"I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride it where I like."
- Queen, from the album Jazz.
Following outrage in the bicycling community over a YouTube video depicting a biker being harassed and then struck by a pick-up truck, nine D.C. Council members co-introduced the "Assault of Bicyclist Prevention Act of 2011." A hearing on the proposed law is scheduled for November 2nd.
These days, no legislation is worth its weight in paper without a special interest riding shotgun. Enter the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA). In advocating for the proposed legislation, WABA sounds more like it is lobbying for trial attorneys than performing the work of its stated mission.
In the District of Columbia it is already illegal to use a vehicle to threaten and assault bicyclists. You can go to jail for such behavior. You can also be sued.
WABA says current "criminal law fails to address the behavior because the officer was not present." If that was true, then someone murdered outside the presence of a police officer would be in the clear, right?
WABA also says the "proposed law creates a civil right of action for an assaulted cyclist." There already exists a "civil right of action" available to anyone harmed by another person in the District, whether they are riding a bike or flying a kite. If someone who does not like your kite punches you in the face, you can sue the assaulter for medical expenses, lost wages and punitive damages.
The Assault of Bicyclist Prevention Act is hogwash and represents yet another expansion of our increasingly litigious society.
The legislation as proposed goes so far as to trump a pillar of our legal system called the "American rule." If written into law, the act would require a defendant who loses in civil court to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. Such a law would make bicyclists unique among civil litigants.
WABA says the provision would create an "incentive for attorneys to represent the victim." Who knew? Cash cows ride bikes.
In fact, long-standing legal precedent has established the practice whereby plaintiffs and defendants pay their own legal fees. Only in rare exceptions, such as in contract and consumer law, does a plaintiff have the right to recover legal fees.
WABA, though, believes that bicyclists should be assigned to an exceptional class. Under their proposal if a motorist assaults me as a pedestrian and you on a bike, I pay my attorney but the motorist pays yours. Does that seem fair?
Instead of upending our legal system, the D.C. Council needs to have a frank conversation with representatives from the bicycling community and explain to them that existing laws, civil and criminal, already address assault perpetrated on bicyclists by motor vehicle operators.
If the D.C. Council will not stand up to the squeaking wheels of a few misguided, vocal bicycling activists, what is next? Will the Council designate bicyclists a protected class? Or perhaps an endangered species?
No one questions the dangers associated with riding a bike in traffic. Crossing the street as a pedestrian is also dangerous. Attending an NFL game in Philadelphia decked out in Redskins attire is risky, too. All of the above is done at your own risk. If someone threatens, harasses or assaults you there are legal remedies, some of which can cost the perpetrators a hefty price or time in the hoosegow.
Yes, the behavior of the driver in the YouTube video is reprehensible. But no, we do not need new laws that create incentive for lawsuits and do nothing to further protect people.
If WABA wants to have a discussion about new bike laws, I have an idea: require bicyclists to purchase liability insurance. If a motor vehicle injures you, insurance mandated by law covers medical costs and perhaps more. Why should bicyclists, who use public roadways and sidewalks, be immune from insurance requirements?
Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Maybe we need to reconsider whether the same standard should be applied to bikes?
Who among bicyclists wants to have that conversation? How about the biker who knocked my then-pregnant wife to the ground? Or the one who would have surely injured my young son had I not pulled him from imminent disaster?
Follow Chuck Thies on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chuckthies
Privilege? Because those streets belong to some beneficent lord who kindly grants us dispensation to ride on them?
Screw that. I don't know why so many people have swallowed this nonsense "privilege, not a right" concept over the years but we need to drop it, toot sweet. The government is not my mommy and daddy and does not have the ability to grant me "privileges" - that implies they have anything that they don't get via our collective donation.
I readily submit to laws and pay my taxes because they're the trade-off I make to live in society. But there are no PRIVILEGES that government can choose to withhold from me just because they feel like it.
The driver of the pickup truck was identified but never charged. I cant really see any more blatant act of premeditated assault. With law enforcement agencies it seems like cyclists can never catch a break on an assault or accident even when it results in death. The streets are not safe for cyclists even ones who follow the rules. Enforce the laws of the land even when they are committed against cyclists (and yes i support prosecution of cyclist scofflaws). This guy should be charged with aggravated assault at a minimum.
If you aren't going to enforce the laws for protection of a specific classification of people, elevate the laws for the more vulnerable like what was done in NYC for transit workers .
Likewise with pedestrians, wheelchair users, schoolchildren, people pushing strollers, etc. – all of whom use our public sidewalks and roadways when sidewalks are not present or are obstructed. I suggest the everyone who ventures outside the confines of their home should be required to purchase liability insurance to pay for injuries they may incur due to the behavior of DC’s notoriously poor drivers.
One method of accommodating this is by traffic calming. These measures, while effectively slowing or reduce motor-vehicle traffic, are implemented to control the volume and speed a specific road ways was intended to operate at. As an example, a residential street posted at 25 mph, not designed as a cut-thru to a major thoroughfare, would have structures to limit vehicle speed, or may be diverted so access to main roads is not direct, (i.e., limited).
