Cars > Everything Else ?

By Venturan — John B.

Image not recoveredbike-lane-feat_2.jpg

In an exchange on posted on Jeff’s recent follow up to the Rye Canyon cyclist injury, reader Fred Butler shared the following:

Striped lanes would be a workable solution just as long as it doesn’t hinder the flow of car traffic which should have precedent. Bouquet Canyon north of Newhall Ranch is a good example. An entire lane of traffic could easily be added for cars, but it is marked for bikers, who I rarely, if ever see using it. Maybe on Saturdays or in the evenings.

Fred’s thinking mirrors County planners from decades past when Rye Canyon and the Valencia Industrial Center was built. It is this very thinking that caused the incident in question: cars > everything else

Cars are not superior to bikes. Cars provide an avenue for some motorists to assert seniority. The purchase of a couple tons of iron does not magically put drivers in an authoritative position compared to cyclists or pedestrians. By the same token, the absence of a car does not put non-motorists on a higher plane either. As humans, we’re all entitled to equal rights and protections under the law.

Thankfully, on March 15, 2010 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a Republican, outlined groundbreaking guidelines for federally-funded road projects.

The following excerpt is taken directly from the DOT chief:

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

To set this approach in motion, we have formulated key recommendations for state DOTs and communities:

Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.

Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.

Go beyond minimum design standards.

Collect data on walking and biking trips.

Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.

Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected.

Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

Amen, brother. Our City happily laps up stimulus dollars, and thankfully, the dollars directed at roadway improvement will fall under these guidelines.

See, Fred, many Claritans don’t ride because our bike network is disjointed.

The network is disjointed because there is a lack of City resolve for fear of a backlash from motorists (reference Decoro).

Motorists point to a small number of bikes as the reason to put cars and lanes ahead of other modes of transport.

And then they complain about traffic.

Rinse. Repeat.

Related: The LA County Bicycle Master Plan will be discussed at William S. Hart Park in Newhall on June 17th at 6:30pm. More info here (ht: Joe, via comments).

Comments (32)

JeffJune 5, 2010 at 9:49 am

Fred likes strawmen. No one is saying bicycles will replace all cars someday. That’s absurd. But bicycles can and do play a real transportation role in many cities in the world. Portland is one. Cities in the Netherlands are another. It’s all about getting fewer people in cars. If someday bikes were used by 5% of the population, that’d be 5% less cars on the road. If 12% of people used local transit, well then you have 17% fewer cars on the road. And so on.

Joe KaylenJune 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm

And while those changes in percentage don’t seem like a lot, it only takes about a 10% change to go from LOS F (traffic jam) to LOS C (almost free flowing). That’s why we have the meters for getting on the highway, because there is a definite tipping point that makes a substancial difference. You can read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service

Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is? Look it. Maybe for young, single, or married no children folks like yourself, biking is a good thing if you want to tool down to TJs or over to the mall or your government job. I am merely pointing out reality. Cars are a necessity in our world, and for regular folks with kids and activities and jobs they requires people to keep schedules with others, biking around everywhere is unrealistic even if we had the greatest biking network in the world. Citing the Netherlands, a country mostly comprised of single, or married no children folks, doesn’t help your argument. They ain’t like us and no one here in the U.S. wishes to be like them, except for the single or married, no children liberals like you. Portland is hardly a good example because the crackpots who run the place are leftists whose environmental world view predisposes them to attribute moral evil to combustible engines. The majority of people in our society like their cars. They don’t want to get out of their cars. They want the convenience and ability to get where they need to get on their schedule and haul around the stuff what they want to haul around on their time. “Forcing” them to do so by passing draconian laws or re-striping necessary lanes for vehicle traffic will, as I noted under the previous post, make everyone hate you and your special interests. Certainly there is need to raise awareness for motorists to be more considerate to bikers. I welcome that as a regular biker who bikes to work 3 days a week at least. But I don’t expect the majority of the people in the world to bow to my interests. Perhaps it is unfair that cars get precedence in this matter. That is just the way it is going to remain for a long, long time. In my mind they should because cars are necessary for our society to function the way we like it. And as much as the law is on the side of cyclists, the law is pointless when you are critically injured (or killed) by a 2 ton vehicle just because YOU are entitled to equal treatment under law on the roads. My wife (a native Californian) cites to me the pedestrian right away law all the time as if it protects me, the pedestrian, with magical qualities. Such is foolish, especially now that there are many transplants from all over living here who know nothing of pedestrian laws. I love reading your bike stuff because it pertains to me at times, but in this one area, cars win always and that is not changing. Thanks for the love, by the way. I think this is the second time I have been singled out for a blog post in recent weeks. =-)

