BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
Nearly $10 Million Owed to LAUSD by Teachers Who Were Mistakenly Overpaid
The Great L.A. Walk Treks Adams & Washington Today
Injured cyclist, Ron Peterson being prepped for transport to an area hospital by Los Angeles Fire Department Paramedics.
Update #2: The meeting has been canceled. More information here.
Update: The meeting location has changed to across the street to accommodate more people. it is not located at Felicia Mahood Multipurpose Center at 11338 Santa Monica Boulevard.
After the unfortunate, yet eye-opening incident between an alleged "road rage" motorist, who was arrested, and two bicyclists on Mandeville Canyon on Fourth of July and press coverage from most major media outlets in Los Angeles, Councilman Bill Rosendahl has set a time and date for a public meeting to discuss the issues.
"City officials will welcome suggestions from all parties on how to improve safety on the narrow 5 mile roadway that is heavily used by residents, visitors to nearby recreation areas, and cyclists," a press release stated. "Discussion will also focus on efforts to better inform the public about laws and vehicle code sections pertaining to cycling and sharing the road."
It goes on to say "the specifics of the July 4 incident, which is being investigated by law enforcement officials, will not be a subject of the meeting."
The meeting next Monday at 6:30 p.m. will be held in the 2nd floor Hearing Room at the West Los Angeles Municipal Building (1645 Corinth Avenue, which is between Iowa and Santa Monica Blvd) (see above update). Bicycle racks are available and are allowed in the building lobby. Car parking can be found behind the building.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As horrific and maddening as this whole incident is on its own, I really really hope that instead of increasing the whole cyclist-motorist tension that this will be an eye opener for everyone (especially motorists, the news watching majority, but cyclists also) to the need for coexistance on our roadways.
As a cyclist, i'm going to do my best to take this opportunity to treat motorists with respect, not cuss or spit at them, not break the laws (as much as I love to nail a fishtail fixie skidd madcore steelo through a Downhill red light, sheeeit) - everyone else please do the same!
Strike the iron while it's hot, now that everyone has their eyes on the situation it's time to step correct.
Whoa, this is awesome!
I agree benitofool...
The Mandeville incident was a horrible tragedy, but maybe this is the catalyst that is going to make LA wake up and acknowledge that bikes are here to stay, and that we NEED to learn to live with each other on the road before someone else gets hurt. Now that the public is paying attention, maybe LA is finally going to take some positive steps forward in becoming more cycle friendly, and enforcing the laws designed to protect cyclists. We shall see....
And maybe we can also talk about cyclists (esp. bike messengers)not running red lights downtown, as well as, almost taking out pedestrians on the sidewalks and cross walks.
Yes, this is a good thing. I think there needs to be healing on both sides and education on both sides.
As a cyclist I feel offended by some of the comments that Tom LaBonge felt the need for saying 4 times in the Transportation Committee meeting yesterday.
"Don't run red lights. Stop at stop signs. Obey the law!"
I don't hear these comments to motorists at the meetings when the city discusses stop lights and intersection improvements. "Hey all of you drivers in the audience: Obey the law! Don't run reds! Don't cut off pedestrians and don't run over cyclists."
Why do people feel the need to scold me as if I was a kid? I'm grown up! I know the law and I know the risks that I'm taking. Try scolding drivers at each meeting. Try to talk down on them as if they were children playing with their big toys.
All the accidents that I have been involved in and that my friends have been involved in was due to driver error. Drivers running reds (not me!) Drivers cutting in front of cyclists. Drivers playing with their dogs. Drivers opening the doors without looking. Drivers, drivers and drivers! They are the ones who kill! And we the cyclists are the ones who get the finger pointed at! Something is wrong with this picture!
Yes, I'll be at this meeting and I will bring this up. You betcha!
I want to hear drivers scolded like
When I first read the article, I thought why was the cyclist right behind the car. Then I heard the rest of the story. There apparantly was an exchange of insults and the driver pulled right in front of the cyclist and slammed on his brakes.
