18 Responses to “Bicycle Safety Committee Meets Monday; Ghost Bikes Among Agenda Items”
Comments
September 27th, 2012
No to sharrows No to my tax dollars for someones hobby No to ghost bikes Just call code enforcement and have them removed as they are abandoned vehicles. The minority may complain really loudly but that is just what they are the minority. Most of the people who live and drive through CDM to get to say Laguna don't want the congestion, don't want the sharrows, and don't want 2-3 wide packs of cyclist in the middle of a 40-55 mph road.
September 27th, 2012
You mean a 35 MPH road.
September 27th, 2012
I use my bike to commute to work and my tax dollars pay for the roads too ... roads that use a lot less of the road and cause a lot less damage than autos do. Yes to sharrows. They only make clear what the law already allows, and that is bicycles using the full lane when safety requires it. Yes to ghost bikes. The are a reminder to drive safely. At least some sort of memorial should be allowed, even a simple post with a small bicycle on it. Another item that should be on the agenda is to demand our legislature increase the penalties for hit and run so that people are not incentivized to do so. That would mean that they are subject to the same penalty as someone who was DUI.
September 27th, 2012
Ghost bikes, eh? Some might say the Bike Safety Committee has more urgent issues to discuss than this, yet none of my 6 suggestions made it to the agenda; go figure. The Committee must focus on the challenging issues of making bike riding safer for all. That means more bike lanes, the protected kind like Chicago, Portland and Long Beach are developing. Don't get distracted with feel-good topics that distract from the hard work of aligning the political support behind safe cycling. If this subject matters to you then you must attend. If you don't, all we'll end up with is a nice ghost bike policy...
September 27th, 2012
Ghost bikes , eh? How about ghost cars? A friend on a moped ran into a Cadillac. Moped $50.00 damage, Caddie $2000.00.
September 27th, 2012
It's actually about a 17 MPH road.
September 27th, 2012
I hope this special interest group does not get renewed for another year of nonsense. I said it before and I'll say it again: this group needs to focus on what it's named for- the Bicycle Safety Committee. This group is nothing more than an official lobbying committee for out of town cycling interests. Let's focus on the residents that ride their normal bikes to the market, beach, shops, diners, bars, etc, and stop focusing on the groups of cyclists that zoom through every stop sign and light on their way up and down the coast providing no public benefit whatsoever! Put Sharrows on the ballot! And we'll see who wins: Peters' special interest group or common sense!
September 27th, 2012
If the city is so eager to spend dollars then plate bikes and license the riders so they can be ticketed, pay fines and/or go before a judge, attend bike school, have their license revoked, biking priviledges suspended and pay all the other fees to be on the roads as the drivers. And be ordered to have insurance. If you want to play with the big kids, then pay the same fees as all other vehicles and follow the same rules. We do not drive on bike trails. Either man up, shut up or go away.
September 28th, 2012
(1) Roads are paid for primarily out of taxes paid by everyone, not just motorists. Fuel taxes make up a very small part of the $ used for public roads (2) The vast majority of cyclists are ALSO motorists, and pay fuel taxes, and bicycles do much less damage to the roads. (3) Insurance is not required because a bicycle is incapable of doing near the damage that an auto is capable of. (4) Cyclists can be ticketed for infractions, just like any motorist ... no license is required for that. (5) California law does permit municipalities to issue and licenses for a fee and to require residents ... non-residents cannot be required to purchase one for obvious reasons, and the cost of that license cannot exceed the fee for issuing them.
September 28th, 2012
I do not understand why one second of time or one dollar of our tax dollars is being wasted on such a ridiculous situation. The people on bikes are riding on highways and roads that were designed for cars. If they do not see the danger involved in this, and do not realize they are taking their life in their own hands by their own choice, and have already admitted they are aware that car drivers do not pay attention - then why are they not held responsible for their choices when disaster strikes?
September 28th, 2012
Murry, you've answered your own question: "...highways and roads that were designed for cars."
