Author: Rahman Law PC

Establishing School District Liability In Cases Involving the Assault and Battery of Students by Students By Shaana A. Rahman

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Unfortunately, we are seeing a rise in both physical and sexual assaults of students, while at school, by other students. While we are all familiar with the schoolyard fight, there is a point at which such fights give rise to liability, not only on the part of the assaulter and his or her parents, but also on the part of school officials, including the school district, and supervising teachers. Similarly, when a child is sexually assaulted at school by another child, it is necessary to evaluate the potential liability of the school entities and its employees. When a parent sends a child off to school, it is with the implicit, and sometimes explicit, understanding that the school will keep the child safe throughout the school day. In fact, it has long been held that “[a] special relationship is formed between a school district and its students resulting in the imposition of an affirmative duty on the school district to take all reasonable steps to protect its students…[t]his affirmative duty arises, in part, based on the compulsory nature of education.” (M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School District (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 517, citing, Rodriquez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 714-715, Cal. Const. art. I §28, subd. (c) [students have inalienable right to attend safe, secure and peaceful campuses]; Educ. Code §48200.)

Additionally, there are a myriad of requirements set forth in the California Education Code and the California Code of Regulations that, if not met, can give rise to liability on the part of district employees. Specifically, Education Code §44807 provides: “[e]very teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess.” Pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §5551 a principal is responsible for the supervision and administration of his school. Also, § 5552 provides, “[w]here playground supervision is not otherwise provided, the principal of each school shall provide for the supervision by certificated employees of the conduct and safety . . . of the pupils of the school who are on the school grounds during recess and other intermissions.” As many incidents occur during recess periods, this statute is particularly useful in establishing the parameters of the liability. The purpose of the foregoing laws is to regulate students’ conduct “so as to prevent disorderly and dangerous practices which are likely to result in physical injury to immature scholars.” (M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 517-18 review denied (Oct 01, 2003) [quotations omitted].)

This article will discuss the three main theories of liability in assault and battery cases: 1) negligent supervision of students, 2) negligent hiring training or supervision of district staff and 3) dangerous conditions of public property. Additionally, I have provided a checklist of documents to obtain to properly investigate a school assault and battery case. (More on student-on-student assault is in another blog, here.)

1. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CLAIMS

California Government Code §815.2 provides that “[a] public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee.” (Cal. Gov. Code §815.2.) In addition, Government Code §820 provides that “a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” (Cal. Gov. Code §820.) Thus, there may be direct liability of school district employees such as teachers, hall monitors and school administrators and vicarious liability for the school district. The majority of such cases hinge on 1) what the school personnel should have done, 2) what they did do and 3) what they failed to do.

Most school districts and schools have written materials that address how the business of the safety of students must be conducted. This is generally in the form of an employee handbook or training materials, which have sections devoted to physical altercations and sexual harassment or assault. Many schools also now have a “zero tolerance” policy for students touching each other, even, that which is, as one school administrator described to me, “innocent touching, like hand holding”. Often such manuals will contain the student-teacher playground ratios, and the supervision requirements during recess, and lunch or other times when students will be moving through the halls. As many physical altercations take place during these times, it can be relatively easy to identify whether or not school officials failed to monitor students when they should have been, including whether there were insufficient numbers of school employees present, making adequate supervision impossible. More problematic are sexual assault cases which generally take place out of view in places like restrooms, empty classrooms or other areas obscured from view of supervising school employees. In these cases, the facts must be scrutinized to evaluate the extent of supervision. An important factor in this analysis is the ages of the children being supervised.

The California Supreme Court in the leading case of Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747, has aptly stated the rule (codified in Education Code sec. 44807) concerning negligent supervision:

While school districts and their employees have never been considered insurers of the physical safety of students, California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to “supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection.” [Citations.] . ..The standard of care imposed upon school personnel in carrying out this duty to supervise is identical to that required in the performance of their other duties. This uniform standard to which they are held is that degree of care “which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with [comparable] duties, would exercise under the same circumstances.” . . . Either a total lack of supervision or ineffective supervision may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the part of those responsible for student supervision. (Daily, supra, 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.)

Dailey involved unsupervised students who engaged in a “slapboxing” contest which left one student dead. The Court in Daily opined that “our courts have often held that a failure to prevent injuries caused by the intentional or reckless conduct of the victim or a fellow student may constitute negligence. “ (Id. at 749.) Dailey reversed a directed verdict for the defendant school district. The Dailey court also noted that the younger the students, the greater the vigilance required of the school district, especially for pre-high school students. ( Id. at 748.)

