthew Simmons who tried to block the SUV after his attack on Tena and was run off the road.  Simmons noted that because the attack was deemed an "accident" in the official police report means that the cyclists will get no help recouping the bicycles that were destroyed, even the one that was dragged underneath the hummer for several blocks.

Jimenez described how the attack of last Thursday and the ambivalence of the responding officers when he stated that, "Cyclists deserve to expect reasonable behavior when police come in contact with one cyclist or a group of cyclists...that is not happening right now.  That is unacceptable."

Also testifying was ride leader "Roadblock" discussed how recently, police actions against group rides such as Critical Mass or other rides promoted by the Midnight Ridazz have been unfair and perhaps illegal.  When reports come in that "cyclists are running red lights" the police respond by ticketing random cyclists claiming they saw them ran a red light, sometimes five to ten minutes after the light was "run."  Also, attempts to pull cyclists over have included police cars driving in to groups of cyclists endangering all of them.

By rule, the Commission is unable to respond to comments as the City Council or Metro Board is able to.  However, at the end of testimony, Commission President Anthony Pacheo thanked the cyclist for attending and urged them to contact the office of Inspector General Andre Girotte Jr.

And that's exactly what the cyclists did.  A group of twenty cyclists mounted at LAPD headquarters and headed across town to the Inspector General's office.  Girotte was still at the Parker Center to help the Commission during its closed session  However, Girotte spoke to several of the cyclists present and talked in some length to Box about the last time that cyclists spoke at the Police Commission about the bike license ticketing at the last CRANK MOB.

When they arrived, the cyclists broke into two groups.  The witnesses and victims from last week's hummer attack and a group making more general complaints about "group by association" ticketing and the lack of an official code for the LAPD to stop cyclists and police group rides.  The Inspector General's office will look investigate last week's attack and police policies and write official reports and make recommendations to the LAPD.

Attorneys for David Jassy, the Swedish rapper who beat and ran over jazz pianist James Osnes for touching his SUV which was waiting in the crosswalk that Osnes was trying to cross, came up with a strategy designed to sway someone who a) believes that crashes where cars hit and kill pedestrians are unavoidable and b) is incredibly gullible.

The defense?  These two people are just the victims of circumstance.  They should have been friends!

After a long description of the brutality of Jassy's attack, the Times outlines the thrust of the defense.

In court papers, the lawyer wrote that Osnes' death fit the thesis of the film "Crash" -- "that random interactions of diverse people in a city as frenetic as Los Angeles can lead to disastrous consequences." He said the case begged a series of "what ifs," starting with, "What would have happened if Mr. Jassy and Mr. Osnes had not arrived on the same corner at the same time?"

Earlier, in the article, Jassy's attorney objects to the classification of Osnes, who again was punched to the ground and kicked in the head before being repeatedly run over for touching Jassy's SUV, as a victim.  Why, these two musicians were equal participants in the skirmish where only one person attacked the other and ran over him with a two-ton vehicle while a police officer tried in vain to stop him.

In a clear attempt to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, Jassy's attorney claimed the thin Osnes and the police officer were intimidating the "Swedish Rapper" who was surrounded by two tons of steel.  Oddly, the LAPD itself seemed to believe the same thing about some gang-bangers in a hummer earlier that morning.

Last Friday, participants in Los Angeles Critical Mass, members of the local community and other assorted transportation activists all gathered at Los Angeles' newest Ghost Bike for a memorial for Jesus Castillo and rally for safer streets for cyclists.  Nearly 300 riders participated in the memorial which included a "die-in" where hundreds of cyclists laid down on the street in a similar manner to war protesters.  There to witness the act were a handful of LAPD officers and a representative of Eric Garcetti's office.

Occurring less than 24 hours after the LAPD patted a hummer driver on the back for riding through a group of cyclists from behind, the mood when the Critical Massers rode up to the newly chained up Ghost Bike was a mixture of sadness and anger.  However, that anger didn't break out in acts of violence or vandalism, excepting the one idiot who took a sharpie to a news van, and instead was a well-ordered example of civil disobedience.  Whether or not the LAPD would have been so restrained as to not step on the cyclists civil liberties without the television cameras is a different matter, especially since dozens of riders got tickets on their way Downtown for their next stop.

You can see CBS' take on the die-in here.

