Safe, Respectfully Shared Streets
Who Are We?
We are cyclists concerned about our enlightened self preservation.
The #1 reason cyclists do not ride is fear of cycling on the road as documented in our research article "The Impact of Near Misses and Perceived Risk on Cycling."
Cyclists from across California shared their outrage via their statements and testimonials in our report: CHP and the Alameda District Attorney Deny Cyclists Equal Protection Under the Law on our "Law Enforcement Does Not Have To “On View” All Incidents" page. Here are a few, fifty nine, of their powerful testimonials.
Stephen Bingham - San Rafael
My daughter was killed biking to work in 2009. To reduce the chance of such a collision happening in the future, drivers need to be ticketed for reckless driving when there’s proof of it, regardless of whether a police officer is present. Legislation must require CHP and local law enforcement to consider video proof of reckless driver as the valid evidence it is. Any court would accept it so why doesn’t the CHP?
Aaron Cho - San Diego
On bike video is the only way to keep the drivers honest and for them to obey the law. Cyclist cannot have their own personal police officer shepherding them through out the commute. Video evidence is everywhere in the judicial system. Seems funny that the state of California will pass a bill against flying a drone less than 350 above personal property to protect privacy, but will not actually enforce a law that protects bikers lives. Absurd for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many more bikers must die!!!!!
Sean Rando - San Diego
Police can’t be everywhere all of the time. Too many bicyclists are getting injured or killed by road rage drivers.
Don Lapin - San Francisco
Members of our Palo Alto-based club have reported a repeat offender on Skyline (Hwy 35) who blasts past lone cyclists at high speed, leaning on his horn. Absent video evidence, how are we to stop this sort of thing, before somebody is killed?
Michael Pelkey - San Diego
As this video clearly shows, the driver of the passing car used proper sense and passed when it was reasonable and prudent. Not so the truck driver, who allowed his impatience and anger to get the better of him, passing the cyclist dangerously, within inches of seriously hurting or killing the cyclist. Using bike mounted video as evidence will certainly help to SAVE THE LIVES of ALL CYCLISTS, when it is known that California WILL ENFORCE it’s laws to protect the lives of its citizens.
Maurice Waters - Ramona
Every year in the United States 600-800 bicyclists are struck and killed by motorists. This is due to poorly engineered roads with inadequate space for cyclists and in many instances dangerous, distracted and irresponsible driving by motorists. Please help make bicycling safer by supporting bike mounted video evidence as a tool for police. This is a serious problem!
Eli Tizcareno - North Hollywood
Mounted video evidence is crucial evidence that supports bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vehicle drivers’ safety when a vehicle driver is endangering others on the road. I was hit by a van on Hollywood/Vermont and still remember that police said that without video or license plates, they couldn’t do anything to find the driver who almost broke my backbone. Courts and police must respect and honor this evidence. We live in a society that protects drivers and doesn’t protect bicyclists. Until we have Department of Motor Vehicles educating drivers on how to drive safely with bikers on the road and cities start investing in public and active transportation, we need to have a way to protect and insure ourselves.
Franklin Perry - Palo Alto
I have personally experienced injuries due to reckless driving on two occasions. I did not have video of either. The first time, although it was my word vs. the driver’s, the CHP believed the driver’s claim that he was driving on his side of the road, which he was not. The second time was quite similar to the incident shown by this video, except that the driver was so close that he actually hit my friend, who was immediately in front of me. We both crashed, but we were unable to get the driver’s license number. I have experienced horns and shouted obscenities from drivers on many occasions. As cyclists, we may be annoying to drivers (typically pickup truck drivers), but their acting out of their anger endangers our lives and limbs. With camera evidence we have a chance at justice at least and perhaps at changing dangerous drivers’ behavior.