September 30th, 2012
You bicycle haters out there can jump up and down, kick and scream all you like...but the fact is: state law allows cyclists to use the road just like automobiles. Another fact is: PCH in CDM is also Highway 1. Highway 1 does not belong solely to the residents of CDM, it belongs to ALL of us. These facts are NOT going to change no matter how much you repeatedly whine about it. So either accept that the cyclists are going to be there or continue to beat your heads against a granite wall - your choice.
September 30th, 2012
Well you cycle-gangers can go pound sand all day long because the fact is PCH, anywhere, is a busy highway full of distracted or impaired drivers and you people are responsible for your own safety when you choose to ride on the highways and roads. THOSE facts will not change no matter how much you repeatedly whine about it. The safety of your choices are your responsibility not everyone else's.
September 30th, 2012
So robincdm, If one of those same distracted or impaired drivers plows in to you while you're legally driving your car on PCH, are they responsible for their actions? Or is it all your responsibility because you made the choice to drive on PCH? (I assume you're aware that history shows there have been FAR more deaths to motorists on PCH in SoCal than to cyclists.) Seriously, if you are sooo concerned about the safety of your choices, perhaps you should just stay at home where you'll be safest.
October 1st, 2012
I feel very strongly that these "ghost bikes" are ridiculous. So are the balloons, teddy bears and all the other crap that people leave along our streets where someone was killed, but at least the smaller items are easily removed. For someone to even suggest that these "ghost bikes" be left at the sites permanently is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Where does it stop? How about we place white painted "GHOST AUTOMOBILES" where drivers have been killed? How about "GHOST SEMI-TRUCKS" where truck drivers have been killed? Maybe "GHOST AIRLINERS" at the scenes of plane crashes? It's about time that we all see that we, the vast, silent MAJORITY of Newport Beach residents are dealing with a bunch of CRAZED BICYCLE ACTIVISTS, who are pulling out all the stops in trying to shove all of their demands down our throats. NOT ONE MORE DIME OF TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS MADNESS! If bicyclists obeyed traffic laws, the number of accidents would decrease markedly. There would still be the occasional accident and the infrequent death, but if you INSIST on riding a bike on crowded streets and/or busy, high speed highways, that's the chance you take. If you don't like it, take up swimming--in a POOL! I can deal with a pair of "GHOST SPEEDOS" every now and then.
October 1st, 2012
@Safe Driver, According to the CDC, in the U.S. roughly 700 people per year are killed from bicycle accidents compared to roughly 3500 deaths from drowning. So be careful swimming in that pool of yours. Oh, and how many "TAX DOLLARS" are spent paying for public pools? Surely you're against that as well.
October 1st, 2012
O Charles if the tables were turned and the number of bikes equated to the same number of cars and if the number of cars equated to the number of bikes and the drivers demanded special interest treatment and road paint and signs the cycle-gangers would get their spandex all twisted up. You somehow imagine with your smug retort that I have no clue about the dangers on the roads? My father was a highly trained and skilled motor-officer that was killed by a driver. Yes I am PAINFULLY aware of the dangers on the road and I do what I can to protect myself, seat beats, using signals, drive defensively, etc. Now here is where things become obtuse. You obviously know because you pointed out the high number of motor vehicle deaths. Yet you want to place yourself on these same roads.... on a bicycle? And you imagine that green paint and signs few people read will better your odds? Only in a fools world.
October 1st, 2012
robincdm, You may not like sharrows but that doesn't change the fact the two separate studies conducted by two separate public agencies have shown that they make it safer for cyclists on the road. Cyclists don't want to get hit, motorists don't want to hit cyclists, and sharrows are proven to help. So why do you feel compelled to rail against something that is a win-win situation for both parties involved? BTW, I'm sorry to hear of your father's accident. I work in public safety myself and see the results of similar accidents all too often. If there had been something that would have made it safer for your father on the road - wouldn't you have been in favor of it?