This scenario is entirely plausible and if true, that driver is a major a-hole.
Let me state that I am also a road rider and have also had a-hole drivers mess with me as well.
Let me also state that I also am anoyed when a group of riders ride 2 or 3 or more abreast and extend way out into the lane.
Like I said, I am also a road rider but there is no reason the riders can't ride somewhat single file.
tornadoes28,
There is no law against cyclists riding two abreast. If two motorcycles can ride two abreast and if a car and a cyclist can share the lane, then why can't two cyclists share the lane?
And if two cyclists share the lane (which then would make the lane full and not shareable with any other vehicle, just as if two motorcycles would fill up the lane) then why can't there be three cyclists riding next to each other?
Enci-
Maybe the reason you never hear drivers admonished as a group for blowing red lights is because as whole, drivers will actually STOP at a red and wait for it to turn green before proceeding. Sure there's always going to the occasional light running lunatic but they're a very small fraction compared to the percentage of cyclists who run red lights.
Enci, if you're truly a grown up, then it's expected that if you want to be taken seriously as a cyclist you should have the same respect for the law as motorists. In other words, ride your bike like a grown up, which doesn't include corking intersections so that hundreds of Midnight Ridazz can run red lights much to the chagrin of law abiding drivers being held hostage.
You can stomp your feet all you want about bikes have the same rights as cars but until you and your fellow overnight cyclists start following the laws of the road, your arguments will fall on deaf ears.
ps. I've been a bike commuter since 1994 and have been stopping at red lights since 1995.
I bike commute, as well as ride for recreation, and when I'm in traffic I follow signals and everything else. However I also ride in the middle of the night, and if I get to an intersection which does not detect bikes (nearly all of them) and there are no cars in sight, I'm not going to wait for eons for a car to come trigger the light for me, and as a vehicular cyclist I do not expect to have to dismount my bike and walk to crosswalk button to trigger a light. In such a situation I verify it's safe in both directions and go, if the light is not on a timer and it cannot detect anything, it is effectively useless at that point.
There is also a fundamental difference between a bike going through an intersection and a car. A cyclist has a much wider field of view, and when leaning forward can actually see ahead of the front tire. In a car, the driver's field of view is highly limited and they cannot see around corners without protruding the vehicle into an intersection, not to mention reduced perception of sound while encased in a bubble with music on.
Another difference between a car and a bike going through intersections, if a cyclist runs a stop sign, they are putting them selves at risk for injury, where as a car could potentially injure or even kill others as well.
Traffic engineering should consider all modes of transit, and right now it's almost exclusively for the movement of cars.
Also I'm tired of hearing bikes running lights and stop signs being used over and over again as some how a justification for potentially deadly road rage in a case where the cyclists were doing nothing wrong. They had the right to take the lane at the speed they were traveling, and moved to single file position to allow a speeding car to get past, angry words are exchanged and driver decides to damn near kill them. This is not justifiable, and saying the victims provoked this hatred is akin to saying a woman asks for rape by wearing a short skirt. I'm not saying cyclists are angels here, but this is attempted murder for Christs sake and people are gripping about stop signs.
Everybody, esp Enci:
Confrontation is not the right way to go about things, now. This whole incident allows us cyclists to show our humanity to all road users; to scold motorists for: their inhumane, isolationist, polluting, hypocritical, cyclist-rights ignoring ways is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE even if these points are true.
There is no justification for slamming on your brakes in front of a cyclist, but there is a CAUSE. Motorists see slow moving cyclists, alone or in packs, as obstacles. If they see those obstacles as cursing, spitting, high-horse riding hippies, then we'll never get any respect. If, in the public meeting, there is an US vs. THEM attitude, then it's shooting the cause in the foot.
I hope the coverage and resulting dialogue of this is one of education and understanding, rather than accusation and blame.
As more and more people get on their bikes, let's make it easier for us all:
The best way to change the course of car culture is by first getting in the car with the drivers, rather than crashing into it with our bikes.