JeffJune 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm

The strawman that you’re knocking down is that I or John ever said cars would be completely replaced by bikes. That’s absurd.

mikeJune 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Jeff, because you don’t have kids, you don’t know your logical fallacies. You wouldn’t know how to deny the antecedent even if you were presented with a false dilemma, if I could beg the question.

Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm

No. Actually, you’re attacking a strawman. Read my original comment. I never said you guys were arguing that bikes will replace cars. Your original complaint was cyclists were viewed by the bulk of the city as recreational and you wish to be treated as non-recreational. I simply stated that such will never happen. Cyclists will always be seen as recreational, because, well, that is what cycling is.

Bill ReynoldsJune 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

Bicycle Obsession Alert!

mikeJune 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm

Because of the apparent bias towards special interest activities, I am extremely skeptical that this blog would accomplish such a feat on our behalf.

DamageincJune 6, 2010 at 11:51 am

Coming from the guy with a gigantic man crush on Frank Ferry…

drive66June 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Bikes sharing the road with cars is just too dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed at all. Stay on the sidewalks.

drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm

I knew that would get you! ;-D

John AdamsJune 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm

“And if we had a bike lane on Rye, we wouldn’t have sent “Frank” to the hospital”. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! So people never drive into bike lanes? Or is there a concrete barrier that comes with the lane? Other than something posted by some guy named Nate or anything ever muttered by Helen Thomas. That may have been the dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet

mikeJune 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

John, if you lived here, you’d know that cars driving in a bike lane is a very rare sight. I’ve never seen someone use a bike lane to pass someone, certainly.

Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

I do it all the time.

John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

Oh, so the drivers in awesome town are more respectful of the bicycle lane than other areas of the world! Boy am I dumb Had I known that bike lanes in the SCV are so sacred I would have never ranked that post so high! Dropping it down to 5

mikeJune 6, 2010 at 8:57 am

I’ve never seen it, and I’ve lived here for 21 years. Most of the lanes around here were built after you shipped out anyway.

NateJune 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm

John Ram you always kick the crap out of the strawman with my name on it. You will never be able to debate with the real Nate…

John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Nate you are so not worthy! You have this vision of yourself that NOBODY else on the planet has (but i love the postive attitude) Mike,,,,, Please! at the very least please be consistent

mikeJune 6, 2010 at 7:41 pm

I am being consistent: it doesn’t happen.

John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm

It does not happen? So are you saying (I hope not) that people in the bike lanes in SCV have not been hit by a car?

Joe KaylenJune 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Drive66, I don’t know if you are aware, but biking on the sidewalk is significantly more dangerous than biking in a bike lane. When cars pull out of driveways (especially in non residential areas), they typically look at the road for oncoming traffic and completely ignore anything on the sidewalk. In fact, if you look, cars will often pull over/past the sidewalk before stopping and looking for oncoming traffic. In fact, most cities ban biking through crosswalks specifically for this reason. It’s almost always safer to be part of the regular flow of traffic.

drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm

John, your track record is: A) Never admitting you’re wrong or that someone else has a valid point if it differs from your own. B) Wanting to force your agenda on others. C) Being an elitist. You being the young, educated, affluent person that you are. Just saying.

drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Yes! I win. And I think you should ride your bike as much as you like, anywhere you like… As long as it keeps you off your high horse. Thank you, and please return to your wining and bickering.

