Last night I ran into the folks who’d just returned from the Atwood Neighborhood Council meeting where the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights was being proposed ^[1]. They approved it 10 to 2 (with one abstaining) and today it was passed up the chain ^[2] even further. The interesting thing to me about this whole thing is that if you read the actual document ^[3] it basically just affirms that people on bikes are entitled to the same rights and protections that people who aren’t on bikes. That’s the beauty of it really, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could be against something that says “this group of people deserves the same thing as that group” but still there are dissenting voices. While chatting with the folks last night they mentioned some of the arguments brought up by the two “against” voters in last nights meetings. One was insistent that this would require a bike lane to be put on the road in front of his business and thus keep customers away, and the other apparently asked something like “I can’t support this, can you imagine what would happen if this kind of thing caused more people to start riding bikes around the city?!” I’m sure that’s not an exact quote, but that was the gist apparently. You might ask why something like this is even needed, if it’s just pointing out rights that people already have, well when things like ^[4] this keep happening it’s important to have something to point to and remind city government and law enforcement that just because I want to get some exercise and save some money on gas by riding a bike doesn’t mean that suddenly some kind of second class citizen.

Update: Mikey Wally ^[5] was there and has more details…

“Only Lenore Solis ^[6], Church/Religious Representative and local realty agent, and Luis Lopez ^[7], Community Group/Non-profit Representative and owner of Luis Lopez Automotive ^[7], voted against the motion. During the member comments section Solis expressed concerned that the CBoR would give cyclists the right to ride on the freeway and she argued that the CBoR was too broad, specifically 5, “the right to routine accommodations in all roadway projects and improvements,” and 9, “the right to full access for themselves and their bicycles on all mass transit with no limitations.” Lopez argued that the Bill would give cyclists “too much leverage” on future Council decisions…”

Related posts:

1. Hummer runs over cyclists, LAPD lets driver go unticketed ^[8]
2. Santa Monica Wins Bike Friendly Award. Local Cyclists Call Bullshit. ^[9]
3. Bikes Only? ^[10]
4. Bigots have rights too. ^[11]
5. Don’t Deliberately Brake Hard in Front of Cyclists ^[12]