LAPD Chief kills bike licenses?
Thread started by
SoapBoxLA at 01.9.09 - 2:26 pm
Evidently it pays off to speak up. The Police Commission has responded to the Brouhaha over Bike Licensing and Chief Bratton has issued the attache report. It ain't over until PC says it's over but it looks like it is well on its way to becomeing a done deal.
The report will be discussed at the upcoming Transportation committee meeting on the Transportation Committee Wednesday, January 14th @ 2pm.
They will also be discussing the City's ill-conceived
speed limit increases throughout the valley. Lot's of fun!
If you can't attend the upcoming meeting but you want your words on the record send me an email and I'll deliver them.
reply
very good stuff. we need to all go to this meeting on wednesday january 14th to show some bike support.
gohomedorothy01.9.09 - 2:45 pm
reply
We'll be giving out bike license spoke cards. :-)
illuminateLA01.9.09 - 3:21 pm
reply
All I can say is I am glad i missed out on this, licensing my nine bikes would be a real hassle
tallcans4tallbikes01.9.09 - 3:23 pm
reply
will the LADOT be there to speak as well? does it regard bicycles? will Parks be texting and nodding off?
Roadblock01.9.09 - 3:25 pm
reply
Keith Sellers just got a ticket (today) on Spring Street for riding in the Bus Only lane (legal) and for riding without a bike license (moratorium)
Ladies & Gentlemen, it's time to visit City Hall!
SoapBoxLA01.9.09 - 3:29 pm
reply
so it was a bunch of bullshit?
seriously the bike license thing sounds like it's on the verge of being considered for repeal and that's awesome.
but god damn it when are we going to see some motherfucking PAINT ON THE GROUND?
WE NEED AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS GOING TO MAKE THINGS FUCKING HAPPEN. Shit is making me sick of LA.
HEY LADOT! QUIT YOUR YAPPIN' and MAKE SHIT HAPPEN!
please pass that message on from Rhode Bloch Jr. thankyou.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 3:52 pm
reply
"will Parks be texting and nodding off?"
haha
Parks was bored as fuck when it was being covered at that transportation committee meeting. He was all up in the blackberry.
trickmilla01.9.09 - 4:48 pm
reply
And to think, some of you naysayers didn't think that pushing for a moratorium/repeal would work. Maybe you'll listen to your silly old uncle PC next time, eh?
PC01.9.09 - 5:10 pm
reply
I'll be there with my CVC evading rolling thing that I call a bicycle, but the state California doesn't.
You'll love it!
User101.9.09 - 5:18 pm
reply
So glad to hear the news, and really stoked so many people showed up the last meeting to put the pressure on this.
GarySe7en01.9.09 - 5:19 pm
reply
"And to think, some of you naysayers didn't think that pushing for a moratorium/repeal would work. Maybe you'll listen to your silly old uncle PC next time, eh?"
LOL don't count ya chickens before they hatch. nothing has "actually" happened yet.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 5:28 pm
reply
Ah, yes...I'm sure that the evil big money interests will intervene any minute now and put the whole thing to a halt. I can just see them chomping on their cigars and squinting down on their monocles in gleeful anticipation.
PC01.9.09 - 5:31 pm
reply
are you saying that money doesnt run shit in this world?
I think the repeal will go through - more like non-enforcement memo... but remember, it was a pain in the ass for the cops too so it would help their cause in a way as well. now lets see if something significant like an increase in funding for bicycle infrastructure will ever make it through... or if even one god damned sharrow gets put on the ground in the 09 by the city... that would shock me.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 5:36 pm
reply
shouldn't we be pushing for a functioning, properly administered, easy-to-use, non-mandatory bike license program instead ? they do have legit value to cyclists in terms of recovering stolen/lost bikes. and the cost of the program is almost zilch.
stevestevesteve01.9.09 - 5:42 pm
reply
I'm saying that you vastly, vastly overestimate the extent to which money gives a flying fuck about the California Vehicle Code as it applies to human-powered devices operated on public highways.
PC01.9.09 - 5:43 pm
reply
steve3 wrote:
shouldn't we be pushing for a functioning, properly administered, easy-to-use, non-mandatory bike license program instead?
If it's non-mandatory, by definition it's not licensing. But if you mean a publicly administered program of voluntary frame marking for the purpose of theft recovery, it looks like Bratton himself is pushing for that as a replacement for licensing.
PC01.9.09 - 5:45 pm
reply
the cost of the program at minimum is our energy in getting it overhauled and approved.
dont get me wrong, the bike license thing if indeed it actually gets repealed or ignored or whatever they are sort of promising to do is great... but with so little resources, I believe it better to concentrate all energies on getting some god dmned paint on the ground and infrastructure funded. every ounce of everything we've got dedicated to bicycle infrastructure will still not be enough to over come whatever the hell is holding this fucken city back.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 5:46 pm
reply
"I'm saying that you vastly, vastly overestimate the extent to which money gives a flying fuck about the California Vehicle Code as it applies to human-powered devices operated on public highways."
If I ever attributed money interests to blocking legislation on bike licensing please quote me so I can refresh my memory.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 5:48 pm
reply
You didn't say it about licensing, you said it over and over again about proposals to alter the CVC to make 21202 less ambiguous about riding to the right, and/or to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Thus, I chose to poke fun at you for that, even though we're talking about something else, because I'm a total dick.
PC01.9.09 - 5:54 pm
reply
anyway, to make my point even clearer, we can not afford to be distracted by anything other than PAINT ON THE FUCKING GROUND.In my humble opinion... I would love for us to sound in unison like broken records at every fucken LABCB sub committee bullshit meetings talking bout getting more sharrows, more bike lanes, more bike effin bike icons on the roads. and if it will satisfy PC I will say that I believe these people drag their feet like no tomorrow because it will make auto interests bummed if we take up too much of their precious roads.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 5:57 pm
reply
Focusing on one demand to the exclusion of all others is bad strategy and an inefficient use of people's energy.
PC01.9.09 - 5:59 pm
reply
"Focusing on one demand to the exclusion of all others is bad strategy and an inefficient use of people's energy."
how so?
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:00 pm
reply
BTW lobbying for bike lanes, sharrows and infrastructure is not "one demand" that's a huge multi-faceted project in itself.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:04 pm
reply
how so?
It leads to burnout. People perceive you as a bunch of single-issue obsessos and bores. It doesn't allow individual activists to apply their energy and skills to the things that concern them the most, which can be a significant disincentive to participate. It doesn't allow for the kind of complex, holistic thinking and action that actually solve systemic problems (which this is). It may take you so long to get what you're asking for that by the time you get it, you have missed opportunities to get other things that you could have been asking for. Shall I go on?
PC01.9.09 - 6:09 pm
reply
yes go on, cause I'm not buying that argument. If you look at how lobbiests work their wonders they are focused and repetatitve, because that's what it takes to move mountains like government. that's why they are called "special" interests. they are focused and overwhelming not just running at every little issue that comes up getting distracted by things that really dont make much difference in the long run... does it really make a difference if the cops can choose whether or not to ticket you for not hainving a licnse? or does it make a difference if a person can ride safely amongst traffic.
politicians love to distract people with side issues. when people start fanning out and applying small pressure on many issues then nothing happens. when they focus on issues and apply repetitive pressure then things get done.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:15 pm
reply
Lobbyists "work their wonders" because they are being paid to do it by single-issue organizations, many if not most of which are out to accomplish their one thing no matter how harmful it may be in a larger sense. To put it mildly, these are not the people to emulate.
PC01.9.09 - 6:18 pm
reply
"Lobbyists "work their wonders" because they are being paid to do it by single-issue organizations, many if not most of which are out to accomplish their one thing no matter how harmful it may be in a larger sense. To put it mildly, these are not the people to emulate."
and unfocused burnouts are?
look, the only way to get things done is by emulating what lobbiests do. every group that ever got anything done in the face of government lobbied to get it done no matter if they are funded or not. the ones that are funded are focused because money is not stupid. money knows how to get shit done. the ones who "burnout" were not paid to do their job and therefore makes my exact case on all fronts - that money interests wield incredible influence and that focusing on important issues with precious resources is more likely to get shit done than just going at whatever floats the boat in unfocused haphazzard ways does same.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:24 pm
reply
One more thing: as difficult as this may be for you to believe, not everybody agrees with you that putting "paint on the ground" is a superior, or even a desirable, way to attempt to make cycling a safer, more attractive, or more pleasant experience. Some would argue that the thing that needs to be changed is "ink on the paper"--specifically, replacing the ink that is unfavorable to cyclists in their day-to-day activities with ink that is favorable. To state categorically that putting paint on the ground is more important than changing laws is to try to
elevate an opinion to the status of fact. More importantly, it will tend to alienate people who want to commit their energy to changing laws...or, at best, create a splintered movement.
