Farewell, John Osnes. Photo: AmRen.com

Today, Jassy received his punishment, in the form of a fifteen year to life sentence for second-degree murder.  By the time Jassy, a Swedish citizen, is released he will then likely face deportation charges.  While the vulnerable users of L.A.'s streets can take solace in the words the judge spoke rejecting some of Jassy's claims of being in danger while surrounded by his SUV, we should also take note of the words the judge spoke about how in a trial such as this, everyone is a loser because one entitled driver snapped and attacked a defenseless pedestrian.

Crowley told the judge he saw “no winners” in the jury verdict. The two dozen friends who packed the courtroom had lost Osnes, he said. Then, turning to Jassy, he said, “You lost most of your life. You lost your son for all practical purposes. You lost the girl you loved.” The rapper's 11-year-old son lives in Sweden.

(Update: Tuesday, 2/23/10 at 8:02 A.M. - I had a chance to talk with Magos' lawyer over email last night and he confirmed that the LAPD sent the case to both the District Attorney and City Attorney; so in this case the LAPD isn't to blame.  I'm going to leave the text below unchanged so that the anyone reading through won't be confused by the comments section.)

On January 6, city employee and East Hollywood Neighborhood Council member Ed Magos was biking to work when he was hit by a Porsche Cayenne. The driver got out of her vehicle, checked briefly on the prone cyclist sprawled out in the street, ignored Magos' pleas for help and drove off. Magos was seriously injured and was carted away by the paramedics. The driver reported to an LAPD branch later in the day, reported she "might have hit something," and was let go with her license and expensive SUV still in her possession.

Today the LACBC released the information we were waiting for all along, the City is refusing to press charges against the driver for either the vicious crash or unconscious-able hit and run. Shortly after the crash, the LAPD accidentally handed a press release to Voice Newspapers' Carlos Morales stating that the incident wasn't a hit and run, despite the driver hitting Magos and fleeing the scene. After it was easily proven that there is no way the crash could not be classified as a hit and run by a conscientious and competent police department, The LAPD then spent the better part of a week backing away from their own release.

I guess the good news from all this is that the LAPD can't be accused of giving preferential treatment to a city staffer over a Latino kid when it comes to getting slammed into by an SUV. They show similar disinterest in pursuing cases against a hummer driver hit and running Andres Tena as they do Ed Magos getting plowed into by a Porsche SUV.

The release from the Bike Coalition, lamenting the city's boredom with this whole "hit and run" thing and announcing a protest ride to Wednesday's Transportation Committee hearing starring LAPD Chief Charlie Beck can be found in its entirety after the jump. However, of particular note is the shocked reaction from Magos and his attorney to the city's lack of concern.

"In what appears to be a clear case of hit-and-run, it has been discouraging to see that inflicting pain and injury in this manner can go without consequence or justice. I have come to find out that I needed to die or be paralyzed in order for this to be an event of note," states Ed Magos in response to the City's decision not to prosecute.

"It's unfortunate for Ed, his family, and all cyclists on the streets of LA that, once again, a driver that hit a cyclist and fled the scene will incur no criminal penalties or prosecution." Ross Hirsch, Magos's attorney and local cycling advocate said that, "It's also unfortunate that because of the driver's apparent lack of insurance that yet another cyclist may be left holding the bag for personal injury and property damage suffered as a result of this driver's actions," added Hirsch.

The entire press release can be found after the jump.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. -

The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) announced today that it will host a bicycle ride and protest on Wednesday, February 24^th in honor of downed cyclist and City employee Ed Magos and other victims of hit-and-run collisions whose cases have been unjustly treated. The ride will begin in East Hollywood and end at City Hall where the cyclists will join others for the LA City Council Transportation Committee Meeting. All are invited to join the cyclists to demand that our law enforcement authorities give equal treatment to cyclists who are victims of hit and run collisions.

Cyclists will meet at 12:30 p.m. at the corner of Melrose and Heliotrope in Hollywood and follow Ed Magos' regular bicycle commute to City Hall in Downtown Los Angeles. At the end of the ride, participants will join LACBC at the LA City Council Transportation Committee Meeting at City Hall in room 1010. Cyclists and supporters will address police Chief Charlie Beck and Councilmembers to let them know that as citizens of Los Angeles, they will no longer tolerate being marginalized; victims of inadequate police investigations never to see their cases prosecuted, and must be given equal treatment as anyone else under the law.

The decision to ride was sparked by Ed Magos's recent hit-from-behind on his commute to work while traveling on 2^nd Street near Figueroa Street in downtown Los Angeles. The motorist stopped, got out of her car, looked at Ed's prone and injured body lying in the street, and ignoring Magos's cries for help, got back in her car and drove away-leaving Magos lying helpless until the LAFD Paramedics arrived to take him to Good Samaritan Hospital. The driver did not speak or render any aid to Magos at the scene. State law defines this as felony hit and run. A passerby who called 911 wrote down the car's license number. When officers arrived on the scene, in spite of the eyewitness testimony, the officer erroneously listed the incident as a "traffic accident."

The motorist later went to an LAPD station and stated that she thought she might have hit "something." She was allowed to walk out of the station without incarceration, citation, or penalty.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and District Attorney's offices have declined bringing any charges against the driver.

"In what appears to be a clear case of hit-and-run, it has been discouraging to see that inflicting pain and injury in this manner can go without consequence or justice. I have come to find out that I needed to die or be paralyzed in order for this to be an event of note," states Ed Magos in response to the City's decision not to prosecute.

"It's unfortunate for Ed, his family, and all cyclists on the streets of LA that, once again, a driver that hit a cyclist and fled the scene will incur no criminal penalties or prosecution." Ross Hirsch, Magos's attorney and local cycling advocate said that, "It's also unfortunate that because of the driver's apparent lack of insurance that yet another cyclist may be left holding the bag for personal injury and property damage suffered as a result of this driver's actions," added Hirsch.

News of this flagrant injustice spread quickly throughout the cycling community. LACBC, one of the groups advocating for cyclists in LA County, is bringing concerned cyclists together the best way they know how, riding together to show the City that Ed Magos and other victims like him are not alone. "As cyclists, we are united in a common cause of justice and equal treatment on the streets of LA. We are no longer going to be pushed to the side," says Jen Klausner, LACBC's Executive Director.

According to an LAPD 2008 (09) Statistical Report 23 % of collisions involving bicyclists are hit-and -runs. With the rise in number of cyclists we see on the road, this is increasingly becoming an issue on our streets.