John Walter - El Cerrito
Accepting bike-mounted video as evidence seems to me to be just too obvious to even be a controversy. My 12 year old son and I were riding through the El Cerrito hills and had almost this very same scenario happen to us, while we were doing the speed limit, but we do not have video of the incident. My son told me the driver cut him off while passing aggressively, and very close to him. I confronted the driver at the next stop sign and he was incensed that we were riding in the street and that I would allow my son to actually be in the lane. I told him that we ride away from car doors for safety. He would not acknowledge that he endangered my son’s life, just as the CHP is denying that the driver in the red truck endangered the rider with the bike mounted video. Riding on streets that we share with ignorant, aggressive, impatient and insensitive drivers is inherently dangerous. Denying obvious video evidence of endangerment is just plain wrong and there is no defense for it.
Carl Ebeling - San Diego
Possibly the only way that the dangerous (intentionally or not) and ignorant (willfully or not) collective drivership will be forced to stop this type of behavior is through the use of bike-mounted video evidence. Without it, nothing happens. Period. I’ve had debates with cyclist friends about the effect of the 3-foot law; some argue that it means nothing unless it’s enforced (how is a law enforcement official always there to witness violations?), whereas I had countered that it at least shows society’s concern for our welfare and support of cyclists and cycling in environments shared with motor vehicles in general. After way too may of incidents such as these, I no longer make that argument: without the enforcement there *is no* concern for our welfare and support of cyclists. Bike- mounted video evidence *should* be used and this driver should be cited for Reckless Driving and violation of the 3-foot law at a minimum.
Erik Colban - San Diego
Approximately 700 bicyclists are killed every year, and being hit by a car is by far the most common reason. Law enforcement’s priority should be to protect citizens from manslaughter and injury. If reckless drivers know that bike mounted videos can be used as evidence, I believe they would behave better and drive more carefully.
Douglas McFarland - Los Angeles
I was almost killed when hit by a car on August 30th 2013. I’m doing a bit of riding again and can not believe how close drivers pass and treat me while I obey all laws.
Matthew Rodnick - San Jose
Bike hits car = paint scratch. Car hits Bike = Death. Cars are equivalent to Deadly Weapons. Drivers mis-using a car is same as mis-using weapon or fire arm. Therefore, video evidence shows threatening with a deadly weapon, and should be treated same as if it was a video of a loaded, safety off fire arm being waived at the cyclist, threatening to kill them, and driver should to prosecuted accordingly.
Richard Bidmead - Los Angeles
I ride a bike as my sole form of transportation in Los Angeles, and I experience reckless driving and road rage DAILY from drivers who do not follow the 3-feet law. Furthermore, I have never seen this law enforced by law enforcement. As someone who uses bike mounted cameras, I would like to report these violations myself with legitimacy and justice served.
Linda Fussell - San Jose
I’ve been scared far too often by motorists not obeying the 3 foot law simply because they are impatient. If an accident happens, and trust me it will, who’s word will it be as to who caused the accident. Bottom line is that, as a cyclist, I’m not going to get into a pissing match with a car (or truck). It’s not a fair fight. If bike mounted video evidence isn’t accepted, then what is? A dead cyclist?
Paul Grantham - San Diego
Every day I encounter situations like this while riding my bike. Some drivers believe I have no right to use the streets and threaten my life in the same way as the video shows. If video of the actual events is not ample evidence to hold drivers accountable, what chance do cyclist have in getting laws that are intended to protect enforced? Please do your jobs and enforce California laws that help vulnerable road users.
Bill Bergman - Martinez
If police are utilizing them to use as evidence in their arrests, etc. then cyclists videos must be evidence of a wrong doing as well. I had an incident where I was cycling at the 25 mph speed limit going downhill through Crockett Ca earlier this year, when a car driver suddenly came out from behind a building, not slowing and ran a stop sign, all the while looking at his cell phone and had ear plugs in his ears!! I slowed and swerved, narrowly missed being run over and hit his passenger side door! Witnesses confirmed what happened. CHP said it was my fault. For what, going the speed limit? Nothing was done at all to the driver!!! Seriously. A video would have proved what had happened, although now at this point, they say it would be inadmissible? Unbelievable! The rules are there to help protect us and whether someone does it intentionally or not, the proof what occurred should be enough to convict. This video’s driver does what many do….and do it intentionally. They break the law!