 

The courts in both M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School and Leger v. Stockton Unified School District (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448 similarly held that a cause of action against a school district is viable for the district employees’ negligent supervision of its students and premises. In Leger, the Court found that the defendant district owed a duty of care to plaintiff and as such was liable to plaintiff pursuant to Government Code §§815.2 and 820. The Court’s opinion was based on its finding of a special relationship between the student and the district employees, including the principal and the wrestling coach. (Leger, at 1459.) The Court also analyzed the foreseeability of the harm to the plaintiff, referencing the holding in Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 36 Cal.3d at p. 812.)

The Court in Leger further found that as the defendants at issue would have been liable to plaintiff upon the facts pled if they worked in the private sector, the defendant employees were similarly liable pursuant to §§815. 2 and 820. In M.W. v. Panama, supra, the Court held that the school district owed a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from a sexual assault committed by another student. In so holding, the Court opined that “[s]chool districts are subject to well-established statutory duties mandating adequate supervision for the protection of the students…[t]hese affirmative duties arise from the compulsory nature of school attendance, the expectation and reliance of parents and students on schools for safe buildings and grounds, and the importance to society of the learning activity that takes place in schools.” (Id. at 685-686.) Thus, it is well established that a school district owes a duty of care to its students to protect them from sexual assaults. (See also, Virginia G v. ABC Unified School District (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1855-1856.)

In a recent case involving a playground sexual assault, prior to litigation I was able to procure an employee handbook for a particular school which contained the following: “[y]ard duty is a legal responsibility…[c]irculate in the area around your duty location in order to monitor play.” “STUDENTS MUST BE SUPERVISED AT ALL TIMES.” Armed with the school’s internal policy, it was then just a matter of getting the school personnel to admit that there was no excuse for letting a student out of their sight, even for a moment. It was also then easy to point to the specific conduct on the part of the school personnel which violated the school’s own policy, creating an opportunity in which the assault to occur.

2. NEGLIGENT TRAINING, HIRING AND/OR SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES.

In many instances, the plaintiff may be able to allege that the incident was facilitated by the school district’s hiring and continued employment of personnel who were neither qualified nor properly trained and as a result were ill-equipped to ensure the safety of the children left in their care.

California Code of Regulations, title 5, §§5551 and 5552 requires the school district and its administrators, such as the principal of a school, to staff common areas, including playgrounds with competent, adequately trained staff. Moreover, school administrators have a continuing duty to supervise such staff members to ensure that they were competently performing their sole job, i.e., protecting the children from harm. It is not sufficient for the school to have a host of rules pertaining to safety and supervision. The school administrator must ensure that such rules are being followed by school employees and that such employees have the requisite knowledge and training to execute the rules. (See, Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School District (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, [sexual molestation of a student by a teacher; held liability can be imposed on the district based on the negligence of its employees who were responsible for the hiring and/or supervision of the teacher if such employees knew or should have known of the teacher’s history of sexual misconduct with students under his supervision.].)

Defendants will typically rely on the Fourth Districts’ holding in DeVillers v. County of San Diego (2008) 156 Cal.App.4th 238,to assert that no cause of action for “negligent training, hiring or supervision (of a public entity’s employees)” by a public entity can be pursued. However, the Court’s analysis in this case distinguished between direct and vicarious liability. Ultimately, the holding is fact specific in a case where there was a tenuous link between the failures of the district and its employees and the third-party’s conduct.

Oftentimes, the school personnel left in charge of supervising children on the playground or on the lunchroom have little or no training on how to identify or prevent potential dangers and have been provided no instructions on how to keep students in their charge safe.

3. PLEADING A DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.

When an assault and battery occurs on school grounds, out of the direct line of sight of a school employee, investigation into whether the configuration of the premises created a dangerous condition is necessary. In sexual assault cases, many times a child will be lured to a location away from other students and teachers to a location such as behind a fence, a dumpster or hedges—something where an activity can be hidden. In this scenario, the school district will assert that they were in fact supervising the children, yet as the act occurred outside of their view they neither knew or should have known about the conduct.

