Starting Today, You Can Get Sued in L.A. For Calling a Bad Bicyclist an Idiot (Really)

What a clear, concise, valuable post.

logo-heads can be such whiners,

I love the fact people are calling for advertisers to pull revenue from the LA Weekly over this a-hole's piece - and they should. Every last penny. But that is just my opinion. Having worked with the LA Weekly in the past as a publicist, I can honestly say that sometimes it felt like Payola to get a story run but that is beside the point. I have not picked up a physical copy of this rag for years now... indeed I will echo a previous comment as say I was surprised that the paper still existed at all. My real question is - is this Romero pinhead deemed worthy enough to waste actual ink on? Or has he already been relegated to the back burner of crack pot bloggers ?

Either way - no self respecting cyclist should support the LA Weekly until he is gone - including business owners, employees of businesses who advertise with the paper or possibly most important, anyone who works at an ad agency that deals with LA Weekly.

Hello dear.You have written a great post. Going to share with my followers on twitter. Thanks for sharing. 

the LA weakly is completely stoked on this article. It has the most comments of any of their dreck. mission accomplished. romero is a fat dildo but a useful fat dildo.

I'm sure that a piece of trash, journalistic vigilante such as yourself can't be bothered with things like laws or reading, so I don't expect you to actually know or understand the content of the ordinance before writing a thoughtless, careless, egocentric pile of garbage article like this.  But the boycott list is making the rounds on Facebook and Twitter and god only knows where else, so maybe it's time you or your handlers started paying some attention to who you're bad-mouthing.

This is the most embarrassing article - for the publisher, I mean - that I have seen, possibly ever.  How do you sleep at night knowing that you have lied and misled thousands of people with a sensationalist scare piece?  On a huge, huge pile of money, I hope, because I don't know what else could offset the damage to your conscience.  Assuming, of course, that you even have one.

Get a better journalist for your site, preferably one who is literate. This Romero fellow is a hack. A "peddler" is a traveling vendor of goods. A "pedaller" is one who rides a pedal-driven vehicle, such as a bicycle. I won't even go into the actual substance of this "piece" as others before me have done so quite eloquently.

What a piece of shit article.

I will gladly give up my weekly therapeutic Thai massage and ask my State Farm agent to have his company pull their advertising from the LA Weekly, until this continual anti-bicyclist bias stops.  All your advertisers should take notice. You have attacked us too many times, it is time you feel some pain.No business from bicyclists. Pull your ads from the LA Weekly: Westside Rentals, Cottonelle Toilet Paper, State Farm Insurance, and...

·                           38 Degrees Ale House & Grill 

·                           BEER BELLY 

·                           Blue Dog Beer Tavern 

·                           Brats Brothers 

·                           CA Certified Farmers Markets,Inc. 

·                           Campanile 

·                           Coney Dog 

·                           Earlez Grille 

·                           El Caserio Restaurant 

·                           Fab Hot Dogs 

·                           FlamencoDinner Theatre @ El Cid 

·                           Hae Jang Chon Restaurant 

·                           Hamburger Mary's 

·                           Hard Rock Cafe 

·                           Hooters Hollywood 

·                           Jamaica's Cakes 

·                           Kuma Sushi 

·                           Mai Sushi 

·                           Master Burger 

·                           Moodaepo I 

·                           Moodaepo II 

·                           \My Taco 

·                           Nariya Thai 

·                           Neomeze Restaurant Bar &Lounge 

·                           Olga's Naturally 

·                           Paoli's Pizzeria 

·                           Plan B - Restaurant 

·                           Rosebud Cakes 

·                           Shamshiri Grill 

·                           Steingarten LA 

·                           THE WINE HOUSE 

·                           Vienna Cafe 

·                           Wirtshaus 

·                           Wrap Express AllA   This is a partial list.  More LA Weekly advertisers will be listed soon. No money, no business from bicyclists unless they  pull all advertising from LA Weekly.   Write a retraction or allow a bicyclist to write an article that refutes all the anti-bicycling bias that has been propagated by this publication.

I have never read an article by the writer.  I came to the article by way of a Facebook link.  It is a very poorly written article with an obvious bias against cyclists.   If the writer had taken the time to speak with a lawyer he would know that even in an injury case a civil suit for a bicyclist is not an easy thing to do.  For most lawyers, the bottom line for taking a civil case involving a bicycle is the amount of money involved.  Usually a cyclist has to have a broken bone or worse injury for a lawyer to take the case.  Cyclists are often turned down by lawyers in cases where there is property damage and limited injuries.  Good luck trying to find a lawyer to represent you for just a verbal assault.  This alone will prevent any frivolous lawsuits.   I was actually more informed about the ordinance from the comments of the readers than I was from the article itself.  The bias is obvious given the misleading title and the jabs at cyclists that are juvenile at best.  I am actually surprised that an editor didn't send the article back for a rewrite that would focus more on what the ordinance says and less on opinions of bicyclist behavior, and in addition to that the removal of the words "tool", "asshole", and "shit", which add nothing to the article and only raises questions about the credibility of the writer and the LA Weekly as a publisher.

