Devin Petelski

Petelski’s death enraged communities in Venice, where she lived and worked, and Brentwood, where she grew up.  Residents marched on the Venice District Headquarters and distributed news and rumors via social media.  The LAPD has consistently caused the crash an “accident” and Elridge has faced no public discipline despite a $5 million settlement reached between the LAPD and Petelski’s family.

Why such a large settlement if Eldridge did nothing worthy of even a disciplinary action by the LAPD, then why the large settlement?  Times writer Joel Rubin, who sounds painfully even handed in his review of the case, gives two reasons.

1) Two witnesses who were behind Eldridge’s car claim he was going between 60-80 miles  per hour when the BMW pulled in front of the squad car.  The LAPD reports claim that the two gave different testimony at the crash site, clouding the LAPD’s crash report.

2) Every LAPD car has a “black box” that shows LAPD vehicle speeds in the 25 seconds before collisions.  LAPD claimed that they couldn’t get the black box to work after the crash.  But an independent contractor was able to get the box to work.  Unsurprisingly, it showed that Eldridge’s driving wasn’t quite what the LAPD was claiming.

According to the numbers retrieved from the on-board computer, Eldridge slowed nearly to a stop and then rapidly accelerated about 17 seconds before colliding with Petelski. With the gas pedal pressed to the floor and the engine throttle fully open, his speed climbed from 30 to 50 to 75 mph in a span of 10 seconds. About three seconds before impact — and a fraction of a second before Eldridge hit the brake — the car’s speed topped out at 78 mph.

The entire story tells a tale of a police agency that is sticking to its guns and defending one of its own. The entire story is worth a read, and a hat tip to Rubin and the Times for telling the tale.

Go get 'em. Photo: Wayan Vota/Flickr

As the year draws to a close, the a debate is popping up between LAPD leadership and the Los Angeles Police Protective League over how to handle unlicensed drivers.  Yesterday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced that the City of Los Angeles would allow unlicensed drivers pulled over by the police to call a friend or family member to pick up their car rather than have it be impounded.  Beck explained the decision to the Times:

In an interview Tuesday, Beck amplified his position: “It’s a fairness issue. There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a lobbying body for police officers, contends that such a move while make Los Angeles’ streets less safe, as unlicensed drivers will not lose their car, which of course makes it likely that they will drive again.

The statistics are staggering.  Of the roughly 40,000 fatal car crashes that occur annually in America, 20 percent involve a driver without a valid driver’s license, according to a study conducted for the American Automobile Association. That’s about 8,000 drivers who have either never taken a driver’s safety course or training in America because of restrictions against them doing so or are drivers that are so bad that they’ve managed to lose their drivers license because they’re such bad drivers that the government has revoked their driving privileges.

In the eyes of the law, these two groups are the same.  But in reality, the second group is a danger because of what they have chosen to do with the driving privilege while the first group is denied even a chance for that privilege.

Rules that make it easier for dangerous drivers to continue to drive unsafely make our roads less safe for all users.  That’s a no-brainer.  But laws that prevent undocumented workers from obtaining drivers licenses do the same thing.  By denying these immigrants the opportunity to take part in a licensing program that teaches driver safety doesn’t just punish people based on immigration status, it punishes everyone by not allowing streets to be as safe as possible.

But the punishment to undocumented immigrants is the hardest.  Last week, I spoke with attorneys Serena Lin and Judy London with Public Counsel.  Both told horror stories of undocumented workers who were pulled over and detained for not having a drivers license.  From there they were handed over to the local ICE office with no chance of making bail as they await deportation.  In most cases, the immigrant had no other criminal record, including no driver violations, and were just cited for driving without papers and boom, their lives as they know it are over.

“We understand the safety issue, but many immigrants are never given a chance to get a license in the first place.  If we’re going to be taking people’s cars and giving them tickets for not having licenses then we should give everyone a chance to get a license,” explains London.

Meanwhile, it’s no secret that Los Angeles’ roads aren’t the safest places to be.  At Huffington Post, Alex De Cordoba celebrates police stings that target those driving without a license.  Observing a traffic stop in Culver City, de Cordoba notes that over a four hour period the Culver City Police Department snared 100 people driving without a license.

DeCordoba ends his column with a call for more enforcement of driver’s license laws:

If you support safe streets and would like to end the menace of hit and runs that kill cyclists and pedestrians, take a moment to thank the Culver City Police Department for catching 100+ unlicensed drivers in that one morning. Call CCPD Traffic Division at 310-253-6251 and let Lt. Ron Iizuka know how much you support checkpoints to catch unlicensed drivers. Better yet, ask the police in your neighborhood to implement similar checkpoints. I have yet to see a more effective way to reduce the danger posed by hit and run drivers.

Lance Armstrong and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at "Hope Rides Again" Cancer Awareness Event in March, 2009. Photo:SoCalCycling.com

CicLAvia ride buddies Lance Armstrong and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have joined forces again.  Their target: Governor Jerry Brown.  Their message: sign S.B. 910, the state’s three foot passing law that would protect cyclists from drivers who pass too close and too fast.

“Gov. Brown can help make our roads safer for everyone by making Senate Bill 910 the law in California,” said Armstrong, seven-time winner of the Tour de France, and the most famous bicyclist in the world.

“I’m thrilled that we have Lance Armstrong’s support on this issue,” added Villaraigosa. “His success is a big reason so many more Californians are interested in bicycling. It’s so important to have experts like him advocating for making California a more bike-friendly place.”

The Senate and Assembly both passed S.B. 910, authored by Long Beach Senator Alan Lowenthal, which would require motorists passing bicyclists to give at least a three foot cushion if the car’s speed is 15 miles per hour. Many Republicans opposed the measure, in large part due to the opposition of speeding traffic advocates, AAA and the California Highway Patrol. Last week, Streetsblog San Francisco reported that those same two groups are lobbying the Governor to veto this traffic safety measure.

Jim Brown, Communications Director for the California Bicycle Coalition, notes that similar, and often times stricter, passing laws in other states have not produced ill effects for drivers or bicyclists as the AAA claimed in their lobbying pieces.

“What Gov. Brown needs to understand is that SB 910 is a reasonable and common-sense measure that’s been road-tested in 20 other states, including Wisconsin, whose 3-foot-passing law was enacted 38 years ago,” Brown explains. “None of these states has experienced unanticipated traffic tie-ups, an increase in collisions or other problems from drivers being unable to give bicyclists enough space. This is a law that simply makes the rules of the road clearer for everyone.”

The California Bicycle Coalition has set up a web page to help supporters contact the Governor’s office. To learn more about their campaign, click here.  Streetsblog will report as soon as we hear word on whether the Governor has signed S.B. 910 into law or vetoed it.

Spread this one far and wide.  Ross Hirsch Esq. writes what is the definitive explanation of the bicycling anti-harassment ordinance in the City of Los Angeles.  Thanks, Ross. – DN)

Ross Hirsch, pre-beard.

The City of Los Angeles recently enacted a law that may be viewed as the dawn of Cyclist Civil Rights—it’s a law designed to protect cyclists, and it provides civil remedies for cyclists who have been harassed by drivers.  The new law, Los Angles Ordinance No. 181817, went into effect on Monday, September 5, 2011, and since its unanimous passing by the Los Angeles City Council in July 2011, and subsequent approval by sometimes-cyclist Mayor Villaraigosa shortly thereafter, it has been the topic of nationwide newspaper articles, radio talk shows, blog posts, and confused comments on the law’s enforcement and necessity.  There may be some that are confused by the law, but whether you ride a bike or are a driver that sometimes succumbs to road rage, you’ll want to know how this law works and why it’s important.

Why Was This Law Necessary?

With this new law, the first of its kind in the nation, Los Angeles has taken a bold step in the protection of cyclists.  Los Angeles City Council Transportation Chair Bill Rosendahl, who championed the law through the law’s drafting, the numerous committee hearings, the public comments, and ultimately the unanimous City Council approval, was fed up hearing stories of cyclists suffering unnecessary aggression on our roadways.  He was also fed up hearing that only the rare or egregious case was actively pursued by our law enforcement officials.  Acting on requests from various bike groups and bike activists, Rosendahl stepped up and requested the Los Angeles City Attorney to draft legislation to prevent this harassment and better protect cyclists.

The new “Cyclist Anti-harassment Law,” as it has been called, is novel in its application to cyclists who the Legislature has recognized are legitimate road users whose responsible transportation choice should be encouraged—but are in need of additional protections because they are more vulnerable than those who choose to travel in several-thousand pound four-wheel metal boxes.