In these circumstances, a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property can be used to assert that the configuration of the premises created a danger, giving rise to the assault. This can occur on playgrounds where there is a gap in a fence, a high hedge or a misplaced dumpster where children congregate to “hide” from school officials.

California Government Code §835 provides that “a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition[1] of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either: (a) [a] negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2[2] a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.” (Cal. Gov. Code §835.)
Pursuant to §835.4, the reasonableness of the public entity’s act or omission creating the condition is determined by “weighing the probability and the gravity of potential injury to persons … foreseeably exposed to the risk of injury against the practicability and cost of taking alternative action that would not create the risk of injury or of protecting against the risk of injury.” (Cal. Gov. Code §835.4.)

Additionally, Government Code §840.2 provides that “[a]n employee of a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the plaintiff establishes that the property of the public entity was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonable foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) [t]he dangerous condition was directly attributable wholly or in substantial part to a negligent or wrongful act of the employee and the employee had the authority and the funds and other means immediately available to take alternative action which would not have created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he employee had the authority and it was his responsibility to take adequate measures to protect against the dangerous condition at the expense of the public entity and the funds and other means for doing so were immediately available to him, and he had actual or construction notice of the dangerous condition under Section 840.04 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.” (Cal. Govt. Code §840.2.)

In these cases, it is important to visit the location where the incident occurred and visually observe what a vigilant school employee could have seen, if they were paying proper attention. It is also important to establish whether the location at issue was, in fact, a location used by students to avoid detection by staff, even if the prior use was for relatively innocuous behavior. Most school personnel tasked with supervising students will admit that there are warning signs that students are either engaging in a prohibited activity like fighting or bullying, or about to engage in such behavior. These warning signs include, groups of students congregating in one area, a group of students who suddenly disappear from the supervisor’s sightline, with one or two students acting as a lookout, and excessive noise. These warning signs should give rise to the school personnel investigating the activity and stopping it before it starts.

4. NOTIFICATION OF PARENT

It is an unfortunate set of events which leads school personnel to fail to disclose a physical or sexual assault to a child’s parents. The school district will generally fall back on the defense that it had no idea that anything occurred, using their feigned ignorance as an overall defense. As discussed above, if the school district takes the ostrich with their head in the sand approach, this can be compelling evidence of a failure to supervise.

Additionally, where the school district fails to report such violence to a student’s parents, the Courts have found that this may give rise to an independent cause of action on the part of the parents. In the case of Phyllis P. v. Claremont Unified School District (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1193, which involved an allegation of sexual molestations at school by a fellow student, the plaintiffs alleged that the school district had learned of the incident but decided not to inform the victim’s mother. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the trial court and held that as the defendants stood in a special relationship to the victim and to her mother, the injuries to the mother were foreseeable and as such the defendants had a duty to inform the mother after learning of the molestation. The Court further opined that the district should have foreseen that withholding the information from the mother would cause more emotional distress. The Court also held that the mother’s cause of action was properly based on her status as a direct victim of defendants’ negligence, and was not derivative of her daughter’s injury. (Phyliss P, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1196-1197.)

Many parents report having continued distress and apprehension following such an incident as they not only no longer trust the school personnel to care for their children, but fear the worst that if something does happen to their child, the school will hide it. This is a crushing realization to a parent who has no choice but to relinquish their child into the hands of a school for a majority of their child’s life, with no reassurance that their child will remain safe.

5. PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION

Before taking on any case against a public entity, it pays to heavily investigate the case beforehand. Take advantage of the virtually free information available through public records act requests which can help you get the following:

a) School protocols and procedures regarding supervision, safety, training of employees and policies on acceptable/unacceptable behavior between students;

b) Training manuals/handbooks which may outline the duties and responsibilities of the school and its personnel with respect to students, including to provide a safe and effective learning environment, complying with district and state policies and regulations, safety of students, monitoring behavior/common areas, recess etc, assessing signs of sexual abuse;

c) Administrative regulations for city/county –student safety, playground safety etc.;

d) “Touching” or “sexual assault” policies—most = “zero tolerance” even for “innocent touching”;

e) Disciplinary policies for students who violate rules;

f) Child abuse prevention policies and training;

g) Prior instances of violence at the school

CONCLUSION

Cases involving injuries to children are always emotionally charged. In taking on such cases, while it might seem intuitive that a child would not have been injured if the school district and its employees were doing their jobs, in order to prevail you must be able to point to specific conduct, or failures on the part of the district and its employees that either caused or contributed to the incident.

