Will the L.A. City Council endorse the cyclists bill of rights?

I want to call your attention to a good item at CityWatch, which keeps an eye on things at Los Angeles City Hall. Stephen Box, the cycling advocate, has an item there about a push to get the City Council to endorse the cyclists bill of rights. Excerpt:

[Wendy] Greuel spoke of the need to support cyclists and [Bill] Rosendahl referred to it as "a no-brainer!" Public Works Commissioner joined the Committee and spoke in favor of the need to work to create a safe environment for cyclists. Speakers from the community recounted their experiences on the streets of L.A. and of their hope that our City leadership would support cycling as a transportation and environmental solution by endorsing the Cyclists' Bill of Rights "as written -- as ridden!"

It's hard to disagree with anything in the bill of rights, but I am curious what readers think about this one. I covered the City Council for three years, and I find the resolutions that they do in support or against anything to be political cover. Ultimately, it's easy for pols to say they like cycling, but it's much harder to actually build something to improve cycling in L.A. -- that would require diligent, hard work instead of glad-handing, yammering at endless meetings, fundraising and running for higher office in midterm of their current job.

I'm not trying to be unfair. If you're a member of the L.A. City Council and you've actually done something to help cyclists, I'm glad to go on a field trip with you and see the evidence myself. Please bring the paperwork to show the improvement actually required your involvement and wasn't done by a predecessor or community group who had to beg you for your blessed help.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[BloggerPal]

It may be another way of politicking but I do not discount the fact that something good will come out of it. Let's give the City Council the benefit of the doubt. After all, if this becomes successful then it's the public who will benefit from it.

[jlex]

Everything can be political posturing, I won't argue against anyone about that. But something tells me that even if it were so, something good, at least for cyclists, could come out of it. It's a long way to go, yes, but we're getting there. Never mind the Council's personal agenda as long as in the outset, they're doing their job.

[LAlawblogger]

This is cliche, but I would say, better late than never. I think this legislation is long overdue, to say that bicycle accidents have increased in recent months.

[Gary Kavanagh]

This is important because we have political leaders actually, gasp, talking about bikes. Yes it's words and not actions at this point, but we now have politicians on record and have something to point to and say, well you said this, where is it? As long as there is deafening silence on cycling issues we aren't going to move forward. There was also a lot of talk about weakening the language of the document, and at the meeting support was strong to adopt it as is.

I'm still highly skeptical, and LA has made bike plans that weren't carried out in the past, but listening to the whole meeting, it felt to me we are seeing a shift in attitude toward cycling within city government.

[bikinginla]

My hard-earned cynicism suggests you may be right; however, having attended part of that meeting, it certainly felt like Rosendahl and Greuel were sincere in their support of cycling. But as you correctly point out, the proof will be in their actions, not their words.

The first test will come at tonight's city council meeting, when we see if their annoyance at the LAPD's sudden decision to enforce the city's unfair -- and probably illegal -- bike licensing program in select areas translates into a motion to suspend the program.

[David Galvan]

I'd agree with Steve on this one. A "bill of rights", in this case, seems the equivalent of a "non-binding resolution". It's a waste of time. If the council wants to make a gesture of goodwill toward cyclists, appropriate some funding for a cyclist-related project. If no one in the council can find the funding, then be honest about that and move on. As for political cover, yes, I think Councilmen like these things because they can say "look I signed that cyclist bill of rights. . . I care about cyclists!", but nothing actually gets accomplished except time wasted in a council meeting. Cyclists should not be fooled into thinking their city council is doing something when it really is just trying to save face.

If you want to know your government's priorities, watch the money. Everything else is just air moving and paper rustling.

[LAofAnaheim]

I hope this can happen...however, the standard LA response is bound to happen. "Won't this slow down traffic?". LA is all about cars first, not transit. There's hesitation for light rail in the valley b/c the car tires get scratched by train tracks. They don't give priority to trains in south LA b/c it "slows down traffic". Absolutely ridiculous.

I would love to see a bike network in LA. Our roads need to go on a diet. We should no longer live in a city where 5 lane streets are the norm. With no street parking or bus lanes, these cars drive 50 mph on the curb lane. That's ridiculous!

[Oscar]

sure it might be political posturing

but I think it sets the tone for how the city council and all city government should really guide their decision making process. I think community groups can point to resolutions and say "Hey you're not acting in the spirit of that resolution"

It sets the tone for cyclists to feel like this city is behind us and feel like we can work with the city as partners and make improvements to the way transportation works in this city.

I think its a first step, not a biggest or best first step, but an important one.