The point is, it is much more reasonable just to follow existing protocols. Bulling never solved anything.
The state taxes are also used to repair damage to roads and bridges (done by heavy motor vehicles), and for municipal parking facilities (which cyclists cannot use) such as street parking, lots, garages, and meters.* Motor vehicle parking is 1000% more costly than bicycle parking, since the space required to park one car would provide parking for at least ten bicycles.
Since Chuck equates "equal protection" with insurance for cyclists, then motorist taxes should pay for 100% of it. That wouldn't bring cyclists up to "equal", in terms of transportation expenditures, but it would offset a small portion of what cyclists are paying to subsidize the extraordinary cost of motoring.
*Source: Federal Highway Administration
In any state I ever resided in bicycle are considered moving vehicles and share all the rights, privileges, and obligations as such. Traffic laws are based on the right of first access. That is they person in front has the right away. All things being equal the right-of-way is to the person on the right. Although it is not codified as such smaller vehicles should be given preference (as is the case with maritime law). Not doing so is akin to aggressive driving. Minimally it is unsafe.
Times I saw a driver assault a cyclist: 0. Times I've seen a cyclist assault a driver: 2. (in both cases a driver nearly hit the cyclist...in one case the cyclist then tried to use his U-lock to break the driver's windshield, leading to a fight in the middle of the street; in the other case the cyclist was kicking the side of the car. I don't care if the car was wrong initially; that type of behavior would not be acceptable between two drivers and it should not be acceptable b/t a driver and a cyclist).
For the record, I usually walk to/from work and I'm not against cycling--I think it's great that so many people cycle to work and I'm all for bike lanes/bike signals, and teaching drivers that they need to look to the right before they turn/swerve to see if a cyclist is there. I have even tried cycling to work myself on a few occasions. But cyclist need to stop thinking that they are somehow entitled to more rights than everyone else (pedestrians, drivers, wheel-barrow commuters, etc.)
Once the wrongdoing motorist is excused, he becomes the innocent driver, attacked by a cyclist for no reason (at least, no reason you care about).
For those who do care, the legal definition of "assault" means that one person deliberately threatens another with imminent physical harm. Hold a fist under someone's nose, and it's assault, even without physical contact.
Consider the motorist who deliberately passes a cyclist closely. The motorist is intentionally creating a threat of death or serious injury. The motorist wants the cyclist to be fearful and intimidated. That's an assault.
Most motorists are safe drivers. A small number assault cyclists by deliberately passing closely, sometimes within inches. Some honk, or shout things. "Move over!" "Get out of the road!" This is an everyday thing.
City cyclists often catch up to their attackers at traffic lights, so confrontations are hardly surprising. If you ever see an angry cyclist smashing car windows (and I never have) it's probably because the motorist was the original aggressor. Threatening death with a car is no joke, but the DC police don't care about cyclists, so it might as well be.
The cyclist is wrong to retaliate physically, but it's just as wrong to ignore aggressive motoring, or pretend it's anything but an extremely serious threat of violence.
Bicyclists have an annoying self righteousness. "Share the road with Bikes", yet Bikes aren't registered or insured and don't require licensing. Yet it's a metal vehicle on the road traveling at 20-30 MPH. If Bikers want added rights, there need to be shared responsibilities, and bikers should pay their share for the roads. The roads are currently paid for with registration costs and taxes on gas so NO, Bikers do not pay for the roads they claim to have a right to ride on.
All bikes should be registered and all riders over 18 should have basic insurance. If I get hit by yet another red light running biker I want to know they've got coverage.
you've never once seen a biker stop at a stop sign? hyperbole much?
Arguing it both ways is just incoherent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qj-JDoEMsM
You're going to get a lot of takers, Chuck. Bicyclists were using the roads decades before most Americans ever saw a car. In fact, bicyclists led a national movement in the 1890s (The Good Roads Gospel) to pave public roads.
Once motorists appeared on the roads with cyclists, they amassed a horrific record of killing, injury, and property damage. That's the reason for licenses, registration, inspections, and insurance. Despite all the regulation, motorists crashed 10.8 million times, and caused 35,900 deaths* in 2009 alone. Cyclists are exempt because, after 120 years, they still present little threat to lives and property.
Those are a few reasons why motoring is a privilege, not a right.
The DC police, by the way, did track down the hit-and-run driver who attacked the cyclist with his pick-up truck. They refused to press charges. This outcome, as many cyclists know, is almost routine. Public officials often are corrupt, or deeply biased against cyclists, so they refuse to enforce the law, even in extreme cases like this one.
The proposed law in DC would give a cyclist a powerful means to fight back against any motorist who brandishes his vehicle like a weapon. I'd prefer to see the attacker end up in jail, but since the DC police don't care about cyclists, it seems that a trip to civil court, at the attacker's sole expense, is the only recourse.
*Source: US Census Bureau