Rahman Law PC provides free consultations if you have questions.

Receive new blogs via email:

[email-posts-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”Subscribe to receive our blogs in your inbox!”]

[1]Government Code section 830 defines a “dangerous condition” as “a condition of property that creates a substantial… risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”

[2]Section 835.2(a) sets forth: “[a] public entity had actual notice of a dangerous condition …if it had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character. Section 835.2(b) defines constructive notice as such condition which existed for such a period of time which was of such an obvious nature that the public entity should have discovered the condition and its dangerous condition. Admissible evidence on the issue of constructive notice includes whether the condition would have been discovered by a reasonably adequate inspection system to inform the public entity whether the property was safe for its use . (See, Cal. Gov. Code section 835.2.)

Sustainable Bamboo Bicycles for Impoverished Countries

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Worldbike is an organization dedicated to “designing innovative bicycle prototypes to advance development in poor countries.” Their programs have been implemented on a small scale in Cuba, Mexico, Rwanda, Senegal and Thailand. Their website presents a background into these programs:

An estimated 1.2 billion people live in rural poverty cut off from markets, schools and clinics. With such an immense global need for sustainable transport, there’s no shortage of opportunities for bicycles to make a big difference in the lives of the rural poor.

Helping them in their mission are a lot of other innovative bike organizations. For one, the Bamboo Bike Project, a project funded by Columbia University’s Earth Institute, is aimed at establishing bamboo cargo bike manufacturers in Africa.
And just three days ago, the BBP along with the Millennium Cities Initiative and the Ghana-based Bamboo Bike Limited launched their bike training program in Ghana. This is the first step towards the “the creation of the first large-scale bamboo bike production factory in the world, with ambitions of producing up to 20,000 affordable bikes a year to serve the transportation needs of the rural poor in Ghana” (source).
The Bay Bikers Blog is optimistic that the BBP will succeed in their mission, citing the follow reasons:
  • The bikes would be cheap to produce ($50/bike)
  • Bamboo can be strong enough to last longer than metal models currently sold in Africa
  • The frames are sustainable due to bamboo being a common, native plant
  • Industry has a lot of growth potential and can improve citizens’ lives directly.
Many groups like these are trying to accomplish the same for countries all around the world. Check them out if you’re interested in contributing to the cause.

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

It’s been 26 years since the California Cable Car Line has been upgraded. But shortly after Christmas Eve, the SFMTA closed it for the second phase of their Infrastructure Improvement Project that will continue through until summer. This construction will entail:

  • “Replacing aging electronic and mechanical components underneath the cable car trackway to ensure the continued safe operation of the cable car system”
  • “Reconstruction of concrete streets between Mason Street and Kearny Street”
  • “Street repaving along California Street”

The street closure was originally scheduled for January 3rd, but after a cable snapped on Christmas Eve, the SFMTA decided to shut down the cars a week early. And looking at San Francisco’s recent $2.1 million settlement for a 2008 derailment case against 4 injured passengers and other mechanical failures that the cable cars have experienced, this revamp has been much needed.

Construction has been continuing from Monday to Saturday from 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. with surrounding business still open. Muni bus shuttles are substituting this cable car service from 6:30 A.M. to 12:30 A.M. The trolley coach on the 1 California bus route will still run, as will the Powell-Mason and Powell-Hyde cable cars. For more information, visit the Department of Public Works website.

San Francisco: One of the Most Dangerous Cities for Pedestrians

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Over 800 people are hit by cars in San Francisco each year, according to an article in the SF Chronicle. An average of 2 people are hit everyday, and with the holiday season, this number is on the rise due to shortened daylight hours and “increased alcohol use and winter weather.”

But it’s not just during the holidays that we have to worry about being mowed down by speeding, inattentive drivers. San Francisco ranked higher than larger cities like New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London for traffic fatalities per 100,000 residents. In a city like this, pedestrians might have to wonder how safe it is to walk out their front door on any normal day.
Pedestrian-Car Collision Hot Spots
“The top 10 most dangerous parts of San Francisco for walkers are concentrated in the Financial District and the Tenderloin, South of Market and Bayview neighborhoods” because of a larger than average number of people who “rely on walking and public transit.”
But collisions were also found to be concentrated in residential areas like Glen Park, the Castro, the Mission, Excelsior and the Western Addition.
Among these collisions, the Chronicle singled out three from the past few months that occurred in a crosswalk:
On Nov. 17, 65-year-old Nu Ha Dam was struck and killed by a UCSF shuttle bus at lunchtime while crossing Geary Street at Leavenworth, two blocks from her home.
 
