Two big bike races at once, a perfect example of press anti-bike bias, and a whole lot of link love

It can’t be Wednesday already, can it?

The week’s halfway over, so weekend riders can start looking forward to their next ride, while those of us who ride during the week can finally enjoy some cooler temperatures.

And everyone can limber up their clicking fingers and settle in for some serious bike links.

………

Sounds like a great race is going on overseas, as Valverde holds off the newly reinstated Contador for a stage victory in the Vuelta.

Meanwhile, BMC’s Tejay van Garderen takes the leader’s jersey to go along with his stage two victory in the USA Pro Challenge; great to see the next generation of pro cyclists stepping up to the podium.

………

In a highly biased story, police won’t file charges against a group of cyclists who struck a driver’s car and shouted obscenities when she merely tapped her horn at them. However, the original story notes a broken mirror and dents on the passenger side, which might give an explanation for the riders reaction if they resulted from getting Jerry Browned by a sideswiping driver.

Then again, this sort of bizarre narrative in which a wholly innocent driver is assaulted by a group of crazed cyclists never ceases to astound me. You’d think someone — anyone — would question why the riders reacted that way, but too often, no one ever does.

Thanks to Bill Strickland and LadyFleur for the links.

………

City of Lights shows how to install bike racks. L.A.’s Pure Fix Cycles introduces a $399 glow-in-the-dark fixie. Just when the Ballona Creek bike path finally reopens after construction work in Culver City, it will shut down again for maintenance work between National and Overland. Wolfpack Hustle sponsors a ride to the opening of Premium Rush this Friday. A salmon cyclist is seriously injured in a Baldwin Park collision, though it’s far more likely that it was the cyclist, and not the bike, that collided with the driver’s windshield; thanks to Witch on a Bicycle for the link. Boy on a Bike embraces his inner bike geek and gets a mirror. Registration is open for the National Women’s Bicycling Summit in Long Beach next month.

Orange County authorities are cracking down on drunk drivers. Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch looks at California’s proposed three-foot passing law. A San Diego writer explains sharrows to the chronically clueless; despite the hateful tone, he gets it mostly right. San Diego State University works to become a bike-friendly campus. S.D. police are looking for a bike path groper. Paso Robles considers becoming a bike-friendly city. Confusing signage leads a bike path rider onto the Facebook campus where he’s hit by a car. San Jose sets out to build the Bay Area’s most bike-friendly downtown; something L.A. can and should do down here. A Rancho Cordova teenager is dragged 50 feet after a car hits his bike, suffering life-threatening injuries; once again, all blame falls on the victim — who can’t speak for himself — for riding into traffic. A Lodi flautist rides solo across country. How Santa Rosa police tracked down the hit-and-run driver who ran down a cyclist on a golf course.

The founder of Bikes Belong has passed away from cancer; one of the few things I hate more than dangerous drivers. NPR explores ghost bikes. Bike lawyer Bob Mionske looks at the newly available bike insurance. When you’re on a bike, the direct route is seldom the best route. Despite a confession from the driver, AZ police still haven’t filed charges in a hit-and-run that left a cyclist severely injured and the suspect vehicle torched in the desert. After a Utah cyclist is killed, apparently auto-centric police want to know why he was riding a bike, let alone at that early hour. You know you’re a bike-friendly community when even the bank robbers get away by bike. Attention guys: cyclists — especially women cyclists — really don’t need your unsolicited advice. A 10-year old Michigan boy rides his bike wearing just his underwear to get help for his highly allergic father after he’s stung by bees (I originally wrote he rode his bike in his underwear; thanks to Joe Linton for questioning how he got his bike in there). Two-thirds of New Yorkers say bike lanes are a good thing. Even red solo cups can be enough to separate a bikeway. Gossip Girl star Blake Lively bikes beautifully in NYC. Fewer bike collisions on Hilton Head island.

The former Attorney General of Ontario CA — no, the other one — who killed cyclist Darcy Allen Sheppard as the victim clung to his car has written a book to tell his side of the story, but the victim’s father doesn’t approve; no matter how hard the incident was on the AG, I suspect it was a lot worse for the guy he killed. A British cyclist clips a traffic cone, and falls beneath a tailgating 17-ton truck; in case anyone ever wondered why drivers need to give us some space, that’s why. UK cyclist fakes a fall to distract driver while partner steals from her car. A Glasgow cyclist is stabbed in the neck after stopping to speak with an apparent stranger.

Finally, a Denver hit-and-run driver claims he thought he hit a dog when he killed a cyclist — even though he dragged the victim’s bike under his car for several blocks.

Call me crazy, but I think all the sparks and grinding of the bike underneath his car should have tipped him off. And I don’t know many dogs who ride a bike.

Are police in bike-friendly Santa Monica holding a dooring victim to a different standard?

Are cyclists being held to a different standard?

So it would seem in bike-friendly Santa Monica.

This past Friday, a cyclist was critically injured when he ran into a car door while riding south on 11th near Oak, just below Ocean Park Blvd.

The rider, identified only as a man in his 40s, reportedly flew over the door and landed directly on his head, suffering a life-threatening head injury.

It’s worth noting in this particular case that he wasn’t wearing a helmet, as the story points out; this is exactly the sort of slow speed collision bike helmets are design to protect against.

And then the officer goes on to immediately blame the victim, accusing the rider of being drunk at the time of the collision.  According to Santa Monica Patch, SMPD Sgt. Richard Lewis said,

“Alcohol played a big role,” Lewis said. “We do not know that he is going to survive.”

He goes on to add,

“There will not be any criminal charges,” he said. “It appears to be an accident.”

Witnesses said that the rider had been swerving in and out of traffic lanes before he hit the car door, which had been left open for several seconds.

By reading the news stories, it certainly sounds like the riding was completely at fault; a drunk rider collided with a car door that he should have seen and been able to avoid.

And maybe it happened just that way.

Then again, maybe it didn’t.

While the police spokesperson suggests the rider was drunk and there’s a reference to a blood test being done at the hospital, there’s no report of just how high his blood alcohol level was. He may have had a couple of drinks, or he may have been plastered.

Then again, it may not really matter.

