Perhaps you should check out one of the CicloSDias events in person so you understand how these kind of events unite communities instead of just inconveniencing people. The Executive Director of the Bike Coalition is more than happy to meet you at CicloSDias this Sunday and ride with you to give you a more thorough understanding and insight into what you're writing about for our Neighborhood News. As a journalist, I don't think this is an opportunity you should pass up.
Email me ([email protected]) to arrange a time for you two to cruise CicloSDias together on Sunday.
Thanks, looking forward to it.
@ReaganSD: Your gas taxes go mostly to state and federal highways. Little if any fuel taxes pay for Garnet or Cass. Most of the money for local roads like Garnet and Cass comes from sales and property taxes.
Maybe you should try doing your research before making unsubstantiated claims about your presumed ownership of the road. You don't own the road and you don't pay significantly more for it than bicyclists.
Many people use bicycles as a primary form of transportation. You're just making childish excuses to rationalize your childish delusion that you own the road. You don't own the road. Grow up.
Even without bicycles, traffic has always been slow on Garnet; at least it has been since 1986 when I moved here from Orange County.
I never cease to be amazed by the drama queens who pretend that they are so terribly victimized by having to share the road with bicycles. Of all the things that slow me down on the road, bicycles are by far the least of my problems.
Grow up and learn how to share the road. It's not difficult and it's not a great hardship to maintain safe passing distance or slow down and wait until you can. You would do it for a bus. You would do it for a garbage truck. You would do it for a cement truck. You can do it for a bicyclist.
While I am not a fan of Critical Mass, it happens on one Friday evening a month. It's hardly representative of road conditions in general.
Today I was harassed by no less than 3 different motorists who were angry that I was using the full lane on roads that had multiple lanes. Apparently these ignorant childish self entitled idiots think that the left lane has cooties. What exactly is so horrible about using the left lane to pass a bicyclist safely? In each case, there were conditions which satisfied the exceptions to the keep right rule as specified in CVC 21202(a)(3) or (a)(4) or 21208(a)(3) or (a)(4) or some combination of more than one of those.
Bicyclists actually do have a right to travel on the public roads. I know that's difficult to understand for people who are too lazy to read the law or too illiterate to understand it but it is a fact, nevertheless.
The "ordinance" would be San Diego Municipal Code §84.09 which prohibits riding bicycles on sidewalks in front of businesses.
The three foot passing law will be California state law, CVC 21760, but it does not go into effect until September 16, 2014.
Right now, CVC 21750 requires maintaining safe distance when passing bicyclists but does not define what "safe distance" means. Unfortunately, there are too many sociopaths who seem to think that anything that doesn't involve actual contact qualifies as safe distance.
Hmm~ What be with this 'ordinance' ? When I ride a bike, I wish such clearance (respect) be served in all SD County cities. That's for the sake of motorists who get their THRILL (no exagg) from sideswiping. At the best, making hairline contact --- with bicycles.
"Pacito" 'own a bike business" ('and has become a victim of bicycle over-regulation'). Is "Pacito" sure to be in the correct business? There's other areas of S.D. in the need of better bike shops --- too. Better -- meaning lower cost to its consumers with better customer service. As SDCounty businesses are so cheap--mindset-ed
You are not being held hostage. You can still get where you are going. Is there some reason you can't use Grand instead? I generally prefer Grand to Garnet even during off peak periods but definitely during peak periods.
Nobody asked you to ride a bike 30 miles to work. That's well into the realm of hard core and very few are willing to put in the time and effort to bike commute that far on a regular basis. Why do you think that anyone is asking you to bike commute 30 miles?
The streets are also for bicycles and they have been for 150 years. That's longer than cars have existed.
Why do you feel so threatened by bicycles?
It's funny how some people seem to think that "share the road" means that bicyclists have to stay out of their way. In other words, in their view, bicyclists are only allowed to use the road if they can keep up with traffic. Otherwise, they don't get to use the road.
That's no sharing under any definition that I am aware of.