The law has the potential to better ensure the safety of cyclists, and it provides education opportunities to raise the level of cyclist awareness, but let’s cut to the chase: the bottom line is that it gives cyclists the opportunity to pursue civil remedies against those who harass cyclists.

This type of law—one that provides for a private right of action in civil courts of otherwise un- or under-enforced criminal laws— is not new; there are many federal, state, and local laws currently on the books that provide for similar enforcement measures, including the attorney fee-shifting measures contained in the new law.  Some other laws that come to mind where legislators have enacted similar provisions on public policy grounds to encourage enforcement where law enforcement has been less-than-effective are civil rights laws (to prevent racial discrimination, employment discrimination, housing discrimination) and environmental statutes (like the Clean Water Act and California’s Proposition 65—the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act) to name only a few.

I’ve litigated some of these other laws, so I dismiss the arguments that the law is improperly unfair or one-sided.   The time has come to finally recognize that cyclists need extra protection on our roadways, and they are a class of people whose rights have been historically violated and very infrequently enforced.  This is the creation of Cyclist Civil Rights.

What Does This Cyclist Anti-Harassment Law Actually Do?

The question on the minds of many cyclists is “How does this new law work?” and “What should I do if I’m harassed?” and “What qualifies as harassment?”  Drivers will also likely be interested in the application and enforcement of this new law, as mutual education benefits everyone as we are forced to share inadequately engineered roads that all too often are designed based on the sole principle of maximum vehicular throughput that overlooks other modes of transportation—often to their detriment.

The hearings on the new law confirmed what many cyclists already knew—that cyclists have long been unrecognized and uncompensated victims of crimes regularly taking place on our roadways (i.e., Penal Code §  240 (assault), § 242 (battery), § 422 (criminal threats), § 245 (assault with a deadly weapon/car), California Vehicle Code  § 23110(a) (throwing substances at cyclists), § 23103 and 23104 (reckless driving), § 21750 (passing with insufficient clearance)).  In the past, an injured cyclist’s only realistic chance of receiving any compensation was possibly seeking criminal restitution as part of a criminal action (if one was filed and pursued, which they rarely are).  But even if there was a criminal prosecution, even if the defendant was ordered to pay criminal restitution, that recovery is severely limited—criminal proceedings typically leave victims in the dark, victims are not typically made whole, and the realistic probability of pursuing a separate legal action is slim.

The new law, however, allows cyclists to sue drivers in civil court and, if successful, obtain remedies that previously would have been very difficult if not impossible to obtain—even if a cyclist could find a lawyer willing to take what are often smaller dollar-value cases.  To be clear, the law does not criminalize anything, and it does not add any new criminal laws to the books.  It is merely a recognition that that criminal enforcement of harassment and battery laws that currently outlaw certain behavior is essentially non-existent given that LAPD and the City and District Attorneys are government agencies of limited resources (time and money), and Los Angeles is a city home to almost 3.8 million people.

What Can I Recover?

If a cyclist can establish legitimate harassment, the remedies allow for the cyclist to recover damages, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.  Violators of the law shall be liable for treble the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. In addition, a jury or court may award punitive damages where warranted.

Thus, the law establishes a threshold minimum level of damages set at $1000—or three times the value of the actual damages suffered as a result of the incident, whichever is greater.  As such, the cyclist need not suffer physical injuries or damages as a result of the harassment; the law sets the damages at a $1000 minimum.  Where there are physical injuries and/or property damages, however, the amount is tripled, and the recoverable damages would be the greater of the tripled figure or $1000.  Further, the law provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees for successful litigants, which could add up to a significant amount in addition to the damage figure.

For example, if a harassed cyclist was required to seek medical treatment and incurred a doctor’s bill of $2500 and had $190 of property damage (bike, helmet, personal effects, etc.), the actual damages would be $2690, then tripled to $8070.  The $1000 minimum would not come into play, but the cyclist could also recover his/her attorneys’ fees and possibly punitive damages if warranted—and s/he prevailed in establishing the harassment.  And of course any civil action does not prevent law enforcement from also pursuing criminal enforcement of the driver’s actions—the law specifically states these remedies “are in addition to all other remedies provided by law.”

What Types Of Harassment Does This Law Address?

So what qualifies under the ordinance as actionable harassment?  Certain harassing behaviors are clearly criminal and would clearly fall under the new law; then there are behaviors that are less egregious but could also be defined as harassment for which the law provides a civil remedy.  The law specifically prohibits the following five categories of behaviors:

A.        Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a Bicyclist;

B.        Threaten to physically injure a Bicyclist;

C.        Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either

by words, vehicle, or other object, a Bicyclist;

D.        Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a Bicyclist; and

E.         Intentionally force or attempt to force a Bicyclist off a street for purposes

unrelated to public safety.

These are broad categories of prohibited activities for which the new law provides for a civil remedy.  The law covers actions that are, on the one hand, patently egregious and should clearly be the subject of criminal enforcement (such as intentionally striking or attempting to strike a cyclist with either a vehicle or any object, a driver getting out of a vehicle and physically assaulting the cyclist) to, on the other hand, lesser-egregious actions that may seem less obviously harassing to non-cyclists but still have the potential to cause significant bodily injuries or unnecessary fear and anxiety to someone navigating roads on two wheels (such as a driver yelling “If you don’t get out of the way, I am going to run you over!” or “If you don’t get off the road, you’re going to be in deep #&%$!” or repeatedly honking the horn or aggressively revving the engine while following a cyclist in an attempt to threaten or scare the cyclist).

Yelling verbal comments at a cyclist without an immediate threat of physical harm has the least probability of amounting to actionable harassment.  In such a case, additional questions and the factual circumstances would need to be further evaluated to determine whether there is actionable harassment under the law, such as what was said and whether the cyclist suffered personal injuries as a direct result of the act.

It’s important to remember that this new law does not provide a free pass to the courthouse for any cyclist who feels s/he has been the victim of harassment as some of the law’s critics have opined.  To pursue a claim, a cyclist will still need a good case and sufficient driver/vehicle information (discussed below).  And in a court of law, a cyclist/plaintiff would still bear the burden of proof to establish the harassment as a threshold matter before any damages/attorneys fees are awarded.  Specific questions about actual incidents of harassment that may or may not be subject to either criminal enforcement and/or the new Cyclist Anti-Harassment Ordinance should be directed to an attorney who can properly evaluate the facts and the merits of a potential case and/or directed to LAPD to take a report and pursue an investigation.

What Do I Do If I Feel I Was Harassed While Riding?

What you should do if you feel you were harassed while biking depends on the level of harassment to which you were subjected.  The first and most important thing you should do after any driver-on-cyclist incident is write down as much critical information as you can—license plate, vehicle make/model, vehicle color, description of the driver, date, time, location, and as much factual information about the incident as possible, including any witness information.  Take photos if you can.  You should be prepared to look around and find witnesses if nobody approaches you offering assistance.  Witnesses can be very important.

Oftentimes with harassment, the driver may not stop.  If that’s the case, getting as much of the above information is critical to your case and may be all that you have to work with.  If you only get a portion of the information, you and/or your attorney may be able to obtain further information from the DMV.  The LAPD will generally not be of any assistance in providing driver information, unless there is clearly criminal behavior and/or physical injuries, and the LAPD opens an investigation.

If the driver does stop, however, you should attempt to exchange all the information typically exchanged in a traffic collision, i.e., driver’s license number, address, phone numbers, insurance information.  Likely, in a harassment situation, the driver may be unwilling to provide this information.  If that’s the case, contact LAPD, who may be able to offer assistance and respond to the scene if necessary.  If the driver flees without providing the required information, it may be classified as a “hit and run” and subjecting the driver to additional consequences, so do not hesitate to contact LAPD—but make sure you get license plate/vehicle information and driver description at a minimum.

Do I Need A Police Report? 

As discussed, the new law provides for civil remedies and is wholly independent from any criminal charges that may or may not be investigated or pursued by law enforcement.  So to pursue your own civil case, you do not need LAPD to respond to a harassment incident, and you do not need a police report.

Police reports are essentially hearsay evidence of limited value in actual civil trials, but they can be helpful for documenting basic facts and obtaining driver information.  Thus, if the facts even remotely appear to warrant it, contact LAPD to take a report.  And if you suffered any type of physical injuries, call LAPD to make a police report.  If the driver’s actions were particularly aggressive and/or potentially life-threatening, call LAPD to make a police report (in which case an appropriate criminal investigation may be opened).  If you only suffered property/bike damage, LAPD will likely decline to make a report.

Do I Need An Attorney?

It is a good idea after any traffic incident to seek the advice of a competent attorney.  Your attorney has likely been through this before, knows what questions to ask, and will be your best source of information on whether you have a good case.  Small claims cases proceed without attorneys, and there is nothing preventing you from choosing to file your own complaint and represent yourself in any civil matter, but that is generally not advisable.  There are many good lawyers who would be happy to evaluate your situation.