Ben
Ben, I realize that you weren't there so I'll slow down and bring you up to speed.
At the City Council's Transportation committee meeting yesterday, there were several bike-related topics on the Agenda. In addition the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was presented and Bill Rosendahl addressed the Mandeville Road Rage Incident.
In the midst of an otherwise very productive meeting (Safe Routes To School, Bicycle Master Plan, Sharrow, DASH bike racks and Ballona Creek) Councilman Tom LaBonge interrupted the proceedings 4 times to lecture cyclists on the need to stop at red lights.
40,000 people are going to die this year, in the US, as the result of motor vehicle collisions.
It's an insult to continually state the obvious, especially when it's completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
I have the right to travel safely and free of fear. This right is mine and completely unrelated to the behavior of the Peleton in Pasadena or the beach cruisers in Manhattan Beach.
A discussion of the rights of cyclists is not a secret signal for motorists to unleash a discussion of their pet peeves. The rights of cyclists are in no way dependent on anecdotal generalizations.
Based on the huge death rate that we can expect this year from the actions of motorists, I believe that we should focus on the area that will yield significant improvement to the quality of life in our community. The motoring public. Start there.
See you on the Streets!
Armin, your logic is flat out retarded. It doesn't matter how many people break a law; that doesn't give another group the right to infringe upon our rights.
This is our chance to be productive, attentive, and smart about how we proceed with cycling in Los Angeles. I want bikes and cars to share the road. I don't want this to be a constant war.
And if the cyclist had died? The fact is, many drivers in LA take no mind of bikers or pedestrians - they regard the streets as theirs and act accordingly most of the time. For the most part - bikers share the road better because they know they could be hurt. There are some bad bikers, yes, of course. But it doesn't look like these two were. That driver should be thankful there are helmet laws and that the bikers took their own safety seriously - otherwise that biker would be dead. And then this spat would have meant jail time. And for what?
Is it really worth it to get the last word in a road argument? How petty. This driver needs to control his anger better than a 5 year old if he is going to use a steel vehicle as a weapon at the slightest provocation. Even if the cyclists had banged on his car...whatever - that is not justified.
Enci, there is no comparison between 2 motorcycles riding 2 abreast vs 2 bicycles riding 2 abreast when it comes to riding on the road.
I am a motorcycle rider and until a bicycle can hit 0-45 in 2 seconds 2 bicycles should not ride side by side holding up traffic behind them. Now if there is no one else on the road then feel free to use more of the lane.
This has nothing to do with the article but I had to get that out there. Sorry.
Why do motorcycle riders ride side-by-side again? Oh right; SAFETY!
Of course bicyclists have no right to be safe. Their on damned bicycles.
Panasonic Youth-
Um... retarded, nice choice of words there.
My logic had nothing to do with rights being infringed upon. What I was saying is that for cyclists to be taken seriously, cyclists need to take the law, as it currently applies to them, seriously. I doubt Ron Milam would have got the LACBC very far off the ground if he pedaled around trying to raise support for cyclists with the attitude of red lights and stop signs only apply to cars.
How many times has a motorist's right to "travel safely and free of fear", as Mr. Box put it, been trampled upon by the mob mentality that often permeates Midnight Ridazz and Critical Mass? I stopped going to Midnight Ridazz four years ago because as much fun as a rolling party might be, the fun shouldn't come at the expense of the mass breaking of laws not to mention pissing off half the city.
ps. Saw you did the LifeCyle Ride. Funny that ALC's first rule is:
1. Obey all traffic laws, traffic signals and signs. You are operating a vehicle. Come to a complete stop at all stop signs and stop lights, and put your foot on the street. Like you mother always said: "Look both ways before you cross the street."
Johnny,
0-45 in 2 seconds to go where? To race me to the next light? To get on the next cars ass? To get on the freeway to park your car?