The vast overwhelming majority of the time, the only thing that you have to do is move over to pass. If you think that you are being impeded when you can move over to pass, then again, you need to consult your favorite dictionary and learn what the word "impede" means.
BTW, the courts have repeatedly found that faster traffic is not being impeded when it can move over to pass slower traffic. I know that changing lanes is challenging for some people, but those people shouldn't be driving. Changing lanes is a basic driving skill that's required for all drivers.
When I'm driving, I rarely have to slow down for bicyclists. Usually the most I have to deal with is just moving over to pass. On the rare occasions that I have to slow down, it's usually just for a few seconds. I've never been slowed down for more than about a minute by bicyclists. Motorists, on the other hand, slow me down every single time that I drive. They even slow me down when I'm riding my bike.
I do follow the rules of the road. Unlike most motorists, I even signal turns and lane changes consistently. Unlike the majority of motorists, I obey the speed limit. Unlike most motorists I yield to pedestrians at all marked and unmarked crosswalks even if there isn't a stop sign or red light to go with that crosswalk.
You need to get over the childish delusions that the roads are your exclusive territory and that bicyclists have to stay out of your way. You move over to pass absolutely all other slow traffic on the road that isn't bicycles. Why do you think it's different when it's a bicycle?
When is the last time you rode the bus? People get on with shopping bags and those fold-up grocery carts all the time.
Although riding down a street is as safe as walking or driving, sharrows are painted on the road as.....
a) many cyclist don't realize it's safer there, out in the lane, rather than hiding out in the dooring zone where cars are far less likely to see you.
Sharrows show them the safest place to ride.
b) many motorists, and indeed many cyclists (and some police) mistakenly think that cyclists legally have to stay all the way to the right (where they may not be seen by turning cars).
Sharrows confirm to all their legal right.
It should be noted that the legal right for cyclists to take the full lane is not limited to roads with Sharrows, they are just confirmation or reminders. Cyclists can take the full lane on any road in certain special conditions, and on MOST roads all the time simply because they are not wide enough for cars and vehicles to operate safely side-by-side within the lane.
For bicyclists who know enough to use the full lane in sharrows, those lanes are actually very safe -- safer than most bike lanes. Unfortunately, too many bicyclists do not know this.
Unfortunately, too many drivers don't realize that bicyclists have the right to use the full lane in sharrows and most roads without sharrows as well. They then throw childish hissyfits when a bicyclist dares to use the full lane, because moving over to pass a bicyclist is too much for their childish delusions of entitlement.
I've been riding on the road since 1971. I have 6 figure mileage experience and I ride according to the best safety practices of the top bicycle safety experts in the country.
I feel pretty safe on the road. I don't have close calls when riding according to what I was taught. It's possible to ride safely when you ride your bicycle as if you were driving any other slow moving vehicle.
The assertion that cyclists don't pay for the infrastructure they use is a Neo-liberal fantasy. Sales tax and property tax contribute to the general fund which provides funding for most non-freeway street maintenance. Most cyclists also drive cars. This article is not carefully researched and shows a reactionary anti-cyclist bias.
This article's facts just don't stand up. I'll start by saying that as LOW INCOME HISPANIC WOMAN, I walked & rode my bike to work because I couldn't afford to buy a car until I was 25 yrs old until I could afford to get a car. Here are some REAL statistics:
More Stats: From http://bikeleague.org/content/new-census-data-bike-commuting
May 2014): • Education level: People with graduate or professional degrees bicycle to work at a rate of .9%, followed by people who did not graduate high school at .7%.
• Commute time: The average bicycle commute time is 19.3 minutes & most bicycle commutes were between 10 to 14 minutes long.
• Regional differences: Rates of bicycling to work tended to be highest in large cities, this was particularly pronounced in the Midwest. In other regions there was not a large difference between rates in medium and large cities.
• The number of people who commute to work by bicycle increased about 60% over the past decade according to new data from theU.S. Census Bureau.
