Saturday, October 22, 2016

Every lane is a bike lane – even on the freeway


Apparently this cyclist took Metro’s Every Lane Is A Bike Lane campaign to heart as the rider headed southbound on the 110 Arroyo Seco Parkway near Dodger Stadium.

Eastsider Ads

Eastsider Advertising


  1. wow – very dangerous, possibly illegal, and i would never do it myself…

    …but all that said i wholeheartedly applaud this cyclist’s bravery. what a statement!

    • Bravery?
      This person is a total moron.
      How on earth is being reckless with your life brave?
      There is no valid statement here but ” i am an idiot”.
      So much progress has finally been made in this city for cyclists , and this guy is an example of what most cyclists are not .
      This kind of b.s just fuels the tanks of people who hate us cyclists already !
      Thanks moron.

    • Totally illegal but not without precedent. Lots of local guys brag about doing just this very thing. Crimanimalz on the Westside stormed the 405 a few years ago and were all over the news.

  2. i can’t decide which person is engaged in the dumber and more dangerous activity…the idiot biking down the freeway, or the idiot fumbling with his cellphone while driving in order to record the idiot biking down the freeway.

  3. What an asshole. The guy on the bike that is. He could EASILY have been killed, and the person in the car that hit him would have felt like shit. And that person could have been any one of us reading this, because we pretty much all drive on that freeway. Also, someone could have swerved to avoid hitting him, and then got into an accident with another car.

    So to summarize, whatever statement he was attempting to make is grossly overshadowed by the danger he created.

    • Something about what you’ve written makes me think you’re trolling. If this (crazy) man on a bike gets hit by a car and presumably seriously injured and your focus is on the car driver that hit this (crazy) guy “fe[eeling] like shit” … that seems a little strange.

      Let’s see: crazy person physically injured vs. car driver emotionally distressed (maybe?). I don’t want disturb your equilibrium here but I would feel sorry for anyone hit by a car in this situation. Would I act surprised that it happened? No, I am surprised this crazy bike rider did not get injured. I would feel sorry for the guy though and I wouldn’t worry too much about the poor car driver that plowed into them – who will face no real repercussions and will be surrounded by a cloak of emotional impunity because, “That bike rider is crazy!”

      Further proof you might be a troll: you imply that this bike rider is attempting to make a statement. I saw no signs, no media team, no friends following behind with cameras. I did see a dude doing something stupid on a bike – nothing more than that.

      • You’re the only troll I see here, sweetie. Feeling sorry for an idiot who knowingly risks his life (and others’ – could easily cause a chain reaction crash) for no reason beyond his own selfish stupidity? Not ever gonna happen. Go take your babble somewhere else – the local psychiatric clinic might be a start

        • ubrayj02 is a huge troll. He owns the Flying Pigeon Bike shop that specializes in selling substandard Chinese bikes to hipsters. He is also one of the tireless road diet blowhards.

      • Admit it. This cyclist is a selfish, entitled, and grandstanding douche who essentially took a freeway hostage by threatening suicide-by-freeway-biking. “cloak of emotional impunity”(?) aside, who wouldn’t prefer to NOT be the motorist that smashed this guy’s helmetless(?!) melon on the pavement? This cyclist was way out of line but par-for-the-course on city streets. Where cyclists routinely hold rush-hour traffic hostage to their selfish, helmetless, and entitled grandstanding.

  4. My good Borfo, judging by the bulk of these comments the citizens of this city have lost their minds. It’s safer to ride down the 110 in 5 mph traffic than it is to ride on city streets with a bunch of oblivious motorists running cyclists down and killing them practically weekly.

    Use your brains for once and stop partaking in nanny culture. Jeez.

    And pay attention to cyclists and pedestrians when you’re driving that death mobile.

    • Nanny culture, really?

      While you bring up a good point about the insane design speed and speed limits of a lot of our urban streets, I don’t this kind of behavior should be rationalized. Motorists on city streets should certainly expect cyclists, people crossing mid-block, etc. as a part of normal city life, and the DOT should really design our streets so speeding, tailgating and reckless behavior is discouraged (instead of encouraging, as they’ve done for many years.)

      But the freeways are one area of the city where no one on foot or on bike is allowed or expected. That traffic jam can easily clear up leaving someone like this dodging cars traveling well in excess of the 55mph posted speed limit (let’s be real, reckless motorists casually speed anywhere from 60-80mph on the 110, on the daily, and with impunity.)

      • It’s not a big deal. He’s going faster than the clogged cars anyway. It’s legal to ride on 5 near San Diego and up north too. It’s not like it hasn’t happened or illegal everywhere.