The law doesn't say "riding two abreast is illegal unless you can accelerate from 0-45." It takes 10 seconds to pass slow cyclists safely by changing the lane. Cyclists who ride to their destination, just like you. Cyclists who have a family waiting for them, just like you.
It takes 1 second to change many lives if you kill someone because you think you are entitled to more room just because you are faster or bigger.
@ Johnny
- Perhaps hitting 45 mph in 2 seconds is not realistic for a bicycle, but the fact of the matter is on a downhill like these riders were on, it is possible, in fact easy, to travel at or above the speed limit on a a good road bicycle. I've clocked my speed at 48 mph before with a GPS speedometer, and these were fairly high ranking bike racers going down that hill. For them to have been holding up traffic behind them, that traffic behind them had to have been well over the speed limit. Going down the big hill in Ojai some motorcyclists passed me, but the turns were windy enough they couldn't travel much faster then I was going and it took a few minutes before they were out of my sight, and on the same downhill I passed a car on the left since it was clear.
Yes on a flat stretch of road and especially uphill riding more then one abreast is inconvenient for cars, especially on a single lane road, but the majority of cyclists don't do that. The context of downhill is fundamentally different however because high psi tires, efficient bearings, and a good set of legs allow us to move at the speed of traffic or in some cases even faster.
Enci: "There is no law against cyclists riding two abreast. If two motorcycles can ride two abreast and if a car and a cyclist can share the lane, then why can't two cyclists share the lane?"
Why can't two bicycles share the lane? Here's a good reason:
Two bicycles riding abreast are effectively blocking the lane, making it impossible for cars to pass safely. Because bicycles are "slow cars", they are now interfering with the flow of traffic.
Two motorcycles can share the lane because they can go the speed limit. A car and a bicycle can share the lane because the bicycle is not blocking the flow of traffic.
So by riding two abreast, you're basically slowing everybody else down. You're not considering the needs of other vehicles with whom you share the road. You're being a childish, insensitive jerk.
As I've said before, there are too many bicyclists out there who feel "Share the Road" means, "I get to do whatever I want and you have to watch out for any crazy move I might do!" Perhaps we need to sit these people down for repeated listening of the Barney song, "Sharing is Caring." They obviously didn't learn it when they were young.
"Why do people feel the need to scold me as if I was a kid? I'm grown up! I know the law and I know the risks that I'm taking."
Your tone of "voice" sounds childish. "Why are you picking on me? Why don't you pick on cars!? It's not fay-er!!!"
This past Bike-to-Work Day, I rode to work (35 miles one way). I saw about a half dozen bicyclists run stop signs and red lights. I didn't see any cars even do a rolling stop through red lights. That's why bicyclists are being singled out. Because people actually have to know the laws in order to drive a car and most of them don't feel they are exempt.
Like GarySe7en, above, says, bicyclists have a wider field of vision and all sorts of other qualities which means they, alone, should be able to determine which laws they obey and when they choose to obey them. And if it's 3:00 in the morning and there's nobody else on the road, I should be able to drive 100 MPH because, after all, I'm only risking my life, right?
Traffic laws exist for the predictable flow of traffic, which cuts down accidents for everybody. I'm sorry if you find them inconvenient--I do, too. But no matter what wonderful qualities that riding a bicycle might have over driving a car, that doesn't give you any more rights on the road than anyone else.
Hi folks, the cycling mailing lists here in Bend, OR have caught wind of this incident. Our best wishes to the two cyclists involved, and hopefully this will act as a positive catalyst for cyclists and drivers alike in LA and elsewhere.
With everyone's tempers up, I thought it appropriate to share a recent Letter to the Editor I wrote for our local newspaper. It's just something I wrote to capture my personal outlook on cycling, but I've found it helps me to act in a way I can be proud of after the heat of the moment passes. Anyhow, just thought I'd share it with you. I hope you find something worthwhile in it ...
===============
[Published in the Bend Bulletin: April 28, 2008]
"An open letter to other cyclists"
I'm the cyclist behind you, that one you see starting to grind up the hill you just climbed, or that speck you briefly glimpse a half-mile back before rounding the next turn in the road.