William Davidson - San Diego
I support using bike mounted video evidence and any other evidence against these aggressive drivers. The pickup driver from the video violated at least CVC 27001, 21703, 21760, 21751 and 23103 that we can see. For all we know he could have been holding a cell phone too. He is reckless and dangerous. Worse, he’s not a particularly rare anomaly. Drivers like this are far too common. Law enforcement has been hiding behind this excuse for far too long. The roads are made dangerous and hostile by these kinds of drivers and it has to stop. I think that they just don’t want to increase their own work load by having lots of bicyclists submitting videos. Meanwhile, people are dying on the roads. If enough of these aggressive drivers get prosecuted and it gets publicized well enough, they will start to learn to share the road.
Richard Exley - San Carlos
I ride three times and week and this happens to me on nearly every ride, and I live in a relatively bike friendly area. Bad motorists need to be stopped and educated and if that is probably going to take citations and fines for them to listen. The statement from the truck driver that he thought the cyclist was in the wrong place tells you that he is ignorant of what a cyclist has to deal with, and then to think that it would justify his actions tells you that he is probably not someone who should be driving at all. If CHP is not going to prosecute in these cases then they must get their own unmarked bikes and take their own video. I wonder, how many drivers have been cited for violation of the 3 foot law so far? How much did the state spend on educating the public on the new law? How much did they invest in equipment to police the new law?
John Fry - San Marcos
Video evidence is legally competent and, when relevant, must be considered in enforcing the California Vehicle Code in any matter involving a bicyclists’ interaction with motor vehicle(s). All available video evidence, including vehicle mounted cameras or fixed CCTV devices are commonly considered in criminal and quasi-criminal matters. Failure to consider such evidence as applied to cyclists is clearly selective enforcement and a denial of equal protection of the law. As an experienced cyclist, I have witnessed many examples of intimidating, harassing, reckless and violent conduct by motorists against cyclists. Video evidence of illegal conduct by motorists (or cyclists) must be weighed by law enforcement. In distracted driving cases involving collisions with bicycles in a bike lane, video evidence would be significant in resolving compliance issues.With the proliferation of miniature cameras, this class of evidence cannot be overlooked to counteract dire threats to public safety.
Rene Rodriguez - San Francisco
I support using bike mounted video evidence for our safety and to get reckless drivers in line. What is the difference between bike mounted evidence and other types of video evidence that are being used to enforce other violations? None. If you are going to have a law then enforce it. Enabling bad driving habits leads to accidents and fatalities.
Pamela Putman - Sunnyvale
A bike mounted video cam should be considered just as valid as footage taken by a bystander on a smart phone. It is the responsibility of all law enforcement agencies to enforce the three foot law. Our lives as cyclists depend on it.
Bruce Dughi - Castro Valley
Bike mounted evidence is the only way to catch dangerous driving behavior without a collision. The idea is to avoid collisions before they happen. It is no longer a “he said, she said” when there is irrefutable video evidence. I experience three foot passing violations 2-3 times/week. Some drivers are just careless/thoughtless but some are mean and spiteful and intend to terrorize. Today, I experienced another angry driver that honked before she “buzzed” me within inches of my handlebars. When I approached her at a stop light, she justified her dangerous driving by saying I used too much of the lane. I was riding over our new sharrows on Redwood Road in Castro Valley, CA. In spite of an empty lane beside her, she intentionally chose to risk my life with her driving behavior. She definitely intended to terrorize me. It is upsetting and makes my heart race.
Serina Ulibarri - Chula Vista
I commute to work everyday from Chula Vista to Downtown San Diego, and I have too, been almost hit by an aggressive driver(s).
Michael Samyn - El Cajon
I support using bike mounted video evidence and any other evidence against these aggressive drivers. I have come close to being hit by trucks and cars dangerously passing me on many of the two lane county roads in east county San Diego I use regularly. There is simply no need for drivers to pass this close to cyclists. The pickup driver from the video violated at least CVC 27001, 21703, 21760, 21751 and 23103 and I insist the laws off our state be upheld. Cyclists are not second class citizens – we pay taxes too and also vote!