Cyclists are known for throwing their bikes under moving hummers.  Photo: Matt Stilline

The incident occurred at 2:00 A.M. Friday morning, and perhaps more horrific than the crash itself is the reaction of Officer Cho, who seemingly believed that the people surrounded by 2,000 pounds of steel were threatened by a dozen unarmed people on bicycles.  That the hummer's inhabitants actually threatened to return "60 crips deep" didn't seem to register to Officer Cho as a threat.

So, you have an SUV filled with gang-bangers, running through a group of cyclists and this is the best the LAPD can offer as a response:

After a large group of police officers interviewed the witnesses and the suspects they released the driver, who drove off without a ticket.  Officer Cho, the officer in charge at the scene then approached the cyclists.  He first told the group:

Get everyone together because I don’t want to say this twice.   If anyone says anything I’m gonna walk away and I’m not going to talk to you guys.  Based on the evidence right now it looks like the cyclist hit the car, not that the car hit the cyclist.

Cyclist then argued with him, pointing out that the driver of the Hummer was dislodging a bicycle from underneath his vehicle when the police pulled him over.  Officer Cho then responded, saying “if it had been me with my family in that car, I’d have done the same thing, and I carry a gun in my car.”

Wait, was that quote not offensive enough to tickle your outrage bone?  Well, how about this one?  While it's reported at Westside BikeSIDE! this is from an eyewitness that is not Alex Thompson:

Sometime between when the police stopped him and they ran over the bikes, the black man in the white long t shirt got out of the car and started to walk back towards 7th and Los Angeles. I urged the police officer that this man was guilty of a crime and claimed to have had a gun, but the police officer told me ”Did you see a gun?” I told him that I believed the man and that I didn't need visual verification to be terrified. The officer then told me quote ”I have a lightsaber, do you believe me?” and walked away.

First it was ticketing pedestrians for crossing against a flashing red hand to improve pedestrian safety at lights where cars run reds habitually, then it was bike licenses, and now this.  Maybe they should amend their slogan to "To protect and to serve, as long as you own and are driving a car."

Late last night, 5th District City Councilman and candidate for City Attorney Jack Weiss responded to our candidate survey.  While Streetsblog has been critical of some of Weiss' transportation priorities as Councilman, there's a lot to like in Weiss's responses to our questions.  Some highlights:

"No level of pedestrian fatalities is acceptable for any city. Aggressively prosecuting negligent motorists who kill or cause bodily harm to a pedestrian is critical to send a message that the City will not tolerate aggressive and negligent behavior, but by then a life has been lost and the damage has been done."

"All too often there is an information gap that needs to be closed between the directives of the Mayor and City Council and what is enforced day to day on the street. We witnessed this problem most recently when LAPD officers detained numerous cyclists based on a bicycle licensing program that had been terminated by the City Council weeks earlier. This has to stop."

For a full copy of Weiss' responses, read on after the jump.

Do you consider pedestrian fatalities a normal state of affairs in Los Angeles? What will you do to ensure more drivers face serious legal consequences for killing another person with their automobile?

RESPONSE: No level of pedestrian fatalities is acceptable for any city. Aggressively prosecuting negligent motorists who kill or cause bodily harm to a pedestrian is critical to send a message that the City will not tolerate aggressive and negligent behavior, but by then a life has been lost and the damage has been done. Working with LAPD to ensure that traffic laws are being enforced is an important element but It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Motorist/pedestrian conflicts often reveal deeper issues with the way our city is designed and operates. In order to be proactive, we not only need to incorporate pedestrian friendly urban design elements into our communities but we need to reexamine many state laws. Incorporating provisions that place greater weight on pedestrian and cyclist safety in determining speed limits on local streets is an ideal place to start.

What prevents our law enforcement officers from arresting drivers that have killed a pedestrian or cyclist? What would you do to see that police take a more active role in helping prosecute negligent drivers?

RESPONSE: All too often there is an information gap that needs to be closed between the directives of the Mayor and City Council and what is enforced day to day on the street. We witnessed this problem most recently when LAPD officers detained numerous cyclists based on a bicycle licensing program that had been terminated by the City Council weeks earlier. This has to stop. I’ve built strong relationships with the LAPD as a Councilmember and as Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and I will utilize those relationships to ensure that LAPD is kept apprised of changes in laws and enforces the law to ensure public safety. At the end of the day, LAPD can only enforce the laws on the books. We need to reassess the penalties that negligent motorists face and bring those in line with a city that places real value on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

It takes something extraordinary for a motorist to be charged with a crime when they hit, maim or kill a cyclist. What will you do to make our streets safer for cyclists?

