Your recommendations are much more reasonable. I don’t object to the original recommendations - individually - as much as I object to the lack of balance. These are far more balanced.

“The starting point for any bike activist in that situation should have been our right to the road. That is a firm talking point. It’s not about creating a Win/Win, it’s about the law, and the law indicates that cyclists can take the lane. Motorists and homeowners must stipulate that before they can proceed with me. The bicycle advocates present failed to do that, and failed to represent cyclists, plain and simple.”

Me -
Exactly! Instead, the meeting commenced as if these cyclist were somehow the cause of this incident.

These cycling representatives, and I use that term loosely, should have come up with something along the guide lines for the homeowner/motorist such as,

1. Accountability, have the homeowners identify the problem drivers of the area. (Hey, they wanted this from the cyclists!) The homeowners would be responsible for any of their guest or anyone that would be in on that road because they had to go to the home owners property. This liability would include gardeners, maids, service workers, etc. The homeowners would be legally liable for any damages suffered by said parties.

2. Homeowners must adherence to laws. This would include speeding, tailgating, abusive use of the horn, and crossing a double solid yellow line. Homeowners must inform the cycling groups that frequent the area of any motorists that happen to commit these infractions. Failure to do so would open them up to lawsuits against the association.

3. Police enforcement must be a part of the safety for all parties concerned. The police must show that they are doing their enforcement fairly and not targeting cyclists.

4. Motorist must pass when it is safe and legal to do so. A minimum of three feet clearance is not unreasonable to expect. Motorist will be cited if it is observed by law enforcement or cyclist have obtained evidence of this infraction on video.

5. Education. Create guidelines in the form of “rules of the road” to be distributed to homeowners/motorists via the internet, email, at car shops and possibly on sign boards at both the bottom and top Mandeville Canyon. Also, collaborate with the cyclist groups to develop corresponding guidelines for cyclist to provide guidance on safety factors for cyclists and how to drive around them. For instance, rather than honking (which seems to elicit adverse reactions), motorists should try to only tap their horn a couple times. Also, motorists need to understand that the harsh words they sometimes get from cyclists are not personal but reflect an instinctive reaction when they are put in a dangerous situation by a car. Homeowners/motorists should know that they are just as much to blame for escalating tensions with their verbal abuse.

6. Road surface conditions should be repaired and maintained so that cyclists can more safely ride closer to the right when going up the hill. This includes not parking in the cycling area of the road, or placement of items such as the trash receptacle. Violators must be identified and notice sent to cycling groups in question.

7. Traffic calming. If measures have not curbed aggressive behavior, then the city must have an unobstructed right to implement more drastic actions to curb unwanted behavior from said homeowners/motorists.

8. Provide a means for cyclists to file complaints about and descriptions of unruly homeowners/motorists to the association so they can attempt to self discipline any members who warrant this.

OK I’ll be the first to admit that these issues would need a little “massaging” and cleaning up, but the issue is legitimate. The homeowners association is expecting and demanding quite a bit from the cycling groups, it only seems fair that the cycling groups demand just as much. And really if you get right down to it, who really is breaking most of the laws in this area anyways? I’m betting no onet of the drivers in the area does the posted speed, which would be a very good starting point for law enforcement.

While it is true that 8mph cyclists can ride further rightward on the uphill to facilitate overtaking, as we show in our YouTube video [Mandeville Canyon - Motorist/Cyclist Cooperation], however this same behavior is hazardous for 30+ mph cyclists on the downhill. Also note that a motorist can very quickly pass a cyclist on the uphill, so sightlines don’t need to be so good compared to a downhill situation when passing cyclists moving at 30+ miles per hour.

The original item #2 should read:
2. Road surface conditions should be repaired and maintained so that cyclists can more easily use the full roadway width as needed for safety.

@JB, “If I lived on a dead end street that was invaded by cyclists EVERY WEEKEND, I’d be wanting a great deal more than that.” Everyone makes a choice in how they create and exchange language. The word invaded in the context that you used it is insensitive.

There are more benefits to living in a cycling dominant culture as opposed to a car dominant culture (I apologize for the binary dialectic).

@Alex Thompson, “It’s not about creating a Win/Win, it’s about the law, and the law indicates that cyclists can take the lane.” Because of our friendship, I’m sure you understand why I disagree with you here. I believe people get too hung up on laws and codes. The more specificity in laws and the more laws, the more leverage police have, the more bullshit things they can cite you for (not having reflectors on your peddles), the more ways they can ruin your day and assert there power, the more reasons they have to “legally” pull you over. More laws take power away from people.

If it is very safe for me to do something, I’m going to do it. I run reds by myself all the time. Every day I’m a criminal for managing risk well. (There is a larger argument here about how more laws make you a criminal all day. Especially copyright law. Does anyone have any idea how many serious laws they break everyday?)

What’s fucked up is our entire society. How it deprograms people and redirects them to consume (TV is an example), and to be competitive, and to have bullshit rage. If you loved school, you’ll love work, etc. If your poor your education was worse than someone more wealthy than your family.

