Harassment on the Road: The Battle for a Cyclists’ Bill of Rights Rages On

Currently, the portion of the vehicle code which addresses cyclists looks as if it must have certainly been drafted by someone who does not ride a bike. Where the vehicle code allows for certain ambiguities, the proposed Cyclists’ Bill of Rights leaves little to the imagination, although it is even more concise than the present code. Rather than merely covering what a bicycle is restricted to, the bill reassures cyclists of the safety and accommodations to which they are entitled. The new bill explicitly proposes that bicyclists have the same rights as cars have on the road including the right to adequate space on the road, the right to be considered during community planning, and the right to a supportive and protective law enforcement system. It also would hold cyclists responsible for ignoring roads laws; they would be ticketed just as if they were in a car.

While searching through a number of blogs, I encountered several which addressed the main themes addressed in the Bill of Rights. The first, Mass. Bike and the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, was posted by Damien Newton on Street Heat. His comment addresses the legislative history and struggles faced by the bill. Later, considering some of the problems which are caused by the lack of such legislation, I came upon another blog called Westside BikeSIDE! by Alex Thompson, which is dedicated to the culture of bicycles in West Los Angeles as well as local rides and activism. This post, Police: Ignorant of Bike Laws? Make Them Up! discusses some of the problems caused by the vague language in the vehicle code. It also led me to a number of other postings in which the safety of cyclists was compromised because of misunderstandings or a total lack of knowledge of the vehicle code.

“Mass. Bike and the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities”

Comment: However briefly, you quite effectively outlined for your readers what the Bicyclists’ Bill of Rights and Responsibilities intended to do: create equality between bikes and cars, for better and for worse. Your post discusses the bill’s near success in 2006 by Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, stating “Healey’s excuse for the veto showed a complete misunderstanding of what the legislation was about.” It seems that this is a common problem with trying to get bicycle legislation passed in our country: getting people to listen, and one we do, convincing them of its significance. This post made me think about what drivers ultimately stand to gain from the practical application of this bill, even though it seems few of them realize it. Especially in Los Angeles, a police officer will rarely stop to scold or ticket a cyclist unless they are doing something truly dangerous; they simply seem to have better things to worry about. With this bill of rights in effect, drivers could count on bikers being held accountable for running stop signs or red lights, which happens often since they know they can get away with it. You also mention “retraining” for police officers, which I would have liked to read more about. I think every officer has a different standard for what constitutes law-breaking on a bicycle. In my experience, most police will leave a well-lit, safely riding biker alone right up until someone in a car gets upset. You have more than likely heard about the Hollywood bus driver who blared her horn and passed a cyclist within inches then berated him at the next stoplight, later rolling over his bicycle when he pulled in front of the bus to stop her from leaving while he called to report her. This is yet another of so many examples of cyclists being treated like second-class citizens simply because the current vehicle code is insufficient to inform drivers and even cops of harmonious street etiquette. I completely agree that patience and continued efforts in a number of different “baskets” is the only way to ensure that in time the streets will be a safer place to ride.

“Police: Ignorant of Bike Laws? Make Them Up!”

Comment: I enjoyed your post on the ignorance of police officers as to the specifics ignored in the California Vehicle Code. By passing new laws about bikes we have an opportunity as a society to reeducate the public, drivers and police alike, as to how to interact on the road with cyclists. Most cyclists that I know have made it their business, their duty, to learn the ins and outs of the vehicle code in the name of protecting themselves against those who would harass them on the road. I appreciated these anecdotes of unfair treatment as I have often heard stories of this nature, but usually the perpetrators are angry car drivers rather than those who supposedly patrol the streets enforcing the law. Your reaction to these hypocrisies is understandable and admirable. Of the people I know who have experienced similar things, almost nobody has been able to properly complain about what has happened to them since usually the act is committed by an angry, uninformed driver or bus. In these situations, because it is difficult to file a formal complaint, bikers usually react by knocking against windows of the car or catching up to whoever has cut them off and enlightening them on the true rules of the road. It is simply unfortunate that many drivers choose to remain in this state of ignorance rather than inform themselves, and that the officers designated to protect cyclists often remain biased against them.

