L.A. plans crackdown on harassment of bicyclists. Are new laws necessary? [Updated]

The L.A. City Council is moving to get tough on harassment of bicyclists.

The council this week asked its attorneys to draw up an ordinance that would make it a civil violation to harass or assault bicyclists. The proposed law, which the council could consider in two months, would make it easier for  cyclists to sue those who allegedly harass them and recover a cash settlement. [Updated: In response to readers who asked for more information on the proposal, here are city documents on the issue.]

The bike rights campaign has been galvanized by the case of an L.A. doctor convicted a few weeks ago of purposely hitting bikers in Brentwood.

More people are turning to two wheels for commuting and recreation. Cyclists are asserting their rights as never before. In Los Angeles, advocates are pushing for more bike lanes and other road improvements, a cyclists' bill of rights and more protection from police.

Updated at 12:30: By noon this post had received more than 100 comments. Here is a sample, along with some social media reaction:

 

Is the proposed law a good idea? Share your views below.

Photo credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Stephen Martin]

Not all bikers and/or drivers know what they're doing. I'm a bicyclist and driver and it amazes me how many careless people there are in both respects.

[Overland Alum]

Follow the traffic laws as if you were in a car and you probably won't be harrassed...

Why create a new ordinance, isn't it already a crime to assault anyone (bicyclist or not)? What's next, assaults on bicyclists will be 'hate' crimes?? Sheesh...

[jlee]

How about you guys ride cars and buses like adults instead of getting around like elementary school children. If you insist on slapping on those spandex pants and ultra hip bicycling (it's bicycling, not 'cycling,' that's what lance armstrong does, these people ride bicycles) attire then at the very least stop acting like jackasses. Bicyclists downtown are possibly more obnoxious than bicyclists in the west side. Most of these idiots act like they own the road and roll around as if protected by a sense of smugness and d-baggery that empowers them to act like idiots.

Now, everybody knows exactly the type of bicycler i'm talking about. The laborers who have been riding bikes before they were 'cool' ride their bicycles differently. You all know what i'm taling about: those d-bag yuppie bicyclers downtown are a different breed. There's a hallucinatory sense of entitlement to the road that this article supports.

EVERY single person i know hates bicyclists. Your cute little mass protest rides have pissed off a lot of people. Your very existence on busy, clogged streets is an annoyance. Learn to drive or bust a gut-check and pay for gas like the rest of us. Or better yet, do what you do but let's leave the smugness at home with your adult dignity.

[Maldiction]

Really? Bicyclists need to become a protected class? Are skateboarders next? What about unicyclists? The conviction of Dr. Bikeslammer shows that current laws are enough to protect cyclists without creating new legislation. Boo.

[Victor Ray]

New laws are not needed to protect bicyclists. I'm a rider and I know two things very well. I know the rules of the road for cars and bikes and I know I'll lose a battle with a car. I use common sense when riding and take routes based on my safety not my rights as a bicyclist. I don't need protection from the police because I obey the law. Sharing the road is a two way street. Aggressive motorists cannot be legislated away any more than militant bike riders. Existing laws followed by both groups would go a long way to reducing accidents.

[stewart]

I really do think that many on bikes place themselves above the traffic laws the rest of us are compelled to observe, I mean really how many times does one see them running stop signs and red lights, cycling on the wrong side of the streets, up and over sidewalks, across the cross walks and crossing over mid block?
I know that there are times when common sense may dictate that it is silly for a bike rider to wait for things like pedestirans, red lights and cross traffic, given a bikes inherent mobility, but before some one starts bemoaning cyclists rights? Suppose we begin the conversation on the point of the rules of the road? Why even the issue of speeding should be a part of the dialogue as well, this knee jerk reaction to this one reported incident invariably leads to a jerky out come when one stops to consider the totaslity of the traffic violations I observe every day commited by cyclists who seem to think that they are exempted from moving violations, and oh those aggressive attitudes and fat mouths with hand gestures if you call them in thei conduct.
No, when ssome one actually cracks down on errant cyclists, then come see the rest of us about new laws for scofflaw riders.

[Steve]

Do we really need more laws? I fear this might lead to needless litigation when criminal and civil cases based on assault and/or battery (and potentially other crimes and torts) could do just as good a job of protecting cyclers' rights.

[Timothy Hayes]

These laws are sorely needed. I ride my bike to get everywhere and find myself the target of drink cans, unnecessary honks and profanities. I think many drivers feel that I am an appropriate target for their frustration and that they will face no consequences. Stronger laws protecting cyclists can only help. But I would prefer if they would focus on more stringent penalties for drivers involved in hit and runs or injury collisions involving cyclists. My friend has his life upended by a drunk driver, the driver got only 90 days community service and a suspended license for almost killing someone, what kind of message does that send about who the system is protecting?