I'm the one who gets to deal with the consequences of your actions. I have to face that angry motorist you just flipped off or yelled at for whatever real or perceived slight they inflicted upon you. I'm the one they take their aggression out on. It is you that causes them to veer toward me, or crowd me more than necessary just because they're so pissed off at cyclists in general.
I'm the one who has to face the hostility created when you run red lights and stop signs. When I talk to people at parties about how fun cycling is, I get to hear the groans and angst of those drivers you've affected. I'm the one who has to justify to them why it is that cyclists put their life at risk by not obeying the rules of the road.
I'm also the one who benefits from your actions. That motorist you waved to gives me a polite horn honk to let me know they're approaching, instead of laying it on when they get beside me. The gravel truck driver that saw you kicking a chunk of asphalt out of the road slows down to let me proceed ahead of him through a stop sign, instead of trying to rush by me. That SUV you were just a little more courteous to takes it a bit easier when passing me than they might have otherwise.
You share the road not just with motorists, but with other cyclists because of how you affect the motorists we all deal with. This can be hard to remember when that pickup truck of teenagers blows by you spewing epithets and beer bottles all over the road, but giving them the finger won't help me. So, a simple request: On your next ride, spend a little time thinking about what will.
Robert Kieffer
Bend, OR
Gary yes you're right I do believe riding side by side in conventional riding is not the best logical way to go. In no way would I even try to protect what the Dr. did to the cyclists. I was only questioning Enci's logic on comparing riding 2 abreast with motorcycles and cyclists.
Enci you're right the speed is not a factor but riding with the flow of traffic 2 abreast on a motorcycle is a lot different than riding 2 abreast on a bicycle just because there is no law stating you can't. If you are doing that, unfortunately you are inviting trouble from some wacko car driver.
i wish our parents taught us to be patient, understanding, and all that. people these days are just so self centered.
you can't put all these instances in the same box, each circumstance requires a different thinking/approach.
"And if it's 3:00 in the morning and there's nobody else on the road, I should be able to drive 100 MPH because, after all, I'm only risking my life, right?"
3:00AM cyclist looking for it to be clear at an intersection that does not detect bicycles and going through is in no way the same thing as a car deciding to do 100mph because it looks empty. A bike going probably 16 mph is going slow enough to react as necessary if conditions change, especially since bikes are highly maneuverable and a cyclist is more in tune with their souroundings for reasons meantioned above. Also part my point was that bikes are expected to move like vehicles, but traffic engineering does not consider bicycles, hence most intersections in LA do not detect us, making us dependent on waiting for a car or pulling off the road to become a pedestrian.
Back to the unfounded car comparison. A car going 100mph is going so fast that if something suddenly changed, like an unexpected pedestrian at a crosswalk, the car cannot stop and will either hit person or swerve and potentially wipe out, possibly causing public or private property damage if not hurting or killing someone. When is the last time you saw a bicycle shaped hole in the side of a building?
GarySe7en, You know nothing of what kind of car I drive or my driving skills! I drive an incredibly maneuverable car with amazing brakes and I am an excellent driver with years of experience who can certainly manage to avoid anything that would jump out in front of me!
That was sarcasm, by the way.
But it fits in with my point. Bicycles and bicyclists may have all of the abilities that you mention. However, the laws exists for everyone who uses the road--cars and bicycles. You don't get to decide which laws you don't obey and which ones you do, no matter how aware of your environment you believe you are.
There was a person several months back who was bicycling against the light and was hit by a bus. He obviously believed that it was safe to do what he did. And how in the world do you miss seeing a bus?! Of course, we'll never know what was going through his head--he was killed. Had he decided to actually follow the law and stop for the red light rather than trusting his belief of what was safe and what wasn't, he'd still be alive.
So, dare I say it, the laws might be "smarter" than you are.