Ross H. Hirsch is an attorney who prefers to travel by bike.  He is a litigator in California and a partner at the law firm of Castellon & Funderburk, LLP.  He is regularly called on by cyclist advocacy organizations and injured cyclists to provide advice on bike policy issues and cyclist-vehicular interactions.  Email contact: rhirsch@candffirm.com.

© Ross H. Hirsch 2011. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Howard Krepack, sporting a Velo Club LaGrange polo.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a certified lawyer has answered a series of questions about the ordinance on the Internet, which given the amount of misinformation out there, should help clarify many things.

Question #1:

CVC 21202 states that bikes may take the lane when riding in lanes that have a “substandard” width or when approaching a right turn or when conditions (debris, potholes, etc) demand it. I would argue that most city streets in Los Angeles qualify on all 3 counts and therefore I can take the lane almost everywhere I ride in L.A. TRUE or FALSE?

You are correct when you outline the exceptions to “riding as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,” but…. Substandard lane width is subject to a great deal of interpretation. When it comes to approaching a right turn or conditions that demand taking a lane, that’s much clearer.

In terms of most city streets qualifying on all three counts, that, too, depends on timing. Certainly, many, if not most, city streets qualify on any two counts at any point in time.

Ultimately, the answer comes down to common sense, reasonableness and safety. Just because you can take a lane doesn’t necessarily mean you should. It’s all about being seen by automobiles and safely moving into the lane. And, when it’s no longer necessary to take the lane, it is best to get back to the right as far as possible.

Question #2:

Since harassment without injury or property damage is essentially one person’s word against another’s, then how does one prove harassment? further, if some kind of loss is necessary to prove harassment how does this new ordinance benefit anyone if existing laws and civil proceedings give the complainant cause for filing anyway? 

It is great that we now have The Bicyclist Anti-Harassment Ordinance. But, as you point out, often it will be one person’s word against another’s. This is where gathering of evidence and documentation are paramount.

According to the LAPD, the following behavior is covered by the ordinance:

• Non-specific threats of harm
• Intentionally distracting or attempting to distract a cyclist
• Intentionally forcing or attempting to force a cyclist off the road
• Intentional violations of the vehicle code

You don’t need a loss in terms of personal injury or property damage to prove harassment.

According to the ordinance, violators of this law “shall be liable for treble the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. In addition, a jury or court may award punitive damages where warranted.”

So, the ordinance does provide “more bite” than cyclists had prior to its passing, as a judge or a jury can now order a harasser to pay a plaintiff (bicyclist). If this occurs, it would be a “lesson” that teaches harassers that their actions were wrong, violated the law and jeopardized safety, and, therefore, are going to sting financially.

Question #3:

Would persistent honking be sufficient, if it made the cyclist afraid he was going to be assaulted? Or persistent honking followed by an unsafe pass? Would a cyclist’s word be enough, or would camera footage of the event and license plate be required, or would one actually need to get the harasser’s face on film? 

I have outlined above what the LAPD considers harassment. This includes persistent honking as it could distract the bicyclist. If someone comes dangerously close to you after honking and you can surmise there’s an intent to scare you, that would be a stronger case.

A cyclist’s word may be enough but it wouldn’t be as strong as witness statements, etc. Camera footage wouldn’t be required, but it would go a long way toward potentially supporting the claim. The same goes for getting the harasser’s face on film.

Is there any specific preparation that cyclists should do in order to increase the chance of holding a harasser responsible for their actions? 

I suggest the following:

1. Gathering all of the pertinent information possible while it is clear in your head. Write down exactly what happened—words, actions, etc. Memories fade with time and it’s important to have a contemporaneous statement. Document everything possible, including license plate number, description of the person and the vehicle, the time of day, and the location of the incident. If possible, take a photo of the person and/or vehicle as well as the location and any physical evidence at the scene.
2. Obtain witness contact information. Witnesses could include fellow cyclists as well as “lay” persons (pedestrians, nearby homeowners or workers, etc.).
3. Keep your cool. If verbally abused, do not respond in kind (these things may be used against the cyclist).
4. If you are injured, seek immediate medical attention. Document and photograph any visible injuries.
5. If you are injured or property is damaged, preserve the evidence. Keep any damaged clothing and don’t wash it. Keep damaged bike parts and don’t have them repaired. If it is absolutely necessary to have the bike repaired, take photos first and get a written document of the photos.
6. Contact the police.
7. Wait for the police to arrive.
8. Make sure the police take a report.

Today I was cycling down PCH and came to a red light. I come to a complete stop in the center of the farthest right lane. As I wait for the light to turn green, a driver behind me begins to honk continuously, shouting, “MOVE AWAY SO I CAN MAKE A RIGHT TURN!” I ignore the request, noting to myself that it is not a RIGHT-TURN ONLY LANE. “A**HOLE! IDIOT!,” the driver continues on, honking over and over. So who is right? Should I have been courteous and move as close to the curb to let the driver pass my left? Or, was I correct in standing in the center of the right lane, so that cars can’t turn right passing my left? Also, during the yelling, I managed to get a picture of the driver’s license plate and face. Is there anything I can do with it? Or should I ignore the harassment as nothing can be done?

Ignoring the request was a bad move; a right-turn-only lane has nothing to do with it. You should have moved to the left side of the right lane or, alternatively, moved to the right-hand side of the right lane.

We want to help bicyclists understand their rights and how to enforce those rights. We also want to communicate how important it is to behave in a certain fashion while on the road and in relating to motorists. We should all obey the laws and use common sense and courtesy. If anything, bicyclists should go out of our way to be friendly, nice and helpful to motorists. Sometimes turning the other cheek is more beneficial in the long run for everyone.

I don’t think there’s anything to do with the photos you took. And, I don’t think this motorist’s actions qualify as harassment under the new ordinance. Profanity has to be combined with scaring you—such as throwing something at you or trying to force you off the road—so you think you’re in danger of being injured.

Yes, under the circumstances you describe, you should ignore the incident. Sharing the road is a two-way street. 

Honestly, how the heck does anyone get a ticket when there's signs such as these up? Photo: Zach Behrens/LAist

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times printed an eye-rolling article about the use of stop sign cameras to enforce safe street laws in the state parks surrounding the Santa Monica Mountains.  In response, the Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority’s executive director, Joseph T. Edmiston wrote the following letter to the staff and board of the Authority.  It’s an instructive read, especially if the traffic scofflaw community decides this is their next battleground.

One of Edmiston’s main points is most interesting.  The cameras are set to only record people blowing through the signs, someone making a “rolling stop” wouldn’t be ticketed based on the cameras settings.

So the people complaining in the Times article are really complaining that they’re really bad drivers. – DN

Dear all,

Two things to report:

1. On the good news side, Friday we got notice that the Appellate Division certified for publication the decision in MRCA vs. Kaufman. That means this decision UPHOLDING ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM is binding precedent for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Attached is a copy of the opinion. (We got a copy of the decision and posted it here. – DN)

2. On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times this morning had this really one-sided story. What the Times felt was newsworthy was violators getting angry when they are videoed blowing through stop signs (and who isn’t miffed at getting caught).

My favorite quote in this story is the guy who takes umbrage at getting 8 violations before he noticed the program. How about noticing the stop sign buddy?

This is a good opportunity to recap the program and the rationale for it.

First of all, for those who think the California rolling-stop is a basic civil right, we aren’t impinging thereon. The cameras are set so they don’t record anything under a certain speed. (For obvious reasons I can’t reveal that speed outside of closed session, but it is well below what most people would consider a good faith effort to “stop.”) Issuing a citation isn’t automatic. The citation is issued on an individual basis by a specially trained park ranger who is also a California peace officer. The standard is: If it were your eyes instead of the camera, would you have issued the citation? Ambiguities are resolved in favor of the driver. Moreover, there are no improper incentives. The camera company gets a fixed monthly fee, irrespective of the number of violations, and the park rangers are paid from an entirely separate fund.

It is worth remembering why the program was started in the first place. Neither of the two major areas with video enforcement was ever intended to be a public park. Temescal was a private church camp and Franklin was an L.A. Water and Power reservoir with public access prohibited. If these parks were to be constructed from scratch the layout would be much different—wider roads, better circulation pattern, separation of pedestrians from cars, etc. But that’s not an option now. The environmental damage of such an infrastructure retrofit would be too great, say nothing of public objection to “urbanizing” these rural retreats.

