NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Professional journalists should be as angry as cyclists about this angry rant masquerading as journalism. See page 2 of the "rant" for his Number 1 method for improving L.A. traffic.
the writer did get one thing right " much of that can be blamed on our own damn selves." that seems to be all he got right
The reactionary writings makes me think the writer is bucking for a writing gig with Rush Limbaugh, KFI, or Fox NEWS!
If this guy was in a bar spouting this venom I would be rolling on the ground and LOLing while most people would be trying to ignore him with the hope he would finish his beer and go away.
Here is article text so you don't have to give them the click bait this so obviously is:
1. Take the bike lanes back. We get it: Bicycling is an important and viable form of transportation in this car-choked city. We're not against it at all. And, as LA Weekly has reported, hit-and-run accidents, especially involving two-wheeled commuters, are out of control in this town. But taking an entire car lane and giving it to bike riders, as has been done in some parts of town, is useless. It means double the number of cars in one lane and, often, an unused bike lane that neither protects riders from cars nor particularly entices the cyclist. Take a ride down 7th Street, which used to have four lanes and now has two, and you'll see both mad traffic and an empty bike lane next to you. Creating a special bike lane for a mode of transportation that has a right to all lanes is no better than creating a special lane for motorcycles.
The city has built 165 miles of bike lanes since 2010 and plans a total of 1,680 miles. Some of those will replace car lanes. You can still ride a bike, regardless of what the paint on the street says. But that certainly means less room, not more, for L.A.'s motor vehicles. Make sense to you?
gregb responding to a comment by bike punk
04.26.13 - 8:02 pm
I didn't find the article overly ranty ... just ill-informed.
It sounds like what the writer is talking about is "Road Diet" which takes a road with 2 lanes in each direction, and converts it to 1 lane in each direction, and adds 2 bike lanes and a center turn lane.
"The Road Diet" (which I don't really like as a name because it implies "going without out") is a much safer road plan for everybod on the road: Drivers, Cyclists, and Peds.
- there is room for a bike lane, this reduces the incidents of people having to pass bikes unsafely and of bikes riding in the door zone.
- left turning drivers can turn from the center lane there for avoiding people getting stuck behind them with fast moving traffic passing on the right.
- Busses can get over to the side without blocking a lane of traffic.
- Safer for peds because the road is less obstructed.
One of the problems is that LADOT, and Metro have not communicated clearly to everybody the safety and traffic benefits of the "Road Diet" format.
His articles are always biased with his douchey slant on how nothing should interfere with driving his BMer to the sex club. He's no journalist. He's twisted mine and others words to make the point he wants to make about his lame views.
Am I hatin?
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by trickmilla
04.27.13 - 10:18 am
And yet it's the same LA Weekly that ran the feature article that blew the lid off of the silent epidemic of hit-and-run on peds and cyclists, and the City's utter indifference to same. It's easy to hate the LA Weekly; many of us who grew up here have been hating it for decades now. But their recent, uncharacteristic policy of pretty much running any ol' thing that anybody sends in (I'm exaggerating, but not by much) has actually allowed some decent investigative journalism to make it into print over the last few years--along with, to be sure, miles and miles of useless arsewipe.
At least they don't let Jonathan Gold write music reviews anymore. (Do they?)
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
I didn't find the article overly ranty ... just ill-informed.