See what I mean about bad strategy and inefficient use of energy?
PC01.9.09 - 6:26 pm
reply
when I ride in the netherlands. I see paint on the ground not ink on paper.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:27 pm
reply
go ahead and put all your energy into getting that bike license law repealed. I wish you luck. and when it's done, I will STILL be wishing for paint on the ground ie. bicycle infrastructure that educates drivers that I have the right to be on the road.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:29 pm
reply
all the laws are already there. it already says that I have a right to be on the road in the CVC. yet, I STILL get told by ignorant drivers to get on the side walk, yet would-be bicycle riders STILL feel unsafe riding on the streets of LA.... we dont need anymore ink on paper we need ACTION on what's already spelled out. we need funding. we need the LADOT to come through on promises made more than a decade ago...
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:31 pm
reply
and that my friend will take intense lobbying. and a repatative "boring" focused approach.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:32 pm
reply
and unfocused burnouts are?
Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. A favorite of sloppy thinkers everywhere.
What I'm suggesting--and I shouldn't have to explain this to you--is that there is more to cyclo-advocacy than wonky infrastructure issues
and there's more to cyclo-advocacy than legal struggles. Some people care more about the former, some people care more about the latter. Some people are better at understanding and formulating arguments about the former, and some at the latter. Insisting that everybody should be an infrastructure activist is inefficient for that reason.
The people to emulate are people who know how to use a diversity of tactics on a diversity of sub-issues to reinforce one another's work. The enviros, for example, are pretty good at this.
PC01.9.09 - 6:34 pm
reply
what the fuck is wonky about cycling infrastucture?
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:37 pm
reply
go ahead and put all your energy into getting that bike license law repealed. I wish you luck. and when it's done, I will STILL be wishing for paint on the ground ie. bicycle infrastructure that educates drivers that I have the right to be on the road.
And, having actually accomplished something, I will have some spare time and energy with which to help you fight for that paint on the ground. And if you get any spare time, you can help me. See how that works?
PC01.9.09 - 6:37 pm
reply
what the fuck is wonky about cycling infrastucture?
If you can sit through a discussion of lane width and traffic volume without your eyes glazing over, you have my utmost respect. You big wonk, you.
PC01.9.09 - 6:39 pm
reply
I can absolutely sit through it and not only that I have the energy to debate it with whomever wants to take it up. I would be happy to have the discussion.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:43 pm
reply
"And, having actually accomplished something, I will have some spare time and energy with which to help you fight for that paint on the ground. And if you get any spare time, you can help me. See how that works?"
YOU DIDNT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING YET. had it been just you by your self down at that meeting I'm guessing the council would not have given much thought. but since we all banded together and focused on that meeting they gave us some lip service, if we were to continue with your way we'd all burnout after that one big meeting and move on to other things... which mean nothing would get done since they know the public "burned out" and forgot about it.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:47 pm
reply
Ah, well then, apparently that's where your passion and your skills lie. I find laws much more interesting. Once the infrastructure talk starts, that's usually when I start checking out the cute girls in the audience. Or wishing that there were some.
Which is kind of my point. My energy is much better spent pushing to get laws changed. It interests me, I understand it, and compared to infrastructure, laws can be changed quickly and cheaply. So why should I put my energy into something that doesn't interest me when I could actually be getting things done? And why shouldn't I be able to count on your support (and vice versa)?
PC01.9.09 - 6:49 pm
reply
it's going to take repetitive focus and follow through ie. we have many more meeting to go to and "lobby" for the law to be taken off the books before the actual accomplishment happens. not only that I was one of the ones who put in the energy to organize about 30 ridazz via this website to go down to the po po and bother the fuck out of them to realize MAYBE they dont want to bother with this stupid law. WE'll see if anything actually comes of this! there's more lobbying to do! more energy to spend! more boredom that will glaze your eyes over. more burnout not to be had.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 6:51 pm
reply
YOU DIDNT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING YET. had it been just you by your self down at that meeting I'm guessing the council would not have given much thought. but since we all banded together and focused on that meeting they gave us some lip service, if we were to continue with your way we'd all burnout after that one big meeting and move on to other things... which mean nothing would get done since they know the public "burned out" and forgot about it.
Dude, you're making my argument for me now (remember when I said that single-issue activism leads to burnout?). Take a deep breath. You're trying too hard to win the argument, which doesn't get you anywhere because I'm basically on your side. Which is more important to you: being right or doing right?
PC01.9.09 - 6:52 pm
reply
no you are making MY point. which is that focusing gets shit done. we used a lot of the community's energy just to get to the point where we are at which is that MAYBE the cops will ignore the bike license law. the law was not repealed. what would it take to get the law repealed? a LOT more energy and lobbying. is it worth the fight or will it be a pyrric victory.... there is only so much energy ANY movement has. what I'm saying is, at the end of the day we are fighting for this bike license law when in reality it farmore important to have paint on the ground. I will help you, but not only did I help you, I organized and did interviews and helped spread the word all for that one bike license issue.... so yes I got YOUR back on this issue, but is it worth all the energy? there is only a finite amount of energy for everyone to give. I believe it should be focused you dont. fine.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:02 pm
reply
is my license now a collector's item?
adrian01.9.09 - 7:02 pm
reply
Throwing my two cents in, I think it's going to take some people tenacious about single issues and hammering, and also some people who are more generalist bigger picture, and they need to be effectively communicating with each other so that big picture people don't get their heads in the clouds too far and "wonks" don't get tunnel vision.
GarySe7en01.9.09 - 7:03 pm
reply
no. it will take far more lobbying and focus to have the CVC changed. If it's really that important to cycling in LA, talk to PC, he's into it and has the energy to pursue it until he burns out.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:04 pm
reply
"is my license now a collector's item?"
that was a reply to this statement
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:04 pm
reply
""is my license now a collector's item?"
No. it's a state thing. Other cities still require it.
It may still help recover your bike if stolen.
marino01.9.09 - 7:08 pm
reply
what Gary said is what I'm trying to say. hammering hammering hammering. letting people know that we wont go away. there's nothing wonky about saying I want a bike lane I want sharrows I want bike paths. that's big picture. BUT there is something very wonky about the LADOT response which is we cant have sharrow here or a bike lane there because of widths and parking restrictions and blah blah. that shouldnt burn anyone out that will only motivate me to get into the details with them. but it still doesnt change the fundamental argument which is that I believe the CVC is adequate now I want paint on the fucken ground.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:08 pm
reply
I'm not denying it will take lots of lobbying and focus to get shit done, but I think there is some merit to what PC is getting at. We need a diversity of types of people and strategies, but the element that seems lacking right now is cohesion between the different interests and among our already existing organizations for cycling. Hopefully the coming bike summit will be an opportunity to get collaboration going.
GarySe7en01.9.09 - 7:11 pm
reply
"but the element that seems lacking right now is cohesion between the different interests and among our already existing organizations for cycling."
agreed. in other words, we lack a focused approach.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:12 pm
reply
not only that we cant even agree on what to focus our energy on if we ever do get it together to focus.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:14 pm
reply
+1 to G7 for attempting to mediate.
@Roadblock-
Actually, bicycle licensing is part of the LAMC, not the CVC, so getting the law repealed is much more plausible. From the report:
"...implementing an immediate moratorium on the enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) section 26.01 requiring that all bicycles within the City be licensed."
The report then suggests an eventual repeal of LAMC 26.01, but it would have the immediate effect of eliminating the LAPD's excuse to harass bicyclists.
""but the element that seems lacking right now is cohesion between the different interests and among our already existing organizations for cycling."
agreed. in other words, we lack a focused approach."
Actually, I think what he's trying to say is that we spend too much time on infighting rather than presenting a unified front for ALL issues relating to bicycling.
danya01.9.09 - 7:15 pm
reply
Too little focus, not good. Too narrow a focus, not good. There--problem solved. So what do guys want to argue about now?
PC01.9.09 - 7:18 pm
reply
LOL. Well, I have a problem with the meeting time- my class at Pierce ends at 1:10, there's no way I can get over there before 2. Can we push the meeting back?
danya01.9.09 - 7:20 pm
reply
"Too little focus, not good. Too narrow a focus, not good. There--problem solved. So what do guys want to argue about now?"
hahah
I'll focus on infrastructure, you focus on the law now lets go have a beer.