As for automated detection at intersections, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I would bring that up at the meeting with the city planners. Have them add four more Walk Buttons to these intersections which face the street so that a bicyclist can press the button without having to go up onto the sidewalk.
That said, though, I'm going to bring up something else which might also be pertinent to the conversation.
I have a Specialized Allez Elite, kind of like the one pictured. It's a pretty nice bike and gets me to work and back. However, when I bought it, the one thing that surprised me was the placement of the brakes. They were okay when I was riding "flat", leaning forward. Not great, but I could reach them and use them. But if I was riding more upright, with my hands at the top of the "rams horn" handlebars, I had to reach for the brakes. Furthermore, I could really only use one brake in that situation without sliding both hands down the brakes before squeezing them.
My solution? I had them put a second pair of brakes up at the top of the "rams horn." So when I'm riding in an environment where I want to make sure I'm seen and have a better view of my surroundings, I can sit more upright and have a pair of brakes right under my hands, in the event I have to stop suddenly.
Speaking of stopping suddenly, I have also eschewed the use of clips. I wear a pair of Shimano Cycling Sandals like the ones pictured here. They can clip into pedals but I don't have clips on my pedals. The reason being that, if I have to stop suddenly, I don't want to have to deal with unclipping my foot. It also makes it convenient to "become a pedestrian" to hit the crosswalk buttons--it takes a few seconds to slide over and hit the walk button.
Now I don't know what you have for a bike. But it's possible, if you have clips, that the inconvenience of becoming a pedestrian may be of your own making. If you clip into your bicycle, I can imagine that it would a bloody nuisance to have unclip both feet and then walk your bike on your clips over onto the curb to hit the button and then remount the bike and clip in.
However, if you don't use clips, you'll have a much more convenient time of it. You might feel less of an inclination to only "slow down" at intersections rather than coming to a complete stop and have an easier time "becoming a pedestrian" in order to press the Walk button at intersections.
I mean, I understand the advantages of clipping in. All of the pro cyclists do that. But the pros aren't riding on streets in traffic--they usually close off the roads when the pros are riding. They don't have to deal with the things that the rest of us have to deal with, like people opening doors in front of us, cars trying to beat us to the corner so they don't get stuck behind us, etc.
I sold my house in Mandeville and moved out of the neighborhood because I couldn't stand the bikers any longer - I can't count the number of times they cut in front of me, deliberately rode three or four abreast, cursed at me for wanting to drive down the hill. One came down the hill and ran into the back of my car as I sat at the curb waiting for my garage door to close. When I got out of the car and asked him why he hit me, he said - "Why didn't you move?"
There were many times I would pull over because I was shaking too hard to drive after a biker had come around a blind corner on the wrong side of the road and I had almost killed him while on my side of the road driving legally.
If you think owners are being unreasonable, try taking a nature walk or enjoying your neighbors while 150 bikers race up and down the hill at the same time- they come off the hill at the top and I've checked with my car speedometer - they're often doing 40 miles an hour on the wrong side or in the middle of the road as they come down the hill. Can they stop - No, no and no! Does anyone do anything except bemoan how abused they are - No! Many people are afraid to walk with their children on week-ends because of the bikers.
If automobile owners have to obey speed limits based on safety, so should bicyclists - and it certainly shouldn't be 40mph. Cars aren't allowed to drive that speed in residential areas.
I notice there's been no mention of the homeowner at the top of Mandeville who was struck by a biker and suffered brain damage.
Say it ain't so!
http://laist.com/2008/07/12/councilman_back_pedals_on_bicycle_m.php#more
Donna,
I'm sorry to hear about the conflicts that you have encountered with cyclists. It definitely needs to be addressed and nobody on any street should be terrorized by another roadway user!
I understand the anger and the frustration and this should have been addressed a long time ago at the Neighborhood Council and in Rosendahl's office.
The doctor however shouldn't have put himself above the law and it is sickening to hear that people in the neighborhood would cheer him on and wish more ill on others.