Comments on: LADOT: No Timetable on Sharrows Pilot Program; LACBC: How’s Next Month Work?

By: la rider

la rider — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:19:49 +0000

I hate studies. They always point out the obvious and cost alot of money. Anybody with half a brain could tell you what the studies result will be.

By: ubrayj02

ubrayj02 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:04:01 +0000

The issue of “liability” is a bike rider is involved on a street with an “illegal” sharrow … um … yeah. When a bike rider is hurt while riding in a bike lane, where does liability get assigned? When a bike rider is inured anywhere, do they actually get justice?

The new name for this meeting is “Transportation Red Herring Committee”.

By: Drew Reed

Drew Reed — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:25:32 +0000

As a continuing citizen of LB, I’d like to remind everyone that we’re not perfect either. Yes, we seem to be doing alot better than LA proper, but there is still a lot left to do. The Vista and Broadway/3rd projects are taking much longer than four months, and even when they are done it’s going to take more work for Long Beach to have a cohesive bike network. But at least we’re working towards it.

I really hope that LA can get its act together bike-wise, I’d like to be able to travel by bike not just in Long Beach but in the whole metro area. If only there were some way to expand Bike LB to cover the rest of LA.

By: ubrayj02

ubrayj02 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:03:02 +0000

Hey wait, I’m confused, didn’t the Mayor already implement sharrows in LA?

http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2009/12/ladot-launches-sharrows-pilot-project/

Wait – I’ve got our winning strategy figured out! We’ll do a pilot sharrow project on Mowery’s commute. When she slips and falls on the paint (dangerous slippery bike shaped paint!), she’ll have a liability suit against the city she can pursue for millions! Then she can retire and try to best her Long Beach to UCLA drive times from the 1960′s when she’d go to Pauly Pavillion and be home in LB in 40 minutes (from her talk when David Byrne came to town).

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:33:50 +0000

I think the “scofflaw cyclist” argument is simply a way to appease the bike-hating segment of the population. By complaining about the minority of riders who ride dangerously, it allows them to show support for all those drivers who insist that they’ll support cycling when we obey the law, pay taxes, get licensed, blah blah blah.

Roadblock is right, as usual; the percentage of drivers who run stop signs, speed and fail to signal is probably greater than the percentage of cyclists who break the law. But no one other than the cycling community ever seems to notice that.

By: roadblock

roadblock — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:37:43 +0000

It seems that yesterdays Transportation Committee hearing and Monday’s City Council meetings were wrought with the phrase “scofflaw cyclists.” This phrase was being used by ignorant politicians naysayers and bureaucrats as a catch all excuse and deflection everytime cycling infrastructure was being pushed on the agenda.

EXCUSE ME?

Does the LADOT and the naysayers of the city council crew bring up “Scofflaw Car Drivers” everytime a new piece of car centric infrastructure is discussed? Last I checked the sheer volume of traffic tickets and revenue generated from them for Los Angeles is proof positive that we have PLENTY of “scofflaw auto drivers” in this town. Using their reasoning, maybe these politicians needs to curb all automotive projects too?!

By: DJB

DJB — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:52:19 +0000

Those sharrows in LB are great. It’s worth noting that they put those in the photo down at Belmont shore, which has a bunch of narrow blocks, each with its own traffic signal. Traffic tends to move slowly through there as a result and it’s easy to keep up on a bike.

Faster traffic would destroy the pedestrian-friendly character of one of the city’s most popular shopping streets (“hey hon, let’s eat outside on a street where cars roar by at 40 MPH”). You’d think we’d be interested in emulating good design principles.