hit a cyclist, lose your driver's licence
Thread started by
tfunk408 at 08.24.10 - 2:57 am
if this isn't already part of the law, it should be. convicted drunk drivers lose their DLs for a period of time, those convicted of physical assault are prohibited from owning firearms (and maybe other weapons) for a period of time, so i think it is a good idea to either push for this (hit a cyclist, lose your license) to be a law, or if it already is the case, put out a massive PR campaign to instill this awareness to all drivers.
reply
i'm talking billboards, tv commercials, the works. i remember when people started cracking down on DUIs there was a huge increase in awareness/fear.
tfunk40808.24.10 - 2:59 am
reply
im not sure if its this website thats brought more awareness to all the hit n runs..or if ppl are cycling more therefore resulting in more hit n runs..but im downright disgusted at how many im seeing posted (<--)..but yeah i think we all agree more needs to be done. like u say a "push" is in order; with all the popo frequenting this website n integrating themselves with ridazz this shouldn't be a problem -right?
"put out a massive PR campaign to instill this awareness to all drivers." -fa' real
amodone08.24.10 - 3:12 am
reply
Accidents can not be always prevented, however hit and run situations can.
Shouldn't it be rather - "Hit and Run on a cyclist, lose your license and go to jail." - Don't you think?
Joe Borfo08.24.10 - 4:55 am
reply
Shortening it down as a measure to prevent the accidents from happening.
If the hit was non-malicious and just an unfortunate accident, no incarceration time for anyone.
If the deliberate brigand runs off and tries to hide, find them and send them to the worst prison on the other side of the Colorado River, CDCR facilities are too tame for any criminal to be sent to.
bentstrider responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
08.24.10 - 5:15 am
reply
Bikeside LA recently launched their Life Before License campaign. I think they're meeting again next Sunday 8/29, although I don't really understand why they don't seem to post their events on their Bikeside events tab on the side....
champagne08.24.10 - 6:37 am
reply
This morning!! 10AM!
Hi everybody,
I hope to see you all at today's press conference with the Mayor. We will be unveiling the 1st Bike Awareness and Safety Poster in LA and filming a PSA with the Mayor!!
Come out and be a part of the city's initial steps in creating safer streets for cyclists!
We will be meeting at 1st/Main - infront of the steps of City Hall entrance on 1st. (where the farmer's market is) across from the new LAPD building.
alicestrong responding to a
comment by champagne
08.24.10 - 7:01 am
reply
I thought the "1st bike awareness and safety poster" was released several months ago. In any case, way to go! I hope it helps.
frumble responding to a
comment by alicestrong
08.24.10 - 9:18 am
reply
I think that it should be a lot harder to get and maintain drivers licenses in general.
Contrary to popular belief people don't *need* to drive to get around Los Angeles, that is a myth perpetuated by the car industry and big oil. Look at who the major sponsors are for just about every t.v. show you watch, cars! What people need to get around are more bike-friendly streets.
To me it's a no-brainer that a person would loose their license for hitting someone.
Girl Power08.24.10 - 9:35 am
reply
"Hit and Run on a cyclist, lose your license and go to jail."
Exactly what I was thinking.
petr0lb0mb responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
08.24.10 - 9:41 am
reply
_1282681379.jpg)
Oh yeah, that was a good one, wasn't it? :)
Here's the new release...;)
alicestrong responding to a
comment by frumble
08.24.10 - 1:23 pm
reply
I agree with the OP and maybe it should also include any use of one's car as a weapon bet it a cyclist or pedestrian.
I saw a part of that Caution poster somewhere. Don't recall where but someone had already torn it down. I just recognized the arrows.
graciela08.24.10 - 3:08 pm
reply
I wonder if the "3 feet to pass" could be bundled with other legislature regarding hit and run? Or is it better to do it separately? Anybody know?
alicestrong08.24.10 - 3:16 pm
reply
3 feet to pass suffers from the drawback, politically, that it benefits only cyclists. I think it's a good sentiment, but it will be hard to pass since it is not in the self interest of motorists and pedestrians.