Worst LA Weekly reporter ever.

Hey Mr. Romero,I like how you completely omit any text from the ordinance, fail to actually explain what actions are specifically prohibited by the ordinance, and are pretty much just using this ordinance to rant at city council.

By the way, for those who actually want to know what is covered in the ordinance, a quick summary would be this "Prohibiting the following activities towards bicyclists: physical assault or attempted physical assault, threats of physical injury, intentional distraction and forceful removal from street". These actions are already illegal actions that motorist take against cyclists and even other motorists all the time, the good and bad ones.

Oh, and Mr Romero, sounds like you're pissed off because you're one of those motorists that likes to scream at cyclists. Y'know, threatening physical violence and creating an unsafe distraction on the road for yourself, cyclists, other motorists, and probably pedestrians too.

"Interestingly, we recall that court rulings over the years have held that even swearing at police is protected speech. Guess the bicycle gets more respect than the badge at L.A. City Hall."

Wrong. You can tell a cop "Fuck you" without getting arrested. That's free speech. You can not say to a cop, "I'm going to fucking kill you."  That's not protected speech at all.

Same applies here.  A driver is free to flip off or swear at a cyclist who cuts him off.  But he can not say, "I'm going to ram you with my car."  That's a threat.

Please get your facts straight.

Dennis Romero, it's clear that you have not read the ordinance.  Nothing in it would outlaw calling someone names as you describe.  You have dramatically misrepresented this law.

It is specifically about threats and assaults.  Apparently you think that threats and assaults are covered by the first amendment.  They are not.  They are already illegal under state law.

The only thing that this law does is give bicyclists the ability to sue, even in cases where the police do not prosecute.  There is also still a burden of proof.  Even with threats, simply claiming someone said something will generally not be enough unless there are other witnesses.  Lawyers won't take the case unless there's something that will hold up in court.

Here's an idea: Leave bicyclists alone!  It amazes me how people get so worked up about having to share the road with bicyclists.  It's one of the easiest things to do in driving.  Give them plenty of space and respect their right to use the road.  It's pathetically easy.  Don't you have better things to do than threaten or assault bicyclists?

Another craptacular piece of work form Romero. Gee, what a surprise.

As long as I can still call a bad blogger an "idiot" that's okay with me.

    This article is not a factual representation of the law it attempts to depose. If a motorist threatens to physically do harm or swerves at a bicyclist or both then this is the kind of problem the law was intended for.    This article does have a purpose. It was written to enrage the weak minded people who are already predisposed to harm others. So in this free country of ours, you can print about anything you want including lies.

This article has nothing to do with the cyclist anti harassment ordinance and everything to do with how media outlets struggle to survive with dwindling ad revenue that leads to low skilled, lazy reporting. The headline is all they are selling, and it has to attract eyeballs. There's nothing better for attracting readers than appealing to their basest instincts of entitlement and agression. The fact that the author spends one sentence dismissively mentioning "It also covers bicyclists who are threatened with physical violence" shows an editor faced with facts that simply don't fit into the skewed argument presented by the author.

"Guess the bicycle gets more respect than the badge at L.A. City Hall."

Really? If you threaten to run over an officer with your car I think you'll get a lot more than a harassment lawsuit.

Don't want to be sued? Don't harass or threaten a cyclist! Freakin' SIMPLE!

Benefits for the cyclist:

Before - You can call up and complain about a driver to the police for almost running you over, honking at you while riding and yelling at you, throwing objects at you, and you would be told "You were riding a bicycle? Don't ride a bike."

Now - You can call up and report a driver for nearly running you off the road and/or harassing you and it's taken seriously. 

Most people wouldn't want to start a fight with a stranger, but put them behind a car and they're fearless. People get road rage and become hostile, as if their driving is flawless and everyone else is the a-hole.

Look, the last thing any bicyclist wants to do is go to court and sue. Really.  We aren't going to sue people for calling us assholes. What we will do is single out and punish those who endanger us, threaten us with their vehicles like a weapon and inflict bodily injury.  We don't want to sit in a frickin' court room and go through all the bullshit of suing someone for flipping us off. This ordinance is a warning, not a money-making venture. Car drivers must be cautious when sharing the road with bicyclists. They mustn't commit felonious acts of violence or threaten violence. I once had a car driver honk his horn and flip me off. I was moving too slow and he couldn't get around me fast enough. When I caught up with him at a red light....he sheepishly rolled down the window and apologized, saying he was going through a nasty divorce and his wife was trying to obtain sole custody of his daughter. I told him to relax and not take it out on people on the road, but I understood his frustration. I told him I appreciated the apology and hoped his wife would rot in hell.  We both laughed and he drove off smiling. You see, we aren't demons or monsters. We're human, just like you. Can we at least be treated that way. 

Also can you consult with someone from the bicycling community before writing this kind of "hit piece". Or maybe the LA Weekly should utilize some of the highly-educated and eloquent bicycle enthusiasts to write these kinds of stories. This article is an insult and a disservice to the large and growing bicycling community in Los Angeles. You wouldn't want them to boycott your advertisers.

