Ride Boldly! » california

Educating Law Enforcement

julie — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:26:29 +0000

0saves

When we discuss the 5 Es, it’s easy to get hung up on engineering (the process of building bicycle-friendly streets and facilities for cyclists). However, the cooperation of law enforcement can be a big deal for bicyclists. An engaged and educated police force helps cyclists because it understands the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists, and it also helps with PR (because law enforcement may also take action against scofflaw cyclists).

In the Twin Cities area, many local police departments are well-trained about cyclist rights and responsibilities. I have personally had positive interactions with both Minneapolis and Saint Paul police in this regard. Awareness of cyclists and traffic laws can be a little more sporadic in certain counties and rural enforcement areas.

I’m always interested in seeing the materials being used with police departments to educate, regardless of location. The below video is a capture of materials used with the LAPD in Los Angeles, a city that is trying to become friendlier to cyclists, and whose police department hasn’t the best reputation for a lot of things.

Knowledgeable law enforcement is a really big deal for cyclists. At an accident scene, it can be the difference between a motorist getting a ticket or not in some scenarios, and to be frank, it’s a heck of a lot easier to try to press an insurance claim in the presence of a documented moving violation than when the police assume the cyclist is at fault. This is part of the reason the proposed harsher penalties for causing injury accidents to cyclists and pedestrians are important.

Copyright © 2012 Ride Boldly!. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact legal@www.rideboldly.org so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

New House Transportation Committee Member: Biking Shouldn’t Be a Part of Committee Work

julie — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:50:24 +0000

0saves

Save

I love DC Streetsblog, because they’re in the capitol and thus have all kinds of opportunity to access members of Congress, congressional hearings, you name it — and they provide awesome, targeted coverage.

Today, they published an interview with US Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a new member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to learn about his priorities as a member of the committee. The big takeaway from their discussion: Hunter says roads are constitutionally mandated, but transit and bikes aren’t. Transit should be built if it can be self-supporting and pay for itself. If communities want to do bike stuff, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t come out of the work of the House Transportation Committee or somehow be mandated from the federal level.

Hunter outright says: “I don’t see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane…. I think it’s more of a recreational thing.”

The argument that roads are constitutionally mandated comes from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, which enumerates Congressional powers. The specific statement is that Congress has the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

Of course, back in the day, only major towns had a post house, and the roads used by post riders or mail coaches were the ‘major’ routes. The spread of postal service has blurred the traditional distinction. To go all constructionist on the issue, most roads wouldn’t qualify under this clause as mandated for federal support.

Of course, if bicycles are allowed on these constitutionally-mandated roads and they’re designed for multi-modal use, wahoo. Somehow, I’m not sure that’s how Congressman Hunter approaches the issue, and I’m pretty positive he’s not the only congresscritter with such views. Hijinks are going to ensue, undoubtedly. Welcome to the new Congress.

Media Bias in Cycling Accidents

julie — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:23:28 +0000

Bob Mionske, author of the excellent and invaluable Bicycling & the Law, has highlighted the issue of media bias in bicycle-vehicle accidents in his newest VeloNews column.

I would be the first to agree with his assertion that cyclists who blow stop signs or disrespect the rules of traffic “(provide) the ammunition to those who want to restrict our rights to the road.” In fact, I regularly rant about that very issue. At the same time, something he doesn’t mention in this column is that we might expect a city like San Francisco, known as a progressive city, to have somewhat more enlightened views of a green, low-pollution transport method such as cycling. However, that’s not reflected in the recent Chronicle coverage of a pair of cyclists killed by a law enforcement official who CROSSED THE CENTER LINE of the roadway. It is difficult to argue that their deaths were provoked by their legal use of their own through lane.

This is why bike education is important – and not merely for cyclists, but for law enforcement, legislators, and drivers. Aggression by cyclists and drivers creates mutual escalation, when the goal should be to work together as road users. Many law enforcement officers have little training in bicycle statutes and rules for road use, resulting in some ridiculous situations – I’ve personally experienced such a situation, in which the citation against me was laughed out of court by the county prosecutor as ‘completely without legal basis.’

We all need to work together. Unfortunately, there’s a long way to go there.

‘Critical Manners’ Responds to ‘Critical Mass’

julie — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:35:45 +0000

A group in San Francisco have decided to demonstrate road-sharing in response to mild disgust at the behavior of local Critical Mass riders.

I’ve always felt Critical Mass sent the wrong message. While I see a point of militancy in social movements, at the same time I’ve always had concern what an encounter with a bunch of Critical ‘Massholes’ does for a motorist’s perception of a lone rider, later — even if that lone rider is riding in a legal manner. Critical Mass is almost the definitional opposite of ‘traffic calming’ — it’s angry people making other people angry.

I like the Critical Manners concept. It will be interesting to see if this particular cycling meme spreads.

Cyclist-Motorist Buffers

julie — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:15:38 +0000

I always question the utility of buffer laws — rules in a state’s vehicle code that defines how closely a vehicle can pass a cyclist using a roadway legally. California is currently considering Assembly Bill 60, which would require that a driver passing a cyclist maintain at least a 3-foot buffer zone between their car and the bicycle. Current California statute requires that the car maintain a ‘safe’ buffer while passing.

Proposed penalty for violation of the statute is a $250 ticket. Of course, that’s if law enforcement sees the penalty and chooses to write the ticket.

One thing the new proposed rule adds versus current statute: A motorist would be allowed to cross the double yellow line into a center turn lane while passing. This isn’t permitted now. Some opponents of the bill are creating ‘oh no’ scenarios as part of their opposition, but most of their counter-arguments are pretty silly and suggest that motorists aren’t able to simply brake and wait if necessary.

Proponents of this California legislation are citing similar rules in other states. Minnesota is one such. And, as a Minnesotan, I really question how much the rule does for bicycle safety, or for awareness of cyclists among drivers. In a completely and utterly unscientific poll, people on my team at work had no idea that there was a statute requiring a 3-foot passing distance between a bicycle and a car. (It’s Minnesota Statute 169:18, Subd. 3, section 3, for the record.) While I didn’t take driver’s ed in this state, I know it wasn’t on the driving test I took when I moved here.

Given the lack of knowledge of the statute, and the conditions required for enforcement, what good is this kind of legislation except to make some legislators feel fuzzy inside? Anyone know?