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.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) (Photo: Wired)

In order to qualify for grants, states would also have to ban cell phone use entirely by drivers under age 18. In contrast to Rockefeller's approach, the July Senate bill would encourage states to act or risk losing a share of their federal highway funds.

As Rockefeller pointed out at the start of today's hearing, his legislation would not require any new spending:

The new grant program and advertising campaign would be paid for by redirecting unused surpluses from the current seat belt safety program.  So: no new costs. We should not have to mourn the tragic loss of any more precious lives needlessly cut short. It is time to bring a new sense of safety and shared responsibility to our roads.

While I was on paternity leave there were a lot of stories that I would have covered if I had been writing.   I didn't want to let them pass without any commentary or coverage beyond a sentence in Today's Headlines.  H

AnsaldoBreda

After half a year of debate, numerous reports from Metro's new CEO staff begging them not to continue the contract and one of the most ethically challenged public relations campaigns I've ever seen; the Metro Board of Directors decided to extend their exclusive contract with Italian Rail Car manufacturer AnsaldoBreda.  You may remember that the company "promised" to build a rail car manufacturing plant in Greater Los Angeles if they got the contract, a fact that couldn't legally be considered by the Metro Board.

However, every month that went by since the debate erupted last March brought more reasons to not trust the rail car company.  Board Members Zev Yaroslavsky, the Westside's representative to the County Board of Supervisors, and Santa Monica Council Member Pam O'Connor were among the rail car manufacturer's harshest critics, but that wasn't enough to stop Mayor Villaraigosa and his allies from pushing the contract extension through.

At least Villaraigosa, who bent over backwards to keep his union supporters happy, didn't insult our intelligence by pretending the decision was made in the best interest of Metro or its riders.  One day after they extended the contract, Villaraigosa held a press conference announcing all the new jobs coming to L.A. with the new factory.

For our full coverage of the AnsaldoBreda controversy, click here.  Note that the coverage started neutral and became more negative as time went on.

Alarcón, City Council Offer Reward for Information on Deadly Hit and Run.

Earlier this week, Councilman Richard Alarcón succeeded in getting the City Council to allocate $50,000 dollars for any information on the deadly Hit-and-Run that killed Judy Ramos on July 28.  In a city where too often there seems to be a lack of energy on finding Hit-and-Run drivers, this is an encouraging sign of elected officials and the LAPD taking this instance seriously.  What would be more encouraging would be harsher fines for Hit-and-Run Drivers.  Under current law, there are harsher fines for drunk driving than hit-and-run driving.  This encourages murderous drivers to flee the scene of the crime.

For more information on the crash and how to inform the LAPD, visit this article in the Daily News.

OCTA Wants Ideas on How to Improve Transportation

h/t to Spokker and Transit Rider OC

The Orange County Transportation Authority has an online survey to solicit feedback from residents on how to improve transportation behind the Orange Curtain.  Naturally, the majority of the questions are about freeways and capacity enhancement, but at least this time they mention buses several times.  You can take the survey here.

Mel Gibson Gets DUI Expunged

I was shocked to find out that Mel Gibson was able to get his 2006 DUI Conviction expunged from his record; but I was even more outraged to read that such an act is routine in California.  The Times reports:

As a first-time drunk-driving offender, Gibson was eligible to have the conviction removed from his record after completing the terms of his probation. The expunging request and procedure is routine and took place before Judge Lawrence J. Mira during a 90-second hearing.

I guess it's a good thing that you have to drunkenly hit people with your car twice before hurting them or else this law would make no sense.

A New Bike License Controversy Brewing in Santa Monica?

We have yet to hear a report for someone getting ticketed, but our friends the Santa Monica Police Department are at it again.  Blogger Gary Kavanaugh noted that the SMPD is flyering about the need to have your bike licensed before you can ride in Santa Monica.  Long-time readers may remember that the LAPD was taken to task for abusing a state law that allows police departments to create licensing programs to help cyclists recover stolen bicycles.  The LAPD had to back off after it came to light they were handing out illegally high fines and repeatedly running out of licenses when cyclists asked for them.

Is Santa Monica going to copy one of LAPD's less than inspiring attempts at law enforcement?  The city has somewhat of a Jekyll and Hyde reputation with cyclists.  On one hand, the city has more and better bike facilities per capita than any city in the county save Long Beach.  On the other, the SMPD are known to harass group rides to the point of comically over-policing Santa Monica Critical Mass and of course became national laughing stocks for taking a principled stand against people who exercise in public spaces.

