Westside Bikeside is not your blog Hummer Supporter – you are invited to get your own.

How Did You know that I am Fat and Lazy.

So Hummer-Supporter, you support the right of this SUV to get in an accident and leave without giving insurance information? You support the right of this SUV to run over 3 bicycles in an attempt to leave the scene?

I am a commuter bicyclist and I stop at red lights.

Do you drive under the speed limit at all times?

“By law, bicycles are vehicles. There shouldn’t be any confusion about that.”

Actually, they’re not. They’re devices. A small mistake but nevertheless, a mistake.

CVC specifies that Cyclists “have all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers” and then goes on to contradict that statement with exceptions.

Can the operator of a motor vehicle drive on the sidewalk, use a bike path or cross in a crosswalk? Not hardly and yet our leadership still builds facilities such as the orange Line Bike Path that directs cyclists to use the crosswalk.

So while it may be true that there shouldn’t be any confusion, there is. At all levels, from user groups to law enforcement to local legislative bodies and to the judicial system.

So you’re in good company!

But you’re still confused.

“See you on the Streets!”

“Who gets blamed when a car hits a pedestrian? The car.”

This is because in California pedestrians have the right of way in every circumstance, even when the pedestrian is engaged in illegal behavior. I believe this to be a flaw in the legal system, but it’s entirely unrelated to the matter at hand.

“As cyclists, we have a problem: we often can’t decide if we are pedestrians or vehicles.”

By law, bicycles are vehicles. There shouldn’t be any confusion about that.

“Just as certain laws and policy make it better for cars (raising speed limits, widening freeways), better transportation policy (bike lanes!) will encourage more responsible behavior.”

I agree with this, but it goes both ways. You can’t say “we’ll be responsible, but you have to do something for us first.” You need to give people a reason to want to do something for you if you’re going to ask. And as I said at the beginning, people like you encouraging other riders to engage in safe, legal, and courteous behavior can go a long way.

“I’m not talking about group rides but the day-to-day irresponsible behavior.”

Let’s not discount the group rides. There are two reasons that they are significant. One is that the same legal and common sense rules of safety (that of the riders as well as the public at large) still apply. The other is that this is the time when bicycles are most visible and when the greatest impressions are made on non-riders. That is, I believe, a major part of the reason these rides take place.
If the impression being made is one of friendly, courteous, and safe riders, this will be a positive one and will make people think “hey, maybe I should ride my bike. too bad there aren’t more bike lanes. someone should do something about that.” Good impressions=benefits to bicyclists.
If on the other hand, the impression being made is of a bunch of jackasses with a mob mentality effectively shutting down portions of the city, this will make people think “it’s those god damn bicyclists again! someone should run those idiots down. I hope they make it illegal to ride a bike in this part of town.” Bad impressions=rage towards bicyclists.
You see the difference?

As cyclists, we have a problem: we often can’t decide if we are pedestrians or vehicles. Running red lights is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m talking about the people who ride against traffic, on sidewalks, or what have you. Pedestrians routinely run red lights, walk against traffic sometimes on the shoulder, or chase items into the street. That’s what people do. Who gets blamed when a car hits a pedestrian? The car.

I believe that this confusion between cyclists as vehicles or pedestrians will improve as cycling culture in LA gets more hospitable. Just as certain laws and policy make it better for cars (raising speed limits, widening freeways), better transportation policy (bike lanes!) will encourage more responsible behavior. What doesn’t help this process is unadulterated car v. cyclist rage (cars running over bikes at a group ride, for example) or poor officer training. Generalizing the behavior of a few to the rest of us does not fit under the “helping” category.

“There are bad apples on the cop squad and bad apples in the bike community. You cannot create or (in L.A. ’s case) not create laws based on only a small percentage of a certain group.”

I regularly see hundreds of bicyclists in packs ignoring lights and obstructing traffic. At the top of this page I see a link to midnightridazz.com, a group that organizes such rides. I’m going to put 2 and 2 together and say the people posting on this blog are the same people participating in those rides. Those are the people screaming about “unfair” treatment at the hands of police and demanding protection from the city.

People here keep saying that the red light runners are in the minority (even the ones defending the practice). So let’s hear from all those who can honestly say they don’t run lights when they ride.