Addressing hit and run is in the self interest of pedestrians and motorists, and therefore has a stronger (theoretical) base. I think bundling the two would risk the latter suffering from the former's political vulnerabilities.
Alex Thompson responding to a
comment by alicestrong
08.24.10 - 3:57 pm
reply
i still dont understand how one would determine whether 3 feet was given or not. It seems more like a guide than something that could be law.
md2 responding to a
comment by Alex Thompson
08.24.10 - 4:09 pm
reply
You have to have a foot fetish to understand this sort of thing.
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by md2
08.24.10 - 4:26 pm
reply
one of those is not a foot *wink*
tfunk408 responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
08.24.10 - 6:05 pm
reply
btw i was just trying to come up with a "catchy slogan" that would be easy to put into the media. i agree with all the other concerns eg, 3ft to pass. i think in general, one thing that could potentially be strong would be to relate cars to weapons as mentioned. something like "in the US, cars kill more people than guns, don't be a murderer, pass with caution" or something like that. see this is why i'm not in the creative/arts/design industry haha.
tfunk40808.24.10 - 6:09 pm
reply
@Alex
You're right, the 3 feet might be better bundled with anti-harassment, do not throw things, etc.
alicestrong responding to a
comment by Alex Thompson
08.25.10 - 8:33 am
reply
Form the car v. bike crashes I have heard about it in rare that the driver intentionally hits the cyclist, in those rare cases it is difficult to establish intent.
If intent is established then the driver can and should be charged with assult with a deadly weapon. I think a good add on would we be loss of license since the car is the weapon that is used in the crime.
I also fully support Bikesides "Life Before License" campaign, it brands and articulates something lots of us have been asking for for a while: Mandatory Loss of Driving Privileges for those who shirk their responsibility of stopping and caring for a person they have hit with their car, accidentally or otherwise.
----------------
Having harsh penalties (like loss of license) for people who accidentally hit a cyclist is a terrible idea. It won't make roads safer and it will increase the incidents.
The way we will reduce accidental collisions will be with infrastructure, awareness and education.
trickmilla08.25.10 - 9:28 am
reply
Why do we need to bundle legislation at all?
It seems like bundling legislation would result in sup par legislation.
I'd rather wait for the precise legislation we want, than putting all of our efforts behind a big package which will undoubtedly have things in it that we don't like, don't need, or don't want.
We would then be in the situation of having to either accept the things we don't like or fighting against legislation we want because there is a "poison pill".
What if there was a bike safety law package and it included a helmet law?
Then when we fought and killed the package, legislators could say "we tried but ..."
I say we should be very focused and specific on the legislation we want and keep it very simple, practical and easy to sell to politicians & people.
The simplicity of "3 Feet to Pass" is part of what what make it an issue easy for the mayor to latch on to push and support.
trickmilla responding to a
comment by alicestrong
08.25.10 - 9:53 am
reply
trickmilla,
Can you explain a bit more about the simplicity of this law? I think it's very simple to understand, in that people understand what 3 feet means, and they know what passing means.
The difficulty, I my mind, is the application of the proposed law.
If a car passes less than 3 feet of a cyclist, then they are in violation of the law. Got it. Now, if I'm savvy enough, the debate begins: who says I didn't give you 3 feet of space?
i like the slogan more as a guide, than law. For one, 3 feet is arbitrary. Laws like this are something I generally dislike because they are open to too much interpretation and give into the authority of the police. That is, it allows the truth of the matter to rest on the will of the officer. And though Im trying really hard to curb my enthusiasm about getting into any more of these forum arguments, I would really like to know why there is this enthusiasm towards such a law?
md2 responding to a
comment by trickmilla
08.25.10 - 10:08 am
reply
I don't understand this need for an anti-harassment law. We already have laws that say you can't throw broken beer bottles at people, whether that person is a cyclist, pedestrian, or the Mothman. There's a law that says you can't threaten someone with physical harm. etc.
I'd rather see education about why it's so goddamn dangerous to throw anything, even if it's just trash, at a cyclist, or why drivers should never honk except in an emergency situation than see another set of laws come in with nothing done to remedy the current problems.
