Eyes on the Street: New Green Bike Lane Merge Zones on Vineland Avenue

New green bike lane merge zones on Vineland Avenue just south of the 134 Freeway. All photos: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.
New green merge zones on Vineland Avenue at the 134/170 Freeways. All photos: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

The Vineland Avenue bike lanes got a little greener this week. The L.A. Department of Transportation (LADOT) gave several merge zones a coat of “fresh Kermit.”

The Vineland Avenue bike lanes run from Ventura Boulevard to Burbank Boulevard in the southeast San Fernando Valley neighborhoods of Studio City, North Hollywood, and Toluca Lake – just east of the North Hollywood Red Line Station. There have been some issues with these lanes in the past, especially in the freeway-infested area where the 101, 134, and 170 Freeways intersect. In a 6-block stretch, between Aqua Vista Street and Hortense Street, the Vineland lanes cross two freeway on-ramps and two freeway off-ramps, with three additional freeway ramps just a block or two away on Moorpark Street and Riverside Drive. Drivers merge into the bike lane and drive in it for blocks before turning; this results in clogging the bike lane, generally at commute hours.

According to Streetsblog reader Melissa Federowicz, LADOT had recently experimented, apparently unsuccessfully, with installing plastic bollards. This week the bollards came out and green paint went in. 

The green merge zones are all intermittent treatments in areas where drivers merge to the right to get on to freeways, either at freeway on-ramps or at streets leading to nearby ramps.

Vineland bike lane southbound immediately north of the 101 Freeway
Vineland bike lane southbound immediately north of the 101 Freeway
Vineland bike lane intermittent green merge zone at Moorpark Street
The same Vineland green bike lane merge zone view north from Moorpark Street

Even with the bike lanes and merge zones, some cyclists preferred to avoid the car traffic and ride on the sidewalk.

Sidewalk cyclist headed north on Vineland at Riverside Drive

The heavily car-trafficked area remains generally unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists.

Pedestrian crossing mid-block between Riverside and Moorpark
Despite a removed crosswalk leg, pedestrian and cyclist crossing Vineland at Moorpark. This four-way intersection only has three crosswalks; the north crosswalk leg has been erased, presumably to make way for more drivers turning left from eastbound Moorpark onto northbound Vineland.

Even with the very visible green markings, many cars still merge right early, driving more than a block in the bike lane before turning right.

Driver taking the green Vineland bike lane at Landale Street, a full block before turning right at Riverside Drive
This driver is legally merging at the start of the dashed-green merge zone
  • Jason

    Speaking of intersections with only three crosswalks: I’m still flabbergasted by them. I’ve never been anywhere else with this bullshit.

  • Adam G. Linder

    This stretch KILLS me. Assholes turning right on Riverside before the 170 ALWAYS drive for a mile in the bike lane and then try to hit me when I legally merge over. The real problem here is the attitude of Angeleno drivers, egos before safety…

  • Slexie

    Freeway infested? Really? Sometimes roads come together to make the transition from one to the other easier. Or should cars get off one freeway and go on surface streets to get on another freeway? Kind of a silly stance to take. Oh that infestation of freeways in NoHo? Such an issue!

  • Stvr

    A Tom LaBonge special that needs to be aborted. Tear it all out and do it right on Lankershim

  • -Angeleno drivers +People of all kinds in most parts of the world.

  • M

    I’m actually surprised it’s something that is being intentionally done NOW. In my head, I think this was some sort of old practice that was not going to happen anymore (the jokes I tell myself!!!) In the area of Moorpark on Vineland the pedestrian infrastructure is lacking to say the least – there’s missing sidewalk segments on BOTH sides of Vineland within 2 blocks (& further up the street there’s an elementary school… I see parents walking their kids to school every day next to a freeway off ramp where there’s no real sidewalk @ Whipple.) There’s also already many intersections in the general area that restrict pedestrian crossings at at least 1 of the 4 streets in the intersection, which I see as detrimental to pedestrians, but who am I, besides someone who has to cross additional streets/wait at additional lights because of missing crosswalks.