Dennis- 

If it weren't for your poorly written piece of low hanging fruit that's been passed around the Twitter-sphere, I never would have known the LA Weekly was still floating around. 

If you can channel the power to think outside that little box known as your brain, I will give you a first hand account of why this ground breaking anti-harrassment law is a good thing. 

A couple years ago I was riding home from a show. It was a crisp spring night and I was doing all the things a good cyclist does. Had a full set of lights, was riding as far to the right as practicable and had my helmet buckled nice and snug. 

As I made my way along Beverly Blvd (near El Coyote) I was PUNCHED in the arm by college aged kid riding in the back seat of a Silver Audi A4. Luckily for me my hands were firmly on the handlebars so I didn't go down. Not gonna lie though. His punch hurt like a mother considering he had a nice 35mph boost behind it. 

Now, I've never been much of a scrapper but this Pearl Harboring (Since you stoop so low as to use the R-word to bolster your argument it's OK that I use my favorite old school rasslin' term, right?) really set me off. 

I dumped some gears and chase gearing up for a 4 on 1 rumble and closed ground pretty quick. As we approached the red light at Beverly and La Brea, common sense overruled the adrenaline rush as I noticed two LAPD cruisers posted up outside the Starbucks on the corner of Beverly and Detroit. As luck would have it, all four officers were outside sipping their beverages. 

I rolled up to them as calmly as possible and said. "I was just assaulted by one of the occupants of a sliver Audi A4 sedan that just drove past. The license plate is 4PITA3." 

(Seriously, what kind of idiots do such thing in a car with personalized plates?)

Do you know what the officers said? 

"We're on our break."

"So, even though they're stopped at a light not even a block away, you're not going to do anything?"

"I said we're on break. You can call it in if you like." 

After three tries I gave up on calling the LAPD and wasted the next morning filing a report that went straight to the round file. Never received a single nugget of follow up information. 

Now that the anti-harrassment law is on the books, incidents like these can finally be brought to some measure of justice. It's not about suing for being called an asshole, asshole. 

Sincerely, 

Matt. 

ps. Could you be a peach and pass this message along to your Ad Department? 

Don't ever think of contacting our company about placing an ad when our hip, new storefront is up and running next month. Thanks.

how do they let you write articles like this? the title is so misleading and untrue.

Once Again, an 'article' written by Dennis Romero is one I will not read. I hope they let you go as a staff writer. 

..woohooo.,.I just got a $829.99 iPad2 for only $103.37 and my mom got a $1499.99 HDTV for only $251.92, they are both coming with USPS tomorrow. I would be an idiot to ever pay full retail prices at places like Walmart or Bestbuy. I sold a 37" HDTV to my boss for $600 that I only paid $78.24 for. I use CentHub.cōm

Many cyclists are not aware of their own rights, because they are poorly taught and understood in our society which neglects bicycling generally. In all likelihood the type of cyclist who knows this law exists, and will actually use it, are those cyclists who are quite well aware of both their rights and responsibilities on the road.

I have been called names, had drivers intentionally swerve their cars at me, been physically grabbed and shoved by the passenger of a car (luckily remaining upright), had objects thrown at me or my wife. In every single one of those cases I was not doing anything contrary to the law, and did nothing to provoke such behavior.

Drivers harass cyclists, and in doing so threaten their lives with some actions, because they can get away with it without consequence. This law will hopefully start changing that.

Cool, I'm just going to say I rode my bike and point a motorist out.  It's my word against his right?  It looks like the cyclist will have a fool proof case.  Awesome!!!  I'm going to take drivers to court every week.  This is a good way to earn a paycheck every week.  TY for the great laws CA

Dennis Romero, you really are pretty ignorant, I doubt you have even read the ordinance. Did you? The LA weekly probably pays you next to nothing thus the lack of time spent researching your article.

To clear things up:

The ordinance allows for damages to be sought in a civil court for harassment and threats made against cyclists. The best part is that it allows a cyclist to sue for triple damages or $1000 whatever is more, AND it allows a cyclist to recoup the lawyer's fees. It will still require some proof of harrasment but many cyclists these days use cams on their bikes so this shouldnt be a problem. The entire community is waiting to see how the first case gets tested.

I personally think the scenario will play out like this... Cyclist gets physically threatened, harassed or something thrown at them as per usual drunken OC bro behaviour. Captures on cam or witness grabs plate. Lawyer sends letter threatening civil suit explaining damages. Driver settles out of court for $1000 to avoid litigation. Lawyer and cyclist split the money and driver thinks twice about it next time.

The law does not prevent you from calling someone an asshole. It prevents you from threatening to harm them by word or action. "Get off the road or I'll run you down" counts; swerving towards someone or buzzing them counts; calling someone an asshole or idiot does not count.

Criminal threat is already against the law--in fact I served on a jury in a criminal threat case, though it did not involve a cyclist. As Chris Kidd points out, the ordinance just qualifies these present crimes under civil law, so anyone with two witnesses or a video record can show that some true asshole in a car threatened or tried to kill or maim him. Previously a cop would have had to witness the threat.