LA Times Op-Ed
Thread started by
mr rollers at 11.5.09 - 8:54 am
In today's LA Times:
OpEd
It's so full of misinformation and general cluelessness I don't even know where to begin. For example, "But guess what: It's perfectly legal to occupy the whole lane, not just hang on the side, if you're going the same speed as traffic."
Can someone please post an intelligent rebuttal in the comment section?
Just in case: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum5-2009nov05,0,999293.column
reply
More of a commentary than a rebuttal perhaps...but I did submit.
TheJen11.5.09 - 9:11 am
reply
Below is a preview; your actual comment will appear shortly.
Let me just be honest and admit that I'm an avid cyclist. I've ridden on Mandeville myself. I'll admit to rolling through stop signs just as motor vehicle drivers tend to do when no one is around. Red lights. Yes I've rolled through those as well when there are no other cars present. I accept that is breaking the law and a risk of receiving a ticket. For the most part just as most drivers I follow traffic laws and ride/drive safely. I also drive a car as most non-commuting cyclists do. The argument isn't and shouldn't be about who is morally or ethically superior by driving a car or riding a bike. The discussion should be how can we be compassionate towards one another and create a safe road way for all people. Drivers, riders and pedestrians. All parties should be held responsible for following the laws of the road. Bikes are not going away. More and more people are commuting by bike and finding the valuable and fun aspect of fitness by cycling. There are factions of the cycling community that seem to think they are free from rules and laws as there are drivers in L.A. and elsewhere who are ignorant or uncaring about the same rules and laws. If you are an automobile driver and are feeling frustrated by bikes on the road then join us in advocated and agitating local government entities for safe roads for all. Let's work together instead of against one another. Jen Moore
TheJen11.5.09 - 9:11 am
reply
The author Meghan Daum is an insufferable blow hard. I've met her a few times and she couldn't have been have a more abrasive personality.
A few years ago, she wrote a column blaming her Subaru Outback for making guys she was trying to date think she was a lesbian. What was great was at the time she had this gnarly Peroxided Mullet/Flock of Seagulls haircut. Totally clueless.
chunk11.5.09 - 9:23 am
reply
Jen,
As an out of town motorist, whenever I drive in LA, I can't get over the number of cars who illegally shoot through an intersection after the light turns red. That's breaking the law isn't it? You're right, we all break a lot of these laws, I just don't like the mentality that it injuring a cyclist could be less serious because they run red lights.
mk452411.5.09 - 9:55 am
reply
Agreed Mike. Years ago my Jeep was rear ended by a driver running a red on a left turn as I was making a right across a huge intersection. PEOPLE (not the bikes or the cars) break traffic laws all of the time. It is not an excuse to injure or kill someone. Or use the "rule of tonage" as a poster wrote on the LA Times site. You may think car/driver always win...the message should be that is a lose lose situation.
TheJen responding to a
comment by mk4524
11.5.09 - 10:12 am
reply
this paragraph says it all ;)
"...there's a larger bone of contention here, which is that cyclists make a lot of us feel like lazy slobs. Whereas drivers sit in an air-conditioned bubble, expending only the energy required to press the gas pedal, tap the brake and change from a '70s classic rock radio station to an '80s classic rock station, cyclists are out in the actual elements doing actual exercise. Whereas drivers are consuming calories by eating an entire bucket of KFC over 10 blocks, cyclists are burning calories and consuming nothing but seaweed at home. Whereas drivers' carbon footprints grow more beast-like by the hour, cyclists create no exhaust other than the sweet fatigue they feel as they drift off to saintly sleep at night."
but, um...who the fuck is living off seaweed? more like beer and tacos.
eric11.5.09 - 10:16 am
reply
Who the fuck is eating a bucket of KFC in 10 blocks?
Mook responding to a
comment by eric
11.5.09 - 10:51 am
reply
The comment about a breakfast burrito from the roach coach is so right on!
TheJen responding to a
comment by Mook
11.5.09 - 12:09 pm
reply
I don't see anything wrong with the article. It's written tongue in cheek. Meghan Daum is a humorist just not a very good one. I wish they had let her go instead of Joel Stein.
marino11.5.09 - 12:31 pm
reply
just for my education, what exactly is wrong with the quote you cite? is it because she doesn't say the traffic needs to be at a normal speed?
azn invazn11.5.09 - 12:36 pm
reply
Admittedly I've never heard of her...I don't read the Times all that much anymore. It comes off as crass (IMO). Those that do not know her style may just assume that she is an angry KFC eating car driving woman...
TheJen responding to a
comment by marino
11.5.09 - 12:37 pm
reply
Oh wait... I didn't say that!
THAT'S SEXIST!
marino11.5.09 - 12:40 pm
reply
Haha!
Delete!
She does contribute to programming I do like...never heard of her before.
TheJen responding to a
comment by marino
11.5.09 - 12:45 pm
reply
I was totally expecting a hatefest but the article was pretty good I thought.
of The entire population of cyclists worldwide... I'm guessing 99.90997% have run at least 1 red light. Why? Becuase it's convenient for bike riders to do. What the big shocker about that?
No other city cares about cyclist running lights like LA drivers do. Why? Because they are stuck in the worlds worst traffic and it ain't gonna get better so why not hate on the group that figured out how to escape.
Roadblock11.5.09 - 1:15 pm
reply
The quote makes it sound as if the only time a cyclist is allowed to take the lane is if they are traveling at or near the speed limit! This is a gross misreading of CVC 21202, which reads, in full:
Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
Many non-cyclists seem to stop reading after section (a) and act as if the exceptions (1-4) don't exist.
mr rollers responding to a
comment by azn invazn
11.5.09 - 1:21 pm
reply
I think you guys missed it on this one.
