grrlyrida

LA Times is doing a week long series of debates between two commuting cyclists, one a blogger and the other an uncle tom cyclist ( couldn't help myself) employed by the conservative Cato Institute. https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ome-commentary

You can even add comments after each editorial.

merider1

Thanks, Vanessa! I'll read it when I have a chance. Expect commentary on here, though.

my58vw

Interesting article - thanks!

pmc

O'Toole has never biked in LA. He admitted that so how can he say anything about riding there? He's trying to compare Portland Ore, Denver and San Francisco to Los Angeles. Please.

ronjon10

He didn't say anything about riding in LA. He threw out some stats that point to the fact that both cyclists are at fault almost as much as motorists are in accidents. Then goes on to make the bland disney inspired statement that we should all work together to come up with solutions.

He didn't say anything controversial or even anything interesting. But he wasn't incorrect (assuming his research was good anyway. And to be honest, I'm not at all surprised that cyclists are often at fault, I would've guessed 50/50 myself.)

heresy

Is "uncle tom cyclist" is a derogatory term for cyclists that like cars, or just cyclists that are right leaning?

tinrobot

Perhaps it's a cyclist named "Thomas" who has nieces and/or nephews.

heresy

That makes sense.

grrlyrida

1955

It looked to me like Will gave a typical emotional response that one gives when one doesn't have any facts, only his own opinion to back up his claims...obvious liberal, and yet the OP didn't give him a title.

The guy from Cato stated facts and may have been bland, but at least he didn't whine and cry like little Will did.

grrlyrida

The Cato Institute's job is to make sure they have their so called facts to support conservative politicians and causes. That's their job. I don't see Will working wit a political mandate that say liberal causes only.

1955

And the LA Times doesn't even attempt to use facts, that's there job.

grrlyrida

I have to admit sometimes they are guilty of that.

cruiserhead

LOL thanks for linking that article.
That guy Will has mental problems. Seriously, his description of road rage (both he and the motorist in his story) and escalating it is just sad. The fact he sees himself a victim even more so. His knee-jerk, emotional arguments are counterproductive.

Randal otoole at least sounds like a reasonable person that bothered to look up some facts and info w/ constructive arguments.

I'm all for positive cycling improvements but with 'friends' like that... yikes

kellyjdrummer

Yawn......

travkat

dude 1955, you are in the OC....stick to your lifted trucks, no fear stickers, MMA fighting, Bush Supporting, and riding on routes that are way less scary than those of LA. Remember the dude from the CATO institute lives in Oregon (one of the most bike friendly states in the country) and has never commuted here in LA. Therefore he can only venture a guess using statistics (which are oh so accurate and vital...not) to make his point. While I didn't disagree with everything he said I am all for common sense. And sometimes, common sense comes in the form of an emotional and visceral response to lived experience rather than looking up obscure statistics.

travkat

addendum...The guy Will should have never tried to escalate the situation with the driver...he was just asking to be hit by the guys car...

Chucklehead

This thread is hungry for brains.

BRAAAAAINS!!!

westlafadeaway

I wish newspapers would cite the reports they use.

I would like to know if the report he cites differentiates age groups. I found this, it is a bit outdated- the 1990s- but it states that:

"Injured bicycle operators also tend to be younger than the general population of bicycle
riders. Table 1 compares the ages of injured operators with those of the general rider
population from the exposure survey. As can be seen, children between the ages of 5 and 14
are disproportionately involved in accidents resulting in injury. While 5-to-14 year-old
bicyclists represent about 36 percent of riders, they account for about 68 percent of all
emergency room treated injuries."
https://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf

Per 1,000s, up to age 14, there are 16 injuries per 1,000 riders, and then after that it goes down remarkably. I am willing to bet that what he fails to do is acknowledge that inexperience and age comes into play with that percentage he quotes, with the assumption that inexperienced kids are involved in more accidents, and probably are at fault.

socalboomer

Quite honestly, this thread belongs in A&S, not here. . .

But in any case, the characterizations of each writer are right. Will was emotional and quite simplistic in his blame - motorists are not 100% to blame, regardless of his "Oh, this one's a no-brainer: the drivers." And his "numbers alone" argument is specious - granted that 1% of a million is far greater than 1% of 100,000, but it doesn't absolve those others who contribute to the blame.

Randal's writing was much more balanced. Did he say that cars are to blame? No, although I think he didn't only as his piece looks like an answer to Will's and Will did lay plenty of blame on his own. However, he did not only place blame on bikes - and that was well placed. Anecdotally, I find it interesting how other people get SO MUCH MORE crap directed their way than gets directed my way - and then I look at really the only difference between us and it's glaring - I obey all the laws that I can and they do not. (this is people I personally know - not commenting on anyone here!!! Truly!!!)

But he is also the one who lays blame on planners and engineers - and we, here in LA, should KNOW that our city planners and civil engineers have access to some GREAT STUFF MAN. . . I mean, just look at our interchanges!!! Holy cow - they had to have been on crack when they designed the 605S to 60 FWY interchange!!!


Like it or not, Randall makes Will look like a whiner - which is unfortunate since they both present valid points.

Just MHO

EatMyA**

thanks for the link

surfrider

Taking the 'softer side' than travcat, the roads in OC do tend to be wider and more bicycle-friendly than LA. You also have to account for where you're riding in LA - that Silverlake/Hollywood/Wilshire/Westside/Eagle Rock route in the first series is pure suicide on a weekday (only a tad less on a weekend or holiday). Get away from the Westside/Downtown/Hollywood areas and things start opening up.

And one of 'em mentioned San Francisco is bike-friendly? Sheesh, did they ever try riding on the bay-side around 4:30-6:00pm? Crazy ***** bike riders going every which way on one-way streets, running reds . . . and that's not even on Critical Mass Fridays!

Also interesting that there's a similar article about commuting by bicycle in LA in the Wall Street Journal (already linked in another thread) Just coincidence?.