Temescal is a good example: In the mid-1980’s when the plan for Temescal Gateway Park was being considered one of the options called for realigning the road system and bringing it up to design standard for the volume of expected park visitation. There was unanimity within the Pacific Palisades community that a modern road system would destroy the very values for which the land was purchased. Some years later when the city realigned and improved the Sunset Blvd/Temescal Canyon Rd intersection, the local input committee that the Conservancy established, known as the Temescal Working Group, insisted that we promise not to use the city’s improvements as an “excuse” to widen the road! The two stop signs are only placed at intersections where there is cross traffic, hikers vs. cars. Each stop sign location has been validated by a professional traffic engineer.

Franklin Canyon is even worse of a problem. Up until the city of Los Angeles closed it to through traffic, Franklin Canyon Drive was one of the familiar cross mountain roads, a well known cut-off when Coldwater Canyon was jammed. However, the city’s closure didn’t stop the traffic, now the commuters just use the old private reservoir maintenance road which also serves as the internal park access way. Most all of you have been to Franklin Canyon, you know the physical impossibility of widening Lake Drive around the upper reservoir, you also know the practical impossibility of segregating cars belonging to park visitors from commuters, so we are forced to tolerate non-park traffic. Just like at Temescal, the photo enforced stop signs are placed only at points of significant cross traffic and each have been validated by the traffic engineer.

Video enforcement is working. Violations are down over 50% from pre-video levels. (We know this because the cameras ran for a baseline period before enforcement was initiated.) Given that we can’t have a park ranger assigned to each stop sign—there aren’t enough of them and they have other important duties—the video enforcement program is the next best thing for reducing agency liability and ensuring public safety.

To those scofflaw defenders who say we are “over-enforcing” because we haven’t had a traffic fatality, my only reply is “exactly.”

The media has been using this image of Romero's crushed bicycle to show the horror of the crash.

Arias had the sense of mind to get a partial description of the vehicle, not an easy thing to do given the circumstances, and the LAPD went to work to track down the driver.  While they were at work tracking the vehicle, Rush allegedly enlisted the aid of her father, Steven Rush to help hide her involvement.

It truly takes a heartless and entitled person to turn a blind eye to the pleadings of Romero’s family and friends, but the Rush’s went one step further.  The father-daughter duo allegedly tried to hide the evidence by getting the car out of the area, possibly to a place where it could undergo some physical changes to mask the crime.  In June, the LAPD had a good idea of what they were looking for thanks to some tips and the initial identification, but still couldn’t find the car.

While it’s certainly good news that Romero’s killers will likely face justice, there are other culprits in this tragedy: the poorly designed speedway known as DeSoto Avenue and a culture that values speeding traffic.

I prefer this one, used by LA Weekly, to remind us that a young life was stolen.

Despite the residences and buildings along its sides, DeSoto Avenue is a mammoth six or seven lanes near the crash site.  At L.A. Weekly, Simone Wilson describes the street as “whizzing.”  She’s not exagerating.  Speeding is so rampant on De Soto Avenue that the Los Angeles City Council increased the speed limit in April of 2009.  A.B. 529, authored by Assemblyman Mike Gatto from the neighboring 43rd Legislative District, partially addresses this issue by giving municipalities some power to keep speed limits lower.

Speeding traffic proponents such as the National Motorists Association, who have been hailed as heroes for their role in getting the City Council to remove red light cameras, correctly point out that streets such as DeSoto are dangerous more because of their design than because of the limits.  The N.M.A. doesn’t use those words of course, but they do argue that people drive the speed that the road is designed for, not the speed that is posted.

The N.M.A. aren’t the only group of people wanting to see DeSoto kept fast.  Motoristd webpages that “report” on “speed traps” try to spread the word when the LAPD try to enforce speeding laws on the street.  Chillingly, this psychopath is complaining about the police enforcing the speed limit just north of where Romero was killed.

DeSoto Avenue is desperately in need of a road diet.  A seven lane residential road with speeding traffic is a recipe for disaster, but when you consider the reaction to road diet on Wilbur Avenue, such a plan is unlikely to be tried just two and a half miles west on DeSoto Ave.  While cyclists and non-motorized road users of DeSoto can rest assured that a thorough investigation was completed; it doesn’t change the fact that Romero was killed before the driver chose to drive off and that the speeding environment of DeSoto is a major reason the crash happened in the first place.

The reality is that all the LAPD outreach to cyclists, all the speed limit decreases, and all the Assembly bills in the world won’t amount to much as long as too many members of the driving class continue seek as many ways as possible to speed up their trips to the danger and death of everyone else.

Unfortunately, at least one more person is going to have to die before that message gets across.

From the Irish Independent:

Rebellious Lithuanian mayor Arturas Zuokas has taken clearing bike lanes of illegally parked cars into his own hands.

He drove an army personnel carrier over an old Mercedes-Benz S-Class that had been parked in a bike lane in the capital Vilnius in a bid warn owners of “posh” cars that they have to abide by the rules like anyone else.

“I wanted to send a message,” the avid cyclist and former war correspondent said.

Not only does their mayor crush bike lane blocking luxury cars by running over them in armored military vehicles, but residents of Vilnius can apparently make trips on their public bike system for free. Can Rahm Emanuel top that?

Photo: Flying Pigeon L.A.

During the next three days, I’m on extensive baby duty and there’s no guest articles in the hopper that I know of.  Since I don’t like leaving readers who have grown accustomed to two longer stories everyday with less than their usual fare, each of the next three days I’m going to spotlight original reporting issues within our usual coverage sphere.

The first story comes from our friend Josef Bray-Ali from the Flying Pigeon Bikeshop’s blogsite.  Bray-Ali tracked down the information on who to call and what to say to report trash/recycling/green bins inside of bike lanes.  This public service should be read far and wide, so distribute it far and wide.  Heck, someone should probably make a ride card out of it:

You know what is cool? Bike lanes in Los Angeles are cool. You know what is not cool? Blocking bike lanes with trash cans is not cool, moreover it is also illegal. It says so in California Vehicle Code Section 21211:

Who do you call when trash cans block the bike lanes in LA? After years of digging, LA’s cycling commuity has found the answer: the Bureau of Street Service’s Inspection and Enforcement Division. Their Inspectors are professional peace officers tasked with, among other things, keeping the right of way clear of obstructions. You can contact them by calling 213-847-6000.

To read the rest of the story, click here.

With his anti-harassment ordinance passed, Bill Rosendahl rides into the sunset. Photo: Tony Arranage

The City of Los Angeles actually taking the lead by passing laws before any other government body, protecting cyclists rights?  Unthinkable in 2008.  Unanimously passed in 2011.  ”If L.A can do it, every city in the country can do it,” Council President Eric Garcetti commented.

Fresh off completing a League of American Cyclists bike safety class, Rosendahl kicked off debate by explaining the need for the ordinance.  ”It creates a private course of action for cyclists who are harassed to pursue a civil course of action,” he explained, “This ordinance certainly is not a cure, but it is a crucial step in returning our streets to all users, and not just automobiles.”

The path to create the ordinance was a long one.  While the bill was introduced late in 2009, Rosendahl remembered that one of his first actions as Transportation Committee Chair was to hold a town hall meeting between cyclists and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck where cyclists complained about their near-universal bad treatment from the LAPD.  While the LAPD has made its own efforts in recent years, Rosendahl’s office worked on creating a 3-Foot Passing Law (now being considered at the state level) and now an anti-harassment ordinance.

Speaking in favor of the motion were representatives of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, the City’s Bike Advisory Committee and just regular cyclists who told their sometimes harrowing stories.

“Over twenty years cycling in this city, I can think of countless times I’ve been harassed,” began the LACBC’s JJ Hoffman, “I once had a superior at work who would everyday see me ride my bike.  She thought it was real funny to come up behind me in her Mercedes and honk on her horn really loudly and scare me.  She just thought it was funny.”

“I don’t have a steel metal box around me to protect me if something is thrown my way,” continued Ross Hirsch, the cycling attorney who worked with Rosendahl’s staff on this ordinance, “A pothole is all it takes.  A little bit of gravel is all it takes.  When I have a water bottle thrown at me to go down.  God forbid, if I fall in traffic, there it goes.  I need to get home safely for these guys.”  Hirsch gestured at his two sons, who flanked him at the podium.

It seemed every cyclist had a different story.  Ingrid Peterson talked about getting slapped by someone leaning out a car window.  Allison Mannos, also with LACBC, talked about not being able to get the LAPD’s attention after being harassed on the street.  Ted Rogers talked about a time a driver used her car as a weapon to attack him, and the LAPD wrote it up as “an accident” and was thus unable to get payment for his medical bills.  Even Councilman Paul Koretz talked about getting buzzed by fast passing traffic during his first bike ride in fifteen years last weekend.

