Zephyr Boy

"A bicycle anti-harrasment ordinance - the first of its kind in this country - will head to the Los Angeles City Council for a vote in the next week or two..."
https://venice.patch.com/blog_posts/t...#video-6956699
(watch video in link)

spock

Excellent.

myrridin

It is ironic that the "incident" the author proposes as a cassus belli for this ridiculous piece of legislation was a road rage incident where the aggressive driver was convicted under existing laws...

Such a law does nothing, since it still requires legal proof to convince a jury... Nor should we allow any law that lowers the requirements of proof... And curiously, with such proof existing laws are perfectly capable of dealing with the problem...

Of course existing laws will not enable you to sue the folks who simply call you names or shout vulgarities while passing you by...

sggoodri

While bicyclists are more likely to be victims of such harassment today than users of other travel modes, I respectfully disagree with the concept of creating a law singling out bicyclists as having special victim status. I believe the law should treat all travelers as having an equal right to use the public ways regardless of their travel mode. I don't think a pedestrian, or NEV driver, or Segway rider, or Pontiac Aztek driver is any less deserving of justice or compensation for threats or assaults. I would prefer a law that clarifies the equal rights of road users and identifies uniform procedures for protecting the travel rights of all users against threats, intimidation, and assaults.

2wheelcommute

Sometimes I wonder what motivates the people who come on here and b*tch about every hard-fought legal right that we manage to win, claiming that it really "does nothing."

This law will, emphatically, do "something." Right now, aside from really outrageous cases like the "good doctor," police operating under criminal law are generally helpless (or just plain not inclined) to pursue road rage/harassment incidents not witnessed by an officer. By changing it to a civil penalty, you don't have to get the police on your side--a cyclist can pursue an action against the driver himself. This is incredibly significant.

And, yes, of course you have to convince a jury using evidence, but this, too, is much easier in civil court as opposed to criminal. Only a majority of a jury is required to win in a civil suit. In a criminal prosecution, the verdict needs to be unanimous. The burden of proof is also much lower (balance of the evidence vs. beyond a shadow of a doubt).

This proposal is also significant in terms of PR--it reasserts cyclists' rights to the road and explicitly acknowledges that drivers target riders for harassment purely for being cyclists (something we all know, but that will now be enshrined in the City Code).

These are all incredibly significant advancements.

2wheelcommute

You can continue enjoying that standard (no protection for vulnerable road users) where you are. Here in LA, I'm looking forward to cyclists (and pedestrians) getting some additional protection.

myrridin

Other than mandating the money involved, how does this law change using a civil suit for pursuing a complaint... it doesn't, at least how the OP video described it. Any jurisdiction in the US you can pursue a civil suit against just about anyone...

As I said in my original post. The very case that the OP video cited as an inspiration for this suit was dealt with under existing laws... something the OP video admitted to...

And if this "legislation" calls verbal name calling harassment, and provide civil (or legal remedy) then the legislation is in fact a problem and not likely to survive judicial view. Simply calling somebody and insulting name (while crass and immature) is not a crime or should it be subject to a civil penalty. Only causing an actual injury (which is already covered by the existing laws) is...

2wheelcommute

You obviously know next to nothing about this ordinance, and your post is full of pseudo-legal gibberish. But don't let that stop you from making sweeping judgments or anything.

<---- actual lawyer

Yes, you've always been able to pursue a civil suit for something like assault. You could maybe even make out some sort of case for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on threats or other intimidating behavior. But, while you might be able to come up with some sort of theory under existing law for certain types of harassment, depending on the circumstances, the existing doctrines aren't the best fit, and it would be much harder to convince a judge or jury of your case than when there's a specific cause tailored exactly to your circumstances (music studios, for example, could sue illegal downloaders under centuries-old common law causes of action for conversion, but they lobbied for and find it much easier to sue under special laws that deal explicitly with illegal downloading).

Another couple of ways that the ordinance's focus on civil enforcement is so effective is by (a) giving enhanced damages, and (b) including a fee-shifting provision so that--if you win--the driver will have to pay your attorney's fees. The enhanced damages allow you to get triple your "actual damages" (so, for example, if your $1,500 bike is totalled because someone ran you off the road, you get $4,500) or--even if you don't suffer any actual damages you get a minimum award of (if I recall) $1,000 (so, if they threaten you and run you off the road but you and your bike are undamaged, you can still get $1,000). The attorneys' fees provision is probably even more important--if you have a strong case, you will have absolutely no problem finding a lawyer to take your case because no matter how small (or even nonexistent) your damages are, if you win, your lawyer gets paid (and he doesn't take the money out of your award). So in the scenario where a driver yells and swerves, running you off the road but not injuring you or damaging your bike, (assuming you can prove it to a jury) that driver will have to pay you a minimum of $1,000 and pay your lawyer all of his/her fees (thousands of dollars, minimum). Good luck finding a lawyer to take a case like this without this sort of fee-shifting and enhanced damages. And can you imagine the PR impact once lawyers start taking these cases and belligerent drivers start finding themselves on the hook for thousands of dollars when they were "only trying to give a good scare" to someone on a bike?

