Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
Nearly $10 Million Owed to LAUSD by Teachers Who Were Mistakenly Overpaid
If You've Got the Time: Sunday Brunch @ Casa del Mar
Councilman Bill Rosendahl played to the cycling community last week when he announced that he was convening a Community Forum to address issues raised in the aftermath of the Mandeville Canyon "road rage" incident of July 4th.
The response to the Community Forum, which was announced last Wednesday, was so significant that the event was moved to a larger venue to accommodate the anticipated crowd.
Abruptly, Rosendahl's Office reversed course on Saturday, announcing that the Community Forum was canceled, citing concerns that "the tenor of media coverage and of blog posts would make a Monday public meeting counter-productive."
It turns out that the meeting wasn't really canceled, it simply returned to its original meeting location, this time with an exclusive guest list (notes from meeting are here).
This is hardly the public process that was championed at Wednesday's Transportation Committee, where committee members stressed the importance of public participation in the development of policy and projects in the community.
The tremendous irony in this is that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights (something Rosendahl endorsed) lists #8 as "Cyclists have the right to be actively engaged as a constituent group in the organization and administration of our communities." Apparently, that holds true only if you're on the list.
One of the invited members to the exclusive club recognizes that the Mandeville incident "does shine a spotlight on increasing tensions between motorists and cyclists and the need to address this citywide." Another attendee expressed hope that the issues raised by the homeowners could be dealt with in a way that resonated throughout the community. And yet...
The LADOT, Public Works and LAPD sat down with a council district approved group of homeowners and cyclists, including reps from "cycling groups" who took the time to communicate to the public that the meeting had been canceled, all the while knowing that the meeting was on, simply not with the public.
One can only watch and wonder what kind of success Councilman Rosendahl and the participants are expecting if the first move made is to exclude the public, move silently and then to meet.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Well, if this doesn't increase tensions even more, I'd be surprised. What a jackass move.
It was no secret that Rosendahl held this meeting. His website said that he was going to gather a "task force" to specifically discuss Mandeville canyon. This move makes complete sense to me. It would have been chaos if hundreds of people showed up to voice their opinions, most of which probably would have had nothing to do with Mandeville. Cut the guy some slack. He's one of the few council members looking out for us cyclists.
Cyclists have received death threats citywide and they are expected to just sit back in silence and wait for them, whoever they are, to resolve the issue.
When LAist published a bike vs. car incident in Beverly Hills last year and someone left a threat message on Digg, LAist received a search warrant for IP addresses.
When there is death threats citywide towards a group of people, Rosendahl keeps the lowdown and excludes the public. What if the death threats were towards a race, or sexual orientation? I bet he would be all over that issue. Why not when it's towards a group of public street users?
Perhaps Eric Garcetti would be a better ally to the bicycling community.
Has anyone tried to contact Garcetti?
Not that I think Rosendahl is a weasel. He's pretty liberal on most things, but it would be nice to see him lose some constituent support for his short sightedness. This is exactly the kind of thing that would inspire him to do better next time.
Does a violation of the Brown Act apply here?
Your comment, Enci, shows exactly why an all inclusive public meeting would have disintegrated into an unproductive chaos, which would have NOT been the way to start opening a productive dialogue between motorists and cylcists. It would have only polarized.
Also - the point of the meeting was to address the Mandeville canyon issue specifically. There will be a town hall meeting later.
It seems like it was a productive meeting judging from the minutes, with a good plan forward. Soon the changes that will be seen in Mandeville will be applied to the bike plan city wide. Baby steps...
While I agree that the private meeting was a better idea, and that an open meeting would be chaos, I don't agree with Rosendahl saying there would be a public meeting, and then not having it.
Baby steps don't excuse childish mistakes.
Failing to start the process by laying down a foundation of the law is a serious mistake.
It's not against the law to ride two abreast, it's not against the law to take the lane, it's not motorist convenience first - cyclist safety second.
Start with the law.
I'm disappointed it was closed off. Comments back and forth online have been heated, but I think it's easier to have rational discussion eye to eye then behind online screen names. People who screamed on LA Times comments that the "spandex freaks" deserved it because they because they hold up traffic (despite fact they were going speed limit), might be more moderate with a large group of cyclists staring at them, and vise versa.
benitofool,
The meeting could have been very productive with the right leadership! The Mandeville canyon issue is much bigger then you claim. Cyclists citywide (!) have received threats, not just the cyclists who ride that route! Cycling groups have received emails from angry people, threatening them to "mow them down" but next time they will be killed!
You are suggesting that cyclists should just chill and accept the threats?
And as to the Bicycle Master Plan, it has to involve the public not a few selected in a closed room. That is part of the contract!
There is no baby steps with death threats!
Well, just so we don't get out of hand with the folklore of death threats (I'm not saying they aren't true) but, I ride regularly on the West Side and I've never had any driver act even remotely aggressive towards me.
The meeting was about Mandeville, not about the greater tension between cyclists and motorists. Obviously, that's a big issue that also needs to be dealt with, but having a heated meeting with hundreds of angry people would not have been productive.
The fact that people are making death threats only underscores why such a meeting would have a been a disaster, and probably would have been spun to reflect poorly on cyclists.
I think aggressive and threatening behavior by motorists is more prevalent on the East Side. The West Side is home to more cycling clubs and cyclists cruising around the coastal roads, so I feel motorists are more used to us here, but it's far from perfect. I ride across town a lot and have many friends who ride in different parts of L.A. and have either experienced or heard of cyclists being cursed at, clipped, doored, trash thrown at them, shot in the face with a paint ball gun, chased off the road among other things. Being threatened as a cyclist on some roads is a very real thing out there. Fortunately the times I've had trash thrown at me they missed.