One thing I’ve learned dealing with the LAPD on other cases is that under California law, whether or not a driver is drunk is a secondary factor unrelated to the cause of a collision.

For instance, let’s say two cars collide at an intersection, and one of the drivers is drunk. If the drunk driver ran the red light, he caused the collision by running the light — not by being drunk. His drunkenness might be why he ran the light, but it’s not the cause of the collision under the law.

On the other hand, if it was the other driver who ran the light, the fact that his victim was drunk is entirely unrelated to the cause of the collision.

Yet in this case, police are suggesting that drunkenness was the cause.

Even though state law prohibits opening a driver’s-side car door if it interferes with traffic. And then, only as long as necessary to get in and out of the vehicle.

22517.  No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

The Times story reports that the driver left the door open while she gathered her things, which would seem to be a clear — yet non-cited — violation of CVC 22517.

The driver should have gathered her things before opening the door, or she could have moved around to the other side of the car where the open door would not have interfered with traffic.

We’ve also learned from the CHP in the Carol Schreder case that witness reports of what a driver was doing in the moments leading up to a collision have little or no relevance to the actual collision.

In that case, numerous witnesses said they saw the driver operating his truck at a high speed and in a careless manner for several miles prior to hitting Schreder’s bike. Yet police didn’t even talk to those witnesses, as they said what occurred a few miles away had no bearing on what actually caused the collision or the charges the driver eventually faced.

I might argue that point. In fact, I have.

But if that’s the way the law is applied to drivers, that’s how it should be applied to cyclists.

So the fact that the victim had been drinking wasn’t the cause of the collision. Nor were the comments that he was weaving in and out of traffic prior to the collision.

The cause of the collision appears to be a car door that was left open in violation of the law, as well as a possible careless cyclist who may or may not have been able to see the door in time to stop safely.

There’s one other thing we should note.

On the Patch site, there’s an imbedded video showing the police investigation at the site of the collision. At the end of that, there is what seems to be a local resident blaming the narrow road and lack of a bike lane in the direction the victim was traveling.

It’s entirely possible that traffic on that narrow street caused the victim to ride in the door zone and could have prevented him from swerving out of the way when — and if — he saw the door blocking his path. It’s also possible that he may have tried to brake to avoid the door.

Bikes seldom leave the skid marks police use to determine if a vehicle tried to stop, which can lead them to erroneously conclude that a rider didn’t brake prior to a collision.

Which is just one more reason why every police traffic investigator should be trained in the unique physics and forensics of bicycle collisions.

This wreck could have occurred exactly as the police suggest. It’s entirely possible that the victim could responsible for his own injuries through his own drunken carelessness.

Or he could be the victim of a careless driver and bad road design.

We’ll probably never know.

But it certainly looks like the police may be going out of their way to blame the victim and let a dooring driver off the hook.

Thanks to Evan G for the heads-up. And say a few prayers for the victim; reading between the lines, his outlook doesn’t sound good.

Today’s post, in which I rant on anti-bike fallacies

Because one cyclist cut him off, in what may or may not have been a right-hook on the driver’s part, an Austin writer once again trots out the common fallacies that a) cyclists don’t pay for the roads, and b) we’re not held accountable because we’re not required to ride with large numbers on our backs.

Driver, please.

One of the biggest lies told in this country is that drivers pay for the roads they use through gas taxes and license fees.

The fact is, the federal gas tax, which isn’t indexed to inflation, hasn’t been raised in nearly 20 years, and doesn’t begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining federal roadways. And the overwhelming majority of funds used to build and maintain roads on the local level, where motorists do most of their driving — and cyclists do most of their riding — comes from the general tax fund.

In other words, we all pay for the roads. Even those who’ve never bought a gallon of gas or been behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, and never will.

Since the overwhelming majority of cyclists are drivers, as well — and virtually all of us are taxpayers — we already pay for the roads in multiple ways, just as other drivers do. And those who don’t drive are subsidizing those who do.

Never mind the other costs associated with driving, as pointed out in a letter from Micah Posner to the Santa Cruz Sentinel (which has since been deleted from their website, unfortunately).

But roads are not the biggest expense that society takes on for cars. For every mile driven in a car, cyclists pay 4.8 cents to subsidize car parking, 3.5 cents to subsidize accidents caused by cars, four cents to pay for the effects on human health, etc. Every mile driven costs society as a whole 32.9 cents, not including wars over oil. Only .5 of these costs are paid for by driver user taxes. That’s why gasoline is taxed much more heavily in most other industrialized countries.

Then there’s that whole licensing issue that continues to rear its ugly head far too often.

I won’t get into the abundant arguments against licensing cyclists, except to say that licensing would discourage cycling at a time when it is in everyone’s best interests to have more riders on the road to cut congestion, decrease pollution and improve overall health in our overly obese society.

Instead, let’s just consider the common fallacy the Austin writer brings up, that vehicle licenses enable enforcement of traffic laws, and that cyclists can’t be held accountable because we don’t have them.

So tell me, when was the last time a police officer knocked on your door and handed you a ticket for a traffic violation that occurred hours, or even days, before?

Because, excluding red light and speed cameras, where legal, a traffic violation must be observed by a police officer in order for the driver to be ticketed.

It doesn’t matter how many witnesses are willing to testify that the driver ran a red light, or wove dangerously in and out of traffic at an excessive speed. If a cop didn’t see it, he can’t write a ticket — even if everyone else on the road copied the license number of the offending vehicle and called it in to the police.

Yet somehow, a number on a cyclist’s ass is supposed to allow police to ticket or even arrest him or her based on eyewitness reports?

Not gonna happen.

Police have exactly the same authority to ticket cyclists as they do anyone else. If they see the violation, they can pull the rider over and write ‘em up. And contrary to the perception of far too many motorists — and cyclists — they do.

We’ll also ignore his absurd observation that whoever pays makes the rules, which applies exactly nowhere else in American law.

Then there’s this comment I received last night in response to an old post in support of SB 910, the three-foot passing law vetoed by California Governor Jerry Brown last year.

Aside from the usual bike-hating blather — including a comment that a law should be passed requiring cyclists to stay three-feet from motorists — he argues that a three-foot passing law will increase congestion. And that we don’t belong on the roads in the first place.

