LA Times Debates Midnight Ridazz, Critical Mass
Thread started by
skd at 01.11.08 - 12:31 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup11jan11,0,965872.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Two opinions.
reply
Summary of O'Toole:
Do nothing and hope for the best.
toweliesbong01.11.08 - 1:25 pm
reply
more like o'toolebag.
wonder why we're getting so many bike-centric articles these days?
illafilla01.11.08 - 1:42 pm
reply
BECAUSE RIDAZZ REIGN SUPREME
you cant possibly ignore how many party people have been riding their bikes around LA. its a cultural phenomenon
Roadblock01.11.08 - 1:46 pm
reply
hey does anyone know will...will what bici do you ride...
skano01.11.08 - 2:04 pm
reply
He wrote in the article that he will be coming to the Pillow Fight ride tonight.
skd01.11.08 - 2:07 pm
reply
that's none other than MR's own AGENT ORANGE of the IAAMA MALF
Roadblock01.11.08 - 2:14 pm
reply
Hey all, I've been totally asskicked at work this week otherwise I wouldn't have been so absent here.
To answer skano, I'll be rolling over to HeliMel tonight under an orange helmet on a beat-up but beloved orange single speeder. hence the name!
Agent Orange01.11.08 - 2:48 pm
reply
you know rev. borfo is well deserving of one too...
Joe Borfo01.11.08 - 2:54 pm
reply
I'll keep ones safe for Commander Borfalicious and Roadblockarocka. Brass, I'll have one for you too, but I got only one size: L.
Agent Orange01.11.08 - 3:08 pm
reply
i can squeeze my fat belly in a large. thanks will
brassknuckle01.11.08 - 3:08 pm
reply
What's up with the biased lead-in?
"Today, local blogger Will Campbell and Cato Institute senior fellow Randal O'Toole debate bike activism."
I hardly consider myself, or these rides, to be activist in nature. The above sentence should read:
Today, local blogger Will Campbell and Cato Institute senior fellow Randal O'Toole debate bike riding.
Eric Hair01.11.08 - 3:15 pm
reply
"Today Will Campbell and O'Toole debate the benefits and drawbacks of massive group bike rides such as SF's Critical Mass and LA's Midnight Ridazz."
Roadblock01.11.08 - 3:21 pm
reply
"wonder why we're getting so many bike-centric articles these days?"
Cause LA Times sees all this link traffic coming from MR and they know we are LOCAL. ie good audience for their advertisers.
I actually subscribe to the
paper but I'm a dying breed. They need new fresh blood.
marino01.11.08 - 3:26 pm
reply
haha...@ RB
From O'Toole:
"Instead of treating bikes and cars as legal equals, the bike box gives bikes preference at the expense of delaying autos by limiting right-hand turns. Good for cycling — bad for respecting each other's rights."
The way I see it, the bike box is a neccesary response to the lack of respect that cars have shown. The playing field was level, they had their chance to demonstrate a mutual respect and the BLEW IT! Response = bike boxes.
Eric Hair01.11.08 - 3:29 pm
reply
Agent Orange!
Great job on the 5-part series. I think you did a great job hitting the different topics hard and I'm only disappointeded that you didn't get to challenge O'Toole to a...BIKE RACE!
SoapBoxLA01.11.08 - 3:37 pm
reply
Eric,
in addition, the law also allows you to take up the whole lane while stopped at an intersection anyway.
anyone who comlains about a bike box = douche.
trekkie01.11.08 - 3:58 pm
reply
"In addition, the law also allows you to take up the whole lane while stopped at an intersection anyway."
When I'm not being "arrogant and careless" "when cycling alone" and not feeling "morally superior to others" I take the lane and pull up at intersections so that cars can turn right to the right of me.
Should I stop?
toweliesbong01.11.08 - 4:03 pm
reply
Is this bike box really needed? I pull up to the crosswalk area most of the time. This box seems somewhat redundant. I would gladly trade it for more share the road signs.
User101.11.08 - 4:11 pm
reply
I pull into the crosswalk forward and to the left side of the right lane so that motorists can pull right, motorists in both lanes see me better, I get a better view of the entire intersection, and being in the crosswalk motorists cant squak that I'm in their way.
Roadblock01.11.08 - 4:12 pm
reply
yeah, i don't know why most cyclists don't do that?
Joe Borfo01.11.08 - 4:14 pm
reply
Eric Hair:
"What's up with the biased lead-in? "
Seriously. The abstract used far more hyperbole than either author. "Gridlock-inducing" my ass. LA has 8 hours of grid lock per day which has nothing to do with bicycles. You wanna talk about gridlock, MR doesn't even enter the discussion.
I don't get the hate on O'Toole. His points are totally legit. (Although the Portland Bike Box was pretty off topic.) The whole thing is framed as Agent Orange v. O'Toole so everyone's like "yay Agent Orange!! O'Toole is a fuckface!!"
