Photo by Markus Krisetya.

In early September, the Washington Area Bicycling Association floated a proposed law that would make it easier for cyclists who were assaulted, intimidated or harassed by drivers to take their case to civil court. Councilmembers Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) and Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) introduced the measure two weeks ago, and on November 2 the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary will hold a hearing on it.

But even before the proposal gets a public airing in front of the Council, arguments are flying over whether the law is really a necessary protection for a city that’s seen an increase in cycling over the years, or an unfair move towards granting cyclists protections that few others enjoy.

At the Huffington Post’s local site yesterday, local political strategist and commentator Chuck Thies argued in opposition to the law, saying that cyclists can already take drivers to court and that the law would upend the legal system by putting cyclists in an “exceptional class.”

“The Assault of Bicyclist Prevention Act is hogwash and represents yet another expansion of our increasingly litigious society,” wrote Thies, who instead proposed that cyclists be forced to purchase liability insurance.

Cycling advocates argue that there simply aren’t any examples where existing criminal and tort laws have protected a cyclist who claims they were intimidated, harassed or assaulted by a driver. In a post defending the law, WABA’s Executive Director Shane Farthing admitted that part of the point was to make drivers think twice about how they react to cyclists by altering their economic calculus:

[I]t is true that there is an existing civil tort cause of action. However, like most torts, the ability to secure legal representation to bring such a case depends-due to the contingency fee system-on the extent of the injury rather than the egregiousness of the conduct. This law will allow egregious conduct be to be addressed in civil court by changing the economic incentive for attorneys to represent assaulted cyclists.

Farthing also noted that cyclists are “inherently vulnerable” and a minority on the road, thus meriting the additional protection that the law would offer.

Washcycle similarly comes out in favor of the law, picking at Thies’ argument by arguing that cyclists deserve the protection the law would offer since, unlike pedestrians, they are much more likely to be a victim of an aggressive driver.

[P]edestrians aren’t assaulted by drivers the way that cyclists are. Can Thies find an example? And this is a red herring. WABA’s not saying that pedestrians are unworthy of this kind of protection, just that they don’t need it – and I suspect WABA would be fine if the law wound up protecting both groups in the same way.

Many of these same arguments played out over the last two years in Los Angeles, which this summer became the first city in the country to pass such a law. Beyond Thies, though, it’s still unclear if there will be an organized push against the proposed law in the District — in September we reported that Mid-Atlantic AAA seemed cautiously supportive of the law.