Lost among the voluminous chatter about talking and texting while driving earlier this year was a tidbit that I think is especially good to know in light of our beleaguered economic sitchyashun: as of January 1, 2008, California law requires merchants to provide cash back to the purchaser or holder of any gift certificate with a balance less than $10. Of course, there are a number of loopholes that card issuers can use to extract value from your card balance (keep an eye out for “dormancy fees for non-use” in particular), but if you’ve got less than $10 left on your Starbucks card and want to exchange it for cold, hard cash in lieu of a warm, satisfying Caramel Dolce Latte you’re good to go. And, just in case you forget, some Starbucks like the one I haunt at Glendale and Fletcher even sport a convenient counter sign giving you the lowdown! For full details on the ins and outs of getting your cash, check out the California Department of Consumer Affairs’ “FAQ and Tips and Gift Certificates and Gift Cards.”

No, you did not accidentally stumble onto The Onion’s website.  This is some of what was discussed recently in the California Senate, which took up the issue of text messaging while driving. That’s because California’s new hands-free cell phone law did NOT make texting while driving illegal.  According to the L.A. Times, the Senate approved a measure that would close this loophole and outlaw texting behind the wheel.

The Times article indicates that many Senate Republicans were not keen to pass the anti-texting measure.  They reportedly felt that existing laws already prohibit driving while “distracted,” which, they said, would cover texting.  One Senator, the appropriately named George Runner from Lancaster, was quoted as saying,  “We don’t need a law for everything a driver does. The next one is going to be you can’t drive while you are eating a hamburger.”

I can see George’s point.  I’m confident that, if studies were done, they would show that non-cell phoning activities while driving, such as eating, fiddling with the radio, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, and babe watching (guilty, Your Honor) are also potentially distracting and dangerous, yet I don’t think they are specifically outlawed, and, depending on the activity, it seems unreasonable or even nanny state absurd to try and outlaw them.  On the other hand, how hard must it be to enforce “distracted driving” as compared to specific activities which can be observed?  The driver would have to be weaving or drifting like a drunk driver. Plenty of drivers could be significantly “distracted” without demonstrating it that blatantly.

If anyone wonders why this matters, just take a look at Will.I.Am’s post about the alert driver who skillfully avoided hitting a girl on a bicycle.  What if that driver was texting at the time?  That’s something to think about while hitting the roads this Labor Day Weekend.  Have fun, and stay safe!

In yet another infuriating example of how the war on terror has done little but empower bullies looking to live out their revenge fantasies, the Daily News reports that a guard working for a private firm on behalf of the DHS kicked a woman out of a federal building in Van Nuys for wearing a shirt bearing the phrase “lesbian.com.” The guard claimed that “The Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property” gave him jurisdiction over her clothing, though according to the News it doesn’t, in fact, address what type of clothing is allowed in Federal buildings. I’m tempted to don my years-old “Fuck Art, Let’s Kill” shirt and head up to Van Nuys to see if it merits a similar response.

A lovely/ugly expanse of beige paint is all that remains

After years of seeing it bombed, blasted and splashed with 40-foot-long full-color-burner graffiti pieces, the forces of conformity decided enough was enough.

For the “BEFORE” view, see the jump. (more…)

The first thing I noticed about this car, driving near Fox Hills Mall in Culver City, was that it was a rare, older model, turquoise-colored Toyota Celica.  Unfortunately, I then noticed that the young female driver was chatting away on her cell phone, holding the phone up to her ear.  The older woman in the passenger seat is possibly the young driver’s momma.

More of the driving scofflaw, after the jump

This Saturday night, Love Honor Cherish is holding a fundraiser to help defeat Prop 8 in this fall’s election. Prop 8, also called the “Limit on Marriage Initiative”, is a ballot measure whose aim is to overturn the recent law allowing same sex marriage in California with constitutional amendment.

Saturday night’s event is a wine tasting at Angles Gallery in Santa Monica.  There will be excellent conversation, hors d’oeuvres and music by djBK.

Some of your closest friends are gay, I know, so come and help defeat Prop 8.

All the details and a postcard invite after the jump.

(more…)

When LAPD homicide detectives out of Hollenbeck Division arrived at at 1328 E. 1st Street between the L.A. River and Boyle Heights the night of May 5, 1951, it was not business as usual at Walker’s hot dog stand. Instead they found Richard Hardy sprawled dead on the sidewalk among witnesses who told police the 39 year old was killed in an argument. Over a dollar bill.

Photo found here at USC Digital Archives.

You remember that pair of cyclists on July 4 who ended up hospitalized with serious injuries, victims of what officials called an incident of road rage in which a Mandeville Canyon resident is alleged to have intentionally slammed on his brakes in front of them? If not, refresh yourself with LAist who was all over the story, and its developments in which the suspect, 58-year-old Dr. Christopher Thompson, was arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon. He was later charged with two felony counts each of reckless driving causing injury and battery with serious bodily injury.

Thompson, who is free on $30,000 bail, is scheduled to be arraigned August 1 at the L.A. Superior Courthouse near the airport (11701 S. La Cienega Blvd, 90045; map). If convicted on all counts he can reportedly be facing more than seven years in state prison.

I’m planning on participating in a group bike ride Friday being organized that will originate at Heliotrope and Melrose in East Hollywood departing for the courthouse at 7 a.m. If that isn’t too early for you, join in. More info is here on the Midnight Ridazz site.

Remember that law that you couldn’t talk and drive unless you had a hands-free device? Went into effect way back in 2008? I just learned today that it was never adopted by the cities of the San Fernando Valley.

Here, you can talk and drive and talk and text and talk and turn and drive all you want. Especially if you’re pulling a converted U-Haul trailer full of landscaping equipment. Or if you’re a just bad driver that isn’t quite sure where the hell she’s going anyway. Turn left here? No, wait.. I think I turn right up there.. Or, maybe I’ll just continue weaving between two lanes until my destination finds me.

I consider myself blessed to have witnessed both of the aforementioned examples of the non-existent cell phone law within the span of one hour. It’s further proof that laws that apply to Los Angeles do not quite make it over the hill. Just like you Westsiders.

Photo From the L.A. Times of What Appears to Be a Valley Girl, Doing Valley Girl Things

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. They approved it 10 to 2 (with one abstaining) and today it was passed up the chain even further. The interesting thing to me about this whole thing is that if you read the actual document 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 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 was there and has more details…

“Only Lenore Solis, Church/Religious Representative and local realty agent, and Luis Lopez, Community Group/Non-profit Representative and owner of Luis Lopez Automotive, 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…”