Mar 20 2008
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council adopts Cyclists’ Bill of Rights!
While everybody was out drinking themselves into a green oblivion Monday night, seven members of the Bike Writers Collective (BWC) were having “wholesome sober” fun attending the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council. The Council adopted the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights in full, leaving the bloggers of the Bike Writers Collective giddy.
The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council formed in October after a persistent campaign for recognition of the neighborhood by the current members of the Council. The Council, whose territory includes the Bicycle Kitchen and Orange 20 Bikes, is a tight knit progressive group including many cyclists.
Local bike activist Colin Bogart introduced the Council to Cyclists’ Bill of Rights (CBR), and encouraged the Council to adopt the document, and the Council agreed to consider it. While considering the document the Council thought to add to the list of rights an enumeration of responsibilities. Stephen Box learned this and sounded the call for the BWC to ensure the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights remained unamended.
Confronted with cyclists’ declaration of their rights, obstinate politicians have argued that from rights follow responsibility, and therefore we should be pushing a Cyclists’ Bill of Rights & Responsibilities. Perhaps, but do US citizens celebrate the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights & Responsibilities? No! The most visionary aspect of the US Bill of Rights was that it asserted that people have irrevocable rights. Government predominantly acts in either a prohibitive or prescriptive manner - telling us what we can’t do, or telling us how to do what we do. The Bill of Rights sets aside parts of life - speech, our possessions, etc - and positively asserts that we have freedom to handle these aspects of our lives according to our wishes. It defined certain realms of life as free from government interference.
Similarly, cyclists concerned with perceptions have argued that if we plan to claim the rights in the CBR, we should simultaneously condemn cyclists who run red lights and stop signs. They argue that cyclists must earn rights collectively by making individual cyclists behave respectfully. NONSENSE! When racists abuse the right to free speech do we lose our rights to free speech? No. When a murderer hides behind the protections of the 4th Amendment do we lose our right to security of our possessions? No! When a cyclist blows a red light, do I lose the right to ride safely and free of fear? NO! Rights belong to individuals, and the behavior of one individual cannot lose those rights for another individual. The positive assertion of our rights separately from responsibilities is a key element of this worldview.
So, dressed in green, we nervously entered the Council meeting. Concerns that the CBR might be saddled with responsibilities depressed us: cyclists are so often denied rights with the excuse that other cyclists fail in their responsibilities. Furthermore, governing bodies are difficult to sway on behalf of cyclists. The Santa Monica City Council so far has failed to act on behalf of Santa Monica Critical Mass, and the LA Department of Planning has not responded to broad requests for more community input into the Bicycle Master Plan.
To our shock and delight, the Council engaged us positively and directly the moment we entered. In hindsight, why shouldn’t they? We’re all progressives, and we’re in this together. We fight the same dogmatic status quo, so our fight is their fight.
Honoring that commonality, Bike Oven founder Josef Bray-Ali, Stephen Box, and I spoke to the Council as equals, seeking to educate and understand. I have never seen such an inquisitive public body. The Council asked numerous questions, and discussed the issues amongst themselves without the cagey self awareness of most politicians. It was disarming, and impressive. I felt that the Council genuinely understood our concerns, and they were secure enough to engage in discussion.
The result? The Council respected the request of the BWC, and adopted the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights. Awesome! I admit I wouldn’t be singing their praises quite so much had they not done so. Still, I respect the forthright, open way that the Council engaged the public, independent of their decision. East Hollywood is lucky to have this courageous group; they have a bright future.
Oh, did I mention that the Council also discussed their recommendations for the LA Bike Master Plan? Yeah! The BWC persuaded them to change several elements to their recommendations: they added a request for more community input meetings, and added a recommendation for motorist education.
Email them to thank them: ehnc@easthollywood.net, or post below!