"What's frustrating is the public sees cyclists as a minority that operates outside the law, and that if they get hurt they had it coming to them," states Aaron Freeman, a bicycle commuter. "That attitude is unacceptable coming from anyone, but criminal when it comes from the LAPD and the DA's office. Hopefully, with this ride, we can demand that this be the last time a cyclist falls through the cracks of justice."

Ed Magos will not be able to attend the ride, as he is still recovering from his injuries and unable to ride his bicycle.

--------------------------------------

Founded in 1998, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) is the only non-profit organization working countywide for L.A. County's 3 million cyclists through advocacy, education and outreach. LACBC brings together the diverse bicycling community in a united mission to make the entire L.A. region a safe and enjoyable place to ride.

For information and registration go to www.labike.org, or call 213-629-2142.

###

The Obama administration today offered a one-page sample proposal to crack down on texting behind the wheel, aimed at helping guide states through the process of crafting their own distracted driving legislation.

(Photo: brainlink.org)

The sample bill text [PDF] was prepared by the U.S. DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which invited road safety groups to join auto industry representatives, the AAA, and officials from state DOTs to help craft consensus language.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the legislation in a statement "another powerful tool in our arsenal to help the states combat this serious threat” of texting while driving in a statement that accompanied the sample text -- which carves out an exemption from any fines or penalties for drivers who (emphasis mine):

Receiv[e] messages related to the operation or navigation of a motor vehicle; safety-related information including emergency, traffic, or weather alerts; data used primarily by the motor vehicle; or radio.

States that adopt the Obama administration's sample language, then, would allow drivers to continue getting traffic tweets and texts from their local DOTs, a practice dubbed "mixed messages" by the Associated Press in a September investigation.

"It's not a perfect bill, but it was something that everybody in the group felt they could put their name on it and say, 'this is a good start,'" Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said in an interview, adding that the exemption for drivers getting traffic and weather alerts "may have just slipped by us."

If the Advocates were to write their own version of sample distracted driving legislation, Stone said, "we probably wouldn't include" the exemption. But she noted that the group has no plans to draft its own language for states working on texting bans.

The U.S. DOT noted in its release today that the sample bill "reflects current circumstances and state of knowledge, but may be revised in the future to incorporate new research findings, address evolving technologies, or to harmonize with other legislation."

A research team from the University of Utah reported in December that reading incoming text messages had a more deleterious effect on drivers' braking response times than writing texts.

Overall I've had no problems, until Monday night when I got maced by a pedestrian, as if I were doing something to hurt him! He sprayed some aerosol into the air just as I biked through it, before I knew what was happening I had to stop. I couldn't open my eyes, I tried, it just made it worse. I was stuck rubbing my eyes for 5 mins, standing there helpless, on my bike. When I finally recovered, I looked around and he was gone.

When I made it home, I felt like crap. some guy just maced me for no reason and he got away. I figured it was a one time thing so I biked to work again the next day. so as I was coming home from the red line I biked a little slower down Los Feliz, paying attention to all the people, and I saw him again! And he had his aerosol can aimed at me, again! I biked onto the grass to avoid him, while wincing, cause I thought he was gonna spray me again. He yelled to me "GOOD...GOOD" as if I was his trained dog or something, like he was pleased that he had "corrected" me.

Now that I've gotten a good look at him, I've seen him walking on the blvd a few times before, and he usually saying something to me but I've never really heard what he says clearly. So I know what he looks like and I know where he is. so I went to the police Tuesday night and they actually were really supportive. I filed a report against him and I guess they're gonna get detectives on the case and have advised me to try to avoid this guy. so here's hoping they get him.

This guy is a white male, kinda old, in his 50s, has a small limp when he walks and talks to himself. He wears a black baseball cap with a Lion King logo on it (I think the broadway show logo), eyeglasses, salt and pepper beard, short and kinda fat. Dark colored/ black jacket, tan pants and an over-the-shoulder black bag. He walks on the southern side of the sidewalk on Los Feliz Blvd every night heading away from the 5 freeway towards Vermont around 7:30-7:40. He maced me Monday evening at Los Feliz and Rowena and threatened to mace me again Tuesday evening at Los Feliz and Lowery. Wednesday evening biked down the other side of the sidewalk and I spotted him at Los Feliz and Griffith Park Blvd. Thursday evening I camped at a friends house and saw him at Los Feliz and Wayne.

I called the police again on Thursday evening when I saw him walk nearby my friends place and I pretty much told them everything I said here. I've gotten nothing but support from LAPD, although I have yet to hear back from them so I have no idea if they confronted him or what.

If I were in a better state, I would love to illustrate the problems of biking between Los Feliz and Glendale, how there's only a few streets to choose from to get over the LA river, or how it'd be great to have frequent late night Metrolink trains for people that commute later than most people (in the mornings i take metrolink to LAUS and redline it to my job but when i get off work i bearly miss the 7:30 trains back to glendale and would have to wait till 9pm. so i've been biking home from the vermont/sunset station.) but I just want the Los Feliz cyclers to know this guy is out there.

Local news has been buzzing this morning because a deadly hit and run "van v bike" crash was caught on tape in Compton this morning.  Ovidio Morales, a father of five, was presumably on his way to work.  Morales is separated from his family in Guatemala, whom he was sending money to in hopes they would one day be able to join him.

The footage, via KTLA, is grainy; but you can clearly see the van hit the cyclist, the cyclist get briefly drug, the driver get out of the van, check on dead cyclist, get back in the van, and drive away.

Witnesses to the crash say that the driver was on his cell phone when he ran a red light before hitting the cyclist.  Morales was in the crosswalk, crossing with a green light, at the time of the crash.  The Compton Sheriff's office is investigating and is looking for help in finding the driver.  I guess it's a good thing that the California Highway Patrol isn't investigating.

A new presentation on the causes and severity of bicycle crashes, available here after being hand-scanned by Enci Box, has been made available and analyzed at Westside Bikeside by Dr Alex Thompson. Amongst the results is the above chart showing that nearly one quarter of the reported bicycle crashes in the City of Los Angeles in 2008 were also "hit and runs." While this number is high, the news gets worse; these are just the ones that are reported and recorded. We've already seen that sometimes hit and run crashes involving cyclists aren't taken seriously, and other times the police report is just poorly done. However, as Thomspon notes, just getting our hands on these statistics is a step forward in the relationship between cyclists and the LAPD.

