Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle harrassment ordinance passes unanimously

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/06/16/b/

Interesting?


COLUMBIA — A bicyclist harassment ordinance passed unanimously at the City Council meeting Monday after nearly an hour and a half of discussion.

The ordinance makes harassment of bicyclists — including throwing objects, verbal assault and other offenses — a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $1,000 fine or one year of jail time, the council said. Note the power of showing up:


Many in the bicycling community showed up to voice their feelings about the ordinance. Twenty individuals, some with children in tow, lined up to wait for their turn at the microphone. All 20 supported the ordinance.

Residents cited a number of reasons for their support and shared horror stories from bike riding. The tales ranged from waking up face down in ditches to having ashtrays dumped on their heads. The consensus among supporters was that the ordinance would help protect them on the streets.

“Unfortunately, there are people in our community who believe that roads are for automobiles and bicyclists who dare ride on the road should be honked at, yelled at or even have something thrown at them,” PedNet Education Coordinator Robert Johnson said. Some details...



The ordinance, which is modeled after similar ordinances in South Carolina and Colorado, makes it a misdemeanor to do the following: throw an object at or in the direction of a cyclist, threatening a cyclist to frighten or disturb the cyclist, sounding a horn with the intention to frighten or disturb a cyclist, knowingly placing a cyclist in the path of physical injury, or knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a risk of death or serious physical injury for a cyclist.

Hopefully more communities start taking back their streets from four-wheeled terrorists!

Incidentally, the fun part, as is often the case, in reading articles like these is the comment section, teething with raging drivers demanding the oft-executed right to execute cyclists.

I should also add that the legislation is scheduled for amendment in July; the goal is to add protection for pedestrians and joggers, which is great. They're as vulnerable to vehicles as we are, and bike-friendly and ped-friendly cities go hand-in-hand.

FANTASTIC LAW! Finally, getting some respect from the people in legislature.

Fantastic until you realize it's about as enforceable as the 3 foot law. Unless a cop actually sees it happen (in which case regardless of the presence of this particular law he'd be able to cite them for something), nothing will happen. The city threw a bone to the cyclists who as usual get all excited about nothing.

This is just another silly and unnecessary law, and a waste of time and effort. All it will accomplish is to make politicians feel good.

Most of the things cited are already illegal- they are simply not being enforced. Throwing objects at cyclists is an offense of assault and littering. (A littering charge could be a larger fine, no doubt!) We need the police and DA to pursue offending behavior. That is where pressure should be applied. More useless, redundant laws are not going to accomplish anything of substance for cyclists.

I thought it didn't make sense either since harrassment is already illegal, but after reading the rest it looks like they have increased the charge "Before the ordinance passed, the only charge for a cyclist to file against a motorist exhibiting these behaviors was third-degree assault." So while it was illegal before it just didn't hve much of a punishment.

Stupid question: in Missouri, are localities allowed to even create laws making something a misdemeanor? Typically such items are taken care of at the state level.

Throwing something at a cyclist in FL can be charged as a second degree felony, but I've never heard of anybody going down for doing this.

Yes, we don't seem to have the resources or the will to enforce the laws already on the books, so let's dream up some new feel-good legislation that is inherently unenforceable.

People can talk about how additional laws are not necessary all they want. In the real, not theoretical, world, laws like this cause prosecutors to take the actions prohibited by the law more seriously. When prosecutors take the law more seriously, so do police.

It is a good first step.

People can talk about how additional laws are not necessary all they want. In the real, not theoretical, world, laws like this cause prosecutors to take the actions prohibited by the law more seriously. When prosecutors take the law more seriously, so do police.

It is a good first step.


My thought, also.

This is just another silly and unnecessary law, and a waste of time and effort. All it will accomplish is to make politicians feel good.

Most of the things cited are already illegal- they are simply not being enforced. Throwing objects at cyclists is an offense of assault and littering. (A littering charge could be a larger fine, no doubt!) We need the police and DA to pursue offending behavior. That is where pressure should be applied. More useless, redundant laws are not going to accomplish anything of substance for cyclists.

:thumb:

We have a winner! This thread is now closed.

I hate to B-I-T-C-H (really, I can't write that...?) when something seemingly productive has been done, but, I think, this really does just "seem" productive. This ordinance will punish people for throwing objects at bicyclists? Wasn't throwing things at others illegal, already ("assault")? Even if there was no $1,000 fine deterrent previously in place, people will have to know about it for it to be consequential, and I wonder if news of this legislation will spread to ears beyond those in this forum. Those signs that tell people assaulting a bus-driver is a felony punishable by up to seven years (?) in prison work (if they do) because they're placed right by the driver you might be thinking of knocking over. Maybe bikers need to wear posters emphasizing why, now, more than ever, they shouldn't be harassed...

it's a good sign for general respect for cyclists. good luck enforcing it, though.

