12 Responses to “Sharrows Stall; Committee Won’t Send to Council For Now”
Comments
June 7th, 2011
"Callous, hypocritical," what else did I say before I was invited to refrain from commenting at last night's Bike Safety Committee meeting? In the great wisdom of our local bike 'advocates' it was deemed that the rest of us should ride somewhere else, not down Coast Hwy. It was a great victory for everyone who loves their cars. Ironically, if we didn't have a Bike Safety Committee we'd already have Sharrows... read my post: Sharrows Advocates Fall Short
June 7th, 2011
Frank there is no bike riding problem here. Cyclists already have the road-rights and they DO ride up and down PCH through Corona del Mar. That's not good enough? Help us "car lovers" to understand, tell us, what additional special treatment do cyclists expect to gain?
June 7th, 2011
Dear Robin, I think the point is to increase safety by increasing awareness. Where I grew up roads had signs to warn of deer or moose crossing. The purpose was not to give special treatment to the wildlife as much as to give drivers a heads-up to watch for them in the road. Why all this controversy? Is there something wrong with giving a visual reminder to drivers?
June 7th, 2011
No cyclist is looking for special treatment. Cyclists are only asking for signage alerting motorists - who usually have no idea what to expect - that cyclists are likely to be in the lane. This is only in the Village where there are cars parked on the side of the road. Think of sharrows as you would think of 'merge' signs where two roads join. You can imagine a time when such signage was not necessary. Yet the increase in volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic at one point required that motorists be reminded to look out for each other. That is all that is happening here. As you note, cyclists are already riding up and down PCH as they always have done and always will do. Why not put signs up cautioning motorists of their presence, and letting cyclists know the motorists are more aware than if there were no signs?
June 7th, 2011
@ Barbara, OK fair enough. I lived in a place where large wildlife crossing the road was an issue. Signs that alerted drivers of wildlife crossings were a good thing. No problem with that. @David H., I have no problem with a few signs going up to alert everyone about bikes. If that's all there is to it. But official sharrows on PCH through CDM? Not so much.
June 7th, 2011
But Robin, sharrows simply are 'a few signs going up to alert everyone about bikes'. That's all they are. Like 'merge' signs alerting motorists to watch out for each other where roads meet. How is that so galling?
June 7th, 2011
Then we'll advocate a few signs being put up around CDM and the drivers will be alerted and the cyclists will be satisfied and the issue will be done, right?
June 7th, 2011
So, Robin, now you live in a place where sometimes large cyclists using the road is an issue. But signs to alert drivers of their presence is a bad thing? I think handlebars would have about the same effect on your windshield as antlers. Perhaps if you think of cyclists in the same way you considered wildlife, you might start thinking "no problem with that" about sharrows.
June 7th, 2011
"This is only in the Village where there are cars parked on the side of the road." Clearly you need to get out more for starters try Laguna Beach. Paint the roads, put up signs, cover the area in foam padding how many of the OC cycling deaths were along Coast Highway in CDM? "Like 'merge' signs" Really like the one at MacArthur and San Miguel that nearly results in a pile up every rush hour. Doesn't work. People don't pay attention, texting, talking, ipod, reading, nav system whatever its all the same distraction. So we/I/most people drive distracted and we are in a 3000# cage and cyclist are wearing plastic hats. The law may be on your side but when your blowing through a tube to move your wheel chair around it will really be hard to spend the lawsuit money. I know it sounds like I'm being a jerk but I'm just trying to give you the reality that your facing out there. You don't want to get door'ed? Then cut down to Bayside and use it as a bypass, or argue that the street parking should be eliminated but adding more eyesores everywhere isn't going to make you any safer and "taking the lane" will eventually get you killed or seriously hurt. (ask any motorcyclist if owning the lane saved them? They are bigger, have a headlight, and still get run down all the time. Drivers #1 answer I didn't see them) For the $25,000 it cost to paint the streets we could rent the two homeless people I see by Starbucks in the morning a $1500 a month place pay all their utilities and give them $4000 worth of food Or we could hire a lifeguard for the summer Or Frank can ride his bike? LOL
June 7th, 2011
Ah yes, the old argument ad myopia... Truth, thanks for (1) reminding everyone why sharrows are so important and (2) letting the uninformed know what they sound like when they speak...
June 8th, 2011
I'm glad to see the committee had the wisdom to table this, though I do NOT understand why Council member Gardner is going to continue it after the committees decision. Please let me repeat I am NOT a bike hater, I rode one to jr. high school and my friends and I used to tow our long board on a homemade trailers down Bayside to Newport when I was too young to drive. (They hadn't invented short boards yet.) In those days we tried to scoot through the Bayside "narrows" as quick as we could so as not to get run down on a curve. And OMG - we did it without helmets or GPS's. And 50 years later I'm still here to tell the story. So maybe it wasn't all that dangerous. Frankly, I don't know of anyone who has ever been run over on Bayside. (Maybe there are statistics on this somewhere?) But overall the past system has worked since at least the 1960's. Don't fix what ain't broke. I do NOT believe bikes belong on higher speed thoroughfares. I believe the laws which allow, promote and dictate that bikes should be treated like cars and semi-trucks are dead wrong and should be modified at the State level - to provide for bicyclists safety. Moving bikes further out into 35-45 mph traffic on PCH is NOT the answer regardless of the desires of a handful of vocal activists. I hope the bike enthusiasts will continue to enjoy their rides to Newport, and I suggest they ride across the footbridge and down Ocean before rejoining PCH south of town, where there are wider streets and separate bike paths to Laguna. They can even stop at Big Corona for a fish taco at the beach, that beats choking down exhaust at Starbucks any day.
June 8th, 2011
Jamie, where you refer to "...the laws which allow, promote and dictate that bikes should be treated like cars and semi-trucks..." are you referring to the California Vehicle Code? If so, you might want to do some research and replace what you 'believe' for what you 'learn'. I'll share a tidbit with you: neither cars nor bikes 'belong' on our roads under the Code. Rather, their (mutual) use on our roads is 'restricted' by the Code. I'll share more over a cup of coffee. It's interesting that you say the system has "worked since the 1960's". The 1960's are actually when many would say things started to get too crowded on the roads and this elephant ballet of motor vehicles began squeezing out cyclists. Hey, you seem to want to regulate cyclists' social and health choices: is anyone here telling you not to drive to the movies, or to McDonalds?