On Sept. 2, a hit-and-run driver who was later arrested, killed 70-year-old Joyce Lau as she was crossing Cole Street at waller shortly before 8 a.m.
 
Later that same day, around 5 p.m., a 79-year-old woman whose identity has not been released sustained life-threatening injuries while trying to cross Bayshore Boulevard at Bacon Street.
A Matter of Health
Considering pedestrian accidents account for at least a quarter of all injury crashes, street safety should not only be one of our highest transit priorities, but a public health one as well, according to Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the director of occupational and environmental health for the city’s Department of Public Health. Despite the high figures and news reports of accidents, pedestrian safety continues to be a problem and real change is slowly–too slowly–emerging from the offices of our elected officials.
Not helping the issue is the continued accolades boasted by the SFMTA. Just a few months ago, in October, the SFMTA released a report showing that the number of fatalities had, in fact, decreased over recent years. And yet, we are still ranked at a higher percentage than many other major cities.
Baby Steps Towards Improvement
San Francisco’s transportation agency is implementing a pilot program aimed at decreasing the speed limit in targeted residential neighborhoods to 15 mph. Meanwhile, Board of Supervisors David Chau plans to fund a study researching how city agencies are addressing this pedestrian problem.
But are these steps too small and too slow of a start?
According to Michael Bianco, whose 32-year-old daughter sustained major brain trauma from a hit-and-run that rendered her incapable of living independently, “Whatever can be done to prevent something of this kind occurring again is time well spent.” Bianco is currently suing the city for negligence. He “believes San Francisco is far more dangerous to walk in than the numbers suggest.” And the numbers already suggest enough.

If you ever need a pedestrian accident attorney in San Francisco, Paso Robles, or the surrounding Central California Coast area, contact us for a free consultation.

Has DriveCam Improved Muni’s Safety?

Posted on by Rahman Law PC
Last January, on the same day the 19-Polk collision hospitalized 9 people, the SFMTA released a self-congratulatory statement regarding their improved safety record.

A few months earlier, in November 2009, Muni spent $1.2 million installing the DriveCam onto all their buses and trolleys “to help improve safety on the transit system.”

About DriveCam
The DriveCam is installed both inside and outside of the vehicle and kicks in seconds before and after incidents involving hard breaking or swerving. The company website advertises a “Seven Steps to Risk Reduction and Savings” plan wherein #5 and #6 are:

5. Driver review, coaching and training

  • Supervisors and drivers review the video, company policy and procedures. The goal is for the driver to understand and improve his or her driving.

6. The driver returns to the field with new insights

  • The employee returns to the field integrating new learning into his or her driving
Muni’s Goals: Savings or Safety?
While the SFMTA claims to have adopted DriveCam’s idealistic steps to improve safety. However, in their press release, the SFMTA said these cameras would “assess liability from collisions and reduce expenses incurred from such incidents that can include vehicle damage, worker’s compensation, and personal injury.”

After the 19-Polk accident, both the SF Appeal and The Examiner were quick to suggest that the installation of DriveCam seemed more like an attempt to improve Muni’s safety record, and not its actual safety.
So now that one year has passed, what are your thoughts on this? Has Muni made your public transportation any safer?

The FDA Acts 32 Years Later

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration announced that the drug propoxyphene (sold under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet) is going to be taken off the market.

Propoxyphene was a generic pain medication with similar effects as Extra Strength Tylenol, but with serious side-effects on the heart that has led to a “staggering” number of deaths during its 53-year use.
A petition to ban propoxyphene first came to the FDA in 1978 from the advocacy group Health Research Group of Public Citizen, led by Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe and again in 2006 after Britain banned the drug in 2005.
In 2009, medical examiners in Florida reported a large amount of deaths linked to propoxyphene, leading the European Union to ban it. And finally, in January 2009, the FDA followed suit. Dr. Wolfe responded to this victory, saying, “I would have praised them if they had done this six years ago, but it’s hard to praise them when there have been 120 million more prescriptions filled since 2005 and conservatively 1,000 to 2,000 more deaths. It’s inexcusable.”
This frightening oversight–one that kept the FDA blinded for 32 years–should come as a shock, but we have seen again and again the FDA’s fallibility when it comes to our health and safety.
Source: The New York Times – Business Day (Saturday, November 20, 2010)