Scott ErvinJune 6, 2010 at 7:23 am

All this complaining about cycling is just thinly disguised jealousy. They know the ladies just love our tight butts and they can’t handle it. Get your fat asses onto a bike and you too can become babe magnets. Except for Bill Reynolds. #chicksluvtightbutts

Bill ReynoldsJune 7, 2010 at 7:24 am

HEY! My babe has been with me 40 years!

John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 8:39 pm

This coming from the people that said bammy and keynes were the answer! How do you feel now? Stupid? or brilliant? Let me guess? you are smarter than Indy! Who isn’t

WalkerJune 7, 2010 at 6:31 am

This post reminds me of this shirt at REI http://www.rei.com/product/793083

Your Web GuruJune 7, 2010 at 8:13 am

Bicycle Use. VC 21200 Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or highway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, including the provisions of law dealing with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. Riding on sidewalks is a citable offense in most communities (I don’t know if it is in SCV, and I don’t know of any law enforcement officials who take the time to enforce it anyway). I side with Joe Kaylan that riding on sidewalks is dangerous. Whether motorists who are married with children like it or not, the law states that bicycles are to be treated in the same capacity as any other moving vehicle. Too bad, get over it, and stop being so freakin’ narrow minded just because you prefer your gas guzzler to any other mode of travel.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm

The response I get the most tired of is the one where people almost go so far as to say that a Bicyclist that gets hit only has themselves to blame. So often it seems that the notion that if you bike you know the risks somehow excuses the idiot that is texting while driving and plows into someone on their bike. Biking requires extra vigilance, you learn that you can’t assume that motorists are paying attention, you learn to be careful as you see someone pulling out of a driveway… operating a car requires 100 times the vigilance because of the damage that your vehicle can do. Please, when you are passing a biker slow down a bit, you won’t lose much time. In spite of all the references to bikers being childless and other sweeping judgments, these are peoples fathers, husbands, children. Just be a little more vigilant, please.

Bill ReynoldsJune 7, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Hmmm, I wonder if guys ridin’ around on those little bitty bicycle seats causes childlessness?

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 8, 2010 at 8:39 am

I don’t know Bill “Fun Killer” Reynolds, I’ve been riding on those itty bitty bike seats for years and I’m as fertile as can be, I have 3 kids, guess that flies in the face of that theory. Maybe once you succeed in crushing the swim kids’ spirits and sending them back inside for a healthy dose of video games and Sponge Bob viewing you can move on to making it illegal for us to ride our bikes and impeding your freedom with our selfish desire for exercise.

Valencia JoeJune 8, 2010 at 9:13 am

Why is it whenever bike lines are mentioned, the subject of the community backlash on what happened on Decoro is brought up. That whole striping issue was just poor planning on the City’s part and the waste of taxpayers’ money on the whole project.