  • M

    But Lankershim is for cars only! That’s at least what that mess of a Pedestrian bridge at Universal tells me…..

  • M

    Actually, in some areas it’s pretty sad to look at older maps and realize how badly the freeways diced up and separated communities and made parks disappear/shrink and areas became pretty inaccessible for the people that live in the community. Not only that, the speeds of cars getting off/on the freeways further degrades the streets for non-car driving people. Add in the noise and pollution and the freeways are a pretty huge nuisance.

    This stretch of Vineland has more than the average number of freeway off/on ramps in a pretty short segment.

  • ubrayj02

    “It complies with the standards!”, should become famous last words of whomever designed these awful bike lanes.

  • M

    As someone that bikes in this area, these adjustments make me feel more so like I’m part of an experiment…. one in which I might have to pay with my life. Put in a half assed solution, see if it works. Nope. Ok, let’s add some paint and move the lanes a little….

  • Joe Linton

    For my very-small-sample anecdote: around 11am Tuesday – when I was taking pictures from the sidewalk, dozens of cars were merging at least a block early, moving fast. When I actually bicycled in the lane, the drivers slowed down and kept their distance from me.

  • James

    This sort of infrastructure – or paintwork – can work, in the context of low speed traffic calmed, highly ambiguous urban roads but not on an urban highway designed to encourage speeding, inattentive driving and the lack of expectation of cyclists and pedestrians.

  • Joe Commuter

    This really needs to be a protected bike lane. There is enough room and would vastly improve conditions. Paint, really? Please try again LADOT.

  • Joe Commuter

    I disagree. Vineland doesn’t need 3 lanes in each direction. Vineland needs a protected bike lane and so does Lankershim. People that call for the removal of Vineland lanes because they prefer Lankershim may be shooting themselves in the foot. What if we lose Vineland and don’t gain Lankershrim? What good does that do?

  • Bernard Finucane

    >LADOT had recently experimented, apparently unsuccessfully, with installing plastic bollards

    What is this supposed to mean?

  • M

    There were some plastic bollards in place for a couple weeks between the bike lane and the curb near one of the freeway entrances (in an area where people in cars were frequently driving in the bike lane/empty space between bike lane and curb. I kept meaning to get a picture, but it didn’t happen.) Then they were ripped out when this paint was added and the bike lane was shifted to a different position. And then yesterday they added more bollards in again, although not in the same places as they were last week.

  • Joe Commuter

    Can you get some pics this time???

  • M

    I can try to when I have time.

  • James

    I’ve long thought that this sort of design should include some reminders to drivers in the form of a couple of rumble strips followed by some visual aids in bold thermoplastic: a big LOOK with an arrow pointing to the right, followed by YIELD and then a a big stencil of a person on a bicyle. Perhaps a yellow sign above traffic with a flashing light, not over the sidewalk. This street also needs to be made less of a highway, improved intersections, 4 way crosswalks, additional marked and protected crosswalks at minor intersections giving pedestrians crosswalk spacing that is more appropriate for a dense urban environment and less like OC. There are other traffic calming techniques available but probably foreign to the highway design culture of LADOT. They could use different lane markings that increase the subjective impression of speed and slow cars down – shorter, wider broken lanes less far apart, narrow lanes etc. If you asked a German traffic engineeer about the design of this street you would be told that it is an unethical design in this environment, appropriate only for highway without nearby development.