Councilman Ed Reyes didn’t share any horror stories, but the anxiety he has when his children, mostly teenagers, take a trip on their bikes.Councilman Tony Cardenas echoed Reyes sentiment when he admitted he’s scared to let his children ride their bikes outside of the cul-de-sac on which he lives.

The rhetoric over the ordinance sometimes got confusing.  Rosendahl liked to say that “It’s about time cyclists have rights.”  While it’s a catchy sound bite, of course cyclists have always “had rights.”  The purpose of the ordinance was to give cyclists more protections and avenues to defend those rights in court.   Opponents of the ordinance, who were nowhere to be seen yesterday, complained that the ordinance created “special rights” for cyclists, even though it clearly didn’t.

“This is a historic moment for us,” Rosendahl ended, noting that this is the first law of its kind in the country.

The ordinance moves to the Mayor’s office for his signature.  Villaraigosa has previously stated support for the concept of an anti-harassment ordinance.

Photo of the Huntington Beach Bike Path, it's usually not this empty. Photo:Destination Southern California

(Last month, Huntington Beach announced a new program to offer scofflaw cyclists a chance to go to bicycle safety school in lieu of paying what can be a hefty fine for illegal cycling.  The program received some pretty harsh feedback on social media, but when I looked into it, I thought it was a pretty good program so I asked Huntington Beach Council Member Joe Shaw to write a piece for our best practices series explaining the program.  Incidently, this is Shaw’s third piece for Streetsblog having written for StreetHeat, our predecessor site, in 2007 and again for Streetsblog in May of 2008.  You can follow him on twitter at @joeshawforhb)

Tens of thousands of our residents recently rode bikes to our annual Fourth of July parade and fireworks. On the Fourth of July, Downtown Huntington Beach resembles Amsterdam times ten, with bicycles chained to every available surface.

Huntington Beach conitiues to be one of the most bicycle friendly cities in Orange County, recently recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists, only the second Orange County city to be so designated.

From 2008-2010, Huntington Beach had 450 bicycle/vehicle collisions, with around 300 citations issued to bicyclists.

Legally, bicycles are fined just like other vehicles but the citation is not attached to the driving record.  Citations are pricey with a “failure to stop at a stop sign” citation at $233!

As part of that effort to be a bike-friendly community, our police department is now offering an Adult Bicycle Safety program, modeled after our juvenile program in place since 1972.

Now if you’re issued a citation as a bicyclist — attending the Bicycle Safety Program will result in a dismissed citation.

• If the individual desires to contest the citation, or chooses not to attend the class, the citation will be forwarded to the court and treated as a normal traffic citation.

So far this new program has been a success with bicycle riders in Huntington Beach, according to the police officers on patrol. Most riders appreciate the program as offering an alternative to high fines and court.

I’m excited about all the possibilities we have for making Huntington Beach even more bike-friendly. The city and our police are working with the Huntington Beach Bicycle Advocates on other programs and initiatives that will result in improved public saftey and improved access to our streets for our thousands of cyclists.

]]> http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14/bicycle-safety-program-comes-to-huntington-beach/feed/ 9 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/22/with-red-light-cameras-all-but-gone-whats-next-for-creating-safe-crossings/ http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/22/with-red-light-cameras-all-but-gone-whats-next-for-creating-safe-crossings/#comments Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:41:26 +0000 Damien Newton http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=63724 [...]]]> (Update: The L.A. Times reports there was more chicanery at City Council today and the motion has been sent back to the Finance and Budget Committee, Chaired by red light camera backer Bernard Parks.  Streetsblog still believes that it is wildly unlikely the program should be saved and the Council should focus on what to do with the the money “saved” by killing the program.)

While the Los Angeles City Council didn’t formally vote to end the city’s red-light camera program, the writing is clearly on the wall.  Of the twelve members present, seven voted to end the program, and of the three absent at least Greig Smith has voiced opposition to the program.  To raise the bar even higher, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is backing the Police Commission’s unanimous vote to end the program.

Richard Alarcon and Telfair Elementary School children try out the new Smart Crosswalk in 2007. With the city ending its red light camera program, some of the

While we thank Council Members Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, Tom LaBonge, Bernard Parks and Jan Perry for their leadership, it’s time to turn the page and ask the City Council how they plan to make streets safer for all users if cameras aren’t the answer.  In opposing the motion to continue the program, Councilman Bill Rosendahl claimed the program cost the city $2.6 million a year and Councilman Paul Krekorian argued that “Every cent we spend on this is a cent we’re not spending on something else.”

This implies that the City Council is planning on spending the $2.6 million on something else, and not just using it to fix a small part of the City’s budget deficit.  The question should now be, how can the city most effectively spend those funds.

Obviously, none of the Council stated opposition to safe traffic crossings, although Councilman Dennis Zine is urging motorists not to pay traffic camera tickets after they break the law, and thus the Council ordered a study of whether or not extended yellow lights or short “all red” times in cycles can reduce crashes.  A study is a good first step, but as the city moves farther from the recent debate over cameras, the urgency to fund innovative projects is diminished.

So what can be done?

While the City Council passed millions of dollars from Measure R funds for a Safe Routes to School study that would finally allow the city to take a city-wide look at schools most in need of help instead of the political process it has now.  However, they failed to fund a position to oversee the study or manage the city’s myriad pedestrian safety programs.  This unallocated pot of funds could fund dozens of pedestrian coordinators, but the city only needs one.

The group Safer Streets L.A., in their effort to discredit the red light cameras, published a report back in January listing many of the improvements that they felt would provide greater safety benefits than red light cameras.  Now that the cameras are all but gone, it will be interesting to see if Safer Streets will live up to their name or whether it was all a ruse to get the cameras removed.

In their report, they note that LADOT has a history of removing marked, but unsignalized, crosswalks because it creates a “false sense of safety” for the pedestrian.  Safer Streets, in a laundry list of recommendations, urges LADOT to end this strategy and instead focus on improving these crossings.  While a signal is an expensive way to make the crossing safer, there are many less expensive ways, such as:

1) a two-beacon yielding system, pictured at the right, has been shown to increase traffic yielding to pedestrians by over 75%.  A four beacon system increases the effectiveness up another 11%.

2) pedestrian safety cones inside of crosswalks yielded a 12% increase in drivers yielding to pedestrians in New York City

3) overhead signs are showing less effectiveness than the less expensive alternative traffic cones, but still show nearly 7% improvements in yielding.

4) The most effective signage solution is the overhead “hawk” signal where a special red-light system is put in for pedestrians.  I’ve seen these crossings used in the Fairfax District of the city to great effect.

While these, and other, signage treatments may make things safer throughout the city, the Council now owes the communities surrounding the 32 intersections they chose to make more dangerous with yesterday’s inaction.  Councilman Cardenas, and the LAPD’s Sargent McWilliams both testified that red light running causes more crashes in L.A. than anything else, yet the Council voted to remove a safety measure.

At a minimum these intersections should see regular LAPD stings to nab red-light runners and those who fail to come to a complete stop before making a right hand turn on red.  If the Council believes they can achieve the same 62% reduction in crashes at the intersections that now have cameras just by changing the signal timing, then they should move quickly to implement this signal timing feature across the city.

People are dieing in our streets, and a Council that doesn’t act is becoming increasingly culpable in that carnage.  There’s plenty of treatments that can be applied to roads and signals in addition to more funding being thrown at LAPD Traffic Division.  Do you have a favorite plan or idea?  Leave it in the comments section.

]]> http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/22/with-red-light-cameras-all-but-gone-whats-next-for-creating-safe-crossings/feed/ 19 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/cardenas-parks-want-red-light-cameras-to-remain/ http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/cardenas-parks-want-red-light-cameras-to-remain/#comments Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:07:26 +0000 Damien Newton http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=63585 [...]]]> A new motion introduced by Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Bernard Parks seeks to overturn the recent decision of the Police Commission to end the city’s wildly effective red light traffic camera program.  Their motion is scheduled to be heard at tomorrow morning’s City Council hearing.  The Councilmen claim that they can force the Police Commission to change their ruling, while the Commission claims the Council has no such authority.  It was previously reported that a 2/3 vote of the Council, a full 10 votes, would be needed to over turn the Commission.

Parks, of course, has some history with the LAPD and Police Commission. Photo: Streetgangs.com

Cardenas has been making the rounds in the media reminding people that despite all the “ding-dong the witch is dead” partying, LAPD’s studies of the intersections with red light cameras showed a 62% decline in traffic crashes.  Regardless of any concerns about the politics of the intersection selection or money the city is losing, that is an outstanding record.