While having this data is a step forward, it can be somewhat confusing in its current form.  For example, while it breaks down that roughly ten percent of collisions were caused by someone running a red light or ignoring a stop sign, it doesn't differentiate between crashes caused by aggressive cyclists or aggressive motorists.  Hopefully that information is made more clear in an update promised in a couple of weeks.

Looking at the presentation, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition noted in an email that 25% of bicycle related collisions are due to wrong way riding. Considering that their own bike counts showed that fewer than ten percent of all riders are going in the wrong direction, this act is a major safety concern. While the LAPD claims to be working to better educate cyclists about this, which is surely music to Councilman Tom LaBonge's ears, the LACBC wants those outreach materials to be in English and Spanish to build off the success of the City of Lights Program. A sound idea.

It seems that since last December, when the Coalition was surprised to find out at a City Council hearing that it was working with the LAPD on their bicycle related educational materials to officers, that relations between the Department and the Coalition have improved.  In a post at the Coalition's blog, Aurisha Smolarski reports on their collaborative efforts with the LAPD to crack down on bike thefts and improve the training of police when it comes to cycling.  Currently, the Bike Coalition is working with the LAPD to help identify the most dangerous intersections in Los Angeles.  You can help the LACBC help the LAPD through a variety of online tools: via Twitter @lacbc, Facebook, or through an interactive Google Map the LACBC has set up.  In its first day online, the map got 600 views and thirty intersections tagged, so the Bike Coalition is now asking that people narrow their suggestions to places where there were actual collisions, not just places where it seems dangerous to drive.

I've already tweeted them that, "The intersection of Third and Fairfax, where the Farmer's Market is located, is a death trap waiting to happen."  If for some reason it's easier for you to leave your nightmare intersection in the comments section, I'll make sure to forward your thoughts and experiences on to the LACBC.

On May 19, a cyclist, let's call him Roadblock, was riding home late at night on Glendale Boulevard.  Roadblock's bike was lit up with front and rear lights and he was wearing a helmet.  Just a couple of weeks earlier, Roadblock had been part of the "die-in" protesting the street and law enforcement conditions that helped lead to the violent death of cyclists Jesus Castillo.  A couple of blocks from the Ghost Bike memorializing Castillo's passing, a Silver 2009 Jaguar registered to Glenn Gritzner slammed into Roadblock from behind sending the cyclist thirty feet in the air, before crashing to the ground.  The Jaguar sped off while Roadblock lay dazed and bloody in the street.

Fortunately, Roadblock had enough of his wits to memorize most of the license plate as the car sped off.  He was actually able to "tweet" the plate as the car disappeared on the horizon.  After he got out of the hospital the next day, miraculously with no broken bones but plenty of bruises, scarring and pain, the LAPD seemed disinterested in his case.  The officer who answered Roadblock's call gave him a two week timeline on when they would be able to run the plates, citing technology limitations in getting the ball rolling.  At that point, a detective had not been assigned to the case.  Apparently the delay was because the dazed and bruised cyclist was only able to get "6 of the 7" of the numbers, which caused the extra delay.

Roadblock then set out to track down the driver and using online resources such as google and his personal network through facebook and other message boards Roadblock was able to track down the driver and present his case, evidence included, to the LAPD three days later.  Even though the cyclist was thrown thirty feet, the LAPD handed the case to the City Attorney as a misdemeanor, even though the original report listed the crash as a "felony hit and run."  The officer explained that because there were no broken bones, the case wasn't considered a felony and the District Attorney would just pass the case on to the City Attorney anyway.  For those that don't know, the D.A.'s office deals with more serious, felony, cases and the City Attorney deals with misdemeanor cases.

On January 28, Gritzner was in court with for a pre-trial hearing, his second hearing although this was his first appearance.  The rest of the pre-trial proceedings will occur on February 25.  If a plea bargain is not accepted by both sides, a trial date will most likely be set then.

What can we learn from this case?

First, it's likely that Gritzner would never have been charged with anything without Roadblock's vigilance both on the day of the crash and in the days that followed.  The LAPD is often accused by cyclists of not taking hit and run crashes seriously, and in this case they did almost nothing leaving Roadblock to make the case himself.

Second, the LAPD made the decision themselves about the severity of the charges and decided on the lesser charge of mis-demeanor.  This tells us that the LAPD has a bias towards assuming that the severity of hit and run charges but doesn't give us the ability to see how serious the District Attorney's Office treats those charges.  One message that cyclists should deliver the LAPD is to refer all hit and runs to the D.A. and let them decide if the charges are serious enough to warrant a "felony" charge or a "misdemeanor" charge.

Last, it was a good thing Roadblock was wearing his helmet.

As we reported yesterday, a group of cyclists is heading to tonight's Bicycle Advisory Committee Hearing to discuss hit and run issues with the LAPD's representative to the committee.  The meeting begins at 7:00 P.M. in the Hollywood Neighborhood City Hall Community Room, 6501 Fountain Avenue.

One case that we've followed nearly as closely as the "Road Rage Doctor" case has been the trial of David Jassy, a wannabe rapper from Sweden who actually out "raged" the good Doctor."  Yesterday, Jassy was found guilty of Second Degree Murder.  The Times' LA Now Blog reports:

He faces 15 years to life at a sentencing next month.

Witnesses said Jassy, 35, punched, kicked and then ran over John Osnes, a 55-year-old jazz pianist, during the November 2008 incident.  Osnes, who did not own a car and was an advocate for pedestrian rights, had struck with his hands the front of Jassy's SUV after it edged into a Hollywood crosswalk.

The sad part of the story is that the Times' description of the attack in yesterday's piece doesn't even begin to describe the out-of-control rage that Jassy, who claimed self-defense, displayed that night. Let's re-set the scene as described in previous Times articles and reported on Streetsblog.

John Osnes was walking home from an evening with friends at Hollywood bars The Spotlight and The Piano Bar. While crossing a street in Hollywood, Jassy's SUV crossed part way into his crosswalk before coming to a stop.  Osnes was crossing with the signal, and registered his annoyance with Jassy, whom he had never met, by hitting the SUV with his hands.  Jassy then exited the vehicle and punched Osnes, who weighed 155 pounds, in the face.

Osnes fell to his knees and while he was searching for his glasses, Jassy kicked him in the head.  While Osnes lay bleeding and stunned on the ground, Jassy re-entered his SUV.  As he revved the engine to run Osnes over, an off-duy Anaheim police officer jumped on the side of the SUV and slapped his badge on the window demanding that Jassy stop.  (Update, 2/4/10 - A commenter noted that there is no evidence that Jassy "gunned his engine" and reading other reports I have to concede that there are many things he could have been doing that allowed the officer the time to act.)  Jassy ignored the officer, ran over Osnes and sped off.  Osnes was killed instantly.

