Zephyr Boy

"Today, bicyclists have a new tool to defend themselves from harassment and assault. An anti-harassment motion, originally introduced by Council Member Bill Rosendahl, has been released today with prior approval of the City Council. Bicyclists can now bring civil suit against drivers who assault them, harass them, threaten them, or intentionally distract them..."

see the details here:
https://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/...oon-to-be-law/

Digital_Cowboy

We need that to be passed on the Federal level not just the city, county or state level. We also need to force our legislatures to move car v. bike crashes back to the criminal courts and out of the civil courts.

B. Carfree

I see a hot market for helmet cams in L.A.

Digital_Cowboy

Under the damages section I'm not too crazy about the $1,000.00 cap. What is a cyclist who's riding a $2,000.00, $3,000.00, $5,000.00 bike suppose to do if they're run off of the road and it's damaged and needs to be replaced? Or if their medical bills exceed $1,000.00?

I mean I'm sure that that cyclist who was injured by the now former ER doctor/medical record company owner medical bills alone were in excess of $1,000.00.

Greyryder

No kidding. A night in ICU will will run you more than that, and that's not counting the ambulance ride.

Both the cyclists that crazy injured should have needed operations. Not sure what they do for a separated shoulder, but the other guy's nose was almost completely severed. That's gonna take plastic surgery after the reattachment.

I would hope that this is simply meant as a way for harassed cyclists to financially punish belligerent drivers, and doesn't preclude suing for property damage or medical bills.

BSB

Try reading that again. There is no $1000 cap:

If your $2000, $3000, $5000 bike gets wrecked, you get $6000, $9000, $15,000. If you have $50 of damages, or no damages, you get $1000.

XianRL

Glad to see a big city do this. When Columbia passed a similar ordinance, only the town took notice. Maybe LA will put this issue in the limelight for a minute. Oh wait, everybody cares about the budget right now. Oh, and Egypt/the "volatile" part of the world.

But good for LA. Cyclists deserve these protections. Sadly in Columbia, opponents of the ordinance said things like, "If it's so dangerous, don't ride."

Digital_Cowboy

I would suggest that you go back and re-read it:

<Quote>
Damages

In these civil suits, drivers who assault or harass bicyclists will be liable for:

1. Triple the dollar amount of any resulting damages or $1,000, whichever is larger;

</quote>

billdsd

I just read it 10 times in a row. No cap. $1000 is the smallest amount.

Digital_Cowboy

I suggest that you re-read it.

<quote>
Damages

In these civil suits, drivers who assault or harass bicyclists will be liable for:

1. Triple the dollar amount of any resulting damages or $1,000, whichever is larger;

<quote>

I think that any reasonable person would read and understand that to mean that the damages are tripled unless doing so would exceed $1,000.00. Which is a $1,000.00 cap.

Sixty Fiver

Reasonable person here with another reasonable person sitting next to me...

In these civil suits, drivers who assault or harass bicyclists will be liable for:

Triple the dollar amount of any resulting damages or $1,000, whichever is larger;

We read this as $1000.00 being the minimum amount to be awarded.

The rest of the ordinance also states that additional damages may be awarded and that this does not preclude criminal action.

Digital_Cowboy

One problem that I see with the way the first part in the damages section is worded is that by tripling the damages that they could easily exceed, the states cap on small courts claims.

CritEastwood

As well, the LA DA's Office has a Victim's Restitution program.

I hate to say it because many Angelenos feel everything begins there, but LA is leading the way for big cities on this.

What's up, Denver?

Unreasonable

I'm gonna have to say "Nahs" to that.

It's a minimum. Let's make a few situations.

A driver breaks your $200 beater. Your case goes through and you win (which might be another difficulty not even considered here).

Triple the dollar amount: $600
OR $1000.

Which is larger? $1000. You get whichever is larger.

Now, some dick totals your $2000 bike.

Triple the dollar amount: $6000
OR $1000.

Which is larger? $6000. You get whichever is larger.

CritEastwood

On that note, the LA DA's office is working on getting me Victim's Restitution right now for my $200 daily driver getting creamed with me in 2007...$600...nah, $1000 is larger.

sggoodri

Each of the PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES is defined with the following requirement of intent: "because, in whole or in part, of the Bicyclist's Status as a Bicyclist."

Can't the defendant simply claim that reason for his behavior was motivated by something else, like a moving violation that angered him?

On the other hand, if I pass a wrong-way bicyclist, and yell at him to ride with traffic, and this hurts his feelings, am I liable?

CB HI

^^
Possibly, but I think most judges will be able to reasonably the law. I have far more faith in judges (with the exception of too lenient sentences), than I do the police.

genec

I think I am pretty reasonable. I read it as the amount awarded is either $1000 or higher... not capped at $1000. Triple the damage or $1000, whichever is HIGHER... if triple the damages is higher than $1000, then you get triple the damages.

genec

Nah, because you weren't yelling at him because he was a cyclist... you were yelling at him because he was wrong.

sggoodri

How harsh do words need to be in order to be considered injurious under this or other harassment law?

(1) If a car full of teenage girls slows and they make comments about my bike shorts, is that illegal?

(2) If the passenger of a pickup yells "Get off the road!" would that be illegal?

(3) If a motor vehicle occupant yells "Get off the road!" repeatedly, to the same or different cyclists over time, would that be illegal?

It's my impression that scenario (3) would be illegal harassment even under existing laws in most states, but I wonder whether the first two would normally be considered protected speech. I wouldn't considered myself injured by (1) or (2) but I would become much more worried for my safety with (3).

Furthermore, couldn't the pickup driver argue that he was yelling not because it's a cyclist, but because the cyclist is wrong for not staying out of the way?

contango 

Scenario 2 offers the driver an easy out as well - if questioned they could claim that the passenger shouting the remarks was a hitch hiker and have no idea who they were or where they live.

genec

Ah ha but it is not wrong to "be in the way." (otherwise every car on the road in LA is wrong by "being in the way") So in case (3) it is harassment, due to the harassed being a cyclist. (or so I would hope a judge could reason)

Rusty5329

Isn't picking up hitch hikers illegal?

billdsd

I did.

I'm guessing that you didn't score high on the verbal section of your SAT's. Did you?

2wheelcommute

Your interpretation is completely, utterly, unreasonably wrong. I'm a lawyer, and I've been following this debate in LA closely. It's $1,000 minimum. Or, if there are "resulting damages" (damaged bike, medical expenses, etc.), you can get triple those actual damages. So if your $5,000 bike gets wrecked, you can get $15,000 under the law. If, on the other hand, there's only $50 damage to your bike or no damage at all (say, they just yelled and swerved at you), you would get $1,000 (plus attorney's fees). There is absolutely no other reasonable interpretation. Anyone suggesting otherwise would get laughed out of court.

I also have to disagree to an extent with your statement that this sort of thing needs to be moved "back to the criminal courts and out of the civil courts." Obviously, there should be aggressive criminal enforcement, but one of the problems with the criminal system, especially in these collisions which are typically "he said/she said," is that the burden of proof is much, much higher. That's what's so great and revolutionary about this ordinance--it gives cyclists a powerful civil tool where they just have to convince a jury that it's 51% likely that their story is more credible than the driver's. The city considered making this a criminal ordinance but, at the urging of the bike community, recognized that it would be much more helpful as a civil ordinance with the lower burden of proof. The attorney's fees provision is also extremely helpful.