Bill Blum, Lawyer, Blasts L.A.'s Bicyclist-Harassment Law in L.A. Daily News

By Dennis Romero Mon., Sep. 12 2011 at 12:30 PM

Tineke

We got a lot of shit recently for saying L.A.'s bicyclist harassment ordinance is a stupid, kowtowing law, leaving way too much open for interpretation.

God forbid you have an opinion, let alone one that clashes with that of a vocal group in this city: They'll call for your head on a platter, at the least. You must march in lockstep, or fear losing your livelihood.

Well, a lawyer just joined our cause, an attorney who says in the Los Angeles Daily News that "everyone likes bicyclists," but that's not the point here.

Bill Blum writes in an opinion piece that "the council may well have gone too far, enacting a regulation so broad and vague that it runs afoul of constitutional strictures."

He also notes the vagueness of the ordinance, which would triple civil suit damages for a bike-riding victim of motorist harassment. The problem is the law doesn't define, for example, what, exactly, the key element -- purposefully distracting a rider -- is. Blum:

Would wagging one's index finger (not the obscene "table for one" gesture) at a cyclist who runs a stop sign qualify? Would honking the horn to catch the attention of a cyclist dangerously weaving in and out of traffic meet the test? Or how about just shouting to slow down?

And, as Blum says, it presents asymmetry where a motorist wouldn't be entitled to the same protection if she were to be harassed or distracted.

Now, you say, but she's in a big old car surrounded by steel. But it's still unfair.

Why bicyclists, who have fought for years in L.A. to achieve parity with motorists, would want special protection beyond what's fair is beyond us. It's like they're becoming navigation-challenged or something.

In any case, we'll let the lawyer speak:

... The ordinance fails to offer similar awards of costs and fees to motorists who prevail in legal actions - an asymmetry that raises issues of fundamental fairness and equal protection - the principal defect in the ordinance is that it also sweeps within the net of liability anyone who intentionally "distracts" or attempts to "distract" a bicyclist in whole or in part, because of the bicyclist's status as a bicyclist.
Nowhere in the ordinance is the term "distract" defined.

Yeah, good luck defending it in court, City Hall. Because we all know you have loads of cash just laying around in order to defend laws that weren't really thought out at all.

[@dennisjromero/djromero@laweekly.com]

Tags:

bicycle, bicyclists rights, bikes, Bill Blum, harassment, Los Angeles, motorists

We Recommend

saraslogg

Dennis, have you ever ridden a bicycle on the streets of L.A.? Do you know how easy it is for a motorist to stake a swipe at a cyclist, either verbally, or physically, and get away with it? Are you seriously advocating for the continued mayhem that drivers commit on a daily basis?

billdav

Dennis, in your previous article you grossly misrepresented the new law and you got called on it. Now you're whining because people complained about that misrepresentation? I don't know whether you misrepresented it on purpose or because you didn't bother to read the ordinance before commenting on it. The former is dishonest and the latter is incompetent. Neither of those is good in a reporter. Either way, your job as a reporter should be in jeopardy over that article.

To all people worried about getting sued under this ordinance, I have this bit of advice: Leave bicyclists alone. Make sure that you leave plenty of space when passing them and don't honk, yell, throw things or otherwise harass or threaten them. It's very very easy to do this. Don't you have better things to do than harass bicyclists?

IRMO

"God forbid you have an opinion" You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts.

ShakinBoots

First of all, no, everyone does not like bicyclists. We all know YOU don't and cyclist know all too well that many other people don't either. This is exactly why we needed the new ordinance.

You said: "God forbid you have an opinion, let alone one that clashes with that of a vocal group in this city: They'll call for your head on a platter, at the least. You must march in lockstep, or fear losing your livelihood."

Ok, so now you're trying to pass your last post off as an opinion piece? Too late for that Dennis.

You childishly presented your "opinion" as if it were fact and you got called on it...bigtime. As you should have been. If you attempt to pass personal crap like that off again, maybe you SHOULD fear losing your LA Weekly rant platform. You did a HUGE disservice, not only to the bike community, and to drivers genuinely seeking answers on the new ordinance, but also to your own rag mag.

Moving on: In Bill Blums article he states his opinion and offers up a rational argument in support of his opinion. I don't agree with him but he didn't resort to name calling. You should take a lesson from this.

In the end, this lawyer's opinion is still just an opinion. He is already suggesting the distraction provision be removed rather than defined. I can find you 10 other lawyers who would not agree with him. Afterall, that's what lawsuits and courts are made of, people (including lawyers and judges) who dissagree, and we will (unfortunatly at the cost of a cyclist's safety) probably see this played out in a courtroom soon enough.

One last thing regarding Bill Blum's statement, "subject to the whims of offended cyclists": This ordinance is not about cyclists being "offended". I hope we've at least established that much and that you're able to follow along with the facts from here forward.

Ezra Horne

Also, Dennis, do you sue every motorist that wags their finger at you or cuts you off in traffic? NO, because you presumably have a life outside of misrepresenting law and would rather not file paperwork and sit in a courtroom and pay a lawyer. I'm pretty confident the same is true for cyclists. This law merely empowers cyclists to take action in a way that was previously almost impossible. Burden of proof still lies squarely on the harassed (legal definition of harassment, mind you, not name calling) to prove that it happened. I hardly think this is the "Fleecing of America" moment that you think it is.

Also, a note to your editor--stop assigning this guy to write this shit--I know it drives up hits on your site, but try writing something good about cycling. I promise we'll all still read it. Cyclists actually prefer good news to incendiary remarks.

Ezra Horne

Maybe if you'd written THIS article in the first place, you wouldn't have gotten so much shit Dennis. In your first article, you had a sensationalistic headline saying that it was illegal to call a cyclist an idiot.

In THIS article, you have a more logical headline (though I'd say the lawyer hardly "blasts" but that, like the law, is open to a bit of interpretation) and you try to point out that there isn't a clear-cut definition of what harassment is. Had you written THIS article, it probably would have gotten little fan-fare, like all your other writing.

El Barto

boooohooooo waaaaaaah. the cyclists get to sue you for throwing bottles and trash at us. Great tip: Don't harass us. We are literally waiting to get one of you jerks with cams taping all your moves. Just wise up and leave us some room tubtards.