Jassy's defense was a picture of desperate tactics.  They tried everything from claiming self-defense, to intimidation by the off-duty Anaheim police officer to what we've termed the "these things happen, hasn't anyone seen the movie Crash" defense.  Fortunately, nobody was fooled by any of these arguments.

I took this picture while going the "wrong way" in a crosswalk.

A couple of weeks ago, the Whittier Daily News published a column by a California Highway Patrol officer that contained such blatant misinformation of state law concerning bicycling law, that the community responded with outrage.  It didn't take long for the officer to be thoroughly debunked, and earlier this week he responded with another column, chock full of references to state and county law that still manages to get it wrong.  After the jump you can read Streetsblog's response to this week's offering.

I received numerous questions, opinions and comments regarding the last column I wrote. The column was about a child riding his bicycle in a crosswalk and against the normal flow of traffic.

Judging by the strong opinions with which some people responded, it is obvious that bicycle operation is a topic near and dear to the hearts of many.

I know that feeling, because the safety of everyone using the highway system is near and dear to my heart.

Honestly?  I'm touched.  While I didn't see all of the emails you received, I have noticed some serious errors with the column as have other cyclists.  i don't think too many people were concerned that you wanted all cyclists dead, or off the road, but that if you're not aware of the law, then we're in trouble since you're a police officer and we're not.

Many of the comments I received expressed a lot of passion. Some interpreted the last column as a personal affront to their rights as bicyclists. Please understand that I write this column in order to inform readers about the rules of the road so that people can move about safely.

What some perceived as an attack on the bicycle community was in fact my attempt to prevent a child from being run over by a car.

I would like to elaborate on the California Vehicle Code sections that surrounded the scenario given on my last column.

Excellent.

Section 21650.1 states; "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway."

Section 530 states; "A roadway is that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel."

Section 360 states; "Highway is a way or place of whatever nature publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes

of vehicular travel. Highway includes street."

Section 590 states; "Street is a way or place of whatever nature publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Street includes highway."

Section 275 states: "Crosswalk is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

"(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing."

Section 555 states; "Sidewalk is that portion of a highway, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation for pedestrian travel."

Excellent.  So far you've established that as far as the CVC is concerned, any road that has vehicle traffic is a highway.  Next you've established that a crosswalk is an area delineated for pedestrians by markings.  Then you've established that a crosswalk, because it has a "marking or other delineation for pedestrian travel" is indeed part of the sidewalk, not part of the highway.

Section 467 states (in part); "A pedestrian is afoot or who is using any of the following: (1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle."

I know this might be a lot of dry material for some of you, but I am hoping that you keep on reading.

Actually, I'm doing great.  But, thanks.

Last year, Vehicle Code Section 21650 subsection (g) was amended to read "This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk, on any bicycle path within a highway, or along any crosswalk or bicycle path crossing, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance."

Awesome.  So, we now know that the California Vehicle code allows bicycles to ride in crosswalks, which are indeed considered part of the sidewalk as you already established.

It is important to understand that the Vehicle Code did not prohibit these things before this section was amended. This amendment came about because the Legislature saw a need to clarify the fact that these things were not prohibited, with a very important exception; "where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance."

Furthermore, this section reaffirms that it is OK to ride a bicycle along a crosswalk, but it says nothing about the direction in which the bicycle is ridden because that is already addressed by Section 21650.1 (as shown at the beginning of this column).

And here's where you make a mistake.  You went to great pains to point out that the crosswalk is part of the sidewalk above, so Section 21650.1 does not apply.  That section applies to highways or road shoulders.  A crosswalk is part of the sidewalk.

I checked with Los Angeles County and verified that there is in fact a county ordinance prohibiting the riding of bicycles on sidewalks.

Los Angeles County Code Section 15.76.080 states, "A person shall not operate any bicycle or any vehicle or ride any animal on any sidewalk or parkway except at a permanent or temporary driveway or at specific locations thereon where the commissioner finds that such locations are suitable for, and has placed appropriate signs and/or markings permitting such operation or riding."

True, but that code only applies to unincorporated areas of L.A. County.  In other words, if I'm in Marina del Rey, I can't bike on the sidewalk or crosswalk.  If' I'm in the City of Los Angeles, I can.  I admit to not knowing the law in every municipality in which your column is published, but since there are several papers that do, I would advise you to stick to a general understanding of California laws and stay away from the municipal ones.

I hope that by including the various Vehicle Code sections that surrounded the scenario it may help to answer some of your questions.

It did.  I hope you can read this column and answer some of yours.

As predicted, Councilman Rosendahl moved to "re-open" the public record on the anti-harassment ordinance so that the cyclists present can speak.   But first, the Council heard an update on the effort to bring "Bike Share" to Los Angeles.

A shot of a rack of Velib bicycles in Paris. Photo: SlimmerJimmer/Flickr

While Mowery and Rosendahl skimmed the idea of bringing bike share to "around our college campuses," Council Woman Jan Perry is already ahead of the game.  Responding to a question from Councilman Tom LaBonge, Perry announced that her office is already working with a private investor to create a bike share corridor between USC and the Downtown.  This seemed to be news to Mowery, who asked that Perry's office coordinate with her and Metro to make sure that their plan is integrated with other efforts.

There were some other general comments on bicycling from Councilmen Dennis Zine, Ed Reyes, Eric Garcetti, Tom LaBonge and Greig Smith.  All of the Councilmen offered some praise for bike sharing and cycling in general.  Garcetti noted that his staff is also working on a bike share plan for Hollywood and mentioned the "S"word (Sharrows.)  Reyes offered praise for cycling and noted that the city needs to do more for its bicycle dependent population and praised the "City of Lights" Program.  LaBonge noted that an easier way to encourage cyclists to take transit and bike for the "last mile" is to make it easier for cyclists to take their bikes on buses and trains.

The Council was just hearing a report on the potential of bringing bike share to Los Angeles and was not asked or required to take any action.

Believe it or not, this was done with the offier's cooperation. Photo: digablesoul/Flickr

Anti-Harassment: The Council opted for what we've been calling the "three step process," but did so with Rosendahl's consent and gave a real time line for a process to bring new laws designed to protect cyclists on our streets.  In other words, it seems that the Transportation and Public Safety Committees have agreed to work together on the best-possible ordinance.