I'm not that regular of a rider but I've had a DASH bus and a car on an empty street act aggressively towards me.
And another thing about this. It's fine for Rosendahl to hold his taskforce, but holding it in secret is disingenuous (no, it's not a brown act violation).
All I want in Rosendahl is to be open, transparent and defend his actions like he believes in them. If he believed the task force should be a closed meeting, then announce the date of the meeting, close it to the public and say you're coming back with what happened afterwards. But if it weren't for the public saying this meeting was happening in the first place, no one may have ever known.
I agree with #12, the West Side is much, much more cyclist friendly then the East. Mandeville is a separate issue and I also agree that having a large meeting, full of angry cyclists, would not be a good way to get the Mandeville issue settled.
An open town-hall forum about the issue would def. we welcomed but it needs to be city-wide.
Ultimately, there is an opportunity here for somebody in our City's Leadership to step up and say "No more death threats against cyclists on my watch!"
"Tap, tap...is this thing on? Anybody?..."
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nina (redacted)
> To: web.master@...
> Cc: Nina (redacted)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:29 PM
> Subject: Mandeville accident
>
>
> HOORAY FOR THE DOCTOR. It's about time you lawless bunch of crayolas get what you deserve! There are several of us current and former La Habra Heights residents ready, willing and able to testify
on behalf of the doctor. YOU DON'T OWN THE STREETS, don't follow the law and are a blight on society.
Zach,
Seriously, calling Rosendahl a weasel is pretty outrageous. According to Streetsblog, the minutes will soon be released from the meeting. Of course he didn't disclose the location or time, 'cause he obviously didn't want hundreds of angry people showing up. It's not like he's keeping this thing under some masonic shroud of mystery. I know LAist is just a blog, and I suppose you don't have to uphold the journalist's code of ethics, but I feel like you should be a bit more careful about how you color people, especially when you have so many readers.
From the LATimes:
9. If bikers wanna ride in the big boy lane then they can face the big boy consequences. If you seen my rocket ripping up the canyon you better gtf out the way or we'll be coloring all of your spandex red with biological dye, feel me?
Submitted by: Buckshotty
11:57 AM PDT, July 14, 2008
Andy Chuck makes a good point and in fact, in all fairness, we should check with the weasel community to see how they feel about the comparison.
Andy,
It's an opinion. I admit I'm being snippy in the headline. I told that to Rosendahl's office and we had a little laugh when they read it over the phone.
We had a good conversation and I definitely accept their answer of "hey, we messed up." They owned it and yes, like you said, they said a follow up will be released later today.
Hi Enci -
No i'm not suggesting that we should chill and accept any threats.
The meeting that Rosendahl proposed, initially, was for a discussion on the Mandeville cycling situation - between the residents of Mandeville canyon and the cycling community that uses the route. It became evident that to invite the community at large, based on the reaction to the psychotic attempted murder with the Good Doctor, would invite discussion that would be outside this scope. That's why the public meeting was pulled.
I agree with Andy Chuck that any sort of heated discussion between cyclists and motorists would not only hurt the discussion itself, but be spun to put riders in an even worse light. I'm just glad the wheels are in motion and the precedent has been set for further dialogue.
Finally, I say baby steps because that's the only thing that'll work. In principle I'm all for legislation that bans most gas powered personal automobiles in favor of a complete urban and rural rail-transit system, for example. But it's radical enough that it wouldn't get anywhere. You can't be too militant and expect results, short of revolution. :)
Getting a large group of cyclists who have issues with motorists together in a room with motorists who don't like cyclists would probably not be very productive. And, IMO, people who are ill enough to make threats of violence towards cyclists would not have their mind or attitude changed by a public meeting, no matter how democratic or well led it might be.
All credible threats should be reported, investigated and hopefully prosecuted individually.
My personal opinion is that representatives from local cycling clubs familiar with the specific problems of Mandeville and other westside canyon roads can do an adequate job of representing my interests in this matter.
And, Harold M, I disagree, I have have more problems going up than coming down on Mandeville. How many of posters have actually ridden on Mandeville?
Missing in this debate over the process of debating the Mandeville Canyon raised debate over the law is...
City Leadership simply standing up and saying "This is the law."
It's the foundation for any reasonable discussion and action.
There is no law forbidding riding two abreast, this is not a shareable lane, lane positioning is not dictated by the impatience of the motorist but by the safety of the motorist.
CVC21 restricts a Municipality from imposing laws unless expressly permitted by State Law.
State law and then safety.
This issue has city-wide impact as is demonstrated by the incredible animosity revealed in the 600+ comments on the LATimes blog.
While those involved in this meeting were making plans to reorganize, Cycling Education Professionals were out on Mandeville Canyon preparing this video that goes he distance in addressing this situation.
http://laist.com/2008/07/14/video_of_the_day_how_to_bicycle_rid.php
Nice video, Dan and Brian do good work. Watch it again and visualize two bikes riding side by side. IMO most of those interactions with vehicles would work less well with two bikes together.
Personally I feel comfortable riding two abreast on the up-hill of Mandeville but for me that is usually only practical on the lower portion of the hill (I don't have enough lung capacity to ride and talk towards the top). But, on the downhill I feel much more comfortable riding single file. It gives me more options for what part of the roadway I can use.