Controversial Bike Lane Stays in Santa Clarita

Way back in August we discussed the angry reaction of some in Santa Clarita to new bike lanes on Decoro Avenue.  The City Council eventually reached a compromise after lengthy debate.  The bike lanes stayed and the road was re-striped to increase automobile capacity.  Hooray?

More TAP Problems

On the Metro Rider discussion forums, writer J Marino writes about how he was falsely accused of trying to evade TAP fares because the TAP readers were broken:

Fare officers started checking tickets about 7 stops in. They check my TAP card and tell me that it hasn't been used since June, 2009! This is clearly not true, but I have no way to prove it. Officers march me through the train like a criminal and escort me off the train at Imperial station. This is in Compton. I will probably catch hell for this, but I should mention that I am a 5'1'', 100-pound girl. And I'm stranded, alone, in Compton. Awesome. I also hold in my hand a citation that will cost me several hundred dollars to correct.

I bought another day pass (paper this time, no way will I trust the TAP card again), and headed right back home. As soon as I could, I called the number on the TAP card and spoke to a wonderful customer service agent, Rita, who verified that I had indeed bought and used a day pass through TAP that morning. She had me send copies of my citation, bank statement showing the $5 deducted for the fare, and ID to TAP customer service, stating that she would have the citation voided. Super!

When reader Erik Griswold wrote to Cubic and Metro about the issue he was told that monthly pass holders can avoid these kinds of problems by carrying their receipt with them.  Uhm, wasn't the point of TAP cards that Metro would move to paperless ticketing?  Now we're supposed to carry around a paper receipt?  I think I'll stick to day passes, thanks all the same.

It's no wonder that Foothill Transit announced they were opting out of the TAP system.

Traffic trying to get to Dodger Stadium. Photo:=Manny=/Flickr

Here comes one positive side benefit of the L.A. budget crisis: Gridlock. Our tight budget means the city can no longer afford to pick up the tab to make driving easier — by providing free traffic officers for events at the Dodger Stadium, Hollywood Bowl, and other major venues.

So now, most of these venues plan to pick up the tab — but also to reduce the number of traffic officers working — which according to the L.A. Times, “could lead to congestion.”

The change doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll have more congestion. Perhaps more people will simply take public transportation to these events, as L.A.’s Principal Transportation Engineer Alan Willis is apparently encouraging people to do — though it’s unclear from the L.A. Times article what concrete steps, if any, Willis plans to take to actually get people on buses and rail. But even if we do get more congestion, this is good news for both the environment and alternative transit advocates, according to David Owen, a staff writer at The New Yorker whose latest Wall Street Journal article expounds on “How Traffic Jams Help the Environment.” (via Idea)

“Traffic jams can actually be environmentally beneficial if they turn subways, buses, car pools, bicycles and walking into more-attractive options,” Owen points out. That may be a rather obvious observation, but Owen’s arguments that both ramp metering and congestion pricing aren’t necessarily good for the environment will be surprising at first for many alternative transit advocates:

Advocates of congestion-fighting strategies usually argue that traffic jams waste gasoline. That’s true, but the energy waste and carbon output attributable to idling cars is smaller than that attributable to the overall transportation network. There’s nothing green about fighting congestion if, by distributing traffic more efficiently, it results in an overall increase in traffic volume and extra miles driven by vehicles avoiding the fee areas.

That said, Owen isn’t against congestion pricing — He’s simply pointing out that such programs must be part of a “truly effective traffic program” that “would impose high fees for all automobile access and public parking while also gradually eliminating automobile lanes (thereby reducing total car traffic volume without eliminating the environmentally beneficial burden of driver frustration and inefficiency) and increasing the capacity and efficiency of public transit.”

Owen’s entire article’s a great read — which also gave me an idea: Perhaps simply raising the parking prices in these L.A. venues alone will get rid of the potential congestion problem altogether while encouraging more people to take alternative modes of transportation.

Parking pricing, in fact, is what the City of Santa Monica’s targeting now to tackle its own gridlock issues. Reduce this “ill-advised subsidy for public parking,” reports the L.A. Times, and more people might walk, bike, or take public transit to enjoy a day or night out on the Third Street Promenade: “If it works, the city would benefit from smoother traffic flow, reduced pollution as fewer people cruise for spaces and a better return on land developed for public parking.”