FYI the bike license law is both state and municipal. thus I have two licenses on all three of my bikes the california and the city. the california does not appear to have an expiration but the city expires in 2010...
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:26 pm
reply
I wouldn't say it's lack of a focused approach, it's more lack of a coordinated approach (and I don't know that it's not coordinated so much as things could always be better coordinated. I'm coming at this more from observation, not having been involved in any of the bike activistm, but I tend to agree with Gary-- it takes a bunch of different people with a bunch of different styles, some working on the same things, some working on different things, and some just showing up when they're asked to so that people see there's a lot of backing.
I've been involved in a similar (privacy, not bike related) thing for a couple years now and we've done really well by having some people who like to be visible and organize visible demonstrations, while others like to sit in the library/web and dig into all sorts of legal arcana to drill holes in the opposition. And a big population of people to show up and flyer or pack a courtroom. It also helps when there's multiple people of each type overlapping, because people do burn out, or other parts of their lives take over sometimes, and you need people to be able to pick up where they leave off.
bitingduck01.9.09 - 7:29 pm
reply
Well I'm going to get my mind off bikes for a little while and go rollerblade in the street for the evening, which really is illegal. I'll talk more on bikes later.
http://www.fridaynightskate.org
GarySe7en01.9.09 - 7:31 pm
reply
"FYI the bike license law is both state and municipal. thus I have two licenses on all three of my bikes the california and the city. the california does not appear to have an expiration but the city expires in 2010..."
The state law that allows cities to create licensing programs basically says they have to use the state license, and it should preempt other municipal programs. It also only allows them to require licenses for their own residents. Any city requiring a different license is most likely in violation of the state law, and any city ticketing not residents for not having a license is also in violation. IANAL, but if you read it it's pretty clear- the state did it so that if, for example, you do a tour of LA County you don't have to collect a set of 88 licenses.
bitingduck01.9.09 - 7:34 pm
reply
Sorry for getting to the meeting late, but I thought I would make a comment or two.
PC, what makes you think the laws, I'm assuming you're taking about the CVC can be easily changed? Wouldn't far better approach, read easier and more effective approach be to lobby to get fines raised on the CVC that is already in the books? We could both be dead by the time we see a law changed in the CVC, but we maybe alive to witness an increase in fines.
And what politician couldn't get behind an increase in fines? It would increase their coffers with a minimal amount of resistance or public input. This strategy worked for MAD. And as far as I know, they didn't spend any energy to lobby for additional laws.
User101.9.09 - 7:36 pm
reply
But the CVC doesn't require that all bicycles be licensed, it just supports such a regulation if a municipality chooses to implement it. Therefore, we just need to get the LAMC out of the way. Also, residents of municipalities that don't require licensing are usually allowed to ride unlicensed in municipalities that do. Long Beach is the only exception I know of.
danya01.9.09 - 7:36 pm
reply
I started out by saying that focusing on the licensing law is a waste of energy which would be better spent pursuing bicycle infrastructure issues.. I stand by that having spent quite a bit of personal energy on the licensing issue regardless.
but raise the fines for the CVC?! I'm already having to pay $160!
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:40 pm
reply
You only need one license, and only if you live in a city with a licensing law. BTW, now that LAPD has gotten out of the way, I doubt that getting 26.01 repealed will be all that hard.
PC01.9.09 - 7:44 pm
reply
Allan, in all sincerity, what the fuck are you talking about? <3
PC01.9.09 - 7:49 pm
reply
even if you get 26.01 repealed a cop can still twist the intent of the CVC law and give you a ticket for violating california vehicle code.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 7:51 pm
reply
Long Beach's law is itself in violation of the CVC--as is LA's.
PC01.9.09 - 7:52 pm
reply
But what violation of the CVC? Such a 'violation' wouldn't hold up in court.
danya01.9.09 - 7:53 pm
reply
"but raise the fines for the CVC?! I'm already having to pay $160!"
The max penalty allowed under state law for bike license related penalties is $10. Show a copy of the state law to a judge and that's the most you'd pay if it's just a fine for no license.
bitingduck01.9.09 - 7:57 pm
reply
I will. but they still robbed my ass of the time it took to go to court.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:00 pm
reply
CVC trumps local law. at the end of the day, you would have to have the CVC repealed to truly truly take this tool of harassment away from the cops and.... that shit takes a lot of time and energy... I got my bike licensed, it took all of 2 hours. I'm cool with it. I still made my voice heard and I organized others to go harass the cops back and gave them something to think about.... now I would like to see the streets become safer. whats going to make the streets safer? bike license law repealed or bicycle infrastructure. I pose that question to all..
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:01 pm
reply
oh god. yeah I can imagine a ACLU lawyer taking up the case... or having a lawyer take this on probono. I can talk a bunch of shit because I've spent more time than anyone except maybe Box actually focusing on the bike licensing problem.... but at the end of the day, suing over this CVC code is not going to happen cause I dont have the money, time, or energy and I suspect there is no lawyer out there willing to do it for free. if there is, then god bless them and rep me in court in absentia please.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:07 pm
reply
"? bike license law repealed or bicycle infrastructure. I pose that question to all.."
both.
the bike license law is a harassment tool used to pick on you when they can't find something that you've actually done wrong.
And it's not just lanes and sharrows-- my own preference would be secure bike parking-- i.e. shared use bike lockers. They're starting to appear up north and amount to a locker with a parking meter built in, so anybody with a card can park their bike for a few cents per hour. And I like education much more than bike lanes-- bike lanes tend to marginalize cyclists ("you're only allowed to ride in bike lanes" even when it's not safe or they don't go where you're going). If drivers accept that bikes belong in the road then life is a whole lot easier even without lanes or sharrows.
bitingduck01.9.09 - 8:08 pm
reply
Fallacy of the false dichotomy, RB. You should really knock that off; it's counterproductive.
PC01.9.09 - 8:09 pm
reply
I just want to ride down the fucken street and feel like I belong on the street with my own lanes and signals like I did in bicycle heaven - which is Amsterdam. even Portland SF or even fucken NYC felt much safer in than LA can you imagine? why? cause each city had better bicycle infrastructure. Shit, I felt safer in Miami than in LA.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:10 pm
reply
find a lawyer who bikes, or find a way to do it in small claims. It just depends on how much you think it's worth (and you've already pretty much said how much). You don't get help from the ACLU until you get to be a high profile case, anyway-- you pretty much have to start on your own before they'll give you the time of day... National Lawyers Guild might be able to give you a referral (who might give you another referral...)
bitingduck01.9.09 - 8:11 pm
reply
"find a lawyer who bikes, or find a way to do it in small claims. It just depends on how much you think it's worth (and you've already pretty much said how much). You don't get help from the ACLU until you get to be a high profile case, anyway-- you pretty much have to start on your own before they'll give you the time of day... National Lawyers Guild might be able to give you a referral (who might give you another referral...)"
sounds like a waste of energy if you ask me. I would rather focus on infrastructure.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:18 pm
reply
little victories like this are always a plus to give people hope and keep pushing on.
The bike license issue is relatively minor, but it is good to see some movement in a positive direction.
I suspect the chief bratton's action is mostly about him realizing that the system is utterly broken and with the budget the way it is right now it is too expensive to fix.
..................
What we really need now is a serious effort to educate drivers and would be cyclists about how to use the road. Paint will help, but paint and signage only affect the streets they are on.
We need a larger education program so that all drivers understand the rights of cyclists on the road.
I have been driving for almost 20 years with a perfect record. I never knew until I stared riding with MR a couple of years ago, the safe way to ride in the street and that bikes have a right to be in the road.
trickmilla01.9.09 - 8:22 pm
reply
it's not a fallacy of false dichotomy.
we have:
few resources
small numbers
limited time to dedicate to issues
government dominated by poweful automotive interests
what do we choose to focus our limited resources on.
if it was unlimited than sure spread it out take care of everything get that law repealed yada yada. but it is not. so, what do you choose to put your energy into?
when the cyclists of san francisco finally got it together and lobbied for the cause, did they at first go after the CVC? NOPE obviously they felt it more important to lobby for bike lanes which they eventually got. That city is easy as pie to ride in. I want that.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:24 pm
reply
@Roadblock-
So you want LA to create a bicycle infrastructure which is "separate but equal" to its car infrastructure? I thought that didn't work in this country...