I'm of the opinion that we're way too soft on crime not involving death and drugs in this country. Why shouldn't people who use their cars as weapons or accessories in crimes lose their licenses? Why shouldn't repeat offenders lose the right to drive for a very extended period of time? Like, forever? How many times can you forgive someone for being scum?

Fines are a slap on the wrist, as the long-term repercussions of losing $1000 are non-existent.

I somewhat disagree, but, then, I also somewhat agree. Our culture isn't very strict when it comes to many sorts of crimes (of course, certain jurisdictions may be), and is insanely aggressive against some very silly things (such as drugs — you might disagree).

Feel-good wankery which results mostly self-congrulatory behavior on the part of activits and legislators while a handful of the literate reflexive contrarians get their hackles raised and spew accusations of nanny statery or dirty hippie favoritism.

I'd much rather see laws of comparatively unilateral benefit enforced before legislators put on the tunics and play Moore's Utopia. That speed limit dealy they had in the olden days, for instance...

People can talk about how additional laws are not necessary all they want. In the real, not theoretical, world, laws like this cause prosecutors to take the actions prohibited by the law more seriously. When prosecutors take the law more seriously, so do police.

It is a good first step.

It's a good first step in that it's a nice idea. I'm much less thrilled by the notion that a prosecutor taking this seriously will only be necessitated by some poor cyclist pressing charges against some aggressive moron for having harrassed or threatened. The expected "what a crybaby!" backlash in editorials in media local to the area aren't going to help public opinion on the matter. Enforcement will, as always, remain at the discretion (and probably personal biases) of specific police officers. Unless there's a pretty serious application of the law which pertains to an incident that has next to zero room for interpretation - and believe me, I'm not salivating for it - this is going to remain a gesture.

While I agree that aggressive enforcement of existing laws would be useful, I think this law will go a long way toward raising awareness. The more people who are aware of bicyclists rights under the law, the better off we all are.

Wow.. Columbia a big, bicycle town.?>.. Maybe a university town.. Exactly what America needs to enhance cycling.. Is this a first for all of the USA>?>

While I agree that aggressive enforcement of existing laws would be useful, I think this law will go a long way toward raising awareness. The more people who are aware of bicyclists rights under the law, the better off we all are.

This law doesn't give cyclists any special rights. Perhaps if more effort was put towards educating cyclists about their own rights, rather than fighting for unenforceable laws such as this one and three foot passing laws, we'd be getting somewhere.

I don't think that this law would catch many people harassing cyclists, but I still think it is a good law. It's in the books now. And if it is a good law, then there is no need to take it out of the books.

Wake me when the first guy gets convicted. Otherwise....lip service.

This law doesn't give cyclists any special rights. Perhaps if more effort was put towards educating cyclists about their own rights, rather than fighting for unenforceable laws such as this one and three foot passing laws, we'd be getting somewhere.


I understand that much better things can be done, but anything that gets the word out is a good thing. For bicyclists to be accepted as legitimate road users a profound cultural shift has to take place. Anything that contributes to that shift is good thing.

For bicyclists to be accepted as legitimate road users a profound cultural shift has to take place.

Here's the thing, when I ride, the vast majority (over 99%) of drivers on the road treat me as a legitimate road user. That means no honking, no close passing, no tailgating. The other <1% are almost noise (I say almost because I have had some bad run-ins with whackjobs, one of which was handed a ticket for harassment after following me to work :)).

In my opinion, laws like this make cyclists seem like some endangered species that needs special protection as compared to other road users. I mean, what about pedestrians, motorcyclists, farmers, street sweepers, mail carriers, etc.? All of those groups have something in common with cyclists yet you don't see the same types of fluff laws protecting them.

Definitely way over 99%. Several hundred drivers interact with me every day on my commute. It can be months between negative encounters.

It would be a way to deal with repeat offenders--like a guy who get his jollies by always throwing stuff at riders. Fro that, it's a good law.

Here's the thing, when I ride, the vast majority (over 99%) of drivers on the road treat me as a legitimate road user. That means no honking, no close passing, no tailgating. The other <1% are almost noise (I say almost because I have had some bad run-ins with whackjobs, one of which was handed a ticket for harassment after following me to work :)).

In my opinion, laws like this make cyclists seem like some endangered species that needs special protection as compared to other road users. I mean, what about pedestrians, motorcyclists, farmers, street sweepers, mail carriers, etc.? All of those groups have something in common with cyclists yet you don't see the same types of fluff laws protecting them.