Those plans are still in the works; the city staff first needs to recommend a plan (”perhaps by late this year,” according to the L.A. Times) that the City Council can take up. But reading about how L.A. drivers can expect not only more gridlock but also higher parking prices really made my day today!

Of course, in addition to making driving and parking less pleasant and more costly, we need to make it easier for people to get to all of these venues without getting in a car. I love the convenience of taking the bus to the Hollywood Bowl, but I hear getting to the Dodger Stadium via public transit isn’t as easy…

Mere hours after the Washington Metro system suffered a shocking accident, two senior senators released a letter to their colleagues asking for $50 million in grants to improve rail safety technology.

The scene of yesterday's D.C. Metro crash. (Photo: NYT)

The letter was sent by two chairmen with a central role in transportation policy -- commerce committee chief Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and environment committee chief Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- to the two senators who shepherd the annual transportation budget, Patty Murray (D-WA) and Kit Bond (R-MO).

Rockefeller and Boxer noted that a $50 million investment in technology improvement grants was authorized last year when Congress passed a new rail safety law. That law favored rail safety upgrades that implemented "positive train control," a computerized program to prevent crashes that safety experts said might have averted last year's deadly California Metrolink crash.

As Rockefeller and Boxer wrote to their fellow senators:

More commuters are turning to commuter rail today than ever before. In these tough economic times, with many commuter rail agencies facing budget cuts, funding for the railroad safety technology grants is vital to ensure that important safety measures continue to be implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier this week, Sue Doyle with the Daily News reported that with the expansion of the 188 Freeway, aka the Ronald Reagen Freeway, there has been an unexpected consequence.  Apparently, the wider highway has led to a pandemic of speeding:

"They're going way too fast," said Capt. Cliff Williams, who works out of the CHP office in Moorpark. "There's the potential for not just one accident, but a very serious one."

Since construction ended March 17 on the eastbound lanes, authorities have issued 173 citations for speeding in the area, said Randy Pickens, CHP administrative officer. By comparison, officers averaged just 60 citations in March2007 and March 2008, Pickens said.

Over the past six weeks, motorists have routinely hit speeds of 95 mph, said Steve Marchant, a CHP officer who has patrolled the area for four years. Last Thursday, officers cited a motorist for driving 101 mph. 

Despite LADOT's protestations that they really didn't want to oversee speed limit increases but had to because of state law if the police wanted to use radar to enforce the speed; residents opposed these limits for a variety of safety reasons.  That the LADOT also admitted that even if it's hands weren't tied by state laws they would still want to increase these limits to improve traffic flow only angered the community's who's roads are seeing faster traffic more angry.  The Los Angeles Bike Advisory Committee Chair Glen Bailey went so far as to call the public process "dysfunctional" and "idiotic."  His commentary at Streetsblog reflected what he said at a recent City Council Transportation Committee Hearing.

For a complete list of the road segments seeing increases, check out today's City Council agenda.  To make life easier, run a search for "transportation."   And just a reminder for those that don't live in the Valley, in the coming years this kind of public process and faster, more dangerous streets will becoming to a street near you.

One sign of a broken outreach plan could be that Assemblyman Paul Krekorian's legislation that would give the DOT more flexibility and a better public process is due to be heard next Monday, yet the speed limit increases moved forward never the less.  Let's not even pretend that the city would consider redesigning these streets, many of them residential, to slow down traffic so the Krekorian legislation is the best hope that activists outside the valley have of hoping to avoid a repeat performance in local years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following the outcry after two USC students were run down in the Crosswalk at Hoover and Jefferson, the parents of one of the students, the one who was slain, demanded that the city "fix" this intersection.  Some Streetsblog readers noted that this intersection already has one of the safest designs, a Scramble-crosswalk.  Given that pedestrians are being mowed down throughout the city, is the LADOT really going to focus on this one intersection?

Never underestimate the power and influence grieving parents can have on the political system.  The Daily Trojan reports that USC and the LADOT have worked on a plan to further improve the crosswalk.  In the short term, speed sensors, repainted crosswalks and better lighting.  In the long-term, we can expect either a pedestrian bridge or tunnel to completely separate motorized and non-motorized transportation.

However, would any of these changes really prevented the crash that killed Adriana Bachan last month?  After all, if I were a USC student coming home from a party in the early morning, I would take my chances crossing at street level rather than walk into a tunnel where who-knows-what is waiting for me. Similarly, all the lighting and paint in the world isn't going to stop a drivers so deranged that after carrying a student 500 yards on their hood they calmly get out of the car, remove the victim, and drive off.  Yet, the article doesn't mention any effort to increase traffic enforcement near campus.