(BWC members in attendance: Alex Thompson, Erik Knutzen, Josef Bray-Ali, Westside BikeSIDE contributor Mihai Peteu, Mikey Wally, Stephen Box, and Will Campbell)
Similar Posts
- TAKE ACTION: Ride to the Mandeville Canyon Assault Community Meeting, Monday, 6:30pm
- We need a Bicyclist Bill of Rights
- The Cyclist’s Bill of Rights
- Important Planning Meeting Today (Tuesday), at Santa Monica City Council
Since you ended the thread on blogging.la.
Why don’t cyclist start a second to the right movment, meaning you take the lane second to the right. You take the whole lane (that’s safer, I see alot of cyclist doing that hugging the side of a lane thing and then cars can squeeze in, cyclist need to make their lane unsqueezable.) Cyclist aren’t supposed to have to share a lane with cars, they are viewed as a car (well you know that,) so why don’t you start the we are taking the second to the right lane movement.
That way you won’t have problem with the busses and it will educate car drivers that you have the right to be on the road.
You should also carry bamboo staffs to beat cars into submission, but that’s only for the brave. I’m very pro kicking cars that try to run me off the road.
Browne
Awesome write-up, Alex! Very, very, very nice! I’m really bummed that I couldn’t be there :-(
Thank you for attending the meeting and speaking in support of the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights. I was able to introduce it via the Planning and Beautification committee, but was unable to attend the full council meeting. I’m sorry I missed it. Thanks also for the additional suggestions to the BMP update.
I just posted a YouTube video of the meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnKZv41sbqg
Yo - thanks for that YouTube posting Josef. Pretty cool!
You have a very strange (and incorrect) view of “rights and responsibilities”, and used some rather warped logic in your discussion of that. In fact, yes, we do have the bill of rights. And, we also have laws which specify what our responsibilities are.
I think the issue stems from riders not exercising common courtesy and common sense on the roads shared with automobiles. The road rage incident in Mandeville canyon is another example of that.
@Bob
Rudeness is now a justification for assault? You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting so. See you Monday.
No, I didn’t say that. I was suggesting that the riders shared some responsibility for the resulting (despicable) acts of that driver. I wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to fully discuss that here. Feel free to delete the below portion, if you deem it isn’t the appropriate place to discuss.
I find it horrifying that these two guys were essentially attacked by the driver. They didn’t deserve that, and I don’t condone the drivers actions. He should be prosecuted.
What bothers me is how much responsibility these riders may bear in bringing this incident upon themselves. They were reportedly blocking the road by not riding single file. In fact, the eyewitness account I just read stated that they were in the middle of the road, and did NOT move to the right as the driver approached – “…Ron and Christian were ahead of me and Ron was close to the center of the lane and Christian was to his right.” http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/08/july-4th-road-rage-crash-grabs-police-and-media-attention/#comment-1459
And it has been reported that the driver shouted an insult at them, and one or both shouted back at him. Frankly, I doubt this would have happened if they had moved over to the right –the driver would not have had anything to go psycho over.
This incident is yet one more example of the all too common road rage. But, it also sheds a very negative light on inconsiderate bikers, or groups of bikers, who essentially take over a road, and impede the safe flow of traffic. Yes, us bikers every right to use the road. But common sense and common courtesy dictates that if we are going slower than the flow of traffic, or much slower than the typical automobile would travel on a road (regardless of what the speed limit is), we should move over and allow automobiles to safely pass us. Remember – impeding the flow of traffic (even if traffic is exceeding the speed limit) is NOT lawful, regardless of whether you are on a bike or in a car. I have been riding for over 20 years, and have never experienced ANY problems by adhering to this simple principle.
Please, think of that the next time you are in a large group of bikers, riding 5 or 6 wide, riding much slower than the flow of traffic (blocking traffic). And don’t be so surprised when motorists honk at you to move over, or when they become upset when you act as-if it’s your right to ride in the middle of traffic at 20MPH.
In the end, I hope some good comes from this. I hope that an example is made of that driver with a severe & stiff punishment. And, I hope that more riders will take Darwinism into account, and realize that there are crazy people out there, who will react to and punish them for being inconsiderate riders – remember, the car always wins.