I have to laugh at your "endangered species" reference... as after all we are less than 2% of the general commuting population... I'd say that puts us squarely in the endangered species category. :D

Regarding your and noisebeam's comments of the 99% of motorist treating you as a regular road user... I too have to agree.

However, that said, that 1% treating you badly can really be a deadly thing. The threat of violence from a motorist towards a cyclist is really a bad match, and the end result is never good for a cyclist.

Now granted, most threats are merely empty words... but all it takes is one road rager to ruin your whole life. I remember when I was doing long distance touring, everyone I met on the road and in various towns was genuinely good to me... it was quite cool actually. However, as one woman store owner mentioned, "all it takes is one jerk to ruin the whole trip."

It is the fact that we have so little inherent physical protection that we seek legal protections... we are not by any means "equal" to any motorized vehicle out there, except by the protection of laws. Sure, we can say 1 motorist is equal to 1 cyclist... and as humans that is true, but when one of those humans is encased in a solid suit of metal armor and the other is near naked, any "battle" is decidedly one sided.

It is hard to deny the laws of physics folks... and the laws of man only help balance that scale.

but all it takes is one road rager to ruin your whole life.

I take it you've already frequented a service like this: http://www.customarmoring.com/

Somehow they missed Genec on their list of most likely to be targeted though :)

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/06/16/b/

Interesting?

Note the power of showing up:

Some details...



Hopefully more communities start taking back their streets from four-wheeled terrorists!

Incidentally, the fun part, as is often the case, in reading articles like these is the comment section, teething with raging drivers demanding the oft-executed right to execute cyclists.

Thankyou for posting that. I often get harassed, the county I live in. Once I cross the line into DC and, then again, into Virginia, it isn't so bad.

I think I will approach my County Council about it.

I take it you've already frequented a service like this: http://www.customarmoring.com/

Somehow they missed Genec on their list of most likely to be targeted though :)

Having already been hit by 3 "well meaning" motorists that were no doubt treating me as "a legitimate road user," I feel I am not speaking out of turn at all...

We cannot deny the laws of physics whenever we discuss sharing the road with motorized vehicles.

Having already been hit by 3 "well meaning" motorists that were no doubt treating me as "a legitimate road user," I feel I am not speaking out of turn at all...

We cannot deny the laws of physics whenever we discuss sharing the road with motorized vehicles.

Your original rant that I snipped a small phrase from was solely on the issue of harassment and how it could escalate into something deadly. My post was sort of in jest as the same thing could happen while driving a car yet again, there's no specific law prohibiting someone from shooting another motorist.

I'm not denying physics. I'm denying your perceived need to pass laws to help quell some imminent danger from harassing motorists.

Your original rant that I snipped a small phrase from was solely on the issue of harassment and how it could escalate into something deadly. My post was sort of in jest as the same thing could happen while driving a car yet again, there's no specific law prohibiting someone from shooting another motorist.

I'm not denying physics. I'm denying your perceived need to pass laws to help quell some imminent danger from harassing motorists.

I'm just saying that those laws merely help balance the scales... the fact that we vulnerable road users want such laws is due to the desire to have such laws clustered and focused in such a way that there is no question as to cyclists rights and motorists responsibility's... the former which many motorists are not aware of, and the latter which are often overlooked due to some notion of the motorists exclusive right to the road.

And BTW it is not always harassing motorists that simply don't understand the laws... if that were the case, I would tend to agree with you, but frankly there are far too many motorists (and cops, as you well know) that really don't know that cyclists have the right to use the road just as any other road user... publicity of 3 foot laws helps to inform that public.

I'm just saying that those laws merely help balance the scales... the fact that we vulnerable road users want such laws is due to the desire to have such laws clustered and focused in such a way that there is no question as to cyclists rights and motorists responsibility's... the former which many motorists are not aware of, and the latter which are often overlooked due to some notion of the motorists exclusive right to the road.

So we've jumped from bad apples, to physics, to justice. Your "point" is more like a big circle. It's not legal to do several acts which are committed regularly. Why? Because the person feels the risk is worth the reward. If someone is intent on throwing something at a cyclist or buzzing them, and there's no cop blatantly in sight, with or without this law they will do it. Think of it like exceeding the speed limit.


And BTW it is not always harassing motorists that simply don't understand the laws... if that were the case, I would tend to agree with you, but frankly there are far too many motorists (and cops, as you well know) that really don't know that cyclists have the right to use the road just as any other road user... publicity of 3 foot laws helps to inform that public.