  • Joe Commuter


  • Joe Linton

    I am going to get some pics – the bollards were apparently re-installed after I got my pictures

  • Joe

    About two weeks ago, bollards were installed on Vineland southbound near the 101 South entrance between Moorpark and Aqua Vista. During morning commute hours, that freeway entrance backs up considerably (at least to Moorpark and perhaps further, as far as I can tell from driving northbound on Vineland during those hours), and the queue of cars would form closest to the curb, on the bike lane without regard for the technical “cut in” point. This original bollard configuration didn’t seem to change that behavior. Only two rows of two side-by-side bollards were installed immediately adjacent to the curb (to the right of the bike lane), leaving ample room on the bike lane itself and buffer zone for cars to continue queuing there, passing on the right of the technical driving lane. As of yesterday, the right turn lane onto the 101 South was extended quite a bit back to Bloomfield. Now, there are two sets of two rows of three side-by-side bollards before the cut in point, which I suspect will now successfully prevent cars from passing those waiting in the actual driving lane. (Granted, the new bollards seem to block the adjacent bus stop, so I’m not sure how that’s going to work.) I don’t know the green paint was necessary had they started with an appropriate bollard configuration, but I suppose the paint gives the bike lanes additional visibility regardless. This stretch of road is in pretty poor condition, though, which makes the paint markings a little less clear than they otherwise might be.

  • Kind of sounds like the old bollards were on the wrong side of the bike lane. But maybe I’m not understanding it well. Looking forward to seeing how they look now! Thanks.

  • Joe Linton

    I couldn’t get a straight answer from LADOT – either that or it was easier to remove them while adding the green (thermoplastic) paint? I don’t know.

  • M

    Holy crap. I biked on this part of the lane on my way home today and the location of the current bike lane is in TERRIBLE condition, especially under the freeway overpass!!!! That really needs to be fixed because someone (and by someone, I easily mean myself on my road bike) is going to fall there, which is pretty bad considering the lane position doesn’t give cyclists a good place to move to avoid the roughness without immediate dipping into the path of a vehicle that will likely wonder why the biker isn’t staying in the bike lane. It’s also a really difficult spot because you go from a “light” to a “dark” area, which can make things hard to see since people’s eyes don’t adjust immediately.

  • M

    First is right before Whipple and Vineland, in front of the fire station, next one is right after the intersection at Whipple w/ the bus stop Joe mentioned & the last is getting closer to the freeway on ramp.

    Not sure if the bus stop can stay there & I have seen people use this stop. The ramp is also in a really weird place for it to work for the bus and even a little weird for the crosswalk since it kinda spills out into the bike lane/area where the cars can merge into the street, but hopefully the cars won’t be backing up there? Again, I do see people using this crosswalk and ramp when walking across the street (there’s an elementary school and adult education school on the opposite side of the street.)

  • Bernard Finucane

    >the new bollards seem to block the adjacent bus stop, so I’m not sure how that’s going to work

    As a general observation, bus stops are regularly located too close to intersections in American cities. If bus stop is at an intersection, it should be pulled back 20 yards or so or located downstream to reduce congestion. It is one of those things that makes me wonder what planners are actually thinking.

    The same is true of vehicles at intersections in general. Compared to Europe, the cars at American cities stop much too close to the middle of the intersection. Putting the light on the other side of the intersection instead of on the side where the cars are stopped aggravates this.

  • Slexie

    I think you’re being a little ridiculous. Roads are degraded for non driving people? If non driving people don’t drive, it’s really not their concern what condition the roads are in is it? It’s called wear and tear, it’s to be expected when one uses something. Why is it that the people who don’t drive feel the need to preach to people who do drive? Freeways and highways allow a streamlined system of connections. Would you rather sit in traffic trying to get across town without a freeway? And LA is spread out. If you have the time to double your commute by taking the bus, good for you. Most of us don’t have the time to do that. That stretch of Vineland is where those freeways come together, it’s not a crime. Would you rather we have no freeway so all the cars can have longer commutes and sit idling in traffic? Is that what you want? Because more cars sitting in traffic is more environmental damage, isn’t it?

  • Joe Commuter

    I am pretty sure M isn’t referring to physically degradation of the streets (though high volume cars do that too, and that can affect the safety of people bicycling). Speeding cars degrade the pedestrian experience psychologically by making streets louder, less safe, and less pleasant to spend time on. If I have to walk 5 blocks and wait at a bus stop, it is more stressful and unpleasant (not to mention more dangerous) to do so on a street where cars are zooming past and not looking out for pedestrians.