Councilman Greig Smith, the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, kicked off the debate by re-stating his preference that the Council should require a joint report from LADOT and the City Attorney to create a report on what kind of ordinance the city could pass to better protect cyclists.  This plan, which was also backed by Councilman Rosendahl, will include opportunities for cyclists to provide input on what kind of harassment they see and the final report would say whether the law could be changed locally or would require a state fix.

When it was Rosendahl's turn to talk, he outlined the timeline.  First, the LADOT and City Attorneys will meet with cyclists to determine what the major issues are on the streets while drafting a report on where are local opportunities and where are state opportunities.  Next, and perhaps the highlight of the process, will be a February 24 "special" City Council Transportation Committee Hearing that will only deal with bicycling safety issues and will be attended by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.  There will also be a joint hearing between the Transportation and Public Safety Committees to hear the report by the City Attorney and cyclists before the final ordinance is drafted.  Speaking of his goals for the process, Rosendahl stated that "We have to change our culture about bicycling.  We have to work together."

Following the discussion from the Council Members, a score of members of the cycling community spoke about harassment, "hit and runs," and downright ignorance by the LAPD when it comes to enforcing the law. 

One speaker, Ian M., recounted how after being involved in a Hit-and-Run crash, he was able to get the driver's information, but not able to get the LAPD to take a report.  One officer told him he was "biking the wrong way," because he was biking with the flow of traffic and not against it.  As he moved up the chain of command, that logic was abandoned by the police, but officer insisted that no law had been broken despite the car driver assaulting him with a vehicle and fleeing the scene.

Speaking for the LACBC, Aurisha Smolarski urged that the ordinance include training for motorists in how to share the road with motorists and pushes the idea of a "three foot passing law" for motorists.  "In the work place we have anti-harassment law to protect us from sexual harassment.  No LAPD officer needs to be present.  But on the road cyclists have no such right."

After public comment was completed, three more Council Members, Reyes, Anthony Cardenas, LaBonge and Rosendahl spoke.  Reyes noted that the most common response to a cyclist being physically harassed or assaulted on the road is, at-best, indifference from the LAPD and that cyclists deserve more.  Earlier Reyes spoke about the vulnerability of seniors on bicycles, but this time he focused on younger cyclists who bike because it's their only option as "working-poor."

Cardenas asked the City Attorney to clarify that threats of physical harm, be they at someone on a bike or someone at a super market, constitute assault already in our municipal code.  The City Attorney commented that of course it is.  Cardenas also noted that a big reason to push this kind of law is to use it as an educational tool.

Councilman LaBonge pushed for greater cooperation between the LAPD and LADOT on the anti-harassment issue.  He also commented that cyclists are also endanger from "a public works standpoint" because theft of copper wire has left the L.A. River Bikeway to be without lights before Garcetti brought him back to the issue of anti-harassment.  LaBonge joked, "But I was being harassed by the darkness."  He then took a moment to grandstand asking that "Share the Road" signs be replaced with "Watch for Bikes" to cheers from the audience.

Rosendahl wrapped up the discussion with a crowd pleasing closing statement.  "The culture of the car is going to end now!  The purpose of this ordinance is to protect cyclists in a way that they haven't been protected before.  The LAPD hasn't been part of the solution, but sometimes has been part of the problem.  We're going to pass an ordinance that isn't going to be challenged and protects cyclists."

Check Back Here at 2:00 P.M. for updates on the Speed Limit Increases that will be in front of the Transportation Committee this afternoon.

Speed Limit Increases:  At the request of Councilman Paul Krekorian, in who's district the speed limit increases would occur, the two speed limit ordinances for Chandler Boulevard and Riverside Drive were temporarily pulled from the agenda.  As you might remember, Paul Krekorian, when he was an Assemblymember, sponsored legislation that would have allowed communities to control traffic speeds instead of the commuters traveling through the streets.

However, Dorothy Le of the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, Donna Casset, Stephen Box, Jay Goldberg, from the local neighborhood council, and Krekorian himself were permitted to speak against the ordinances.  Because the motions were not passed, there will be another chance to give public comment before a new vote occurs.  Bryan Gallagher, a senior transportation engineer for LADOT's Valley Division, testified that these studies and limit increases are necessary because of state law that requires that limits are set at the eighty-fifth percentile of drivers.  Under questioning from LaBonge, Gallagher gave a revealing look at LADOT traffic programming, when he discussed the theory of "big streets, big traffic; little streets, little traffic."

LaBonge rhetorically asked if "safety is the number one goal, right?"  Gallagher responded that, "Safety is the number one goal, but if studies show that if you set the speed too low, then you're actually increasing accidents."  This caused Councilman Paul Koretz to sarcastically comment that we should just stop enforcing the speed limits altogether if we're just making the streets less safe.

As long as we refer to the mayhem on the streets as "accidents" Villaraigosa will be allowed to continue the charade but the reality is this, the streets of Los Angeles are a Public Safety nightmare and the people of LA stand a greater chance of being killed by a motorist than by a gangbanger.

Police Officers stand a greater change of dying in a car crash than in a fight with a criminal.

As LA celebrates its "2nd safest Big City" status, it's important to acknowledge that Los Angeles is also a national leader in hit-and-run crimes.

Los Angeles is a City under Hit and Run Seige. The Mayor needs to get out of the Yukon and onto a Schwinn if he wants to truly impress on the people of Los Angeles that we are a city that puts a premium on Public Safety. Public Safety that is for everyone including LA’s growing cyclist community.

Powerful stuff, but outside of his typically robust verbiage, Box breaks down the multiple errors made in the handling of the "Cayenne v Cyclist" crash that left an East Hollywood activist hospitalized and a hit and run Porsche driver back on the street.  You can read a summary of the LAPD's five sins or head over to Soap Box to read Box's article in full and have a chance to comment.

1. Even though she drove off after hitting Magos, the LAPD let the driver go after she filled out some paperwork in a police station.  Magos' family was still figuring out which hospital he lay in while the driver, and her car, were back on the street.  And, she waited an hour to turn herself in.
2. The LAPD didn't collect evidence.  The bike was left on the side of the road and is now in Magos' garage.  The driver zipped away in her car after filling out some forms at the Wilshire Division.
3. Within an hour of the crash, without talking to the officers or examining the evidence, the Watch Commander referred to the crash as a "traffic accident."
4. Despite hitting, hospitalizing and running, the driver is only accused of a misdemeanor, the same level of penalty one would receive for shoplifting a candy bar.
5. For the last goof, I'll just quote Box completely because of this blog's role in the error.  :

The "hit-and-run" incident took place last week. Since then the LAPD investigators prepared a file and it was vetted and a press release went out. It contained misinformation. It was then lost and the LAPD's media department was unable to retrieve the information for the press.