Taking a Hint: The Conversion to a Bike Friendly Nation

Western Europe is leaps and bounds ahead of the United States in terms of committing to a healthier planet through the creation a bicycle friendly environment. Here in Los Angeles, a city that is flooded by cars as well as cyclists (see picture left), riders can be hesitant about taking to the streets since often road conditions are so poor they are hazardous. A concern for safety and bike theft are two of the greatest reasons why more people choose not to ride bicycles according to polls done in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Drivers who are reluctant to share the road are a result of poor public education about the California Vehicle Code. They often force cyclists to the side of the road which may cracked, lined with drains, or simply of lesser quality. Many drivers believe that bikes are to be ridden on the sidewalk or in the lane reserved for parked cars where drivers swing open their doors without so much as a glance into traffic. However, according to the Vehicle Code, bicyclists ought to ride as close to the right of the street as is “practicable,” meaning that a large pothole or broken glass is justifiable cause to momentarily ride nearer to the middle of the street. Public concern in California for environmental issues is nowhere near that of other parts of the world that have begun to take significant steps to enable their cyclists in an effort to become more eco-friendly.

Other states have begun to recognize the importance of protecting their cyclists by instating a law to protect them with a three-foot minimum for passing. In California, however, bicycle legislation is at a standstill. Could it be the excessive traffic burgeoning within an inadequate number of lanes? Or perhaps the refusal to admit that cycling is already quite prevalent in many cities, and would be even more so if it were safer? I will have to agree with K.C. Butler, Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition and say that “bicycling still isn’t seen as a serious mode of transportation by many policy- makers, organizations and a good portion of the public.” This is the inherent struggle of attempting to create a bike friendly city. In order to achieve this many roads must be repaved, greater transportation networks are needed in areas which otherwise are not bicycle accessible, and the general public should be provided an education as to how to drive with bikes when first learning to operate a car. The list goes on and on. While these changes would require an upheaval of the current methods, not to mention the political fuel and funds to carry them out, the benefits of creating a city in which cars and bikes can coexist are manifesting themselves in a number of cities.

Along with China, the United States tops the list of countries using the greatest quantities of oil; two thirds of that oil is used to fuel vehicles. In the past, politicians have cited economical reasons for their refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which required participating countries to lower their emissions by 5.2% from their numbers during 1990 over the course of 4 years. All fifteen of the then current members of the European Union ratified the agreement.

Copenhagen is one of the most eco-friendly cities in the world. They have made environmental consciousness one of their greatest priorities. Over there, 36% of the population commute daily by bike (see picture, above). Their local government has been instrumental in creating accomdations for its cyclists. Some of the initiatives being debated in Copenhagen to encourage bikers might seem extremist or unnecessary to Americans. For example, one proposal is to close one of the city’s busiest streets, Nørrebrogade, to automobile traffic to make it safer for cyclists to travel along its relatively narrow lanes. This has been well- received among the people of Copenhagen. Since so many in Copenhagen rely on their bicycles as their sole means of transportation, safer conditions and an abundance of bike parking facilities have become a necessity.

A government that caters to its cyclists can make a number of positive changes for both its citizens and the greater world, and without political support these changes are next to impossible. In Copenhagen, for example, by increasing the number of everyday bicycle commuters in the city by 14%, officials anticipate that their citizens will be able to lower their carbon emissions another 80,000 tons every year. Although President Bush does sometimes address environmental issues, the trend is to focus legislation on what can be done for cars rather than what can be done to facilitate other less destructive means of transportation. This is simply Bush changing the rules to appear productive instead of designating the appropriate funds to actually invest in a solution. The recent signing of the energy bill is just another example of this as the bill raises the standard for fuel-efficiency for new cars from 25 to 35 miles per gallon. A Copenhagen-esque biker’s utopia may currently seem a bit futuristic or improbable to Californians, but in no way is the achievement of a bike-friendly society out of our reach. In order to acheive this kind of city, Los Angeles will have to foster greater public education and concern about the effect of our carbon emissions on the environment, and explore methods to improve our effect.