All the engineering in the world can't stop unsafe, uncaring drivers.  While the LADOT and USC's intersection plans may make the intersection safer, the only thing that is going to stop deranged drivers is better and more consistant enforcement of traffic laws.  Police in the Valley seem to have already learned this lesson.  It's a lesson that should be carried city-wide.

Yesterday, three-fifths of the City Council Transportation Committee met to discuss the proposed speed limit increases for four stretches of roads in the Valley.  Sue Doyle of the Daily News does a great job describing the issues surrounding the limit increases, how the city pleads powerlessness even as crashes mount in the areas around the effected areas. 

However, there was even worse news than just an increase in danger for valley residents, we can expect similar changes to be coming to streets throughout Los Angeles.  Responding to a question from Councilman Bernard Parks about why all these changes are being focused in the Valley, LADOT's Alan Willis responded that the Valley is just the first place to see their streets re-evaluated under state law and the rest of the city will undergo a similar revue in the coming years.

In other words, just because you don't live in the Valley doesn't mean you won't be seeing speed limits go up in your neck of the woods.

While the City Council has expressed anger over the state law, and has vowed to get it changed, it's also been over eight months since this issue first came up at the City Transportation Commission and so far, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no legislation introduced at the state level that would change the requirement that speed limits be set at the eighty-fifth percentile to allow use of radar.

While we wait for the City Council to pick up the phone and call their state legislators, there's work you can do to protect your streets.  If there is a road where people are constantly speeding, call the police, your neighborhood council and your elected reprsentatives and demand that the speed limit be enforced.  The reality is that no matter the sign, people are going to drive as quickly as they can unless there is a consistent enforcement effort.  If you don't want a local speed limit raised, then work with the police to get people to stop speeding before the LADOT comes to measure the speed on the streets nearest you.

Two weeks ago, the Daily News reported that the number of pedestrians killed in the valley had increased by 230% as compared to the same time last year.  This somewhat horrifiying stat passed through the public consciousness with barely a ripple.

In the last couple of days, you can barely turn on the television without hearing about more pedestrians being mowed down by careless drivers.  Sometimes the drivers stay to talk with the police and paramedics, sometimes they run, and sometimes they even drag the battered victim into their car and drive off.

However, despite the dramatic rise in crashes and deaths, the city is still treating each incident as an isolated one and not the symptom of a broken transportation system that places a low priority on protecting the system's most vulnerable users.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, let's look at some highlights from the past year.  Last summer 200 angelenos signed a letter begging the Metro Board to set aside some of the revenue from what is now called Measure R for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Despite just about every other constituency getting their piece of the pie, our pleas fell on deaf ears.

When the LADOT discovered that a disproportionate amount of crashes occur in crosswalks that aren't associated with traffic lights or signs, they immediately began a campaign to remove unsignalized crosswalks from the street.

And of course, when Gwendolyn Coleman was sent flying while crossing the street, the reaction was shock and awe at the violence of the crash there haven't been any changes implemented or proposed for the deadly intersection of Fifth and Flower.

While the LAPD is treating these "isolated incidents" with respect for the most part, we aren't seeing a corresponding rise in enforcement of laws that lead to safer street such as enforcement of vehicles running red lights, encroaching into crosswalks during red light signals or other forms of reckless driving.  However, we are seeing a crackdown on group bike rides which have killed a grand total of zero pedestrians in the past year.

If the LAPD won't step up, and given the amount of man hours its taking to decide what to do about bike licenses that seems more than unlikely, then it's up to our elected leaders to take the ball and demand both a city-wide pedestrian safety plan and better enforcement of traffic laws that protect pedestrians. 

Given the state of enforcement of these laws, and the track record of prosecuting those drivers crashing into pedestrians, this seems a ripe issue for the City Attorney's race.  If anyone wants to take a crack at writing a question for the candidates should leave a note in the comments section.  If not, I'll have a draft list of questions for City Attorney and City Council 5th District for your review on Friday.

Wisconsin's Jeff Frings is an avid bike rider. He's also a photographer for Milwaukee's Fox 6, which may be why this report is among the most fair and balanced we've seen on cyclists' right to the road.