In the words of Tony Blair: Education, education, education. (No, seriously, he got elected on that)
Rach Stevo responding to a
comment by alicestrong
08.25.10 - 10:32 am
reply
Why 3 feet? as opposed to 2 or 4 or 5 or a meter or 40"s
I dunno. Other than it is the standard set by MTA for their drivers.
As far as the purpose of the law.
It establishes in law what a "safe passing distance is"
right now cars are required to pass bikes safely.
If fact, it is my understanding that the LAPD is sending a directive to start enforcing safe passing of cyclists more vigorously, (in conjunction withe the Give me 3) campaign, even though the 3 foot standard has not been articulated by law yet.
The purpose of the law is to specify what a safe passing distance for bikes is.
It is that simple. Its an effort to make the existing law more clear and give a clear guidelines to drivers and law enforcement about what a safe passing distance is.
It is possible for other departments to establish 3 feet as a safe passing distance, and to enforce safe passing, but, obviously a law would apply to the entire state AND would help get the message out as it is promoted, endorsed, and passed through the legislature.
trickmilla responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 11:35 am
reply
"If a car passes less than 3 feet of a cyclist, then they are in violation of the law. Got it. Now, if I'm savvy enough, the debate begins: who says I didn't give you 3 feet of space?"
“It does give motorists and cyclists a frame of reference because everyone knows what three feet looks like,”
" the law will also provide a tool for law enforcement should a matter be brought to an officer’s attention."
“If there is a problem of harassment, it gives law enforcement a law on the books to enforce or punish someone who is a hazard in a car,”
Foldie responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 11:46 am
reply
@ Foldie, i know what 3 feet looks like, but can you determine a 3 foot space while driving? Can everyone? Do you trust police to make this judgment? Are you a narc? How would this do any good if someone said: hey officer he didn't give me 3 feet of space? Regarding your last comment, why are we promoting this kind of toying with law, when it's in our favor? Why allow arbitrary standards that have a very very difficult means of verification, to enforce or punish ANYONE?
@trickmilla
First, i love the poster. I'm proud of you for helping this come about. I'm only concerned about making the "slogan" law. Please don't take this as I'm talking about the poster campaign.
With that, I can see the slogan as a standard or guide or whatnot (as done with MTA)
i think it would be bad law, because it would be easy for (give another reason for) officers to pull over "people" based on some obscure suggestion that they "saw" such and such driver did not pass outside of 3 feet. This may be a "hell yeah" for cyclist, but I think we need to take a step back and remember there are a hierarchy of principles.
Trust me, if Im a driver, I'm going to fight such a ticket. I would want to know: How did the officer determine the 3 feet? How long must an officer be fixated on the said driver in relation to the cyclist to determine a distance has been met (was it met, and how do i know)? Moreover, can a person even determine whether in a said amount of time, that the distance was met?
Seriously, what if a driver passed with 2.5 feet? Do you want this person pulled over and cited?
Fuck,.... am I just way off or what? Am i missing something?
THIS ALL FEEDS INTO THE POWER OF THE POLICE FORCE!!!!
Even though the LAW may be promoted under the false idea that it makes our city safer for pedestrians and such, it is all a LIE. Ticketing is a revenue generating machine. Soon we'll have devices measuring or photographing our distance from each other, so as to write tickets (slippery slope).
md2 responding to a
comment by Foldie
08.25.10 - 12:13 pm
reply
I guess I have to explain the true function of the Give Me 3 campaign to you all.
The result of a successful poster campaign will create the causes for the following:
When a driver sees a cyclist they will remember, "3 feet of space", and, therefore the driver becomes more concious about the amount of space he /she is giving the cyclist.
It's not applying any "LAW". It's just encourging a mindset...
It's not rocket science here, guys.
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 12:34 pm
reply
Im only referring to the comments about creating legislation by user and the mayor.
I agree its best as a mindset, standard, guide
I think it's bad law (if it goes that route)
But i'll leave it alone.
sorry trickmilla if it's taken the wrong way...
i need to get my office to block this site too.
md2 responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
08.25.10 - 12:38 pm
reply
"The Mayor also announced that he would like to “make the 3 Foot Passing Rule a 3 Foot Passing Law” in California. He will be introducing the bill, going to Sacramento and working with the bicycling community to ensure that this becomes a reality. “We’ll keep at it until it becomes part of the California Vehicle Code.”