You are attributing way more to a 3 foot law than I've ever heard. Cyclists rights to the road are so clearly spelled out already that it takes complete ignorance of those laws to deny them. How are these new laws so special that they won't be ignored along with all the rest of the laws?

You are attributing way more to a 3 foot law than I've ever heard. Cyclists rights to the road are so clearly spelled out already that it takes complete ignorance of those laws to deny them. How are these new laws so special that they won't be ignored along with all the rest of the laws?

That's part of the point. There is no shortage of ignorance of those laws, so when attention is drawn to existing laws or existing laws are rewritten so as to apply to a specific category of users, then that helps make people aware. Awareness and knowledge reduce ignorance and that's a good thing.

If you have a simple point to make, do you keep talking more if you notice someone isn't listening in the hope that they will eventually listen?

I guess it is silly of me to try to force information through that rather substantial dura mater of yours and into the core of your brain where it might do you some good. If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant you'll fit right in with the majority of the motoring public.

The vast majority of people I've observed, talked, listened to, etc. know that cyclist have a right to use the roadway - the obvious evidence is how many accept cyclists on the roadway and how many kids and families cycle on neighborhood streets generally following traffic law. It seems it is the nuances of the law they are unclear on (how far right, can they go slow on narrow roads and hold up traffic, can they leave a bike lane?) - same items many cyclists are confused and/or disagree about.

'Everyone' knows that it is wrong to harass and throw crap at cyclists - no one needs a law to clarify that. Those very tiny percentage that engage in this behavior don't care about a clarifying law - they may just be a bit more careful not to get caught. They are not harassing cyclists because they are unclear as to current laws and rights - but doing it because it is wrong and harmful to cyclists - the new law just clarifies that.
As my non-cycling acquaintance says disapproving about me using the road: "just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right"

Perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my post.

In my analogy, the "simple point" is that cyclists are legitimate users of the road. Those "not listening" are the motorists who harass cyclists for riding legally. "Keep talking" is an analogy for continuing to pass more laws trying to legitimatize cyclists on the roadway.

So we've jumped from bad apples, to physics, to justice. Your "point" is more like a big circle. It's not legal to do several acts which are committed regularly. Why? Because the person feels the risk is worth the reward. If someone is intent on throwing something at a cyclist or buzzing them, and there's no cop blatantly in sight, with or without this law they will do it. Think of it like exceeding the speed limit.


So the new laws make this worse how??? They raise the fines and increase public awareness of the issue, but they certainly don't make things worse for cyclists.



You are attributing way more to a 3 foot law than I've ever heard. Cyclists rights to the road are so clearly spelled out already that it takes complete ignorance of those laws to deny them. How are these new laws so special that they won't be ignored along with all the rest of the laws?


How about the publicity that comes with the enactment of the law... these things are debated in the paper and on the news... when was the last time you heard of any mention otherwise regarding the rights of cyclists otherwise... Oh yeah, when gas prices go up. Actually usually you hear stories of how more people are taking to bicycling... and then a long list of how to ride safely... rarely do you ever hear reports that include the rules for "sharing the road" (a phrase in of itself that the public also doesn't understand)

Complete ignorance of the laws are often demonstrated by motorists. And what about the cop that ticketed you for proper use of the lane?

If you have a simple point to make, do you keep talking more if you notice someone isn't listening in the hope that they will eventually listen?

Teachers are taught to repeat lessons just for that reason.

The vast majority of people I've observed, talked, listened to, etc. know that cyclist have a right to use the roadway - the obvious evidence is how many accept cyclists on the roadway and how many kids and families cycle on neighborhood streets generally following traffic law. It seems it is the nuances of the law they are unclear on (how far right, can they go slow on narrow roads and hold up traffic, can they leave a bike lane?) - same items many cyclists are confused and/or disagree about.

'Everyone' knows that it is wrong to harass and throw crap at cyclists - no one needs a law to clarify that. Those very tiny percentage that engage in this behavior don't care about a clarifying law - they may just be a bit more careful not to get caught. They are not harassing cyclists because they are unclear as to current laws and rights - but doing it because it is wrong and harmful to cyclists - the new law just clarifies that.
As my non-cycling acquaintance says disapproving about me using the road: "just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right"

I'd really like to think this is the case, but the majority of non cycling folks I have talked to have no idea of the rights of cyclists... they think they are doing cyclists a favor by letting us use roads designed by and paid for by motorists... the comments in any local paper regarding cyclists need to pay for the roads are clear examples of this wrong headed thinking.

Many motorists also feel that cyclists have to stay out of the way of motorists. Unfortunately bike lanes reinforce this notion.

And for all those vast majority of folks that know cyclists have rights to the road... I sure hear "get on the sidewalk" far too often.