Like many if not most cyclists, Frings has had his share of run-ins with space-hogging drivers. Unlike most, Frings's bike is equipped with front- and rear-facing cameras. As you'll see, this has given him an edge when making his case following a close call -- his footage resulted in a ticket for one motorist -- but it's still not enough when law enforcement officials are ignorant of, or are unwilling to enforce, traffic laws.

This Saturday, Crank Mob, possibly the largest of Los Angeles' group bike rides, had a more than interesting evening even by Crank Mob standards.  The Mob experienced a constant police presence including a road block and the detainment of several cyclists at the Ralph's at 3rd and La Brea.

After the police were summoned, perhaps because of a shoplifting incident which saw riders catch and turn in the alleged thief; there are many many reports that the police started harassing random cyclists in an attempt to control the mob.  Apparently, they didn't succeed as later in the evening the Hollywood District of the LAPD referred to them as a "herd of wild buffalo."

A big part of the LAPD's control strategy was similar to those seen across the country.  Grab a small group of cyclists and write up bogus citations.  Unable to effectively arrest those that were breaking the law, after all the Hollywood District didn't issue citations to the "herd of wild buffalo," the LAPD goes for a "guilt by association" strategy that leads to handcuffing and searching a pedestrian for crossing against a flashing red hand and more distressingly ticketing for a violation of LAMC 26.01 b "NO (sic) licence (sic) on Bike (sic)."  Handcuffing someone for not having a bike license?  For crossing the street against a flashing red hand?  What country am I living in?

What's really weird is I would have sworn that I read a report by LAPD Police Chief William Bratton that called for the ending of the program.  Even worse, I then remember the City Council approving Bratton's plan and suspending the city's program.  It's a good thing I write these things down, or I would assume I were going crazy.  Is the City Council just an advisory group these days?

No matter one's feelings on group rides, one should be able to agree that everyone deserves equal protection under the law.  On Saturday night, the LAPD didn't just thumb its nose at the LAPD Police Chief, and the City Council...they also took the opportunity to thumb their nose at the Constitution.

Yesterday, the media reacted with horror to the news that Mixed Martial Arts and reality television star Charles "Mask" Lewis died after a particularly gruesome and spectacular crash between his Ferrari and a Porsche in Newport Beach. After reading the Times' coverage of the story, it's clear that this crash was completely avoidable if we had a justice system that prioritized taking unsafe drivers off the road. The driver of the Porsche that allegedly caused the crash has a long history of violating traffic laws, but was still free to cruise Orange County roads:

According to Orange County Superior Court records, Kirby has been cited for at least eight traffic violations since 2001, including a conviction for driving under the influence in which he was sentenced to three years' probation.

In the 2001 drunk driving arrest, Kirby allegedly told the arresting officer that his father was a retired CHP patrolman who always advised him to never submit to a sobriety test. He also told the officer that "he shouldn't be picking on people with money," according to the police report.

I'm beginning to wonder if the California Highway Patrol has any moral authority left.  Last week we saw them going out of their way to "correct" information about cyclists rights by disseminating incorrect information and now we have them advising drunk family members on how to avoid DUI's.

Kirby is being held on suspicion of felony drunk driving and driving under the influence.  I'm guessing that drunkenly causing a fatal crash is a violation of his probation.

Yesterday, regular reader and MetroRider Calwatch sent me a story from the Daily Bulletin that quoted a member of the California Highway Patrol that bike riding two abreast is always illegal.  The worst part of the article was that the CHP initially said that two abreast riding is legal in certain circumstances but then the agency went to great pains to backtrack and make sure to get out the wrong information. 

Not being an expert on the specific sections of state law, I put out a call for help to help me with background on the story.  What I got was an amazing and detailed take down of the article and the CHP by Long Beach uber-activist Dan Gutierrez.

A quick word about the credentials of Gutierrez to respond to a retired CHP officer when it comes to the rights and obligations of cyclists.  He is a certified instructor from the League of American Cyclists, the policy chair for Caltrans' District 7 Bike Advisory Committee, and the California Associaiton of Bicycling Organizations District 7 Director amongst other titles and committees.  In his free time, he makes videos about safe cycling and cyclists legal obligations.  In other words, he knows his stuff.

Even though Gutierrez quotes extensively from the article, I recommend reading it before reading on after the jump.

 Michelle Pearl wrote in the Daily Bulletin:

“The California Vehicle Code book weighs over 3 pounds, has over 1,000 pages and contains over 40,000 laws and provisions. I would love to say that I know every code and every nuance of its numerous sub-decimal appendages by heart, but that wouldn't even come close to being the truth.”