On a more practical note, creating a new infrastructure would be very costly. Making the existing infrastructure safer is much more cost effective. Ultimately, it is the motorists sharing the road with us that determine how safe we feel. So I would say educating motorists is the most effective thing we can do, and we don't need the city's permission for that one. What we ask the city to do is lend legitimacy to our claims, with the highly visible sharrows and by stopping police harassment of cyclists.
danya01.9.09 - 8:25 pm
reply
Sorry but I'm about out of time here.
But what I was referring to was that PC stated above that it's relatively easy to change the laws. Which laws, CVC or LACM? Either one would take a monumental effort. It would be far easier to lobby to get the fines increased. The fines I'm referring to are car vs bicycle infractions that pretty much not even considered or ignored.
MADD (not MAD) was extremely successful as raising the fines in regards to drunk driving. As far as I know, they didn't lobby to have any law repelled or added.
Well that's it for now, kiddies. I'm off to go riding downtown.
User101.9.09 - 8:32 pm
reply
Ugh. I use too many words.
Bottom line:
Our safety depends solely on the the attitudes of motorists.
They need to know that:
1. We have a right to be on the road.
2. We have the right to take the lane.
What would you say is the minimum lane width necessary for a bicycle and a car to share the lane? We should be telling motorists that bicycles have the right to take any lane under X feet wide.
danya01.9.09 - 8:32 pm
reply
"@Roadblock-
So you want LA to create a bicycle infrastructure which is "separate but equal" to its car infrastructure? I thought that didn't work in this country...
On a more practical note, creating a new infrastructure would be very costly. Making the existing infrastructure safer is much more cost effective. Ultimately, it is the motorists sharing the road with us that determine how safe we feel. So I would say educating motorists is the most effective thing we can do, and we don't need the city's permission for that one. What we ask the city to do is lend legitimacy to our claims, with the highly visible sharrows and by stopping police harassment of cyclists."
ahhh yes now we're talking.
I'm not saying "seperate but equal" because the fact is that we are NOT equal. we dont have engines, we dont have the same acceleration or weight as cars. we are DIFFERENT forms of transportation that deserve different infrastructure. Sure, to save money and time mulit-use roads would be ideal. But that is not always practical for very good reasons. I suggest riding in the netherlands to truly experience what comprehensive bicycle infrastructure is.
the netherlands have bike freeways completely seperate from the automobile freeways. these bikeways get you anywhere in the country. there are bike lanes that get you through the streets once you get off the bikeways. there are bike traffic signals.... eventually, 50 years from now maybe that will be the reality here. but you have to start somewhere.
I agree, driver education is needed... what is the best education for drivers? bikes in the streets. more bikes in the streets more drivers become aware that such a thing is "normal" and drivers look out for bikes.... what is going to get people on bikes in the streets? BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE that makes bike riders feel welcome. for example, many times I sit on sunset and watch bikes ride by IN THE STREET. why because there is a bike lane! it's not the greatest bike lane. in fact it puts you in the door zone, but on that same point I rarely see bike riders using the side walk on that stretch of sunset. BECAUSE A BIKE LANE MAKES YOU FEEL WELCOME as a rider. eventually, the entire length of Sunset should havae a bike lane. then the entire length of vemont should have one, and so forth until the entire city is webbbed with infrastructure that says "come ride the streets ye bike riders!" SF has bike lanes on MANY streets and their bike cul;ture is absolutely kickiin it. It would be good to go and see what the history is there because they've already been where we are at.
bikes are not equal to cars. sorry to burst your bubble everyone. we have dis/advantages and so do they.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:38 pm
reply
"Our safety depends solely on the the attitudes of motorists. "
HELL NO.
my safety, and I have 8000 miles perfect record riding bikes in LA depends VERY MUCH on my own attitude.
I signal, I am out in the lane, I ride fast, I run lights I ride the left lane, turn lanes, out of the door zone... I feel like I am one of the safest riders I know. because i put safety on me not solely on motorists. it's a combination of education for bike riders AND cars.
I cant tell you how many times I see bike riders just lollying down the road riding unsafe... it's on all members of traffic to be safe, however the extra burden is on US because we are not equal to cars. we will be smushed by cars not the reverse when an accident happens.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:43 pm
reply
Lobbying for paint on the road to create more bikable streets just creates separation which we already have.
If there is a bike lane, even as shitty as the one on Sunset Blvd. that puts us into the door zone, people expect us to be in it. Bike paths, that are not for bikes but are multi-use paths gives politicians an excuse to separate us once again from Griffith Park or other surface streets.
All this paint on the road is very costly and nobody wants to give money towards bike stuff in this economy anyways and I don't think we should ask for it.
Why? If the streets are for us, we should be included in ALL street and planning projects and part of ALL funding! We belong according to the law but everybody wants to separate bike projects.
I'm all for more ink on the paper that will hold drivers accountable to the full extent of the law, if they hurt cyclists.
I'm all for more ink on the paper, that says that ALL new projects MUST include bike facilities.
I'm all for more ink on the paper, that will protect our right and our freedom to move on our streets, be it on a bike, on a bus or on foot.
I don't want to be segregated, separated, or singled out! That is my two cents.
illuminateLA01.9.09 - 8:45 pm
reply
Allan, MADD did major lobbying all over the country to have legal DUI limits reduced. Despite the evil big money interests, they succeeded. When all is said and done, it doesn't cost much money for a mayor or governor to sign his name on a piece of paper.
PC01.9.09 - 8:46 pm
reply
More bikes on the street doesn't change someone's mindset. if a motorist thinks bicycles aren't legal on city streets, they'll just think there are more lawbreakers around when they see more cyclists. Drivers need to know that bicycles have the right to travel in the lane even without paint on the ground. And in my experience, it helps if those drivers know that the cyclist they're about to buzz could be their neighbor/daughter/nephew/etc. instead of just some freak in spandex.
danya01.9.09 - 8:49 pm
reply
I've ridden in Amsterdam. I actually feel safer in LA.
PC01.9.09 - 8:50 pm
reply
"Allan, MADD did major lobbying all over the country to have legal DUI limits reduced. Despite the evil big money interests, they succeeded. When all is said and done, it doesn't cost much money for a mayor or governor to sign his name on a piece of paper."
why would "evil big money interests" be against removing drunk drivers from the road?! Name me one of these "evil big money interests" that you are talking about. if you are talking anout the automotive industry I beg to differ, I can see them not wanting to implementcostly safety features, something that is pretty fucken evil in itself.... but against drunk driving? THAT'S REALLY EVIL.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:51 pm
reply
"I've ridden in Amsterdam. I actually feel safer in LA."
oh yeah why is that? please explain in detail.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:52 pm
reply
""Our safety depends solely on the the attitudes of motorists. "
HELL NO. "
Touch. I completely neglected the importance of educating the cyclist as well. I was thinking mainly of the cars clipping me when I'm riding properly instead of just passing me.
danya01.9.09 - 8:52 pm
reply
"More bikes on the street doesn't change someone's mindset. "
I beg to differ. I grew up in LA riding bikes back then and now. I feel like there are more people riding in the streets than ever in recent memory and over the last few years, as I mentioned in another thread, I feel like drivers are more aware of bike riders and the FACT is that most bike riders still own cars and therefore there is a feeling of sympathy for bike riders being that drivers understand them and have sympathy for them.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:55 pm
reply
"drivers that own bikes" have more sympathy for them I meant to say
Roadblock01.9.09 - 8:57 pm
reply
I'm with Roadblock for bike infrastructure.
The rest of you are nutz.
"Change the drivers mindsets" Where? In reeducation camps?
What is this?
Mao's cultural revolution?
Go back to North Korea!
marino01.9.09 - 9:08 pm
reply
"If there is a bike lane, even as shitty as the one on Sunset Blvd. that puts us into the door zone, people expect us to be in it. Bike paths, that are not for bikes but are multi-use paths gives politicians an excuse to separate us once again from Griffith Park or other surface streets."
see I dont mind the separation because I've seen it work well in other cities and countries. WE ARE NOT EQUAL TO CARS. this is not a civil rights issue in my mind, this is a transportation issue.
"All this paint on the road is very costly and nobody wants to give money towards bike stuff in this economy anyways and I don't think we should ask for it."
what exactly do you want to ask for then? I don't understand? do you think that there is money for education? every year? cause education is not a one time expense. the population changes every year and people would need to be re-educated which in itself is expensive no?