[Erwin]

A good idea. I hope any new statutes include protection for pedestrians on the sidewalk where too many bicyclists ride. The exclusion should be for younger children who aren't ready for the street.

As a bicyclist, I would like drivers to take more care when bicyclists are on the road. As a motorist, I'd like to see bicyclists licensed so they're aware of their rights and responsibilities.

[Rudi Moschitz]

YES

[Yargle123]

I am a bicyclist commuter on both coasts -- of the last 20 years have owned a car for only five of them. A committed pedestrian. I have survived many years on the road (save a few scuffs) by having a healthy respect for the laws of physics and not the tort system. Laws that inflame confrontation do nothing positive to the bicycle/car relationship. The photo you show above is of a guy riding his $2000.00 road bike around for recreation; LA needs to focus on making it safe to ride and fun to ride a conventional bike to the corner store, to school, to work. This requires long term planning. Making bicyclists feel safe will greatly improve our lives and take us from a cars first/people second mentality. Share the road.

[lamom]

What is the point of this article? The motorist in Brentwood was convicted over 1 year ago. Not "a few weeks ago" as cited in this article. The conviction was a result of almost 10 years of back and forth bicycle/motorist rage and harassment in the Brentwood area. Police did nothing to support the local residents - encouraging them to take photos and identify the bike riders was their only advice. Cyclists break laws of the road in that dangerous driving area routinely. This article shows blatant bias on the part of the LA Times.

[Bob]

Often, conflicts end with the loss of life or an injury leading to long term disability. I suppose it may be easier for heirs or future caregivers in civil court, but I wonder if this isn't being driven by the insurance industry. Hospitalizations and long term care for injured and disabled cyclists is expensive. As a cyclist, I strongly suggest you don't get into "arguments" with drivers. Get off the road and get the license plate if something comes up. Colorado came up with a "three foot" rule for cars passing bikes, and it has increased conflict. Drivers are coming closer to bikes they feel are "encroaching" on the roadway, trying to push bicyclists further toward the curbs. The problem for cyclists is that debris tends to get blown by cars into those areas. This makes cycling less safe, and leads to high incidents of flats. Maybe we need to look at the cost of street cleaning cycling lanes or shared routes to accommodate both cyclists and drivers?

[Ted Briggs]

I am a cyclist and a driver. YES! Cyclist should have rights and their own lane if possible, not just to protect them but because we should encourage cycling--it reduces traffic, and is good for your health and the environment.
A truck once ran me off the road into a deep drainage ditch; thank god I had a helmet and the car behind the truck stopped to help. The truck driver saw, stopped for a second, and then sped off. I'm not even sure what the truck did was "technically illegal" but it sure as hell should have been!

Unfortunately, I agree with the previous comment that many cyclists are careless; still, most are good people deserving of a safe lane and respect!

[ergie]

We do not need new useless laws for something that is already illegal like assault. But lets also enforce the laws against the cyclists, stop riding 4 and 5 across into car lanes on PCH, cite every one of them riding with headphones on. cite every one of them riding without identification. cite every one of them who rolls right through stop signs and lights because its "too inconvenient" to come to a complete stop with thier silly little clip in shoes.. etc etc. Cycling "teams" wearing the same outfits and breaking the law should be considered by definition a "GANG" and treated as such. I see many many more violations by cyclist than by motorists, further is it the fees and taxes paid by motorists that pay for the highways, the law should be changed such that cyclists have secondary use, or introduce a cycling registration fee to increase road maintenance and add more bike lanes.

[Sven]

First I would like to say that I agree with Stephen Martin. As someone who lives in Berlin, Germany and bicycles there daily, while at the same time having owned a car in the past, I know that there are two sides to this. The bikers have the problem as coming across arrogant, whereas the car drivers often seem like they think the road belongs solely to motorized vehicles. I suggest that two things happen: first that the laws regarding cyclists are improved so that they are offered much better protection from aggressive drivers (I would also suggest that those who take driving courses are better educated on how to properly deal with bicyclists) and then secondly that the rules regarding bikers are enforced as well. Why do I suggest the part about the bikers? Here in Germany the problem is now that the bikers think they can ride on the sidewalks as well and I can´t count the number of times that I have seen idiots at full speed in a pedestrian area almost hit kids.

[toeli]

bike paths SHOULD be between sidewalk and parked cars!!!!!!!
what's so hard to understand?

[headjazz]

If they pass this law, I am going to finally start making a decent living again. I am getting my bike ready, and kaching, kaching, I will be laughing all the way to the bank! Gotta love those stupid council people!

[michael smith]

Yes, I think we do deserve protection. I've been bashed by several drivers on the road. It's about time.