Rita Robinson from LADOT also spoke in support of the Mayor’s interest in bicycle safety and infrastructure. In regards to safety, she emphasized that the 3 Foot Passing Law really means 3 feet beside, behind and beyond. "
http://lacbc.wordpress.com/
my last post about it, just so you can get an idea where Im coming from.... but maybe Im wrong; it's very likely.
md2 responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
08.25.10 - 12:41 pm
reply
Yeah. Less focus on laws and more on education.
But, the way this society works, we need good laws to protect us from the bad ones.
Back to work, SLAVE!
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 12:44 pm
reply
What would be the motivation for an officer to erroneously ticket somebody for passing too close? And why would they be more apt to choose that offense as opposed to say: speeding, driving recklessly, illegal lane change, not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, not stopping before making a right on a red, etc etc ...
If they are going to make shit up, they can make anything up.
Most tickets that the police give are their word against the person who was ticketed.
On the other hand, there is such rampant law breaking by motorists, that we see every day as cyclists, I have to imagine that any cop trying to rack up tickets or "raise money" for city, need only to go out and pay attention to the many violations that happen already.
Inventing shit is probably more work that it is worth, unless they are trying to fuck with somebody for another reason... and once again any citation would do, and would be an easier likely excuse to invent. "reckless driving" is pretty subjective no?
------
What the 3 feet law does that the slogan can't is it gets in people's head that there will eventually be consequences to pay if they don't pass a cyclist safely. That will eventually altar driver behavior. And in my opinion, make the road safer.
If you are against adding any laws to the books to try and change the driving culture for fear that those laws will be abused by police, there is not much we can do.
I'm for having laws that better articulate the spirt of the CVC that declares that we have a RIGHT to use the road safely. But fails to articulate exactly what that means for drivers and cyclists.
For instance, the "door zone" in not mentioned in the CVC, so "practicable" riding has not been defined as riding outside of the door zone or riding clear of pot holes, or holing a straight predictable line ...
Therefore many drivers expect cyclists to ride very close to the curb and to parked cars.
The cvc gives us rights, but doesn't always define them clearly.
Thats why we need laws that better articulate the purpose and intent of the CVC, the rights it grants to cyclists, and better define the limits & responsibilities of drivers.
trickmilla responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 12:59 pm
reply
Considering the LAPD and CHP have entire task forces (motor(cycle) units) dedicated solely to issuing traffic violations, you'd think they'd be all over this opportunity to hand out more tickets. Since the "three foot" rule is a guide and not a hard limit, the officer's citation can always fall back on "safety." Officer's word will always win in court: "the driver did not pass safely in my professional opinion as a law enforcement officer."
In addition to making the streets safer for cyclists, it would produce revenue for the state and make the motor unit look better (part of officers' evaluations is dependent on citations issued). Everyone is happier except the ticketed driver, who doesn't deserve to be happy anyway in this case.
The cops in LA could have an absolute field day with this, dozens of tickets a day if they were looking for it. The police need to be informed of the law, and prejudices against cyclists have to be struck down.
outerspace08.25.10 - 1:45 pm
reply
Milla, god, you guys are just too powerful to keep me away.
What would be the motivation for an officer to erroneously ticket somebody for passing too close?
What would be the motivation for an offer to kick a cyclist?
Given what I read as a confused position on what police can do, what they do, and what they're going to do (one i probably share), it's even that much more disturbing you want to give them more laws to enforce.
I dont give two shits about citations, infractions and tickets. They ARE ALL revenue generating tools, period.
No one is claiming that officers will make shit up. Shit, I'll give your LAPD buddy's the benefit of the doubt, and suggest an officer really believes that a car drove past a cyclist with less than 3 feet of space.
You tell me, how do you propose an genuine dispute is settled between an officer and driver? Where's the proof, evidence, facts?
(can i call my attorney before I sign?)