"Why? If the streets are for us, we should be included in ALL street and planning projects and part of ALL funding! We belong according to the law but everybody wants to separate bike projects."
once again, I dont understand how you see bikes as being included? sharrows? I'm for that.... no paint at all? explain?
"I'm all for more ink on the paper that will hold drivers accountable to the full extent of the law, if they hurt cyclists."
yeah unfortunately there is nothing any law can do about a hit and run. and lack of funding means lack of enforcement so while I agree drivers should be accountable to the full extent of the law, I dont see it as the main method of getting bikes on the streets.
"I'm all for more ink on the paper, that says that ALL new projects MUST include bike facilities."
I'm down for that... though I dont feel facilitiesare as important as paint on the ground. I will never use a bike locker because I just don't find myself ever needing one. I take my bike every where I go. I just havent ever needed to put my bike at a metro station locker. they feel like waste of money. putting those bike U shaped racks everywhere is a different story. those seem cheap and useful and take up little real estate or maintenance...
I don't want to be segregated, separated, or singled out! That is my two cents.
"
once again, I dont mind. we are humans using different forms of transportation... we deserve seperate infrastructure because we have different needs... my two cents.
Roadblock01.9.09 - 9:09 pm
reply
"I'm with Roadblock for bike infrastructure.
The rest of you are nutz.
"Change the drivers mindsets" Where? In reeducation camps?
What is this?
Mao's cultural revolution?
Go back to North Korea!"
LOL!!
Roadblock01.9.09 - 9:09 pm
reply
I can't really say anything about how this city's changing, since I only started riding here this year. (On a side note- if you want to see what unfriendly streets are REALLY like, try Dallas. It sucks.)
But I do know some of those angry drivers, the ones who very much believe that bicycles should not under any circumstances be on the road. It took me a couple of hours just to convince them of the legitimacy of CVC 21202, but I know they won't do any more than fume silently when they have to pass bicyclists in the future.
Having more bikes to pass wouldn't have changed their minds. Having the CVC shoved in their faces did.
danya01.9.09 - 9:10 pm
reply
""Change the drivers mindsets" Where? In reeducation camps? "
Actually, just as described above. That happened at a series of family dinners. My point was that we can't ask the government to fix all of our problems. Sometimes we have to actually reach out to other human beings all by ourselves. Isn't MR all about connecting with other cyclists? Maybe it's time to make that next leap and connect with the motorists, to make sure they know who we are and why we're in the middle of the lane in front of them.
danya01.9.09 - 9:16 pm
reply
"Having more bikes to pass wouldn't have changed their minds. Having the CVC shoved in their faces did. "
once again, I respectfully beg to differ... people react more to facts on the ground than to facts on a sheet of paper. if there is a constant flow of bicycles in their way... they may hate them, but they have to deal with them lest they get into an accident and then their insurance goes up ( a huge deterrant). but if they only encounter the occasional cyclist on the street they will be less tolerant - ah FUCK IT HEY I GOTTA GO TO THE POKEMON RIDE>!! all you people better be there to continue getting a mouthful from me! MUAHAHAHAH I got the energy to lobby all y'all. I'm kidding, if I see you I wont say a word about this bullshit thread that sucked my whole day up! PEACE!!!
Roadblock01.9.09 - 9:18 pm
reply
Ideally, every street would have a sharrow and plenty of cyclists reinforcing the message. In lieu of that, shouldn't we spend the time waiting for legislative action to take effect wisely? Talking to motorists takes more time, yes, but having 4 better educated drivers can't hurt, right?
*Is jealous of the people who can go on the Pokemon Ride*
danya01.9.09 - 9:36 pm
reply
Remember those pretty, precious little bike lanes in lower Manhattan? The ones that put us right where pedestrians hail cabs and trucks make sudden right turns? I wonder whether the people who lobbied for them actually ride them, and whether they realize what a mistake they made.
PC01.9.09 - 9:56 pm
reply
danya,
When I advocate for bike lanes, and physical bike infrastructure, I don't do it just for me (a white-looking, young, male).
When I ride with my kid in my bike, or my mom and dad, or my non-sporty friends a sharrow ain't shit.
I want streets quiet and safe enough that my neighbors will feel comfortable letting their kids play in them, and I can have a quiet bike ride with my daughter without 45 mph middle aged men uncaringly blazing through my hood on their way to a massage parlor.
ubrayj0201.9.09 - 10:13 pm
reply
ubrayj- I really wish I understood your point better.
How does this sound as a solution?
Sharrows for the experienced bike commuters, separate infrastructure for recreational cyclists.
LADOT is in charge of sharrows and bike highways.
parks & Recreation is in charge of the meandering bike lanes and separate bike paths.
Does this makes sense/address your point at all?
danya01.9.09 - 10:27 pm
reply
Roadblock:
I agree, we are not equal. But getting along is part of the process. You and some others talk about Europe and I know too well how things are there because I grew up there. In Germany and in Hungary. Eastern bloc and Western bloc. On my bike. I didn't get a driver license until I moved to LA.
For tourists Europe seems all pretty and dandy. And in most cases it is. But when you live in Europe you will realize that we all fight for the same things. Why do you think Hungary has the largest CM in the world? Nobody has every questioned it. But I tell you why.
In Hungary all cities are ancient with cobble stones and windy roads and bad air and potholes. And Hungarian people, just like any other people in the world think that cars are superior and your status quo is measured by what you drive. If you drive a Mercedes Benz or a BMW from the West, you are superior to the Trabi's and the Lada's.
Hungarian cities have small streets and they can't remove the old buildings to build bikeways and paths and roads. So people demand their right on each and every road that cars are driving on. And the number of the protesters is growing every year. (I think there were 80,000 people riding in September.)
In Hungary, twice a year during CM, people ride up to all four political headquarters in Budapest, raise their bikes and chant that all roads are bike roads. They demand bike signals and bike amenities. They demand that bike issues be considered in all projects. So a couple years ago before the big election, all political parties had their outreach brochures full with "bike promises."
But the cyclists didn't take it for granted. They didn’t say "Thank you. You are our friend now. We won't bother you anymore." Two years later they are still protesting and holding the political leaders accountable.
Now back to LA:
In LA bike amenities are an afterthought in every project. In LA, when the community asks for something and our Councilmembers approve it, we go back to our little homes happily and say to ourselves "I did my job, now they will do what I lobbied for. I don't need to worry about it." In LA, we don't hold the politicians or out city departments accountable. We pat them on the back and we start to like them because they promised something that you and I know won't happen.
So, when I see bike lanes, like that on Sunset Blvd. that encourage cyclists, I see dangerous behavior more often then not. I see cyclists ride against traffic. I see drivers stroll in the lane, unpack their car, I see joggers and roller bladers riding against traffic, throwing me into traffic. Doors swing open without any thought or consideration. People use the bike lane to double park. Delivery trucks use it to unload. I‘ve had more near misses on Sunset Blvd. and on Santa Monica Blvd. then any other street in LA that has no bike lanes. So I think it is wrong to put down paint that will encourage bad behavior without education.
Also, the LADOT is putting down bike lanes on streets where they are raising the speed limit as high as 50. I don't think many cyclists will be encouraged to use that road. And if there are some, they won't know how to use it. They don't know which way to ride or how to ride safely.
Asking for paint and putting down paint without education is like giving a fourteen year old the car keys to go to the prom.
I do think that one should go without the other. Put down paint, but involve the community, involve the public, the businesses and educate the neighborhood.
People get on their bike for many reasons but many get off too quickly. Riding a bike must be cost effective and supported and convenient and safe. So if we ask for ink on paper and political recognition, then all of those involved will be educated. If ALL street projects, if ALL new development, if ALL land-use, event promotion etc. will start to require bike amenities, it will become convenient to ride to places on a bike. It will also become safer because these projects would have a safe place for our bikes to be locked up and it would become cheaper then parking, gas and maintenance costs.
Ink on the paper would create discussion and education without any hasty paint job on the streets. (The people and groups and organizations, who lobbied for handicap access, started with ink on paper first, not the bulldozers at the stairways. It all started with discussions, with education and with awareness.)
In Europe the ink came first as well, not the lanes and the paths. It was the businesses that provided for bike parking before the city had any lanes and bike signals. It was the schools that provided for bike parking before the city hall and the parliament did.