• During the years 2008-12, about 786,000 Americans commuted by bicycle, up from about 488,000 in 2000, the Census says. That jump is the largest percentage increase of all commuting modes tracked by the 2000 Census and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Even though there are less bikers than cars, we should still have lanes to help keep them safe & encourage healthier & environmentally friendly lifestyles. It's also as important for low income who use bikes because they can't afford a car.
Automobile infrastructure doesn't even come close to "paying for itself". Motorists are heavily subsidized by ALL taxpayers since more than half of the taxes for building and maintaining roads comes from the general fund.
And let's not forget the free subsidized parking everywhere...giant parking lots that are rarely full; all that land set aside for the free use of motorists when they get to their destination.
Cycling is only more dangerous than driving because of...wait for it...motorists hitting and killing them.
In a world where we have had three record heat years world wide this clown urges more use of the automobile.
I just finished cycling across the U.S., for the second time, tourist and commuter, League of American Bicyclists trainer, member Adventure Cycling Association. Many large cities across the U.S. have better cycling infrastructure in place now than San Diego. Many smaller towns have better cycling infrastructure than San Diego. Of the 3,400 miles across the U.S. from Anacortes, WA to Washington, DC I rode approximately 1,000 miles of Rails to Trails, inner city bike paths, and Canal Path bikeways, including all the way from downtown Pittsburgh, PA to Washington, DC about 320 miles. Whenever I was on a bike path or designated bike route, there were many local cyclists of all ages, sizes, and income levels. They always had a smile on their face, or offered a pleasant "hello". Sadly for him, I didn't see Mr. Toole (author) out there enjoying the outdoors. Bummer for him. Lastly, his data and opinions are misleading.
Coming as it does from a guy in a Colonel Sanders costume, the argument that civic planning devolves into a conflict between the vicious, anti-car, cycling "lobby" and the League of Innocent Motorists doesn't make much sense to me. I've heard that false dichotomies are a form of logical fallacy, but what would I know....
What an absurd, baseless article. Not only is it replete with unsubstantiated assertions, many of which are patently false, but the author just parrots the biased opinions of just one guy.
Fact-checking? What's that?
Why is The Reader playing dead and settling for being a soapbox for this character? What happened to this publication's (apparently erstwhile) reputation of investigative journalism?
There's no attempt whatsoever to present balanced viewpoints with representation from opposing sides. There is no, none, zero, nada, nothing, not a word to present the thoughts of urban planners (who are, after trained and experts in city planning), or of bike users (who know a little about cycling), of transit officials, or of environmental people. These sides are all seen through O'Toole's distorted, slanted lens.
This is shameful journalism ... if you can call it that.
A Time magazine article dated May 12th 2015 lists Portland, Oregon as one of the Nine best cities for bicycling to work. The 2016 Portland Bureau of Transportation lists 7.2% of Portland
Population commute to work by bicycle. Roughly 12% use public transportation to commute to work. Remaining is approximately 80% of the population still commuting by car.
Possibly the bigger picture for San Diego should be planning for the choices people are willing and are not willing to make. Judging by many of the comments here, the prioritization of one mode over another as the transportation end-all has pitted cyclists and cars against one another. Continuing improvements for alternative modes of transportation along with efficient reality based planning for the 80% auto dependent population would be the broader perspective.
Unless there is a magic wand I don’t know about, you can not force people to conform to
one ideal. Providing options and encouragement to take alternative modes is highly commended. A “Head in the Sand” approach to how the City will provide as we move forward will not adequately plan for now and the foreseeable future.
Candice Reed 10 a.m., Dec. 8
Dave Rice 9:30 a.m., Dec. 8
Jay Allen Sanford 9 a.m., Dec. 8
Don Bauder 7:30 a.m., Dec. 8
Robert Bush 7 p.m., Dec. 7
6 p.m., Dec. 7
Ian Anderson 5:30 p.m., Dec. 7
© 2016 San Diego Reader. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our written permission.
Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!