[SDCBC] Fwd: "Worse than pink spandex ...... a truly ugly cycling suit."

[Jim Baross]

FYI, the LA Daily News article got it way wrong.

>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:31:33 -0800
>To: dnforum at dailynews.com
>From: Jim Baross <JimBaross at cox.net>
>Subject: "Worse than pink spandex ...... a truly ugly cycling suit."
>Cc: caboforum at topica.com, cbc at topica.com
>
>What an interesting spin this opinion piece has taken, "Worse than 
>pink spandex ...... a truly ugly cycling suit."
><http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_5262272>http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_5262272
>
>Clever but misses the point.
>
>I am president of the California Association of Bicycling 
>Organizations (CABO). We are very concerned that our goal of 
>correcting court precedent and returning responsibility for proper 
>standards for the development and maintenance of bike paths by 
>appealing the Prokop case was missed by the recent article.
>
>We are supporting the Prokop appeal to undo a mistake in law, not to 
>refute the circumstances of the particular case.
>
>You and I know that the city is responsible for it's roads, bike 
>lanes, sidewalks; and the other transportation facilities, 
>especially those that they have received transportation funds to 
>build and the facilities for which there are state mandated 
>standards for development. The city is liable and regularly pays or 
>is successfully sued when it is found to have failed to meet its 
>responsibilities for meeting state standards for these facilities. 
>On the other hand, the city is protected from liability when they 
>meet those standards. They therefore are encouraged to be 
>responsible and build and maintain the facilities right.
>
>Bike paths are defined as transportation facilities by the state and 
>have design, construction and maintenance standards just as other 
>transportation facilities do. People who use these transportation 
>facilities do so with the understanding that the agency developing 
>them is going to do good work; at least meeting minimum standards. 
>People injured due to the negligence/failure of an municipality to 
>build a road, bike lane or sidewalk are due compensation for the 
>municipalities failure. On the same basis, people injured on bike 
>paths should and do expect the agency to be responsible.
>
>The lawyers representing the city of Los Angeles have attempted, so 
>far successfully in two other cases, to avoid responsibility for 
>their bike paths by claiming that the bike path is a trail. Trails 
>however are not bike paths. Trails are undeveloped routes that may 
>offer access across private or public property, used recreationally 
>at the users own risk. Trails have no state transportation facility 
>standards for development, design, construction or maintenance... 
>they are trails, not bike paths. Municipalities are immune from most 
>liability for trails - we supported this to open more trails for 
>recreational, at your own risk activities, also opening otherwise 
>closed access to recreational activities - fishing, beach access, etc..
>
>That is the important issue of this appeal for us all... and is 
>primary to those of us who seek to promote and protect the ability 
>for any of us/you to use a bicycle as a transportation choice. We 
>are offered bike paths as alternative routes to roadways. We want 
>the same responsibility for meeting minimum standards of care 
>applied to non-motor vehicle transportation facilities, bike paths, 
>as to other transportation facilities - roads, bike lanes, 
>sidewalks, highways, etc.
>
>Your article seems to/has missed that point.
>
>We have sent the following info to help notify people of our effort.
>
>PRESS RELEASE: California, February 19, 2007
>
>Bike Paths: Safe or Sorry? Los Angeles City's Bait and Switch
>
>People injured on Bike Paths are being cheated out of the 
>protections available to all Californians who are hurt on a public 
>road, sidewalk or bike lane due to the negligence of a municipality. 
>The public has been led to believe that Bike Paths (Class 1 bikeway 
>transportation routes, paved and separated from car traffic) are 
>built with safety in mind partly because California Highway Code 
>establishes minimum safety standards for Bike Paths. But the reality 
>is that municipalities such as the City of Los Angeles are hiding 
>from their responsibility behind a claim that Bike Paths built for 
>transportation are the same as unpaved trails opened for recreation. 
>People are being baited by the promise of a safe Bike Path, but 
>switched to the "ride at your own risk" exposure of an undeveloped trail.
>
>The cycling community is fighting back. California bicyclists and 
>three of the largest cycling organizations in the country, the 
>California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), the 
>California Bicycle Coalition (CBC), and the national League of 
>American Bicyclists (LAB) have rallied to bring an appeal of current 
>court precedent. The appellate briefs in the appeal, Prokop v. City 
>of Los Angeles et al have been filed with the California Court of 
>Appeal. Oral argument in this case, Case: B184025 2nd District, 
>Division 8, is scheduled for February 28, 2007 at the California 
>Court of Appeal, Los Angeles.
>
>The appellate briefs, two amicus curiae briefs submitted by the 
>cycling community that were rejected by the courts without 
>explanation, and other background information are available at 
><http://www.cabobike.org/Prokop.htm>www.cabobike.org/Prokop.htm.
>
>Contacts
>
>The following individuals are recommended and available regarding 
>this appeal:
>    * John Forester, America's preeminent cycling engineer - 619-644-5481
>    * Jim Baross, CABO President - 619-280-6908; cell 619-980-5752
>    * Alan Wachtel, CABO Government Relations Chair - 650-494-7520
>    * Amanda Eichstaedt, LAB, President & West Coast Representative 
> - 415-663-1777.
>Karen Coffin-Brant, Esq., appellate attorney for the plaintiff, can 
>be reached at 661-964-7880.
>
>Contributions to the legal defense fund, "Returning Standards of 
>Care to Bike Paths" may be sent to:  CABO c/o Alan Forkosh, 33 Moss 
>Ave #204, Oakland, CA 94610.
>
>End

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070220/30393732/attachment-0001.html