All well and good, but the code sections that are relevant fit nicety on both sides a sub one ounce sheet of 8-1/2” x 11” paper.  In particular 21200, 21650, 21654 and 21202 are the relevant codes to this discussion.

Pearl continued:

… a reader wrote and asked about the legality of bicyclists riding side-by-side. Unable to find a specific mention of this practice in the vehicle code book, I contacted my source in Sacramento, Information Officer Jaime Coffee, who verified that there was no code which specifically stated that the bicyclists riding side-by-side was illegal, although individual municipalities might be able to enforce specialized citywide ordinances.”

It is true that there is no legal prohibition in California for side by side operation by any drivers, or even motorists in very wide lanes.  In addition, the CHP officer has apparently never looked at CVC 21, which requires statewide uniformity of the vehicle codes, unless another specific code gives express authority to local jurisdictions.  Since there are no codes that give local jurisdictions express authority to enact custom movement laws, counties and cities CANNOT enact “specialized citywide ordinances” requiring single file operation because such laws are rendered illegal and unenforceable by virtue of CVC 21.  As a national, state and local cycling advocate and educator, it pains me to read about CA law enforcement agencies like the CHP with officials lacking knowledge of fundamental aspects, such as uniformity, of the California Vehicle Code.

Retired police officer Kevin Cushman took umbrage with this conclusion, and he let me know it in no uncertain terms. Fortified in righteousness from having my answer verified by my ace-in-the-hole in Sacramento, I sent him the contact information to duke it out directly with the Sacramento CHP.

Well, kudos to Officer Cushman for his persistence, as I received the following e-mail from Sacramento:

"Michelle, I was hoping you could run a correction to the answer that we discussed that ran in your column a while back about bicyclists riding side-by-side. After speaking with retired officer Kevin Cushman recently, I decided to pose the question to our folks over in the Vehicle Code section at our Academy. Hopefully, this will prevent anyone from getting a ticket or putting themselves in harm's way."”

First of all, riding side by side is NOT a safety issue.  Officer Cushman is quite wrong about this, since laws like CVC 21202 are NOT for the safety of cyclists (more on this below), they are designed to facilitate the in-lane overtaking of cyclists by faster motorists, not to protect cyclists’ safety.

VC 21202 (a) indicates that any person riding a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride 'as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway' except if they are passing another bicycle or vehicle, if they are making a right or left turn, or if they need to avoid an obstacle or hazard.

This paraphrasing of the law, and the lack of mention of CVC 21200 and CVC 21654 does Daily Bulletin readers a huge disservice, and doesn’t speak well for the thoroughness of Cushman and the CHP.  CVC 21200 requires that cyclists follow the rest of the vehicle codes because they have the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers.  

Because of this they must follow CVC 21650 (drive on the right half of the roadway), and CVC 21654 which requires that slower drivers “use the right hand lane for traffic or drive as far right as practicable to the curb or edge”.  Which in turn means that any slower drivers, motorist, motorcyclist or bicyclists are required to use the right hand lane, with no intra- lane positioning restrictions, and only drive as close as practicable to the curb or edge when no marked (painted lane stripes) lanes (and therefore no right hand lane) are present.  Thus slower drivers may use the marked right hand lane any way they see fit, and slower motorcyclists may ride two abreast if they so choose.

Why 21654 is important will be apparent shortly.

Unfortunately bicyclists and no other drivers are subject to a discriminatory law, CVC21202, which forces a further restriction on slower cyclists.  Here is the full text of 21202(a):

21202.  

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at
that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or
edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
  (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding
in the same direction.
  (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
  (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it
unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
provisions of Section 21656.  For purposes of this section, a
"substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and
a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
  (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

This law has 4 exceptions, the last two being the most important for through travel.  When any one of the exceptions applies, CVC 21202(a) does not apply at all.  So a slower cyclist is only beholden to CVC21654 when any of the above four exceptions applies.  For some reason police officers don’t seem to recognize this important aspect of traffic law.  Now let’s look at the effect of the last two exceptions:

Exception (a)(3) applies to lanes that are not wide enough to share side-by-side with a vehicle.  In other states like Texas, “substandard width” is explicitly called out in traffic law as lanes less then 14 feet wide.  In CA a typical line width is 12 feet wide, and is not wide enough for safe side by side lane sharing.  The upshot of (a)(3) is that most lanes, particularly those in urban areas, which are often 11’ wide or narrower, are not side by side shareable, so cyclists only need follow 21654, and can ride legally anywhere they want in the right hand lane, including two abreast riding.  This has important practical implications across most urban areas in CA.  In my home city of Long Beach for example, well over 99% of the lane miles in the downtown area has lanes that are under 12’ wide, so CVC 21202 doesn’t really  pply.

