http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bicycle-law-20110721,0,3219222.story
The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday passed a pioneering new law intended to protect bicyclists from harassment by motorists.
The ordinance, which backers described as the toughest of its kind in the nation, makes it a crime for drivers to threaten cyclists verbally or physically, and allows victims of harassment to sue in civil court without waiting for the city to press criminal charges.
Its passage comes one day after a 63-year-old bicyclist was struck and killed by a car on a downtown street — an incident that bicycle advocates say underscores the dangers cyclists face.
The new law is the latest bicycle-friendly measure to hit L.A., where an increasingly vocal community of activists has been calling for more protections.
Several of them showed up at City Hall on Wednesday to share stories of harassment; they described motorists who threw objects, shouted insults and tried to run them off the road.
As the number of cyclists on L.A. streets has swelled — local census data from 2008 show that about 13,000 commute to work on bikes, a 48% increase over the last eight years — so too have conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. Some motorists have accused cyclists of flouting traffic laws, while cyclists have complained that they are treated like second-class citizens.
The new law allows cyclists to sue in civil court and collect up to three times their damages, plus attorney's fees. Ross Hirsch, a lawyer who helped craft the law, said the potential for high compensation will make attorneys more likely to take on cyclists as clients.
Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists, said no other city offers bicyclists an equivalent civil recourse. "It's a groundbreaking move," he said.
L.A. lawmakers have garnered national attention with several bike-friendly measures in the last two years.
In 2011, the Los Angeles Police Department convened a bicycle task force and launched new training that acquaints officers with laws that protect cyclists, including traffic codes that relate to bicycle lanes and rights of way. And earlier this year, the city passed an ambitious new bicycle master plan that calls for the paving of more than 200 miles of new bicycle routes every five years.
City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who championed that plan and wrote the new anti-harassment law, said, "It's about time cyclists have rights."
He became an advocate for the community in 2008 after two cyclists pedaling on a curvy road in his Brentwood district were seriously injured when a driver slammed on his brakes in front of them. The motorist, physician Christopher Thompson, was convicted of numerous charges, including assault with a deadly weapon.
At the state level, legislators are considering a law that would require drivers to give cyclists at least 3 feet of space while passing. Senate Bill 910 is cosponsored by the city of Los Angeles, and it has won the support of local politicians, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who recently launched a "Give Me Three!" safety campaign.
Villaraigosa knows how dangerous riding a bicycle can be. Last summer, he bruised his head and shattered his elbow when he was jolted off his bike by a turning taxicab.
This has been posted a few times, but I question the usefulness of this. I like the idea but the implementation would frighten me. Pair he said/she said and a lack of formal charges with a scumbag lawyer and someone will get screwed.
It might be worthwhile if just for the hearing process. I think the average non-riding person has no idea what kind of crap bicyclists are exposed to, because it would never occur to the average person to do those kinds of things to another human being. When we first started talking to Kathi Manganaro about the Dr. Varacallo ghost bike, she was pretty surprised at the stories about things people have experienced while riding.
And not passing a law does not make the world safe from scumbag lawyers, so that doesn't seem like a good reason.
LA supposedly has the least bike-friendly streets in the nation. Passing any law to help cyclists there is probably a plus.
"And not passing a law does not make the world safe from scumbag lawyers, so that doesn't seem like a good reason."
haha... I can see the Edgar Snyder commercials now. 
"The new law allows cyclists to sue in civil court and collect up to three times their damages, plus attorney's fees."
"...three times their damages"
So, if someone calls me a jackass I can call them a F$^&^$# G@%$$ Da^&%^#& Pi$$^# of $#!*!
Things get done in our society when attorneys can expect to see some $$$.
What is physical harassment from a motorist? Is it a dirty look? Does a scumbag lawyer and a shady cyclist have what it takes to squeeze some cash out of someone?
I am all for making motorists accountable and essentially forcing them to drive the way they should be in the first place, but this doesn't seem like the best option. I don't know what would be better, so we shall have to wait and see how this goes.
No, in LA they probably mean PHYSICAL harassment I'm sure (touching, throwing stuff, etc.). A law like that may help in a place like LA, and unless you've been, it's really hard to put into words. I still have family there, and it's probably the only place I don't try to bike beyond the skate park, and even there it can get violent.