Even with two Councilmen on Board, it would still be a political upset if the cameras are maintained.  The Times implied that Parks and Cardenas are pawns of American Traffic Solutions, the company that maintains and profits from the cameras.  Meanwhile, LA Weekly is lionizing the head of the Orwellianly named Safer Streets L.A. who do deserve credit for a well-run campaign to get the unanimous vote from the Police Commission last week.  Safer Streets L.A. argues that the crash-reduction numbers are inflated and misleading.

Meanwhile the nation-wide Traffic Safety Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group, has jumped into the fray with a two-prong strategy.  First, they’re asking Angelenos to sign a petition asking the Council to over-rule the Police Commission.  Some of the signators include leaders with the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership and L.A. Walks.

TSC is also providing stories on what’s happened in other cities when red light cameras are removed, and the result is not “safer streets.”   For example, red light running increased by nearly 600% Albuquerque, NM and over 1000% in Scottsdale, AZ.  We’ll be live tweeting tomorrow’s meeting.  Word on the Street is that the motion will be heard at the start of the meeting.

]]> http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/cardenas-parks-want-red-light-cameras-to-remain/feed/ 11 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/car-driver-slams-into-group-of-midnight-ridazz-near-baldwin-hills-scenic-overlook/ http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/car-driver-slams-into-group-of-midnight-ridazz-near-baldwin-hills-scenic-overlook/#comments Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:49:22 +0000 Damien Newton http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=63597 [...]]]>

Ridazz Down. Photo: Magnus Sheen Nihilus/Facebook

Last night, at the end of the “KoreatownWednesdays” Midnight Ridazz ride, a couple of dozen Ridazz were standing at the bottom of the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook waiting for the rest of the ridazz to make it down the hill.  The ride begins every week in Koreatown and heads to the overlook.  There the group parks their bikes, ascends the hill and takes in the view.  I’ve never done the ride, but I’m told it’s a pretty low-key ride, runs at a fast clip, and is very peaceful at the end.

Unfortunately, for the group of Ridazz at the bottom of the hill, it was not a peaceful night.  Rider AIDS66 writes on Midnight Ridazz:

We were waiting for everyone to make their way down from Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook as this shit happened. I saw a car speeding towards us and thought doesn’t the driver see us, NO…. Drunk bitch took out the whole ride. some of us got out of the way just in time but many took the brunt force of the hit.

CBS 2 has the most in-depth media report on the incident, and notes that there were nine victims of the crash, three of whom were hospitalized.  The driver was taken into police custody under suspicion of DUI.  No word yet on the results of her alcohol level or what she is being charged with.  Some Ridazz said they saw her talking on her phone, but that hasn’t been reported in the media.  The media is near-unanimous in its reporting that the woman was driving sixty miles per hour during the collisions.

While our thoughts and prayers go out to the injured cyclists and those scarred by witnessing the crash, I can’t help but notice the soft bias in the media against some of the cyclists in the reports.  The worst example is from KABC.

After noting that the police were critical of the cyclists for wearing dark-colored clothing and standing in the street, the broadcaster also notes that, “…there was beer bottles and condoms where the cyclists were hanging out.”  Unless the reporter, or the reporting officer, is implying the cyclists were having a drunken orgy in the street that shielded them from view, I’m not sure how either of those facts are relevant.  First off, one Koreatown Rider reports they were standing in the shoulder, so even if they shouldn’t have been in the street, the driver shouldn’t have been in the shoulder (an earlier version of this story said “bike lane” instead of “shoulder.”)  Second, who cares if they were drinking (they probably were) or using condoms (they probably weren’t).  Unless the police/KABC believe a victim was so drunk they jumped in front of the car the drinking is immaterial.

Compare that to the CBS report:

Here the reporter focuses on the driver’s actions talking to witnesses, humanizing the victims and noting that the driver was drinking red bull, smoking and was doubtless distracted (at-best).

We’ll continue to update this report as more details are released.  If you want to help make certain that the driver is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, one poster at Midnight Ridazz drafted a letter to the District Attorney’s Office.  You can email the D.A. through this link.

This morning I am greatly upset and angered by the news of a driver who injured 11 cyclists with her car. I am writing to make it known that the driver who drover her car into a group of cyclists in the Baldwin Village area in the early morning of Thursday, June 16, 2011, must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws. For committing such a heinous act as she has, which is both irresponsible and reckless in nature, this driver can be shown no mercy for her careless actions behind the wheel of a weapon. Justice is the least of what the victims of this incident are due. It is my sincerest, deepest hope that this woman is fully stripped of her driving privileges for a number of years.

Bearing the effects of her actions, intentional or not, the sentence should reflect fully the damage she has caused to so many lives–not just those who have been injured, but to those who bore witness, as well as the entire community of Baldwin Village, Los Angeles, and vulnerable street users such as cyclists and pedestrians, as well as all road users. I understand that it is early and the full details of the incident have yet to fully be revealed, yet the greater cause and effect are apparent and warrant a severe sentence, that at any level, would only begin to serve as due penance for a crime of this nature. This driver has most clearly abused her privilege to operate a motor vehicle, and in doing so has robbed people of their livelihood and, in many ways, their futures. It is simply a miracle that no one was killed, but when actions such as the drivers are capable of causing death, such as hers have been, they should be viewed as hugely life-threatening and be punished for the damage caused as well as the damage that was fully possible.

(Update: Sgt. David Krumer reports that the Culver City Police will handle the investigation, as the crash occurred just inside their limits. If you have any information, contact Culver City Police, Traffic Bureau: (310)253-6200)

]]> http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/car-driver-slams-into-group-of-midnight-ridazz-near-baldwin-hills-scenic-overlook/feed/ 15 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/13/in-defense-of-red-light-cameras/ http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/13/in-defense-of-red-light-cameras/#comments Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:18:20 +0000 Damien Newton http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=63489 [...]]]>

Last week the Los Angeles Police Commission, the citizen panel that oversees the LAPD, unanimously voted to reject the LAPD’s recommendation to extend the city’s contract with an Arizona based group that provides, maintains, and utilizes “red light cameras” at 32 Los Angeles intersections.  The move came as a shock to the LAPD, but has been widely praised, including two editorials in the city’s two largest newspapers.

The City Council can override the Police Commission with a two-thirds vote.  And while it is unlikely they will do so, it’s too bad that the program is going down without a whimper.

Red light cameras have always been a political hot potato.  Privacy advocates have long argued against the government’s right to place cameras at intersections.  Others have argued that those ticketed by the cameras don’t have the right to face their accuser as guaranteed by the Constitution.  But most people just don’t like getting ticketed when they break the law and are caught doing it.  There’s even an Orwellianly named group of “local activists” called “Safer Streets L.A.” that lobbied against the cameras by arguing that cars making right turns on red lights without stopping isn’t really that big of a deal.  Nearly two-thirds of tickets given by red light cameras are for cars making illegal right hand turns.

As we n0ted three years ago, cars making right hand turns without yielding is a major traffic safety concern.

When the Federal Highway Administration discusses the conflict between pedestrians and automobiles it ranks “right on red” as the top concern.  A look at crash fatality statistics nationwide shows that in Los Angeles, almost one quarter of all crash fatalities are pedestrians.

And as the L.A. Times noted in their editorial burying the camera program, the red light cameras are working.

The LAPD cites a 62% drop in red-light-related collisions at the intersections with cameras, compared with a 22% drop citywide during the same period. Yet local activists have questioned whether the improvements are due to the cameras; at the same time the devices were installed, engineers added “all-red” intervals, during which the lights in all directions are red.

While the “all-red” intervals doubtless help the situation, some of those “all-red” times are a total of .1 seconds.  A 62% drop in collisions (not “accidents,” good job Times!) is an amazing statistic and if the cameras and intervals are working that magic together with the all-red signals; I would want to see more cameras, not less.

The Daily News didn’t even bother to mention the number of crashes that have been reduced, hiding behind the dishonest claim that, “Of course, safety is the No. 1 concern. But while the LAPD and the camera’s peddlers quote data showing the cameras help, opponents cite less conclusive evidence. And many skeptics believe the cameras even cause rear-end collisions by prompting drivers to stop abruptly.”  It’s a neat trick to equate statistics with criticism that people make up without doing research, but it tells you more about the Daily News Editorial Board than it does red-light cameras.

However, joining the anti-traffic enforcement organization in opposing the cameras is Councilman Dennis Zine who referred to the program in the Times as “dishonest” and “really mocks the public.”  I wonder if the Councilman would feel the same about a program that caught gang members that saw a 62% reduction in gang related crime.

Another common argument against red-light cameras is that they are a scam to impoverish people by ticketing them hundreds of dollars for minor infractions.  Locally, the red light camera program actually loses money, the program spends somewhere between a half million and 1.5 million a year to reduce traffic crashes by nearly one-quarter at intersections around the city.