In light of the fact that the cycling community was Tweeting the motorist's license plate info within minutes of the collision and that the local blogs were humming within the hour of the incident, how does the LAPD take a week to fumble with the report and then lose the press release?

It's 2010 and it's time for the LAPD to put down the pencil and paper and to embrace the digital era.

(editor's note - I get asked all the time why when an  article appears on City Watch and a personal blog I link more heavily to the blog.  It's just because blogs usually have a discussion in the comments section and City Watch doesn't allow comments.  I have nothing against City Watch.  They do a great job. - DN)

Another Southern California newspaper has made the mistake of asking a member of the California Highway Patrol about a law regarding cycling.  And as we've seen in the past, that means that misinformation has been published, unchallenged, in a local newspaper.

Today's victim is the Whittier Daily News, who has a local column entitled "ask a cop" where readers ask a member of the CHP a traffic question.  This week, Officer Al Perez, of the Santa Fe Springs Division, tells the touching story of a father and son out on a bicycle ride and the father leaping to his small child's defense when a motorist crosses into a crosswalk, endangering the son.  I picture myself in that role at some point in the future, although I hope I have the courage to teach my son to bike in the street, even from the start.

However, to Officer Perez, this was an unforgivable offense.  I recommend reading the entire piece of misinformation, but here's an excerpt to give you an idea of how Officer Perez works:

Can you imagine the grief if the turning vehicle had struck the child on the bicycle?

The child could have been injured or even killed, and he would have been at fault in the collision. You might be asking, "How could the child be at fault if he was in the crosswalk?"

The answer is because the child was a bicyclist, as opposed to a pedestrian.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are two distinctly different things as defined by the California Vehicle Code.

Section 21200(a) of the California Vehicle Code partially reads: "Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division."

I added the emphasis on the words "upon a highway" in order to point out that the California Vehicle Code does not prohibit anyone from riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, but as soon as the child rode his bicycle off the sidewalk and into the crosswalk, he entered the highway and became subject to the rules of the road.

Section 21650.1 states: "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway." 

While Perez's case may make sense to someone who has no idea about bike laws, you would hope that a member of the State Police would do ten seconds of research before giving bad information to an entire community, further tarnishing the CHP's tenuous reputation with cyclists for understanding basic laws.

Let's look at Perez's two main assertions: that the cyclists had no right to bicycle in a crosswalk and that the cyclist was going the "wrong way" in a crosswalk.

First, it is completely legal to ride a bicycle in a crosswalk.  Section 275 of the California Vehicle Code clearly states that a crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk across the intersection. Thus when Perez says that the child "entered the highway" when he entered the crosswalk, he is as wrong as wrong can be.  By law, the child was still on the sidewalk, thus the local ordinance that allows him to ride on the sidewalk allows him to ride the crosswalk.

Second, now that we've established that the cyclist can legally ride in the crosswalk, we can state, as we have in the past, that there is no law requiring that people cross a crosswalk in the same direction as the flow of traffic.

Perez makes a point of showing his concern for the cyclists by typing that he wishes the father followed his version of the law to prevent him from "sprouting a few gray hairs."  Officer, I know I speak for a lot of us when I add that we would have fewer gray hairs if police officers would take the time to learn the law as it applies to cyclists.

Now let's be clear.  I think sidewalk riding is generally a pretty bad idea, and it would be better for a parent teaching a child to bicycle in the safest way possible, which is on the street.  However, when you're child still has their training wheels on, it's pretty scary to think of what could happen if he lost his balance in front of a motorist that is driving too close.

(Updated, January 13, 2010: While the release was handed to Mr. Morales, it turns out it was not cleared by the central media relations staff.  At their request, the names of the victim and suspect have been removed both here and in the previous comments section.)

Yesterday, the LAPD released a press release on last week's hit-and-run crash in Downtown Los Angeles and it was posted on the comment thread by the Eastside Bike Club and Voice Newspapers Carlos Morales:

FELONY HIT AND RUN IN CENTRAL AREA
On January 6, 2010, at approximately 8:25 a.m. thirty-seven-year-old xxx, a resident of Los Angeles was driving her 2007 Porsche Caynan eastbound on 2ns Street in the number two lane, when she collided with the rear of xxx riding his bicycle eastbound in the number two lane of 2nd Street.

According to witnesses xxx got out of her vehicle and stated the sun was in her eyes. She checked on the condition of xxx, asked a witness to call 911, re-entered her vehicle and fled the scene. xxx was transported by ambulance to Good Samaritan Hospital and treated for chest and back pain.

Approximately one-hour later xxx went to Rampart Station to report the incident. xxx was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and she is a license driver with insurance. Due to Everett fulfilling the requirement of20001 (a) VC she was not arrested for hit and run.
This case will be presented to the City Attorney's Office for review.

The good news is that the LAPD is still referring to the crash as a "felony hit and run."  The bad news is that they don't seem to understand the California Vehicle Code.  "Dude on a Bike" posted links to CVC 20001, which, amongst other things,requires compliance with CVC20003.  Both statutes are available after the jump.  You tell me, does it sound like Ms. Everett complied with both statutes?

CVC 2001:

Duty to Stop at Scene of Accident

20001.  (a) The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004.

Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 854, Stats. 1999. Effective October 1, 1999.
Amended Sec. 30, Ch. 747, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.

CVC 20003:

Duty Upon Injury or Death

20003.  (a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall also give his or her name, current residence address, the names and current residence addresses of any occupant of the driver's vehicle injured in the accident, the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and the name and current residence address of the owner to the person struck or the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, and shall give the information to any traffic or police officer at the scene of the accident. The driver also shall render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including transporting, or making arrangements for transporting, any injured person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary or if that transportation is requested by any injured person.

Thanks to Carlos Morales, Ross Hirsch, Danny Jimenez and Colin Bogart for basically writing this story for me.

Go ahead, harass away. Photo: Slippy Jenkins/Flickr

It would have been easy, but they blew it. Instead of slam dunking the motion through, the committee showed how far cyclists have to go to earn the respect of city leadership despite the occasional pep rallies at City Council Transportation Committee Hearings. Instead of moving Rosendahl's motion, already cleared by the Transportation Committee, they changed it to one asking the City Attorney to write a report on what changes they could make in an ordinance if they so choose. Basically, they added a third step to a two step process, so that now instead of going directly to the ordinance writing stage, the City Attorney will have to come back to the Council and Council Committees before writing an ordinance that will have to go through the Council and Committees itself.