This is true of every urban core I’ve visited: LA, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Mountain View, etc.

Now lets look at exception (a)(4) which applies when a cyclist is approaching driveways and intersections (places where right turns are authorized).  In these situations cyclists are also bound only by 21654. The reason for this is to allow cyclists to get way from the edge of the road to avoid being right hooked by  otorists and to avoid left cross turns and intersection/driveway pullouts by motorists.   So in residential or commercial areas with frequent driveways and intersections, a cyclist is essentially always approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, so even if the lane are wide, the cyclists doesn’t have to ride near the curb, and two cyclists can ride side by side.

What we can conclude from these last two exceptions may come as a surprise, but in general, through cycling downtown areas with narrow lanes, and commercial areas with frequent driveways are NOT governed by 21202, only 21654.  Thus two abreast cycling is legal.  Even more interesting is the fact that most residential areas, cyclists are similarly exempt from 21202 because of a driveway every 50 feet, so cyclists are not obligated to ride near the edge in these areas either, and can therefore also ride two abreast.

So you may be asking where 21202 does apply.  Here is what we teach our students in our traffic skills classes:

Lane sharing (riding near the curb) for through travel is only required when ALL three constraints apply:

1)  You are moving slower than other traffic (otherwise control the lane)

2)  You are away from driveways and intersections (otherwise control the lane)

3)  The lane is of safe shareable width (otherwise control the lane)

Here is a link to a video, entitled “The Rights and Duties of Cyclists” that shows examples of controlling narrow lanes and sharing wide lanes away from driveways and intersections.

BTW, on the subject of safety, discriminatory FTR (far to right) laws like 21202 are in effect in 42 US states, with 8 states treating cyclists as full and equal drivers.  To understand more about discriminatory laws, please read the “Equality for Cyclists” (6Es) article I co-wrote with League of American Bicyclists’ Board Chair and fellow Certified Traffic Cycling Instructor, Amanda Eichstaedt.

Also note that the League Adopted an Equity Statement (6Es) that specifically targets discriminatory laws for repeal:

“Equality – The equal legal status and equal treatment of cyclists in traffic law. All US states must adopt fair, equitable and uniform traffic laws, that are “vehicle-neutral” to the greatest extent possible. Cyclists’ ability to access to all destinations must be protected. State and local laws that discriminate against cyclists, or restrict their right to travel, or reduce their relative safety, must be repealed.”

And finally here is a graphic showing the relationships of the 6Es. .

With all this in mind, the discriminatory NY state FTR law explicitly states the reason for the law in the legal text itself:

Ҥ 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes and bicycle or in-line skate paths.

(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a  anner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except:

- when preparing for a left turn or

- when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it
unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to
be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to,

- fixed or moving objects,

- vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals,

- surface hazards or

- traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and
a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.”

The key phrase is “near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway … in such a manner as to prevent  interference with the flow of traffic”.  Thus the purpose of the law is NOT for cyclist safety; rather
it is to get cyclists “out of the way” of the flow of traffic (- as if bicyclists weren’t traffic!).  Normally faster traffic is expected make safe lane changes to pass slower traffic in the right hand lane instead of making in-lane passes, whereas slower traffic is normally not expected to “get out of the way” of faster traffic by abandoning control of the right hand lane.

Most of the FTR laws in the US (yes, I’ve reviewed all 42 of them) have a provision exempting cyclists from sharing a lane that is too narrow for safe side-by-side car-bike sharing, and this is a dead giveaway that the purpose of the law is to force slower cyclists, and no other drivers, to abandon control of the right hand lane to allow faster traffic to pass on the left within the same lane.  This isn’t about cyclist safety; it is about motorist overtaking convenience.

The Bulletin quotes the CHP one last time:

So, if a bicyclist is riding next to another cyclist (or side-by-side) than there's no way the cyclist on the outside could be riding as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway... and therefore would be in violation of VC Section 21202(a) and could be cited by an officer.  Hope that helps.....” Jaime Coffee, Information Officer II, CHP Media Relations.