Will Leben - Emeryville
Every day cars come dangerously close to me on my bike, with total disregard for the 3-foot law. There’s currently no other realistic way to document this behavior than with bike-mounted video.
Vincent DiPrimo - Fresno
Why pass a law only to have it not enforced by those who suppose to protect us and uphold the law. I have had cars almost hit me and cops do nothing.
Steven Decker - Fresno
Body mounted cameras etc are being embraced and used by police agencies to record interactions between police officers and the public. This video is being relied upon in determining the facts surrounding these interactions. Why then is the video of the truck endangering the cyclist not reliable? Come on CHP! Do your job! The driver of the truck broke the 3 foot law. The evidence is there. Prosecute the driver and let California motorists know to pass with care when passing a cyclist. The stakes are too high.
Thomas Klein - Fresno
This is an absurd question, and the idea that video evidence of bicycle and motorist altercations is somehow not admissible as evidence is ridiculous. Motorists that risk people’s live by driving within a few inches of them at high speed and blaring their horn ought to be brought to justice BEFORE they seriously injure or kill someone. Do the police also wait to punish drunk drivers until people are killed or injured? Why is the standard suddenly different when motorists drive recklessly around bicyclists?
Michael Schinderling - Los Angeles
Far too many people driving cars have put my life in danger by aggressively passing me within three feet. They should not be able to do this with impunity, especially since I have tens of examples of this happening on my bike cameras.
Lori Sommer - Newark
I’ve had incidents with aggressive drivers many times passing closer than three feet. In fact, earlier this year, one car passenger smacked me on the rear end as the car passed me. Video should be used as evidence.
Lisa White - Oceanside
We need accountability for those who endanger cyclists and other motorists. Further, we need education for drivers who do not understand the rights (and responsibilities) of cyclists. I have been needlessly put in harm’s way in crowded city streets and narrow country bridges because motorists are too impatient to slow down.
Ralph Nelson - Oceanside
I deal with some sort of aggressive driving behavior each time I ride my bike, which is about three times a week. The police cannot be everywhere, in fact they have never been in a position to observe any of these offenses. That is why we need the support of video evidence, to deter these aggressive behaviors, and restrict the most dangerous offenders. That video evidence could be bike mounted, car mounted or attached to some stationary device.
Doug Sooley - Ramona
I support using bike mounted video evidence whenever it shows clear violation of the California Vehicle Code because bicyclists are regularly threatened, harassed and terrorized by motorists who wrongly believe bicyclists should not be in the road in their way, and are willing to break the law in order to teach the cyclist a lesson. Without video evidence these unlawful and dangerous acts usually come down to the cyclist’s word against the motorist’s word. With video evidence there can be justice, and the word can begin to spread that this kind of treatment of cyclists is unacceptable. This motorist should be cited for: CVC 27001 – unnecessary honking CVC 21703 – Following too closely CVC 21760(b) – Passing a bicycle closer than “a safe distance that does not interfere with the safer operation of the overtaken bicycle” CVC 21760(c) – Passing a bicycle at a distance of less than three feet CVC 23103 – willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons (Reckless Driving)
Julia K. - San Carlos
The cyclist in the video did everything right. They were operating according to the law and best safety practices by using the full lane. This is not a wide enough lane for in-lane passing to be expected or assisted, especially given the door threat. A lane change is necessary for safe and legal passing, as the driver of the white car understood. Motorists who understand neither the law nor bicycling standards may become frustrated when they see other road users they are not accustomed to, but that is no excuse for intentionally endangering them. This is reckless driving at the very least, and arguably assault. Why is there a systematic refusal to enforce the law to protect bicyclists? Bicyclist lives matter.
Lee Ripma - San Diego
Cars are extremely disrespectful of the rights of bikers, I witness this daily. I think prosecuting violations captured on video will educate drivers that bikes have a right to the road and those rights are protected. Thank you for raising awareness!
John Mersereau - San Diego
Laws are only effective to the extent they are actually enforced. The bike mounted video shows irrefutable evidence of harassment, gross negligence, and a violation of the 3 foot law. Now that the 3 foot law is in place, we cyclists expect to be protected by this law.