City Hobgoblin01.11.08 - 4:29 pm
reply
the bike box isn't redundant at all!
it provides a safe area for you to be in when coming to an intersection, and also reinforces your right to the road.
cyclists shouldn't feel like they need to park in a crosswalk to be safe. the crosswalk is for pedestrians, and you are a vehicle.
trekkie01.11.08 - 4:31 pm
reply
I call bullshit on this:
"There is an even darker, subtler problem behind mass bike movements: Some participants become more arrogant and careless even when cycling alone. This is speculation, I know, but we also know that when people start to feel morally superior to others, they become willing to do things that they would never do to people they regard as equals. That is never good for civil society."
And, he offers nothing for the cyclist in the rest of his piece.
Mary Anne's comment on LAT is right on:
"One thing that I think is missing from Randal's analyses so far is an acknowledgment that bicyclists are at greater risk on the road than motorists are. For example, he says, "Instead of treating bikes and cars as legal equals, the bike box gives bikes preference at the expense of delaying autos by limiting right-hand turns." The problem with this is that if there were a collision with a bike and right turning car -- the bicyclists would probably have to go to the hospital, while the motorist would have a dent in his car. I think its perfectly acceptable to prioritize bicyclists when the risks are so differentiated."
toweliesbong01.11.08 - 4:36 pm
reply
trekkie -
it provides a safe area for you to be in when coming to an intersection, and also reinforces your right to the road.
Me -
You mean like a crosswalk?
trekkie -
cyclists shouldn't feel like they need to park in a crosswalk to be safe. the crosswalk is for pedestrians, and you are a vehicle.
Me -
Now I know none of this is in the CVC, but I like to think at times I'm a vehicle and at other times I'm a pedestrian. If I'm stopped at a cross walk with one or two feet down, I'm a pedestrian. If I'm rolling, I'm a vehicle.
You aren't going to argue that I'm not a pedestrian above are you? What if I'm not straddling my bike? Am I a pedestrian or a vehicle? So is it the straddling that differentiates the two?
User101.11.08 - 4:41 pm
reply
Can we get O'Toole to come ride with us sometime. His perspective may change if he experiences it first hand. Right now he is speculating and writing using conjecture.
skd01.11.08 - 4:42 pm
reply
skd
why do you want to change O'Toole's perspective?
If Agent Orange says; "we can do some things (for bikes) if we spend some money" and O'Toole says; "we can do some things (for bikes) without spending lots of money" these are not contradictory arguments, they are complimentary.
We can do both or either one and still benefit bikes.
marino01.11.08 - 4:48 pm
reply
I don't care if he changes his fiscal perspective. I just think that since he has never experienced a group ride, his view is skewed.
skd01.11.08 - 4:52 pm
reply
alan,
I'm a proponent of cycling as a vehicle, and avoiding situations where one would be pegged as a pedestrian. I think the more that bikes can be characterized as pedestrian, the more respect cyclists will lose on the road.
That said though, I'm not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Obviously every situation is different and you want to do what is going to be the safest for you. I personally don't like to be in the crosswalk while on my bicycle or motorcycle because I don't want to worry about impeding the path of pedestrians, especially in busy areas, but I've probably done it more than several times depending on the situation.
Regardless, my point was, I don't think bike boxes would be a redundant thing and I would welcome them if L.A. decided to go that route.
trekkie01.11.08 - 4:56 pm
reply
I do the crosswalk thing often, for reasons Roadblock mentioned. Although I do understand it can have it's own hazards as obstructing an area for pedestrians. I personally like the thing they have going in West Hollywood along Santa Monica Blvd. With an extra extension before the crosswalk so bikes can pull up without taking up too much crosswalk room.
GarySe7en01.11.08 - 5:00 pm
reply
"Although I do understand it can have it's own hazards as obstructing an area for pedestrians."
If the street allows for it I pull far enough forward that I don't block pedestrians. But nobody walks in LA so I generally don't need to.
toweliesbong01.11.08 - 5:03 pm
reply
"why do you want to change O'Toole's perspective?"
+1. Sounds like O'Toole is just asking for equality and fairness.
City Hobgoblin01.11.08 - 5:09 pm
reply
If I had to summarize O'Toole's position I'd have to say that he is not "anti-bike" per se (that would really make him look like a fringey nutcase), but it is more the like, "we've done enough for bikes already, gasoline tax dollars shouldn't be spent on this, this has gone too far, we don't want cyclists getting uppity, feeling entitled, having mass rides and inconveniencing motorists", which all sound like typical right wing Republican positions applied to cycling. Substitute the group of your choice for "cyclists" and see what I mean. Read between the lines, my friends!
mr rollers01.11.08 - 5:15 pm
reply
"Read between the lines, my friends!"
Now we have to read the articles too before we have an opinion?
Geez Mr Rollers!
marino01.11.08 - 5:24 pm
reply
also, o'toole is from the Cato Institute. libertarian thinktank...suspicious.
;-)
trekkie01.11.08 - 5:30 pm
reply
Is a Libertarian a Republican who smokes pot?