JeffJune 5, 2010 at 9:49 am
Fred likes strawmen. No one is saying bicycles will replace all cars someday. That’s absurd. But bicycles can and do play a real transportation role in many cities in the world. Portland is one. Cities in the Netherlands are another. It’s all about getting fewer people in cars. If someday bikes were used by 5% of the population, that’d be 5% less cars on the road. If 12% of people used local transit, well then you have 17% fewer cars on the road. And so on.
Joe KaylenJune 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm
And while those changes in percentage don’t seem like a lot, it only takes about a 10% change to go from LOS F (traffic jam) to LOS C (almost free flowing). That’s why we have the meters for getting on the highway, because there is a definite tipping point that makes a substancial difference. You can read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service
Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is? Look it. Maybe for young, single, or married no children folks like yourself, biking is a good thing if you want to tool down to TJs or over to the mall or your government job. I am merely pointing out reality. Cars are a necessity in our world, and for regular folks with kids and activities and jobs they requires people to keep schedules with others, biking around everywhere is unrealistic even if we had the greatest biking network in the world. Citing the Netherlands, a country mostly comprised of single, or married no children folks, doesn’t help your argument. They ain’t like us and no one here in the U.S. wishes to be like them, except for the single or married, no children liberals like you. Portland is hardly a good example because the crackpots who run the place are leftists whose environmental world view predisposes them to attribute moral evil to combustible engines. The majority of people in our society like their cars. They don’t want to get out of their cars. They want the convenience and ability to get where they need to get on their schedule and haul around the stuff what they want to haul around on their time. “Forcing” them to do so by passing draconian laws or re-striping necessary lanes for vehicle traffic will, as I noted under the previous post, make everyone hate you and your special interests. Certainly there is need to raise awareness for motorists to be more considerate to bikers. I welcome that as a regular biker who bikes to work 3 days a week at least. But I don’t expect the majority of the people in the world to bow to my interests. Perhaps it is unfair that cars get precedence in this matter. That is just the way it is going to remain for a long, long time. In my mind they should because cars are necessary for our society to function the way we like it. And as much as the law is on the side of cyclists, the law is pointless when you are critically injured (or killed) by a 2 ton vehicle just because YOU are entitled to equal treatment under law on the roads. My wife (a native Californian) cites to me the pedestrian right away law all the time as if it protects me, the pedestrian, with magical qualities. Such is foolish, especially now that there are many transplants from all over living here who know nothing of pedestrian laws. I love reading your bike stuff because it pertains to me at times, but in this one area, cars win always and that is not changing. Thanks for the love, by the way. I think this is the second time I have been singled out for a blog post in recent weeks. =-)
JeffJune 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
The strawman that you’re knocking down is that I or John ever said cars would be completely replaced by bikes. That’s absurd.
mikeJune 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Jeff, because you don’t have kids, you don’t know your logical fallacies. You wouldn’t know how to deny the antecedent even if you were presented with a false dilemma, if I could beg the question.
Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm
No. Actually, you’re attacking a strawman. Read my original comment. I never said you guys were arguing that bikes will replace cars. Your original complaint was cyclists were viewed by the bulk of the city as recreational and you wish to be treated as non-recreational. I simply stated that such will never happen. Cyclists will always be seen as recreational, because, well, that is what cycling is.
Bill ReynoldsJune 5, 2010 at 11:53 am
Bicycle Obsession Alert!
mikeJune 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Because of the apparent bias towards special interest activities, I am extremely skeptical that this blog would accomplish such a feat on our behalf.
DamageincJune 6, 2010 at 11:51 am
Coming from the guy with a gigantic man crush on Frank Ferry…
drive66June 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Bikes sharing the road with cars is just too dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed at all. Stay on the sidewalks.
drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I knew that would get you! ;-D
John AdamsJune 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“And if we had a bike lane on Rye, we wouldn’t have sent “Frank” to the hospital”. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! So people never drive into bike lanes? Or is there a concrete barrier that comes with the lane? Other than something posted by some guy named Nate or anything ever muttered by Helen Thomas. That may have been the dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet
mikeJune 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm
John, if you lived here, you’d know that cars driving in a bike lane is a very rare sight. I’ve never seen someone use a bike lane to pass someone, certainly.