Pamela Amundson, MD - San Diego
The bike mounted activated video camera is recording the ride, road conditions, traffic conditions and behaviors of the cyclist themselves as well as that of passing/ nearby motorists. While it’s impossible to have a CHP or police officer present at every corner to witness a motorist commit a CVC violation that endangers (or even targets) a cyclist sharing the road, the bike mounted video is the next best thing. Bicyclists are regularly threatened and harassed by motorists who believe the bicyclist does not belong on the road and those motorists are willing to go out of their way (sometimes into oncoming traffic) to break the law to teach the bicyclist a lesson. Video goes beyond taking the motorist’s word over that of the cyclist
Phillip Young - San Diego
Too many California drivers are impatient and are willing to risk seriously injuring or killing a cyclist in order to get to their destination a few seconds earlier. More education and public service announcements (PSA’s) from the CHP and DMV are needed to get the info out to California drivers about the 3 Foot Law protecting cyclists.
Katie Crist - San Diego
I ride my bike every day and believe I have the right to do so safely and with the protection of the law. Incidents like the one depicted in this video happen far too frequently and there is no consequence for those driving cars recklessly.
Paul Pruschki - San Diego
If using video evidence is acceptable for police use in California,
(www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california- police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rial-to), why is it unacceptable for ordinary citizens. I would argue that just as the use of the cameras by police in California has cut down on violence and complaints against the police, so will the admittance of video evidence by cyclists cut down on cyclist injuries and deaths incurred as a result of intentional acts by drivers. As such, I support using bike mounted video evidence whenever it shows clear violation of the California Vehicle Code. Without video evidence these unlawful and dangerous acts usually come down to the cyclist’s word against the motorist’s word. With video evidence there can be justice, and the word can begin to spread that this kind of treatment of cyclists is unacceptable.
Kacy Wander - San Diego
Cycling on streets with cars is especially dangerous in California, where streets often have high speed limits. Recognizing video evidence would be one way for cyclists to demonstrate dangerous driving around them.
Ralph Carolin - San Diego
Video evidence has been used by law enforcement to back up testimony in conviction of offenders for many years. In this case the driver should be convicted based on testimony and offender statements alone. Enforcing this law is the responsibility of the CHP, regardless of any potential “can of worms”. Lives are at risk because CHP is refusing to enforce the law. Cite the offenders and let the legal system sort it out.
Michell Thitathan - San Diego
It’s way more reliable than witness statement. People have been successfully prosecuted for crimes far worse than reckless driving. It doesn’t make any sense that a video evidence can be used to convict murders and robbers but not reckless endangerment while operating a motor vehicle.
Marvin Davis - San Diego
Our streets and highways must be safe for all users, not just those wrapped in several thousand pounds of steel. The 3 foot law is a good start for increasing safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Violators of the 3 foot law put lives at risk and this needs to be stopped. Now.
Bruce Simpson - San Jose
Other video records HAVE been accepted, for example officer-cams, bystander videos, and so forth. So why not this one? Laws must be enforced! In this case, the truck came up with horn blaring and no intention of slowing to see if it was safe to pass. The very close approach was intentional on the part of the Ram truck driver and in addition, he caused the on-coming traffic to swerve — this too could have caused an accident. Please reconsider the decision to drop the case.
William Jones - San Jose
I support bike mounted video evidence because experienced and novice cyclists both are frequently having their lives threatened and law enforcement is turning it’s head away by failing to admit that they cannot gather the evidence themselves. If they were able to gather evidence themselves, they most certainly would cite drivers for these illegal acts. These threatening criminals would not dare to treat officers as they treat us cyclists!
