Response to Karin Klein's "Some advice for cyclists"
Below is a letter to the editor of the LA Times that I wrote in response to Karin Klein's Feb. 25, 2014 article, "Some advice for cyclists: Being self-righteous can be dangerous." Not exactly timely, but then again I don't care. (I did submit it to the editor the day after the article was published, so that's something, right?)
Ms. Klein's understanding of the upcoming three foot law, not to mention the rest of the vehicle code and basic morality, is incredibly flawed. First, the upcoming "three foot law" (AB 1371, which amends CVC section 21750 and adds 21760) does NOT require that drivers allow three feet of passing space in all cases. Instead, it only requires the driver slow to a speed which is "prudent," after which they may legally pass as close as they like, as long as they do not "endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle." In practice, this means that as long as drivers slow down to any degree (or claim to have done so) before passing a bicyclist, the fee that the law provides for will not be enforced--and even if it is, the fee for too-close passing is only $35. Second, bicycles, like cars, are required by law to pull to the side of the road to allow traffic to pass when they are being followed by five or more other vehicles. So, legally speaking, Ms. Klein's nightmare scenario of "a whole line of cars slow[ing] down to 20 mph or so" (heaven forbid car drivers should be inconvenienced in any way!) is impossible. As for the law's passage, Ms. Klein imagines that "Sometimes, it seems to me as though lawmakers don’t get around the state much." In reality, the law was passed at the urging of a grassroots coalition of the state's cycling population and advocates, after two consecutive vetoes by Gov. Brown because of his concerns that it would inconvenience drivers and encourage them to cross the median line, possibly causing accidents (an action that is therefore still prohibited under California law). As a result, the law was weakened considerably to appease drivers like Ms. Klein, as described above. Finally, the moral stance that Ms. Klein takes in this piece is deplorable at best. Starting with a vague threat for a headline, and continuing with the suggestion the citizens "carry out the justice ourselves," the article is a collection of incitements, restrained homicidal tendencies ("Just as I don’t chase down the cyclists ... without so much as a pause — and oh, am I tempted"), and multiple instances of the author's unwillingness to compromise her own convenience for the safety of another human's life and limb. Overall, I was disgusted and appalled (though not surprised) to read such a screed, and I am ashamed that the LA Times would publish such poorly researched violence-baiting. As for Ms. Klein, consider that cyclists are not simply impediments to your need to speed along narrow canyon roads but in fact people (and, overwhelmingly, drivers) just like you, with families friends, and networks that care about them and care that they are not killed at the hands of an impatient driver trying to save ten or twenty seconds over a likely thirty minute commute.