    Sure, Los Angeles is spread out. Sure, the freeways do good since they are already in place. But you go fast on the freeway, you are not supposed to speed half a mile before getting onto the on-ramp. Nor are you supposed to speed long after you have exited the freeway. Freeways are great at getting you from one place to another, but it would be more efficient if people had most of their necessities and resources locally so that they would not need to drive for every occasion and so that those unable to drive (young, old, poor, disabled) have greater freedom and autonomy.

  • Slexie

    I don’t know if that’s what M meant and neither do you. What are you talking about speeding up while getting on an off ramp or getting off? Who cares? People that drive like that are going to speed regardless as to the freeway or getting on and off of it. A lot of entrances and exits have lights at them, so let’s not create some straw man to make some ridiculous point that’s irrelevant anyway. Ohh…the psychological damage of all the pedestrians FORCED to walk along the freeway with it’s mayhem of exits and on ramps! Oh the humanity!

    Living near where you work has nothing to do with irresponsible drivers. Speeders and reckless drivers aren’t changing because they live close to work. And no one can tell anyone where to live. Sorry.

  • Joe Commuter

    Whether or not M meant that, physical degradation of roadway does affect the safety non drivers, particularly for bicyclists, or wheelchair/stroller users who can struggle to cross a pothole filled street. I’m sure you have no experience with that but it is a very real and valid concern, in particular in some SFV neighborhoods.

    Most people speed when their surroundings condone speeding. This is why most drivers are able to effortlessly and safely achieve 60mph on freeways but struggle to do so on commercial streets and often are unable to do so on narrow residential streets. If you don’t think roadway design influences how people behave this conversation is over since it will be clear you live in fantasy land.

    You show little compassion for those who don’t have the privilege of being able to drive or choose where they live. Yes, some people have no choice but to walk past a freeway to catch a bus.

    No, we cannot tell people where to live. We can make it so that non drivers aren’t treated like outcasts and that more inclusive modes (walking, biking, transit) are adequate, or even favored option of travel since cities are diverse places where we have young, old, disabled, and poor people who cannot drive.

    Oh and are you really one of those people who say you oppose slowing cars down and accommodating other modes because you care about the environment? Good grief.

  • M

    Joe Commuter is correct.

    People regularly speed excessively when getting on/off the freeway on the LOCAL streets making the environment hostile to people not driving. Although there are lights at some freeway off/on ramps, it doesn’t necessarily mean people aren’t speeding excessively on the streets…. When someone is gearing up to get on the freeway, especially when the streets seem “free” or the light is yellow and about to turn red, that’s often what they are focused on, not the possibility they are going to have to slow or stop at the crosswalk for someone moving 4 mph as they approach the freeway on ramp. As a bicyclist using a bike lane near freeway on ramps, this often means people driving in the bike lane way before they get on both at high speeds or just because traffic is backing up. Using bike lanes near exits can often mean people flying through the intersections and still travelling at higher speeds.

    The reason I complain about these things is because I have walked/biked in some of these areas for YEARS so I have seen it time after time. I live in an area so I can easily access public transportation – the Red Line is less than 1/2 a mile from my home. I’m not deep into someplace where it would be completely unexpected to see pedestrians or cyclists trying to get to the Red Line station. I’d rather people think about whether driving a car always makes sense and how their own actions contribute to the reasons why they wouldn’t want to walk or bike rather than just always hopping on the freeway.

    Some of these intersections I’m thinking of are right next to the train stations (look at the sidewalks around Universal City and how many directions people might have to cross a freeway entrance or exit to get there) or the bike lane on Vineland near Whipple – that’s right next to an elementary school where parents walk and bike with their kids each day. Aren’t those reasonable things for people to walk to?

  • Slexie

    Are you seriously coming at me with this right now? You are blaming me for things you are perceiving in YOUR fantasy land. Sympathy for people who don’t drive? What does that even mean? Now I’m supposed to feel sorry for people who don’t drive? Why? Why do I have to feel sorry for anyone like that? Oh look at that poor person walking down the street. What is the reason for that? I don’t look down on anyone, especially people I don’t know. I don’t treat anyone like an outcast, so you can take that fantasy out of your head too. That’s all in your mind. You shouldn’t blame the world for that. I’m not doing anything to you.

    You think I don’t walk or bike too? In fact, I rode 3.3 miles on my bicycle to my bf’s house today and then we walked about 2 miles to go to lunch after that. So, am I supposed to elicit people’s pity because I’m walking and not driving? Where do you come up with these ridiculous theories? BTW: Brilliant idea to put the Orange Line bike lane right in the door zone of parked cars. Just my observation from trying to bike in LA. I guess everyone should have sympathy for me too?

    I don’t feel sorry for people who can’t drive, am I supposed to? You’re creating some weird narrative with yourself and it has nothing to do with me.

  • Slexie

    Yes, people are free to walk where ever they want. If you don’t want to walk near the freeway, then don’t walk near the freeway. If you have to walk in a crosswalk across an on ramp or an off ramp, then I guess you’ll do what you have to do. Universal city is getting a pedestrian bridge and they are still working on the tunnel from the subway to the Orange Line in NoHo. So what’s the problem? I don’t get why this blog thinks we are supposed to feel sorry for people walking or biking. I walk and bike too, I don’t expect people to feel sorry for me.

    People are free to drive. What no one on this blog understands is your anti-car sentiment is being thrown around in a town with sprawl. If the public transit situation were even palpable for the majority of drivers, they would gladly use it. No one ever addresses that. The buses are unreliable, they don’t run all night, and it can be dangerous waiting for a bus at 2am that may or may not show up.

    Well then move closer! Ok, I’d love to afford the $3000 a month rent at The Vermont, or a condo at the W for $1 million, both of which are over transit stations. Can you just up and move to be closer to work or above a transit station? I can’t, so I guess I’m driving. And that doesn’t make me a bad person because I drive. Give me a break.

  • Slexie

    Universal is getting a pedestrian bridge. And Universal is obviously a hub for people taking the subway and working and visiting Universal Studios and the theme park. So it’s going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic regardless. Even more so once that Harry Potter thing opens. That’s why they’re building the pedestrian bridge. And they’re still working on a tunnel from the Red Line in NoHo to the Orange Line so commuters don’t have to cross the street. So you were saying what about pedestrians?

    Oh and they closed the off ramp on the 101 SB before the Hollywood Bowl exit for that Harry Potter attraction. So now everyone has to get off at the Hollywood Bowl exit and double back across the bridge. It jams the heck out of Cahuanga, but I’m sure that just tickles you! Punish those drivers!

    And the residents near that exit, an exit you are saying shouldn’t be near where people have to walk, were fighting to keep the exit open. That way, they wouldn’t have to double back and lengthen their commute time. And what is near that off ramp? Yup, you guessed it, a school. The residents wanted that off ramp open. Imagine that. A neighborhood of residents wanting to keep a freeway exit open. People who actually LIVE there trying to have a say in their area, people who most likely walk in that area on a regular basis. So while they were waiting for another court decision, wanna know what the city did? They went ahead and closed the off ramp A YEAR EARLY. So the city screwed the residents who needed that off ramp open to get off the freeway and home, just like they had been doing. But now the residents are creating more gridlock and traffic. Is that the type of thing you want? I guess what you want is more important than what the actual residents in the area have to say about it? Punish those drivers!

    Sorry, the new bike lanes on Vineland that go right by the on ramp for the 170 have to be the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time. Cars use the freeway, bikes do not. Whoever thought this was a good idea is a moron. Someone is going to get killed there.

    If you are biking near an off or an on ramp and it’s dangerous, don’t bike there. Cars need to get on and off the freeway, is this something new to you? Would you rather have less exits and on ramps so there can be even more gridlock on city streets trying to get to the freeway? That makes no sense.

    I had to get from Hollywood to Culver City by 7am a while ago. I had to catch the bus at 3:30am to get there on time. So thinking about driving was a no brainer, it’s only 30 minutes by car. If LA transit was a reasonable alternative to driving more people would use transit. BTW: I’ve been watching a reporter broadcasting from the new Gold Line extension all morning. No one is on it. There are maybe 2 people in the car she is in. Great job LA.

  • M

    Ok, this is exhausting and I’m not going to be replying anymore after this.

    I live near Universal. I don’t live AT Universal. It would make no sense for me to use the Universal pedestrian bridge to get to my home because I live to the West of the station, not the East or North. Believe me, I’ve lived in my apartment for a long time and the only way for me to NOT pass any freeway exits/entrances includes weird, round about movements where I’m essentially constantly crossing the streets to avoid direct entrances/exits, but in some areas it’s still not possible. There’s tons of people that ride the Universal City Red Line that have the SAME problems as me and no bridge across Lankershim is going to fix us having to walk past freeway exits/entrances.

    I’m just going to finish with, yes, the bike lanes due to design, placement, etc. are not taking the safety of bicyclist into consideration and it seems the cheapest solution is being chosen vs. the best for true cyclist safety..

  • Slexie

    I didn’t think you lived at Universal, why would I think that? I said that area is a hub and it’s going to have a lot of foot traffic. I don’t understand why you moved near the freeway if you don’t have a car. Oh wait, there’s a transit station there, by the freeway. So people can park and use the Metro, yes? I would suggest you contact your local representative to see about a solution, but I don’t know what you want them to do. Move the freeway? They already closed one off ramp in the area. I’ve been hit by a car. You couldn’t pay me to cross where it isn’t safe.

    The ridiculous relationship the city is trying to forge between drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists is never going to be successful with all the infighting. What purpose is the movement to make the cyclists behave as vehicles in a city with 50% of accidents being hit and runs? Nationwide, the average is only around 12%. So with more drivers on the road, and the hit and run numbers, why in the name of Jesus H. Effing Christ would anyone think it’s a good idea to tell bikes to “take the lane”? Why for the love of God are the bike lanes put right next to the door zone? And just to add to that, why in the hell are they putting road diets on streets that are thoroughfares straight to the freeway? Bikes don’t use the freeway, so why are the bike lanes competing with cars on those streets? It’s asinine.

  • Alex Brideau III

    Add to this the reality that LADOT often paints diagonal limit lines (i.e. not perpendicular to the cars’ direction of travel), leading to driver confusion or ambivalence. Exactly how/where does one stop their flat-fronted car behind a diagonal line? (The near end? The far end? Some random point in between?)

    It would be better for LADOT to take a cue from limit lines that are painted at railroad crossings. I believe they almost always run perpendicular to the direction of travel, not diagonal, telling cars exactly where they must stop.

  • Bernard Finucane

    Yes, crosswalks and limit lines should ALWAYS be perpendicular to car traffic. It’s really bizarre that they aren’t in so many cases.

  • Sine Metu

    I’ve been taking the lane here in LA for over 4 years now, 5 days a week, 12 miles each way to my job and back home. That’s over 120 miles a week of doing something that you claim foolish and suicidal.

    And here I am, in my mid 40s, still alive. Thriving actually. And I’m not the only one …

    I know one greybeard commuter that takes the lane from Silverlake to the beach every day as well. He’s in his 50s and has been doing it since the late 80s. He does it because he likes beer and his wife lets him drink as much as he wants if he stays fit.

    I know another that takes the lane from East LA to UCLA. Not every day but he does it twice a week. He’s a former UCLA team rider. He’s trained. He knows what he’s doing.

    People fear things that they don’t understand. You fear mixing cars and bikes but that’s our daily reality. Taking and holding the lane on Santa Monica Blvd every day, twice a day, cars in front and directly behind us. Never been hit because we are highly visible.

    Visibility is EVERYTHING. There is no salve or remedy better than being visible. We can sit here and wait for infrastructure that will probably be removed or may be in fact dangerous when implemented or we can learn how to ride safely in any situation.

    The times that I have been hit have all been in the bike lanes in West Hollywood (and once on Fountain Freeway – right hook).

    Right hooks and doorings (which you correctly pointed out) are the real danger, not getting hit from behind.

    I am a trained transportational cyclist and I was an instructor for over 6 years. I endured hours of class time and extensive road testing to become one.

    Taking the lane is the best and most safe way to ride a bicycle. I say this as someone who wants more bike infrastructure – not for me, I dislike riding in bike lanes – but to encourage more folks to ride.

  • Slexie

    People fear things that are dangerous. I’m not an idiot who doesn’t UNDERSTAND the relationship between cars and bicycles. It’s nothing I fear due to a misunderstanding. It’s a fear because it’s dangerous. Look at you, you’re an expert and you’ve been hit too. Most people who have been hit on a bike most likely wouldn’t bike in traffic again.

    The idea of forcing cars to accept bicycle in front of them in a traffic lane is asinine and the last thing anyone should be telling a beginner. And what you’re saying is contradictory. You want more bike infrastructure, but not for you? Bike lanes for THOSE people, but you’ll take the lane? So a person could be riding in the bike lane next to you while you have cars trailing behind you because the bike lane is where you’ve been hit. And how are drivers supposed to understand that? You can’t have it both ways,. Consistency is what will keep people safe. It’s like that Saydah or Shadiya or whoever she is wanting a bike lane on Central soooooooo badly. Never mind that is a thoroughfare for trucks and a lot of overflow from Alameda. Never mind a lot of goods get on and off the freeway near there. Nope, we are taking out a traffic lane and putting in a bike lane. But ask her about the hundreds (which I don’t believe) of bikers who use Central everyday, many of who are the working poor. How desperately they need a bike lane! Using the bike lane means they won’t ride on the sidewalk, or shoot out into the crosswalk on the bike, or ride against traffic. So since Shaya or whoever is so down with the people, why not a safety class or something to go with the new bike lane that nobody wants? Oh these people don’t have time for that! These people don’t need to learn how to use the bike lane. It’s just using a group of people and keeping them ignorant to push an agenda.

    Aaaaaand that my friends is why biking in LA will never be safe. Because you are an instructor not using the bike lane, but telling others to use it? And you even acknowledge that the bike lane isn’t safe. And how can it be? They keep putting these bike lanes on streets that are thoroughfares to the freeways. Why on earth would you route a bike lane to go directly in front of a freeway on ramp? That is the dumbest piece of engineering I’ve seen in a long time. It’s the same thing on Virgil to the 101, unsafe. But put in a bike lane and ask about teaching how to use it? Oh YOU don’t understand these people. How can they be expected to learn about safety?!

    Yea, cause I’m the crazy one. The push for more bikes on the road will never work unless people practice and agree on consistent rules and laws. That’s never going to happen when even an instructor is playing do what I say, not what I do. You go on with your bad self and take back the streets. People like me are just trying to get to work safely and that means I’m on my own.


$100 Million of Road Projects to Support “Evolution”

Image via LAist Earlier this week, Streetsblog waded back into the debate over two controversial development projects sponsored by NBC Universal in North Hollywood.  One of those projects, which NBC is calling "Evolution" will redevelop a 391 acre parcel and will include a theme park, business and entertainment industry center, more than 2,900 new apartments […]

LADOT’s FY11-12: A Banner Year for Bikeways

Back in a January 2012 L.A. Streetsblog article, Joe Linton stated that LADOT was “not quite on track” to complete Mayor Villaraigosa’s pledge for 40 new miles of bikeway each year. In that article, Linton projected only 31 new miles to be completed during Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The fiscal year ended two weeks ago, and LADOT […]

Glendale Stripes New Green Bike Lanes on Sonora Avenue

The city of Glendale recently completed installation of green pavement bike lanes on Sonora Avenue. These are the first green bike lanes in Glendale. Glendale’s new green lanes run 1.3 miles from Garden Street to Glenoaks Boulevard. On the north end, the Sonora lanes connect with existing bike lanes on Glenoaks Boulevard. On the south end, […]