First of all, the cyclist closer to the center of the road is further “inside” the lane, not “outside”, since the curb is as far “outside” as one can get in the roadway!  While it is true that in, say a 15’ wide and therefore shareable lane, away from driveways and intersections, a leftward cyclist in a pair of slower cyclists that are riding side by side near the curb could be cited, but this is rather the exception
rather than the norm in most urban areas of California!

It is extremely disappointing that so few in law enforcement know the operating laws, and the reasons behind the laws, sometimes discriminatory, that pertain to bicycling on public roads in CA.

After the city's Bike Advisory Committee elected a new board chair and vice chair, Ed Bailey and Jay Slater, respectively, a bike advocate took the opportunity during public comment to announce a new web site designed to empower cyclists after incidents with automobiles.

The Bikex Database is an online resource to identify, document, and prosecute drivers who harass, abuse, or endanger bicycle riders.  Basically, if a cyclist has an experience with a driver, they can email or text the information to the database and the incident will be plotted on a map and stored in the database.  If the same license plate is reported by three different people, the database will send an email alerting the three victims so that they can work together to pursue legal options. 

At the very least, the database can show us the problem areas in the city, places where cyclists are more at risk from unsafe drivers than other areas.

Thanks to Ubrayj02, Enci and Zane Selvans for the tip.

Photo: cactfyl/Flickr

While advocates for faster traffic point out that state law requires a speed limit increase if traffic surveys find that twenty percent of all vehicles in a survey are breaking the limit; this excuse carries little weight after LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher told a City Council Committee that even without this law LADOT would want to raise the limit.  The LADOT's support for speeders is flatly stated in the reports on both increases linked to above:

If the current 35 m.p.h. speed limit were to be retained on Saticoy Street between Hayvenhurst Avenue and Woodlake Avenue, then 66 percent of the motorists would be considered as speed violators. In the absence of other factors, this high rate of violators would be unreasonable and would not distinguish occasional violators from the majority of reasonable drivers.

In other words, unless you're violating the law on a regular basis, you don't deserve to get ticketed when you are speeding.  Maybe David Jassy's attorneys should point out that he rarely attacks pedestrians and runs them over with his car.  The majority of the time, he's a perfectly reasonable driver.

Studies have consistently shown that raising speed limits is one of the fastest way to speed up traffic along a local street.  After completing a study on the impact of raising speed limits in 2003, one researcher from the New York Times commented:

''What happens is if you raise the speed limits, people go faster,'' said Susan Ferguson, a top researcher at the Insurance Institute, a safety group financed by car insurers. ''It's not that more people follow the law.''

Today in City Watch, Stephen Box talk about the need to improve pedestrian safety for everyone, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. 

On Tuesday, Box and I did a tour of the intersection of 5th and Flower, the intersection where Gwendolyn Coleman had been struck and killed by a DASH bus while legally crossing the street a week earlier.  Noting the extremely short amount of time that pedestrians have a white walk signal, 4 seconds crossing six lanes of traffic going east and west and 5 seconds for crossing seven lanes going north and south, the conflict between pedestrians crossing as quickly as possible and traffic seeking to take left turns into the crosswalk is pretty clear.

Box lays out the problems with the 5th Avenue and Flower Street:

It is especially successful in this endeavor with seven lanes of one-way traffic moving east on 5th and six lanes of one-traffic moving south on Flower.

This intersection is also home to the Central Library, to the Bonaventure Hotel and two huge office buildings, all generating heavy pedestrian activity which is at odds with the movement of the vehicles.

The problem is that this intersection is designed to simply move either vehicles or people, with the success of one group coming at the expense of the other.

Eastbound vehicles stack seven and eight deep in the left turn, waiting for the pedestrians to clear the intersection. Pedestrians enjoy a four-second "Walk" phase as they set out to cross six lanes of street, all with vehicles edging forward into the crosswalk.

Given that there's nothing that can be done about the existing development in the area, the large buildings and underground malls aren't going anywhere, what do people think can be done to make this intersection safe and efficient for everyone?  What does the city have to do to end the conflict between those on foot and those in the vehicles?

My thought, given that Coleman was killed crossing the street with a walk signal and the bus that killed her had a green light also, is to install scramble crosswalks at high volume intersections of one way streets.  This way, each mode of transportation will have its own time to cross the intersection while instead of having turning traffic compete with pedestrians for the intersection.

Feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments section.

Photo: The New/Flickr