This law will have an adverse affect on commerce and create even more grid lock on our roadways. After all, the roadways were built to support interstate commerce and paid for with motor vehicle and fuel taxes. The roads were not built for your cycling entertainment.

Never mind that roads were not built for cars.

Very few state and local roads, where most cyclists ride, play any role in interstate commerce. And even if that standard was applied, it would result in most motor vehicles being banned along with bikes, since only a small part of traffic is engaged in commerce at any given time — let alone of the interstate variety.

And don’t get me started on the absurd misconception that bikes are only ridden for entertainment.

While many cyclists do ride for fun and health — which should be encouraged as a means of combating rising societal health costs due to obesity and related health problems — many others ride for transportation, and far more do both.

And even with California gas prices hovering well over $4 a gallon, I haven’t heard anyone call for a ban on recreational driving. Even though that contributes far more to traffic congestion than every cyclist on American roads combined, whatever reason they ride.

If you don’t believe me, just try finding parking anywhere near the beach on a sunny weekend. Or counting cars buzzing by on a popular scenic byway with no commercial centers in sight.

I’ll be riding my bike to a meeting tonight, and expect to enjoy the trip far more than I would if I was driving.

So does that make it transportation or recreation?

Other than a relative handful of bike haters, who really cares?

………

As for that meeting, I hope you’ll join me at the first meeting of the LACBC’s newly formed Civic Engagement committee.

The committee is being created to allow the LACBC to play a role in local elections in the city and county of Los Angeles. While the non-partisan committee will not endorse or work for individual candidates, our plan is to get candidates on the record through the use of questionnaires, as well as candidate forums, socials and debates.

The meeting will take place from 6:45 to 8:45 pm on the Mezzanine level of LACBC headquarters, 634 South Spring Street, with future meetings to be held on the last Tuesday of every month, location to be determined.

Participation is open to everyone, member or not. And candidates are welcome to stop by to introduce themselves, at tonight’s meeting or any future meetings, though time restrictions may limit speaking time.

………

Claremont Cyclist notes that Andy Schleck has backed into his yellow jersey. Giro winner Ryder Hesjedal takes home Canada’s first grand tour victory; Mark Cavendish misses the Giro’s points title by one point.

Evelyn Stevens wins the inaugural Exergy Tour women’s pro stage race, which should put her on the U.S. Olympic team. And Tim Duggan is your new national pro road race champion, while Dave Zabriskie wins the time trial once again.

………

The L.A. Weekly notes the neighborhood where a 19-year old cyclist was shot in Koreatown last weekend is ground zero for one of the city’s most notorious gangs. Will Campbell offers a time lapse of his annual ride to remember the real reason for Memorial Day; hint: it’s not barbeque, beaches or shopping. Bikas spots new bike lanes on White Oak Avenue. The Ballona Creek bike path will be closed in Culver City for two months beginning tomorrow. Glendale officers ride to remember one of their own. Long Beach gets a bike-friendly promotion.

Let’s Go Ride a Bike profiles San Diego’s Brown Girl in the Lane. Is roadway bullying just a matter of boys will be boys? A San Francisco cyclist is acquitted of hit-and-run in a collision that injured an elderly pedestrian. Wrong way cycling may seem safer, but it’s far from it. California’s proposed three-foot passing law advances after being watered down in the Senate.

Grist says Congress gives young cyclists the middle finger. Ten reasons to ride your bike. An unlicensed Washington driver swerves to avoid a skunk and kills a cyclist. Mountain bikers head to Colorado’s Grand Valley. A South Dakota political candidate is cited for DUI after hitting a seven-year old cyclist. Once again, a select group of cyclists will retrace the Trail of Tears. Chicago adopts a bold Vision Zero plan, committing to zero traffic deaths — bike, pedestrian or motor vehicle — within 10 years; so far, I only know of one L.A. candidate or elected official who even knows what Vision Zero means, let alone has called for it. David Byrne looks favorably on bike share in New York. Eight years ago, a 12-year old girl was promised a new dog if she won her age group in the national cycling championships; today, that dog helps pay for her college education.

An upcoming conference says children have a universal right to ride. Ottawa cyclists complain about non-bikes in the bike lane, just like cyclists in every other city. Utterly useless article in the great helmet debate, as a Vancouver writer refers to a number of studies to support his position without linking to or citing any; a Euro study suggests adverse health effects from a drop in cycling will outweigh benefits of a mandatory helmet law. Prince Charles rides an ebike. There’s something seriously wrong when the police are afraid to ride. Relatively inexpensive mirrors could help cyclists avoid truck blind spots. The Wall Street Journal says Asia is a hub for bikes.

Finally, rather than lock up his family’s bikes, a Nebraska man writes a stern letter to the thief or thieves; thanks to Todd Munson for the heads-up. And the Dutch don’t wear helmets or lycra, and they don’t ride racing bikes.

Except when they do.

A popular bike path closes with no apparent warning; a bike-hating OC writer tries to rip us a new one

I’ve gotten a few emails lately wondering why the Coyote Creek Bike Trail suddenly closed with no advance warning.

The popular Class I bikeway provides a 9.5 mile off-road route along Coyote Creek from Santa Fe Springs until it merges with the San Gabriel River Trail.

Or at least it did.

According to the following email I received from Fullerton cyclist Colin Campbell, the bike path is going to be closed at Alondra Drive for the next several years. And if Caltrans bothered to tell anyone in advance, the word didn’t get out to the riders who use it.

After this morning’s ride, I ate a slice of cold pizza and went out to “finish” today’s ride.  (I’m in the Strava “Twice the Tour” Challenge, in which riders must ride double the miles of the Tour of California, or 1479 miles, during May.)

I’ve been trying to find out how long the Coyote Creek bike trail would be closed around Alondra, I-5, and Firestone.  Last Friday I rode up to the closure from the south, and I couldn’t find anyone to talk to.  Over the weekend, I searched on the Internet and read about the I-5 widening and improvement project from the Orange County line to I-605.  What I read said that there were seven smaller projects, one of which is at Coyote Creek and Alondra. This project has just started, and is schedule to complete sometime in 2015.

So today, I rode across Rosecrans and headed south.  Just past the Alondra underpass, I found people, who directed me to the contractor’s construction office at the corner of Alondra and Freeway Dr, just east of Coyote Creek.  I was able to speak with Mark, the project manager.

He gave me a short overview of the project, and the bad news – the trail will likely be closed for at least a couple of years.  It has already been filled with dirt so that equipment can access the strip of land between the creek and the trail, where 36-inch piles will be sunk 100 feet to support the new I-5 bridge.  I-5 is going to be raised about six feet, and Alondra about 10 feet above where they are today.  So eventually, the trail may head through there “at grade”, rather than being sunk several feet.  (This is just my guess, nothing I was told.)

For now, there are signs at Artesia and at Rosecrans advising riders that the trail is closed.  It is possible to ride south to the swap meet (old drive-in theater) and exit onto Alondra.  However, at some point, Alondra will be closed while it is rebuilt 10 feet higher.  From there, ride east to Valley View, and take Valley View south to Artesia to reenter the trail southbound.

It is also possible to ride north to Firestone, follow Firestone southeast under Valley View, turn right, then right again, and take Valley View north past the closure (most likely to Rosecrans for most riders).

The bottom line is that the Coyote Creek trail is lost to us for a good while, and we should get used to using other routes.  And of course, the other bottom line is that no one in Caltrans thought to inform the cycling community of this “minor” impact….

In a follow-up email, Campbell talks a little more about the closure and apparent lack of notice, and notes that parts of the trail that remain open are in need of repair.

In short, the trail was closed as part of the improvement project on Interstate 5 from the Orange County line to Interstate 605.  I understand that closure of the trail was necessary, but I’m a little sad that Caltrans apparently did nothing to tell cyclists about the closure or the duration thereof.  I suppose that several hundred riders use the trail daily, while about 178,000 vehicles travel I-5 each day.  I am a little bit hopeful that some planning can be done to reopen the trail sooner than the project manager indicated.

One thing I didn’t mention in my e-mail below is that the Coyote Creek trail has been repaved along most of its length, except for about four miles in Cerritos, Hawaiian Gardens, and Los Alamitos.  Part of the trail is breaking up, leaving the surface narrowed and rough.  LA County DPW tells me that the cities along the trail built it and are responsible for maintenance.  I haven’t yet tried to find out if improvements are in their plans.

………

An Orange County letter writer calls out every anti-bike cliché in the book to protest the recent decision to put sharrows on the coast highway.

After all, we non-bicyclists contribute monies, through our taxes, which pay for all of those never-ending miles and miles of bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle markings and other alleged “safety measures.” Presently, bicycle riders are getting a “free ride.” Bicyclists are the only group who share the road but don’t pay their fair share.

Evidently, she’s aware of a lot more never-ending miles of bikeways than than the rest of us. Which makes me wonder just where the hell Orange County is hiding them.

She also complains about “older, leisure-time bicycle riders” who dress up in too-tight clothes and an “all-too-common case of road rage.” In fact, she goes so far as to call for banning any cyclists over the age of 65 from riding on public streets.

No, seriously.

I never knew road rage was something you could wear. Then again, I also didn’t know it was possible to meander aggressively. Or that cyclists put drivers of cars, SUVs and trucks in peril.

I must have missed all those stories about careless, distracted and/or aggressive cyclists slamming into SUVs and killing or maiming the drivers. Evidently, it must happen a lot, and we can only thank her for bringing it to our attention.

I know I, for one, will immediately pack away my spandex so as not to threaten or offend innocent motorists such as herself. Even if I still have a few good years left before I can expect to lose all control over my bike and body after crossing that magical 65-year old threshold.

Especially since she thinks the sharrows and bike lanes that we demand others pay for only make drivers more impatient and aggressive. And make it our own damn fault if we get doored and thrown in front of oncoming traffic.

She concludes that if we really insist on having such life-threatening bikeways, we should be forced to pay the exorbitant construction costs ourselves.

Then again, maybe we should send her a bill for all those roads that motorists like her don’t pay for, either.

And as it turns out, she doesn’t seem to like dogs any more than she likes bikes.

………

Finally, one more reason to pass pedestrians with the same margin you’d expect from drivers, as a Pennsylvania man pulls out a gun and shoots at a cyclist who brushed against him. And just in time for Bike to Work Day, the father of Vehicular Cycling seems to suggest that Complete Streets are a fraud, and nothing can be done to encourage people to switch from cars to bikes; thanks to Christopher Kidd for the link.

Update — LAPD drops, then reopens investigation into Pinkyracer case, blaming the victim for her injuries

According to KNBC-4, the LAPD has closed its investigation into the road rage assault of cyclist Susanna Schick. And shifted all the blame for the incident onto the victim.

Based on the descriptions of two on-duty officers who claimed to have seen the whole thing — yet remarkably, failed to do anything to prevent it — Schick merely fell over, resulting in numerous broken bones as well as a significant concussion.

According to police spokesman Lt. Paul Vernon, speed may have been a factor in the collision, noting that Schick is a long-time motorcycle racer.

Yet she wasn’t riding a motorcycle on Friday night. And the severity of her injuries are inconsistent with a solo fall from a bike; even at high speed, she’s unlikely to have suffered six broken ribs and broken her pelvis in three places in a fall on level ground. Let alone been knocked cold for upwards of 15 minutes, despite wearing a helmet.

The fact that she has raced motorcycles is entirely irrelevant to this investigation.

Excuse me, former investigation.

Yes, it’s possible that she suffered such severe injuries in a simple fall.

But it is so far from likely that to ignore them suggests a desire on the part of police to just close the books and get this case over with.

As of now, no one other than the officers at the scene have examined Schick’s bike for evidence of a collision that might be beyond the ability of a patrol officer untrained in bike collision investigations to spot. And to the best of my knowledge, no one at the department has made any effort to contact the driver of the Lexus to get his side of the story.

If they had, he might have denied everything. Or he may have blurted out, as did the infamous Good Doctor, that he was just trying to teach her a lesson.

We’ll never know, because the department has inexplicably closed the investigation without apparently bothering to talk to him.

Then there’s Lt. Vernon’s apparent attempt to discredit the victim, suggesting that Schick may have been drinking — despite failing to present evidence to support that.

… He also questioned whether she had been drinking, and said officers could have insisted on a blood test at the hospital.

Yes, they could have requested a blood alcohol test at the hospital, but apparently didn’t. They also could have requested a virginity test, but failed to do that, as well.

It’s entirely possible that Susanna Schick had a drink or two — or maybe 20 — before riding home on Friday night. There’s clearly no shortage of bars Downtown where she might have stopped.

But given that she lives just a few blocks from where the incident unfolded, she could have just as easily been on her way home from church, a movie or an AA meeting.

If the police have any evidence that she’d been drinking, they failed to produce it.

As I’ve said before, we have no way of knowing what really happened that night. Maybe the police are right, and she was the aggressor in the road rage dispute, then simply fell off her bike.

Or maybe they’ve once again let a dangerous driver off the hook, as they did when they accused Andres Tena of riding his bike backwards into a Hummer, or cyclists of milling in the middle of a dark street waiting for a driver to mow them down.

I’m not, as a friend of mine accused me, accusing the police of lying.

I would sincerely like to believe that, from their perspective at least, they have followed the evidence and come to what they believe is the right conclusion, however much I may disagree with it. And however repugnant it may be to speculate that the victim may have been drunk without offering evidence to support it.

But to me, this appears to continue the same old windshield perspective, anti-bike bias that Los Angeles cyclists, and cyclists throughout the U.S. — and around the world, for that matter — have fought for years.

And which I thought was finally gone for good thanks to a bike friendly mayor, and the efforts of LAPD Chief Beck, Sgt. David Krumer and the bike community members of the LAPD Bike Task Force.

This investigation may be over as far as the police are concerned.

But that doesn’t mean it passes the smell test.

Update: Evidently, someone at LAPD headquarters doesn’t think it passes the smell test, either.

According to KNBC-4, the department is reopening the investigation, just hours after they reported the case had been closed. 

Police are reopening the investigation into what caused a cyclist to severely injure herself Friday night as a potential aggravated assault case, citing growing community concern and a second interview with the 42-year-old cyclist Susanna Schick.

Must have been some interview. Or maybe it’s thanks to KPCC’s Patt Morrison, who questioned LAPD Chief Beck about the case in an on-air interview Wednesday afternoon.

Of course, they don’t say who is suspected of the assault. The way this case is going, it wouldn’t surprise me if they charged Schick with assaulting the Lexus.

This case is starting to look more like Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride than a serious police investigation.

Meanwhile, Streetsblog’s Damien Newton says the department’s conclusion — or previous conclusion, at least — in the case strains credibility.

You could say that.

Either the department has badly bungled this investigation, or they have conducted the one of the worst public relations exercises in recent memory.

Or both.

In less than a week, the credibility of the department has been badly eroded within the cycling community. 

In fact, I’ve received messages from dozens of cyclists questioning just who was in that white Lexus, and whether some members of the department are trying to protect them.

Yes, it sounds crazy.

Then again, so does everything else about this case.

Forget what I said — San Diego salmon cyclist wasn’t, killer driver who supposedly stopped actually didn’t

First he was wrong.

Then he was right.

Sort of like me in trying to cover this story.

Either way, San Diego cyclist David Ortiz is still dead, victim of the three cars that took his life a week ago today.

In one of the most amazing turnarounds of a collision narrative that I’ve ever seen, the 29-year old Ortiz was originally blamed for riding against traffic when he was hit by a Ford Expedition, followed in quick succession by two other vehicles. He was pronounced dead at the scene, his body trapped beneath the final car that hit him.

Now it turns out that the driver of that Expedition fled the scene — something that was not only completely left out of the initial reports, but actually contradicted by statements from police.

The San Diego Union-Tribune quoted a police spokesman as saying the first driver stopped at the scene, and clearly implied that she may not have been at fault.

It appears that he was first hit by a black Ford Expedition whose driver had the rising sun in her eyes as she drove up a slight incline on east Balboa, police Sgt. Jim Reschke said.

“The gal in the SUV – she never saw him,” Reschke said. “She felt the collision and pulled over.”

Yet it now turns out that she didn’t stop. Or if she did, she evidently left without providing her identification, as NBC San Diego reports that the driver fled the scene.

According to Bike San Diego, San Diego police officials have also issued a retraction to their earlier statements that Ortiz had been riding against traffic. Comments on the initial report here indicate that Ortiz was actually riding eastbound — with traffic — on his way to work when he was killed, rather than westbound as police had said.

The NBC report also indicates that his body came to stop in the area where he should have been riding, although they note that doesn’t necessarily mean that was where he was when the SUV initially hit him.

And as it turned out, despite initial reports, he was wearing a helmet after all. Not that it would have made a damn bit of difference under the circumstances.

In other words, aside from the actual location of the collision and the number of vehicles involved, virtually every important detail in the initial reports from the SDPD was wrong.

Yet they seem to have been tripping all over themselves to blame the victim, from incorrectly claiming he was riding in the wrong direction to offering statements — that originated God only knows where — to exonerate a killer hit-and-run driver.

Not that they haven’t done that before.

Un-effing-believable.

The San Diego police have a lot of explaining to do on this one.

Blaming the victim: Beverly Hills police blame sidewalk riding cyclist over dangerous driver

Last week, I received the following email from cyclist and budding brewmeister Todd Mumford.

As you may recall, Todd recently described a collision that left him with minor — though painful — injuries and a badly mangled bike. Now his neighbor has been the victim of a law-breaking driver.

And, apparently, the Beverly Hills police.

Todd notes that the story is second hand, but he has no reason to question his neighbor’s version of events.

He was headed east on Olympic Blvd. At some point he was riding in the street, but jumped on to the sidewalk (there was a car blocking his path or something like that).

He was on the sidewalk when he entered the crosswalk at Olympic/Doheny on a green light with the pedestrian walk sign. According to my neighbor, he checked the road and all was clear as he entered. However, as soon as he got into the crosswalk, he looked left just in time to see an SUV make a right turn from the middle lane at the last second, hitting my neighbor and sending him to the ground; he took the brunt of the impact with his shoulder.

The driver stopped and checked on my neighbor. My neighbor said two or three drivers that witnessed the accident also stopped, and started berating the driver that hit him for driving like a maniac. According to them, the driver of the SUV was speeding down Olympic, weaving in and out of traffic and finally made an illegal right turn from the middle lane before striking my neighbor.

The paramedics arrived as did the police. My neighbor got checked out and nothing appeared broken, but his shoulder was in a lot of pain (it has since become worse and he is going to get it checked to see whether he needs surgery). The police took the statements of the witnesses, the driver and my neighbor.   Their conclusion at the end of the police report was that my neighbor was entirely at fault because he was riding on the sidewalk. (My neighbor also said the police treated him like he did something wrong the entire time.)

Now, as I explained to him, it’s illegal to ride on the sidewalk in Beverly Hills. If he was just a little farther down Olympic he would have been in Los Angeles and it would not have been an issue. What I am wondering is if the police came to their conclusion because the law states it’s illegal to ride on the sidewalk or they think he’s at fault because the driver couldn’t see him because he was riding on the sidewalk.

All of which begs the question, what would the police have concluded had the SUV hit a pedestrian who was walking down the sidewalk had just entered the crosswalk and got hit?

If the police assigned 100% of fault to my neighbor because he broke the law by riding on the sidewalk, they are absolutely in the wrong. There is a legal concept in torts called negligence per se  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence_per_se), which, although not applicable here, feels like the police may be following the same concept. “You broke a law, you got hit, your fault.”  I have not seen the police report, but if they assigned 100% of fault to my neighbor, I would assume the driver was not cited for anything.

My neighbor said he has since retained an attorney and the driver’s insurance company assigned 80% of the fault to the driver and 20% to him, which is a small victory.

(As a side note, when I was dealing with the adjustor for the insurance company of the driver that hit me, they asked if I was riding on the sidewalk when I was hit.)

This story raises a number of issues.

Not the least of which is the problem of sidewalk riding, which is legal in some California cities and banned in others. And even legal in some areas of cities that ban it in others, such as Beverly Hills, which bans sidewalk riding only in business districts — even though BHPD bike officers routinely ride on the gilded sidewalks of the city’s Golden Triangle, including Rodeo Drive.

This patchwork of laws makes it virtually impossible for cyclists to comply with the law, as they may have no way of knowing if it is legal or illegal as they pass through the many various communities of the county.

In effect, it’s no different from the speed traps that plagued the state in the ’40s and ’50s. By refusing to post regulations on the street where cyclists who don’t live in the city can see them, jurisdictions that ban sidewalk riding virtually ensure that riders who take to the sidewalk for whatever reason will break the law at some point and be subject to ticketing.

Or worse, as this case points out.

Of course, the one solution is for all cyclists to always ride in the street. But simple common sense says that will never happen, as some riders will always feel more comfortable on the sidewalk, while others will jump on and off as needed to avoid road hazards and dangerous streets.

A better answer is to establish a uniform standard from city to city so it’s actually possible for riders to know and observe the law, wherever they ride.

Then there’s the problem of police in the Biking Black Hole of Beverly Hills ignoring witness statements that the driver broke the law by making a right turn from the wrong lane. And deciding that the relatively minor violation of riding on the sidewalk completely outweighs a reckless driver in a dangerous vehicle putting others at risk by committing a major moving violation.

Despite the driver’s potential to cause harm, they insisted on blaming the victim. Instead of holding people operating vehicles that are capable of killing their fellow road users accountable for operating them in a safe and legal manner, they heaped all the blame on the bike rider, who posed a danger no one but himself.

All of which begs the question, what the f*** is wrong with Beverly Hills??????

Maybe you can ask them yourself.

The Beverly Hills City Council is meeting tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, March 6th, at 1:30 pm. Bikes are on the agenda — a discussion of the city’s first planned bikeways, making them only 40 years or so behind the rest of the world.

But maybe we can use the opportunity to ask why they seem intent on remaining the most bike-unfriendly city on the Westside.

Does it matter if you’re right when a wrong-headed legal system says you’re not?

A must-read from bike lawyer Bob Mionske on a failed legal case in Mississippi, in which a judge blames a cyclist for the negligence of the driver that hit her — simply because she was riding on the road.

Except it’s not just a problem down South. It’s one we all risk every time we ride.

You can do everything right on the roads, and still get blamed by a cop who thinks he knows the laws that govern bicycling, even though he’s never been trained in it.

Or failed by prosecutors or judges who misinterpret — or sometimes ignore — legal standards in place to protect all road users.

Even bike riders.

Granted, things have improved greatly in Los Angeles under Chief Beck, particularly through the efforts of bike liaison Sgt. David Krumer. We now have a voice within the department we never had before.

Although it’s still far from perfect, as it’s not hard to find officers who have seen or don’t remember the city’s highly praised bike training module.

But leave the city, and you can find yourself subject to sometimes absurd interpretations of the law.

Take last week, when I was threatened by a road-raging driver while riding on the sharrows on Hermosa Avenue in Hermosa Beach.

The cop I flagged down was more than willing to tell the driver who tried to threaten me that I had every right to ride in the traffic lane. And was happy to explain that those little bike pictures on the street mean that’s where I’m supposed to ride, and he was required to share the lane whether he liked it or not.

So far so good.

But then he followed-up by incorrectly telling me that no violation had occurred — even though it’s against the law to threaten anyone with a motor vehicle, or to pass a rider in an unsafe manner. The truth was was that there was simply nothing he could do since he didn’t actually observe the violation.

Then he went on to add that I could have been arrested for following the driver into a public parking garage to take a photo of his license plate.

If that were the case, every paparazzo in North America would be behind bars.

But maybe the first amendment doesn’t apply in Hermosa Beach.

I’ve also gotten word that the CHP says it’s against the law to ride two or more abreast, even though that’s not mentioned anywhere in the vehicle code.

And I get regular reports from cyclists about officers telling them to get out of the traffic lanes we’re legally entitled to, or to ride in the door zone or amid the broken glass and gravel in the gutters in violation of our rights under CVC.

It’s a very sad comment that cyclists often know the law better than those who are charged with enforcing it. Let alone that we have to.

But that’s the world we live in.

If you’re stopped by a cop who doesn’t know the law, don’t argue with him. You’re far better off accepting a ticket you can fight later than ending up in cuffs. You can take it up with his supervisor when you get home. Or take it up with the judge.

And hope you get a better one than the one in Mississippi.

……..

A letter writer says the Time’s recent endorsement of bikes doesn’t reflect reality. This explains why you may be more likely to be run off the road by a jerk in an expensive car; actually, I tend to have more problems with jerks in trucks and muscle cars. Workshops continue for wayfinding signage on future Bike Friendly Streets. Simple observations says more people are riding more in L.A. Gary says high gas prices could drive a further increase in bicycling. Another look at Silver Lake’s Dr. Suess-designed pedestrian plaza. That bike musical we mentioned the other day may be a good one, but not the first after all. Can fashion lead the way for bike advocacy — and am I wrong to be offended when ghost bikes are used to sell clothes? Limited closure of the San Gabriel trail for repaving has been delayed. The Claremont Cyclist gets mistaken for Lance Armstrong.

Streetsblog says it’s round two for the three-foot passing law, similar to the one vetoed by our sadly misguided governor last year. San Diego’s leading bike website will soon extend coverage throughout the county and to all kinds of bicycling. The importance of bike advocacy. A Coronado man plans to ride across the country to call attention to traumatic brain injuries. CHP in El Centro blame a suicidal cyclist for turning into a truck that desperately tried to avoid him; yeah, right. The Coachella Valley plans to spend $80 million for a 54-mile paved pathway for golf carts, e-vehicles and bikes too. A Ventura County mountain biker thanks the people who helped save his life. Four members of Lance Armstrong’s developmental team were injured in a crash at their Santa Ynez training camp. CHP stats for the County of Santa Cruz show cyclists at fault in more collisions than drivers; of course, they’re the ones assigning blame. And I doubt rumbles strip will help. Caltrain proposes assuming responsibility for a free, volunteer bike valet. A Bay Area columnist goes from hating bikes to thinking they’re the future to hating bikes, or at least the people on them. Sacramento cyclists — and unwilling drivers — enjoy the benefits of back-in angled parking.

How to go hard anywhere. Helmet hair is no longer an excuse for not riding. Bikes aren’t the reason for Portland’s transportation problems. Eight years in prison for a repeat drunk driver convicted in the hit-and-run death of a Colorado cyclist. Press reports blame the victim of a fatal collision for riding in the traffic lane rather than on the shoulder, yet fail to mention that bikes are allowed in the lane in all 50 states, and offers no further explanation for why an Atlantic City cop ran him down. New York makes improvements to Prospect Park that actually benefit riders for a change. The New York Times continues the debate over making cities safer for cyclists and pedestrians, including a remarkable claim in the comments from John Forster, the father of Vehicular Cycling, that no one has ever created a safe bike lanes; thanks to Evan G for the heads-up. Selling vintage bikes in Boston. If you’re going to ride against traffic, don’t collide with a cop.

A Canadian study shows cycle tracks and local streets mean fewer injuries for cyclists. A UK letter writer calls cyclist behavior disgusting. A bronze statue is planned for a singer killed while riding her bike in London. Far too many Irish cyclists have been killed or injured on Dublin Streets. A Dutch study says bike helmets offer virtually no benefit in moving collisions; instead of opposing helmet use, why not call for better helmets? Park your bike in the wrong Copenhagen spot, and you may find it moved — albeit very politely. What cyclist wouldn’t want to ride the Chuck Norris bike and pedestrian bridge? Breathtaking bike sculpture from China’s Ai Weiwei. Australian authorities target cyclists in an attempt to reduce trauma on the roads, rather than focus on the ones actually causing it. Brisbane bike couriers are told to stop making small talk with receptionists. A suggestion from Down Under that all car mirrors should have warnings to look out for cyclists to prevent doorings. An Aussie man is ticketed for doing 35 in a school zone — on a bike.

Finally, a pantsless woman was arrested for shoplifting at an OC bike shop, reportedly jamming parts and accessories into her somewhat lacking attire. It’s a wonder any of our bike-riding forebears survived the ‘40s, though they seem to have had a different definition of head-on in those days.

And George Wolfberg forwards a warning that the bees that tried to kill me on the bike path may be bringing in robotic reinforcements.

The “cyclists don’t pay their fair share” debate rears its ugly head again, and lots of Monday links

Once again, a sadly misinformed motorist assumes all drivers obey traffic laws while all cyclists ignore them. And so we should be forced to pay for our “extravagantly generous” bike lanes ourselves.

We’ll ignore the fact that virtually every driver breaks the law on a regular basis. Like cheating the posted speed limit by an extra five to 10 mph. Seldom, if ever, signaling. Or failing to come to a full stop at stop signs, while feeling not the least bit hypocritical in pointing the finger — yes, that one — at cyclists who do the same.

But I have to question how many drivers would willingly trade their publicly financed 12-foot travel lanes for the pothole-ridden, gutter-clinging door zone lanes we have to fight for. Even though they cost pennies on the dollar compared to motor vehicle lanes.

Meanwhile, a Santa Cruz writer offers the best response to the “cyclists don’t pay for the road” myth I’ve yet seen. And in just two paragraphs, no less.

I’d suggest copying this one and saving it for the next time you’re confronted by one of these motor meatheads.

Maybe the solution is to stop all forms of street and highway funding that aren’t paid directly by road users, so drivers will finally understand how little they actually pay for the roads they use. And how much they’d have to pay to continue rolling in the relative roadway luxury to which they’ve long been accustomed.

We might even manage to actually balance the budget while we watch the streets crumble around us.

Not like they’re not doing that already.

Crumbling, not balancing.

……..

Great set of historical L.A. bike photos from the Los Angeles Library archives. Sometimes a complaint works, as an illegal newsbox blocking a bike rack disappears. Evidently, car parking is preferable to bike parking at bars, so that imbibers will drive home drunk instead of biking. Studio City Patch examines the anatomy of a recent bike hit-and-run. A Chicago bike blogger visits the first Bike Center in Long Beach. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune says bike thefts are soaring. A look at the inaugural Cycling Claremont ride. Planning safe routes to the beach in Corona del Mar. A 19-year old Newbury Park mountain biker was killed in a fall while riding in Kern County on New Years Eve. A new bill introduced in the state assembly could allow more innovative California bikeway designs; not surprisingly, it’s supported by CalBike and opposed by vehicular cycling-oriented CABO. A Modesto grandfather was killed in a hit-and-run while riding his bike on Friday. In a killing reminiscent of L.A.’s recent gang past, a Modesto-area cyclist is shot for wearing the wrong color shorts. An April ride from San Diego to Sacramento is planned to protest Governor Brown’s vetoes that endanger cyclists, such as the proposed three-foot passing law and increased penalties for distracted driving..

The amazing Katie Compton wins her eighth national cyclocross title. Considering his opposition to funding bike projects, is House Majority Leader Eric Cantor really a cyclist? Another great read from Kent’s Bike Blog on whether it’s better to buy a cheap bike and fix it up, or an expensive bike that needs little or no maintenance. An Austin cyclist asks if blowing through red lights is worth it. Cyclists around the country have been pleading for this ad campaign to come to America. A New York study shows bike lanes don’t endanger pedestrians, or anyone else, for that matter. Boston bicyclists get more bike lanes. Another reason to adopt a dog — a Virginia pooch rescued by the Humane Society tracks down his owner’s stolen bike.

It’s deer versus cyclists in Victoria BC. London’s vaunted Cycle Superhighways cost ten times as much per mile as Chicago bikeways, with far worse results. Londoners plan to blockade a dangerous intersection Monday to protest the city’s lack of action in response to rising cyclist death rates. The new shared road space in London doesn’t seem to be shared at all, as designs appear inadequate, while drivers insist on maintaining dominance. Another day, another doping scandal, this time involving the world sprint champ. A Dutch cyclist loses his drivers license after a possible drunk biking collision.

An Aussie cyclist successfully circumnavigates the entire country. Apparently, no one is responsible for a Down Under dooring death but the victim himself. The Path Less Pedaled looks at a biking Kiwi nomad. A South African restaurant chain bans helmets and sweaty spandex. Can cyclists co-exist with pedestrians in Singapore? A hilarious Japanese look at bike bells for pedestrians, via the Claremont Cyclist.

Finally, a couple of non-bike related pieces.

First up, L.A. expat Amanda Lipsey, now roaming the wilds of Montana with the Adventure Cycling Association, forwards the story of a hero Corgi who not only survived an avalanche, but walked four miles back to the hotel room his owners had stayed in. And, I might mention, is a dead ringer for mine.

Second, my dogsled racing brother — and newfound adventure cyclist — writes about his recent efforts in the Sheep Mountain 150, as he prepares his team for next month’s Yukon Quest — a race that makes the famed Iditarod look easy.

Or less horrendously difficult, anyway.

No wonder we continue to die on California streets, when CHP says killing a cyclist is just an accident

This morning I received the following email from Chris Willig regarding the tragic death of Hollywood writer/producer Carol Schreder while riding on Mulholland Hwy last Saturday.

A public spokesperson for the CHP West Valley station stated in a phone call Monday that no citation has been issued nor is there likely to be one in the December 3rd death of cyclist Carol Schreder in a tragic traffic incident on Mulholland Highway in Malibu.

He indicated that it was a “unfortunate accident” caused when a possibly inexperienced driver of a van towing a trailer applied the brakes too hard. This caused the trailer to force the van to the right in a jack-knife. The rear end of the van caught Carol who was riding on the right of the fog line severely injuring her. She later died in hospital. Because there was no “criminal intent”, charges against the van’s driver are not being considered.

Wait a minute.

Since when has “criminal intent” been a required element for a traffic infraction?

Under that standard, no one would ever be held accountable for any traffic violation in California. No tickets for running red lights. No violations for driving drunk, since it would be impossible to ever prove intent.

Not even a ticket for distracted driving, since drivers could claim they just broke the law without thinking, and didn’t really mean to do it.

You know, just one of those things.

Like killing a cyclist.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you can count the number of knowledgeable cyclists who still have faith in the CHP on one hand, and have enough fingers left over for a well-deserved gesture.

After all, this is the same organization that said cyclists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike-involved collisions — based strictly on their own auto-centric investigations, as well as their pronounced lack of training in the rights and responsibilities of of cyclists and the physics of bicycling collisions.

Let alone that this is the same organization that advised Governor Brown to veto the state’s three-foot passing law.

And despite the fact that it only takes a quick scan of the California Vehicle Code to find a number of violations for which the driver could, and perhaps should, have been cited.

Like the California Basic Speed Law, for instance.

CVC 22350.  No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Even if strong crosswinds contributed to this collision, as some have suggested, the driver would have been in violation of the requirement mandating due regard for weather. And at least one other cyclist reports that the van was seen traveling at an excessive rate of speed just prior to the collision.

Then there’s the requirement to follow at a safe distance; the fact that the driver had to brake sharply to avoid the vehicle ahead offers prima facie evidence that the driver was in violation — let alone that there was a stop sign just 260 feet ahead of the point of impact.

CVC 21703.  The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.

And most damning of all is the requirement for drivers towing a trailer to maintain control of both vehicles.

CVC 41104.  In any case, involving an accident or otherwise, where any rear component of a train of vehicles fails to follow substantially in the path of the towing vehicle while moving upon a highway, the vehicle shall be presumed to have been operated in violation of Section 21711.

CVC 21711.  No person shall operate a train of vehicles when any vehicle being towed whips or swerves from side to side or fails to follow substantially in the path of the towing vehicle.

According to the standard set forth in CVC 41104, the simple fact that the collision occurred in the way it did is demonstrates a clear violation that the driver should have been held accountable for, regardless of a possible lack of experience.

And proof that the driver should have been found at fault for the collision, and the death that resulted.

By failing to hold a killer driver responsible for his actions, the CHP has not only failed Carol Schreder, her family and loved ones, but the entire cycling community.

Because we will continue to die on California roadways as long as authorities allow drivers to break the law with impunity.

And just drive away, regardless of the consequences.

If you’re not pissed off yet, maybe you should go back and read this again.

Anyone with information on this case is urged to contact the CHP West Valley Station 5825 De Soto Ave, Woodland Hills 91367-5297; 818-888-0980; maybe if they hear from enough witnesses they’ll reverse this outrageous decision.