That law specifically includes verbal threats. So if someone calls you an ass and you call them an adam's apple, no suit. If someone calls you an ass and then says they are going to run you off the road, or worse, then the law kicks in. I think the idea is to prevent the actual threat from happening, so an injury or death doesn't have to happen before law can act.
I am not entirely familiar with the laws for cyclists in CA and LA, but creating new laws when there is lacking enforcement of the current ones does not strike me as efficient.
This just makes it illegal for someone to be mean and hit you with their car.
but creating new laws when there is lacking enforcement of the current ones does not strike me as efficient.
^^That.
Generally, such legal endeavors strike me as token efforts: "Here, look, we're doing something!" without actually incurring the overhead of, uh, doing anything.
Passing new laws can be construed as "raising awareness" or "acknowledging that there's a problem", sure...but that means very little in terms of real-world impact (or, more to the point, PREVENTION of impact...)
"...allows victims of harassment to sue in civil court without waiting for the city to press criminal charges."
This is the key, it removes the dependence on enforcement. If drivers know that they can be sued for threatening to kill a cyclist, it's going to make them think twice. So still the onus would be on the threatenee to prove the threat, but if you get someone threatening to kill you on your helmet cam, there you go.
additionally, this seems to lower the bar for enforcement, presumably making police action more likely.
what do you do when police aren't enforcing existing laws? make laws that are easier to enforce.
Is it currently legal to make death threats?
on tv, people mostly make death threats just before the person is killed and the threatener becomes the prime suspect. thus it is not smart as well as being incredibly rude.
ashamed to say I just unthinkingly googled it on a work computer (waiting for the call now), but google seems to think it's not legal to make death threats. I'm now afraid to click through any links for more information. I now have to try twice as hard to avoid being associated with any questionable deaths.
Don't know.
But it seems to me that in a court of law, there would be a difference in someone saying "I'm going to kill you", and saying "I'm going to kill you" while they're holding a weapon. This law would make threatening someone while operating a vehicle closer in equivalency to the latter.
I don't see how the vehicle is not considered a weapon now.
orionz, many people have difficulty understanding that their necessary luxury status symbol is a weapon. just watch the car commercials with sexy women, authoritative men, or happy families effortlessly maneuvering on empty bendy roads with falling trees. Truck commercials are worse, cowboys and manly men hauling heavy equipment beside galloping horses or through construction sites.
It's not a weapon, it's an intrinsic part of our cultural fabric. Questioning that leads down some seriously uncomfortable paths. Luckily, increasing gas prices lead the same place.
Last I checked, one can already file a civil lawsuit for infliction of physical or emotional harm regardless of whether there is any criminal prosecution. So, right now, anyone who feels they have been harassed by someone else can go right ahead and file a civil suit.
To put it another way, as a result of this law, I expect there will be exactly as much effort put into prosecuting people who _actually_ harm someone with their vehicle as there is now (not much)...I also expect there will be nigh-unto-zero effort at prosecuting people for threatening, but not committing, harm.
I also expect that most drivers in LA will never even know about the new law, as it's not like any drivers are required to keep up with changes to the rules. And, sad to say, the only people who might actually change their behavior out of fear of being sued are rational enough that they're highly unlikely to be actually threatening anyone with their vehicle in the first place.
So, IMO, it's pretty much a waste. Doesn't provide victims with any new rights, doesn't seem likely to result in any changes in anyone's behavior.
Pair it with actual budget for increased enforcement, and I may change my tune. Heck, pair it with actual budget for frickin' billboards all over the city, telling drivers they can be sued, and I might be persuaded. But, without either real enforcement or a serious advertising campaign, the only people who are even going to know that a law passed are, well, cyclists. And they don't need to be convinced...
[edited: misc spelling/syntax errors. I shouldn't try to think at work...]
I put in a good 1400 mile month - 5 weeks
in LA last year. It is hard to compare us to
them. There were thousands of people on bikes
there. It was common to see hordes of 13 - 14
year old latina girls riding around on fixies
without brakes. It was kind of nuts.
Also if you ride without a front and rear
light, you WILL be ticketed quickly.
Much more of a cycling culture there.