Jean Higham-Sergeant - San Jose
I own a car, but I cycle almost every day because I feel using the car for short trips is expensive and environmentally wrong. I religiously follow the rules of the road and am courteous to motor-vehicle drivers. This does not mean I intentionally endanger my own life. I control the lane when it is not safe for motor vehicles to pass me within that lane. Almost every day, some motor vehicle driver harasses me by yelling insults, blaring their horn, revving their engine, and worst of all, passing me dangerously close. I often see these drivers risking collisions with oncoming traffic in order to pass me. It is their impatience and anger prompting this behavior because I rarely slow traffic in this way for more than 30 seconds at a time. There is almost never an officer of the law around to witness this reckless driving. Bike-mounted video evidence should be a legitimate form of evidence, otherwise these reckless drivers will continue to harass cyclists and endanger lives.
Daniela Relaford - San Mateo
I want my children and myself be able to ride our bikes safely. It is necessary that drivers are aware that they need to share the road with bicyclists. In case when there is a situation that is captured by a mounted camera, this evidence should be used to cite a driver! Especially if the driver admits to faulty behavior!
Sandrine Georges - Santa Cruz
As a cyclist, I myself have been closed passed a few times and by doing so, some motorists were endangering all of us, oncoming traffic, themselves and myself included. In this day and age where divorced parents can record their ex spouse’s interactions at their children pick ups with smartphones or other recording devices, it is time all reckless drivers be held accountable by simply using the technology that can serve such purpose.
Constance Gabriel - Santa Cruz
As a daily cyclist for pleasure, to work, errands and transportation in my area, I am often in scary, close calls. Many drivers do not even seem to see me in the bike lane, following the rules of the road. I often see people driving and talking on cell phones, drinking coffee and combing their hair. The majority are on their cell phones. Darkened windows are also a huge concern as I cannot have eye contact with drivers and have no idea where they are heading. Please do whatever is possible to make it safer for cyclists. We have many young cyclists and families trying to utilize bikes as transit! Please help to keep all safe. Thank you.
Michael Khaw - Sunnyvale
Law enforcement already uses video as evidence, as well as citizen-recorded video in a variety of contexts. Bike-mounted video should not be treated any differently or as being of lesser validity. It is the duty and obligation of CHP and all law enforcement to enforce the law equally for all users of public roads, whether they are motorists, motorcyclists, bicyclists or pedestrians and not treat certain classes of users as having lesser rights than motorists to enjoy safe use of public roads.
Ginger Kroft - Sunnyvale
Video evidence is used as evidence to enforce other crimes. It must also be used to ensure the safety of a cyclist on the road. The video showed reckless driving from the pickup truck …. both to the cyclist and to other drivers. Video evidence must be taken into account by law enforcement. If a person drove like that during a driver license test, they would not be given a license. More and more people are commuting to work by bike. It’s healthy and reduces the number of cars on the road. It’s time to protect cyclists.
Jeffrey Orum - Sunnyvale
To claim citations can only be issued if an officer witnesses the event must change. With the advent of video cameras there is no reason not to use them as evidence as most of these violations (which put cyclist’s lives at risk) will not happen in the presence of an officer.
James Takasugi - Sunnyvale
I’ve encountered three similar incidents in the past year, twice with pickup trucks and once with a semi truck. What is really unsettling is that each of the incidents was intentional, as the drivers were either yelling obscenities and/or blaring horns, even though I was riding as close to the shoulder as possible. Understandably, law officers can’t be present to enforce the 3-ft law in every instance, so it only seems reasonable that video recordings be accepted for prosecution.
Vanessa McDonnell - Union City
Cyclists are some of the most vulnerable users of the road; drivers regularly intentionally, or unintentionally, buzz them. Video cameras help protect cyclists and their rights by objectively showing what happens in an accident/incident. No longer is it a case of “he said, she said”; this is especially helpful when a cyclist, involved in a collision or incident, is injured or in shock. In this case the video clear shows the dangerous behavior of the pick up truck driver.
Andrew Said - Van Nuys
Cyclists face lethal dangers on the roads. Without using this type of evidence to prosecute scofflaw drivers, lives will be lost. I don’t like to see impunity on the roads.
Bryan Simonetti - Midlothian, Texas
The driver of the truck was clearly in the wrong. He put the cyclist in danger. If they let him off then it’s an open door for other drivers to ignore the safety of other cyclists. What kind of message does this send? That law enforcement does not care for public safety.
