NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
This past spring, as a lot of transportation news was heating up, a group of cyclists who call themselves the Crimanimalz went for a pair of bike rides that included short stretches of the Santa Monica and 405 freeways. During rush hour. In traffic. Then, in June, another group of cyclists -- there was apparently overlap between the groups -- went on a ride on the 101 freeway.
Videos of those rides hit the launching pad of the Internet and have been viewed a healthy amount of times. The so-called mainstream media has taken notice, too, and provided links.
I had the chance to sit down last week with three members of the Crimanimalz: Alex Cantarero, 28, of Santa Monica; Paul Bringetto, 36, of Santa Monica; and a third who identified himself as Richard 'to the IE,' 23, of Lincoln Heights in Los Angeles.
Here are a few highlights of the interview:
* I asked about the safety and legal aspect of the freeway rides. It is illegal to ride a bike on most urban freeways in California and its not hard to imagine an unsuspecting motorists hitting a cyclist that the motorist never expected would be there. That's a bad outcome for everyone.
Rich 'to the IE' said that if someone got hurt, the rides would end. But the cyclists did not say they will stop riding on the freeway and, in fact, they suggested that riding on the freeway in slow rush-hour traffic was safer than the conditions they experience on streets in the area. They also promised more public stunts to get attention for their cause.
They said that they are comfortable with any legal consequences they suffer to advance their cause -- in other words, they're comfortable with getting more tickets or hauled into court. "If there are a few more fallen soldiers that fall voluntarily, I'm not that concerned," said Cantarero.
* The eventual goal of the rides, they said, is not to break the law for the sake of breaking the law, but to raise awareness of cycling issues and, if necessary, make any fixes themselves. "What the city won't do, we will," said Rich 'to the IE.'
"We're not against cars and we're not trying to kill car culture," he added. "But if you get some cars off the road" -- by getting more people on bikes -- "there will be more room" for the people who drive.
"There have been activists here for years and years and they haven't accomplished much," said Bringetto.
Among their goals is to get more cycling facilities for the area -- more bike lanes, designated bike routes that are actually good routes and more traffic signals that detect bikes.
Cantarero also had a novel idea: he wants to see bike lanes built along freeway routes that are completely separated from traffic (for example: by putting them on the embankment above the roadway) but would allow cyclists to get a head of speed and keep it without the constant starting and stopping that goes with riding on streets
All three said they like the idea of not having to buy gasoline and that they liked having their commute time tied to their level of fitness and cycling proficiency.
* The freeway rides, they said, came about in response to police who they said were picking on cyclists when it came to enforcing the rules of the road.
In particular, they complained that police don't do enough to protect cyclists from vehicles -- and pointed to the recent incident in Mandeville Canyon as an example. A motorist has been charged with deliberately slamming on his brakes to cause a bike accident.
All three cyclists said that no matter how careful they ride, they all have frequent close-calls with motorists. In some cases, they said, motorists seem intent on trying to intimidate them and get bikes off road, a scary prospect they likened to having someone try to kill you. "It's when they think you're in the way that they become aggressive," said Rich 'to the IE,' noting that motorists have the advantage of being surrounded by a 3,000-pound vehicle.
I called Jennifer Klausner today to talk about the Crimanimalz. She's the executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and is one of those advocates who has been working a long time to get bikes more space to ride in the area.
"It seems to be making for some popular YouTube videos," she said. "I wish I had a video of my face when I was watching it for the first time because I was gasping in fear for them.
"I don't think they are putting themselves in mortal danger because no one in a car on those freeways was going anywhere," she added. "But we don't want the freeways. I do think it sends an interesting message to say you can get somewhere faster on a bike."
Finally, Klausner said, that she has very mixed feelings about the whole thing. Riding on freeways isn't legal, she noted, and shouldn't be. "I think there's already an anti-cyclist sentiment among certain types of motorists and it may exacerbate that, but we also know there's a lot of anger and frustration out there among cyclists."
So all the bad press that was supposed to come from this seems to be non-existent. This article seems to disregard the illegality and push the real message. THATS AWEZUM!
I don't remember the thread where I was crucified for taking the stance that these guys were legal as long as there wasn't a sign saying not to go on the freeway, but I found the CVC that supports my position. It's CVC 21960, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21960.htm It reads in part,
21960. (a) The Department of Transportation and local authorities, by order, ordinance, or resolution, with respect to freeways, expressways, or designated portions thereof under their respective jurisdictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians, bicycles or other nonmotorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter.
Me -
The key word here being "MAY". It goes on into section (b) that reads in part,
(b) The prohibitory regulation authorized by subdivision (a) shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon any freeway or expressway and the approaches thereto.
Me again -
So basically any policing agency doesn't have a leg to stand on, that is as long as it is not written in the city municipal code. Which I seriously doubt it. This is a hell of alot more than anyone else produced to support their position in the argument.
@User1: I think you've brought up this same snippet of CVC code several times. And sure, that's more than anyone has produced except for, you know, the only lawyer who responded in that original thread (Djwheels, I think it was). He said that the "loophole" you found was, at best, a gray area, and if you took it to court, you'd be almost certain to lose because judges are not fond of legislating from the bench. CHP is charged with keeping the highways safe, and if they see bikes on the freeway, they're going to order them off (and possibly issue a ticket) on grounds of endangering the public safety or some such reason. A judge is not likely to contradict the CHP's authority in that matter, because the law gives CHP some latitude in deciding what's safe, sign or no sign.
What possible good could come from propagating this idea that the freeway rides are legal, when you've been told by a lawyer (among others) that they're probably not? Aren't the freeway rides appealing largely because they're seen as rebellious and illegal?
I think the freeway rides will be seen as rebellious, illegal or not. And I think that if there is a "loophole" or an actual clause in the CVC that allows bikes onto the freeway, why not exploit it, even if a bunch of people said it's "probably illegal"?
Yeah you're right this part of the CVC code was brought up before, I thought it was something else that bolstered my case. The thread can be found clicking here. Regardless, I still maintain that this is following the law and all the opposition has is that it feels wrong. It wouldn't be hard to find a lawyer that would support my argument, so I don't see that DJ has taken the position that it feels wrong that highly. I've met the person and he's a nice guy. Doesn't really like sharing though, even after giving him something to chew on.
The way the court system works is that the lower courts are given more leeway at using their discretion. Basically they can screw up and no big harm, in their eyes. These courts are viewed as being inferior. As the courts move up in importants, they become more of the reading of the law and interpreting the law. It become less of a "feeling that it's wrong".
Let me make it clear, I'm just talking about the legalities here, nothing more, nothing less.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