^this
according to this Pittsburgh's mode share (1.35%) is way higher than LA's (0.99%).
re: different biking culture / apples to oranges: I was recently in a different city, jogging along on an early morning run, and looked up to see a bunch of cyclists all coming down the road. figured it was a team out for a practice run (in early rush hour on a Thursday?). Few seconds went by, happened again. Happened a third time. How many teams are in this city? 'round a bend, it was a light. They were just people commuting on a road that is a cycling artery, held up at the light. (Ok, so I missed the few not in lycra, and all the briefcases - I'm not that observant when jetlagged). But there were so many people commuting by bike it looked like teams out practicing.
Perspective is everything. Rather than getting their laws enacted here, how do we get some more of that cycling cutlure here? Or just strengthen our own? That strikes me as one of the best ways to enact and get enforced our own laws that apply to us and help keep us safe.
salty - could that be due to the definition of LA as a city/county? Maybe there is a core or group of neighborhoods where it's more likely? If you included greater PGH, our numbers might not compare so well.
Right on ejwme. The whole bike commute thing here is still just a fraction of what other cities experience in this country and beyond. That said, Greater Pittsburgh is relatively spread out compared to some areas (to the point now where people in parts of WV and OH claim it as home, or try). So while tons of people cycle, who knows where they are? I ride during rush hour and maybe see three cyclists from East Lib to downtown. When I get off the bus at the trail (Montour) by my house, I see like 90. I don't know what that means statistically, but I know a lot of those people are Pittsburgh residents. Maybe they just ride the trails? Or drive home and ride recreationally. Or split their trip on the bus like me. I don't know. :shrug: I do know in a lot of cities I've been, there are people that ride and that's it. To everything and everywhere, and that adds up in a city like LA (especially with as much traffic as they have). Many of them don't have cars, nor can afford them. Never had a license (some can't legally have one). And, believe it or not, lots of them don't want or need one.
LA's a city of 9 mil, vs 350 k here. Hard to put a dent in 9 million, percentagewise. Also my guess would be that Latinos, 13 yr old or otherwise, don't identify a "bike commuters", and may be unreported, who knows.
ej - "how do we get some more of that cycling culture here?" - tonight I just gave a loaner bike to a young guy I work with to give riding to work a try, right now I have 2 loaner bikes out to people I work with - so, working on it. woot!
Well, you can read all about their methodology here (survey-based, city only, large margin of error). And, wiki has a nice article on Confirmation Bias...
get some more of that cycling cutlure here..
Definitely. Force the current laws to be enforced.
how do we get some more of that cycling cutlure here? Or just strengthen our own?
keep riding, and keep telling people how awesome it is and how easy it is. it's working, too! it's not the sort of thing that happens overnight, but i mentioned in another thread last week that i've had several people recently tell me they've never seen as many people on bikes as they have in pittsburgh (and one of them was from dc!).
i think we're doing a fine job.
yeah, HV, my old roommate recently had her sister and brother-in-law out here to visit from the Netherlands and they were able to get around the whole time using the buses and they commented on the number of bikes. They were very impressed with Pittsburgh as a bikey-transit American city. Of course it's just an anecdote and a first impression, but those things are pretty important too.
+1 HV. I believe there was a previous discussion about Portlandia, and how it has taken decades for bike culture to really get established there. Given that Bike-PGH only nine and half years old, I think we've come a long, long way.
I like when the answers to my quesitons are "go ride more, talk to people about biking more, and go on more group rides" I like those answers. I do not like when "be patient" is part of the answer, but someday I'll grow up and accept it
edmonds - I think, given enough time, you will get every Pgher on a bike.
It's starting to become difficult to find a PAT bus that doesn't have a bike rack. They said 7/31. Better than 95%, as of last Friday. That's gotta help.
@Stu: There's always one bus on my route when I'm on a time crunch that doesn't have a bike rack. Thankfully the drivers are usually nice enough to let me bring it aboard. Especially when they realize I ride 3 miles to the stop as it is. I also don't head into town for work till 11, and I'm usually one of 5 on it. (Although, I was denied on an outbound trip once cause there was no rack.) I really should commend all the drivers of the 29 cause that crap is not their fault. Truthfully, that bus serves two college campuses in my neighborhood (PTI and CCAC West). Why the heck wouldn't that be a mandatory rack route with all the trails and bike friendly roads around here? :sigh:
@salty That is commuting data right? That
wouldnt take into account if every 15 year
old kid in garfield/eastlib/larmir was just
cruising around on bikes, would it?