Ken Grubb - Olympia. Washington
Police nationwide, and indeed globally, accept video evidence from any number of sources. These videos are used in criminal prosecutions, when an officer did not witness the crime, up to and including murder. If California law enforcement agencies refuse to prosecute motor vehicle drivers when a bicycle mounted camera collected the evidence, then they are failing to provide equal protection under the law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Existing laws can protect cyclists but too often they are not enforced:
specifically Assault, Reckless Driving, and the 3 Foot Law.
In the report we share Alameda County Sheriff Sgt Tom Rodriques' comments that he posted on our first site, www.3FootCycling.com:
"As far as I am concerned the 3′ rule will never be enforced by local law enforcement" and "Drivers of cars don’t even move over for law enforcement and there is a law about that so why would they even want to move over for a bicyclist?" and "The move over law for law enforcement doesn’t work so why do you bicyclists think that it will work for 3′ violations? Get real please."
We asked Sgt Rodriques why he didn't cite the drivers that buzzed him?
We also share the comments of Alameda's Chief Assistant District Attorney Kevin Dunleavy in response to the Castro Valley Assault incident we documented in the report:
he incredulously stated that there was "no victim since there was no injury." He said "why are we even talking about this without an injury?"
Our "Why Do We Focus On Egregious Near Misses?" page links to California's official definition of Assault and Reckless Driving so everyone will know that neither Assault or Reckless Driving require a collision per California Law. The Glendale Assault conviction on our home page demonstrates law enforcement actually enforcing and prosecuting California laws.
Even if the police do accept a cyclist's report and video evidence of an Assault and/or Reckless Driving without a collision they do not provide any access to cyclist's incident reports or reporting or analytics. Their system is completely opaque to the public, only accessible by the police. How can we create transparency and accountability in this system that is funded by our taxes?
Our Founder, Craig Davis, was an avid cyclist. The best part of his day was a daily morning 36 mile ride on his DeRosa single speed: 53 * 11. He stopped cycling in October 2015 because he did not feel safe cycling on the roads.
He has been interviewed on CNN and NPR, has spoken at the California Bicycle Coalition's Bi-Annual Summit on “Police and Prosecutors: Help or Hindrance in Safety Efforts?” and has worked with Cycling Safety Organizations, Police Departments, State Legislators, and Transportation Academics nationally.
We created www.CyclingVideoEvidence.com to empower cyclists with the tools they need to bring transparency and accountability to our legal system. By focusing on the most egregious incidents, Assault and Reckless Driving, before collisions occur, we believe drivers can be positively influenced before they injure or kill a cyclist. The greatest impact is on the cyclist and their family and friends but drivers also face potential prison time, tarnished reputation, potential convictions, fines, and we are told by professional truck drivers: PTSD.
Our Incident Management System can also help Police Departments search for Repeat Offenders and identify Hot Spots. We partner with law enforcement in addition to holding them accountable for cycling safety. Our Petition page indicts the California Highway Patrol's handling of the Castro Valley incident but we also applaud them for sending out hand signed 3 Foot Warning Letters when a cyclist notifies them they were buzzed by an aggressive driver.
On 10/5/15 the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Golden Gate Division issued their “Three Feet For Safety – CHP Focusing on Keeping Cyclists Safe” press release in which they highlighted our partnership:
“We have also partnered with 3footcycling.com, a nationwide advocacy group dedicated to informing the public about bicycle safety laws across the country. In partnership with 3footcycling.com, Golden Gate Division has developed warning letters that are sent to drivers seen violating the Three Foot Law and other bicycle-related laws. The letters are not punitive, but rather work to educate drivers about being safe around cyclists.”
We are proud of our partnership with CHP GGD and our work with CHP's Research and Planning leadership.
The Power is in Cyclist's Hands
Our Incident Management System is only as good as the incidents cyclists enter. So please help us mobilize your cycling community to ride with cameras and enter all their Assault and Reckless Driving incidents.
The power is in cyclists' hands. We can help create Safe, Respectfully Shared Streets.