Paint, infrastructure, signage, etc. all came later. It all came because the people started to demand it. But first came the paperwork. Putting things on paper helped the political will and it helped the people to hold the politicians accountable.
illuminateLA01.9.09 - 10:55 pm
reply
go out for a few hours and you miss a lot...
re bike lanes: I've been riding 20 years and I avoid them for most of the reasons mentioned above by various people. I'll accept that they sometimes encourage more people to get out and ride, but I generally feel less safe in a bike lane than in a traffic lane. If you're in a bike lane the right-turning driver thinks "not my problem" and right hooks you. If you're properly positioned in the traffic lane they don't, and bike lanes rarely, if ever, encourage proper position at intersections. When I'm in Montreal I spend a lot of time in some fairly hairy bike lanes, but the general skill level there is higher and people don't ride the wrong way (way too many riders).
sharrows: way better. not only do they indicate an appropriate spot for bikes to ride, but they indicate direction-- too many people ride the wrong way in bike lanes. sharrows are a nice fuzzy indicator that say "bike should be around here, but it's up to them to decide exactly where"
bike lockers: I live fairly far from a lot of places I want to go out at night. I'd be happy to bike there (e.g. Altadena to Hollywood) but then I have to deal with not just my bike, but helmet, pump, bag, lights, etc., and clubs may or may not give you a hard time about bringing them in. With the incidence of theft of bikes and parts off of them, I'm not inclined to leave my bike parked to an upside down U for a few hours on a saturday night with my lights and tools and things. The commuter lockers are useless for biking out to entertainment because you have to reserve them and you get one. The shared use ones can be used by commuters in the day and people out for entertainment at night. The single user ones are left empty at least 2/3 of the time. You may not feel like lockers are useful, but I'd like to see lots of them. I don't particularly care about bike lanes though-- I'm perfectly happy without them.
bitingduck01.10.09 - 12:48 am
reply
PC, sometimes the city fucks up and gets it all wrong.. People aren't perfect, those particular bike lanes were fucked up, but did you notice how useful the ones on the left side of the one way street were? Those made sense and they worked better for traffic too. Yeah the right hand lanes sucked but still, I had no problem navigating them and understanding to watch out for cars.
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:15 am
reply
Box what did you think about the Netherlands?
Danya I agree with some of your points. Unfortunately I can remmeber. Hold on...
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:25 am
reply
So, here's a question for you lawyers out there (real lawyers please, not midnightridazz.com jailhouse lawyers):
My trial by written declaration for the LAMC 26.01 citation is currently in the system. If I should lose that trial and request my trial de novo, and the law is repealed
after the request but
before the trial date, do I have grounds for automatic dismissal even though the law was on the books and in force at the time the violation was alleged? Or does it not work that way?
PC01.10.09 - 3:27 am
reply
it's not hard. in the case of a collision between a car and a bike, the onus should be on the driver to defend him or herself.
ilikehysteria01.10.09 - 3:27 am
reply
Plus... if you ride the bike lanes in the correct manner, the lanes are totally useful. I don't just use the bike lane, I use both lanes and I signal for everything I do. I know how to work streets and what I like about the bike lane is that its kind of a safe zone. I don't know, I think eventually people will learn how to ride correctly using the bike lanes...
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:30 am
reply
I'm sure I'll get flamed to hell and back for saying this, but there's no way I would support any law that puts the burden of proof on drivers involved in collisions with bike riders. It's shitty and unfair. Please literally shoot me in the skull with a bullet if I ever get so self-righteous as a cyclist that I actually believe that the court system should presumptively take my word over that of another citizen just because I happened to be riding a bicycle at the time of the event at issue.
PC01.10.09 - 3:45 am
reply
And that's why I'm not very strongly opposed to bike lanes-- if it gets people started and then they learn how to ride safely despite the lanes that's a good thing. I suspect sharrows are almost as good at making newer riders feel like they're riding where they should while actually putting them in a safer spot.
Properly designed bike lanes, with appropriate indicators for what drivers and cyclists should do at intersections and wide enough to let you ride outside the door zone can be pretty decent. Unfortunately they're also pretty rare, with a lot of design/safety compromises for the wrong reasons. When I lived in minneapolis they went and striped my main route to and from work after about 4 years. They didn't do any proper turn lanes for cars because they didn't want to sacrifice the on-street parking spots in front of businesses. I almost never got hooks thrown by cars before the lanes. I tried riding in them and immediately started getting lots of hooks, so I went back to the traffic lane.
bitingduck01.10.09 - 10:08 am
reply
I suppose supporting bike lanes depends on your point of view- personally, I have great faith in the city's incapability of doing anything properly. I've never been on a street with sharrows, but my daily commute includes a bit of Reseda that has a pretty shitty bike lane. Thus, I'm quite against bike lanes but willing to try sharrows.
@bitingduck
The burden of proof always lies with the plaintiff in a court case. So if a cyclist is sueing a driver, the cyclist has burden of proof.
danya01.10.09 - 10:25 am
reply
Yes I did. Oopsies.
danya01.10.09 - 11:24 am
reply
Roadblock:
I'm not sure if you meant me (Enci) when you asked about the Netherlands. But if you did, then my answer is that I did love the Netherlands. I biked there and worked there one summer.
A huge difference between European bike culture and American bike culture is that in Europe we learn to bike at a very young age we are educated about the rules of the road, traffic laws and signs at a very young age.
Here in America, we learn individually. We learn by doing, by trial and error. Nobody really teaches us the rules of the road. Lot of people who get back on a bike as an adult still follow the rules that they learned as kids. (ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalk, cross the street at the pedestrian crossing, etc.)
In terms of infrastructure, the big difference between European bike paths and LA (I don't know the bike paths anywhere else in the US, I've only been riding in LA) bike paths is the way they are laid out. In any European country when you see bike paths, they are integrated into the community, into the neighborhood. Here in America they are completely separated.
I will never ride any of the bike paths alone here. Never! Bike paths here in LA invite crime because nobody can see it. Bike paths here in LA invite accidents because they are very narrow. Bike paths here in LA are multi-use paths, created for recreational purposes: for kids to bike with their parents, for roller bladers to have a smooth surface to work out on, for dog walkers to enjoy a nice stroll next to the river. Non of the bike paths in LA are for transportation.
In the Netherlands all bike signals, all bike infrastructure was created to connect the communities and to integrate. Here in LA they are created to get people out of the way of the main roads, not to bring the neighborhoods together, not to provide safety for those who wish to ride for transportation.
illuminateLA01.10.09 - 11:58 am
reply
WOW. this is a just a small battle won in a giant war.
la duderina01.10.09 - 12:24 pm
reply
It's not just infrastructure, it's the social attitudes, too.
I haven't biked in the netherlands, but I have in Germany and France. In germany it was just for transportation, but the attitude is that it's an entirely acceptable and often preferred mode of transportation for people of all ages. There I was mostly on paths going between a few destinations.
In France it was more for fun on open roads in southern france. There's such a huge difference in the way drivers behave there and here-- they don't think twice about going all the way to the opposite lane to make sure they're clear passing you, even if there's traffic visible, or it's a narrow mountain road. The only thing I ever heard out of a car window was "Allez! allez!". Drivers here are afraid to go into the opposite lane even on an empty road with a dashed yellow and clear sightlines,
bitingduck01.10.09 - 12:46 pm
reply
Firstly, thanks everyone for being (again) so active! It's been very busy for me lately and I haven't been on these boards so apologies for coming in late. I'm not able to make the meeting on Weds. but is there more that we can do to draw more "positive" attention to this issue? Do you think inundating the licensing office a few moths ago had an impact? Could we bring more attention by clogging the office the begnning of this week when all of us have a chance to go in at a more "convenient" time?
onyurmark01.10.09 - 1:07 pm
reply
Maybe what we should do is iron out everyone's position on strategy.
I want to hear what everyone has to say. What is your strategy to get bikes accepted onto the roads of Los Angeles. What would it take to win the hearts and minds of drivers in Los Angeles? Is that even the goal?
Roadblock01.10.09 - 2:32 pm
reply
I'm still curious to how Amsterdam is actually feel safer in LA!
PC?
BTW, lots of really good points and I'm behind everyone of them. That's right! I support bike lanes and also asserting your rights to the road on the lanes traveled by cars. I could see where both would be needed community in LA.
As far as where we go and in what direction. I think signs would go a long way in educating the drivers. For instance here in LB you would not find ONE share the road signs anywhere in LB. Getting up those would be a first first step here.
