Has SM Gone Mad? What's With These Bicycle Designatory Marks In the Middle of Lanes? (Vista: apartments, to rent)

[Visit a Library]

What's the deal?

For the first time this evening, I saw a sign at an intersection stating that in order for the light to change in their favor, bicyclists should stop their bicycle on a symbol. Huh?

Lo and behold, I saw the symbol was painted IN THE MIDDLE OF BOTH THE TRAFFIC LANES on that side of the street.

Seriously, have the legislators in the city of SM lost their minds yet again? Do they really want ALL lanes in any given direction tied up by bicycles, giving motorists no legal way to pass? Are they trying to get somebody seriously injured, perhaps even killed?

This is absolute madness. I really just cannot believe I saw this -- this is even worse than the time in the 70's when the SM government passed a law that stated anybody who had an unused bedroom in their home had to rent it out.

Unbelievable. I really do hope nobody gets hurt in the confusion and overall idiocy of this whole green spiel or whatever it's all about, but it's just absolute inexcusable madness. And if you're a bicyclist, please DO NOT use the center of either lane, as it's a really bad idea as most people around here are terrible drivers, not to mention fairly impatient.

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by Visit a Library

What's the deal?

For the first time this evening, I saw a sign at an intersection stating that in order for the light to change in their favor, bicyclists should stop their bicycle on a symbol. Huh?

Lo and behold, I saw the symbol was painted IN THE MIDDLE OF BOTH THE TRAFFIC LANES on that side of the street.

. . .

And if you're a bicyclist, please DO NOT use the center of either lane, as it's a really bad idea as most people around here are terrible drivers, not to mention fairly impatient.

Maybe the idea is that if there are no cars to get the light to change, the bicyclist can do it. If there are cars, the signal will change anyway, so there is no need for the cyclist to stop on the symbol.

How long did that rent-a-room law last? Was it ever enforced?

[JohnG72]

NOT saying this is the way to do it,

But LA needs to become less vehicle dependant. Many locations I'm aware of where there is ample public transportation, but people still drive. In some cases, its actually quicker on public transportation, but people have a self centered anti social distaste for being around other human beings or simply having things in their own fortress of solitude at the cost of being a contributing factor of societal inefficiency. I'm pretty sure a couple of CD posters are going to have negative things to say about this statement.

I can't see too much negative about encouraging use of alternative forms of transportation.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by Visit a Library

Seriously, have the legislators in the city of SM lost their minds yet again?

Yes.

Originally Posted by sll3454

Maybe the idea is that if there are no cars to get the light to change, the bicyclist can do it. If there are cars, the signal will change anyway, so there is no need for the cyclist to stop on the symbol

A person on a bike will NOT trigger an automatic signal. This law is simply to pander to bicycle riding and to vilianize people who commute by car.

Originally Posted by JohnG72

But LA needs to become less vehicle dependant.

Why?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by sll3454

Maybe the idea is that if there are no cars to get the light to change, the bicyclist can do it. If there are cars, the signal will change anyway, so there is no need for the cyclist to stop on the symbol.

How long did that rent-a-room law last? Was it ever enforced?

I never heard of it before and I highly doubt it ever existed in the first place. If it existed I would have heard of it.

SM was more permissive in allowing conversions of SFRs to apartments at one time than LA was, under the old Republican dominated SM city governments of the 1960s and 1970s prior to the "Peoples Republic" era of the late '70s and '80s.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Santa Monica lost their minds years ago and never found them. This stuff is nothing new.

[Sealtite]

One of the first things I noticed when I moved to southern California were the bicycle lanes, and how much of a clusterf*ck they were. We didn't have those in Pennsylvania. Cyclists and motorists just sort of "share the road" back there. I've noticed that yes, the cyclists here in California have got their own designated little lane, and they stay in it. That's great. The only problem is, that many idiot drivers consider the "bike lane" to be literally an extra turning lane. I've actually witnessed people using half of the bike lane AND half of the sidewalk to creep along side traffic so they can make a right turn at a red light.

[Mike121]

For what it is worth, I work in West LA right in the middle of the north-of-10 west-of-405 traffic nightmare. I ride my bike from near Culver City, and during rush hour it is actually a bit faster overall than driving.

It is much faster to bike when I'm heading down Barrington, but then it is faster to drive once you get south of the 10 and east of the 405.

I've occasionally encouraged my co-workers to try bicycling, since for the ones that work out near Mar Vista or Palms, it would be definitely faster than driving for them, too. But they've all said that they wouldn't do it because it would be too dangerous. (And one of them was in the Marines! Happy to go to Iraq, but, afraid to ride a bike in West LA.)

I don't think it is dangerous, though. I've never had a real problem.

I think we could definitely make traffic better by getting people on bikes, but, it first needs to seem less dangerous.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Visit a Library

What's the deal?

For the first time this evening, I saw a sign at an intersection stating that in order for the light to change in their favor, bicyclists should stop their bicycle on a symbol. Huh?

Lo and behold, I saw the symbol was painted IN THE MIDDLE OF BOTH THE TRAFFIC LANES on that side of the street.

Seriously, have the legislators in the city of SM lost their minds yet again? Do they really want ALL lanes in any given direction tied up by bicycles, giving motorists no legal way to pass? Are they trying to get somebody seriously injured, perhaps even killed?

This is absolute madness. I really just cannot believe I saw this -- this is even worse than the time in the 70's when the SM government passed a law that stated anybody who had an unused bedroom in their home had to rent it out.

Unbelievable. I really do hope nobody gets hurt in the confusion and overall idiocy of this whole green spiel or whatever it's all about, but it's just absolute inexcusable madness. And if you're a bicyclist, please DO NOT use the center of either lane, as it's a really bad idea as most people around here are terrible drivers, not to mention fairly impatient.

This is nothing new, they are only putting paint there to show something that has been in place for years / decades. Anyone who's cycled extensively knows that the inductive loop to detect a stopped vehicle at a "smart" light can be triggered by a bike frame. The painting simply shows where the loop is. Some places have a separate loop near the right curb for cyclists, but if not, what is described is the next best thing.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by sll3454

Maybe the idea is that if there are no cars to get the light to change, the bicyclist can do it. If there are cars, the signal will change anyway, so there is no need for the cyclist to stop on the symbol.

i think you nailed it. while the new markers/sensors might be confusing at first, hopefully they will make things safer and keep cyclists from running red lights. as i cyclist, i find it annoying to have to wait for a car to change a light. i don't like running red lights, but sometimes there's no way around it. i do find it strange though that the new sensors are in the car lanes. they should have just placed them gratuitous number in the bike lanes in the city.