        • Good point, I have seen a few freeways in other cities with bike lanes… always struck me as something straight out of the Onion. I always wondered who would actually ride them though, seems pretty masochistic to me.

      • Corner soul, do you mean that speeding, tailgating, and reckless behavior is not already a discouraging prospect for sensible people? And do you mean that those who are not sensible enough to be discouraged from doing it should dictate the design of our streets? That is the very definition of a nanny culture.

        • If speeding, tailgating, and reckless behavior were adequately discouraged in city of LA like you claim, most of our streets would be sensible places for walking, cycling or driving. Nothing could be further from the truth.

          Point being, if we designed our streets for rational urban speeds (~25mph), instead of the traffic sewers we have today, you wouldn’t need as much of a nanny culture to enforce good behavior.

    • @ GT
      Agreed on the point about traffic most likely traveling 5 miles an hour on the 110. It’s a parking lot most of the way through downtown on weekday mornings.

  5. One bad apple spoils the bunch.

  6. Everyone please put down your cellphones and keep both hands on the wheel. Yes the guy is doing something that maybe lead to damaging himself or even killing himself, but guess what? You face those same odds everyday you hit the streets on a bicycle! Was he speeding by cars like motorcycles would do? No. Seriously the guy (from what’s seen) is most likely to have a speeding motorcyclist come up to him and possibly have something happen. Did this bicyclist break the law by getting on the freeway? We don’t know. If he got on and there was no sign stating bicyclist and pedestrians stay off the freeway, then he’s clear. And yes there are certain instances where the bicyclist are allowed on the freeway.

    From the video it looks like the speed of traffic was ~15 mph (speedometer shows that too). It also looks like he was riding at the speed of traffic. Looks like he was riding with no helmet. Not illegal but dumb. I’d say he could end up getting written up for no proper reflectors. Just about everyone could get written up for that one!

  7. Just curious. Now that every lane is a bike lane, does this mean that bicyclists can now stay off the sidewalks. And does it also mean, that bicyclists will also abide by traffic laws, signals and stop signs? I’d also like to add that requiring bicyclists to pass safety and riding exams would be beneficial to us all, motorists and pedestrians alike. Any fees charged would certainly generate some income to our cities. That can’t be bad.

  8. It is illegal to ride on the freeways cuz they are state/federal. But sometimes I would like to ride on the 101 durring rush hour because it would be sooo quick to get into DTLA. Car people think they go fast but they really don’t.

  9. I am going to contact my city councilman and others to see if they can pass an ordinance requiring every bicyclist to have insurance much like the auto insurance we are all forced to purchase. Their arrogance causes too many accidents and too often the car owner loses $$$$ and his insurance rates go up thanks to these morons. In my entire life I have NEVER seen a single bicyclist obey any laws — they sail through every red light and every stop sign. I almost creamed one the other day who sailed through a stop sign wearing his earphones — no helmet — and ran directly in front of me.

    Ken Camp, Los Angeles

    • Chill out with the bikes should have insurance/no cyclist obey laws bla bla bla.
      I ride a bike.
      I own an insured car.
      I follow the law in both, stopping at signs and red lights etc. (phone in airplane mode in car).
      This guy in the video on the 110 freeway is breaking the law and should be arrested and fined for doing so.
      End of story.

    • Please do, Mr. Camp. I feel like this city is bending over backwards to accommodate bicyclists yet they don’t have to carry insurance or be licensed. I don’t get it.

  10. Personally, I see nothing wrong with bicyclists using the freeway, any time of day their smug little selves wish. Nothing wrong with a little population control.

  11. We have undisciplined self entitled bike nuts in LA like this guy in NY. The people who use bikes for transportation need to be protected. Those who use public thoroughfares for sport, whether on bikes, motorcycles, cars, even on foot should be arrested and ticketed if they break the law. If necessary, we must enforce the laws ourselves since they are taking advantage of an police force.If you see a biker or runner putting others in danger, grab the bastard and call 911! If they want to be unrestricted, they can use a private facility and stay the hell off the streets.
    We cannot let these elitist snobs intimidate us! We must put an end to the politically correct protection of sport/hobbyist abusers riding bicycles. Make them fear us! Take back the streets!
    Have a pleasant remainder of the weekend.

    Death by Bike – Bikes Kill
    They’re terrorists on wheels. Assassins in Spandex.The bicycle menaces must be stopped.


  12. I was recently driving on a major thoroughfare through Rosemead (Rosemead Blvd.?). Anyway, I liked their response to addressing motorist anxiety about crushing a cyclist for whatever reason under whatever circumstances. The lane is installed between the sidewalk and island-parking curbs that directly border traffic lanes. Cars park along these island-curbs and act as a buffer between traffic and cyclists. Whatever the reason for the design, the result is minimal contact or potential contact between cyclists and motorists. That works for me.