Motorists know not to hit us... that is about it... we are not much more than "dogs in the way" to many motorists... they really don't know that as a road user we have equality to motorists.

You have to recognize that many of the outwardly anti-cyclists know that cyclists can legally use the road, but don't like it - since they don't have the law to back them up they resort to taking on 'the issue' themselves.

awesome, we need this in Florida NOW.

So the new laws make this worse how??? They raise the fines and increase public awareness of the issue, but they certainly don't make things worse for cyclists.

When did I say these new laws made things worse? My point has been that these laws are a waste of time when the same effort, time, and money could be spent on the important, simple point that cyclists are legitimate users of the roadways.


How about the publicity that comes with the enactment of the law... these things are debated in the paper and on the news... when was the last time you heard of any mention otherwise regarding the rights of cyclists otherwise... Oh yeah, when gas prices go up. Actually usually you hear stories of how more people are taking to bicycling... and then a long list of how to ride safely... rarely do you ever hear reports that include the rules for "sharing the road" (a phrase in of itself that the public also doesn't understand)

Pulicity? Please, a 10 second snippet on the news (maybe) and a short article that seems to mainly highlight the horrors of cycling is hardly the publicity cycling needs. And as usual, you seem to ignore the fact that the same people who ignore the current laws about cyclists rights are just going to continue ignoring yet another new law for cyclists. Why do you feel an increased fine is going to totally change their mindset about cyclists?


Complete ignorance of the laws are often demonstrated by motorists. And what about the cop that ticketed you for proper use of the lane?

I can assure you that a law about not throwing things at cyclists would not have made my altercation with that cop any different. The current state of advocacy here in Delaware sure seemed to have an affect though as he was dead set that I should have been anywhere but in the lane. When everything the state publishes about cycling talks about cycling on shoulders (which isn't even explicitly legal in DE), it's easy to understand why.


Teachers are taught to repeat lessons just for that reason.

Teachers repeat difficult to grasp concepts. "Cyclists are legitimate users of the roadway" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Talking about something relatively unrelated (throwing things at cyclists) certainly isn't going to help anyone remember that.

'Everyone' knows that it is wrong to harass and throw crap at cyclists - no one needs a law to clarify that.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. They might know it could somehow be technically "breaking the rules" in some way, but that's quite different from "wrong". Many people understand that harrassing "wierd people" demonstrating abberant anti-social behavior like cycling in traffic is considered "right" by "normal people", and is normally treated with a snicker and a wink. They feel like crusading heroes when they harrass someone who isn't behaving normally. The gubmint sending an explicit message to the contrary is an important response. You can never catch these guys in the act, but you can at least keep them looking over their shoulders.

"Cyclists are legitimate users of the roadway" is not a difficult concept to grasp.

I could introduce you to a few people who would make you re-think that statement.

I could introduce you to a few people who would make you re-think that statement.

I know of plenty of people who resist the idea that it is true but that doesn't mean they can't grasp the concept.

When did I say these new laws made things worse? My point has been that these laws are a waste of time when the same effort, time, and money could be spent on the important, simple point that cyclists are legitimate users of the roadways.



Pulicity? Please, a 10 second snippet on the news (maybe) and a short article that seems to mainly highlight the horrors of cycling is hardly the publicity cycling needs. And as usual, you seem to ignore the fact that the same people who ignore the current laws about cyclists rights are just going to continue ignoring yet another new law for cyclists. Why do you feel an increased fine is going to totally change their mindset about cyclists?



I can assure you that a law about not throwing things at cyclists would not have made my altercation with that cop any different. The current state of advocacy here in Delaware sure seemed to have an affect though as he was dead set that I should have been anywhere but in the lane. When everything the state publishes about cycling talks about cycling on shoulders (which isn't even explicitly legal in DE), it's easy to understand why.



Teachers repeat difficult to grasp concepts. "Cyclists are legitimate users of the roadway" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Talking about something relatively unrelated (throwing things at cyclists) certainly isn't going to help anyone remember that.

Are you of the opinion that bicyclists need advocacy? Explain your response if you don't mind.

Are you of the opinion that bicyclists need advocacy? Explain your response if you don't mind.

I'm of the opinion that if any cyclist advocacy is to be done, the vast majority of the effort should be spent on educating cyclists. You and I as cyclists may agree that cyclists are legitimate road users but I doubt more than 50% (and probably less) of voluntary (and way less of the involuntary) cyclists would agree. That is our biggest problem.

Teachers repeat difficult to grasp concepts. "Cyclists are legitimate users of the roadway" is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Apparently it is for some motorists... :D