A third argument is that red-light cameras ticket scofflaws instead of people that are truly dangerous.  This argument ignores basic criminology that posits that those who commit small crimes are most likely to be the ones to commit car crimes.  When it comes to scofflaw drivers, the argument is that those same drivers are most likely to commit major crimes.  In other words, if you are willing to take a right on red without stopping, you’re probably also likely to drive at unsafe speeds or ignore a bike lane.

There’s clearly some problems with the city’s red light program.  Some intersections were chosen for political purposes, i.e. every Council District gets at least one, and the collection program is in desperate need of repairs.  But the fury aimed at the program has more to do with drivers not liking to get tickets than it does complaints with the particulars of L.A.’s program.

]]> http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/13/in-defense-of-red-light-cameras/feed/ 34 http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/04/27/distraction-and-speed/ http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/04/27/distraction-and-speed/#comments Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:53:12 +0000 Michael Cahn http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=62438 [...]]]>

Not everyone at the conference got the memo that it wasn't about encouraging speed. Photo: Michael Cahn

The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is like a daughter of Caltrans. The mothership builds the roads, then Traffic Safety comes on the scene, addressing the safety deficits with education and enforcement efforts. The OTS conference, scheduled every other year, is a forum which unites local government, safety advocates, and a whole lot of police officers. MADD, Mothers against Drunk Driving, set the tone. The 2011 Leadership Seminar was held last week in San Diego. The agency offers a number of scholarships covering tuition, travel and accommodation. I attended the Bicycle and Pedestrian track, other tracks covered DUI, drug impairment, collision investigation, engineering and leadership.

The good news is that California fatality rates are low, the lowest since 1949. The bad news is that pedestrians and cyclists are greatly over-represented in these crashes. Simply put: Speed and distracted driving kills.

In California we call it Complete Streets, on the federal level it is called Sustainable Communities (DOT, FHWA, HUD, EPA), the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health have PLACE and RENEW programs: They all describe broad policy goals that have grown together over the last few years. Together they offer a new framework to work for more transportation choices, improved air quality and public health. Traditionally, traffic safety tries to compensate for the defects of an infrastructure that is designed for unsafe speeds. Historically, OTS moves into action after the roads are built and drivers have yielded to the temptations of overbuilt infrastructure and high performance machinery. Attempting to move away from this position of the latecomer, OTS is now spending time on educating planners on street designs where safety standards for vulnerable users are not an afterthought, but included from the outset. The attempt to educate engineers and advocates on new engineering standards for streets that serve all users is part of a broad wave of new handbooks and guidelines such as Smart Mobility Framework, Complete Streets Manual, Model Streets Manual etc. They all try to encroach upon the hegemony of Caltrans Highway Design Manual, which is no longer considered sufficient in accommodating non-motorized road users.

Of course, many obstacles to the implementation of such policies can not be overcome with design handbooks. To ease the way of these grand policies into local reality on the ground, events like this OTS training seminar serve to share best practice with local agencies, and to equip transportation advocates with the tools that allow them to make their case locally. Yes, the advocacy community has a firm place in the delivery of these broad policies. You may think you just wanted your kids to get to school safely on a bike, but before you realize it, you have become a important piece in this complex puzzle of ending the national dependency of  fossil fuels.

How?

If this seminar is anything to go by, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping will become an important avenue to include community based groups in this larger policy shift. The geography of social inequities, the digital analysis of environmental injustice is the tool of choice. Geographical Information Systems and community organizing are coming together to form a powerful brew: For instance, healthycity.org displays a wide variety of social indicators. Likewise, the Transportation Injury Mapping System tims.berkeley.edu is set to become a remarkable tool for crash analysis displaying and selecting road collisions in a compelling manner that can inform and guide planners and elected officials towards the enlightened choices we need. Through these tool the memory and the structure of traffic injuries and fatalities translates into prime political capital. Some bicycle advocates have known this all along: Witness the series of highly publicized bike fatalities in New York City which eventually paved the way for Sadik-Khan. But other advocates are reluctant to exploit this gruesome capital – during my tenure on the board of the LACBC I encountered this resistance: Many organizations do not see the benefit of dwelling on “roadkill” and prefer to look away. It is not about a morbid fascination with fatalities: it is about utilizing them properly to advance improvements and changes in culture.

At least for the OTS there is no “looking the other way” when a fatality occurs. We were treated to elaborate marketing tool called Communication for Pedestrian Safety. Funded by CA Public Health, NHTSA et al, it offers a timely reminder, and an elaborate tool, for advocates to be ready for the press when the next fatality occurs on our roads. Who would want to waste a valuable advocacy and education opportunity? With the right preparation you can direct the attention of the media onto the factors which contributed to this crash, especially those which can be addressed with enforcement or changes to the street design. This can transform a tragedy into the natural stepping stone towards a better and safer transportation system.

Design Guides, mapping tools, crash marketing. The fourth leg of the OTS stool is the police.

Removing the bias of California car culture from the mental system of law enforcement is not going to be easy. It has been said that it takes 20 hours to change the mind of a police officer. Those who represent the law on our streets are right by default, making it difficult to address the latent prejudice against non-motorized transportation from the equation. The conversation between safety advocates and police officers is not simple. We often speak different languages. Yet we urgently need to have this conversation. Police forces can benefit from the collaboration with community based organizations because they can carry the message much further. At the same time, pedestrians and cyclists are desperate for better enforcement of distracted or impaired driving. A local example where this collaboration was successful occurred in San Diego where the SDPD launched an effective campaign together with community groups in the wake of series of fatalities involving young children.

Perhaps future installments of the OTS seminar could specifically and expressly invite engineering and enforcement staff from those cities which lead the annual OTS statistics of bike and ped crashes, and tailor the remedial training to the statistically determined deficits in those high ranking cities. Some car-centric police departments still perceive the dangers of “traffic” as a natural force against which they are powerless. Not only do they become deaf to the safety concerns of the community, they also become immune to the improvements this training can yield for their city.

Traffic safety is really simple: Speed and distraction kills. Look again, and it is really complex, requiring dialogue between agencies which speak different languages, have different skills, come from different planets, all competing for the same piece of real estate, the street.  The OTS does a sterling job trying to facilitate these conversations and collaborations. The methodical background for this is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan which includes an ongoing process of identifying challenge areas (16 so far) and develops strategies to address them. But then step back for the bigger picture: “The risk of being injured or killed in a traffic crash is disproportionately high for members of certain groups as defined by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and cultural practices.”(OTS) Acknowledged or not, such findings put transportation advocacy firmly in the context of social equity issues: It is poverty which kills.

Dr. Michael Cahn is the Secretary of Sustainable Streets (www.sustainablestreetsla.org)

One year ago, there was no thought to changing LAMC 80.27 and Sharrows were still a pipe dream.

Now, L.A.M.C. 80.27 may be on its last legs. 

A motion by Councilman Ed Reyes, seconded by Bill Rosendahl, will be heard by the Transportation Committee next Wednesday at its 2:00 P.M. meeting.  In the text of the motion, Reyes actually points out that the Los Angeles law is in conflict not just with progressive cycling practices, but also state law:

This long-standing LAMC Section is in direct conflict with the California Vehicle Code (CVC), which was recently updated and allows for the use of European style cargo bikes and front mounted child bicycle seat. In order to be consistent with State law and support safe and innovative bicycle designs, the City should rescind LAMC Section 80.27. This would allow the CVC regulations to guide the legal use of European cargo bikes and front mounted child bicycle seats.

The LACBC is encouraging any families who use cargo bikes or front-mounted bicycle seats to turn out on Wednesday and tell their story.  The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at 2:00 P.M.

It turns out the person driving the car that hit Edith ran a red light. But knowing why Edith died should provide cold comfort: even when we drive with care and precision, cars are far more dangerous machines than we normally give them credit for. Since most Americans use cars with far greater frequency than they use other dangerous equipment, cars put most of us at higher risk of death or maiming than anything else.

Are fancy electronic distractions on dashboards really a good idea? Photo: Redmond Pie

You can engineer cars to be safer, but the safest way to engineer our communities is to make cars less necessary. This is because driving without error is impossible, and the tiniest error made in a car, even one with the latest safety devices, can have devastating consequences.

Until a recent drop in fatal crashes in the US—in good part the result of a recession-induced reduction in vehicle miles driven—the annual death toll had been holding stubbornly at roughly 40,000. Even now, each day about one hundred people die and each year thousands are brain-damaged and wheelchair-bound after being hit by a car, in a car, or both.

