Menlo Park: Bicyclist anti-harassment law under consideration

Oh this is rich.
Let’s just enforce the existing traffic laws for cyclists.

If bicycles want to share the road, they should follow the same rules. If not, they should be fined the same as cars.

The Bicycle Commission requested that the city consider whether or not to implement a bicyclist anti-harassment ordinance. It has not made any recommendations yet regarding approval or wording. They may consider it and then decide not to recommend implementation.

It’s about time that laws were enforced as cyclists violate traffic laws, running red lights and stop signs for instance. Just yesterday a biker streaked through the red light in front of the Menlo School. And, what about riders who are two-abreast in the bike lanes, with the rider on the outside vulnerable as he/she are on the street. We really don’t need more laws for motorists.

All these comments are exactly why we need this law. Harassing or threatening someone with your vehicle is NEVER justified. NEVER.

Most of the cyclists I see are already in violation of traffic laws. Daily, I see failure to stop at stop signs & red lights, failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, texting while cycling (look ma, no hands!) and unsignaled lane changes across more than 2 or more lanes of traffic.

After dark a couple of nights ago, a southbound cyclist on El Camino without lights or reflectors, no helmet & no-hands-on-grips rode on the wrong side of the road, toward me in the northbound right of El Camino between my car & the parked cars at the side of the road. I stopped & was nearly rear-ended by the car behind me. How can I stay the mandated 36″ away from such idiots?

These behaviors will at some time result in a collision with cars which will be most unfortunate, yet the motorists will nearly always be blamed. Our overly congested roads are hazardous to all, but there’s no evidence of censure or enforcement of violations by cyclists. Drivers will be more considerate of cyclists when cyclists show better manners & judgment.

Unfortunately this is not already illegal. This should be pursued as a state law, not a random assortment of municipal codes.

The last thing the CC should do is pass an ordinance that makes bikers feel more empowered than they already do.

Did you read the article?

“would make it illegal for a motorist to intentionally force or attempt to force a bicyclist off the road with the intent to injure or distract the cyclist”

You can just intentionally run a cyclist off the road and you say the CYCLISTS are empowered? Say what? You are defending your right to see someone on a bike and say “Oh screw that guy” and just run them over. Is that what you are saying?

another law that emboldens bike riders to ride even more irresponsibly than they already do.

Please elucidate how you draw the conclusion that this ordinance would embolden bike riders?

Menlo Voter – Perhaps you are against this law so you can just run that peloton over?

The likelihood of a cyclist calling the cops on someone who hasn’t really crossed a line that should not be crossed is about the same as the likelihood that you would call the cops when you see some random cyclist run a stop light. Why bother?

But if a motorist intentionally runs you into the ditch and puts you in the hospital, or shoots you with a pellet gun (we get about 2 of those a year in the Santa Cruz Mountains – do you consider that defensible behavior?) then the victim should have some serious ability to have some sort of recourse.

If some cyclist gets honked at by someone who is impatient, and they call the cops, they will get triple damages. Three times zero is … zero.

This isn’t a war on stupid stuff. This is a war on violent, malicious stuff. See the difference?

This is a bit more limited that I thought. Sometimes people like to pass close to bicyclists and yell loudly just to startle them and get a thrill out of it. So far, this has never done anything more than annoy me, but it could eventually startle someone enough that they turn and hurt themselves. I don’t think this law would apply… this concerns intentionally trying to hurt someone, not just getting a rise out of someone. If there was such a law, I doubt it would be enforced, but it reduce the amount of this extremely annoying, potentially dangerous habit of some people.

Say what:

fortunately, most of my driving is for work and paid for by my employer. I still do spend a good part of my day behind the wheel, unfortunately.

John Murphy:

I am perfectly aware of the difference. The things you mention are already against the law. They’re called assault and assault with a deadly weapon. We don’t need another law. Especially one that will be nothing more than an infraction or at best a misdemeanor. Assault causing great bodily injury is a wobbler and ADW is also a wobbler. What’s the point in passing a law that is less sever than the actual crime you’re trying to stop?

Donald:

they can already do that. They don’t need another law to do so.

parent:

Donald said civil court. One can always sue in civil court. This law doesn’t change that.

I don’t see how it would make it easier to file a civil suit. It’s already simple. Also, assault doesn’t require serious injuries to be prosecuted. Our DA may not choose to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Again, anyone can file a civil suit. Regardless of what the spokesperson says this ordinance doesn’t make it “easier.”

@ John Murphy

Why do you say that motorists “intentionally try to injure & kill cyclists”? Do you & your friends do that? If that were true, why aren’t there more maimed & dead cyclists? Yes, there have been tragic accidents, sometimes caused by both parties being careless, but your statement is bizarre.

Downtowner –

In my last comment I said “99.9999% of drivers are non-malicious no matter how much they are annoyed by conditions on the road.”

There is a fraction of people out there who are malicious. It happens far more than we would like Cyclists should have more recourse in those cases.

We can discuss cyclists and drivers who are just not very good at cycling or driving later. This law is about psychopaths. Protecting cyclists from them doesn’t embolden them or impact you.

Wow, I didn’t realize it was legal to force a cyclist off the road with my vehicle. I thought that I was meant to share the road with all vehicles.

Funnily enough, I thought it was the law that bikes should be sharing the road with us, not riding in packs, not riding more than two abreast, and obeying all the traffic laws that motorists had to obey.

Thanks, Menlo Park, for letting me know that at present the laws are different in your town.

WhoRUPeople – if you want to play that game, take a quick trip out to US-101 (off peak when traffic is not stuck at a standstill) and monitor the number of vehicles obeying the speed limit. Also read up on the 41,000 people killed annually in motor vehicle crashes – that doesn’t happen unless someone breaks a rule. Or do you consider that “off topic”?

All you accomplish by going “off topic” is starting a pissing match on who are worse, cyclists or drivers, which is a never ending useless battle.

You and Menlo Voter discuss that those psychos should be prosecuted – here’s the rub which you are quite unaware of. They DON’T get prosecuted. Witness the cyclist who was killed in San Francisco last month. The SFPD was too lazy to walk across the street to see if the surveillance camera pointed straight at the intersection was rolling. They closed the case claiming the cyclist was at fault. A private citizen asked for and received the video which implicated the truck driver. The PD has now recanted and says the driver is at fault, but the driver has not been cited nor charged.

Given that, we do need more civil remedies. Presuming this ordinance is typical, it gives cyclists claim to treble damages in civil court.

Well said, Eliza. Last Saturday, I witnessed a morning pack of bicyclists scream hateful obscenities at a car who was “too close” when they were riding 4 abreast and drove the car into the other lane close to a blind curve. That is a rarity, but we routinely see inexperienced or casual cyclists make unpredictable moves on the road that make it difficult for drivers to predict what they will do.

None of this makes dangerous behavior excusable. But given the recent incident in New York in which cyclists trapped, baited and terrorized a motorist, why don’t we just say ANY such behavior is unacceptable.

@WhoRUPeople Since you have no original thoughts can you please get your own handle. Capitalizing a letter in mine doesn’t count.

All of the unrelated anti-bicyclist rhetoric on this board shows exactly why this ordinance is needed.

No one deserves to be threatened by you or your car, whether or not you like bicycles.

Furthermore, no one wants to ride their bike on the sidewalk. People do that because they feel endangered riding in traffic. Making roads safer for bikes will help *YOU* by allowing the bikes to ride in the street.

People riding bikes help YOU:

– Reduce traffic
– Save you a parking spot
– Slow global warming
– Reduce smog
– Reduce the “necessity” of oil wars

I’m assuming that the cameras being put up will also show bicyclists going thru stop signs and red lights, when there’s no traffic, yes? Anyone know?

I see and know some bicyclists have nearly become the new terrorists on the mountain in Woodside. They ride 2 and 3 abreast, they do not go the speed limit even when there are more than 5 cars behind them but stay in the MIDDLE of the road all the way down to Portola Road. They do not pull over even though they are riding for pleasure. Sometimes residents are trying to get to work or chemo (in our case) or any other reason and to have to go 19, 20, 21 mph for 6 or more miles, is frustrating and dangerous. They DO give tickets for going too slow in California.

It is my belief bicycles should not be allowed on any road without a designated bicycle lane because they are not only taking their own lives in danger but the lives of others. We had a neighbor a few years ago on La Honda Road heading toward 4 Corners (the top of the mountain) when a motorcyclist crossed the center divide on a curve and was killed because he crashed into the neighbor’s pickup truck with a father and daughter inside. The family was so traumatized it ended in divorce and then moved out of the area. Yes, it was a motorcyclist who actually died but the bicyclists do the same thing. I have come around a curve and practically had heart failure because I am going the speed limit and there on the other side of the curve are 3 bicyclists riding abreast. The whole situation is one of the seeming “Authorities” not using common sense and bicyclists being allowed to traumatize the community. They are absolutely entitled to use bicycle lanes and have their enjoyment, exercise, etc., but for them to be allowed on the narrow mountain roads where there are MORE areas without sufficient room for both a bicycle and a vehicle, than those ABLE to be designated, it is a disrespectful demonstration of one individual putting the lives of the community in danger for their “rights and pleasure”. The insanity of allowing this to continue is beyond the dictates of common sense.

As to Dr. John’s comment above which is an endorsement of the benefits: ” Reduce traffic – Save you a parking spot – Slow global warming – Reduce smog – Reduce the “necessity” of oil wars “. I concur; however, these benefits are mostly accrued when substituting bicycles for autos and not relevant to the pleasure riders who hog the roads and disrespect the already enforceable laws on this mountain. They are not being caught and ticketed and have become emboldened.

I suspect that cyclists will stop rolling through stop signs protecting completely empty intersections about the same time local drivers stop violating speed limits.

There is virtually NOBODY on the road today, 2 wheels or 4, that actually follows every traffic law from end to end. If you go 36 in a 35, why are you any better than a cyclist passing through a stop sign that has no opposing traffic (and was probably put there for ‘traffic calming’ anyway)

Besides, it’s not like most drivers come to a *complete* stop at said mostly pointless stop signs.

Does anyone here ever think we should all just collectively drop the motorist-cyclist thing and save our righteous fury and the associated energy for something that matters more? (And maybe we can set a kinder example for our kids, so there’s some chance they grow up to think that adults do things other than bicker all the time about nonsense.)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all drivers are careful and law-abiding, and all cyclists are the opposite. So every injury or death resulting from motor vehicles is an innocent accident, and every injury or death resulting from bicycles is a result of breaking laws.

Even with these extreme assumptions, about the only thing I can think of to say is: Well, I’m sure glad these scofflaw cyclists are not driving motor vehicles, which are 15-50x heavier (including the person’s weight) and 2-8x faster! Or else the roads would be chaotic and full of bloodshed!

The only remaining objection might be that a scofflaw road user can’t pull the same stunts in a car as he can on a bicycle, for he would be caught. I feel pretty safe in saying that we can all agree that one can pull all kinds of stunts in motor vehicles and not get caught. I mean, seriously: we all know that, right? We’ve all seen our share of motorists behaving badly, right? So just imagine all those badly behaving cyclists being badly behaving motorists instead.

I speculate that most drivers’ anger simply comes from the fact that bicycling is often way faster and less stressful than driving, and it’s annoying to see cyclists whizzing past you while you’re stuck in traffic. That is a completely valid feeling, and I have sympathy. Bicycle commuting is amazing. Bicycling to the grocery store is awesome. (I can get $60 worth of food staples on my setup.) Not having to worry about parking is blissful. Why not join us?

RE: matty’s post:

“Have to say, the bike lobby is almost as good as the NRA… Almost. ”

They may actually be better. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the Bike Commission and the bike lobby has systematically been eliminating parking throughout the city. Ask any Oak Knoll parent or Encinal parent who can no longer pick up their kids in a car because the city eliminated all the parking due to the the “Safe Routes To Schools” program.

If there is no where to park, they figure you will be forced to not drive. Soon, we’ll all have to be cyclists. Rainy days are going to be rough….

“Ask any Oak Knoll parent or Encinal parent who can no longer pick up their kids in a car because the city eliminated all the parking due to the the “Safe Routes To Schools” program.”

The most likely way for a child to die in or around school is to be run over by the parent of another child who is dropping off or picking up their child. There have been many incidents of this in the Bay Area in recent years, the most recent a child in Concord run over by a parent who had just dropped off her child, last month. Incidents have spiked with the addition of distractions from cellphones and texting.

The primary thing that makes a “Route to School” unsafe are parents who drive their kids to school. You should be thanking Menlo Park Schools for reducing this very clear, tangible danger.

I agree that there are plenty of poorly behaved cyclists, who put themselves in harm’s way by riding down the wrong side of the road, or in the opposite bike lane, or who text and ride, or who cut through crosswalks. These situations can be addressed by the MPPD, and should be since absent consequences, the dangerous behaviors continue. The consolation is that most of these behaviors take place at well below 12 miles per hour, and a bike is much smaller and more maneuverable, thus at least reducing the likelihood of a collision and minimizing the effect if one occurs.

There are also plenty of poorly behaved motorists, guilty of similarly poor judgement when they “California stop,” weave in and out of traffic, exceed the speed limit, text and drive, run red lights, etc. These situations can also be addressed by the MPPD, and should be. Unfortunately many motorist behaviors take place at much higher speeds in a vehicle that is much larger and less maneuverable, increasing the likelihood of a collision, and maximizing the effect if one occurs.

This ordinance is intended to provide a recourse to cyclists who are intentionally harassed by drivers, who for some reason or another don’t like something they’ve done, or their mere presence on the road. The cyclists demonstrating the poor behaviors mentioned above aren’t the ones who would benefit, since they are breaking myriad other laws and would likely be cited themselves instead. The people who would benefit are the ones who generally follow the rules of the road, travel with the flow of traffic, and attempt to be sympathetic to other road users, but who sometimes find themselves on the wrong end of someone’s 4000lb anger management issues.

The thing is, most cyclists are drivers, and we’re acutely sensitive to just how exposed we are out there. Most drivers are not cyclists and thus do not understand the challenges of navigating a bicycle with hazards at every turn, and so don’t understand why cyclists do what they do in certain situations.

If you don’t harass cyclists, you have nothing to worry about. If you are one of those drivers who, like many internet posters are emboldened by their sense of anonymity, who stop seeing other road users as people, with husbands or wives, children, brothers and sisters, or parents and who start seeing them as “others” without equal rights or authority, then you may not like this much.

The bicycle commission is looking for members…anybody willing to step up?

RuJoking,

I am sure parents who can no longer even carpool will be thinking of you and thanking the City for making the choice for them once it starts to rain and the roads are treacherous.

I would hope that the law is written to go both ways. Bicyclist are themselves overly hostile. One rider followed my wife into our driveway threatening and cursing my wife after HE ran the red light at Campo Bello and the Alameda. Rider ofter come around the curve looking only left at Santa Cruz but not seeing or caring that Camp Bello is a blind intersection to their right. Bike riders curse and flip off drivers after THEY have caused a near accident. Police should monitor dangerous intersections and issue tickets to offending riders, and make arrests on their attitudes as well.

police should “make arrests on their attitudes”?????!!!!! How about police stick to enforcing the law and not arresting people based on their attitudes.

Arrests can be made on attitude – in Iran!!! Thank goodness we don’t do that here.

Norman, the answer is no. You are throwing all bicyclists in the same bucket, which is a mistake. The ones who ride against traffic are generally inexperienced, either youngsters or disadvantaged people who can’t afford to drive or other uneducated cyclists. They hide from traffic, trying to squeeze through in any way they can without having to deal with the responsibilities of a vehicle operator because they are intimidated by that and don’t know how to deal with it. They are simply trying to survive the only way they know how in a world that was not built for them. They don’t ride their bikes because of the danger, they ride their bikes despite the danger because they have no other choice.

@Arnie you have it almost right, but you didn’t go quite far enough. It is not just that bikers are trying to survive in a world that wasn’t built for them, they are trying to survive in a world that was built to be hostile to them. I can’t blame them for breaking the rules, any more than I can blame civil rights activists in the south for breaking the segregation rules back in the bad old days.