Fred ButlerJune 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I do it all the time.
John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 5:40 am
Oh, so the drivers in awesome town are more respectful of the bicycle lane than other areas of the world! Boy am I dumb Had I known that bike lanes in the SCV are so sacred I would have never ranked that post so high! Dropping it down to 5
mikeJune 6, 2010 at 8:57 am
I’ve never seen it, and I’ve lived here for 21 years. Most of the lanes around here were built after you shipped out anyway.
NateJune 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm
John Ram you always kick the crap out of the strawman with my name on it. You will never be able to debate with the real Nate…
John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Nate you are so not worthy! You have this vision of yourself that NOBODY else on the planet has (but i love the postive attitude) Mike,,,,, Please! at the very least please be consistent
mikeJune 6, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I am being consistent: it doesn’t happen.
John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm
It does not happen? So are you saying (I hope not) that people in the bike lanes in SCV have not been hit by a car?
Joe KaylenJune 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Drive66, I don’t know if you are aware, but biking on the sidewalk is significantly more dangerous than biking in a bike lane. When cars pull out of driveways (especially in non residential areas), they typically look at the road for oncoming traffic and completely ignore anything on the sidewalk. In fact, if you look, cars will often pull over/past the sidewalk before stopping and looking for oncoming traffic. In fact, most cities ban biking through crosswalks specifically for this reason. It’s almost always safer to be part of the regular flow of traffic.
drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm
John, your track record is: A) Never admitting you’re wrong or that someone else has a valid point if it differs from your own. B) Wanting to force your agenda on others. C) Being an elitist. You being the young, educated, affluent person that you are. Just saying.
drive66June 5, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Yes! I win. And I think you should ride your bike as much as you like, anywhere you like… As long as it keeps you off your high horse. Thank you, and please return to your wining and bickering.
Scott ErvinJune 6, 2010 at 7:23 am
All this complaining about cycling is just thinly disguised jealousy. They know the ladies just love our tight butts and they can’t handle it. Get your fat asses onto a bike and you too can become babe magnets. Except for Bill Reynolds. #chicksluvtightbutts
Bill ReynoldsJune 7, 2010 at 7:24 am
HEY! My babe has been with me 40 years!
John AdamsJune 6, 2010 at 8:39 pm
This coming from the people that said bammy and keynes were the answer! How do you feel now? Stupid? or brilliant? Let me guess? you are smarter than Indy! Who isn’t
WalkerJune 7, 2010 at 6:31 am
This post reminds me of this shirt at REI http://www.rei.com/product/793083
Your Web GuruJune 7, 2010 at 8:13 am
Bicycle Use. VC 21200 Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or highway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, including the provisions of law dealing with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. Riding on sidewalks is a citable offense in most communities (I don’t know if it is in SCV, and I don’t know of any law enforcement officials who take the time to enforce it anyway). I side with Joe Kaylan that riding on sidewalks is dangerous. Whether motorists who are married with children like it or not, the law states that bicycles are to be treated in the same capacity as any other moving vehicle. Too bad, get over it, and stop being so freakin’ narrow minded just because you prefer your gas guzzler to any other mode of travel.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm
The response I get the most tired of is the one where people almost go so far as to say that a Bicyclist that gets hit only has themselves to blame. So often it seems that the notion that if you bike you know the risks somehow excuses the idiot that is texting while driving and plows into someone on their bike. Biking requires extra vigilance, you learn that you can’t assume that motorists are paying attention, you learn to be careful as you see someone pulling out of a driveway… operating a car requires 100 times the vigilance because of the damage that your vehicle can do. Please, when you are passing a biker slow down a bit, you won’t lose much time. In spite of all the references to bikers being childless and other sweeping judgments, these are peoples fathers, husbands, children. Just be a little more vigilant, please.
Bill ReynoldsJune 7, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Hmmm, I wonder if guys ridin’ around on those little bitty bicycle seats causes childlessness?
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 8, 2010 at 8:39 am
I don’t know Bill “Fun Killer” Reynolds, I’ve been riding on those itty bitty bike seats for years and I’m as fertile as can be, I have 3 kids, guess that flies in the face of that theory. Maybe once you succeed in crushing the swim kids’ spirits and sending them back inside for a healthy dose of video games and Sponge Bob viewing you can move on to making it illegal for us to ride our bikes and impeding your freedom with our selfish desire for exercise.
Valencia JoeJune 8, 2010 at 9:13 am
Why is it whenever bike lines are mentioned, the subject of the community backlash on what happened on Decoro is brought up. That whole striping issue was just poor planning on the City’s part and the waste of taxpayers’ money on the whole project.