But even more discouraging than the committee's enthusiasm for adding a layer of bureaucracy, was that some of the members seemed downright hostile and out of touch with the issues cyclists actually face.

After LADOT Senior Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery gave a detailed, if somewhat passionless, explanation that in addition to the physical dangers cyclists face they are often spit upon, threatened, buzzed, etc. intentionally by drivers, the hearing took a turn downhill.

First, Committee Chair Greig Smith questioned whether the city could actually do anything to make the city safer for cyclists through an anti-harassment ordinance. First he noted that the state controls most of the laws on city streets, second he noted that it's already illegal to do many of the things mentioned in the ordinance and third he brought up, repeatedly, that the police can't enforce a law without witnessing the crime unless there is evidence. While I'm sure all in the room were thankful that the Chair has such a firm grasp of law enforcement, I'm not sure why this was such a large point. Maybe he brings this up everytime someone wants to change a public safety law?

Smith's other points were spot on, the state does control most of the streets when it comes to writing laws and it is already illegal to spit on people in Los Angeles without provocation. However Mowery pointed out that there's other things the city can do, such as write a law regarding minimum passing distance.

When Council Woman Jan Perry tried to bring up the policing of late night bicycle rides, and perhaps an educational campaign to drivers, cyclists, and the LAPD to make the rides more safe for everyone; she was interrupted, twice, by Councilman and former LAPD officer Dennis Zine who sneered that the rides break every law in the book. Mowery quickly interrupted that this law is designed for "law-abiding cyclists" and commuters, recreational cyclists et al. This somewhat off topic exchange seemed to be the opposite of what Perry's point was supposed to be.

It should be noted that Perry, although not dealing with the issue as often as some of the more familiar names from City Hall, was one of the most aggressive Council Members when it came to questioning the LAPD's bungled reporting of the "Bike v Hummer" incident last April.

Zine picked up where he left off when it was actually his turn to speak noting that the roads are unsafe for cyclists, cyclists should stick to the trails, and again brought up that the police have to witness a crime to report it. I quickly checked my map to see if I was mistaken. Maybe Mandeville Canyon had been gerrymandered into Zine's Downtown district without me noticing. No, it's right there in Rosendahl's district.

Making a similar point to Zine's, that the roads are unsafe, but making it in a way that was a lot more conciliatory and proactive, Councilman Tony Cardenas noted that the city, HIS city, is so unsafe on the roads that he won't let his children ride their bikes on them. LAist, in their write-up of the meeting, quotes the Councilman as saying, "Unfortunately when you ride a bicycle in the City of Los Angeles, you're taking your life in your hands." Cardenas also spoke several times about the need to include more bicycle specific information in the driver's manual, driver's test, and police training.

There were a handful of cyclists in attendance, although nothing near the crush that was at the "bike only" meeting of the Transportation Committee back in December. Perhaps it's time for the cycling community to move past just lobbying the friendly "T-Committee" and move on to less friendly turf.

The Los Angeles County Bike Coalition's Aurisha Smolarski commented that the ordinance was a chance to "show the city's commitment to keep cyclists safe" and specifically that a "three foot passing law" could be a game changer for cyclists. City of Lights coordinator Allison Mannos suggested that the city require cyclist sensitivity training for any driver threatening, endangering or violating a cyclist. Biking In L.A. writer Ted Rogers, after recounting how both he and friends are threatened over email for their bike-friendly stands, argued that because of harassment less cyclists are on the streets. Because less experienced cyclists are more likely to get yelled at or intimidated by hot-headed drivers, it dampens the enthusiasm of new riders before they get used to life on L.A.'s streets.

But in the end, the Committee bowed to Smith's wishes to have the City Attorney report back before drafting an ordinance. There was no timeline set on when the City Attorney is expected to report back.

An LAPD bike officer, moments after complaining to me about Midnight Ridazz, corks an intersection during the 2008 4SBB ride. Photo: Ingrid Peterson/Flickr

The good news is that Beck seems to have heard their calls.  Earlier this week, he announced the creation of a working group to examine the LAPD's bicycle policies, both official and unofficial, develop strategies to deal with street violence against cyclists and devise ways to counter the rising number of bicycle thefts.   Heading up the effort is veteran Lieutenant Andre Dawson (not this guy), who works directly out of the new commissioner's office.  Previously, Dawson headed the Police Commission's investigative division, served as communications officer for the Rampart Division, and headed the Southern Division's CRASH program.

Of course we'll have to await the results of the working group before declaring victory; but cyclists should be encouraged by Beck's olive branch.  I spoke with Dawson last night who seemed eager to get to work, even if he will be out of town for much of December, and encouraged me to call any time.  The LACBC sent an email announcing the commission last night; the full text of which can be read after the jump.

LACBC, folks from Echo Park Cycles and other cyclists showed up to the meet and greet with Chief Charlie Beck on Saturday where we alerted him that physical assaults on cyclists, harassment by motorists and bicycle thefts have been increasing in LA.

Chief Beck is interested in addressing these issues seriously and has assigned Lieutenant Andre Dawson, as the bicycle liaison in his office to work with us on addressing these concerns. 

LAPD will be putting together a work group to continue to work with cyclists on addressing these issues. LACBC will also continue to work with them to develop educational material that all their officers will be required to view during their roll call and training.

Last weekend, when I was a guest on Bike Talk, the conversation in the room turned to what can be done about the growing number and boldness of bicycle thieves in Los Angeles.  After lamenting that the LAPD basically declared it a non-priority, unless you can hand them the case on a silver platter, at a meeting at Echo Park there was a brief debate concerning personal responsibility and "street justice."

I have to admit, I was unprepared for the debate.  Sure, I had seen the quirky and popular "Hal Grades Your Bike Lock" and I remembered the story of a group calling itself the Stolen Bike Recovery Unit getting a bike back from someone who was either a bike thief or "bicycle launderer" by just waiting for the bike to appear on Craig's List.  But I had to admit, I'm far from an expert on the issue.

I do know that trying to take the law into your own hands is a bad idea.  Westside BikeSIDE's Alex Thompson describes why in two posts from September of this year entitled, "Stupid bike thefts lead to stupid fantasies," and "Bike thief arrested, was carrying a .357." Turns out the bike thief in this story was packing heat, which is one reason to avoid confronting the thief yourself.  A stun gun and pepper spray would be more than trumped by the .357. Thompson mentions another one,

Moreover, it’s irrational.  If you catch a bike thief and you beat the shit out of them, you can no longer turn them in.  If you do, you’ll be brought up on assault charges.  If you catch them and detain them, instead of beating them up, you’ve caught a thief, and potentially you’ve got a shot at catching any collaborators.