WHERE IS THE 3 FEET to answer our doubts?
reckless driving is subjective, should we talk about that too, then?
----
What the 3 feet law does that the slogan can't is it gets in people's head that there will eventually be consequences to pay if they don't pass a cyclist safely. That will eventually altar driver behavior. And in my opinion, make the road safer.
YOU DONT MAKE LAWS JUST TO PUT SHIT IN PEOPLE'S HEADS!!!
You make laws because they're fair, just and because they are good for the people. Or you just dont make them.
Citations, infractions, and tickets, do not curb bad driving behavior. They are revenue generators. Why aren't the streets safer with the plethora of laws already in place?
If you are against adding any laws to the books to try and change the driving culture for fear that those laws will be abused by police, there is not much we can do.
When and where did I say this? Damn it bro, it's about putting the citizens first. Its about not giving the police such a fucking loose ass law that they COULD abuse. Lets not be lazy with our rights. If you think they could abuse any law, then why are you collaborating with such a fucked up group?
If the police are trustworthy, then lets give them good laws that make sense, with clear guidelines and better means of verifying to US that we did in fact break the law. I don't want some cop suggesting, "well it sure looked like 3 feet, and you can argue about it when you pay this ticket".
Even if I didnt drive, principle is to not allow people to be treated this way.
There are not enough police to curb all the bad behavior. Fuck, man, what if some other slogan won the contest? What other slogans do you have on file for future laws? your poster is dope, but it's not inscribed by the gods.
We need a better format, not laws.
You dont create a god damn race track, allow stores to sell race cars that can exceed driving limits, and expect them to play nice. You choke the ability to do these things.
Products are killing the ozone. Dont trust people to buy good products. Make it illegal to supply those products. If a residential street allows for cars to race, dont put a speed limit sign, put up those big as speed bumps to prevent the action from occurring all together.
In addition an advocate just emailed me:
How do we even know 3 feet is the right criteria?
I say push the slogan campaign, but dont be overzealous with the project.
md2 responding to a
comment by trickmilla
08.25.10 - 1:52 pm
reply
re: harsher penalties in case of accidental (non-intentional) collisions; what happens when a firearm accidentally goes off and the bullet hits someone? it was an accident without any intent, but what are the penalties for that? i don't know, so i'm just asking, but would it not be fair to establish similar (severity) penalties?
tfunk408 responding to a
comment by trickmilla
08.25.10 - 2:59 pm
reply
re: not honking except in an emergency; i don't agree, i think car horns and bike bells should be use more frequently as a means of communication in the streets. people in asia (and perhaps europe as well) readily honk, not to be disrespectful, but simply to alert others. cars honking at cyclists (or cyclists ringing bells at pedestrians) may be perceived as rude, but that really shouldn't be the case, as there are no other, more effective methods of communication in certain circumstances.
tfunk408 responding to a
comment by Rach Stevo
08.25.10 - 3:03 pm
reply
"Means of communication"? Using a horn to communicate is as effective as it would be to walk into In N Out and attempting to order fries by issuing a primal scream in the general direction of the server.
Horns startle cyclists. I'm not going to encourage their use as anything other than a warning without which someone is going to get seriously hurt. I don't need to be alerted that there's a car behind me and they're about to overtake - I already know the car is there and it's up to the driver to leave enough space, not to honk at me and give me a heads up. If the driver is halfway decent, the horn will be unnecessary.
I'll give you a dollar at LACM on Friday if you walk into a fastfood place and try to order fries by screaming wordlessly. Seriously, see how well you can communicate that way.
Rach Stevo responding to a
comment by tfunk408
08.25.10 - 4:44 pm
reply
"You make laws because they're fair, just and because they are good for the people. Or you just dont make them."
Once again, you hit the nail on the head.
This is law is fair, it is good for people, and we will get it passed eventually.
If you think there is too many laws, then by all means start working on revoking some.
It will make more room for the laws we need.
"YOU DONT MAKE LAWS JUST TO PUT SHIT IN PEOPLE'S HEADS!!!"
right again on both counts.
I don't make laws, and I don't put shit in people's heads.