For LA kinda the same thing. Get more share the road signs. Also put the CVC code on the signs like they do in SF. Sharrows would be sweet, but I like the share the road signs more. For some reason, I'm thinking there's more leeway in establishing the placement for the signs than there is for the sharrows.
User101.10.09 - 2:45 pm
reply
*I'm still curious as to how Amsterdam actually feels safer than in LA!*
User101.10.09 - 2:47 pm
reply
you mean "LA feels safer than Amsterdam" as PC put it... I'm curious too. :)
Alan, I agree with you. Share the road signs would be a great and seemingly easy first step.
Roadblock01.10.09 - 2:53 pm
reply
I'm all for signs, but not "Share the Road" signs. They backfired in many situations.
With "Share the Road" signs there were many incidents of drivers squeezing cyclists into the door zone sometimes even yelling "Share the road, asshole!"
I'm more for "Change lanes to pass" signs and the CVC code. The sign I posted is unfortunately not "legal" but some cities use it. LADOT
s Michelle Mowery refuses to put these up because they are not in the book. But this signs I would love to see on all streets of LA!
illuminateLA01.10.09 - 3:25 pm
reply
now that's the kind of ink on paper I would like to see... ink that makes signs like that LEGAL. I would also like to see simply, bicycle icons on the street. not sharrows because apparently the arrow can be confused as an indicator for position. so, sharrows where they are legal, and bicycle icons where sharrows are not illegal with a "allowed full use of the lane" in paint... on the street!
hey, at least we are all starting to agree on things.
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:29 pm
reply
"not illegal " = not legal meant to say
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:29 pm
reply
You always come up with incidents that support your position, regardless of the position you take. In LB situation, I like the idea of having share the road signs put up. It's a great first step in educating the driver and showing that bicyclist belong.
User101.10.09 - 3:43 pm
reply
I love the "Allowed Full Use of the Lane" personally better however "Share the Road" works for me too, though I do see the evil driver twisting the message to mean that it's speaking to cyclists not drivers.
Roadblock01.10.09 - 3:48 pm
reply
You would find these signs above before intersections.
User101.10.09 - 4:22 pm
reply
Trying to catch up on all this, but one small step I would like to see happen is change the drivers manual to include info on bikes, and questions on bikes should be a mandatory part of the testing. This would educate new drivers on cyclists use of the road, and many cyclists get drivers licenses as well so it would educate a lot of cyclists too. This should be easy to implement since the drivers manual and test questions are re-issued every year anyways.
GarySe7en01.11.09 - 1:40 pm
reply
GREAT idea G7. we should be lobbying the dmv to always include minimum 1 question relating to cyclists in the streets!
Roadblock01.11.09 - 7:36 pm
reply
I think they already started doing 2 bike questions some time in the past 5-6 years. I can't find anything specific about it, but when I search a lot of the sample tests/questions include stuff about bikes., e.g. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/sample_test.htm
bitingduck01.11.09 - 7:53 pm
reply
We are very psyched that the Bicycle License is on the cutting table and hopefully will be revoked, finally! THis is one of more victories to come for bikes.
Speaking of Sharrows, I am going into a meeting this week with LADOT and CD 13.
What are some of your major points you would like me to make sure to say to them.
I will also be needing all your help when figuring our street for Sharrows. We have made sure that LACBC and the cycling community will be recommending which streets to put Sharrows on.
I'll keep you guys posted on all this. It has just started getting fun.
You can email me at aurisha@la-bike.org with comments.
aurisha
ps. Stay tuned for Car Free Fridays. Last Friday of the month. Kick of Jan 30th.
aurisha01.12.09 - 8:16 am
reply
"I think they already started doing 2 bike questions some time in the past 5-6 years. I can't find anything specific about it, but when I search a lot of the sample tests/questions include stuff about bikes"
The sample questions on their website are not necessarily representative of what actually goes on the test. I saw a couple bike questions on the website when I was taking the test in 2002, but the actual test had zero bike questions, which means it was possible to get a license without even knowing at all how to interact with bikes or their rights to the road.
If there is not a single question on the test relating to bikes, then what incentive is there to read the two super glossed over things they actually include in the manual. The standards for getting a license in general I think are pitifully low.
GarySe7en01.12.09 - 10:07 am
reply
2008-(5 or 6) = 2002-2003, so you could have easily taken it before the time I thought they added them.
You need to find people who took the exam more recently, or I need to find some detail about when I think they added them.
bitingduck01.12.09 - 10:18 am
reply
"Trying to catch up on all this, but one small step I would like to see happen is change the drivers manual to include info on bikes, and questions on bikes should be a mandatory part of the testing. This would educate new drivers on cyclists use of the road, and many cyclists get drivers licenses as well so it would educate a lot of cyclists too. This should be easy to implement since the drivers manual and test questions are re-issued every year anyways."
Before getting really into bikes, I was working on getting my permit to drive. I don't have the money or care as much for that anymore, but in the driver's manual, there is a page dedicated to bicycles (page 40).
I've mentioned it on a thread before. (Mentioned here as well.) When I took the test that says I completed the written educational portion you need to get a permit (not the behind the wheel class) I don't remember it having many questions about bicycles on it, however every test is different, and some may have more questions- although EVERY test should have them.
imachynna01.12.09 - 10:36 am
reply
"If there is not a single question on the test relating to bikes, then what incentive is there to read the two super glossed over things they actually include in the manual."
Yes.
imachynna01.12.09 - 10:40 am
reply
I took the written portion of the license test last February, there weren't any questions about bikes. I'll see if I can dig up the test, although I'm pretty sure I threw it out.
danya01.12.09 - 2:05 pm
reply
well, I for one am glad that this thread exists, I'm glad that the politically active Ridazz out there are chiming in and I am going to pat ourselves on the back for attending the Storm the Bastille meeting that Mr. Box urged us all to go to.... and some noise was made. Damn it. I wish I could go on Wendesday... fuck. I will try to be there!
Roadblock01.12.09 - 2:43 pm
reply
So, who is going tomorrow?
PC01.13.09 - 5:19 pm
reply
I'll be there, just need to decide how much school I'm skipping.
Does anyone know if they'll let people into the meeting late? Or do they close the doors at 2?
danya01.13.09 - 7:00 pm
reply
It's a public meeting; by law they can't close the doors to you at any time. Show up when you want, leave when you want.
PC01.13.09 - 8:30 pm
reply
When I took the test like 15 months ago, there was a question on bikes. It was basically is a right hook turn legal?
I look forward to seeing some of the peeps from last time tomorrow.
daymen01.13.09 - 8:35 pm
reply
I have some family obligations, but I'll try to make it to at least some portion of the meeting. What's the start time, 2pm?
mr rollers01.13.09 - 9:01 pm
reply
Will we get spoke cards to this?
User101.13.09 - 9:43 pm
reply
Yeah, im gonna try and make it
im a complete failure if i dont, seeing that city hall is down the street from me.
Candy Cane01.14.09 - 12:17 am
reply
I'll be there.. I had a look at the agenda, we're the last two items. I'm thinking I can get there by 2:25 at the earliest if I stick around class until the end. So...should I go to class? Or bail halfway through to ride? Hmmm....
danya01.14.09 - 12:47 am
reply
I'm bringing the CVC EVADeR SX ver2.5
You can't miss it, it'll be the coolest bike!
User101.14.09 - 10:43 am
reply
I would definitely be going if I didn't have class. bumma
la duderina01.14.09 - 10:48 am
reply
Sign the roll sheet and leave....get the notes or a good outline.
DJwheels01.14.09 - 11:03 am
reply
i would go if i didn't have work
good luck today guise
Teque501.14.09 - 11:05 am
reply
oh, right...legal writing. Damn, I just remembered how much I hated law school.
DJwheels01.14.09 - 11:11 am
reply
haha yeeeahh laws pretty much sucks a big one.
la duderina01.14.09 - 11:16 am
reply
wait, how long will the meeting last? class is only an hour...
la duderina01.14.09 - 11:17 am
reply
Not sure how long the meeting will be, but according to the agenda...the bicycle licensing issue is item #12 of 13. Wonderful.
Sorry, I lack html skillz:
http://lacity.org/clk/committeeagend/clkcommitteeagend3057582_01142009.pdf
DJwheels01.14.09 - 11:58 am
reply
gracias! and thats ok, luckily I have copy and paste skillz
la duderina01.14.09 - 12:01 pm
reply
It's almost three and they still haven't gotten to licensing yet. Come on down if you're close, you still have time.