Am I cranky, or what?
mr rollers01.11.08 - 5:33 pm
reply
or is a Republican a Libertarian who smokes crack?
trekkie01.11.08 - 5:34 pm
reply
a libertarian is a scientologist who's not an actor.
illafilla01.11.08 - 5:37 pm
reply
"If I had to summarize O'Toole's position I'd have to say that he is not "anti-bike" per se (that would really make him look like a fringey nutcase), but it is more the like, "we've done enough for bikes already, gasoline tax dollars shouldn't be spent on this, this has gone too far, we don't want cyclists getting uppity, feeling entitled, having mass rides and inconveniencing motorists", which all sound like typical right wing Republican positions applied to cycling. Substitute the group of your choice for "cyclists" and see what I mean. Read between the lines, my friends!"
HAHAHA!!
ahhh clarity.
Roadblock01.11.08 - 7:14 pm
reply
Funny, but the last time I checked driving is a priveledge and cycling is a right. Drivers require a license to operate vehicles on the road and posession of a valid driver's license is a priveledge. Cyclists have a right to be on the roadway and all that's required is a bicycle, common sense and most of the time, vast amounts of intestinal fortitude.
Jeronimo01.12.08 - 8:17 am
reply
A libertarian can be an anarchist with suit and tie.
I don't feel obligated to kick O'Toole in the nuts to prove my loyalty to fellow ridazz
I Agent Orange.They both have some interesting ideas and I appreciate they took the time to share them.
Let's not do the knee jerk conclusion
O'toole=Cato Institute=Libertarian=Republican=Bad
It's easy but it's not good math.
I spent some time on O'Toole's
website and he is an interesting fellow. He values the enviroment and open space, he is against bulldozing old neighborhoods for apartments and he thinks that city,state, federal planning departments end up doing more harm than good.
Does being liberal mean an unquestionable belief that government and laws can cure all ills? I hope, not.
Midnight Ridazz is a fine example of an outlaw thriving society.
marino01.12.08 - 11:51 am
reply
Jeronimo - good point!!
Mr Rllrzz - I <3 you for reals.
redridinghood01.12.08 - 2:17 pm
reply
Is there a link to an MP3 audiobook download of this, or a podcast or something. Reading is so 2007.
seanbonner01.14.08 - 6:11 am
reply
O'toole isn't horrible, but he definitely made some disingenuous arguments. Maybe just to have some fun in the "dust up" but still ...
For instance his complaints about bikes not paying gas taxes.
Sure bikes use roads that are paid for by gas taxes. But bikes don't destroy roads the way cars do. Those roads are being repaved all the time and are usually in shitty condition because of autos. If not for cars and trucks those roads would last several times longer.
What about all the bike tires, tubes, and wheels that get destroyed on shitty roads that have been degraded by auto traffic, who pays for those?
.....................
trickmilla01.14.08 - 10:54 am
reply
"What about all the bike tires, tubes, and wheels that get destroyed on shitty roads that have been degraded by auto traffic, who pays for those?"
Not to mention the flats caused by all the broken bottles tossed by motorists. Those bottles sure ain't thrown by cyclists because everyone knows fluffas throw cans, not bottles.
toweliesbong01.14.08 - 11:58 am
reply
Bikes not paying for roads via gas tax? Give me a break!
Most of the cost of driving is paid by the Earth, not by gas tax. That means all the species on the planet are paying the cost, and 99.99999% of them don't drive.
thinkpeace01.14.08 - 12:06 pm
reply
Honestly,
the more I read O'toole the more maddening I find his arguments.
He uses the classic spin tactics of making "straw man" arguments, using unsupported "facts".
For instance, the classic conservative complaint of road dollars paying for "bridges that go to nowhere" (day 2) is not only unsupported, it has nothing to do bikes.
In reality, bikes could be figured into every road and transit project for pennies on the highway dollar, and these would be long term investments that would help bikes and cars for years to come.
A classic case in point is the the huge lincoln road project right by Ballona Creek Path. Here is a road that connects a bike path (which I rouninely use to commute) and one of the transportation hubs of the world (LAX). This is a GIANT road and incredibly there seems to be no planned accommodation for bikes.
On day 3 he talks about bike infrastructure being "Auto Hostile"
That is just absurd.
Bicycles know a lot about hostility we experince it on a daily basis and I assure you putting speed bumps that prevent sombody from racing down a residential street has absolutely nothing to do with hostility. On the contrary LA is a city that is dominated by cars because the infrastructure has been designed or re-worked to be auto-centric making cars by default the dominant mode of transportation here. Pedestrians and cyclists and public transportation users are literally dying for an infrastructure that isn't "person hostile".
TBC ...
trickmilla01.14.08 - 5:51 pm
reply
"On day 3 he talks about bike infrastructure being "Auto Hostile"
That is just absurd."
I'm glad I didn't read the whole thing.
You know, auto and oil companies are the only reason that SoCal sucks. If we still had the mass transit that existed back in 1925 at the pinnacle of the Pacific Electric Railway system southern California would be the best place in the world to live, bar none. I was in a restaurant last weekend with a PER map on the wall and you could get anywhere with a minimum amount of transfers. For instance, back then you could go from Anaheim to halfway up Mt Wilson for a mtn bike ride without ever needing a car.
We should be auto hostile because the auto has fucked up the infrastructure of SoCal.
toweliesbong01.14.08 - 6:42 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