I’ll start. I stop at red lights.

“Cyclists are already riding against a cultural norm by riding, so they tend to be flexible about the red light one as well.”

Let’s break this down, shall we. You claim that running a red light on a bicycle isn’t as bad or as dangerous as running a red light in a car. Does that make it safe or acceptable? No it does not. It still poses a risk of causing a severe traffic accident. It creates the risk of severe injury or death to the bicyclist running the light, to the drivers trying to avoid said bicyclist (who could potentially hit each other, hit stationary objects, or hit pedestrians as well as hitting the offending bicyclist), and to bystanders who could get caught up in the ensuing wreckage.
Despite the running of red lights being illegal and extremely dangerous, whether on a bike or in a car, you somehow reason that as a bicyclist you deserve a pass on that particular law. The law doesn’t allow you that pass, and neither does logic or reason, but you take that liberty anyway.

From this comes the source of the councilman’s argument. If you refuse to follow the law, and in so refusing put yourselves and others in danger, how can you reasonably ask for new laws to be enacted to protect you?

I refuse to nit-pick at any of these comments, there’s no way a person who commutes every day of his or her life by bicycle can explain the shit that we go through to a motorist. We put our lives on the line every day for what we believe in, while you sheep continue to wait in line to get onto your I-405s and I-10s.

There’s that sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier.

“There is no fucking we.”

Isn’t “we” what this blog and this movement are about? You’re bringing bicyclists together as a group for the purpose of advocacy and thus defining yourselves as a “we”. A part of doing that is taking responsibility for the worst actions of your members as well as claiming credit for the best. If, as you say, there is no “we” in the context of the illegal and dangerous activities of those among your numbers, then there can be no “we” in the context of the benefits you seek to gain for them.
Either give up on activism, or become responsible, follow the laws, and look out for your own safety as well as mine.

Firstly – I think you would really like Will Campbell’s blog “[sic]” and Ted’s blog BikinginLA. They very much come from where you’re at – a sort of steely backbone ethical approach.

I think we’re getting closer to a consensus on this, and you’ve understood what I mean by “there is no fucking we.” I agree that, to some extent, cyclist behavior is connected with motorist treatment of cyclists. I’m not going to get into the whole group riding thing – lets just stipulate that I think group rides, including ones that cork lights, are a great thing, and I think worth taking a hit on image for.

The thing I’m curious about is, when motorists and community leaders say things like “you guys always run lights” to justify not enabling cyclists, where is that coming from. I mean, I heard Councilman LaBonge give a textbook version of the “you guys run lights and therefore we can’t do anything for you” speech at transportation committee.

I think a lot of it just comes from being defensive. Now, and to a greater extent when I was younger, when faced with a counterargument to mine, my mind starts churning out strong logical rebuttals. And I think this red light one is one that passes the basic “will this be considered rational” test. So people give it as justification for something dumb they said, or defending the reckless behavior of some driver.

The other thing I think is that running a red light is taboo. The negative consequences of running a red light in a car are obvious and dramatic. You learn this when driving, and so running a red light in day light is really really frowned upon. However, speeding, which has similar negative consequences, is not as dramatically illustrated to be dangerous, so it is not taboo. So something like 85% of drivers speed excessively but they don’t run reds.

So, cyclists running reds are breaking a taboo. And when people bitch about it they do it in that same tone that they do about so & so taking off her top, or “those kids these days” or anything else that breaks cultural norms.

But the thing is that running a red on a bike just doesn’t pose the same danger to others that it does in a car, and more generally doesn’t pose the same danger to you. Sight lines are better, and you don’t weigh a bazillion pounds. Cyclists are already riding against a cultural norm by riding, so they tend to be flexible about the red light one as well.

It wasn’t my intent to justify motorist rage (or legal repression of our rights to the road), but I can see now that my previous comment essentially does that, and that my thinking is indeed flawed. You are absolutely correct. Our rights and our treatment by motorists should be independent of the actions of others. Our right to safety and the road is written in law.

In regards to “There is no fucking we” – I personally feel that the “we” is unavoidable.

As you state – while the actions of other cyclists shouldn’t affect my treatment on the road, unfortunately they do. It’s not right. It’s not legal. But I feel that’s just how it is. I think this is because while I’ve met many LA cyclists that know that we have an equal right to the road, I’ve met many others that seem to think that we have *more* of a right to the road. It’s continually running into the latter that has affected my thinking on this issue.