Bob,
I guess you’re not familiar with Mandeville Canyon Rd. There is no room to ride to the right. Moreover, these riders were descending at 30mph, which is past the speed limit. The road is extremely twisty, so it’s hard to go much faster than that.
California Vehicle Code says, if one is riding slower than the flow of traffic, one must ride as far to the right as is practicable, unless you cannot safely share the lane with motor vehicles. In this case you cannot safely share the lane, so they rightly took the lane. The CVC does not indicate that you must ride single file when you have taken the lane, nor does that make logical sense.
In short, they had the right to the road, and they were doing the correct thing by taking the lane. You don’t understand the law correctly - the CVC says nothing about impeding the flow of traffic. Here’s the text; please familiarize yourself with it:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
I am quite familiar with the CA vehicle code. And in fact, the CA vehicle code does discuss impeding traffic, if only you would cite to (and not ignore) the proper codes.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21650.htm
But still, regardless of the codes, ultimately, the first part of your statement is true:
“The CVC does not indicate that you must ride single file when you have taken the lane…”
But the final portion:
“…nor does that make logical sense.”
is not logical, nor does it make any sense. This event proves my point well.
The psycho driver had no problem with the eyewitness, because the eyewitness was not riding center lane.
It behooves those who want to avoid the wrath of psycho drivers to make as much room as safely possible. The eyewitness did that, and will be riding tomorrow. We cannot say the same for Ron and Chris. I.e., Ron and Chris were not doing the right thing, and the eyewitness was.
You just don’t know what you’re talking about, again and again. The eye witness is unharmed because he some distance behind the Ron & Christian, and the driver injured them by slamming on his brakes. The eyewitness had time to stop.
It had nothing to do with the pass . . . and the fact that you don’t know that is indicative of your ignorance.
CVC is very clear about rider lane position. Either the lane is shareable, or it is not. It was not in this case, and by taking the lane the riders sent a visual cue that they were not to be passed. It was DURING A DESCENT, are you mad? Any urban cyclist or vehicular cyclists will tell you that they did the right thing.
That’s the last I’ll discuss this with you. What are you doing posting on 4 month old posts anyhow?
You completely missed the point about the eyewitness. Of course he was able to stop in time. The point was that the eyewitness was not harmed because the psycho driver passed the eyewitness safely.
I won’t call you ignorant for completely missing the point and mis-directing it to how the eyewitness was able to safely stop. I would suggest that you are either being disingenuous, or you have poor reading comprehension.
I can only speculate that the psycho driver thought the eyewitness was doing his best, under the circumstances, and based on what he could do safely, to leave plenty of room for passing cars. And, that the psycho driver did not believe the pair of riders were doing the same (by riding tandem rather than single file).
That is the ultimate point here. Hiding behind what the vehicle code “is not logical and makes no sense”.
It behooves those who want to avoid the wrath of psycho drivers to make as much room as safely possible. The eyewitness did that, and will be riding tomorrow. We cannot say the same for Ron and Chris.
The collision did not happen during the pass. It happened after the pass. The driver passed, the cyclists yelled an expletive at him, and then, well after he had passed, he hit the brakes.
You obviously have not read the eyewitness account. He said the driver was honking at him and passed him aggressively as well.
Yes, I realize that. Remember, I posted the link to the eyewitness account.
And yes, I realize that this was not an accidental collision while passing, but instead, an attack by going in front of them and slamming on the brakes.
So again, making ad hominem attacks on my ability to read doesn’t intelligently add anything. In fact, again, I suggest you re-read what I actually said, because your responses bare little resemblance to the points I am making.
Again, my point (my opinion) was that the psycho driver didn’t attack the eyewitness because the driver thought the eyewitness was doing his best, under the circumstances, and based on what he could do safely, to leave plenty of room for passing cars. And, that the psycho driver did not believe the pair of riders were doing the same (by riding tandem rather than single file).