RESPONSE: Making streets safer for cyclists begins with recognizing a cyclist's right to equal access to our public streets. As a cyclist, I have firsthand experience and understanding of this issue, and as a policymaker I take it seriously. Educating both the driving and cycling public is essential.  Government and advocacy groups have to build relationships to bring about long term changes in public attitudes towards cyclists on our roadways. It is tragic that it takes a horrific event such as the incident on Mandeville Canyon last summer to result in an arrest. Allegedly there were prior complaints from other cyclists that this driver had engaged in the same aggressive manner on a prior occasion. We must heed the warning signs and be proactive in pursuing aggressive drivers, investigate complaints of aggressive behavior, or pursue mediation.  With earlier intervention, perhaps the horrific injuries that Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson ultimately suffered could have been prevented.

There’s been a lot of discussion of cyclists as a key part of reforming transportation. Conversely, I hear from drivers all of the time that cyclists don’t follow traffic laws and are generally a nuisance. What, if anything, do you hear about cyclists and how would that affect the way you perceive traffic justice?

RESPONSE: Cyclists have the right to equal access to the road, period. As a cyclist I've had the opportunity to see both sides of the issue. I've been buzzed by aggressive motorists and I've witnessed cyclists running afoul of traffic laws. But the sins of the few do not negate the rights of cyclists to equal access and equal protection under the law.

As a transportation reform movement, it’s exciting to see that cycling is gaining ground as a viable transportation alternative as people from all walks of life recognize that cycling furthers the goals of reducing congestion, traffic calming, improving air quality and reducing resource consumption. We are at a critical moment where we have the opportunity to build upon a potential shift in public attitudes to build a true cycling friendly city. A community that values cycling will value and respect cyclists.

However, just to make sure there is no confusion as to the LAPD's intent, here is the exact wording from the report:

I recommend that we follow other large municipalities and discontinue our bicycle licensing program. Additionally, I have directed that Emergency Operations Division develop correspondence implementing an immediate moratorium on the enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) section 26.01 requiring that all bicycles within the City be licensed. It is important to note that per Information and Communications Services Bureau, they were only able to identify five such citations issued by Department personnel. If this recommendation is approved, the Department will move forward with eliminating the City's bicycle licensing requirement (LAMC section 26.01).

Reaction to this afternoon's news has been quick as the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition has already thanked and congratulated everyone involved in getting this law repealed.  Executive Director Jennifer Klausner wrote:

LACBC was very pleased to see the correspondence from LAPD today and we thank all the agencies and individuals involved in conducting the research that lead to this decision.

Over at Midnight Ridazz they are slightly more succinct.  A poster going by i_junes responds to the news by simply posting:

VICTORY!

If you're new to Streetsblog and want to read why everyone is so happy, read on after the jump:

Late in the summer of 2008, Roadblock, one of the organizers for the Midnight Ridazz, was ticketed for not having a properly licensed bicycle while observing the police ticket another rider.  This led to a reaction of both confusion and anger from almost all parts of the disparate bicycle community with some preaching defiance of the law, some anger at the LAPD and many confusion that there was a requirement to have a bike licensed in Los Angeles.

Bike activists and bloggers got to work investigating the law.  What we discovered was the LAPD did indeed have statutory power to ticket people for not having a bike license, but the maximum fine was $10, not the nearly $200 that Roadblock received.  While the cost of getting a license sticker for your bike was only $2 a verhicle, licenses weren't available at most precincts ever and not at consistent hours at the few that did distribute them.  The Midnight Ridazz organized a ride to one of precincts that did license with 50 riders and shortly thereafter, that precinct ran out of licenses.

When the City Council Transportation Committee questioned the police about the program, LAPD Deputy Chief Paysinger seemed confused as to what was happening on the streets.  He came prepared to discuss protecting children's bikes from theft and instead ended up hearing a laundry list of complaints about the program from literally a hundred cyclists.  Councilmen Tom LaBonge and Bill Rosendahl requested that the program be suspended, but Paysinger refused promising to update the program early this year.

And update it they have.  The report, dated December 29, 2008, effectively ends this feud between cyclists and the LAPD.  Hopefully it is the start of a better relationship in the year to come.

Any comments on this story will be printed and handed to the Council Members at Wednesday's hearing.