“There is no fucking we” – I’m taking this to mean that we as cyclists should not be judged as a group, nor judged by the negative actions of a few. Our treatment as individual cyclists is legally established and should be free of context.

If so then this is an ideal that underrepresented or misunderstood communities the world over would benefit from. But I personally think it’s idealistic.

I feel that as long as there is an unavoidable “we” then the best way to ride and live is to be a good ambassador but have a spine. To me that means:
Ride well.
Ride lawfully.
Be courteous.
Stand up for your rights.
Look after your own.

Of course, all this may be irrelevant if I’m misinterpreting what you mean by “There is no we”

How about this flawed thinking:
“And since when did the punishment for running a red light become death by Emily, in a Hummer of her choosing?”

Your logic here appears to be that a punishment of death is too severe for running a red light, therefore you should be allowed to run red lights with impunity.

“… the degree of respect of cyclists by motorists is more closely connected with a sense of entitlement and a cultural assumption that cyclists do not have a right to the road …”
Yet you would counter this with your own sense of entitlement? Are you entitled to ride six abreast across two traffic lanes at barely more than a walking pace while ignoring traffic lights? No, you absolutely are not. Yet I see hundreds of riders doing just that every time you gather for one of these righteous indignation rallies, and I expect this to happen tomorrow.

I have a job, and therefore can’t make it to city hall in the middle of the day on a Friday. Otherwise I’d be there in support of the police who recognize the hoards of bicyclist attempting to take LA streets hostage as dangerous to themselves and to others.

midnight spud-ttack!

cyclists fan out across the city under the cover of night, each shoving multiple taters up the tailpipes of h1s, -2s and -3s. h1-3 drivers wake up and can’t start their oversized paramilitary vehicles, due to the tuber-centered uprising.

victory! from the roots of justice will sprout the foliage of, well, further justice. oh, the glory of it…

anyway, cheers to all those who make it tomorrow, to channel their energy more productively that i’m capable of doing :)

Dave, this is some awfully flawed thinking. When I leave my house on my bike I don’t issue license to motorists everywhere to treat me with respect or disrespect based on the current degree of lawful cycling by others. Safe driving and respect for cyclists’ lives should not depend on how perfectly we collectively adhere to the California Vehicle code.

You shouldn’t be so quick to explain motorist aggression as an act of justice making on their part. If anything the degree of respect of cyclists by motorists is more closely connected with a sense of entitlement and a cultural assumption that cyclists do not have a right to the road, and has nothing to do cyclists’ degree of lawful behavior. If cyclists running reds is the top reason motorists cite for feeling cyclists are illegitimate road users, that only means they’re trying to explain rationally (and failing) what is fundamentally emotive behavior – irrational aggression. It does not mean is the actual basis of their behavior.

I think I’ve found another post topic, which I can summarize as follows:

There is no fucking we.

But her response as a whole has almost no bearing on the Hummer incident as described. The key issues there, IMO, are the use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon, leaving the scene of an accident, fleeing the scene of an accident on foot, threatening bodily harm and violence, destruction of property, and a complete disregard for law and procedure by a police officer.

-Watthew Woore?

Dear Steve,
You appear to be one of the people that make our lives hell on the road. You also appear to be someone that can’t have a civil conversation with someone you disagree with. Other than wishing death upon those that may have caused a few inconveinences for you (something that defintiely WON’T gain you the respect you crave you fucking idiot…excuse the language), why don’t you try taking part in existing efforts to make Los Angeles a safer place for cyclists to ride? People in our government disagree everyday Steve! If you pay attention, you’ll notice that politicians that wish death upon the other guys usually don’t have stellar careers. “Next time the HUMMER should just CRUSH all of them…” Stupi…..er…..Steve, remember that this is someone that could’ve lost their life. I’m sure you’d have a different opinion if it were a family member of yours. That being said, if you can’t change your irrational, inconsiderate, uneducated, narrow, and shallow line of thinking, I suggest you jump into a fish bowl and swim around with the others, therby increasing your chances of survival in a society that requires people to be able to count to 6.

Offended by your brain fart,
Joseph :-/