[Protect and Respect the bicyclist]

The driving public does not respect people riding bicycles, at all. The police should really-sweriously enforce the laws that are on the books to protect cyclists. Also, those cyclists that break the laws and put the public's well being at risk should be cited.
The State of California needs to put together a comprehensive set of laws to protect those on bicycles. It's a war out there now.

Thank you.

[kristin]

I have commuted by bike for over a decade, and I am also a driver. Bicyclists don't need new laws to be protected. We should be treated like drivers. If we run stop signs or violate the rules of the road, the police should issue a citation. If driver harass us, treat it exactly as if they were harassing other drivers. We need equal enforcement and treatment under law. I've seen plenty of bad drivers and cyclists. The roads would be safer if all of those people were removed from the road.

[pattylou]

I was also hit by a car in Brentwood while riding in the bike lane on San Vicente. The car ran a stop sign and "T boned" me and I ended up with a broken elbow and black and blue all over. Almost every ride now feels like a survival ride because drivers open doors in our faces and speed up so they can cut us off and turn. I started cycling in 1973 in Los Angeles and the drivers on the west side are easily the rudest and most agressive and I say this as a west sider. Los Angeles has the weather and a huge obesity problem so bike lanes and paths should be a priority. For all the years the MTA squabbled about train routes and no funding we constantly begged them to at least make them bike routes until funding was secured. That was 20 years ago and still no bike paths and no trains...Take a ride in a city like Sacramento or Seattle and see how different they treat bike riding. Even all the major boulevards have bike lines. Now to all you cyclists: stop riding in the wrong direction and stay off the sidewalks unless you are getting off the bike.

[KenJr]

Rather than a new law, enforce the current laws, laws that bicyclists are supposed to follow. If they drove as they are supposed to drive, harassment would become a non-issue.

[Lou]

L.A. is not a bicycle friendly city.There are also many careless bicyclists that ride their bikes at night,on sidewalks and run a stop sign(most are young fixie riding hipster duffesses).
Law respecting riders need to assert their rights.I only ride my bike at the beach but am glad to see more people on the two wheels.

[Windfall]

The typical Marxist Democrat answer to everything problem: more government.

These proposed new laws will do nothing to enhance public safety. They will create yet another avenue of redistribution for parasitic trial lawyers.

Based on results, public roads are neither an appropriate nor intelligent place to ride a bicycle. If sharks were taking out ocean swimmers off the coast of Newport at the rate that cars take out cyclists in Los Angeles and Orange County, you would conclude that it is fool hearty to swim in this location… and you would be right.

Catastrophic accidents happen with regularity not because the drivers are out there trying to hit the cyclists but because bikes and cars are an inherently dangerous combination. One is slow and fragile. The other is quick and carrying from 3,500 to 6,000 pounds or more. Accidents are going to happen and riders are going to get killed.

The only reason why we continue to allow bikes on public roads is that in our desire to achieve some sort of politically correct statement about how bikes and cars should be able to “share the road”, we ignore the reality that it just doesn’t work. “Share the road” is exactly like “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In some fantasy world, it sort of makes sense. In the real world, it’s a fairy tale... and a lie. It doesn’t work. It only creates misery, chaos and death.

There is a reason why the California Drivers Handbook emphasizes the importance of motorists keeping up with the flow of traffic. Unusual differences in the speed of vehicles operating in close proximity increase the odds of mishaps and multiply their negative consequences. If it is necessary for the safe passage of motorized traffic for drivers to keep up with the flow of traffic – which, of course, it is - then it must follow that it is even more essential for cyclists (who are not protected by seat belts, air bags or energy-absorbing crash cages) to also keep up with the flow of traffic. But the very nature of these tiny, fragile, slow moving (and even slower accelerating) vehicles makes this impossible.

If a motorist operated his or her vehicle in the same manner as the average, responsible cyclist (let alone the numerous reckless and lawless ones), he or she could be cited for CVC Section 22400(a) minimum speed, impeding normal flow of traffic – and rightly so. The bottom line here is that it is physically impossible for cyclists not to impede the normal flow of traffic and that fact alone should have long ago been recognized and dealt with.

Share-the-roadies argue that it is possible for two radically different types of vehicles to operate safely under fundamentally different sets of rules in the same physical space. However, based on both logic and results, this position is a triumph of fantasy over reality.

It’s not a question of drivers and/or riders failing to operate in a properly accommodating manner. No new law is going to change the physics of slow moving fragile vehicles operating alongside and thus sooner or later colliding with fast moving 4,000 pound vehicles.

If you want to spend some public money to build bikes-only paths or courses, fine with me. But for the sake of the next LA or OC bike rider that otherwise will be killed in about a month or so, let’s give up this politically correct fantasy about cars and bicycles sharing the road. It doesn’t work, period.