Here’s the rub - you don’t know what you’re doing.   You’ve got no experience setting up stings, and the thief has experience stealing bikes.  There’s a good chance that your lack of experience will just turn out to be embarrassing for you.  On the other hand, there’s a chance that a confrontation will ensue, and someone could get hurt.  Your bike just isn’t worth that.

So what can we do?  After reading the suggestions from sites around the Internet, the best suggestions I can see are three fold.

The first is that we all need to be responsible for protecting our own bikes when parked and ourselves when riding.  When the bike is parked, lock it up.  The "Hal Grades Your Bike Lock" series may be funny at times, but it's also packed full of good advice.  When I park my bike, a Kryptonite U-Lock on the front wheel and chain, and a chain combination lock on the rear wheel, it's one of the more secure bikes that I see.  But I'm pretty sure Hal would give me a C or a D.

As for self-protection on the road, I know several riders who carry some sort of self-defense on them.  That's a good second-defense, because we do live in a city, and you do never know, but the most important thing you can do to be safe on your bike from thieves and robbers is to know your route and bike a safe route.  I don't care how "bike friendly" a route is, when it's late at night I'm biking on major streets where there will be a lot of witnesses to any violence.

Of course, if you can bike with another rider on routes or at times that might be more dangerous; that's a good idea as well.  Strength in numbers after all.

Second, if your bike is stolen, don't try to be a super hero.  The team from the "Bike Recovery Unit" was lucky that their thief wasn't packing anything that would trump a video camera.  If you want to read more on this, check out Thompson's two pieces.  He does an excellent job breaking it down.  And if you can work with the LAPD on a sting of some sort, more power to you.

Third, once you're ready, get back on a bike.  There's strength in numbers, so don't let some thieves reduce our group strength.  We need you out there to help make the streets a little safer for all of us.

Diez

In August, a grand jury reduced charges against Diez from attempted first degree murder to felony assault. While assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill certainly sounds like an offense worthy of a lengthy prison term, the presiding judge apparently agreed that this was a case of a stand-up guy having a bad day. Mountain Xpress reports:

Convictions on such a charge result in an average 20-39 months in prison for the defendant. But in the sentencing, Superior Court Judge James Downs found that Diez’s military service, along with testimony from former colleagues about his good character, were mitigating factors, and chose to sentence him to 15-27 months instead. Downs suspended all but four months of that sentence unless Diez breaks the law again in the next 30 months.

Diez must also undergo anger management counseling and pay Simons $1,200 "for damage to his eardrum."

The slap on the wrist issued to Diez has some worried that authorities have pretty much declared open season on area cyclists. Asked Brian Jones, who along with his wife is a regular victim of harassment and worse at the hands of local motorists: "If a cyclist shot a fireman, judge or prosecuting attorney in his head, in front of his family, what sentence do you think he/she would receive."

He's behind bars now, but should he stay there? Photo: Los Angeles Times

So here's the deal, you can email a letter of support to Stone at mstone@da.lacounty.gov. She stressed that the best letters open with a description of who you are and why you care before going in to other details. For example, you could say, "I'm a writer who focuses on transportation issues and I spend too much time writing about the tragedies created by unsafe driving."

Stephen Box also writes that this provides an opportunity to incorporate two planks of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Article one states that cyclists have the right to "travel safely and free of fear." Article Four states that 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."

If you need more inspiration, you can read my letter after the jump.

A major hat tip to Ross Hirsch who did the majority of the legwork on this article.

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm a writer who focuses on transportation issues. I spend too much time writing about the tragedies created by unsafe driving. It seems that every week I have to make a choice on whether or not to write another story about an unsafe driver mowing down a defenseless pedestrian or cyclist. However, no matter how heart-rendering the story, no crash story has held my attention as had the prosecution of Christopher Thompson.

Typically, the reaction of drivers who cause a crash is either remorse or a desire to hide. Thompson's sense of self-pride about his actions, a view that has disgustingly been defended by too many members of the car-driving public, was completely shocking. Bragging on his cell phone to the dispatcher. Talking tough to the responding officer.

That Thompson has become a symbol to both unsafe drivers and cyclists of the worst instincts of the car-driving public is immaterial. That Thompson's unsafe driving caused serious injuries on two cyclists is reason enough to convict him. That he did so intentionally and proudly makes him deserving of jail time.

If we don't hold him accountable to the fullest extent of the law for his actions, what threshold would an unsafe driver have to meet to be deserving of jail-time? He didn't just cause a crash he did so with purpose.

All of us, safe drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, will be more safe with Thompson behind bars instead of behind a wheel.

Yesterday, cyclists concerned with the safety on their streets got a boost.  For many of us who have been harassed or threatened by uncaring and dangerous motorists, it was a relief to see that the system is capable of convicting one of the more outwardly-psychotic drivers out there.

But while the streets are safer without Dr. Thompson behind the wheel, they're far from safe.  Stephen Box noted in an article last month that Thompson's trial is far from the only one worth watching, and Box's article only touched on deaths involving cyclists.  There are dozens of other cases involving assaults on law-abiding pedestrians for every bike-related case.  Even with these cases moving, it's still more common for police to throw up their hands and say they can't do anything unless they witnessed the crash.  Or in some cases, they write a report without even looking at the physical evidence blaming the cyclist.

So even if these other court cases turn out well, there's still some education of law enforcement that is needed.

The other people that still need to be educated are the general public.  Scroll through any discussion of Christopher Thompson's assault on cyclists and you'll see a "blame the victim mentality."  They deserved it for shouting at the driver.  They deserved it for riding abreast.  They deserved it for being on a street built for cars.  These are all messages you'll read, even here, from Thompson's defenders.  That it's not illegal to shout, ride two abreast, take the lane or "bike on a street built for cars," doesn't seem to matter to these car-culture warriors.  All that matters is the couple of minutes of inconvenience these drivers have to suffer because of the cycling scourge.

Of course, this also needs to change.

So while we can relax a little that the deranged doctor is sitting behind bars, at least for now; there's still a lot of work to be done to educate law enforcement and drivers alike as to our rights and responsibilities on the road.  Yesterday was a good day, and not just because of the verdict. Tomorrow it's back to work.