Simply put, your claim that this "does nothing" and is no improvement over "existing laws" is absolutely, conclusively wrong.

As for "judicial view"--the ordinance doesn't provide a cause of action for the more trivial harassment--only harassment that reaches a certain threshold (if it's a threat, if it's intended to distract you/cause you to crash, if it's coupled with things like swerving dangerously close to you, etc.) qualifies, and there's plenty of case law saying that courts can provide relief against this type of speech without running into any sort of First Amendment problems.

The Dr. Thompson case that you've mentioned a couple of times is irrelevant. Yes, in that case, the police aggressively pursued justice under existing law. But it's importance here is merely that it sparked a debate about cyclist harassment, which led to this much broader solution. This ordinance will help give justice to the thousands of victims of less serious incidents who, until now, haven't been able to get the police or a private attorney to take up their cause.

To paraphrase the Vice President, to cyclists, this ordinance is a big f***ing deal.

CB HI

Imagine if this law was in effect when the good doctor committed his first significant act against a cyclist about a year earlier. That case was reported and police did little. Had this law forced the good doctor into court and a penalty, the second much more serious violence may have never happened.

kevin_stevens

+1

And below, gee, imagine, a lawyer asserting that what we need is more situation-specific legislation in all walks of life. Some of us think that what we need is a lot *less* case-specific legislation for lawyers to make a living interpreting.

Good rule of thumb - when your justification is a single incident years old - that's not good legislation. Better rule of thumb - when your justification is so specific you name it after an individual - that's not good legislation.

KeS

The Human Car

DC is looking into doing something similar

https://www.waba.org/blog/2011/07/wab...-for-cyclists/

sggoodri

Why exclude people traveling by other means, such as mopeds, segways, etc. from that same protection? Why should the law be written to limit protection to one narrow class of road user, treating other road users as less deserving citizens?

mikeybikes

Exactly. The law should treat all vulnerable road users the same.

sggoodri

One might go even further to say that the law need not explicily spell out vulnerable users, as an explicit user class, as the criterion allowing it to apply.

For example, is a Smart Car driver a vulnerable user? Not by most bike/ped advocates' definition, but couldn't a gravel truck driver force them off the road? Certainly. At issue is the abuse of power imbalance, not the absolute level of power posessed by the victim. This is why I recommend that the law be defined in terms of the action and not in terms of the victim identity. What is the danger of allowing motorists to bring the same suits? If the jury does not find any intent to abuse an imbalance of power, then they will not find for the plaintiff. The most awards will naturally go to those who are the most vulnerable or most oppressed, rather than having to define such groups.

Bekologist

adding vulnerable user protections in states around the country are widely seen as net positives to active transportation, walking and biking.

concerns about smart cars? pfft - bad advocacy from the same camp that suggests bicyclists fight to throw away our road rights in many states.

Advocacy that suggest pedestrians and bicyclists are negatively served by vulnerable user laws is BAD ADVOCACY.


absolutely fundamentally significant.

myrridin

At best it is a piece of feel good legislation with no actual impact. At worst it represents an eroding of the civil/legal protections of the accused (Something with far reaching negative impacts on society).

So it is a a useless piece of legislation at best... and a piece of criminally negligent legislation at worst.

Not surprised a lawyer would like it though,,,

Bekologist

no, the bicyclist anti-harassment ordinance offers significant changes in cyclists chances for a redress of grievances in Los Angeles.

This proposed legislation has the potential of changing the road climate somewhat in LA, as 2wheelcommute illustrates in post #8 above.

Vulnerable user laws of (most) every reiteration are widely lauded across the states as net positives for vulnerable road users. Vulnerable user laws that consider harassment of bicyclists being pursuable as a civil case has every indication of significantly changing the climate of bicyclist treatment in Los Angeles.

suggestions smart car operators need similar protections of bicyclists is evocative of the automobile lobby, not a position held by bona fide pedestrian and bicycling advocates.

2wheelcommute

Seriously, what is it about all the voices here who need to pile on and denigrate every advancement? Invariably, half claim that a new law "does nothing" while others claim that it does too much by giving cyclists too much protection! Bad advocacy, indeed.

EDIT: And some, with no apparent self awareness, argue both!

2wheelcommute

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. You certainly didn't actually respond to all of the tangible ways that I pointed out that it makes a huge difference. As for your concern trolling about "civil/legal protections of the accused," you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the criminal (higher protections) and civil (still stringent but lesser protections) in our society--a difference that the ordinance exploits as one of its main innovations.

But, ok, walk me through your argument--how is the legislation "criminally negligent"? Do you know what "negligent" means? How does the term apply here? How would the law raise criminal implications in any way? How does the law's application of the centuries-old standards in civil court "erod[e] the civil/legal protections of the accused"?

Now this is just childish. I point out that I'm a lawyer just to make the point that, unlike some who prefer to voice strong and acidic opinions about things they know nothing about, I'm actually fluent in these issues. This ordinance has nothing to do with my practice area, and I'll never make a dime off of it. I like it as someone who cycles in LA every day, not as a lawyer.

sggoodri

I won't speak for others, but let me explain my point of view. I understand the advantages that the bill provides to cyclists seeking justice through the civil courts compared to current conditions. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these advantages do not present any practical problems for the legal system, are completely constitutional, and are deemed by the public to be appropriate to give to victims of threats and assaults who are seeking justice.