Of course, this isn’t to say that many vehicles and roads aren’t safer today, given innovations like air bags and electronic stability control, developments in highway design, and heroic efforts to put an end to driving under the influence.

Still, individually we may not be much safer. For one thing, people tend to take more risks, like speeding and texting, when made more confident by better-braking cars and newly-widened roads. And much of the risk reduction these improvements provide is erased if we drive more miles, something likely as the economy rebounds. Besides, safety technology has just barely kept pace with technology that provides yet more distractions. (This year’s offering? A front seat infotainment system that can find movie listings, tag songs, hold your restaurant table, and provide a hot spot for five laptops).

The media and automakers, however, persist in holding out the promise that cars will someday drive themselves, eliminating human error, or be so engineered that drivers will walk away from crashes unscathed. To enter any of this season’s auto shows is to step into this imagined future. Vehicles that park themselves or alert the driver when a vehicle sits in the blind spot are already available. But the idea that a car system free from danger is around the bend is, unfortunately, a pipe dream.

It seems like it should be more than a dream. After all, American technological progress is the guiding hand of our history, giving us moon walks and internet surfs. But here’s the rub: vehicles of the future will still need humans to build them. In 2010—the future dreamed of by the drivers of decades past—vehicle recalls spiked above 20 million, the third-highest since recordkeeping began.

And even if we do get cars that “talk” to each other and warn of an impending crash and “road trains” that speed traffic along highways, we won’t unseat the drivers. And in all our fallibility, even if we do not drink and drive or text and drive, we will continue to drive while distracted by a passenger or a roadside attraction; drive while tired or in a hurry in our overscheduled lives; drive while none-of-the-above but still not in full cognitive or physical control of our cars or environment. In other words, we will continue to drive while human.

Influence makers including Oprah and DOT head Ray LaHood are campaigning against distracted driving, which contributed to an estimated 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries in 2009. These efforts, like the enormously influential campaign against drunk driving in the eighties, are invaluable. But we also need reminding that driving under any conditions remains an inherently dangerous act.

Focus on the driver, however useful, often has left the car with the image of a neutral tool. Cars are even celebrated as the savior in many a crash story and car ad (“My Subaru saved my life!” goes one successful campaign).)

If we focused on the car itself, we might ask automakers to stop playing the hero by trumpeting their enhanced safety features while they cram their vehicles full of electronic distractions. We might ask the industry to stop running ads featuring racing when excessive speed factors into nearly a third of all fatal crashes. We might require vehicle technology that caps top speeds. And we might question the necessity of some of our car trips or of handing our teens the car keys quite so early.

Though not as exciting as visions of vehicles hovering above highways, the most effective way we now have to protect our families from crash risk is to drive less.

Catherine Lutz, an anthropologist at Brown University’s Watson Institute, and Anne Lutz Fernandez, a former marketer and banker, are the authors of Carjacked: The Culture of the Automobile and its Effect on our Lives (Palgrave Macmillan).

Photo:Bike Ridr

So what does the ordinance do?  Under current law, the only way a cyclist can recoup health-care and other costs after a crash with an automobile is to win a case in criminal court, which is nigh impossible unless either the LAPD or a group of independents witness the crash.  This ordinance lowers the burden of proof by allowing cyclists to sue in civil court which only requires that the cyclist prove the driver caused the crash.  To earn a criminal conviction, the only option under current law, the City Attorney or District Attorney has to prove not only the cause of the crash but also either intent, negligence or impairment on the part of the driver.

When the outline for this ordinance was released, Councilman Greig Smith grumped that it was “unenforceable.” However, the whole point of the law change is to make laws that exist actionable by providing a less stringent level of proof to win a case.  Cycling attorneys agree.  Howard Krepack noted that the law would be especially useful if it allowed for recovering of legal fees (it does.)  In other words, cyclists wouldn’t be on the hook for legal fees if they can make their case in court, which will attract more attorneys to bicycle law.

The new ordinance would also outlaw harassment of cyclists by vehicle drivers or causing a crash without actually touching the cyclist.  Remember that driver that wouldn’t yield and forced you in to the gutter where your tire got caught and you were forced off your bike?  That driver broke an existing law, but good luck having that case even get to court.  Under this ordinance, that driver’s actions would be actionable in civil court, and you can bring the case yourself.

However, the ordinance could use a boost in the public relations front because the media, and thus the general public, don’t understand it.  Generally, when this ordinance is discussed in the blogosphere it attracts a list of supporters.  When it moves in to more mainstream coverage, the comments read like a miniature version of the “war on cars” rhetoric heard in East Coast newspapers that happen to be owned by Rupert Murdoch.  When discussing this law with the press or car-loving friends, cyclists should remember these points:

1. This ordinance doesn’t cost the city anything, it only makes it easier for cyclists to recoup money from those that cause a crash or otherwise endanger a cyclist
2. This ordinance doesn’t create special rights for cyclists, it just makes it easier for cyclists to get justice after an existing law is broken.
3. While it’s called an “anti-harassment ordinance” it will not lead to lawsuits every time a driver and cyclists exchange words.  The cyclist must be somehow endangered by the exchange and he or she would still have to collect enough evidence and witnesses to make their case.

Tomorrow’s meeting begins at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall.  Streetsblog, and apparently the LADOT Bike Blog, will be live tweeting the event.

Safe. Fun. Legal? Photo:Flying Pigeon L.A./Flickr

Last week, in the run-up to the City Council Transportation/Planning and Land Use Committee Hearing on the Bike Plan, Josef Bray-Ali wrote, “I don’t think I can make it, but if someone can mention LAMC 80.27 (the anti-cargo bike law) and ask for its repeal as part of the bike plan that would be awesome.”  The response from many people, including at least one Streetsblog commenter, was confusion.

So first, let’s take a look at what LAMC 80.27 actually says.

LA Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Section 80.27

“A person operating a bicycle shall not ride other than upon the permanent and regular seat attached thereto, nor carry any other person upon such bicycle other than upon a firmly attached seat to the rear of the operator, nor shall any person ride upon a bicycle other than as above authorized. (Amended by Ord. No. 122,716, Eff. 10/5/62.)”

Bray-Ali points out that the city’s code is in contrast with the state Vehicle Code:

California Vehicle Code 21204.

(a)( )1 A person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto, unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat.
(b) An operator shall not allow a person riding as a passenger, and a person shall not ride as a passenger, on a bicycle upon a highway other than upon or astride a separate seat attached thereto. If the passenger is four years of age or younger, or weighs 40 pounds or less, the seat shall have adequate provision for retaining the passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving parts of the bicycle. (Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 594, Stats. 2009. Effective January 1, 2010.)

Both of these statutes refer to people, not cargo, but the reality is that for the handful of Angelenos, and millions of people around the world, front-loading cargo bikes are really about moving your children from place to place.  From personal experience, I can tell you that having your child safe and facing you while you look back at him while running errands is a special experience.  Our little corner of Mar Vista has gotten used to the laughing and singing cyclist and his little traveling assistant.  I know what I’m doing is safe, but is it legal?

My fellow scofflaw rides her 3 month old during CicLAvia.

This creates two questions.  The first is, does this law pertain to children riding in cargo bikes?  Secondly, when the CVC and LAMC are in conflict which takes precedence?  To answer these questions, Streetsblog turned to two cycling attorneys: Howard Krepack of Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, LLP, and Ross Hirsch of Castellon and Funderburke LLP.

First, I showed both lawyers two pictures of children riding in cargo bikes and asked the question: does it look like these bikes are in violation of the law?  Second, I asked them if they had ever heard of someone being ticketed for violating this law.  So that I didn’t get anyone in trouble, I used one picture of Sammy and me and another of Valentina Bray-Ali:

Hirsch: I Have NOT heard of someone…both those pictures are potentially problematic. Kinda hard to see all the details, but I could certainly see some problems that an overzealous and/or confused law enforcement officer might be able to use.

Krepack: I think the section of the code you refer to is poorly written and subject to different interpretations.  The word “upon” is vague and ambiguous to me in the context of the cited code section..  I don’t know if the two kiddie carts you link to, as configured on the bike, are illegal although I am sure one could argue that the section of the code you refer to makes them illegal, especially if you define the carts as “upon the bike.”

I found out about the conflict between the LAMC and the CVC after talking with the lawyers, but Streetsblog has already covered that when Los Angeles law is in conflict with state law, then state law takes precedence.

So where does this leave us?  Bray-Ali reports that officials at LADOT are looking at ways to amend the law.  But in the meantime, this nuisance law remains on the books.  If you’d like to know more about this issue, it’s a sort of cause celeb’ at the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop.  As a matter of fact, their blog has an update on the campaign to repeal LAMC 80.27 posted earlier today.