However, one function of a law is to put a certain idea into the the minds of those who are under the jurisdiction of the law. (in this case people who choose to exercise the privilege of driving)
We do want to put in people's heads that they are expected to follow the vehicle code and drive safely. They are already required to do this. We are just adding a specific metric (3 feet passing distance) so that it is easier for people to follow the law and easier for officers to enforce the law.
Sate laws and the problems of local law enforcement agencies are 2 different things.
State laws should be created to help protect the rights of citizens and keep them safe.
Local law enforcement agencies and their employees should be held accountable for their policies and their actions.
Putting a moratorium on legislation or stalling the evolution of the vehicle code in a car centric state will do nothing to reform or evolve law enforcement agencies.
You are mixing state and local issues / as well as the respective roles of legislatures and local law enforcement agencies.
trickmilla responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 5:31 pm
reply
This is law is fair, it is good for people
well, i guess Im supposed to agree because you say it is so? Can you just elaborate a little on the fairness part, and that goodness part?
If you think there is too many laws, then by all means start working on revoking some.
Will do. To start: let's stop 3 Foot Law, before I have to revoke it. I always enjoy your comments as such, "hey, you think theres too much oil in the gulf? Well, stop complaining and go remove it. End of discussion."
I don't make laws, and I don't put shit in people's heads.
aw, that was good, I was worried you might not have a sense of humor. I could at least appreciate that response.
However, one function of a law is to put a certain idea into the the minds of those who are under the jurisdiction of the law.
Well, sure, but it's the kind of laws that matter, right? I mean we want just, fair and good laws in our minds, right? Hence, lets answer the second question of this post.
Many states already have this law. Im not arguing that isn't a good metric for drivers, but it's not what we want to governed by in that it can be enforced with consequences DUE to it's very difficult ability to be proven, and it's inherit problem of even to verify by the person determining if the law is being adhered to.
I'm joking a bit in my responses to you, but the point is that as a law, 3 feet passing is not a good LAW.
You care about the metric used by which drivers treat cyclist, but what about the metric by which we support laws?
The best argument for this law is that it gives cyclist an avenue to charge drivers with breaking a law in the event of an accident. If I'm hit, then they obviously were not 3 feet away. But again, we should not resort to this kind creation of laws just because we want something as cyclist. We SHOULD still ask whether such a law is fair, and not compromise fairness for the sake of drawing attention to cycling.
In short, I think I've raised some questions about it's fairness at least. And I may be wrong, but can you just let me know why I'm wrong? Or did I miss it in the previous post(s)? Im not being facetious.
md2 responding to a
comment by trickmilla
08.25.10 - 5:59 pm
reply
You are welcome to a different opinion. It doesn't make you "wrong".
trickmilla responding to a
comment by md2
08.25.10 - 8:48 pm
reply
All I'm saying is that horns exist as a means to alert others on the road. Yes they are/can be startling, but one can get used to it (in fact, in my opinion one has serious anxiety issues if one is bothered so much by being honked at). I'm not saying the protocol should be for cars to honk every time when passing, but actually, sometimes I appreciate being honked at in certain situations when I didn't know there was a car there, and also because it means the car acknowledges my presence on the road. When one is out on the road, with so much traffic noise, a horn or a bell is necessary.
I see what you're getting at with the fries ordering analogy, but in my opinion it is not the best example. We're talking about communication with others out on the streets in the middle of traffic with cars/trucks/buses all around, what is the most effective way to do that? When cars/trucks pass me on my bike and the driver/passenger yells at me, I can never tell whether they are cursing at me or cheering for me. When cars/trucks pass by and they honk at me, I know that they are there, and can usually deduce whether they are instances of road rage or enthusiastic support.
tfunk408 responding to a
comment by Rach Stevo
08.25.10 - 10:01 pm
reply
I agree horns are good when you are on a bad road and/or have the super quiet prius or XL hummer on a small road behind you.I also have to agree that horns are startling, but does this proposed law do anything to harm bicyclist?
just thinking out loud...
louisiana responding to a
comment by tfunk408
08.25.10 - 10:13 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