My question is, how do we justify limiting these legal benefits to one class of people using our public ways? If a road user traveling via a different, excluded mode is similarly victimized, is it fair to deny them these benefits in seeking justice, and could they not challenge the law to demand the same rights?

I propose that the new law should protect all road users who are intentionally threatened in a manner that infringes upon their right to travel in safety, so as to broaden public support for such a law, as well as avoid accusations of unequal protection. Does making the law broader, to protect all road users, somehow create less protection for cyclists? I don't see how. Rather, I think it strengthens the law by making it less vulnerable to legal challenges, thus better protecting these benefits for cyclists, who are indeed the most likely group to use them. Meanwhile, it will also be of assistance to the occasional drivers and riders of mopeds, NEVs, Segways, kick scooters, convertibles, and so forth. How is this bad? By contrast, singling out one special victim's group is sure to draw out anti-bicyclist sentiment fueled by assertions that bicyclists supposedly having greater rights and less responsibilities than other users on our roads.

genec

While I agree with your message and sentiment, those other things you have mentioned are for the most part not part of the laws of all 50 states as bicycling is... Cycling is recognized, and laws are in place, in all 50 states regarding cycling.

Some of those other devices you mention, in particular the Segway, are still being evaluated by states as to their true use and legal models.

While a vulnerable road user law should cover all non motor vehicle road users, bear in mind that cycling is again human powered and has a long standing history.

The issues with devices like scooters and Segways and the like is that they are motorized, and laws governing the power of the devices and proper definition of the devices are still in the works.

2wheelcommute

There really isn't any concern about "legal challenges" in its current form. I want to make that absolutely clear. I can't fathom any remotely non-frivolous theory with which to attack the law, and the City Attorney and City Counsel have spent months going over the proposal and considering every possible legal issue. Don't let the armchair legal observers here convince you that there's anything remotely (legally) controversial about the proposal.

As for your concerns about singling out cyclists over other vulnerable road users, I can certainly see your point, and I'd be very happy with a law that protects all vulnerable road users.

But I question some of the categories you identify as vulnerable (smart cars and convertibles?), and I think you have to recognize that others are inherently less prone to conflict than cycling (mopeds generally keep up with the speed of street traffic and my vespa-riding friends don't deal with nearly the level of sh*t from drivers that cyclists do; I have yet to see someone "take the lane" in a Segway--the ones I've seen keep to the sidewalks). We all know that harassment of cyclists by drivers is a real and constant problem (especially in car Mecca Los Angeles). The fact is, there just isn't as much of a problem with these other modes.

Like I said, I don't have any problem with a more expansive law. But I don't see this sort of academic issue with very little practical implication as being a reason to hold up giving cyclists a powerful legal tool that they clearly need.

sggoodri

I'm thinking of the objections that have been raised over vulnerable user laws in other states, in some cases defeating them or causing them to be weakened and reworded to the point that they can actually harm cyclists' interests. A law that comprehensively protects all travelers will gather the maximum support once it is written fairly; a special interest law that benefits a minority while potentially costing those in the majority invites objections that can force undesirable compromises or outright defeat.

sggoodri

This may vary based on locality; moped operators are often treated badly where people assume they are DUI convicts. Also, harassment and assaults often have nothing to do with creating delay for others; many cyclists who are not taking the lane face severe harassment, e.g. just for being on a bike, or wearing cycling clothes, or not being on the sidewalk. Segway riders are harassed wherever they ride - by motorists when in the travel lanes, by cyclists while in the bike lanes, and by pedestrians when on the sidewalk. I'm not sure why defense of one's rights should be based on how often similar crimes occur to others of one's kind.

2wheelcommute

You're right that it may be biased locally (and based on my own experience). Here in LA, it's a fact of life that bikes (and, to a lesser extent, pedestrians that have the audacity to try to use a crosswalk) get the brunt of the harassment. I'd bet that the cycling mode share outpaces the Segway mode share by a factor of at least a thousand (apart from the beachfront tourist areas, I've only seen one or two in the past few years). And the only harassment of mopeds that I've ever heard of is a bit of honking by jealous drivers when the mopeds filter up through gridlock traffic at red lights (plus, one incident of a moped riding friend being harassed by a cyclist!)

I'm not proposing that rights be meted out based on whether someone chooses my mode or anything like that. Just acknowledging that (ideally) government sets its priorities based on what are the biggest issues of public concern. In LA, there are constantly high profile road rage incidents against bikes (I can probably think of half a dozen so far this year off the top of my head that have been pretty prominent local news stories), and there are doubtlessly countless less severe incidents that never make the news. Harassment directed at other modes is just not on the public radar. I'm sure it occurs, but certainly not nearly as frequently and apparently never escalating enough to make the news. Given limited resources, I think it's perfectly justified for the City Council to try to address the actual issue that routinely affects thousands of residents.