Upcoming Projects and Changes for BART

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

For almost a decade, BART has been planning and funding a transit village in Walnut Creek that would house 596 apartments. This $100 million project took a few steps back after being hit by the recession. Construction is likely to start in 2012 and take 6-8 years to be completed. (Source)

And in West Dublin/Pleasanton, a new BART station is set to start operating in early 2011. BART recently set the fares at: “$4.15 for a trip to Berkeley, $5.05 for a trip to Walnut creek, and $10.40 to travel to SFO.” (Source)

Biking For the Real City Experience

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

In yesterday’s NYtimes, Seth Kugel gave his amusing and illuminating account of Los Angeles from the perspective of a cycling tourist.

Kugel made it his goal to visit a reasonably large stretch of LA county comprising of places like Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Venice Beach, Downtown, and Pasadena on a budget of $100/day. Undeterred by lore on the impossibility of getting around LA without a car, Kugel made his ambitious week-long adventure depending only on public transportation and a rented hybrid Trek bike.
You can read his detailed saga in its entirety in “Frugal Los Angeles“. But to sum up the author’s verdict, biking is not only a possible means of sight-seeing, but ultimately gives you a more enriching and more authentic exposure to your vacation site. Even after a lot of sweat and not a lot of bike lanes (things that LA is known for), Seth Kugel came to this conclusion:
“I had expected getting around Los Angeles by bike and public transportation to be a barely tolerable chore–a money-saving second-best way to see the city. Why, then, was I feeling so elated about my trip and smitten by a city I had never particularly liked before? […]

What I had really liked were the moments in between: the strangers who shared secrets on the buses, the dog walkers and Dutch tourists who stopped to chat with me along Rodeo Drive, the aspiring actor I struck up a conversation with on Santa Monica boulevard, as he cycled to an audition and I cycled to pick up my U.C.L.A. football ticket. These were true Los Angeles moments–moments that most visitors, stuck in freeway traffic behind the steering wheel of their rental car, never get to experience.”
Kugel claims that these experiences speak to an authenticity of L.A. And I think this can be found in S.F. too. Not only is our city filled to the brim with an eclectic culture and electric sights, but we can also boast of more bikers who take advantage of this. When we fight for safer streets, we also fight for people to get out of their cars and into the “true” San Francisco.

Electric Bikes for Beginning Cyclists

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Most of us have seen in the city (if not experienced for ourselves) the spectacle of bicyclists sweating their way up a hill (Filbert, anyone?). These vertical terrors might be deterring people from biking, says a recent article in the Chronicle.

So Point Reyes is combining forces with John Granatir (owner of Go Green Electric Bikes) to encourage more people to bike and “[get] people out that normally wouldn’t be”. At Point Reyes, you can now rent an electric bike and take on all the hills you’d like. These bikes have pedals so you can still get an exercise from your outing; and the motor will start as soon as you reach an incline.
The article also mentions the stigma behind electric bikes because “many avid cyclists believe that you should earn every hill on your own”. But for those who are just starting to get in shape or just want a relaxing day outdoors without the epic (and often painstaking) workout, these electric bikes could be a good alternative.

Bay Area Bike Trail Wins Federal Grant

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Last Tuesday, under a program called TIGER II (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery), the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $600 million total to 70 “innovative transportation projects.”

In February, the SFTMA was awarded $46 million to replace Doyle Drive.
This year, the east bay seems to be the winner, being awarded $10.2 million “to help the East Bay Regional Parks District close gaps in its 200-mile system of paved trails.”
Randy Rentschler of the Municipal Transit Commission attributed the win to the project’s unique goal of encouraging more and more people to choose biking and other alternative, environmentally-friendly modes of commute. (source)
The East Bay Parks General Manager Pat O’Brien echoed these sentiments, saying, “A safe convenient connection means commuters are much more likely to take public transit, walk or bike as a commute alternative to driving, and that benefits everyone including commuters, transit agencies, and our environment.” (source)
This bike path aims to aid over 700,000 east bay residents commuting to work, but will cost a total of $43.3 million. The grant covers 25% and the Parks District is hoping for taxpayers to cover the rest. So commuters might have to wait a while before the full benefits of this project can be achieved.