[rola643]

I hate to be the eternal pessimist but without enforcement it aint worth nut'n

Road Rights » Blog Archive » L.A. Ordinance | Bicycling.com​

• Prohibits physically assaulting or attempting to physically assault a bicyclist.
• Prohibits threatening to physically injure a bicyclist.
• Prohibits intentionally injuring, attempting to injure, or threatening to physically injure, either by words, vehicle, or other object, a bicyclist.
• Prohibits intentionally distracting or attempting to distract a bicyclist.
• Prohibits intentionally forcing or attempting to force a bicyclist off a street for purposes unrelated to public safety.


I don't believe we need anymore of the following either...it's already "I'll sue for all your worth" country as it is and the civil courts don't need to add anymore IMHO

"If somebody commits one of the prohibited acts against a cyclist because the cyclist is riding a bike—even if that is only part of the reason for the threat or assault—the law has been violated. And the law doesn’t just prohibit these acts. If somebody harasses a cyclist in violation of this law, the cyclist can now sue the harasser in civil court. This means that if you are the victim of harassment, you don’t have to plead with the police or the district attorney to do something about it. You can bring your harasser to justice yourself."

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Even before this law, didn't the cyclist already have the right to bring the driver to civil court?

 

[photosbymark]

LA if it did anything right, it would be a first. Yes you would probably have a RIGHT to civil court, but would it be practical to really pursue? Unless its small claims court you need a lawyer. The the big mouth that does whatever to you has to have enough for the lawyer to consider it worth his time or you are going to need big money to pay for his. Even if you win a big settlement, the job of collecting is ever present. Most of the time a big settlement just means the jerk files for bankruptcy and you probably get nothing anyway.

Not saying its right, but its probably the real world. No law is going to change the attitude of a *******. Trust me. I know ********, and I do not need to apply any of the Foxworthy tests to make that call. I worry about him being in the family tree somewhere down the line, or worse yet Larry the Cable guy. I hope I never have to find out that I have to call him Cousin Larry.

 

[froze]

It's called political posturing. It means nothing, they won't be able to enforce it and the cops know it. It's kind of like enforcing no text messaging while driving, they can't do that one either. Then your driving in a state with a no text messaging law and there's a cop next to you text messaging!! Chicago has had a ban on cell phone usage for at least 3 or 4 years, they still use the cells and nothing is done to someone who is.