It is not about the law to me, it is about how someone could hurt another human. What it takes for a society to create a beast like that. Where that comes from, why a doctor would ever do that.

Whatever, ranting is bullshit.

I like you too, and I think your last comment explains our difference. I’m sorry if my tone was offensive.

I’d rather see pragmatists come up with a feasible solution for all concerned, rather than activists on both sides insisting on stipulations of their rights and issuing ultimatums, which, while perfectly within their rights, are likely to have some unintended consequences.

CVC 21202 is not as clear as one might think, and if cyclists want to start arguing about having all of their rights under the law respected, no matter how inconvenient for motorists, then we can’t get angry when law enforcement starts ensuring that we respect our duties under the law as well, no matter how inconvenient for cyclists.

This is why I’d like to see the parties hash this out on their own.

It IS about a win-win. The law is something you should treat as a last resort, when reason and logic and common courtesy and self-regulation have failed.

If everybody has to play strictly by the legal rules, we could easily end up with a situation where motorists understand that cyclists have the right to take the lane riding Mandeville Canyon, but Critical Mass and Crankmob come to an end because nobody can afford the tickets that start being given out for the wide variety of infractions that tend to occur on any given mass ride. (Think about how many cyclists prefer to avoid rides in Santa Monica right now. Imagine L.A.P.D. adopting that policy. That would be horrendously depressing.)

It’s all about sustainable cycling fun. Being reasonable and making friends with the greater community is more likely to accomplish this and attract more people to try cycling, and the more cyclists we have on the streets, the more effective cycling advocacy will be.

JB, I like you, I think you’re cool. I don’t like your tone here. Do you want a resume?

The starting point for any bike activist in that situation should have been our right to the road. That is a firm talking point. It’s not about creating a Win/Win, it’s about the law, and the law indicates that cyclists can take the lane. Motorists and homeowners must stipulate that before they can proceed with me. The bicycle advocates present failed to do that, and failed to represent cyclists, plain and simple.

If you had to develop a set of rules and guidelines for getting cars and bikes to share the roads safely and efficiently in Los Angeles, that stood a chance of being accepted by the community, what would you recommend?

What exactly do you object to in the previous proposals “identified by the bike riders”? What would you like to see added?

It’s easy to criticise, and it’s easy to make one-sided proposals, but creating a win-win solution’s a little more difficult.

If it was just you representing the cyclists in these meetings, what would your recommendations be?

“The bike riders then identified these strategies for addressing the problems:
1. Education. Create guidelines in the form of “rules of the road” to be distributed to cyclists via the internet, email, at bike shops and possibly on sign boards at both the bottom and top Mandeville Canyon. Also, collaborate with the homeowners groups to develop corresponding guidelines for motorists to provide guidance on safety factors for cyclists and how to drive around them. For instance, rather than honking (which seems to elicit adverse reactions), motorists should try to only tap their horn a couple times. Also, motorists need to understand that the harsh words they sometimes get from cyclists are not personal but reflect an instinctive reaction when they are put in a dangerous situation by a car.
2. Road surface conditions should be repaired and maintained so that cyclists can more safely ride closer to the right.
3. Traffic calming. It was acknowledged that this has been a controversial issue (residents of upper Mandeville have made legal challenges when lower Mandeville homeowners planned or implemented speed humps!). Nonetheless, at least speed “feedback” signs could be used, which display a motorist’s speed and have been shown to be effective.
4. Provide a means for homeowners to file complaints about and descriptions of unruly cyclists to the clubs so they can attempt to self discipline any members who warrant this. Could be an email address or website. It was pointed out that perhaps 40% of the cyclists who ride on Mandeville are not affiliated with the clubs, so they could not be controlled. “

Themselves.

Pedestrians.

Their fellow cyclists when they don’t pay attention on a group ride, and turn/stop short without warning in front of their fellow riders.

The motorist who swerves to avoid them when a cyclist blows through an uncorked intersection when everyone else has stopped.

We need to emphatically emphasize our right to share the road, but dismissing self-regulation as “blaming the victim” completely misses the point.

The goal is to make the roads as safe as possible for both cyclists and motorists, not to rationalize illegal/anti-social behavior by cyclists merely because it’s less likely to result in serious injury.

Entitlement may not be exclusive to motorists, but it is certainly more dangerous for them to be so.

Lets look at this: cyclists feel entitled not to die, and to some space on the road. When a cyclist exercises this sense of entitlement they endanger who? Nobody.

Motorists feel entitled to travel as quickly as possible from point A to point B, and lots of space to do it in. When they exercise this sense of entitlement they endanger who? Other motorists, kids, old ladies walking down the street, cyclists.

Highlighting the two as if they are equal is absurd. Cyclists are to motorists as pot farmers are to PCP suppliers. Yes, they are both illegal, but the similarities stop there. One is far more dangerous than the other.

When you write such pieces make sure you make that highlight that distinction, lest the more entitled motorists use your POV as ammunition.