PC01.14.09 - 2:54 pm
reply
yeah wtf? somebody give a report back please.
sexy01.15.09 - 12:05 am
reply
They voted to suspend this ordinance. So looks like the man aint gona be hassling us for not having a license.
Thanks to all that came out and supported the bicycle community. Having a presence there DOES make a difference with these people.
My highlight of the day was going to very tippity top of City Hall. You know, where they have that blinking red light? It was cool showing everyone a little secret place to go. :-)
User101.15.09 - 12:26 am
reply
Hey! It went well! All five members of the Transportation Committee were there.
Alarcon said no to bike licenses. Parks just kept live blogging the meeting on his Blackberry, Rosendahl simply wanted to know about the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and LaBonge was worried about the children.
At the end of the day, there is a moratorium on enforcement because it is an requirement that can't be met and the LAPD has no desire to invigorate a program to make t work. No political will.
The LADOT is instructed to explore a voluntary registration program for loss prevention and identification and they will take a couple of months to report back.
PC came close to calling the LAPD out and challenging them to a bike race but User1 distracted him by taking everyone to the top of City Hall for the coin toss.
Good to see so many peeps take the time to show up. As always, thanks for supporting!
SoapBoxLA01.15.09 - 12:28 am
reply
It seemed like pretty much everybody in the room was behind the idea of repealing the licensing law, except for LaBonge. I don't know what his hangup is, apart from the old canard about using bike licenses to locate missing children (the LAPD itself points out that there are better ways to mark frames for theft recovery etc).. He claims that he wants to talk to "families" and find out what they think about abolishing the program. Good luck finding any "families" who have even heard of the program, Councilman.
Anywho, the moratorium on enforcement is definitely going to happen, and repeal is probably inevitable at some point. Gruel, Alarcon, and Rosendahl appear to be openly in favor of deep sixing the stupid thing. Keep pushing.
PC01.15.09 - 3:32 am
reply
LaBonge often seems to be the stick in the mud with his comments in these meetings, and is consistently opposed to opening cycling to the light festival save for a special bike night . Can anyone point me to something his really done for cycling besides take people out for ice cream? He sound very pro cycling in some of his interviews and he even has a section on how cycling is important on his website. But talk is cheap, what has actually done, if anything, I really want to know.
GarySe7en01.15.09 - 10:27 am
reply
fuck class man. fuck it for being an hour and a half instead of an hour.
onelessfixie01.15.09 - 10:45 am
reply
talk is definitely CHEAP. and that's all we've gotten so far.
I regret not taking 2 minutes of public comment. I would have pointed out that LaBonge could still have his Bike License program - no need to bother asking parents about it or taking something away that already exists and does it's job - Just stop enforcing the law as per the interpretation of the LAPD - which is that they interpret it as a requirement when it should be voluntary. Im glad PC and others pointed out over and over that the LAPD pretty much ONLY use it as a tool of harassment.
so is anyone with me on that in addition to this license issue we should be talking about bicycle infrastructure improvements and figuring out ways of pressuring for this? I would love to coordinate with some people and work out a dream plan for the city. laying out a map of where bike lanes, sharrows and bike routes should go... that sort of thing. google maps can be a great resource. We have ridazz from all parts of the city. If we just got together and started having a plan...... then we could be on the offense with these numbskulls.
Roadblock01.15.09 - 11:32 am
reply
If there is going to a coordination of ridazz mobilizing toward activism, certainly count me in. However I think an e-mail list, google group type thing, or separate forum would be the best way to coordinate things. Trying to plan anything detailed through the MR boards is not very effective.
GarySe7en01.15.09 - 11:39 am
reply
"so is anyone with me on that in addition to this license issue we should be talking about bicycle infrastructure improvements and figuring out ways of pressuring for this? I would love to coordinate with some people and work out a dream plan for the city. laying out a map of where bike lanes, sharrows and bike routes should go... that sort of thing. google maps can be a great resource."
LET'S DO THIS!
Seriously, pick a time in the next week or two, and let's sit down and see what we can add to the current projects underway, and what we'd need to take the lead on.
http://la-bike.org/current_projects/current_projects.html#sh - LACBC's current efforts.
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/PLN/Cwd/GnlPln/TransElt/BikePlan/B1intro.htm - City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan - looks a little dormant, but maybe we can get this moving.
JB01.15.09 - 11:47 am
reply
JB hit me up with an email.
roadblock at midnightridazz dot calm
Roadblock01.15.09 - 11:53 am
reply
I'll help out where needed.
User101.15.09 - 2:56 pm
reply
I'll definitely help with a Valley portion of this plan. I'm also in contact with a girl who wants to start a bike coop with broader goals in the SFV. I'm cc'ing you her email at the moment.
danya01.15.09 - 7:05 pm
reply
Rawzum.
Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to share a google map with participants from all city. Hmmmm. Is there anything out there that already has bike paths and bike routes outlined in google maps? That would be helpful. I wonder if we could import some gpx maps.
User1 you got long beach. Danya you got the valley. I got hollywood. We can spread out from there.
A dream map. Then, we put this in front of as many city people as we can. And we make demands street by street block by block. Taking it all back. LADOT get out of the way.
Haha
Ok email me to get in on this map.
Roadblock at midnight ridazz dot calm
Roadblock01.15.09 - 8:07 pm
reply
Sounds like a mighty fine collective effort that y'all are putting together.
It makes me a shed a tear of joy.
As far as my area's concerned, I've got to find a way to gather the BMX'rs, in-shape riders, and the utilizers of the bike-paths.
bentstrider01.15.09 - 8:33 pm
reply
html fail. once again, with linkage.
metro has a nice bike path map:
metro
LACBC also has a comprehensive listing of available maps:
LACBC
We should also eventually scout the bike paths and lanes and tag those that need help.
danya01.15.09 - 8:43 pm
reply
one way to go about suggesting and implementing bicycle infrastructure and improvement is to do it by neighborhood council district.
-
Go to the neighborhood council meeting.
- Introduce yourself to the council during the public comment time
- Announce your intention to survey the area and seek improvements in bicycle infrastructure
- Ask that they take your contact info down.
- Ask if anybody in the room would like to cordinate with you to do this project and to contact you.
- Set up a time to do a survey of the area on bikes.
- Place announcement of bike about survey to Neighbor Council website and bulletine boards for posting events per the by laws of the neighborhood council.
- After doing "bike-a-bout"and deciding what areas to do improvements and how you think they should be implemented.
Ask the neighborhood council to endorse your plan.
- After endorsement present to city council member, LADOT and LABAC.
- Prod, lobby, and annoy until projects are done.
I can't take credit for this idea. I have to mention our own Ubrey02 v. machine for coming up with this way of doing it. This is also a way to get yourself known with your city council member to get yourself on one of those BAC seats that he voweled to unseat and fill with pro bike people. I did the first five steps of this plan. Now I'm waiting for assistants to do the other plans. Maybe that guy who wants to unseat those 10 BAC seats will get back with me and help me do this.
In the meantime does anybody want to come out to the
Granada Hills South Neighborhood council area and help me with the project?
sexy01.15.09 - 10:12 pm
reply
Sounds like a lot of extra work if ya ask me.... but yeah it prolly should also happen once we get the map finished.
To be honest, I don't care about neighborhood councils just yet. I wouldn't involve them in the planning until after "the cyclists" that ride the city get a plan together.
Yeah then after that hit up the councils that would be affected by our over all plan. And then we can get lacbc and labac and ladot to advocate and lobby for our plan. Boom.
Roadblock01.15.09 - 10:27 pm
reply
Going through the neighborhood council gets the locals on board with the endorsement that says the people of this area wants this to happen. It also may get one of its members to become involved in the whole process to help it become a reality quicker instead of it spending more time as a plan.
It will look better to the council member of that district and to the DOT.
plus your not going into somebodies neighbor and doing something under their nose with out them realizing whats going on
RESPECT
sexy01.15.09 - 10:37 pm
reply
It sounds like a good idea to go to neighborhood councils, but not right off the bat for planning city-wide routes is what I'm saying. I'm juss sayin to wait till a city wide plan takes shape and then sell it to neighborhood councils individually.
Roadblock01.15.09 - 11:47 pm
reply
I don't want to speak for G7 but he had a mapping project underway that was veeeeeeeery interesting. Calling Mr. "G!"
SoapBoxLA01.16.09 - 9:39 am
reply
so they're no longer required now??? anyone have a link to anything??
tomato01.27.09 - 4:09 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
i like this sign.