The article is not against cycling, but all for it.
She basically paint the picture as herself being (at one time) a driver confused about how to deal with cyclist, but surprised to find they have all the rights of a vehicle. Her only questionable statement (if it is), is that well... then cyclist should obey the traffic laws.
Did you read: "the reality is a bit more sobering"... cycling kicks ass basically.
"So now that you know, are you going to stop swearing at cyclists? My guess is no. Because there's a larger bone of contention here, which is that cyclists make a lot of us feel like lazy slobs."
She is overall making fun of drivers. The moral superiority point is a joke. She is saying cyclist basically have a lot to stand on, and it probably creates a lot of tension for fat, KFC eating drivers. Hence, they see cyclist and are reminded of their wack condition.
I think the article needs to read again...and again.
md211.5.09 - 1:25 pm
reply
Yeah I read it that way too... Kfc eatin drivers haha
Roadblock responding to a
comment by md2
11.5.09 - 1:57 pm
reply
yeah, i read it the same way.
damn, imagine eating a bucket of chicken while driving...
coldcut11.5.09 - 2:00 pm
reply
While I can see your point (I'm that kinda guy), in addition to my aforementioned objections, the thing I don't like is that it perpetuates the dichotomy of cyclist vs. motorist. Let's face it, most of us here drive at least once in a while, but when I'm on a bike I'm a seaweed eater, then if I'm driving I'm suddenly eating KFC? I don't think so . . .
What I'd really like the drivers of Los Angeles to realize is that we are them - fellow users of the road, human beings that have chosen a bicycle as a means of transportation that day. I don't ride a bike to be morally superior, I do it because I enjoy it.
mr rollers responding to a
comment by md2
11.5.09 - 2:02 pm
reply
i hear you, but i really think she is joking...
I dont think she is being serious about what you eat while driving or cycling. I really think she is being humorous about a lifestyle (i.e. healthy versus unhealthy / green versus turquoise (?))
She is not, in my mind, saying: CYCLIST ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR. She is saying: the moral superiority is illuminated by the lifestyle choices. That is, you SEE something and realize it is better, so it frustrates you because you're not doing it.
Ex: you're co-worker insists on drinking tap water, but you keep buying bottled water. You're like... that mother fucker... I know its the better thing to do... grrrrrrr... i hate that she is better than me.
Get it?
She is not saying it is something cyclist purposefully do... that would be reading too much into it... if i have not already
md2 responding to a
comment by mr rollers
11.5.09 - 2:42 pm
reply
Yeah, I see (again) what you're saying. It's not that the piece is anti-bike per se, it just portrays cyclists as "the other", whereas I try to get non-cyclists to realize that, "hey you can do this, it's fun, it's even practical". I've always liked riding a bike, but I don't see myself as exceptional in that way. I'm not generally a crusader or a risk taker.
I guess the attempted humor was mostly lost on me, but that's probably because I care too much about the subject. Reading too much into it is what we do in those circumstances, right?
mr rollers responding to a
comment by md2
11.5.09 - 4:23 pm
reply
the whole thing seemed OK except for the part that glosses over what a bikes proper position on the road is.
Apparently we need to keep reminding people because ignoarance on is issue is quite vast.
here is the letter i wrote her:
Ms. Daum,
Something you should understand about the accepted interpretation of the California Vehicle Code is that a bicycle operator regularly encounters situations where he or she can and should "take the lane" and this is not just limited to times when the cyclist is traveling at or around the speed limit.
The CVC states that a rider must ride as close to curb as "practicable". There is a universal understanding by bicycle safety experts that a cyclist must ride at least 3 feet from the "door zone" of parked cars (getting "doored" is the 2nd most common type of accident). Bicycle safety experts also agree that, when there is no parked car, bicycles should ride a safe distance from the curb so as to have: proper visibility, room to navigate the debris and obstacles that get pushed to the side of the road, and maintain a straight line of travel (not weaving in and out of gaps between parked cars).
Many drivers have no understanding of this. And this is arguably one of the primary reasons that many drivers express hostility towards cyclists.
People typically do not express the level of anger and aggression reserved for bicycles toward other types of slow moving traffic (including busses, slow drivers, delivery trucks, and parking cars) drivers understand that those vehicles have a place on the road and many believe, erroneously, bicycles do not.
Many in the bike community are strongly advocating the painting of "sharrows" ( http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html ) to indicate that EVERY right lane is a shared use lane.
Please consider correcting/ clarifying the issue of a bicycle's proper place on the road. Journalists and commentators quite often miss this point and it is, unfortunately, one of the reasons many drivers ignorantly berate and intimidate cyclists for riding safely and legally.
thanks,
- Patrick Miller
a couple of references about bicycles occupying the lane.
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm
http://garyridesbikes.blogspot.com/2008/08/coexistence-2-bicycles-taking-lane.html
many more to be found by googling: bicycle safety lane position
trickmilla responding to a
comment by mr rollers
11.5.09 - 4:49 pm
reply
Great letter, Patrick - you really addressed the issue that had me the most riled up.
mr rollers responding to a
comment by trickmilla
11.5.09 - 5:22 pm
reply
Last Sunday, I watched the NYC Marathon on TV. When the race was in Brooklyn, or maybe Queens, there was a stretch where the runners were on a single lane street (one lane in each direction) and there were sharrows painted in both directions.
When will L.A. get it's act together and start laying down some paint to help keep bikes safe?
Creative Thing responding to a
comment by trickmilla
11.5.09 - 5:28 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Maybe now that she