    • Current bike lanes are potential death traps. Cars veer & collide into them and nail bike riders. If we had bike a lane between the curb & the parked cars I’d let my kids ride in them instead of the sidewalk. Yes, my kids have been taught by their parents to ride in the safest place which is the side walk. Deal with it! Of course you still have to worry about passenger doors opening in your face by it would occur less.

    • @ProperDos : holy cow, we actually agree on something. It’s a big day for me. I noted it in my journal.

      I would love it if more streets could be designed this way. Problem is $$ and space.

    • Agreed!

      That’s how the Dutch do it… and they have some of the safest, most pleasant streets in the world as a result. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA)

      It seems like the problem in the US is bureaucracy and funding (like @True Freedom alluded too above.) Cyclists and pedestrians don’t receive anywhere near their fair share of transportation funds. And from what I’ve read, projects like this are (or at least have been in the past) very hard to get approved under the current DOT guidelines.

    • If consensus for this idea can be reached between this diverse group of posters, then I’m confident that it may be the compromise that has eluded cycling lobbyists who remain focused on simply getting what they want, which is for babies NOT reasonable adults. THAT is what longtime residents consider so annoying about the self-righteous cycling lobby NOT the need for bike lanes or the desire for decreased traffic. Proposing something like the Rosemead design would FInally be a gesture of good faith that everyone could unite behind. If it becomes policy, it will eventually be resourced but compromise and patience will be needed to make it happen NOT browbeating self-righteousness. Nothing antagonizes or aggravates the working-class more and NELA has always been a working-class community.

      • You don’t need to convince the “bicycle lobby”… Dutch-style cycle tracks have long been the goal.

        Also, if you don’t have a lot of money or power, you have to make a fuss… I should think the working class understands that better than anyone. Case in point: http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/09/22/governor-brown-signs-protected-bike-lane-bill-car-fee-for-bike-paths/

        • “Dutch-style cycle tracks have long been the goal” but never mentioned, described, or explicitly proposed by the cycling lobby even once? . . . “What we have here, is a failure to communicate”, which is difficult when one party insists on assuming the moral high-ground from the start. We don’t need missionaries. We need citizens willing to craft compromises and do the hard work of affecting actual, positive, and inclusive change, i.e., making a “fuss” with the right people to adopt the same solution. NObody’s interested in over-arching and abstract philosophies. Let’s just get this Done.

          • so, would you support cycle tracks on Rowena or Fig in HLP? In the Fig case, you’d still have to lose a lane (or two) and/ or remove some parking to do it..

          • No to Rowena, which consistently reveals zero demand for bike lanes based on actual usage, but Yes to Fig, which is wide, busy, and could still accommodate a couple of lanes of traffic both ways. The point is that the cycle tracks are safer and so much more practical that I can anticipate how they actually would encourage increased cycling, at least between CP and HLP, which would cultivate and inspire a constituency of local residents not grandstanding outsiders with an imported agenda. That would be a step in the right direction, which is what every successful process consists of not self-righteous demands, ultimatums, and browbeating statements.

          • I’m sure every biker who was advocating for bike lanes on that section of FIg would love to have cycle tracks; however, they would consume at least the same amount of physical road space as simply painting bike lane (meaning you’d have to lose parking or a driving lane) and would cost a ton more..

            So, if the city couldn’t pull off bike lanes, I don’t see how in hades they could pull off cycle tracks

          • Do some research, these ideas have been proposed, and the hard work done by cycling advocates IS getting results.

            Who’s being self righteous here…

            The cyclists who spent years working with the city, using traffic data, safety stats and many examples from around the world, to draft an official bike plan?

            Or those who show up to NC meetings armed with anecdotes and red herrings?

            Read the city’s 2010 bike plan, all of these ideas are in there. Or check out LADOT’s bike blog if you’re interested in reading about ongoing projects (similar “cycle tracks” are being planned for Figueroa, from Downtown to USC, for example): http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/

          • @True Freedom correctly identifies the real roadblock to building cycle tracks… in most cases, they will have to come at the expense of auto lanes or parking spots.

            We’ve given over the lion’s share of public space to cars in LA, and it hasn’t fixed traffic. If we want to provide alternatives to driving, we will need to reallocate much of that space…. no way around that.

            It’s not about self righteousness, it’s about mobility options, public safety and livable communities. Don’t confuse the knuckleheads that roll stop signs, with the entire cycling community, or those who want to fix our streets so they work better for everyone.

  13. just to the guys left is a fully protected bike path that goes from chinatown to the home depot in glassel park. its hard to find, but i ride it a lot and regularly catch eyes with people stuck in car traffic

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *